« 이전계속 »
ting and secularinciple of now on the compte
spoliation, would defeat itself, and would produce confusion far greater than any which even at present exists.
Let it not, however, be supposed that we resist all interference with ecclesiastical income. On the contrary, we feel assured that the principle of non-interference is the great spoliating and secularizing agency of the present day: it is this which robs the Church of her available and working income, far more than any threatened invasion of her rights on the part of the State. The gradual lapsing of Church property into private property, resulting from the unrestrained traffic in livings pow going on, is the great danger which we have now to apprehend; and this simoniacal dealing can only be the result of entire confidence in the money market, that vested interests in Church property are secure. Once shake this confidence- deal with the Church's property as it were bona fide, meant for the good of the Church, and not for the enrichment of individuals-show an intention of making such new arrangements as local circumstances pointed out to be advisable- and we shall not hear so much of those discreditable advertisements which exalt the comforts and degrade the office of a parish priest, in order to raise the market price of advowsons or next presentations.
Our object in all we have said has been to claim justice for the Church's property as such; and surely it is an essential addition to our remarks, that we should claim also greater elasticity in the application of that property to the real work of the Church. The open sale of livings as now conducted, should raise a blush in all who respect the spiritual claims of our Church. The whole system of work or discipline is cramped by the cold and rigid demands of pecuniary vested interests; and the religious uses of Church property, beyond a literal fulfilment of a few stated duties, are made to appear almost chimerical, if demanded by ecclesiastical authority. There is, then, a degree of security enjoyed by many individual holders of Church property, which is prejudicial to the interests of religion, and which amounts to secularization; but this is no argument for not protesting against unfair burdens on the Clergy generally. The Church ought to protect her property, not as belonging to individuals, but as being devoted to the best interests of religion, according to the varying claims and necessities of each generation of her children. It is preeminently for the interest of lay members that this true ideal should be maintained, for otherwise the pastor's office will degenerate in the active discharge of its work.
We observe then, on the one hand, a want of elasticity in the internal management of Church property, and we also observe a tendency from external sources to oppress individual clergymen by unjust burdens; but a doubt occurs whether the latter evil can ever be remembered, till the public see that the former is also made the earnest subject of reform. It is this evil which is always thrown in the teeth of those whose work it is to solicit voluntary aid for the various objects and missions of the Church; it is this, in short, which both stimulates the unjust burdens we have been speaking of, and prohibits any fresh contributions, on a large scale, to relieve the distress of those clergy whọ unfortunately are not in possession of what are called the prizes of the Church, but who have drawn, in the lottery of life, what may very justly in many cases be called blanks in all that concerns the hire of a spiritual labourer in Christ's vineyard.
The great poverty which exists among very many of our Clergy is now universally acknowledged. Let, then, some bold and generous attempts be made to alleviate the burdens we complain of; let also such a hearty effort be shown, on the part of the heads of the Church, now allowed their right of synodal deliberation, to reformi many existing abuses, as may lead the way to a better understanding between our rich laymen and the necessities of the National Church. In the sermon of the Bishop of Salisbury on the fast-day, there are a few remarks on this general subject, which we have reserved for the conclusion of our article, drawing particular attention to their final admonition:
• They who thus worship and fall down before wealth, often indulge themselves with the most lavish prodigality in everything which can pamper the lust of the flesh, the last of the eye, and the pride of life; and yet this same generation is better skilled in exercising a far stricter economy than their poorer fathers did, in everything which concerns the external circumstances of the Church, and the administration of any of her endowments. All justice, economy, and the reform of abuses, are most praiseworthy; but the coincidence I have mentioned is strange.'
Having now stated our case, we ask Mr. Heyworth and all who think with him, whether the endowments of the Church ought to be subjected to succession duty, in addition to the aggregate of unjust claims already enforced upon her property? The Clergy gave up to Parliament their original right of taxing themselves in their own Convocation. They did this with great generosity, throwing themselves for ever on the protection of the country, in order to facilitate public business; and now they have an undoubted claim for gentle treatment in all legislation that affects her interests. By this we do not mean that they must expect peculiar privileges,—the time for those is gone by; but that common justice may be shown towards them, and that in any fresh legislative acts, some reparation of their wrongs should be effected, and their fiscal burdens placed on a footing of equality with those that effect other species of property. A calm and
temperate deliberation of these subjects, in ruridiaconal and diocesan synods, might, in some measure, help both to expose what is unjust, and to provide also the remedy. We commend the topic to their notice, and hope for some practical results.
We have spoken above of the expenses of episcopal and archidiaconal visitations as an especial burden on the Clergy. It may be objected that these charges are defrayed by the parish. Such, however, is not the case where there are no Church-rates; and the incumbents of all district parishes are forced to pay, not only their own expenses of synodals, but the bills which are presented by apparitors and other officials to the churchwardens. In these places the churchwardens are entirely without any other funds than what they subtract from the clergyman's income. We cannot believe that the Bishops are aware of the extent of these payments incidental to the ordinary visitations. We have before us the accounts paid by the churchwardens of a district church at an ordinary visitation. Here is a specimen for the year 1846:
£ 8. d. Presentment fees...
