1
10
3
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4092b8879ffe5da72d29d2a1ac1a97eb.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=nc4t9fspPz8gnLA7gNhYoBDdlnlaFlwpXx%7EXfnN1yryeEQRexCQUr-sM8dRbGwosCBhijRu9ZZ7gNcdvVXRT3ZVSzj4XP72KMhPj8GsQJ%7EKzjGQQAKCAY3jeOk-V1WrJ2uK97QLl1PdJO0Aurb1BuEGKVcLKaPLy2CYzDf-3kxX0QQHVhGiH2qT27nB3%7ETjhpEDpeVlDg8a1ux9OeoNcknS%7E51YH2dfHgPR4%7ESxHwlM3Gs5LKUIQo3KLTmh24eHKH3Ynbk%7EZwLZDq%7EKcsKtSnt01zbdWloshpzw5YT4jNelxTNkZ6CeEen81ocGUga5SBZYt6ewri-vM2gYZv1l4VA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
396ac2f604800ead4d96929cf82a0127
PDF Text
Text
73 ^2
ONE PENNY.
THE BISHOPS
AND THEIR RELIGION:
TWO LETTERS ADDRESSED TO
THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON,
AS PRESIDENT OF
THE
CHURCH
CONGRESS
AT
WAKEFIELD.
BY THE
REV.
MERCER
DAVIES,
M.A.,
Author of “ The Bishops and Their Wealth,” &c.
LI NDlNG
LIBRARY
THE
S B 0
LONDUNT
SOUTHERN PUBLISHING
160, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1886.
COMPANY,
��I.
A LETTER
TO THE RT. REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON,
President of the Church Congress at Wakefield, October, 1886.
Chiswick,
September 18th, 1886.
My Lord Bishop,
In case your Lord ship should not have seen my
small Pamphlet recently published, on “ The Bishops
and Their Wealth,” I beg leave to forward a copy for
your Lordship^s acceptance, and at the same time to
request your very careful and impartial perusal of its
contents. I do this at this season especially with a
view to the approaching Congress over which your
Lordship is about to preside.
I am quite conscious that in these pages I have
brought a very serious impeachment against the
Episcopal Body: but I beg to assure your Lordship
that I should not have published such a work if I had
not felt strongly that these were matters of the
deepest importance to the welfare of the Church at
�4
large: and I do not think that I have used a single
expression here which goes beyond the limits of Truth
and justice. I have seen some observations in reply
to this Pamphlet, both from some of the Bishops, and
also in the public Press; but nothing that appears to
me to go to the root of the matter. Your Lordship, I
think, will fully acknowledge the broad principle that
the Ministry of Christ’s Church ought never to be an
object of worldly gain or advantage ; and yet that it
is a notorious and unquestionable fact that a very
large proportion of the Clergy do make this sacred
Office a means of selfish and personal aggrandizement;
and that the Bishops themselves are to a large extent
subject to the same charge. Whilst this is the case,—
whilst it even reasonably appears to be the case in the
eyes of the world, the inevitable result, as I have said,
must be to bring discredit upon the Church, and upon
the great message of the Gospel itself.
But I will not detain your Lordship further. I
leave the matter in your hands, trusting that your
Lordship will not omit the important opportunity
which is now presented to you, to rouse the Church
to her great duty of self-reform. I believe indeed that
if your Lordship shall do your duty faithfully on this
occasion, you cannot fail to offend very seriously many
of your brethren on the Bench, as well as a large por
tion of the Clergy generally. But I feel sure also
that if you should unhappily shrink from fulfilling
this painful and difficult task, you will still mfre
�5
■grievously offend One whose anger will be more
terrible than that of all the Bishops and Powers of
this world together.
I have the honour to be,
My Lord Bishop,
Your Lordship’s very obedient Servant,
Mercer Davies.
II.
SECOND LETTER
TO THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON.
September 2*7th, 1886.
Mv Lord Bishop,
As I have not received any acknowledgement from
your Lordship of my letter of the 18th inst, enclosing
a copy of my Pamphlet on “ The Bishops and Their
Wealth,” I conclude that your Lordship dissents from
my view of the matter so decidedly as not to think it
worth while to reply; or at any rate that you do not
intend to face the difficulties which would lie before
you, if you brought these matters prominently before
the notice of the CongressAs therefore the time is short before the meeting of
this Assembly, I proceed without further delay to
state more fully the grounds on which I think it is
�6
imperatively necessary that this subject should be
taken in hand, especially by those who are chiefly
responsible for the well-being of our Church, for its
purity, its fidelity, and its efficiency. And I may say
at once that I intend, so far as I am able, to press
these remarks not only upon your Lordship’s attention,
but upon the attention of the Public generally ; and for
this reason, namely, that so far as my experience goes,
in modern times at least, whatever reforms have been
effected in the Church of England, have generally
been forced upon her by the pressure of public
opinion, rather than originated by the spontaneous
action of her own Rulers, or by their own instinctive
sense of justice and righteousness : this being especially
true in all matters touching the funds of the Church,
and the revenues received by its Ministers.
I. My Lord, I say broadly and boldly in the first
place that I think the Bishops and Clergy generally
do not adequately “ realize the situation,” do not
understand the grave position in which the Church
now lies,—her dangers and her necessities. This is a
sentiment, indeed, which has been often expressed, in
reference to various evils which have been charged
upon the Church. I do not however propose here to
enter upon all these complaints which have been made
against her, but to confine myself chiefly to one or two
points. The question of Church Reform, as a matter
of necessity, is to be included in the various subjects
of discussion at the forthcoming Congress; Church
�7
Reform, as a distinct subject of itself, and also in
reference to various matters of church work and
progress. But I venture to say that these various
topics do not go to the root of the question : to repeat a
phrase which I have heard, “ No tinkering up of the
Church in minor matters will now be satisfactory.”
No, my Lord: it is her very foundations that are
giving way, and need to be renewed. And there are
two points especially in which I think it is clear that
this bold assertion is fully justified.
The first and great foundation of any Church, or
any religious community, is its Faith. A Church
without a clear and strong faith can have no true
common life, no lasting bond of union; can never
flourish or contend successfully against its enemies, or
against the world. And I say there is now a great
want of faith, of religious belief, in the Church of
England. The religion of the Church of England is
supposed to be based upon the Bible, and upon the
Bible as being substantially the Word of Grod. But it
is clear that a very large proportion of those who
profess to belong to this Church, or who are legally
assumed to belong to it, do not really believe in this
theory: very many of them do not hesitate to avow
their disbelief; and a still larger number, who
nominally profess to believe it, show plainly enough
by their lives and conduct that their profession is
merely superficial and illusory. I do not deny that
there are some persons who do earnestly hold this
�belief: I could point to some individuals of the present
age, some who have passed away, and some perhaps
still living, men of high character and intellect, who
have sincerely believed in this truth, and whose faith
and example are entitled to carry much weight in the
judgment of the world. But still, looking at the
world in general, it is a fact which I think will not be
denied, that the number of those who sincerely,
earnestly, intelligently, and of their own independent
judgment, receive this Volume as a Divine Revela
tion, is comparatively very small indeed.
