MR. BRIGHT ON THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
LTO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECIATOR."1
Stn,—A. little imaginative sympathy, enabling us to realise another's stand-point, would often save us from misunderstanding and misrepresenting those who hold different opinions from our own. A larger measure of that quality would have given to the hastily written letter of H. J. V." a different tone. His criticism of Mr. Bright's strictures upon the Archbishop's thanksgiving prayer is based upon an inaccurate idea both of the prayer and the denunciation. " H. J. V." tells us that it was upon the Church of England Mr. Bright poured out his indignation for the errors of the prayer, whereas he dealt with the Archbishop of York as solely responsible for that production, and carefully discriminated between its authorship and those clergymen who were so shocked at its mercenary spirit that they refused to use it in their churches. The severest censure upon the thanksgiving I have read came from the Spectator, for whose opinions " H. J. V." cares so much. The last thing we should expect to come from an " Anglican " is that the Archbishop of York is the Church of England. " H. J. V." blames Mr. Bright for refraining from condemning the Government, and yet censuring the Archbishop. But this blame is entirely undeserved, for in retiring from the Cabinet, Mr. Bright stated that he did so because, in his judgment, the bombardment of Alexandria was a violation of international and moral law. In his speech at Glasgow there was also an implicit condemnation of the Egyptian war, audit was repeated in his latest address. As the strongest disapproval of the Egyptian policy had been expressed by one whose object throughout his life has been to honour God rather than worry a Government, it is doubtful what purpose could have beenanswered by public expressions of his dissent. The relation, however, of the dignitaries of the Church to the war bad not been dealt with; and as the annual meeting of the Liberation Society presented the only opportunity when this could be appropriately done, that relation was fair matter for discussion, in an assembly whose first question would naturally be, " What is the moral and religions utility to the State of an Established Church ?" That Mr. Bright's censure of the action of the dignitaries of the Church in relation to our aggressive wars generally, and of the Archbishop's prayer in particular, was justifiable, is the opinion of many who do not hold the doctrines of the Peace Party. What shocked the moral feeling of many in the Archbishop's address to the Supreme Being was its cold-blooded indifference to the sufferings of the conquered, and its Jacob-like utilisation of the political advantages of the situation. The Archbishop did not merely thank God when the war was over, or because the war was over, but mainly because our highway to India had been secured, and because God's power had been manifested in our camp, and was the cause of victory.. It was a prayer worthier of the times of the Judges than of the nineteenth century. It practically praised the Infinite One for holding down one section of his family, while another attempted to kill it; and for strengthening our cavalry to pursue and cut down the flying fugitives of Arabi's army. Can any one for a moment suppose that he whose presence is so spiritual that he dwelleth not in temples made with hands, but in the sanctified thoughts and hearts of the good, could manifest himself in the passions, and storms, and ravages of a battle-field P The Apostle James, when he asked, " Whence come wars and fightings P" returned
a very different response. The day is gone for such anthropomorphic nationalisation of the divine as makes the militarism.
as well as the sanctity and philanthropy of a people equal expressions of his working. The Christian spirit views the sufferings of Egyptians and Englishmen as part of that martyrdom. of humanity which has marked the generations that have gone,. and cries, in sadness, and yet hope, " How long, 0 Lord ! how long P" I am not one of those who concur in Mr. Bright's view of the Egyptian war. I think Mr. Gladstone had sufficient reasons for his action, and I trust his feeling and_ judgment in this
matter. At the same time, I can -understand how, from Mr. Bright's stand-point, the war was unnecessary. Every student.
of philosophy knows the ambiguity of the word " necessary,' and its implications. To Mr. Bright, that only is necessarywhich ought to be, which is in harmony with the moral law and the moral sense of man. His ethics are Santian ; he must have a categorical imperative for a certain course, or he cannot commend it. Now, politics are mainly based upon ideas of utility and tradition; they are determined in their evolution by what has preceded them. It is inevitablethat collisions should arise between such a statesman. as Mr. Bright and the organisers of national opinion
into national measures and acts. The defenders of the Egyptian war would not claim that their policy was " neces
sary," in the Bright sense of necessity. Their arguments at
the most maintain that it was so far expedient, from various-, considerations, as to make it their duty to declare war. That the war was absolutely necessary, so as to be unavoidable,. so that the opposite of a state of war was utterly inconceivable to. human intelligence, or impossible to finite power, is a proposition, which I venture to think few would assert.
One word more, and I close. "H. J. V." says " we care not. a brass farthing for Mr. Bright's opinions, bat we do care for those of the Spectator." If we are to accept without qualification the first of these statements, we mast ask,—If so indifferent,. why write half a column upon Mr. Bright's opinions, a half column full of v.eiled concern about the effect of these opinions,. on the public mind ? The Spectator for years has, with admirable wisdom and largeness of view, and with that variation
which must mark independent thought, taught its readers toadmire Mr. Bright's eloquence, and to appreciate many of his
political principles. The English race will admire that eloquence and will reverence those principles as long as the English language is spoken,—as long as human liberty is sacred,.. and as long as sympathy with the oppressed and sufferingremains the noblest passion in the heart of man.—I am, Sir, &c., Holinlea, Barnet. Joins MATTHEWS.
Previous page
