« ForrigeFortsæt »
religious liberty in Turkey. Communications from her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs were also read.
The Secretary reported that he had received communications from Blankenburg urging him to be present at the forthcoming Conference of the Mid-German Branch. Mr. Arnold stated that, after careful consideration, he could not see his way to make arrangements to leave England at the time named. Dr. Baedeker, however, was intending to be present, and the Council unanimously expressed their desire that he should represent the British Alliance at the Blankenburg gathering.
The Rev. Dr. Matthews stated that he was about to proceed on a visit to South Africa. The Council desired that the Secretary should write commending Dr. Matthews to the friends of the Alliance in that colony.
A letter was read from Madame Lopez Rodriguez with reference to the recent acquittal of Don Alexander, who was charged with defaming the Romish Church.
A communication was read from M. Le Pasteur Monod, on behalf of the Lyons Branch, thanking this Council for their recent grant towards the expenses of the Kiosk in connexion with the exhibition in that city.
The Secretary reported receipt of two volumes, giving the papers read at the recent conference of the United States Evangelical Alliance at Chicago. The Council desired that their thanks be conveyed to the New York Committee.
A MEETING of Council was held in Dublin, on Thursday, July 12. David Drummond, Esq., J.P., presided, and prayer was offered by the Rev. James Ervine.
The following persons were unanimously admitted to membership: Colonel Doran, Brookeboro; William Richardson, Esq., F. H. Hall, Esq., and Adam Torrie, Esq., Waterford; Joseph Boyle, Esq., Curragh Camp; Benjamin Fayle, Esq., and Samuel Pim, Esq., Clonmel; and Richard Finney, Esq., Banagher.
On the previous Friday evening a meeting of workers and other friends which had been arranged by the Executive Committee had met specially to seek God's blessing upon the various departments of the work connected with the buildings. Through the kindness of Mrs. Pease, of Willow Park, tea had been provided for the visitors. About two hundred were present, and a pleasant and profitable evening was spent. James Barton, Esq., c.E., presided. Short addresses were given and much prayer was offered for the blessing of God upon the work.
The Secretary reported that since the previous meeting of Council he had visited on deputation several important cities and towns in the South of Ireland. In Waterford, where they had a well-organised Committee, he had officiated on the Lord's-day in the Presbyterian and Baptist Churches, when he had an opportunity of giving information of the work of the Alliance, and on the following day met the members in conference. The interest manifested was very gratifying. In Clonmel there was a large attendance representing all Protestant denominations. The Rev. R. W. R. Rentoul, Presbyterian Minister, presided. On the following evening he addressed a large meeting in the Parochial Hall, Cahir, the Archdeacon of Waterford, who had long been a member and a warm friend of the Alliance, occupied the chair, and commended the work in which they were engaged. Proceeding to Cork, he attended a meeting of members which had been specially convened to confer with reference to future operations; Lieut.-Col. Hale presided. It was felt that their influence had been weakened in Cork by the multiplication of agencies having a
similar object, and it was unanimously agreed that a closer union upon the basis of the Alliance was desirable. In spite of the agitation which had been caused by the opposition to the street-preaching, a very friendly spirit had been manifested by influential Roman Catholics.
In Limerick, the state of matters corresponded very much with that in Cork. Regret was expressed that there should be any division or clashing of interest, and there seemed to be a general desire for still closer union among all sections of the Evangelical community, on the basis of the Alliance. In Galway he held three services on the Lord's-day, and on the Monday following he addressed a drawing-room meeting in the house of Mrs. Maunsell, which was well attended by members and other friends. It was gratifying to learn that a weekly united prayer-meeting, which had been established in the house of this estimable lady in connexion with a former visit, had been held regularly, and had proved a blessing to many. He had also visited Athlone, Athenry, Wexford, New Ross, Youghal and other places, and in each had found a warm interest in the work in which they were engaged.
THE CHRISTIAN CONVENTION.