As to the great question of what may be the causes
of this prevailing want of faith, I will uot attempt to
discuss this at length in this place: there are, no
doubt, many distinct causes operating with different
classes of society: but the point with which I am here
concerned is the fact that there is a widespread
amount of unbelief abroad; that such unbelief must
practically undermine the effect of all other work in
the Church : and further, that this unbelief extends,—
strange as it may seem,—even to the highest digni
taries of the Church itself! My Lord, do you
challenge this bold assertion ? Will the Bishops
generally challenge it ? If so, I shall be prepared to
support it by evidence of a very powerful character,
and such as I think will surprise both the Church and
the world. But for the present, I will content myself
with quoting some words which I confess rather
startled me when I first read them, three years ago ;
�9
but which I have now come to think are very near the
truth. This is what a Member of Parliament wrote to
me with reference to some documents that I had laid
before him:—
“ I take the moral of your Correspondence with the
Bishops to be that most thinking and sensible men,—
even Bishops !—no longer really believe that the bible
is in any true sense ‘ the word of God. ’ ”
(Sept. 19, 1883.)
If there is any reasonable ground for such an
opinion as this, then certainly I think it becomes an
imperative duty on the part of the Rulers of the
Church to grapple earnestly with this great question
without delay. I think they should endeavour to
ascertain, as far as may be possible, what is the degree
of authority truly belonging' to these ancient records
of which our Bible is composed; what amount of
obedience is due from us to their precepts. And I
may add that there is one important duty which in
the present day is probably better understood than
it was in earlier times; namely, that in all these
enquiries into the principles of our Religion, we should
seek,—not, as was too often done in those days, chiefly
for arguments to support and establish the faith which
was already received, the orthodox creed,—but that we
should look simply and honestly for the Truth, and
be prepared to embrace it unreservedly, whatever we
may find it to be. This, more than anything else, will
restore to us the confidence and the sympathies of all
intelligent men, all true men of science: and this
�10
alone, I am sure, will bring us to the knowledge and
favour of Him who is emphatically, the God of Truth.
II. But there is another matter of the highest
importance to the interests of the Church of England,
which vitally affects the efficiency and success of all
her work : and it is one in which again some degree
of the truth is generally recognised, is too plain to be
altogether ignored; but in which our Rulers apparently
do not see the whole truth, in its full extent.
My Lord, in order that the Church should be able
to carry her message to the world with due effect, it is
most obviously necessary that the world should have
reasonable confidence in the bearers of that message ;
it must have confidence in their personal integrity
generally, and it must be satisfied that they themselves
sincerely believe in the message which they preach.
Now what is the state of things in regard to this
matter at the present time; and especially with regard
to the Bishops; do they possess the confidence of the
people generally ? Do they enjoy the respect which
is due to their high office ? It will not be denied, of
course, that their private and personal character is
generally free from reproach; they are known to be
active and laborious in the discharge of their duties;
they are not now-a-days charged with being im
moderate in their mode of life, nor overbearing in
manner; they are, in short, free from some of the
grave faults which were imputed to many members of
their Order, even within the last two or three genera
�11
tions. But still, while all this is admitted, the question
is whether in the judgment of the public, they realize
that very high position which is implied in their name
and office. This is the point which I think lies at the
root of the question, as I have also said in my former
Pamphlet. Are we to look upon the Bishops from
a worldly point of view, simply as officers of a
State Establishment, “ successful members of their
profession” ? Or shall we take them for what
they profess to be, Ministers of Christ, suc
cessors of the Apostles, charged with the highest of
all missions, to proclaim a message of salvation to a
perishing world ? My Lord, judging from what we
see, I think that the Bishops themselves, and the class
■of men from whom they are drawn, men of letters,
men of University distinction, men of good family, do
practically look at the position in the former aspect;
and those who do so look at it appear to be generally
pretty well satisfied with the result. But the People,
the men who are not bishops, and not likely to be
bishops, they look at it in the other light: they look
at them as Ministers of God, they judge them by this
standard: and this, as I have said before, I think is
the true standard. And tried by this standard,
they are found wanting; they are not what they
■ought to be; they do not come even reasonably
near to their profession. “Your facts (as another
correspondent writes to me,) are startling, and
certainly go to show that the Heads of our
�12
Church are not of the stamp or likeness of their
great Master. There cannot be a doubt that the Church
is losing the confidence of the people.” These are
indeed mild words in comparison with some that I could,
quote, letters from men of eminent position and high
character, which have impressed these facts very deeply
on my mind during the last few years. And as to the
public Press,—not to speak of coarser displays,—even
in the more respectable portion of it, which does not
indulge in scurrilous abuse, even here the tone of a
great deal that is written, the taunts that are veiled
with a thin garb of propriety or politeness, show a
deep-seated feeling of distrust and disrespect; a feeling
that the Bishops are not sincere in their religion ; that
they are, after all, men of the world, as careful and as
fond of the good things of this world as anybody else.
And while this is the case, while there is any reason
able ground for such sentiments on the part of the
public, I say that the Church cannot do its work,
effectually. The Bishops may preach, aud the Clergy
may preach, most eloquently ; but the people will not
believe what they say ; they will look upon it all as a
professional performance, which the performers go
through simply because they are paid,—and often
very well paid,—for doing it. My Lord, I believe this
is the feeling of the public to a large extent: and I
venture to say that, even if it is m some cases erroneous,,
yet it is certainly not without a large measure of justi
fication. And further, that it will never be eradicated
�13
from the minds of the people till the Bishops and Clergy
have learned to be content with a more moderate recompence for their labours in preaching the Gospel.
III. There are some other matters in my former
Pamphlet which I think are of much practical import
ance, remarks which your Lordship at any rate has
not attempted to answer, but which it is unnecessary
to repeat here. There is however one point which I
have there mentioned only very briefly, but which is
of so serious a nature that I must say a few more
words upon it.
I have said that a Bishop in the present day is
placed in a false position; in a position such that it is
almost impossible for him to be faithful, and do his
duty; and that this is therefore a very perilous
position. Perilous !—My Lord, it is so perilous that
I believe there is no class of men in the kingdom
who stand in greater peril for their souls than the
Bishops themselves. Listen to me, my Lord, if indeed
you have any faith in these declarations of the Bible.
