Page:The Newspaper and the Historian.djvu/151

 ch, 1919.

something more artistic and less morally pernicious. The clergy man to -day receives regularly his Sunday morning paper and

mass meetings protesting against the comic Sunday section of the press have had their effect.24 Yet this friendly relationship between the press and the Church may constitute a serious obstacle in the path of the historian .25 The press, because of this very friendliness, may hesitate to

attack a powerful denomination in any community, even though

its secular acts may justly expose it to unfavorable criticism ; it is unwilling to question the wisdom of themethods used by the Church in raising money, and thus fishponds, grab-bags, raffles, prizes, and lotteries under various other names all pass un noticed by the press, although condemned in other organizations ;

it does not report small audiences, or dull sermons, or execrable music, - in its columns all Sunday audiences are large and

appreciative, all sermons are eloquent or timely, all church music is beautiful and harmonious. In general, this over- generous

attitude towards the Church matters little, - it is understood and discounted, but in large and vital questions it must lead the

historian astray, unless he supplements the records of the press by sources found elsewhere. Where the Church is intimately connected with the State, a

somewhat different relationship between the press and the Church is found, and therefore somewhat different conditions are

presented to the historian. “ The Church and the Press have much to say about each other; but they are not upon speaking terms,” wrote an Englishman in 1893.26 “ There is between the two an air of suspicion and stand offishness," — the mechanical relations are on a satisfactory footing, but beneath the surface a real cleavage is apparent. While it is recognized that the press 24 New York Evening Post, March 30, 1911. 25 The increased attention given the pulpit and its work by the press

has been deprecated in the interests of the Church itself; it “ is interesting as a tacit recognition that the pulpit is a force, and a force of very different

kind from that which is suggested by the correspondence on the decay of

preaching. . . . But there are dangers lurking in it, especially to the preacher himself.” — J. G. Rogers, “ The Pulpit and the Press,” The Ancient Faith in Modern Light, pp. 353 - 391.

26 J. T. Bunce, “ Church and Press,” National Review , November, 1893, 22: 387 – 393.