Images de page
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

The first person in the empire after the Sultan is the Sheik-ul-Islam, the Vicar-General, whose consent must be obtained before the Sultan can be deposed. The next person is the Grand Vizier, a hundred of whom have been executed or assassinated in the last hundred years. After the Grand Vizier comes the Chief of the Black Eunuchs. Mr. Davey says: "Notwithstanding his well-intentioned household reforms Abd-ul-Hamid's Court still swarms with parasites in the guise of secretaries, ushers, palace agents and such fry. All this petty host is waited on by some three or four hundred slaves and menial servants, known as ' Baltadjis.' The cooking of the Imperial establishment is on a quite incredi. ble scale. The male and female population of Gildiz, inclusive of the troops in the palace barracks, certainly cannot amount to less than between six and eight thousand persons, all fed at the Sultan's expense. There are, so I was credibly assured, over four hundred cooks and scullions employed within the palace, under the direction of a goodly array of Turkish, French and Italian chefs.”


"As to the Sultan himself, his life is of the simplest and most arduous. He rises at six and works with his secretaries till noon, when he breakfasts. After this he takes a drive or a row on the lake within his vast park. When he returns he gives audiences. At eight o'clock he dines, sometimes alone, not unfrequently in company with one of the ambassadors. Very often, in the evenings, he plays duets on the piano with his younger children. is very fond of light music, and his favorite score is that of La Fille de Mme. Angot.' He dresses like an ordinary European gentleman, always wearing a frock coat, the breast of which on great occasions is richly embroidered and blazing with decorations.


He is the first Sultan who has done away with the diamond aigrettes, formerly attached to the Imperial turban or fez. The President of the United States is no more informal than the Sultan in his manner of receiving guests. He places his visitor beside him on a sofa, and himself lights the cigarette he offers him. As the Padishah is supposed to speak no language but Turkish or Arabic, his Majesty, who is a perfect French scholar, carries on conversation through a dragoman.

"Much more might be added of interest and instruction, but the inexorable limits of a magazine article compel me to close with the following curious anecdote.

"Quite recently a very great lady had the honor of dining with his Majesty, who, by the way, is the first Turkish sovereign who has ever admitted a

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

If the Sultan were to be killed or were to die, he would be succeeded by his youngest brother. Mr. Richard Davey says: "At this time of writing, Raschid-Effendi, the present Sultan's youngest brother and probable successor, is confined within the palace, of the Cheragan, together with his harem and the officers of court-kept as a prisoner of state. He is not allowed to receive a single letter, book or newspaper, not to mention a visitor from the outer world. To the drawbacks consequent on this seclusion must be added those of the exceedingly inferior education bestowed on the male members of the Imperial family, an education left entirely in the hands of parasites and adventurers, European or otherwise."

This is a nice lookout for Europe. The new man may be a cipher or he may be an idiot. But Mr. Davey turns his attention to the situation of the harem; which is the true court of the polygamous monarch.




HE article on Brahmanism and the Foundations of Belief" in the Fortnightly Review is an extremely interesting and suggestive paper. Ten years ago, the writer, Mr. Vamadeo Shastri, a philosophical Brahman of the old school, published an article in which he expressed his disappointment that England should give the Brahmans so little help in their attempt to adjust the traditional religion of India to its changing intellectual environment. Darwinism, in his opinion, led to a conception of the deity as a constitutional monarch ruling a vast kingdom by unchangeable laws. religion so transformed would be shifted from its essential foundations, and would lose its hold upon the respect of humanity. Now Mr. Vamadeo Shastri writes to say he was too easily depressed, and he has underrated the recuperative power of our religion.



That which puts him in good heart is Mr. Balfour's book on "The Foundations of Belief," which he has read with surprise and pleasure. According to Hindu notions, knowledge of divine things can only be attained by secluded meditation in a tranquil atmosphere; but, says he, "Here is one of your leading statesmen, ever foremost in debate, who finds time in the pauses of argumentation to strive to demonstrate the ultimate fallibility of all reason, and who can simulate admirably an eager interest in the problems of politics, although he knows them to possess no more substance than any other spectral

illusion." He is delighted with the book because the strain of thought and the dialetical methods fall in so remarkably with Indian tastes and traditions.