That Book tells us that it is a very hard thing for any
rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; not, of
course, because there is anything sinful in the riches
themselves, if they have been honestly acquired; but,
I suppose, because they carry with them so many
temptations, they have such a strong power in drawing
away a man’s heart and soul from his Maker, and
binding it down with the fetters of this world; and
also because they impose such very heavy responsi-
�14
Toilities upon him : “ for unto whomsoever much is
given, of him shall be much required.” And if there
is this danger and difficulty for rich men generally,
you will hardly say that the difficulty is less in the
•case of Ministers of the Gospel. Bather must it be ten
times harder for a Bishop who is very rich to enter
the kingdom of Heaven, than for any other
rich man. It is not impossible ; for he
may be liberal, and spend his money wisely. But what
if he keeps his money to himself? What if, with his
fifty thousand pounds in his pocket,he sees hundreds and
thousands of his fellow creatures, of his own spiritual
•children, those who are committed to his fatherly care,
pining, starving, suffering, in untold distress, and not
through their own fault: if he knows that scores of
his own fellow-workers in the Gospel, poor Incum
bents, poor Curates, are struggling and starving on
their miserable £100 a-year, or even less : if with all
this before him, all this which he knows well enough,
•or ought to know, he still holds his hand, shuts his
•eyes, and hardens his heart: then, my Lord, where is
the Christian Minister, the Shepherd of the flock, the
servant of Jesus Christ ? Who will give that man a
hope of going to heaven ?—All this applies strictly to
the man whose wealth is derived even from his own
■private or family property. And if this is true, there
.•are indeed but few out of that list of deceased prelates
who are not condemned hereby. But the case of those
who have grown rich out of the funds of the Church
�13
must; as I have said, be much worse: and there can
be no doubt that very many of those named in that
catalogue come, some more, some less, under this
heavier condemnation.
Let us look at the case of one of the richer dioceses
such as London. Now the work that needs to be done
in such a diocese as this, and that needs specially the
hand and the brain and the heart of the Bishop to do
it, all this, I am sure, as the Bishop himself would say,
is at least ten times as much as he could do, however
active and indefatigable he might be. I will not
specify details of the work here; though I am
prepared to go more fully into that matter, and hope
to do so before loug, if time is spared me. But it will
be found by any one who comes to look into it, that
this expression is quite within the mark: there is ten
times as much as any single Bishop could do; and
consequently, there is need of at least ten Bishops to
■do it all properly. Now the revenues of that See are
stated to be £10,000 a year : and I say therefore that
if this sum were properly subdivided, it would suffice
to maintain ten men of real, Christian, character, to
carry on this great work of the Church. Not ten lofty
Prelates; not ten Peers of Parliament; not ten men
looking out for the great prizes of their “ profession ”;
but ten men such as Bishops ought to be; men of
simple life and manners; men of sufficient learning,
experience, and ability; and above all, men who
themselves believe in the Gospel which they preach.
�16
And if all this might be done, done without any
difficulty, without injustice to any man, then I ask,
what is the responsibility of that man, whoever he
is, who stands in the way and forbids it ?
All the supervision which might have been exercised,
but which is now omitted, because “ he has no time
for that ”; all the scandals which he might havecorrected by his personal influence and authority ; all
the doubts and difficulties of faith and doctrine
which he might have solved; all the social evils which
it is the special function of Christianity to remedy : all
these things,—and the list is inexhaustible,—all this
which might have been done, but which is now left
undone, must surely be laid at the door of him who
absorbs those large revenues of the Church, as if they
were his own private property. Does not such a man
stand in a perilous position, if there is indeed such a
thing as future responsibility, if we are to answer at
all for the things we have done or left undone in this
mortal life ?
But I think there is a greater source of peril
even than this. The great spiritual danger of the
Bishops^ position, as I have before said, is that it
makes them too much men of the world, brings them
too much under the influence, the power of the world.
Now the plea which is commonly urged for having
Bishops and dignitaries of considerable wealth and
high social position, is that they may be able to speak
to the upper classes on terms of equality, with more-
�17
influence and authority than would be exercised by
clergymen of smaller means. A very poor notion
indeed of personal influence or spiritual authority is
implied in this argument. But does the system succeed
as a matter of fact ? Do the Bishops speak boldly
and faithfully to the members of the upper classes
individually, to all who are nominally or legally
members of their own Church ? Do they tell them
plainly of their faults, of their vices ? Of their selfish
ness, their covetousness, their cruelties, their debauch
eries ? Do they exercise Church Discipline towards
them, even cutting off from the communion of the
Church all those who live in wilful and known sin ?—
Yet this is their sacred and bounden duty; this is a
duty, wherein if they fail, you know very well, my Lord,
what is the consequence. And it will not be superflu
ous to repeat the words of the Prophet:—
“ So thou, O Son of man, I have set thee a watchman
unto the house of Israel: therefore thou shalt hear the
word at my mouth, and warn them from me.
When I say unto the wicked, 0 wicked man, thou
shalt surely die ; if thou dost not speak to warn the
wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his
iniquity : but his blood will I require at thine hand.”
Ezek. xxxiii., 7, 8.
This is the responsibility cast upon them ; and it is
one from which no Bishop can escape by pleading, as
the Bishop of London might possibly do, that he had
not time to perform all this work; because he might
have at least nine other Bishops to share it with him :
he cannot lay it upon his parochial clergy; for if they
�18
neglect the duty, it is his business to admonish them,
and see that they do it. No: whatever may be the
pleas with which he quiets his conscience for putting
off this important part of his Ministerial duty, I
venture to say that the real cause is plain enough.
He is so much a man of the world himself, he mixes
in social intercourse with these men, he receives their
hospitality, receives even their contributions for the
Church, and is altogether on such friendly terms with
them, that he could not venture to give them offence,
such mortal offence as would often follow upon his
faithful, plainspoken rebukes. It would indeed, as any
body can see, be a most unpleasant task for him to'undertake : no Bishop would think of doing such a thing,
unless he were indeed a man of most undaunted moral
courage, of most unswerving fidelity. He must be a
very Baptist to do it. But such a man is not found
among them that wear soft clothing, and are in Kings’
houses. And therefore I say that the work is for the
most part wilfully left undone. It is unfaithfulness to
their Master, deliberate,, repeated, continual, un
repented of.—Is not this a position of peril, my Lord ?
But I pause. In a very few days, you will yourself
prove or disprove the truth of my impeachment. These
matters which I have now brought before your Lord
ship, are, as I am sure you will not deny, matters of
vital importance to the highest interests of the Church
of England; matters which ought to be most
seriously discussed at such an opportunity as is now at
�19
hand. But, as I have said before, if you, the President,
were to speak the truth faithfully and fearlessly on
this subject before your assembled brethren, you could
not fail to give deep offence,—certainly to a great
number of them; your position as a Bishop would
become not only disagreeable, but almost intolerable.
Here then, in what is perhaps the most critical hour of'
your whole life, you may prove yourself. You see your:
duty to God on the one hand: you feel the power of
the world on the other. Can you shake off its chains ?
Can you deliver your soul from its bondage ?
