Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

THE CHURCH, THE PARSON, AND THE PEOPLE.

THERE lived, a long while ago, a rich and very well-disposed person, who gave away a great deal of money to poor people, and benefited them also much in other ways. Time went on, and this good man died; but he took care that the poor should not be forgotten after his death. He ordered, in his will, that a number of nice houses should be built for an equal number of poor men to live in ; and as they died off, their places were to be supplied by others; so that none of these houses might remain unoccupied. To support these persons, and to keep their houses in good repair, he settled a piece of land on each house; and moreover required all his farmers and his tenants, of which he had a great many, to pay every year a sum of money, in proportion to their property; and that they might || not grumble, he let them have their farms and houses at a lower rate, in consideration of what they had to pay to the poor men and their houses. All went on well enough at first-indeed, for a long while after some generations of the farmers and tenants died. The poor men received their pay regularly every year: and their houses were kept neat and tidy, and in good preservation. But the property of this worthy rich man, which at first had been all in the hands of one person, passed at last into the hands of many. The farms and houses were sold: but mark! those who bought them, got them at a less price than they would have done, if they had not had to pay so much upon them every year to these poor men. They knew this well enough; they knew it was right and just.

After a while, however, they began to murmur; they said it was a hard case, that they should have to support these poor men: what good did the poor men do them? So, notwithstanding they had got their property cheaper than they otherwise would have got it, if they had not been required to maintain these persons, they determined not to pay them a farthing any more. Was not this very dishonest?

Of course the poor men felt this unchristian conduct most keenly. They were sadly put about to live; and their houses got into a very bad state. They applied to these persons from whom they had a right to look for support; they civilly reminded them of their duty: but, no-not one halfpenny would they give them. This was too bad; these poor men did not like to go to law, but at last necessity obliged them; and the magistrate took their part: he gave them redress, and forced

[ocr errors]

the obstinate people to pay what they owed them. Then did these evil-disposed persons hate the poor men-and for what? Merely because they were compelled, by their dishonesty, to maintain their rights. They called them all the ill names they that was bad. But who were the robbers? Not the could lay their tongues to,-robbers, and every thing poor men, surely. No: they were the robbers, who bought their property cheaper because they knew they had to support them, and yet would not.

Now I have told you a story, let me explain it. The rich man, who is mentioned in it as being so charitable, represents the great person in former days, many hundreds of years ago, to whom belonged all the property, land, &c. for miles and miles round. Those persons who lived upon this property were not freeholders, or copyholders; but his servants. At the time of which I am speaking, there was no such thing as freehold or copyhold property. All were the servants of the great man on whose estate they lived. Well, this great man was a Christian; and he saw it was necessary, for the comfort and happiness of these people, that they should have the means of grace among them. And what did he do? Why he built churches on his property, for his people to worship their God in; and these are the houses mentioned in the story. But more than this: he sent to the bishop, and got clergymen for each of these churches, that his sick people might not go out of the world without a priest to attend them on their death-beds, and in their times of distress and affliction. Now these are the poor men whom the story speaks of. Moreover, he tells his people, "Behold, I build your churches-I give you clergymen to dwell among you; but, remember, I shall expect you to pay something towards the maintenance of your ministers, and the keeping up of your churches. You shall pay, therefore, for these purposes, every year a sum in proportion to the property you have under me. I will make all due abatements. Of course, you shall hold your farms and houses at a lower rate, because I require you to make this acknowledgment. Tithes, then, to the clergy, and church-rates to keep up the building of the church as occasion requires, I charge you, and those who follow you, to pay." Could any thing be fairer, or more reasonable?

Now this is really the manner in which churches were built, and the ministers of God settled among us, at the first.

But as time rolled on, the estates of this great man fell to the lot of others, and became divided amongst many. But, bear in mind, whenever they were sold, they were sold subject to the taxes before upon them; and they who bought them paid less for them on that account. This, however, was forgotten. Men found it convenient to forget it; and many dishonest folks refused to pay either tithes or church-rates at all. Was this right? Was it acting like Christians? No.