The Secretary reported that among those who had kindly consented to be present and deliver addresses at the forthcoming Convention were the Revs. F. A. C. Lillingston, E. W. Moore, Professor Laidlaw, D.D., Richard Hobson, W. J. Dawson, John Bond, J. Anderson Brown (India), Samuel Kershaw. The Convention will meet in the last week of September, 24-27.
£ s. d.
£ s. d.
O 10 6
RECEIVED FROM JUNE 19 TO JULY 17, 1894.
B. M. Ward...
o Miss Baker
I O o Sir C. B. Graves Sawle,
£ s. d.
o Dowager Lady Aber-
o Col. Seaton
6 W. Mewburn, Esq.
o C. E. Newton, Esq., J.P.
o Miss Forrester Paton
o Ilfracombe, per Mr. R.
Alliance House, 7 Adam Street, Strand, London, W.C..
*Remittances may be made payable to the order of the secretary (Mr. A. J.
Arnold), or to the Treasurer.
Mrs. Murray Ker o Sums under 10/
0 16 7
THE arrangements for the approaching Annual Conference of the Evangelical Alliance, at Tunbridge Wells, on the 25th to 27th inst., are now completed, and our readers can judge from the programme we print this month what the general features of the meeting are likely to be. But the spiritual profit to be derived from such a Conference does not depend so much upon the names of the speakers, or upon the subjects selected, as upon an influence which is not at man's disposal, but which may be sought in prayer, and which has been promised in answer thereto. Much of the blessing, which attends special conferences for spiritual improvement-such as Keswick and others of like character-arises from the spirit of prayer which precedes such meetings, and from the expectancy of blessing which accompanies them. We would therefore earnestly urge upon those who desire that the approaching meeting may be one of spiritual profit to all who may attend, to pray that the great Master of Assemblies would Himself consecrate the meeting with His presence, and fill it with His blessing.
The importance of the subject on which Mr. Gladstone has written a paper in the August number of The Nineteenth Century, and its close connexion with the object of the Evangelical Alliance, must be our excuse for devoting a more than ordinary amount of space this month to its consideration. It deals with one of the greatest hindrances in the way of Christian efforts to promote Christian Union, that arising from the attitude of the High Churchman, who being bound by his system to do so, treats all Christianity outside the pale of the Episcopal Communions as "heresy" and "schism." Any well-considered and well-written essay on "the place of heresy and schism in the Modern
Christian Church would, at present, be sure to command attention from the interesting nature of its subject. How much more when written by one of such conspicious eminence, both as a thinker and writer on religious subjects, as the late Premier ?
Mr. Gladstone's attitude in dealing with the subject is that of a High Churchman full of kind and benevolent feelings towards those whom his system would force him to treat as "heretics and schismatics," but whom he would gladly, if possible, exculpate from such a charge. In seeking to do this he assumes the High Church position, that Christ appointed an outward and visible form of Church Government, and perpetuated the same by Episcopal succession, in suchwise that all who are now outside the Episcopal pale are of necessity in "heresy and schism," unless Mr. Gladstone's amiable apologies for them can be admitted as valid. It is unfortunate, therefore, that the pleas he urges for their exculpation break down upon their being examined, as the Rev. Edward White has well pointed out in a letter to The Times, leaving the unfortunate heretics and schismatics very much where they were before Mr. Gladstone so rashly undertook their defence.
Mr. White's letter deals mainly with the two analogies from Scripture, which Mr. Gladstone urges in mitigation of the application of the words "heresy and schism" to those outside the Episcopal pale. These are, first, the law of the Second Commandment, forbidding the making of graven images, &c. This, Mr. Gladstone assumes, forbids statuary, sculpture, and decorative art generally in connexion with religion, and contrasts with this rigid prohibition the fact that "by far the largest portion of the Christian Church gives a sanction to the use, for religious purposes, either of images or of pictures." Hence, he argues, the original law has undergone "an essential modification." Mr. White, however, shows that this view mistakes the meaning of the Second Commandment, which does not forbid sculpture or decorative art, even in religion, as the work of Bezaleel and Aholiab plainly shows, but only forbids the making of images in order to worship them. This, he urges, is according to the Hebrew idiom, and the Speaker's Commentary bears this out in saying: "The meaning certainly is to prohibit the making of the likeness of any material thing in order to worship it."