"If it does not completely solve our difficulties, it certainly helps to put our enemies to confusion. Of course, we Brahmans have known all that Mr. Balfour says for many centuries, but it is very useful to find it repeated in modern language on such excellent authority."

"There is something almost comical in the lesson read to you by Mr. Balfour, that what most of you fancied to be intellectual emancipation-the exact and extended comprehension of natural processes-does in reality prolong man's servitude by blocking up the gates of the spiritual knowledge with a heap of disorderly and obstructive facts. We, like him, despise and denounce the presumption with which Naturalism, as he calls the empiric method, pretends to invade the dominion of Theology, to molest her ancient solitary reign, and almost to annihilate her peculiar jurisdiction. So long as empiricism confines itself to the sphere of sense perceptions, it is legitimately and perhaps harmlessly employed, and in reward for its humility it may be dignified by the title of Science. It is welcome to continue taking notes as a spectator of the fantastic nature play; it may go on making dim uncertain conjectures about the plot and the probable ending of the terrestrial drama; it may even amuse itself by tracing a moral purpose. But when empiricism ventures to set up a kind of spiritual court and attempts to pass judgment on some deep intuition of divinity that does not accord with a very finite range of sensation, then it is justly labeled Naturalism, baseborn, purblind and fundamentally irrational.”



In one respect he admits that the Indian position is not precisely coincident with that of Mr. Balfour, for the Indians have avoided entanglement with ethical considerations, and have never yet pledged themselves to the postulate that the universe is morally governed. There is a fine air of partronage about some of his observations. On referring to Mr. Balfour's warnings as to the consequence of recognizing that the earth is rolling slowly toward universal death, he says: This, indeed, is a situation not unlike that which, in India, we have already attained, though we have no objection to be fortified in it by Western skill-so that for us the despairing prophecies of science have little terror. Our higher intelligences did not need the arguments in this book to convince us that the whole phantas magoria of sense perceptions is essentially deceptive and illusory, insomuch that whether it disappear to-morrow or after many million years is profoundly immaterial; if indeed time has any meaning in relation to such a passing dream. Nor will even the simple Indian folk be much interested by the news that the whole order of creation to which they belong is to be annihilated within a measurable pe

riod. They have never set an inordinate value on the short and sorrowful days passed under this burning sun; while for heaven or hell they have little care, desiring only to be rid of sensitive existence in any shape. Nevertheless the influx of Eastern ideas is affecting all classes, even in India, wherefore I am in accord with any salutary warning to our weaker brethren against following any such low and transitory ideal as the perfectibility of mortal man."


It is high time, says Mr. Vamadeo Shastri, that the Naturalists should desire to practice their mechanical dexterities altogether outside the domain of religion. So long as empiricism keeps to its own superficial level, and does not dabble in higher things, we need not dispute its usefulness, but when it undertakes not only to invent a scheme of faith and morals, but also to dictate terms of surrender to every other system, we must turn round and expose its essential futility : Although Mr. Balfour's skepti. cism is quite as destructive as Mr. Hume's, the two inferences are diametrically opposed; and I observe with complacency that at the point where these two Scottish gentlemen part company, while the latter sits down contentedly within the straight limits of ordinary human comprehension, the former sets out boldly upon a metaphysical path leading very much in the direction of India."


He thinks that Mr. Balfour dallies too tenderly with the Rationalists, but he excuses him because "Mr. Balfour is hampered by the necessity of gently disentangling orthodoxy from her rationalistic connection before he can proceed to set her up again on clear philosophical foundations."


WE KEPT THE SECRET TO OURSELVES!" This leads him to express a doubt as to whether Mr. Balfour is wise in proclaiming in the hearing of the multitude his conclusion that neither the natural nor the revealed theology could bear close scientific handling. Brahmans, he says, long ago reached a similar end but by a very different road; but we kept the secret to ourselves." It does appear strange to him that the very delicate operation of substituting a new foundation of belief for that which has hitherto upheld the whole religious edifice, should be proclaimed and maintained by a statesman in the whole hearing of the multitude. This is how they do it in India: "As we do not aspire to any canon of consistency, as we have never committed ourselves to precise creeds, or submitted to the bondage of law, we can vary our external front according to circumstances; so when the time comes we can retire slowly and concentrate upon our unassailable position of divine knowledge. But we do not invite general attention beforehand to the line of our possible retreat; nor, whenever the rationalist takes the field seriously against our theology, natural or revealed, shall we publish abroad our admission that the arguments available

from those sources are practically inadequate for the effort of overthrowing him. This would be to cut deep into the core of popular religion, which is rooted in the certainty of positive and literal beliefs, and can never live in any other soil."