: . . :
. . . . 1 4
.. 0 2 6
Indian victories in 1846 . . . .
the Lord Bishop of - . . . . . . . , 0 1 0
of the Lord Bishop of — . . . . . . . 0 5 0 For Proclamation and Form of Prayer for relief
from dearth and scarcity, &c. . . . . . , 0 2 6
Wardenone wistent of We than we church other nodala, hes are
for Queen's safe delivers joie.
And similar, but smaller, payments are made annually at the Archdeacon's visitation. Now, we can hardly see why the incumbent of a poor Peel district has to pay six shillings a year to an apparitor, because very properly the Bishop holds annual Confirmations; nor, again, is it quite consistent with justice, that the parish priest has to pay to this apparitor half-a-crown for a single form of prayer, which can be bought at three shillings a hundred at the Queen's printers.
• Allority of a ses of those sorbed in that have heory of Put the purpes who are aand actioniosophical til
Art. III.-The Divine Drama of History and Civilization. By the Rer. James Smith, M. A. London: Chapman & Hall, 193,
Piccadilly. 8vo. All the world's a stage,' is a saying which carries with it the authority of a great and philosophic poet. True it is, no doubt; for the purposes of those who want a stage to look at,-true against those who are absorbed in the imaginary reality of objects that pass away, and actions that have no end beyond them. But is it the true and philosophical theory of human action? Is it the law of our being, that while we long for truth and reality, we must inevitably be either preoccupied with false images of what we desire, or awake to the impossibility of ever having that craving of our nature satisfied? The question is one of moment, and must be faced in these days by all who claim to unite philosophy with religious belief. Not that every one must really and personally doubt on such a point, before he can rationally and philosophically believe; but that every one who wishes to live amongst the philosophy of this age, must contemplate the position of doubt, and understand it as the position of some other mind, though it be but as we enter into a pupil's misconception of a mathematical statement, while we apprehend it clearly ourselves, and perceive the nullity of his objection to a true result. The whole theory of indifferentism in religion, antidenominationalism or secularism in education, and Erastianism in politics, is based upon the notion that all positive religion is a dreain, the mere embodiment of a sentiment, and that the true human life is the aggregate of sensations, and not any real action relative to that Unseen Power in which all religionists believe, and toward which they direct their highest aspirations, and their strongest efforts of will. These all, according to certain philosophers who have a large practical following, are merely formal exhibitions of a sentiment, without any real bearing upon a revealed system of divine government, or order of human society. The truth is something entirely within and beyond them, and does not exist in any positive and visible form given to convey it. The outward forms which in some degree embody it, are still only the projections of it in individual minds, worked out with details entirely their own, and none of thém possessing any divine authority, while all have a sort of divine origin.
Something like this is the view taken by the author of the *Divine Drama of History and Civilization;' yet, in tracing that
the heated to the certain bave beelopment place?
drama according to the laws of drama, he has observed much that is like truth, and much that is so near the truth, as to raise the question in a reader's mind, Why could he not acknowledge the truth, instead of putting a shadow or a picture in its place? He has attempted a general sketch of the development of humanity, and in that development he must have been blind indeed if he had not seen the operation of certain causes. The question is, whether he has assigned to those causes their true characteristics, or whether he has wilfully ignored an element not only important but essential to their operation, that of a divine foundation of authority. A question it cannot be with serious believers. They will see in his pages the weakness of a false theory contending with strong facts, while those facts stand forth in contrast to the shadowy representation that is attempted. Yet that theory, false as it is in its foundation, is true in its outward bearings, and powerful as the hosts of Sennacherib against the gods of the nations. It fails only when it comes to beleaguer the One City, where there is a God such as it has not known, and a kingdom, a prophecy, and a priesthood of no earthly origin, though the people seem but few in number, and their very religion unaccountable.
He accounts for the imperfections of all systems by what he calls · Divine Gradation,' which appears to be something like what Pope asserts in his . Essay on Man,' only extended to the several states of man with respect to religion, morality, and intellectual life.
"Of systems possible, if 'tis confest,
There must be, somewhere, such a rank as man.' And he considers every great movement among mankind as arising from a divine impulse, enforcing such truth as could be understood under the circumstances of those on whom it wrought, and contributing its part to a general education of mankind, through a series of manifestations. In none, however, does he allow any really absolute authority or absolute truth; all is relative, provisional, partial, and subjective. The absolute in every system is merely what is held to be absolute, or what is made absolute by the temporary conditions of divine operation, not what is revealed as absolute by an authority whose every act and word is truth. Accordingly, in each principal system, there is the rock and the sand,'—a supposed absolute element of fixed law, dogma, or principle, and an unsettled, dividing, shifting element of opinion and practice; and there is always