I certainly think your Lordship will feel the diffi
culty of the situation : I sincerely sympathize with
you therein, even though my pen, like a surgeon’s
knife, is opening the wound : I think you will agree
with me that it is a false position in which the Bishops
ought never to be placed; and that the sooner they
are extricated from it, the better.
My Lord, The Truth shall make you free.
I am, My Lord Bishop,
Your Lordship’s very humble Fellow-Servant,
MERCER DAVIES.
35, Fisher’s Lane, Chiswick.
�20
Table, showing the Names of the Bishops of England and Wales,
deceased, from 1856 to 1885; with the amount of Personalty
proved at their death.
Conse
crated.
Name.
1827
1830
1824
1824
1831
1813
1837
1840
1856
Hon. HugliPercy
Jas. H. Monk...
C. J. Blomfield
Chr. Bethell ..
Edw. Maltby ...
Geo. Murray ...
Thos. Musgrave
Henry Pepys ...
Hon. H. M. Villiers
J. B. Sumner ...
Tlios Turton ...
Geo. Davys
John Graham ...
J. C. Wigram...
John Lonsdale...
Samuel Hinds...
R. D. Hampden
Francis Jeune...
C. T. Longley...
W. K. Hamilton
H. Philpotts ...
Hon. S. Waldegrave
J. P. Lee
A. T. Gilbert ...
Lord Auckland
T. V. Short ...
S. Wilberforce
C. R. Sumner...
Con. Thirlwall
G. A. Selwyn ...
Chas. Baring ...
A. C. Tait
Alf. Ollivant ...
Rob. Bickersteth
W. Jacobson ...
John Jackson ...
C. Wordsworth
Geo. Moberly ...
Jas. Fraser
J. R. Woodford
1826
1845
1839
1848
1860
1843
1849
1848
1864
1836
1854
1831
1860
1848
1842
1847
1841
1845
1826
1840
1841
1856
1856
1849
1857
1865
1853
1868
1869
1870
1873
See.
Years Nominal Amount
of
Re
of
Income
signed. Died. Bishop of See. Person
alty.
ric.
Carlisle ...
G. and B....
Chest: Lon: 1856
Bangor
Chich: Dur:
Rochester...
Heref: York
Worcester
1856
1856
1857
1859
1859
1860
1860
1860
29
26
32
35
28
47
23
20
£
£
4,500 90,000
5,000 140,000
10,000
60,000
4,000
20,000
8,000 120,000
5,000 60,000
10,000 70.000
5,000
50,000
Durham ...
Chest:Cant:
Ely
Peterboro’
Chester ...
Rochester...
Lichfield ...
Norwich ... 1857
Hereford ...
Peterboro’
Rip : Cant:
Salisbury...
Exeter
1861
1862
1864
1864
1865
1867
1867
1868
1868
1868
1868
1869
1869
5
34
19
25
17
7
24
8
20
4
32
15
38
8,000
15,000
5,500
4,500
4,500
5,000
4,500
4,500
4,200
4,500
15,000
5,000
5,000
Carlyle
Manchester
Chichester
B. and W.
St. Asaph...
Oxf:Winch:
Winchester
St. David’s
N.Z.: Lichf:
G.&B..Dur:
Lon : Cant:
Llandaft ...
Ripon
Chester ...
Line: Lon:
Lincoln ...
Salisbury...
Manchester
Ely
1869
1869
1870
1870
1872
1873
1874
1875
1878
1879
1882
1882
1884
1884
1885
1885
1885
1885
1885
9
21
28
22
29
28
43
34
37
23
26
33
27
19
32
17
16
15
12
4,500
20,000
4,200 40,000
4,200
12.000
5,000 120,000
4,200
14,000
7,000 60,000
10,000 80,000
4,500
16,000
4,500 16,000
8,000 120,000
15,000 35,000
4,200 30,000
4,500 25,000
4,500 65,000
10,000 72,000
5,000 85,000
5,000 29,000
4,200 85,000
5,500
19,000
1869
1870
1869
1874
1885
From “ The Bishops and their Wealth
20,000
60,000
40,000
80,000
18,000
45.000
90,000
—
45,000
35,000
45,000
14,000
60,000
�21
Lately Published.
Price Sixpence.
BODY AND SOUL:
A PRACTICAL VIEW OF THE RELATIONS OF
PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL LIFE,
By the Rev, MERCER DAVIES, M.A.,
Formerly Chaplain of Westminster Hospital.
The Bishop of Carlisle writes :—“ Thank you for your
Pamphlet on Body and Soul, which I have read with much
interest. Your notion of the brain generating a soul, and the
analogy of electricity and galvanism, are very curious and
ingenious.”
“ I have read it through with much interest. I thoroughly
believe with you that we shall be in the next world what we
have made ourselves here. . . . Your Pamphlet I think a very
good one.’—Rev. John Tagg, M.A., Rector of Meilis.
“ VVe-Tike this short Essay. It is not biblical, and does not
profess to be. Nor is it deeply scientific ; but it is pervaded by
the scientific spirit, and in that spirit deals with the Brain, with
Conscience, and with the Soul. It is certainly practical.”—The
Rainbow.
“ A singularly practical and useful Essay. . . . This attempt
to trace the dangers of living against the conscience, in the
physical disturbance and disorganisation of the Brain, is perhaps
the most original and ingenious part of this little Essay. It
seems at least worthy of attention, as suggestive of a new field
of inquiry.”—The Church of England Pulpit.
London :
ELLIOT STOCK, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW.
May be had of the Author, 35, Fisher's Lane, Chiswick.
POST FREE ON RECEIPT OF STAMPS.
�22
THE SOUTHERN PUBLISHING CO,
political ^ublisherei,
LITHOGRAPHERS, LETTERPRESS PRINTERS,
DESIGNERS, ENGRAVERS, AND DIE SINKERS,
160, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C
Pamphlets, Leaflets, Reprints of Speeches, and every
kind of political matter produced and distributed with
despatch and economy.
ESTIMATES
FREE ON
APPLICATION.
��24
Price 2d.: by Post 2%d.
THE BISHOPS
AND THEIR WEALTH:
CONTAINING
SOME REMARKABLE EVIDENCE
FROM
THE PROBATE OFFICE.
BY
REV.
MERCER
THE
DAVIES, M.A.
OT’insrio^rs of the press.
“A gigantic anomaly is quietly but most effectively exposed and
rebuked in a pamphlet we have received this week, which contains
some remarkable evidence from the Probate Office.”—Christian
Leader.
“I heartily commend the perusal of Mr. Mercer Davies’
pamphlet. It is temperately and forcibly written ; and its argu
ments it is not easy to gainsay.”—Weekly Bulletin.
“While giving these considerations their due weight, we feel
bound to say that the facts collected by Mr. Davies tell strongly on
the other side. ”—Church Reformer.
‘ ‘ Mr. Davies’ pamphlet with the above title is exciting consider
able interest. ”—Liberator.