WANTED, A PRIVATE PHILOSOPHICAL LABORATORY. Therefore it is not surprising to find that Vamadeo Shastri should implore Mr. Balfour to desist from demonstrating the results of philosophic doubt. He says: "In the name of all established religions I implore Mr. Balfour to consider the expediency of carrying on these interesting researches in some private philosophical laboratory. He is subverting the foundations of popular religion everywhere; he is betraying a distinct aversion to meeting in the open field of common sense that same antagonist, rationalism, whom he heartily despises; and he is committing what seems to us Brahmans the grave imprudence of telling the people that the outer walls of the City of God are not impregnable, so that they should take refuge, before it is too late, within some inner sanctuary. But is this sanctuary fit for the reception of a frightened crowd, and can we at least show them the way or promise them security within it? Nowhere is there any scheme of religion that provides more adequately than Hinduism for the adjustment of worship and doctrine to ever changing human conditions, whether moral or material. In India no sacred mystery is ever allowed to fall out of repute for lack of a fresh explanation. But whether it is wise to set all this before the people, and to ask why their belief in gravitation never wavers, while they are not always unshaken about Redemption, is to our notions not so clear. It would have been safer to remain within the intrenchments laid out in the first portion of this book, and to repel any attempts of Science to measure herself with Theology, by reminding her that all theories founded on sense-perception are radically baseless and unintelligible.”



The whole paper should be read carefully by all those who are interested in the controversy Mr. Balfour has raised. It is in many respects the most interesting of all the articles provoked by the publication of "The Foundations of Belief." "I notice with complete approval Mr. Balfour's remark that the decisions of your early Church regarding the mysteries were invariably the negation of explanation;' but it appears to me that if the evolutionary idea is once openly accepted as regulating the progress of knowledge in the sphere of theology, it will not be easy to draw around the central mysteries a line within which they are to be treated as inexplicable. You must be aware that Hinduism makes no such reservations, but advances fearlessly until every provisional conception is absorbed into pure being, absolute and unconditioned."

Vamadeo Shastri is disappointed that Mr. Balfour

has not developed his theory, and notes that he will find himself embarrassed by the strong and serious ethical aspirations of the English nation.

Grindelwald's Response to the Pope.

`HE Rev. Dr. Henry Lunn last month had an in-
teresting series of interviews with Cardinal
Rampolla, and the domestic chaplain of His Holi-

ness Leo XIII. Dr. Lunn was the bearer to the Vatican of the response signed by the leaders of the nonconformist communions and several Church clergymen to the Pope's letter to the English people. The following is the text of the Grindelwald epistle, which was duly but informally submitted to the Pope : Sincere greetings and good will in


our common Lord.

"As a company of English Christians, met together to further the sacred cause of the Reunion of Christendom, we desire to acknowledge the Christian courtesy and devout aspiration of your Holiness' letter.

"While we cannot forget the teaching of history that existing divisions arose in defense of vital elements of Apostolic Christianity and Scriptural truth, we lament the present divided state of Christendom, and, with your Holiness, continually pray for the visible unity of the Catholic and Apostolic Church.


We acknowledge with gratitude to almighty God the evidence of a real spiritual unity underlying our differences and manifesting itself not only in common service rendered to mankind, but also in the prayer and praise of a common Christian life, in the numerous signs of common Christian experience and in the signal blessing which the God of all Grace has bestowed on every fragment of the divided Catholic Church.

"We are persuaded that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself is the only possible centre of Christian unity, and that the indwelling Spirit of the Father and of the Son in every Christian heart, not only constitutes a spiritual unity which man can neither create nor destroy, but furnishes the conditions of that manifested unity for which our Blessed Lord prayed.

"We believe that unity must be attained, not by the absorption of Christians in any one communion of the divided Catholic Church, but by such a union as will conserve all the elements of Christian truth and practice which in the providence of God the various Christian communions have severally exhibited and defended.

