The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-11-30 00:00:00

MR. BRIGHT, M.P., ON THE NEW
TREATY,

The Manchester Examiner publishes a letter from
the Right Hon. John Bright in reply to a memorial
from the Coventry silk weavers on the subject of the
new Commercial Treaty. The letter is dated from
Llandudno, the 22nd of November, and in it the right
hon. gentleman says
it is to be regretted that you and your friends should din.
tress }ourselves about the new Treaty, and prefer, as I con-
clude you would prefer, to have no Treaty at all. If there
were no Treaty, the French Government would not reduce
their import duties, some of them they would probably raise,
and the English Government would not impose new
or higher duties on importations from France. The l'reaty
therefore, which fixes the limit of the French tariff, but
which does net prevent its amendment in the direction of
lower duties, and which in no degree affects the duties we
impose on foreign goods, can infitct no injury on Coventry
or on any ether manufacturing town in the kingdom The
treaty may not be a wise treaty on the part of France, but it
Is impossible that it should be iojuvroun to England, for
under Its provision England does not bind herself to do any.
thing which she would not willingly and wisely do if the
treaty were riot ill existence. If, under the treaty, the
French tariff is in any degree lower than it would be without
the treaty, then by so much are we the gainers by it. Our
Government wont' have been delighted to have signed a
treaty under which the French tariff would have
been as liberal and as sensible as onr own, but
it can only act for England, and not for France. If lam not
mistaken, you were against the treaty of 18,30, and on the
seine grounds, doubtless, you are Against the renewed Treaty
of 1872. You think the special interests of Coventry should
have been cared for at the expense of the general population
of the kingdom. lint Lord Granville is not the Minister for
Coventry only, but for the United Kinetic., and he ant Ins
colleagues most act for the general good, and not for any
special interest or trade which clamours for protection at his
hands.

CHURCH HISTORY IN ST. PAUL'S
CATHEDRAL.
On Tuesday evening, the Lev. Canon Lightfoot de-
livered in St. Paul's Cathedral the second of three
lectures on "Christian Life in the Second and Third
Centuries."
Having on the previous Tuesday reviewed the rela-
tions of the Christain to society, he proceeded now to
discuss the Christian's relations to the State. On the
former occasion he pointed out how the Christian faced
the problems of life ; now how he met the terrors of
death. Living as we do in an age when the rights of
the individual are loudly proclaimed and scrupulously
respected, it was difficult for us to conceive the tyranny
which in ancient times the State exercised over the
thoughts and the actions of the subject. We talked much,
and (though the tei in was often abused) we talked truly,
of the rights of conscience. An ancient politician
knew nothing of any such rights. The individual pad
no claims witch were inconvenient to the State, or in-
terfered in any way with its compactness and harmony.
He was only a crank or a wheel in the vast machinery,
and he must move in regular subordination to the
I whole. Conscience and toleration were words unre-
cognized in the vocabulary of an ancient statesman.
Conscience was a possible interference with the de-
mands of patriotism, and toleration was a dangerous
encroachment on the stability of public order. On the
I other hand, Christianity had emphasized the individual
man as he was never emphasized before. This it had
done because it had taught that he was directly and
personally responsible to a greater than an earthly
power; that all human claims and interests, even the
most imposing, must yield to this higher obligation;
that he was not a dying atom in a dying universe, a tran-
sient phenomenon. a fleeting breath, but a being en-
dowed with an immortal, unquenchable life. Thus,
his individuality was a power in the economy of the
universe, which demand respect, and his conscience
was a sanctuary, which could not be violated without
sacrilege. Now, in Rome the ancient idea was pressed
with remorseless logic. The magnificent capacities of
legislation and government which distinguished the
Roman tended to the exceptional exaltation of the
State at the expense of the individual. Religion itself
was cast in a political mould. It was just as elastic
and just as rigid as the form of government or the
limit of the Empire. Thus, for instance, as Rome ex-
tended her sway over distant nations, she at the same
time enlarged the boundaries of her mythology. With
a marvellous power of assimilation she incorporated her
conquests ; but this incorporation would not be com-
plete unless the religious arrangement kept pace with
the political. Accordingly, it was her policy to re-
cognize the religions of the subject peoples. This re-
cognition was not a mere toleration. It was a direct
acknowledgment of their value, in some sense of their
truth. And again, when the form of the constitution
changed, the theology of the Roman was modified also,
lie alluded to the deification of the Emperor, and
called attention to this point not only because it was
in itself the most monstrous phenomenon in religious
history, but alas because it was the very pivot on
which the evening's investigation would turn. At
the very moment when the world had reached the
highest point of civilization and culture, when political
and legielative ability were achieving their most signal
triumphs—in an age of remarkable progress and en-
lightenment— this portentious development of poly-
theism was invented. The apotheosis of a living
Emperor might be somewhat exceptional. It was con-
fined for the most part to the provinces where his
worship was the symbol and the acknowledgment of
Roman supremacy. Yet monsters like Caligula and
Nero claimed and obtained divine honours during their
lifetime in Rome itself, and Domitisn was wont to be
addressed as "My Lord and My God." But the deifi-
cation of the Emperors after their disease became at
length almost a matter cf course. " Alas !" said Yes-
posain. ledge he felt his fatal illness approaching, "I
apprehend L am gang to be a god.
And thus a single generation saw enrolled among
the immortal powers whom it was required to propitiate
with sacrifice and adoration, a brutal sensualist like
Comm:sins, and a bloodthirsty fratricide like Caraealla.
And the world looked on, amented, worshipped (should
they say?), believed. Here and there a philosopher
laughed in his sleeve, but he too accepted the position.
One body of men alone held out against this monstrous
outrage on common sense and common decency—firm,
uutlinching, resolute even to v death; an insignificant,
despised sect ca-Id Christians. They refused to bow
before the hideous idol which Roman statecraft had
set up. They held it better to forfeit peace, to forfeit
liberty, to firfeit life itself, to be gibbeted on the cross,
to be burnt at the stake, to be mangled by wild beasts,
than to put one pinch of incense on the accursed altar,
or to offer one word of prayer to the accursed name.
In the interests of human progress, not to speak of
Divine truth, did they not deserve our undying grati-
tude? And yet this monstrous development was the
natural, he might a'inostsay, the inevitable consequence
of a Roman's conception of religion.
On the downfall of the Republic all the chief
offices were concehtrated in the person of the Em-
peror. If not in theory, at least in practice, he '
was the State. Now, Roman religion, as they had
seen, was the mere reflection of Roman politics. In
its very nature, therefore, it would adapt itself to the
altered circumstances of the time. Concentrated poli-
tical power demanded a corresponding concentration
in the object of religious worship. The person of
the Emperor was the obvious response to this
demand. The Emperor, therefore, was deified. His
divinity was a symbol of the Constitution; his worship
was a guarantee of loyalty. How, then, did those
facts affect the position of the Christians? From its
very nature Christianity could not expect the toleration
which was extended to other religions. Christianity
claimed to be absolute, paramount, universal. If it
was not this, it was nothing at all. It could not
consent to go shared with other systems in the
allegiance of its adherents. If the Christians had
been satisfied with • niche for their Divine founder
In the Roman Pantheon, side by side with the
deities of Greece, or Syria, or Egypt, with Cybele,
and Isis. and Astarte. the compromise would cer-
tainly have been readily accepted. It was even said
that Tiberius proposed to the Senate to recognise
our Lord among the adopted gorla of Rome. The
story may not be true; but it correctly repre-
Hate the tealiftelte sehtimente of the Itomak people,