“ This is one of the most able and vigorous pamphlets which we
have seen for many a day. It is scarcely necessary to say that in
the opinions thus ably expressed we cordially concur, and earnestly
commend the pamphlet to the attention of our readers : every page
will amply repay perusal.”—The Democrat.
LONDON :
THE SOUTHERN PRINTING COMPANY,
160, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1886.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The bishops and their religion : two letters addressed to the Lord Bishop of Ripon, as President of the Church Congress at Wakefield
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Davies, Mercer
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: First letter dated September 18th, 1886. Second letter dated September 27th, 1886. Publisher's advertisements on p. 21, 22 and 24.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Southern Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1886
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
T392
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy
Church of England
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The bishops and their religion : two letters addressed to the Lord Bishop of Ripon, as President of the Church Congress at Wakefield), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Church of England
Clergy
Socialism
Wealth
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/52a4309cd87d381f1468954ca02302be.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ePMQETnJctqM9Q8MFM0pXrSAChqyZlA1Q8EfrBKcamPOVdbSXexw-TqFxCVAAWLxUBNPMqPci--krNAaSyePgMbv3jecmx540AUeDAdquMSgJyv7xbqvnvYtZxLGUXFXRLI0b7Mb7BIprLaED-Aq3uFN6VbWbTLoD4KAA275Lf0%7EvK9Tf3FbeKY1ggHNfsO-66EOiKPhlXfsIcQEXoTkopgU-3QqDf7SqB1AT496Aa0M0LsqHCfYoY0uR-lX1k-fpQ4R63fKhf%7EIJkCoA4eQu4hS0ugiujGmmw1WA7iqp%7EK9O0AE1v1kttLDHEh%7EIUm5Ul9e1rxgVFFEDe7LdofQtA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b9c34375ff2eb8f7bfe75c9ee952c53d
PDF Text
Text
KING WEALTH COMING.
BY D.
GOODMAN.
HE following article was published by the writer in the Gal
axy for November, 1869. It sets forth briefly what he believes
to be the solution of the political problem in this country.
We live in an industrial age, of which the natural leaders are
the bankers, manufacturers, and merchants. We all complain of the
demoralization and corruption of our political life; what we mean is
that wealth is becoming as powerful in politics as it is in industry.
The great corporations, or rather the wealthy men who control them,
are the real rulers, and not the characterless lawyers and politicians
whom universal suffrage sends to our legislative halls. There is not a
State in the Union through which runs a great railroad, but what is
practically in the power of the corporation which controls it. The
manufacturers could do what they please with any Congress that has
sat for the last eight years, and it is quite safe to predict that for the
next fifteen years the owners of the Pacific Railroad and the giant con
solidated roads which feed it, will be the real masters of the American
people. That is to say, no Congress can by any possibility be elected
which they will not be able to control.
To this state of affairs no complete Positivist objects. We submit
to the inevitable, and can only hope to modify it by a sound philoso
phy, and the wise, practical activity it enforces. What is needed is the
moralization of wealth, and to effect this it must become personal and
responsible.
But here is the article:
T
Nearly all the evils connected with our system of government ean oe traced to
one primary cause, to wit: the influence of wealthy corporations and individuals in
controlling legislation and executive action for purely selfish ends. In other words,
in modern civilization, wealth has become an enormous power, while in this coun
try at least, it has no recognized political responsibility or well-defined public
duties. The lobby notoriously controls legislation—wealth controls the lobby, but
what controls wealth ? Nothing but the purely selfish aims of its possessor.
How is this difficulty to be met ? Shall we organize against wealth ; bind it in
fetters, legislate it out of existence, or exile its influence to some sphere outside of
political action ? We are entering upon an era when all this will be attempted;
'but, however well meant, every scheme to limit the power of wealth will inevitably
fail, and, in the opinion of the writer, ought to fail.
For we must remember that the capitalist is the true king of the industrial era
�46
KING
WEALTH COMING
When war was the normal condition of the race, the great warrior was the ruler,
and all the honors in the State were based upon military merit ; but among the
advanced natives of Christendom, industry, and not war, is now the absorbing
business of the mass of the population, and hence the banker and the manufacturer
are destined to be—nay, are the real rulers of the people. This may seem to be a
preposterous statement, in this age of equal rights and the sovereignty of the
people ; but it is nevertheless true. Who to-day is supreme in the financial, com
mercial, and manufacturing world ? Who owns the telegraph, the railway, the
manufactory, the newspaper, the land ? The capitalist, of course. He is our boss
in the shop, our employer in the field, our landlord, out care-taker on the railroad
and steamship ; he keeps our money in his bank, and looks after our souls in his
churches ; for the church of to-day, of all denominations, is the church of the capi
talist. People are under the curious hallucination that the only power which con
trols them is that exercised by the State or the nation, whereas they touch us
scarcely at all in the most intimate relations of life.
But the capitalists, the owners of the wealth, are not content with all this recog
nized authority ; they desire to control also the political power of the State and
the nation. Well, they are right. They ought to have it. There will be a
struggle against it, and the most impassioned protests will be made when their
right to rule is formally recognized ; but recognized it will be in time. While the
struggle is going on, the capitalist will rule all the same. Our legislators are
nearly all lawyers ; now, the lawyer is a creature of the capitalist. He is trained
by him, and his wit and tongue are at the service of his employer in the court, and
his vote is at his command in the législative body. Wealth, as a power unrecog
nized, without responsibility or moral accountability, is simply another name for
hideous corruption. Hence the lobby, and the sickening legislative history of our
City, State and National Government for the last fifteen years.
Now wealth, and the enormous social and political power it wields by its very
existence, is one of those facts which cannot be ignored. We must accept it, and
see what can be done about it. To destroy wealth, or take away the power it
naturally gives its possessor, is impossible. If it could be done, civilization would
perish.
What, then, are we to do ?
Accept the inevitable. Capital has the power. Make it personal, responsible.
Put the capitalist in authority instead of his creatures, the lawyers and politicians,
and then—
What then ?
Hold him responsible. The next greatest power in modern civilization, after
wealth, is public opinion. As yet it is unmoralized, unorganized ; but its influence,
even now, is mighty. When this spiritual power has its. proper recognized organs,
which it will have under Positivism—then will we be able to control wealth.
Public opinion cannot be brought to bear upon corporate bodies ; “ They have
neither bodies to be kicked nor souls to be damned.” What does the ring or the
lobby care for public opinion ? Once install the individual who is the soul of the
lobby into some recognized public position, and he is sensitive enough. Abuse the
Erie Railroad Company, and who cares ? Attack Jim Fiske, Jr., and he is after you
with a sheriff’s posse or a libel suit.
Here, then, is the Positivist’s solution of our political and industrial problems.
Wealth, under the foul shapes of the ring or lobby, controls our legislation. We
say, Put the holders of this wealth in authority. Make this irresponsible power
responsible. You cannot get rid of the power ; it is one of the most enormous facts
of modern times. It exists, and will control, whether we like it or not, and hence
we must make the best of it.
