408 PEN PICTURES OF NONCONFORMITY. church-rates, and thus managed to add a strong feeling of exasperation to the keen sense of injustice which had existed for generations. But when, in one town, churchwardens had the audacity to deny the right of a majority of the ratepayers to refuse a rate for the church, they provoked a national contest which could never terminate except with the extinction of all power in the one sect to compel others to support it. But oh! what arguments those who believed in compulsory religious rates preached and printed for our edification. How excellent and pious was their system of fines and imprisonment they would show us if we would but look. And, right up to the moment when Nonconformity won another victory for English liberty, how surely could they prove the wickedness of our resistance, if only we would listen. Here is a story exhibiting a fossil church argument which, by the way, was a living specimen less than fifteen years ago. A parson reproved one of his parishioners for not paying church-rates; to whom the parishioner replied, that he had never used the church, and that he supported a place of worship which was free from Government control. "O! but," said the parson, "the church is always there, and you can come to it whenever you like, therefore you ought to pay." Now that parishioner was a barber, and soon after the conversation he sent to the parson a small bill for shaving, etc. On this the parson came to him in high dudgeon demanding to know what the bill meant, and saying, "I have never been in your shop in my life: how dare you charge me for what I do not owe?" "Why," said the barber, "my shop is always open; you can come to it anytime you please, and I'll shave you when you do." But into the limbus to which church-rates have been relegated, shoals of such rubbishing argument have tumbled, and the men who so solemnly urged them a few years since would be ashamed to repeat them to-day. Nonconformity is never ashamed to repeat its unanswerable logic on that, or on any other question, and this is only one of many differences between it and State Churchism. Our fearless and righteous policy has not only freed this country from the disgrace of having a certain sect within it, selling the citizens' chairs, spoons, cradles, etc., to keep its synagogues and its priests' Sunday-robes in repair, but that policy has educated and elevated the sect itself. Now that for the astonishing period of fifteen years Englishmen have been released from legal compulsion to pay for churches they did not use, the former opponents of liberty have come to see that we were perfectly right all the time; and not a churchman can be found to propose that freemen should once more go to gaol for not supporting somebody else's religion as well as their own. The protection of poor men's pockets is good; the extension of freedom is better; but, after all, the superlative advantage is the solid improvement we have wrought in the morals of the great mass of our Episcopalian fellow countrymen. There was another thing at which our foreign critics used to wonder very much. They saw that though we had Universities belonging to the whole nation, yet only that part of the nation which was willing to sign the Thirty-nine Articles was allowed to improve its mind at them. It seemed utterly absurd that, so far as the Government could control the chief seats of learning, only one sect should have the chance to be learned. To speak with accuracy, no Nonconformists were permitted to study at Oxford; and though at Cambridge they might become students, PEN PICTURES OF NONCONFORMITY. 409 even there it was never acknowledged that they had learned anything. No matter how successful and accomplished a Nonconformist became, he could not take his degree, while a comparatively ignorant Churchman could obtain a degree with very little difficulty. This naturally excited the merriment and scorn of French and German Universities; but State-Churchmen considered it quite proper and admirable down to a few years ago. Still it could not continue unless freedom and justice happened to die. Hence, in 1854, Oxford admitted Dissenters to its Colleges, and Cambridge agreed that men who deserved degrees must have them, even when they were only Nonconformists. The Universities became thus suddenly liberal at the authoritative order of the Houses of Parliament, which had been gradually enlightened by the excluded Dissenters. But there were valuable prizes called Fellowships in the Universities, and the rule was to give them to the most learned men, but not if they happened to be Dissenters. Consequently every now and then the most deserving man being a Nonconformist would get punished by seeing his Fellowship (worth perhaps £300 a year) given to a less learned man who happened to be a Churchman. We were told this was all right, and assured that nothing fairer could be done, till in 1871 Parliament, unable to tolerate such a reproach to national justice diminished the unfairness to a considerable extent. Twenty-one years have elapsed since it became possible for a Nonconformist to win the highest mathematical honour which Cambridge can confer, the Senior Wranglership. (It may be said, in passing, that in consequence of modifications recently adopted, the mathematical giants of Cambridge may cease to be known as Wranglers). But