Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

seems not improbable that a search for Pinamonti's other works (as he lived contemporarily with the production of this treatise) might lead to a detection of the fraud. That a fraud was intended on the memory of Jeremy Taylor seems beyond question. Yours faithfully, E. C.

P.S. Since I sent you the first draft of this letter, which seems to have been mislaid, your correspondent "," September, p. 302, has supplied me with a fuller correction of my mistake under my second head; for which I beg him to accept my thanks. Narsingapatam, near Cuttack, in the Deccan, is probably the capital of the prince before mentioned. I find the king of Narsinga mentioned as a tributary to the Mogul emperor in the middle of the seventeenth century.

There is some mistake in your correspondent's quotation at the close of his letter. Francis Xavier died in the island Xan-Chong near Macao, Nov. 20, 1552: consequently, he could not be alive in 1640. The Portuguese viceroy, with whom he went out, was Martin Alonso de Sosa, the predecessor of Juan de Castro, who was the fourteenth, and not the fourth, as stated by your correspondent; and he arrived in India in 1542. It could scarcely have been much earlier, as the order of which Xavier was so distinguished a member was not established till 1540. The date of Juan de Castro's death should probably be 1546.

OMISSION OF THE PRAYER FOR "CHRIST'S CHURCH
MILITANT," &c.

SIR,-Remembering, in former numbers of the Magazine, some very just remarks on the unjustifiable irregularity of the clergyman changing the lessons, as appointed in the service of the church, I wish to bring under your notice, and that of your readers, another very objectionable practice, which I fear is even still more common. I mean, the entire omission of a very important part of the service. The first rubric at the end of the communion service enjoins as follows: "Upon Sundays and other holidays (if there be no communion) shall be said all that is appointed at the communion until the end of the general prayer, (for the whole state of Christ's church militant here in earth) together with one or more of these collects last rehearsed, concluding with the blessing." Upon what authority does the minister take upon himself (as is the practice in many churches) to neglect the direction of this rubric, and immediately after sermon, when there is no communion, proceed to the collect and blessing (which also ought to be said at the altar, not in the pulpit), and entirely omit the offertory, and the prayer for the church militant? In principle, this is precisely the same offence as changing the lessons. In practice, it is surely far more injurious, as it deprives the congregation of one of the most beautiful and comprehensive prayers perhaps ever composed. It leaves the service incomplete, and, which I must consider a very important point, it leaves the congregation to depart without being reminded, by

seeing the minister at the altar, that it is their own fault that he does not proceed with the remainder of the service, and the administration of the holy mysteries of the eucharist. I cannot but adopt your own words: "Such practice is extremely irregular, and it is a sad pity that wherever it occurs it is not stopped in the only way in which such wilful irregularities ever are stopped-by a complaint to the ordinary, with the names of the parties who will authenticate the complaint." I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

PRESBYTER.

TITHES.

SIR,-If I am not mistaken, your correspondent, "A Lover of Justice," has fallen into an error, by confounding the purchase of a living with the purchase of tithes; and therefore, from very excellent premises, has drawn an incorrect conclusion.

I believe that tithes come into the market exactly on the same footing as other landed property, and that a man who should buy the tithes of a parish would no more think of getting ten per cent. for his money than if he were to buy a farm in the parish. If the tithes were worth a thousand a year, and land was at thirty years' purchase, I conceive he would have to give 30,000l. for them.

Since the tithes are to bear the rate, and not the living,—that is, the property, and not the person-and certainly every species of property should be rated according to its full relative value with respect to other properties-it seems that tithes should be rated exactly as other landed property-viz., upon the interest of the money that would be required to purchase them; in other words, on the sum for which they would let; and this, I believe, is the principle of Mr. Shaw Lefevre's Bill.

I hope the clear and just view of this subject given by the Rev. Mr. Austen will convince many that this bill will not rate the tithes unfairly, and will shew the injustice and impolicy of desiring any lower scale of assessment. I am, Sir, your obedient humble servant, A CLERGYMAN AND TITHE-OWNER.