"We gladly and affectionately join in your appeal for united and continuous prayer to the Triune God, that in His great power and mercy He would overrule all things to the end that the visible unity of His Church may at length be fully manifested according to His purpose.

“And lastly, we implore the Father of all mercies that He woula in His infinite compassion increase in us all that spirit of brotherly love for our fellow Christians which breathes through the letter addressed by your Holiness to the English people."


F. W. Farrar, Dean of Canterbury and Chaplain to the Queen.

W. H. Fremantle, Dean of Ripon.

F. Pigou, Dean of Bristol.

James M. Wilson, Archdeacon of Manchester.


J. Monro Gibson, ex-Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of England.

Thomas M. Lindsay, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Free Church of Scotland College, Glasgow.


Charles A. Berry, ex-President of the Free Church Congress.

Alexander Mackennal, Secretary of the Free Church Congress.

Wiliam T. Stead, Editor of the REVIEW OF REVIEWS. Urijah R. Thomas, Chairman of the Congregational Union.


J. Hunt Cook, Editor of the Baptist Freeman.
J. G. Greenhough, President of the Baptist Union.
Richard Glover, ex-President of the Baptist Union.
Charles Williams, ex-President of the Baptist Union.


Percy W. Bunting, Editor of the Contemporary Re


H. Price Hughes, President of the Free Church Congress.

H. J. Pope, ex-President of the Wesleyan Methodist Conference.

Henry S. Lunn, President of the Grindelwald Confer


His Holiness, however, while expressing his satisfaction that the representatives of so many Protestant denominations should be able to join with him in prayer for Christian unity, discovered too much heresy in the letter for him to accept it publicly and in his official ecclesiastical capacity. So Dr. Lunn, satisfied with having placed the highest authority of the Roman Church in possession of the authentic expression of the reunionists of Grindelwald, returned well content, nor had he any reason to regret the absence of the formal presentation of the address, which had already been submitted in translation and carefully scrutinized by the Pope.

The Review of the Churches for October is devoted almost entirely to the discussion of this subject. It reports the reunion discussion at Grindelwald in full, opening with Dr. Lunn's inaugural speech on "The Perils and Powers of Unity," which is followed by a paper by the Archdeacon of Manchester on Existing Unity and Future Reunion."

[ocr errors]

Rapprochement, Not Reunion.

Mr. Wilfrid Ward in the Nineteenth Century has an article upon the question of reunion which is en

titled "The Rigidity of Rome." The following passage sets forth what he calls the policy of rapprochement: "If the long-and in its early years ever deepening-estrangement, which bars the road to reunion, was due to the state of war, to the emphasizing points of difference until they obliterated points of agreement, may not a gradual change be wrought by sympathy and co-operation-by dwelling on points of agreement until they have brought about that mutual good understanding which will make points of difference intelligible? And-what is more important-if the divergence has been due to anti-Catholic psychological climate,' may not the new sympathy with Catholicism change that climate, and work an intellectual change by a movement primarily ethical? If obstacles to reunion have obviously accumulated since the reign of James I, when so much of the Catholic ethos remained in the popular mind, may not the revival of Catholic sympathies gradually remove these obstacles?

[ocr errors]

Present reunion and war are not exhaustive alternatives. A sense of brotherhood with our fellow Christians, a determination to work with them where we can, to be absolutely just where discussion of differences is necessary, to prefer co operation for good to mere disputation for its own sakethis is a programme, not indeed of reunion, but of rapprochement."

The Crown of the Oxford Movement.

Lord Halifax publishes in the National Review the plea for the reunion of Christendom which he addressed to the Norwich Church Congress. The following are his concluding observations :

"I would beg Churchmen to remember one thing--the crown and completion of the Oxford movement and of that great Church revival which it initiated is the reunion of Christendom. No Church can afford to say to other Churches, I have no need of you. God has established one kingdom upon earth. He did not intend that its members should profess a different faith or be debarred from the participation of the same sacraments. On the contrary, there is but 'One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism. To me it seems we are in some sort at the branching of two ways. Despite all that it has accomplished, despite all brilliant appearances to the contrary, the Oxford movement will have failed in its object if we ever allow ourselves to forget the duty of doing all in our power to heal the schisms of the sixteenth century. Both the Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal Vaughan discern in the present signs that something is preparing for England in the secrets of Divine Providence. If, as I firmly believe, what is opening out before us is the opportunity of furthering the reunion in one visible fold of all who call on the name of Christ, let it be ours to spare no efforts to co-operate with the gracious designs of God's good Providence."