out of the twenty-one years during which all comers have been free to compete for the chief distinction of the University, it has been won by Dissenters no less than thirteen times; and if we include a son of Nonconformist parents, who probably is a Dissenter himself, we can say that Nonconformists have beaten Churchmen in the race for the Senior Wranglership fourteen times out of twenty-one. Thus the Nonconformists have proved that though far inferior to the Churchmen in numbers, they are sometimes superior to them in intellect. Doubtless this was one of the bad things which Churchmen thought ought to be prevented. But in any case they could not be allowed to go on shutting Nonconformists out of the national seats of learning, and, at the same time, taunting them with their dissenting ignorance; so another great triumph was gained for Religious Equality, and the mental wealth of the nation is increased, while the Universities are delivered from miserable regulations under which their best prizes were awarded to second best men. Another advance claims but a brief reference now because every one remembers all about it. Till the year 1880 the State Church steadily resisted Nonconformist appeals for equality in the church-yard. The clergy, for the most part, seemed resolved to make the dead bodies of Nonconformists their lawful prey wherever a parish grave-yard was the only place of burial. Then, also, in all our public cemeteries there was a palpable line of division which showed that the State Church carried its exclusive prejudices into the last resting-place of friends and neighbours. The Burials Act of 1880 is not without defects, but it rescues mourners from clerical domination so far as choice of minister and ser 410 IN A RAILWAY CARRIAGE IN ITALY. vice are concerned, and it practically annihilates the whole difference between consecrated and unconsecrated ground in all places of interment. It extends English freedom, which before had been excluded by the fences of thousands of burial-grounds, which grounds are now truly consecrated by its presence. Fourteen thousand clergy signed petitions against, and otherwise strenuously opposed the rights of their fellow Christians at the brink of the grave, but henceforth few of them all will even dream of thrusting unwelcome services upon bereaved families. The extinction of one injustice after another is, in every instance, a promise and a prophecy. Inequalities once overthrown are fallen for ever, and those which remain stand weaker than before. Probably the generation which is to witness the full enfranchisement of religion in this realm is already born; and certainly it is time for religious equality, which has figured long prophetically, to make its grand transition, and occupy a permanent place in history. E. HALL JACKSON. In a Railway Carriage in Italy. FROM REV. N. H. SHAW, OF ROME. IN travelling to and fro by railway, an opportunity now and then presents itself of preaching the gospel in a quiet way. Just to convey an idea of the class of minds we have to deal with, and some of the difficulties we meet with in Italy, I venture to relate what took place a few weeks ago. It is Saturday evening, and as I enter the train at Civitavecchia bound for a journey of fifty miles to Rome, I find myself in the company of two fellow travellers. One to my left seems about forty-five years of age, of the artisan type, but possessing, as I afterwards find, more than the average of the intelligence of his class. He has come from Pisa, and we will call him the Pisan. The other is seated opposite to me, he is about forty years old, and his dress and general appearance show that he belongs to that stratum of society called very respectable. I begin to judge of him with an eye to evangelization, and I am bound to decide that he looks intelligent, perhaps he will be reasonable? perhaps good? Sometime passes during which I am occupied in reading. Observing that my friend opposite, whom we will call the Genoese (as he informs us he has come from Genoa), has nothing to occupy his mind, and looks somewhat uncomfortable in consequence, I offer him a copy of the Gospel according to Luke, asking him if he would like to read. He takes it, and thanks me; but after looking at the title page he hands it back to me, with an appearance of annoyance and contempt, remarking that such books are not for him. "Why so?" I ask. "Because it is a Protestant book, and I am a Catholic." "But what makes you think it is a Protestant book ?" "It bears the name of Giovanni Diodati, and I see it was printed in London." "Do you, then, suppose that Diodati's translation is not faithful to the original ?" “Then how do you come to judge of Diodati's work, and to condemn it ?" "O! it is not for me to judge; it is for me always to accept the teachings of the church. Protestant books are condemned by the church, and Catholics do not read them." "Pray, don't let us be carried away by a word. It is easy to call a thing protestant, and to hate it; but is it reasonable to do so? The term protestant is a wide one, and covers things and men bad or good. The greatest protestant to-day is the Pope, for he is continually protesting. There are Protestants who are only protestants; but I claim to be a Christian. My Christianity is founded on the truths contained in this book, which I should like to persuade