SALE OF CHURCH PROPERTY UNDER MUNICIPAL BILL.

SIR,-The regulation in the late Municipal Bill which enacts that all advowsons belonging to corporate bodies should be disposed of to the highest bidders, and the advertisements sent forth under its provisions, at this time particularly call the attention of the public to the sale of church property. As the subject is a very important one, and in no

* See Wheatly on the Common Prayer in loco.

small degree affects the character and prospects of our establishment, perhaps you will not object to its being brought forward in the pages of the British Magazine. The views which I have formed respecting it, and stated in the following observations, may very possibly prove to be erroneous; but if you, Mr. Editor, or some of your correspondents, will be at the trouble to put the question in its proper light, you will be rendering a service, not to me only, but to the church at large. The traffic in ecclesiastical preferments has long struck me as highly exceptionable, nor have my impressions been at all weakened since my acquaintance with the oath enjoined in the fortieth canon. This oath engages, on the part of the person who takes it, that no simoniacal payment nor contract has been made, directly or indirectly, for the obtaining of his benefice, and that no such kind of contract will ever hereafter be performed. The meaning attached to the word simoniacal by the framers of the oath seems to be determined by the preamble, which denounces simony as a detestable sin and execrable before God, and defines it as the buying and selling of spiritual and ecclesiastical functions, offices, promotions, dignities, and livings. From conversations which I have had with laymen, I know that they consider it a mere quibble and evasion to allege that it is not actually the living which is bought, but only the right of presentation, which right is afterwards exercised by the purchaser in his own favour. It seems like saying to the original patron, "I must not give you anything to present me to this benefice, for the church says it is execrable and detestable; but I may give you something to transfer your right to me, and then I can obtain the benefice without incurring the censures of the church." The sum which passes between the two parties is undoubtedly given directly and immediately for the right of presentation; but is it not indirectly and prospectively for the property of the living? Let us suppose a clergyman possessing a rich benefice, the advowson of which he purchased for the purpose of making himself the incumbent. Let us suppose this clergyman discussing the propriety of taxing the larger benefices for the augmentation of the smaller ones. On the justice or expediency of this proposition I offer no opinion, but merely bring it forward for the sake of illustration. The clergyman would probably say, that he and many others had invested their private fortunes in their benefices, and therefore could not equitably be taxed. Would not this be an acknowledgment that they had been guilty of perjury in swearing that they had given nothing, directly or indirectly, for their preferment? I believe that this inference would be drawn by most indifferent persons, of plain and unsophisticated sense, upon having their attention directed to the oath and its accompanying preamble. Whether the inference would be correct or not I shall not presume to decide, but certainly it is much to be deplored that there should be any handle for making it. Hitherto the effect upon the public mind has not been very observable, because few among the laity are aware of the oath, but these things are now acquiring daily more and more publicity; and when we consider the bad consequences likely to result from a pastor being regarded by his

flock as a perjured person, it forms a strong reason either for discontinuing the practice or abolishing the oath.

But, apart from the oath, the traffic in advowsons is extremely injurious to the church, as presenting one of the greatest obstacles to any general measure for augmenting the poorer benefices. If you increase the value of a small living in the gift of a lay patron, you add to his property rather than to that of the church, and perhaps introduce one more advowson into the market, which before had not been saleable. I look upon the patron of a living as a trustee for the church, to see that a particular district is provided with a spiritual guide; and I consider that, for the faithful discharge of this trust, he is at least as much responsible to God as though his trust had been in things of an earthly nature. Now the interest of the church requires, that he should not only look out for a clergyman whose character is morally unobjectionable, but whose abilities and attainments are adapted to the population whom he will have to superintend. Is it not, then, a criminal abandonment of their duty as trustees, when patrons leave the qualifications of a minister to chance, that they may consult their own private emolument ?