Efforts After Reunion Under the Common



The modern passion for Reunion sheds anew interest over certain germinal efforts in the same direction many generations ago. Such, for example, is the " 'Ecclesiastical Experiment in Cambridgeshire, 1656-58," which Mr. H. W. P. Stevens describes in the English Historical Review. reminds us that "in 1653, Baxter, in view of the failure which had attended the attempt to establish a compulsory system of Presbyterian discipline in England, proposed a scheme for a voluntary discipline, which he trusted would prove acceptable to ministers of all parties in Worcestershire. A simi. liar scheme for Cambridgeshire is quoted in full from "the Lambeth MS. 637, Gibson Papers. One article of their agreement gives the general idea as adopted by the parish ministers of the shire: "Whatsoever we have, do, or shall resolve upon, we agree to put in practice till public authority shall settle something more particularly." They accordingly agreed upon a series of doctrine and of diciplinary measures concerning church membership, ordination, etc., which might be roughly described as voluntary Presbyterianism or associated independency.


[ocr errors]

N Poet Lore, Mr. W. G. Kingsland gives some


puts in brief compass his attitude toward the social question :


You must either have a community master of itself, or a government master of the community as at present. It is true that some persons . try to conceive a condition of things in which every man is independent of every other, but that is not only impossible to be, but impossible even to conceive of. If the means of production were "nationalized," the following changes would result :

"1. Every one would be obliged to render some service to the community in return for livelihood, thus getting rid of the class which lives by owning property.

HE first of a series of papers by Prof. George D.

THfrstood lowes college, appears in the No

vember Arena. Professor Herron is known as one of the most earnest and outspoken apostles of the social regeneration of the church to be found in the ranks of the Christian ministry. The few paragraphs which we quote from his Arena article will perhaps serve to convey some idea of Dr. Herron's philosophy to those of our readers who are not already familiar with his views through his books or lectures.


"It was human life that interested Jesus and that seemed to Him, even at its worst, to be the one altogether sacred matter of concern. Every phase and expression of life caught and held His attention to the point of intensest fascination. He reverenced human life, and spoke with abhorrence of the relig. ion that would conceive of man as made for itself. The call of Jesus was to citizenship in the kingdom of God, which was then the commonly understood Hebrew term for social justice, and which term Jesus used to represent the new and glorious order of life He expected to organize upon earth-glorious because just, and just because social. He thought to show the end and reality of all religion in an organization of human life in which all men should live for the common good. Leaving no cult of worship-in fact avoiding such as the most deadly moral fatality-His blessing was upon those who divinely gave themselves to the service of humanity. . .


"The sociality of life was Jesus' fundamental religious conception. The sociality of religion is the revelation of Jesus' religious experience, and is the realization of His kingdom. His teaching did not come into the world as something new, but as an interpretation of that which is eternal in all religion; it came as a programme for the simple organization of all religious facts and forces in a redeemed and natural human life. Christianity began, so far as it issued from Jesus, not as a new religion, but as a revelation of human life in a social ideal. The whole law of man's relation to God, the knowledge of which law had hitherto been fragmentary, Jesus came declaring. To reveal the sociality of religion,

"2. Every one could claim useful employment He taught by deed and word. and the duly resulting livelihood.

"3. The waste of labor power now caused by (a) the watching over the individual interests of the plundering classes (competition we call it), and (b) by the rich classes forcing the workers to work uselessly, would come to an end.

"You see that as long as there is individual ownership of capital (to put it shortly), there must be a superior and an inferior class; and between these classes there must be antagonism; each can only thrive at the other's expense.

"Class antagonism is really the key to the solu tion of the social question."

"The realization of religion in a human kingdom of heaven was the service to which He gave His life a faultless sacrifice. In neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament does the term kingdom of God or kingdom of heaven mean anything else than a righteous society upon earth. Nothing else was either meant or understood by Jesus' teaching to the people, or to His immediate disciples. The term was commonly used to signify a perfect social justice-a justice to be fully realized when the Messiah should come. It was expected that He, whenever He came, or whoever He might prove to be, would bring in a social order so just, so free from

« PrécédentContinuer »