Puslapio vaizdai

remained an armed oppressor. The lands he rules have retrograded materially and morally since his occupation as far at least as his own efforts are concerned. The large mass of the people are uneducated, and this is true more of the Moslems than of the non-Moslems. In trade, too, the Turk is backward, the richest merchants being native Christians and Jews and foreigners. Turkey's exports are negligible and, as industry is not encouraged, the disparity between export and import trade grows apace so that the country is becoming daily more and more impoverished. What small financial resources the country has are outrageously mismanaged, and the natural and industrial wealth is either undeveloped or mortgaged to secure the interest on the foreign loan which has assumed fabulous proportions. Poll tax, head tax on cattle and sheep, property tax, road tax, tax on raw produce and on the same manufactured, newspaper tax, bill tax, taxes on every conceivable transaction involving government registry or sanction—all eat up the income of the toiler, especially when unjust methods of collection and unscrupulous blackmail are added to official greed. Of this income a definite part—that from the taxes on tobacco, silk, cotton, and a number of other commodities, as well as a large proportion of the customs revenue—is allotted to pay the annual interest on the public debt. The remainder is inadequate to meet current expenses, far less to supply funds for the construction of public works and the increase of military and naval armaments. New loans must be contracted and the revenue from additional local products given as security, and new taxes imposed. A further method of securing money has been the sale of concessions to various European financial groups for the construction of railroads, quays, harbours, banks, telephone lines, electric power and electric tramways, and for opening of mines, for archaeological excavations, and so on, so that not only a large part of the regular revenue of the land but also the natural resources—present and to come—are being increasingly mortgaged to the foreign capitalist. And when a loan is made for a specific purpose, it is frequently stipulated by the parties making the loan that no orders for the work in hand shall be placed in any country outside of Turkey except the country making the loan. Thus is Turkey tied hand and foot by contracts made by successive ministries with various countries, while the granting of new concessions often for much needed improvements is made very difficult and sometimes impossible by the conflict of the contract about to be made with contracts already made. Thus is the political and economic development of the country hindered not only by the incapacity of the Turks themselves for government, but also by the political intrigues of the Great Powers of Europe and the financial exploitation of the resources of the land by European capitalists. The remedy, if remedy be possible for Turkey at this date, is twofold. In the first place intercourse between the various districts and races of Turkey must be facilitated and a spirit of sympathy and co-operation generated by means of a liberal education. The second essential is a change in the attitude of Europe to Turkey. Considerations of political strategy and of territorial aggrandizement must give place to a sincere desire to see Turkey united, peaceful, and prosperous, and to this end the concert of Europe must be in act as well as in name a concert, and must be prepared to take the attitude of a fairy god-mother to Turkey, advising, assisting and even controlling to some extent the action of her government until she has learned to stand alone. And the European capitalists must be prepared to renounce all gain from their investments which does not bring additional prosperity to the people of the land themselves. Only in this way can Europe justify in Turkish eyes the name she so proudly but unworthily bears of Christian.

L. P. CHAMBERS. Queen's University, Kingston.




[ocr errors]

CONSIDERATION of Authority in Religion can hardly

be kept apart from consideration of Authority in general. In this preliminary discourse, however, it is neither necessary nor desirable that many words should be expended.

"Authority” being a word of Latin origin, we are entitled (if not bound) to consult the oracles of lexicography. From these we learn that “authority” is the quality of the "auctor" and that the word “auctor" means "maker”, “example”, “witness", and "approver" or "supporter.” It expresses the notion of a person whose acts and words have some impelling, or even compelling, force which is "auctoritas”, authority. This power it is true, is not in all instances immune from, or victorious over, resistance. We say that superior knowledge gives authority to a man's statements and assertions. But suppose that his superiority in knowledge is doubted, or denied, or defiedthat it fails of recognition. Unless he has other resources at his command, he cannot-supposing he is to triumph over the "ardor civium prava jubentium", or make smooth the fierce visage of the threatening tyrant-get his words translated into action on the part of those to whom he testifies.