In these remarks I wish to speak with great distrust of my own judgment. I am sensible that my ideas respecting church property may be incorrect, and I should be truly thankful if some abler head could be induced to give a more lucid view of the question. To me it appears, that ecclesiastical property is materially different from other property. It appears to have a sort of sacredness about it, which requires that it should be spent more immediately and entirely for the glory of God and the edification and enlargement of his church. I remember to have seen it somewhere stated, as an argument of the Romanists against the marriage of the clergy, that the wealth which was given them to promote the cause of religion would be diverted into another channel, to provide for their wives and families. Without allowing the conclusiveness of this argument, there certainly seem to be stronger claims upon a man to be liberal and munificent when his income is derived from clerical endowments, than when it is drawn from private sources. It is evident that the traffic in advowsons causes this distinction to be lost sight of between the possessions of the church and ordinary property. When the purchase of an advowson is regarded as an appropriate investment of money, it ceases to be supposed that the possessor of ecclesiastical revenues is under greater obligations to abound in works of charity than any other person.

I confess that I think it wrong in principle for a clergyman to procure a sphere of labour for himself by purchase. It seems to me, that if the Great Head of the Church has work for us to do, he will inevitably direct us to it by the leadings of his Providence. Ministers should consider themselves particularly called upon to cast all their care on Him who careth for them, and to walk by faith and not by sight. They should consider themselves called upon to set an example to the laity of a holy and happy confidence in God their Heavenly Father; and in the exercise of this confidence they may surely leave it to him to appoint them their place in his vineyard, without resort

ing to a practice which is so strongly reprobated by the canons of the church, and which is viewed by numbers as one of the greatest blemishes on our national establishment. V. G. M.*

SEE OF ST. DAVID'S IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY.

SIR, After the letter on St. David's Cathedral in the September number, perhaps the following account of the attempt to despoil the see of St. David's of the same district which the church commissioners take from it, which was made about 660 years ago, (from the Life of Giraldus Cambrensis, by Sir R. C. Hoare,) may not be altogether uninteresting:

"In discharging the duties of his new dignity of archdeacon, he [Giraldus] had an early opportunity of asserting, in a very singular manner, the dignity of his own archdeaconry, as well as that of the metropolitan see of St. David's. Having been settled only a few days in his residence at Llanden, near Brecknock, after a very laborious journey he had taken, to correct the abuses that prevailed in the provinces of Melyenith and Elven, he was surprised by the appearance of two clergymen, sent in a great hurry by the dean and chapter of that district to inform him that Adam, Bishop of St. Asaph, was coming to dedicate the church at Kerri, (which was situated on the confines of the two bishoprics, but of old had appertained to that of St. David's,) and that, unless the archdeacon appeared there in person, nothing would prevent his taking possession of that church, or even the entire province. However harassed by his late expeditions, and dissuaded by his former companions and followers, who, more through fear of danger than fatigue, refused to accompany him, he nevertheless immediately proceeded on his journey towards the church of Kerri. On the Saturday he dispatched messengers to two princes of that country, requesting them to send some trusty men of their families, provided with horses and arms, to assist him (if necessity required) in asserting the rights of the church of St. David, as the Bishop of St. Asaph was reported to be attended by a strong body of men. On coming to Kerri early on Sunday morning, he found that two of the clergy, and partisans of the bishop, had concealed the keys of the church; these being at length found, the archdeacon entered the church, and having ordered the bells to be rung, as a token of possession, he celebrated mass with great solemnity. In the mean time

This subject well deserves discussion. The Editor will only make one observation, which indeed does not touch the higher parts of the question, but may rescue the character of many innocent persons from the charge of perjury. He would ask, simply, whether the oath alluded to in Canon 40 was meant by those who framed it to apply to the purchase of advowsons, or only to that of presentations? Whether they were right in making the distinction, if they did make it, is another matter, not inquired into here. But as the "animus imponentis" is the material point for consideration in all cases, he who sincerely believes that this oath refers to presentations only, is not to be accused of simony or perjury for purchasing an advowson.-ED.

« AnteriorContinuar »