The clergy found themselves very uncomfortably situated; they lost a great deal of their property every year, being unwilling to go to law; and many churches were in a sad state, because the people would not repair them. They found, however, at last, that go to law they must, or starve; for if people would not pay them, what could those expect who should come after them?

Well, to law they went; and for what? To op

press their brethren? No; but to get their dues, their rights: and, because they were compelled to do this, wicked people called them all the hard and disgraceful names they could think of and invent. Will you call this Christian or honourable conduct? Is it doing to others as people would have others do to them? I trow not.

You see, then, that the clergy and the Church have a right-a right which the law of the land acknowledges and maintains-to the support of the people of the parish in which they are settled. If you refuse to pay them what is their due, you might just as well refuse to pay your house or garden or field rent to your landlord.

to you at Christmas, and coals to warm you when you can get no fuel? Who but the Church-people and the parson, whom you think so little of? If you still persist in saying that you derive no benefit from the Church and the clergy, I pity your obstinacy: you are just like a man who shuts his eyes when the sun is shining, and says he can't see itbecause he won't see it.

Besides all this, the bare circumstance of a clergyman living amongst you is no trifling advantage. He does not spend his money abroad, in France, or Italy, or elsewhere, like many of your country gentlemen, but he spends it chiefly in the parish. The gardener, the grocer, the butcher, the shoemaker, the tailor, the blacksmith, the stonemason, the carpenter,—all get his custom: because where he can, he thinks it right to encourage his own people. Then, again, he looks after your children's education, trains them up under his own eye, and is always at his post, and his constant residence in the parish tends to check vice, to promote peace and order, and to overawe those whom perhaps a person in any other station would find it difficult to restrain. If these facts are considered for a moment, you will no longer deny that all of you are benefited by the Church and the clergyman being established in the midst of you.

I fancy you will say now, you had no idea that matters stood thus: you had always been taught to think it wrong that clergymen should claim from their people tithes, &c.; but you certainly see they have a right to them: at the same time, are they not rich enough to do without them? Rich enough! Do you know what you are talking about? There are some rich livings, to be sure-but very few compared with the poor ones; and there are about 15,000 clergy: now if you divide equally the livings and bishoprics amongst all these, what would each clergyman get? Why not more than 1907. a year! There are in all 10,719 benefices (call them With much greater reason, therefore, might I relivings, if you please), and 4,882, or nearly half, do fuse to pay county-rates, out of which bridges are not come up to 1991. each! Nay, there are 1,629 built which I shall never cross; or poor-rates to livings which are under 1007. each; while there are 235 support the aged and infirm, who cannot work for, which are less than 50%.; besides many others which or, as far as I know, benefit me, than you refuse to are below 30%, 20%., and even 107. Add to this, that pay your tithes, and your rates towards maintaining the average amount of every stipendiary curate is the clergy and the Church.-What is a public blessonly 811. a year.1 So much for the clergy being rich || ing is likewise a private good. enough. But some people will tell you, that it is a hard case they should be forced to support those from whom they derive no benefit. They never go to church-they want no parsons; then why have they to pay towards their maintenance? I might answer this objection by merely reminding you of what I have proved before; that the clergy and the Church have a right—a right which the law of the land confirms-to the support of the people. But I will meet the objection in another way. you mean to say you derive no benefit from either Church or parson, because you care for neither the one nor the other? Have you never been laid upon a sick-bed? Who visited you? The parson. When death entered your dwelling, and took away your wife, your child, your brother, or your sister, who was the first to come to comfort you? The parson. When in distress, and low in purse, who gave you a shilling or two to help you on? The parson. When recovering from illness, you wanted strength-nated ening and wholesome food; who sent you meat and wine from his own table? The parson. And when your doctor's bill stared you in the face, who helped you to pay it? Why this poor despised parson, with his mighty riches of 1901. a year, and from whom you derive no benefit!! Again; let me ask you who built your hospitals, your almshouses, your asylums? Why Church-people-and often the parsons themselves. Who left you Dole-money, to be given

Do

1 The whole net annual income of the English Church amounts to 3,490,4977., which was given to the Churchnot by the state, but by private Christians-centuries ago. The sum expended upon the army and navy in 1839 was more than fifteen millions!