you to read, in order that you might judge of the truth and worth of its contents.' "No, no! it is not for us to judge at all. We leave that to those who are capable of it." "But, my dear sir, are we not compelled to judge? Does not our nature impel us to it? Does not the fact that God has endowed us with reason bind us to use our reason? And if you do not read and judge for yourself, consider, I pray you, the position you put yourself in. The priest tells you he is to judge for you, and that you have simply to leave yourself in his hands. You may do that perhaps reasonably after enquiring into the priests authority, but not before. If you leave yourself in the priest's hands without first assuring yourself of his authority, do you not place yourself on a level with the brutes? And if, as a reasonable man, you wish to know the nature and limits of the priest's or the church's authority, where should you go to but the Holy Scriptures, from which Catholics believe they derive their faith." "But your Bible is a Protestant book." 'My dear sir, don't delude yourself into supposing that there is a great difference between the version of Diodati and that of Archbishop Martini. It is only in a few particulars that you will find a radical difference. I prefer Diodati's version to Martini's because it is much better, being a careful translation of the original, whereas Martini's version is only a translation of a translation; but the two versions are substantially the same." "But we are forbidden by the church to read such books as these, and that is enough for me." "But you acknowledge that we ought to obey Jesus Christ ?" "Certainly !" "Very well then, Jesus says here, 'Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they that testify of me."" "But I suppose it is Diodati who says that." "No, the version of Martini, though different in form, amounts to the same thing; certainly an approval of the study of the scriptures. Now if Jesus Christ says, 'Search the scriptures,' and certain men say, 'Don't search them,' can we doubt as to whom we should obey ?” 412 IN A RAILWAY CARRIAGE IN ITALY. "No: but it perhaps does not mean that we should do this ourselves. Practically, we search the scriptures if some one else does it for us." "Now just let us look such an idea in the face. If the King of Italy, or the Pope, should distribute in this carriage copies of some document containing his will, and having a great importance for us, and were to say to us, 'Read, and carefully study this,' would it be obedience on our part, or even reasonable, for us to say, 'We won't trouble ourselves to read the document. We will leave it to some one else to read it and tell us just what he thinks well of its contents ?'" "No: I confess it would not." I thought I had scored a point here, but I could not persuade my friend to read. This is only a small part of what was said on both sides. My friend got very angry once or twice, and said some very insulting things, but I was enabled to keep calm, and I hope reasoned not without effect. Suddenly, however, this Genoese managed to get rid of his part of the discussion by declaring, somewhat testily, that he did not like to be compelled to talk on such subjects in the presence of other people. At which remark our Pisan companion exclaimed, "You need not be afraid of me, for I am quite indifferent to such subjects." Then he began to express, very volubly, his opinions, which were a strange mixture of wisdom and folly, knowledge and ignorance, logic and unreason. He denounced the Pope and priests as impostors, and quoted history in a way that made our Genoese friend look very uncomfortable, giving point to his satire sometimes by apt quotations from the poetry of Giusti. I was pleased to see that I had now to talk with one who would at least attempt to reason, and who was not unreasonable, although inclined to be wild. By this time several labourers had entered the compartment, and also a man and his wife belonging to the intelligent classes. We were in for a warm and interesting discussion; and I thought I detected in the face of the Genoese signs of surprise and gratification as he saw how modern scepticism could be successfully answered by one in my position, when by one in his position it could not be answered at all. After a discussion of many other things, our Pisan friend attacked the divinity of Jesus Christ. According to him Jesus Christ was a great and noble reformer, but He was not divine, and never gave Himself out for such. It was easy for me to meet that assertion with the words and actions of Christ, and to demonstrate that either Christ was God, or He was not good. To all this the labourers listened with rapt attention, the lady frequently nodded approval, her husband responding with a few questions, which were answered to his satisfaction, and my Catholic Genoese friend looked pleased. But then arose the question of the trustworthiness of the gospels and epistles from which I quoted. The Pisan was as ignorant of them as the rest, and he supposed that they were church writings of no worth. He classed the Evangelists and the Apostle Paul together with popes and priests as a set of imposters who said and wrote what they did to cheat the world and get money. I then narrated the principal facts of Paul's life, and showed how utterly absurd was the supposition that |