The capitalist has his excuse for using the ring and the lobby. He says, “ What
else can I do? There are certain great industrial enterprises to be undertaken,
�KING
WEALTH COMING.
47
which cannot even be begun without legislative authority. The lawyers and small
politicians, who form the great bulk of the assemblies and senates, cannot rise to
the height of the great schemes which I have on foot; they oppose me ; but the
work must be done—the times demand it; and so I hire the lobby, who buy those
fellows up. I am in the habit of employing lawyers to do my business, and when
you can hire a man’s brains with money, his vote follows, as a matter of course.
Take the case of the great railway consolidations, which are so necessary: why, I
am compelled to buy the legislators outright, or these essential changes could not
be made.”
So there are two sides to the story. The capitalist has his excuse for making
our legislators scoundrels.
But how is this change to be brought about ?
The writer gives that conundrum up at once. He really does not see how it is
possible to change our republican representative system without a political con
vulsion. Hence he looks for years of grievous misrule ; of future legislative con
duct worse than any in the past. A possible solution of the trouble is a bold seizure
of the government by some representative of the capitalist class. The very men
who have made our legislative bodies dens of thieves, are just the ones to make
that corruption an excuse for seizing the government themselves ; for be it remem
bered, it is not the kings of the lobby who will be held responsible, but the politi
cians—the legislators whom they have debauched.
Our government, from natural and inevitable causes, has got to be one of exces
sive powers. The maladministration of the federal power under Adams or Jackson
was not of much account, so little were the people at large affected by its action;
but now it is very different. The authority of the central government has grown
so enormously large, that its action upon the business of the country has become
vital. Hence the necessity of a more scientific government than that we had before
the rebellion.
Let it be distinctly understood, then, that there is a class of thinkers in this
country who are profound disbelievers in the whole republican or democratic theory
of government. But we are not, therefore, either Imperialists or Monarchists. We
do not advocate going back to any obsolete political institutions. Progress is our
motto. There is something in the future as much better than republicanism as
republicanism is better than monarchy, and that is the rule of wealth controlled by
moral considerations; in other words, the capitalist in responsible authority, and he
under the dominion of a wise, all-powerful public opinion.
Our King has come. He rules already, but it is in such hideous shapes as the
Lobby—the Ring. Let us recognize, tame, ennoble him, so that he may serve the
highest interests of humanity.
�48
THE
SOCIAL
EVIL.
SERIES of articles on Prostitution in the Westminster Re
view have deservedly attracted a good deal of attention.
Without containing anything very new, they sum up the
results of past inquiries, and seemingly set at rest several
vexed social questions. Among the most important of the points
brought out by Dr. Chapman, the writer, are the following:
1. Each new crop of prostitutes does not die out in from four to
seven years, as is generally supposed. While it is true that the personnel
of that class is replaced in that time, the women do not, as a rule, die
of their riotous living, but are absorbed back into the community.
2. The amount of disease engendered by the illicit relation of the
sexes is appalling. This is one of the most serious perils of modern
civilization. While the danger to the women themselves in the matter
of longevity has been absurdly overrated, the damage done to the
health of the community by the prevalence of prostitution has scarcely
been suspected.
3. Governments from time to time have attempted to suppress and
limit prostitution, but have invariably failed. Every possible expedient
has been resorted to, but the history of legislation and government
action, though it extends over centuries, is a record not only of disap
pointment but disaster. Nor have they fared any better when recog
nizing and regulating prostitution. Notwithstanding the encomiums
which have been passed upon the French and continental systems, it
seems now to be tolerably well settled that recognition has led to wide
spread immorality, while as a check to the spread of disease, it has
bad less than no effect at all.
The remedy proposed by Dr. Chapman will hardly be deemed
satisfactory. He says the public should get rid of the notion of sin
or disgrace in connection with the illicit relations of the sexes or
the diseases they entail, and that those sick of syphilis should have the
same care and consideration as if the disease was typhus fever or dysen
tery. The best hospitals are now closed to persons afflicted with sexual
disorders, and the woman who would readily seek medical advice for
an ordinary illness, such as diarrhoea or rheumatism, is deterred from
doing so when the disorder is venereal. So she punishes society for its
non-recognition of the legitimacy of her business and its inhumanity
to her in her affliction by plying her wretched trade when diseased,
thus propagating to the innocent as well as to the guilty the most cruel
contagion known to our civilization.
It is all very well to say that society ought to recognize prostitu
tion as a legitimate because necessary business, and should treat the
strumpet with the same consideration it does the decent women, but
the difficulty is that society won’t do anything of the kind. The truth
is, prostitution is a part of the great sexual problem which science
must yet solve ; all we can do at present is to furnish the data for the
final settlement.—D. G.
A
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
King wealth coming
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Goodman, D.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [New York]
Collation: [45]-47 p. ; 26 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. The article was first published in Galaxy, November, 1869 and later published in Modern Thinker, no. 1, 1870.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[American News Company]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1870]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5427
Subject
The topic of the resource
Industrialisation
USA
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (King wealth coming), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Industrialization
United States of America
Wealth
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/86f2d903b9c825eadc9635f42a6ac6c5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=GTDpXZHslMpgfnte4aaGqstIrlfy%7E-psFXROC3pl3sbgo%7EeYwJG45AhUhvudpBXV-N-BinaPf4bFV-fqiEhBDJ2G6majOx0%7EC6wmy-o4oy4Vwq3YVNCez-9TBYGZDuBSsTjaQW4Khc5lwGajgLIsVLfSPehKnSo%7EJqOhIFdh2PnX1z5idMzAPYeYoqzZoq5D5st1Bz4bzsY4IxVuD0-LJlB2vCRIXtO1UOhnzYX9UKbliXXiJeHU2mUVNXsp-dGXn3TpXmb8zXnOEu1UcH4zto3%7EPKnkNBMNKRSIywp7EU0lYSAIosDPR57B-NhaLv1fdO6dn2V0dR2EPYrIXw20QQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
860cebe91de87f7bd257d238475a62bc
PDF Text
Text
THE BISHOPS
AND THEIR WEALTH:
CONTAINING
SOME
REMARKABLE
EVIDENCE
FROM
THE
PROBATE
OFFICE.
BY THE
REV. MERCER DAVIES, M.A.
Formerly Chaplain of Westminster Hospital.
LONDON:
THE SOUTHERN PUBLISHING COMPANY,
160, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1886.
Pl"ice Twopence.
��CONTENTS.
PAGE.
§ 1.
Are the Bishops “ rolling in wealth ” ?
5
2.
How
7
3.
Evidence
4.
Bishop Ryle’s
5.
Can this position be justified 1
6.
True and
THE QUESTION IS TO BE DETERMINED.
prom the
10
Probate Office.
assertion contradicted.
false views of a
13
Bishop’s Office.