2 It is well known that we owe our most ancient and munificent charitable institutions in the metropolis to the

And now let me inquire what, after all, is this mighty sum you find it so hard a case to pay? To the Church it is usually so trifling, that it is hardly worth mentioning; and to the parson, what is it? Why, to most of you, not fourteen-pence a year!-a counsel of Bishop Ridley. This greatest of our reformers, when preaching before Edward VI., in his last sickness, dwelt on one occasion upon the necessity of almsgiving. So struck was the young monarch with the force of the bishop's argument, that he signified to him his wish to put his advice into practice in any way Ridley might suggest. The bishop very properly answered, that the poor in London should be the first objects of his majesty's munificence; and after consulting with the lord mayor and the other civic functionaries, proposed a plan in which the poor to be relieved were ranged under three divisions-the poor by impotency, by casualty, or by extravagance. These were subdivided; and Christ's Hospital, St. Thomas's, St. Bartholomew's, and Bridewell, were provided for the different descriptions of the poor and needy. The whole account is given in Collier, ii. p. 339. Most other charitable institutions will be found to have origiwith, and to be chiefly supported by, Churchmen, especially the clergy.

Poor-rates for 1839 amounted to 4,729,000l.; and previous to 1834, it sometimes amounted to nearly ten millions! The amount received for church-rates during 1839, was 506,8127., i. e. about half a million!

4 Dissenters, in particular, object to pay tithes and church-rates, on the plea that they derive no benefit from the Church. With much greater reason might Churchmen object to what is given by Government annually, out of the taxes, to which Churchmen contribute, to the support of Dissenting ministers. For more than 100 years has this grant been made.-At first it was applied to the support of the poor widows of Dissenting ministers; it is now restricted to the maintenance of Dissenting ministers only. The whole of the parliamentary grant made to Dissenters during the last year amounted to 11,3241. 13s. 9d.! If, therefore, Dissenters object to paying towards the support of the Church, much more might Church-people object to pay to the support of Dissenters; from whom, as such, they certainly derive no benefit.

farthing a week!-a sum which actually does not deprive the poor man of more than one whiff of tobacco in a day! If this be cause for complaint, I wish you may never have greater. Look what a man spends on his own family! His daughters must have smart gowns, gay bonnets, and ribbons, and flowers. Does he grumble at having to pay for these? No. And why? Because they gratify his own pride. And yet these cost him 20, nay 30, times more than he ever has to pay the parson or the Church!

Enough, I hope, has been said to shew you how manifestly unjust it is for any one to withhold from the Church and clergy what those who first built our churches gave them for their maintenance. It does not at all weaken their right to this, because the property which has to pay towards their support has changed hands.

If I rent a house or a field of a man's father, and he dies, why I must of course pay the rent to the son who is his heir. So, if I come to property which pays tithes, I take it knowing that it has to pay them that it was so from the very first; and I should be just as dishonest if I refused to pay tithes, as I should be, if I would not pay my rent to my landlord's heir.

-

There are some people who have felt the force of this argument; and they have said, therefore, "Oh! but tithes are wrong in principle; and for this reason we object to pay for them." Wrong in principle! What do you mean? Were not tithes paid by the Israelites to God's ancient Church? Did not God himself command this? (see Exodus xviii. 24, 26.) Then they cannot be wrong in principle; for what is really right at one time cannot be really wrong at another. You cannot make white black. Again; did not St. Paul tell us to render unto all, Church and clergy, as well as people, their dues: "tribute to whom tribute, custom to whom custom." Did not our Saviour once work a miracle to pay a churchrate? (See Matthew xvii. 24, 27.5) Then, I say again, neither tithes nor church-rates can be wrong in principle. And, depend upon it, tithes and churchrates, whatever some people may say, are highly important to the effectual maintenance of religion amongst us. Were it not for these, many a church would fall to ruin, and many a parish be without a clergyman. It is not likely a man would stay where he could only starve. Such would be the case in poor parishes; and how would it be in rich ones? Why, the clergyman would have to preach so as to please the great folks; if not, they would take the bread out of his mouth.