On the other hand, the ignorant man, if he has the money and the guns at his disposal, may enforce his ignorant will on a wise multitude. But where is the authority in this case? In the mere fact of the compulsion of others, or the power to compel them for selfish ends, or to make them suffer grievously if they refuse compliance. But that is authority which the better sort of men will stand out against, will refuse to acknowledge. Coercive power, selfishly used, is power, but it is evil. On the other hand, there is a use of coercive power that is good—a fact not over-cordially recognized in these days. Such power, however, is not authority, but the instrument of it. The mere possession of coercive power does not constitute authority.

Another note of authority is commission. The lawful ruler is he who can give a convincing reply to the question "By what authority doest thou these things? Who gave thee this authority ?” The Roman Emperors governed under republican titles in order, so the historian Dio Cassius asserts, that they might appear to have been commissioned by the Roman people.

But on what ground is commission given? On the ground of an estimate of the wisdom and integrity of him to whom the commission is given. The estimate may be erroneous, but it is there, and is decisive in its influence.

It may be said that a commission from a man's fellowmen is not the only possible source of authority. The prophet claims to have been chosen and sent by God. The priest claims that his order originated in Divine choice or acceptance of a minister of sacrifices. But the prophet and the priest must obtain, and retain, recognition. The priest who is suspected of not knowing how to ascertain the Divine will is not sought unto in order that enquiry may be made of the Lord through him. The prophet is notoriously without honour in his own country. His fellow-countrymen, nay those of his own family, deny him recognition. Granted that he has authority, that authority, so long as it is not recognized, fails of effect. “He could do no miracles then, because of their unbelief.”


[ocr errors]


From these remarks upon authority in general, I now pass to the consideration of authority in the sphere of religion. This I propose to divide, firstly into religion as corporate, then religion as an individual concern. And under the head of corporate religion I propose to consider, first Paganism, then Judaism, then Christianity.

1. Paganism. It will be sufficient, I believe, for our purpose if we consider religion in Hellas and Latium. Here we find authority in religion exercised by the State. The ancient city-state of the Greeks and Romans was, it has been said, Church as well as State. The law of the Roman Commonwealth, in this respect, was the same as the laws of other citystates—"Separatim nemo habessit deos neve nooos, sive advenas, nisi publice ascitos, privatim culunto" (Cic. De Legg. I, viii, 19). This did not mean that the body-politic, the State,

claimed to be prior in majesty to the gods. What it did claim for itself was the right, and the duty-and it was regarded as a duty even more than a right-of maintaining and protecting the religious observances of its founders, and prohibiting "private enterprise” in the matter of religion. It may be objected that in Rome there were sacra privata—religions in which only the members of this or that gens or this or that household had part. But these sacra privata existed because they had been performed by the original founders and citizens of the Commonwealth, and they were guaranteed and protected by the power of the whole body, of which the several gentes and households were constituents.

In Athens, in Rome, in all the city-states of classical antiquity, there was a multitude of cults recognized, legalized, guaranteed, by the State. It must be remembered that the State itself was thought of as sacred, as divine. Such works of art as the túxn of Antioch, or the statue of Roma at Smyrna were not mere exuberance of artistic imagination. They were held to be visible, tangible, renderings of spiritual realities. They were, one might say, parables in marble. “The City of Antioch is as a queen enthroned by a river-side—" — "The Roman Republic is as a queen, mother and mistress of many rulers." We must not conceive of the relation of the ancient State to religion as being in the minds of its own members, at any rate-analogous to that of the modern State, for which no sacred character is claimed, which is indeed by many regarded as anything but sacred.

Now let us ask, how did this multitude of recognized cults existing in each city-republic originate? Each of these cults was a system of rites and ceremonies. It was an external rather than an internal affair, though to be sure there must often enough have been thoughtful worshippers who asked themselves whether the external cleaning of the hands, required of those who approached the altar, really availed much without inner purity of thought and desire. Still, in its inception, and-so far as the great mass of worshippers participating was concerned-all through its existence, a pagan cult was usually an affair of rites rather than of righteousness. Sanctity originated in taboo. The ceremonial code no doubt was added to from time to time, growing by accretion, not delivered

[ocr errors]
« AnkstesnisTęsti »