7. Christian
Bishops
the
15
17
teaching about riches.
8. Why
12
cannot do their duty.
20
9.
The
influence of their example.
22
10.
Not
poverty, but moderation, required.
24
11.
Who is to blame,—the Men,
or the
System ?
27
��THE
BISHOPS
AND
THEIR
WEALTH.
--------------------------------------
I. Are the Bishops “ Rolling in Wealth ” 1
MNE of the most important points in reference to the
W position of the Established Church in England, is the
wealth, or supposed wealth, of the upper ranks of its
hierarchy. This is a point of great practical importance in
itself ■ and it is one which occupies a very prominent place
in the public mind. Perhaps there is hardly any other
matter which so deeply and so widely affects the sentiments
of large numbers of people, not only towards the Church,
but towards Christianity and Religion generally, as this
spectacle,—or, it may be, this spectre,—of the Bishops
“rolling in riches.” Whether it is a real, substantial,
spectacle, or only a spectre, conjured up by the imagination,
is a question that is yet to be determined. That the belief
in this state of things is very widespread, that it is almost
universal, shared in by members and friends of the Church,
no less than by her enemies, is beyond question. And yet
there are some persons who venture to dispute the truth of
it; or at least who think the popular impeachment requires
to be qualified by other considerations which are not
�6
generally understood, and which, in a great measure, take
away its sting. The truth of the matter evidently has not
yet been sifted to the bottom ; and it appears therefore very
desirable that any further light which can be thrown upon
it, of an authentic and trustworthy character, should be
presented to the public as soon as possible.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool has lately published a
series of ten short Papers on ££ Disestablishment.”*
There is certainly some very good common sense and
plain-speaking in some of these papers; especially in the
ninth, where his Lordship takes up a theme which he has
dealt with before,! in his own peculiar, earnest, and
vigorous style, and where he says again, “ We need reform :
there is no mistake about that.” But in the tenth and
last of this present series, tho Bishop makes the following
assertions :—
“ It is utterly untrue that the Bishops are rolling in wealth,
and the Clergy are overpaid. The Bishops have so many
demands on their purses that they can hardly make both
ends meet; and the Clergy, if incomes were divided, would
not have three hundred a-year apiece.”
I must confess that when I read these words, I was con
siderably surprised ; for I was myself very much impressed
with the common opinion, that the Bishops at least—to say
nothing of other dignitaries—were generally overpaid to a
considerable extent, that their incomes were very much
beyond the requirements of the position they occupy, that
a Series of Ten Papers by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool
—London: Hunt & Co., 1885.
f “Church Reform,” by the Rev. J. C. Ryle, B.A. Hunt & Co., 1870.
* “ Disestablishment
�7
of Ministers of the Church of Christ. And, therefore, it
immediately occurred to me that it would be desirable to
ascertain the truth of this matter, as far as could con
veniently be done. If Bishop Ryle’s assertion should be
found to be true, by all means let the Bishops have the
benefit of it; and let the common prejudice which prevails
on the subject be cleared away by the evidence of facts.
If, on the other hand, it should be found that this assertion
is made rashly and in error, then it is certainly no less
necessary that the error should be corrected, and that the
true facts of the matter, whatever they may be, should be
clearly known and fairly taken into account, in dealing
with this great question. And I have so much faith in the
integrity and earnestness of the Bishop from whom I have
■quoted those words, that I believe he will be one of the
first, in this case, to recognise the importance of the
matter, and to make any such correction or qualification of
his statement as truth may seem to require.
II. How
the
Question
is to be
Determined.
“ The Bishops have so many demands on their purses
that they can hardly make both ends meet: ”—this is the
homely, but very intelligible assertion of the Bishop; and
this, I believe, is the opinion entertained by at least a
considerable number of persons within the Church. The
assertion has now been for several months before the
world, and as it has not been, I believe, in any way
repudiated by the other Bishops, it must be taken to have
-at least their tacit concurrence.
�8
Now, how is this matter to be tested ?—It is easy to
bring forward the amount of income belonging to the
several Sees at the present time ; and these figures must of
course have some weight in the enquiry. But they are not
conclusive by themselves alone. It is not denied that the
incomes of the Bishops,—at least their nominal incomes,—
are large : but then,—“ they have so many demands on
their purses. ’—No doubt, they have : demands, of infinite
variety. They have, most of them, large palaces, which
they are bound to keep in repair, and the maintenance of
which necessitates a large and constant outlay : they have
demands for support to all religious and charitable Institu
tions, both in their own several dioceses, and connected
with the Church at large : personal expenses, to a large
extent, which they cannot avoid, especially if they are to
attend to their duties in Parliament. All these things,—
and I cannot pretend to give anything like an adequate
summary of them,—all these things, the Bishops may fairly
plead, impose .heavy burdens on their purses, whether they
like it or not. But is it the fact that their resources are
generally exhausted hereby ? Is their expenditure nearly
on a level with their income, and unavoidably so ? Da
they barely contrive to make both ends meet, to keep
out of debt, with very little over ?—If we might ask
what is their balance at the banker’s, or what are their
private investments in Consols, and such like, we might
get an answer to these questions. We cannot do this,,
however, with regard to those Bishops who are still
living among us; nor can we expect them to volunteer
such a public declaration of their private affairs as was
�9
made by one of their most eminent predecessors. “ Silver
.and gold have I none/’ said St. Peter, on a very notable
occasion.
But although we must not scrutinize too closely the
.affairs of the living, we know that certain facts are
■occasionally published in the Newspapers, which bear very
•directly upon this question; and which, being so made
public, must be deemed to be matters of public interest, and
subject to public comment. From time to time we read
that the Will of some Prelate, lately deceased, has been
proved in the Probate Court, and that his personal effects
have been sworn to, at a certain value. And some of the
amounts so published have been certainly rather remarkable,
and such as fairly to lead up to that impression, which
as I have said, does undoubtedly prevail to a large
■extent in the public mind. But the question is whether
■these individual instances of wealth are only rare and
■exceptional, or whether they may be taken to indicate the
general position of the Bishops as a class. Now as this
field of enquiry is entirely open to the public, as anybody is
.at liberty to ascertain these facts from a public office, on
the payment of a small fee, and as the matter is clearly one
•of much public importance, there can be no feeling of
impropriety or intrusion in entering upon such an investiga
tion, and no breach of confidence in making known such
facts. The life and conduct of a Bishop, as of any other
public man, after he has passed away, have become matters
of history; and no one can object to the publication of such
.authentic particulars, but those who feel that they cannot
be justified or excused.
�10
III. Evidence from the Probate Office.
With these views therefore I have collected together the
amounts of personalty sworn to, upon the death of the
various Bishops who have held office in the Church of
England, during the last thirty years, from 1856 to the
close of 1885 : and I now present the results of my
enquiries in the following Table :—
Table, showing the Names of the Bishops of England and Wales,,
deceased, from 1856 to 1885 ; with the amount of Personalty
proved at their death.
