"THE POOR MAN'S CHURCH."
NOTHING is more disgusting in the present policy of the Tories, than their affectation of peculiar anxiety for the spiritual welfare of the poor. The Church, we are told, is emphatically the " poor man's church." For him, then, the Archbishop of CANTERBURY receives his 18,000/. a year ; for his benefit are cathedral sinecures maintained, and tithes and church-rates levied. Without the Establishment, the poor man would be living in a heathen land. :The chapels of Dissenters are shut to him; they are for the com- paratively wealthy ; the Voluntary principle would reduce him to involuntary irreligion. Says the Times— "But, in the Established Church, those who pay not a farthing are entitled, as their indefeasible birthright, to receive all which can be there supplied to the worn-down spirit and the broken heart— the solemn prayer—the inspired word— the Holy Sacrament—that peace and blessing which the world cannot give, but of which our charitable advocates for 'religious liberty' would, in their benefi- cence, despoil the children of affliction, the chosen ones of Christ! Yes, the Established Church of England is emphatically the 'poor man's church;' and cursed be he who would destroy it. The Established clergy are the poor man's ministers ; they are bound to yield him, when called upon, and they do yield him, spiritual instruction and consolation, as ordained by the low under which he lives; and cursed, again we say, is he who would rob the poor man of this his inalienable possession here—this passport to his immortal inherit- ance in a better world."
The Tinzes strives in vain to catch the spirit of holy fervour— the unction which the Standard simulates so well when dealing with religious topics. The misrepresentations of the Times are barefaced; facts can be quoted against its falsehoods, by anybody who chooses to open his eyes, in walking through almost any part of the country. The Church is the "poor man's church "—is it? Then how does it happen that nine-tenths of the poor refuse to enter it ? Are the mass of the lower classes in this country Churchmen? The reverse is notorious. What said DRYDEN, a hundred and fifty years ago? "Wherever God erects a house of prayer, The Devil always builds a chapel there ; And 'twill be found upon examination, The latter has the largest congregation."
For Devil read Dissenters, and the distich will speak the honest truth. Go where you will, the chapels will be found better filled than the churches, and with an humbler class of worshipers.
Indeed, when it suits their purpose, insulting comparisons of the wealth and refinement of Churchmen with the poverty and igno- rance of Dissenters, are made by the very persons who are now boasting of the benefits conferred by the Establishment on the mass of the people. It is superlatively impudent in those who must know how much has been effected for the poor and ignorant by the operation of the Voluntary principle, to sneer at it as being fit only for the rich. It is undeniable that the Church clergy grossly neglected their duty, and left a large field for the Dissenters to work upon, and
which they have sedulously cultivated. Lord BROUGHAM is at present a great authority with the Tories : we recommend to their reperusal a speech delivered in the session of 1834, wherein he put the efforts of the Dissenters and of the Churchmen to educate the people in their right order of precedence.
There is, we admit, a certain class of the Established clergy whose ministrations are not offensive:to the humbler classes, and who do attract large congregations. But are they the men who share in the splendour of the Establishment? Are they the mi- tred, shovel-hatted, beneficed divines? No, but the Evangelical curates, who in very many instances depend upon the voluntary contributions of' their flocks for their maintenance—who are left by their rectors and masters to starve upon 50/. or 100/. a year. These men would find churches and congregations were the Establishment abolished to-morrow.
But if it is really for the religious instruction of the poor that the State Church is supported, then let it be modified so as to answer its intended purpose. Let its ministers be fitted by edu- cation for performing the duties which now devolve on the Metho- dist parson and the Catholic priest. Let their income be suf- ficient for decent comfort, and no more. Let there be no super- fluous display of mitred chariots and laced lackies, and no proud Peers of Parliament among its clergy. If men educated and living as we should recommend in order to make them good parish priests, are not sufficiently refined in their manners or polished in their discourse,—if their houses and furniture are too modest and plain, and their mode of exhortation too homely, for the more wealthy members of the Establishment,—then let these build their own churches, and select their own ministers—their HODGSONS, BENSONS, and SIDNEY SMITHS. It is not for them that the State provides religious instruction gratis, but for the poor, who cannot get it elsewhere.
Let the Tories beware how they preach up the doctrine, that it is for the poor the Church is to be maintained; for, when followed out to its legitimate consequences, the argument will be found subversive of all that renders the Establishment really worth their support.
Previous page