The next analogy from Scripture is taken from the laws concerning usury. And here Mr. Gladstone falls into the mistake of supposing that "in the Mosaic system the taking of usury is everywhere denounced with vehemence as a moral offence." Mr. White has no difficulty in showing that it was only forbidden to the Israelites in their dealings with their brethren. It is expressly said: "Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury" (Deut. xxiii. 20). So that, as it was plainly no moral offence, but only an unbrotherly act, we are not surprised that "our Saviour Himself, in the parable of the talents, appears to recognise interest upon money as an established, perhaps as a legitimate, practice." Neither of these two instances therefore, are analogous to the New Testament laws against heresy and schism, which, when only we rightly understand what they were, there is no reason to believe have undergone any substantial alteration since Apostolic times.
But what were these laws against heresy and schism? To this Mr. Gladstone does not give a very satisfactory answer. He quotes the wellknown saying of our Lord in Matt. xviii. 17-"If he neglect to hear the Church "—as if it referred to the matter of heresy or schism, whereas it has to do with the case of a quarrel between two brethren, which is first, if possible, to be settled between them; if not, two or three are to be called in to settle it, and if the offender neglect to hear them, then the offended one is to "tell it unto the Church "-here evidently the local assembly of Christians. If their decision be rejected, the offender is to be treated “ as an heathen man and a publican." But nothing is said here about heresy or even schism, for the putting him out of communion (if even this is implied), for disregarding the sentence of the local assembly, is more like the punishment of excommunication than the sin of schism. To treat this as if our Lord was here, by anticipation, dealing with the case of those who "should sever themselves in doctrine or in communion from His servants," is altogether a mistake.
The principal passages which do bear upon the sins of heresy and schism are Rom. xvi. 17, 1 Cor. iii. 3, Gal. v. 20 (not to say the whole epistle), 2 Thess. iii. 14, 15, Tit. iii. 10, 11, and the well-known passages in St. John's Epistles, and Mr. Gladstone may fairly gather from these his definition of heresy and schism, which is "the condition of any who, acknowledging Christ's authority, yet should rebel against the jurisdiction then solemnly constituted, should sever themselves in doctrine or in communion from His servants, and should presume in this way to impair their witness and to frustrate thereby His work so far as in them lay." But if this was heresy and schism in the Apostles' days, it does not follow that severance from Church teaching and fellowship at a later date was such also. Severance from the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship in early times was one thing; severance from the corrupt teaching and practice of the medieval Church was another. These two things are not to be confounded, yet this confusion underlies much that Mr. Gladstone has written in this paper.
Mr. Gladstone, to some extent indeed, admits the corruption of the Church which followed its unhallowed union with the world in the fourth century. "All the elements of evil, which at first had carried on an open warfare with the Church, now wrought against her true life and spirit more subtly from within. The tone of her life was immensely lowered, and her witness for God before the world, which was formerly only compromised by heresy and schism, was now darkened and enfeebled by latent corruption in a thousand forms." But if this be so, is there no distinction to be made between the Churches of the first and of the fourth centuries? Is that departure from Apostolic doctrine and fellowship, which in the first century was heresy and schism, to be treated as the same thing with a departure many centuries later from the corrupt teaching of a corrupt Church?
But while admitting, to some extent, this corruption of the Church in later times, Mr. Gladstone still holds that "on the whole the credentials of the Church did not lose their original clearness, and so long as this was the case, her duties with respect to heresy and schism remained without substantial change, and she was bound not to compromise the safety of her spiritual