The truth of these observations is plainly shewn in the case of dissenting preachers. They seldom stop long in a place. Why? Because the congregation gets tired of them, and turns them adrift. Happily, the clergy of the Church are not left to the caprices of their flocks. The good and pious great men of olden time, as I have already shewn you, secured them from such a misfortune, by requiring all their tenants who lived on their property to pay, in proportion to their means, to the support of the

5 It is admitted by all commentators on the Scripture, of any authority at all, Doddridge and Matthew Henry (Dis.. senters) among the rest, that the "tribute" mentioned Matthew xvii. 24, was a tax paid by every Jew of twenty years of age to the Jewish Temple. It was therefore a church-rate, which our Saviour was so far from objecting to pay, that he worked a miracle to pay it,

Church and clergyman. Of course, those who followed these tenants were bound in the same manner, and so on up to the present time.

The conclusion of the whole matter is plain and evident. No honest man will resist the payment of what is so clearly due to the parson and the Church. Much less will a conscientious Christian. I have only to hope that, when all which is here laid before you is taken into consideration, there will be no occasion for the law of the land to enforce the claims and the rights of the Church. It is painful to resort to it; but in some cases there is no alternative. The clergyman has to act for those who are to follom him, as much as for himself. Remember, then," He that is unjust in the least, is (in the sight of God) unjust also in much." (Luke xvi. 10.) And, "if ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?" (Luke xvi. 2.) That is, can you expect an eternal reward hereafter, if here you keep back from any one, whatsoever you know to be his due, when it is in your power to pay it? No. The apostle speaks plain. "Owe no man any thing;" and "Render unto all their dues." (Romans xviii. 7, 8.)

A GENERAL VIEW OF THE HISTORY AND CHARACTER OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH.

No. II.

IN the former paper on this subject we briefly touched on the first foundation of the Christian

Church, and the struggle through which it had to pass before it arrived at the position in which the Emperor Constantine found it. He found it assailed not by argument alone, or even chiefly, but by the most barbarous and iniquitous persecution. A fact which suggested the severe taunt of one of the greatest of the fathers, and himself afterwards a martyr. "Christianity," says St. Cyprian, in his letter to Demetrian, "either is or is not a crime.

If it be a crime, why do you not at once execute him who confesses his guilt? If it be not a crime, why do you persecute the innocent? Again; allowing it to be a crime, those who are implicated in it, but obstinately withhold a confession of their guilt, would be the proper objects of torture: but we confess, we proclaim our adherence to the Christian cause, and our contempt of your gods. Why, then, are we tortured, as if we concealed our guilt? Why this attempt upon the infirmity of our bodies, upon the weakness of what is but earthly in us? Rather enter the lists with our minds, try the strength of our reason, see if you can subvert our faith with argument, and, if you must conquer, conquer by an appeal to reason.'

[ocr errors]

The kinds of persecution mentioned at the close of the last paper are all such as issued in martyrdom in the strictest sense ;-death, as the heathen called it; a better birth into a better life, as the

1 See the Life and Times of St. Cyprian, page 218. 2 Hence the festivals kept in remembrance of their martyrs were called their natalition, or birthday, and were al

