Canon Farrar had announced his subject as "Social Amelioration," and at the outset stated that he alone was responsible for the opinions he proposed to express in connection with General Booth's scheme. In a very masterly and eloquent way he pictured the social evils which disgrace our civilisation, the small and ineffectual efforts being put forth for their removal, and the terrible responsibility resting upon us as a nation to do our utmost to forward any scheme which appeared likely to effect an amelioration. He proceeded:—
Well, here was General Booth's scheme, which he had examined, and with which he had been deeply struck. He pitied the cold heart which could read and not be stirred by "Darkest England." In his best judgment he believed the scheme to be full of promise if the necessary funds were provided, and he merely regarded it as his humble duty to render the undertaking such aid as he could.
Had any such scheme been proposed by a member of the Church of England, he should have given it every support. He regarded the scheme as supplementing, not interfering with, the work of the Church, as preparing for, not hindering, the Church's work. The scheme, although no Christian scheme could be wholly dislinked from religion, was yet most prominently a social scheme; its origin was The Salvation Army, but it was intended to promote the work of the common Church.
Was the scheme to be thrown aside contemptuously at once on account of prejudice, because it emanated from The Salvation Army? If any thought so, he blamed them not, but he for one declared he could not share their views. He was, perhaps, more widely separated from some of the methods of the Salvation Army than many of his brethren, but the work of the Army had not been unblessed, and there was much that might be learned from an organisation which in so short a time had accomplished so great a work. He dwelt upon the nature of The Salvation Army's work, the officers who were exerting themselves in connection with it, the number of countries to which the organisation had spread. The Salvation Army in its work and extent had credentials which could not be denied. Were they to stand coldly, finically aside because they were too refined and nice, and full of culture to touch this work of The Salvation Army with the point of the finger? He took it that he should fail grievously in his duty if insult or self-interest caused him to hold aloof from any movement which Christ, if He had been on earth, would have approved.
Then Dr. Farrar quoted the late Bishop Lightfoot and the late Canon Liddon in favor of The Salvation Army as an organisation which had accomplished a deal of good work.
Next he asked, "How shall we receive General Booth's scheme now that it is here to our hands?" With some people the simplest way of treating any scheme for good was to leave it alone. To those who took that position with reference to General Booth's scheme he had nothing whatever to say. There was no need for saying anything either to the other class of people who would talk about a scheme, and having talked about it drop the matter and think no more about it.
Another way in which General Booth's scheme might be received was that of examining it, and if convinced against it of rejecting it. That, at all events, was a perfectly manly course; a clear and decided method of reception which there can be no mistaking. To those included in this class, those who would regard the scheme as migratory or pernicious, there was nothing to be said. But what about those who did not mean to help in this or any other scheme, those who left others the burden of the work, the opportunists who would want to step in when the breach had been made? Here, no doubt, there would be such a class, but the last way of receiving General Booth's scheme, and the way in which as he trusted it would be received, was to support it by their influence, and to give to it of their means. It was an immense and far-reaching scheme, which, might bring help and hope to thousands of the helpless and hopeless, made helpless and hopeless by the terrible conditions of society, but for every one of whom Christ died.
To begin the scheme in earnest would require a sum of £100,000, but he asked, "What was that to the wealth of England—to the wealth of London?" It was a mere drop in the ocean compared to what was every year spent on drink and wasted in extravagance. There were a hundred men in England who might immortalise themselves by giving this sum, and yet not have a luxury the less. He left the response to General Booth's appeal with the public, but would it not, he asked, be a desperate shame for England if any scheme giving so hopeful a promise of social amelioration should fail without a trial, and like a broken promise, be lost in air?
But to this observation somebody might reply in the form of a queried objection, "The scheme might fail." Yes, it might fail; anything might fail. But if to die amid disloyalty and hatred meant failure, then St. Paul failed. If to die in the storm meant failure, then Luther and Wesley and Whitfield failed; if to die at the stake by the flames meant failure, did not martyrs fail; Finally, if to die on the cross, with the priests and the soldiers spitting out hatred, meant failure, then Jesus Christ failed. Yes, the scheme might fail; but was all this failure? Were there none among them bold enough to look beyond the possibility of failure? Could they not somehow get round the word? Fear and jealousy and suspicion and intolerance and despair were counsellors finding multitudes to listen, but he for one would listen to the nobler counsellor "Hope." Were none of them bold enough at the last moment to prefer even failure in a matter like this to the most brilliant success in pleasing the world and making truce with the devil? He would try to hope that the scheme might not fail, but what each one had to consider was the question, "Shall it fail through my cowardice, my greed, my supineness, my prudential cautiousness, my petty prejudices, my selfish conventionality?"
"If, on examining this plan in the light of conscience, we see in it an augury for the removal of the deadly evils which lie at the heart of our civilisation, it seems to me we are bound to do our utmost to help it forward. 'But,' you say, 'if we conscientiously disapprove of it?' Then we are in duty bound to propose or to forward