||

Christians themselves accounted it. But there were other less extreme but scarcely less terrible, and far more vexatious, methods of persecution which the heathen employed. They condemned their victims to the mines, or to prisons in close confinement, with spare and unwholesome food; and they banished them to the most remote and the most desolate places. But these things were all equally ineffectual to break the spirit which still reigned triumphant in the Church; nay, they all tended most effectually to advance the interests of Christianity. Not only did they all agree in the general advantage of uniting Christians among themselves, of testing their virtues, and maintaining their internal discipline; but they also exemplified another principle, which soon passed into an adage, that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church; for though in a literal sense that proverb could be applied only to the cases in which actual death was suffered by Christians, yet its general truth was of far greater extent. All who had suffered at all, whether to the death or otherwise, became incalculable benefactors to the Church. If they died, it was in a manner which marked the favour of God peculiarly as their own, and they ascended, as it were in the fiery chariot of Elijah, to a crown of glory; and the fires which burned around their stake lit up the heavenly flame of faith in the heart of many a witness. If they laboured in the mines,|| or starved in the prisons, or if they gave their limbs to be torn with hot instruments, or to be stretched upon a wheel, or to be broken with || clubs; all these things were but proofs and confirmations of their faith, and increased the courage and the fortitude which they exercised; and nothing gave to them so much power as preachers of Christ afterwards, as the sufferings which they themselves had endured for the faith. If they were scattered abroad into distant lands, they brought them near to Christ by their preaching; and if among the most fierce and hopeless idolators or criminals, they humanised them and taught them virtue and true religion. Thus Dionysius of Alexandria, || (he who is distinguished as the Great from three of the same name-one of Corinth, another of Rome, and another of Athens,) Dionysius the Great says of himself, that when he was banished to Cephro, it|| was a place of which the very name was unknown to him, so desolate was it and so remote; and when he went thither, the savageness of the inhabitants was not content with incivility and scorn, but he was subjected even to violence, and was pelted with stones, as he pursued his unobtrusive way: but soon he won over even this barbarous peoways of a joyful character, as they still remain, indeed, in our own Church. The remembrance of a departed saint is a matter, not of sorrow, but of joy; of jubilee, and not of fasting and mortification.

ple to the faith and to the virtues of the Christian religion. He had just succeeded in this when he was again banished to a still more hopeless spot, to a place called Coluthion, infamous as a den of robbers; and here also he was made the means of a blessing to the people among whom he was sent as to exile-as if any thing could be exile to him when he had the presence of God with him,-and where the event proved that he was sent by a merciful dispensation of God's providence. I have thus endeavoured to present a very rapid sketch of the fortunes (as it may be called) of the Christian Church; of its growth from a few men, through difficulties of all kinds and actual persecutions, till in about two centuries it had found its way throughout the known world, and in less than three centuries it had established itself so as to become almost or quite a majority of the population.

The fortunes of the Church may be the most interesting, its character is the most important; and to this we will now proceed.

It is quite obvious that in almost all the things which we have taken occasion to mention, the Church of Christ was in very different circumstances until the time of its recognition by the emperor, and after that event. It was no more after that subject to persecution, or at least not as a general rule; and it might rather exercise towards the heathen that forbearance which they had themselves refused. Its limits scarce required to be extended-not, at least, into any parts of which history speaks, and of which, therefore, we could give or impart any knowledge; for I have told you that it was already co-extensive with the Roman arms, and the Latin and Greek tongues: for the same reason there was seldom occasion for the erection of new bishoprics; although those which at present existed. so far increased in importance and population, that some of them consisted of many hundred congregations;-that, for instance, of Cyrus, in which Theodoret was long the bishop over 600 parishes. The Church, too, was then so totally unconnected in every respect with the State, that none of those complicated questions of patronage, or of distribution of rights, or the like, could ever occur; and we are able, so far as we see clearly at all, to see the Church at that time unobscured by any other body, untainted by any mixture of separate or conflicting laws or interests.

That we are able to take such a view of the Church at that time makes it very interesting to go back in imagination to the days of the Antenicene fathers, to drink deeply of their theology, and of their principles of Church discipline and order. In such a view there are many objects which invite more than a cursory attention: we have not now time to touch on many of them, and the difficulty is to choose between so interesting subjects. Let us, however, consider in

some respects the most important,-the unity of the primitive Church.

With respect to this characteristic of the Church, it is plain that nothing was more greatly in the contemplation of the divine Head of the body, or of his inspired apostles; that it has its place even in the types and shadows of the law, and in the predictions and songs of the prophets; and that it was carried out with the greatest anxiety by the early Christians as an important practical principle. It is to the latter, the degree and the manner in which it was embodied in the practices of the early Church, that I would now more especially advert, after having lightly touched upon the others.

[ocr errors]

That it was seen by the Christians of the first ages among the types, and prophecies, and songs of the Old Testament is, then, beyond dispute; and why we should deny the same interpretation to these sacred oracles which they gave, I cannot conceive.

although, therefore, he was sufficient for a type of unity; yet he was not, nor could any individual be sufficient for, an instrument of unity: for this purpose it was necessary that some one principle, or body of men, or rule of conduct, or sign of fellowship, or something or other, should be found in all places which professed the name of Christ. This, then, the ancient Church believed was effected by the giving to the apostles, and after them to the bishops scattered over the whole world, an equal, and concurrent, and similar power and authority. St. Peter, according to this primitive way of reasoning, was an instrument of unity, together with the rest of the apostles, and equally with them, as he must be to be an instrument at all, though as a type of unity single and alone, which he must be to be a type of such a principle. It is plain that this ancient judgment is quite opposite to the papal claims.

The episcopate, then, was one and equal throughout the whole world. The greatest personal superiority, the mightiest advantages of piety or influence, the extent of his diocese, or the importance of his see, did not make any one bishop, as a

The one ark which held all those who were saved in the deluge; the songs of David, and the express language of Solomon's Song, "He is the only son of his mother, the choice one of her that bare him," are expressly made to allude to the unity of the Church; as also the figure which is car-bishop, superior to any other; but all were of the ried so largely into the New Testament, by which the Church is called the Bride, the Spouse of the Lamb of God, which surely can be but one. The prayer of Jesus Christ, "that they, Father, may be one," will occur to every Christian reader, as marking the anxiety of the Saviour on this head; and unity which was thus supplicated was in many ways indirectly indicated,-as, by the body of Christ, like that of the paschal lamb before, having no bone broken, by the coat of Christ not rent, and the like; while the continued exhortations of the apostles, -as, for instance, through the whole of the epistle to the Ephesians,-leaves us no evidence to seek on the head of their wishes and principles.

Another circumstance which, whether truly or not, was taken by the primitive Church as an indication of the will of Christ, leads us immediately to the practice of the Christians then and until

now.

It was thought that St. Peter was, in some respects and in some instances, a type or figure of the Church; that one person was chosen to that end rather than many, that unity might be exemplified. It was on this account that St. Peter was sometimes addressed by the Lord more particularly, and that he was often the first or the only one to answer; so that to him personally seemed to be addressed many of the blessings and the like, which none can deny are applicable to all—that is, to the whole Church.' But St. Peter could not remain always in the Church on earth, nor could he be present in many places at the same time:

1 See this subject discussed in the Life and Times of St. Cyprian.

same body, and of one value and force. This was, as it were, the blood that circulated in the veins of the Church; and as in the body, the same blood was in all the members. The arteries distinguish not between the blood that flows to the brain, and that which warms and enlivens the farthest extremities, or the most inert part of the frame; and so the episcopate flowed equally and without distinction of rank or office over the whole body.

It is easily seen how the episcopate came to be an instrument or means of union to that body. In the first place, that there was in any place a Christian bishop, marked out that place as a part of the Church by a visible and tangible sign,—it was a point of resemblance, and of oneness in principle and discipline between London, and Rome, and Jerusalem, and any or every other place, however obscure, in which the same episcopate was found. But more than this: the bishops were the persons who maintained, as a part of their duty, the oneness of discipline and of doctrine in all their churches. They appointed and consecrated other bishops to new or to vacant sees; thus, as it were, extending their own body, as need should serve. They examined first of all into the life and doctrine of the new fellow of their apostolic order, that he might certainly be the same, not only in office or in name, but in character and in doctrine. The newly elected bishop immediately wrote to those around him, and even to very remote parts of the globe, letters of communion, declaring his election, his faith, the desire of fellowship with his brethren in the episcopate; and these were as promptly

« PreviousContinue »