Conse
crated.
1827
1830
1824
1824
1831
1813
1837
1840
1856
Name.
Years Nominal Amount
Re
of
of
signed. Died. Bishop Income Person
of See.
alty.
ric.
See.
£
4,500
£
90,000
Hon. Hugh Percy Carlisle ...
Jas. H. Monk... G. and B....
C. J. Blomfield Chest: Lon: 1856
Chr. Bethell ... Bangor
Edw. Maltby ... Chich :Dur:
1856
29
1856
26
1857
1859
32
10,000
60,000
35
4,000
20,000
1859
28
8,000 120,000
Geo. Murray ... Rochester...
Thos. Musgrave Heref: York
1860
47
23
5,000
60,000
10,000
70,000
20
5,000
50,000
Henry Pepys ... Worcester
Hon. H. M. Villiers
Durham ...
J. B. Sumner... Chest: Cant:
1860
1860
5,000 140,000
1861
5
8,000
20,000
1862
34
15,000
60,000
1864
19
5,500
40,000
1839
Thos. Turton ... Ely
Geo. Davys ... Peterboro’
1864
25
4,500
80,000
1848
John Graham... Chester
...
1865
17
4,500
18,000
1860
J. C. Wigram... Rochester...
John Lonsdale
Lichfield ...
1867
7
24
5,000
45,000
4,500
90,000
1826
1845
1843
1867
�11
Conse
crated.
Years Nominal Amount
of
of
Re Died.
Bishop Income Person
signed.
alty.
ric. of See.
See.
Name.
20
£
4,500
4,200
45,000
4
4,500
35,000
1868
32
15
15,000
5,000
45,000
1869
H. Philpotts ... Exeter
1869
38
5,000
60,000
Hon. S. WaldeCarlisle ...
grave
Manchester
J. P. Lee
1869
9
4,500
20,000
1869
21
4,200
40,000
4,200
Norwich ... 1857
R. D. Hampden Hereford ...
1868
8
1868
Francis Jeune ... Peterboro’
1868
1854
C. T. Longley... Rip : Cant:
W. K. Hamilton Salisbury...
1831
1860
1849
1848
1864
1836
1848
Samuel Hinds
14,000
1870
28
1869
1870
22
12,000
5,000 120,000
1870
... St. Asaph
Oxf Winch:
1872
29
4,200
14,000
1873
28
7,000
60,000
1869
1874
43
1874
1875
34
10,000
4,500
16,000
1878
37
23
4,500
16,000
1879
1842
A. T. Gilbert ... Chichester
1847
Lord Auckland
B. and W.
1841
T. V. Short
1845
S. Wilberforce
1826
C. R. Sumner ... Winchester
St. David’s
Con. Thirlwall
1840
£
____ *
80,000
1856
G. A. Selwyn... N.Z: Lichf:
Chas. Baring ... G.&B :Dur:
1856
A. C. Tait
Lon : Cant:
1882
26
1849
Alf. Ollivant ... Llandaff ...
Rob. Bickersteth Ripon
1882
33
4,200
30,000
1884
4,500
25,000
1884
4,500
65,000
1853
W. Jacobson ... Chester ...
John Jackson ... Line : Lon :
27
19
1885
32
10,000
72,000
1868
C. Wordsworth
1885
5,000
85,000
1869
1885
5,000
29,000
1870
Geo. Moberly ... Salisbury ...
Manchester
Jas. Fraser
17
16
1885
15
4,200
85,000
1873
J. R. Woodford Ely
1885
12
5,500
19,000
1841
1857
1865
Lincoln
... 1885
8,000 120,000
15,000 35,000
* I have not been able to find any particulars of Bishop Hinds’ estate. He
resigned his Bishopric under somewhat peculiar circumstances ; and died, I
believe, an honest, but a very poor, man
M. D.
�12
It appears then from this Table that, whatever may have
been the demands upon their purses, either of a public and
official, or of a private and personal nature, these individual
Bishops were, at the time of their death, in possession of
personal property, varying in value from twelve thousand
to one hundred and forty thousand pounds; the average
being about £54,000 a-piece, and the total personalty of the
39 Bishops being over two millions sterling; this being
exclusive of any real estate they may have possessed, and
exclusive also of any sums invested in policies of Life
Assurance, or otherwise settled for the benefit of their
families. These are facts, indisputable facts, which anyone
may verify for himself at the cost of a very little trouble
and expense; and they are facts of recent date, perfectly
relevant to the question at issue. What are the inferences
to be drawn from them ?
IV. Bishop Ryle’s Assertion Contradicted.
First of all, I think we are compelled to say that this
Table directly contradicts the assertion of the Bishop of
Liverpool. Out of the 39 instances here given, the amount
of personalty is in only 7 cases below £20,000 ; the lowest
of all being £12,000. Not one of all these Bishops could
have been in the position indicated by Bishop Ryle, hardly
able to meet the various demands upon his purse from
all quarters; and certainly not one anywhere near to that
condition which is unhappily only too common, too literally
true, of many Ministers of Religion, “ hardly able to
�13
make both ends meet ” ; hardly able to provide absolute
necessaries for themselves and their families, out of the
scanty pittance bestowed upon them. Nothing of this sort
could be said of any one of those Prelates : so far from
this being the case, it is clear that most of them must have
saved annually large sums out of their income; that
income, no doubt, in many cases coming from private
sources in addition to the revenue of their Sees. Is there
any possibility of escape from this conclusion ? I see none
whatever; and therefore, in the first place, I think it is
right that the truth should be acknowledged in this matter,
the plain truth of the case, whatever conclusion it may lead
to. It is not the fact—and I think the Bishop of Liverpool
will much regret that he should have been led so hastily,
though, no doubt, quite sincerely and in good faith, to
assert the contrary in such positive terms—but with those
figures before us, I think we are compelled to say it is not
the fact that these Bishops have in any one case had any
difficulty in meeting the various demands made upon their
purses; but, on the contrary, they have had large sums to
spare, to lay by; and in most cases, the popular idea,
which Bishop Ryle so vehemently repudiates, that they
were “rolling in wealth,” turns out to be abundantly
justified.
V. Can
this
Position
be
Justified.
Now the inference which will generally be drawn from
these facts, and which at first sight seems to follow
�14
inevitably, will be one of condemnation; condemnation, to
some extent of the individual Bishops themselves ; and still
more, perhaps, of the system to which they belonged, and
which produced or permitted these results. But there are
some considerations on the other side which will be urged
to mitigate this condemnation. First, it will be said that
riches and wealth are comparative terms, depending upon
the position which a man occupies. A thousand a year
would be great wealth to any man of the artizan class, or
even to many poor clergymen and others who have to live
by the work of their brains; while yet the same sum would
be felt as downright poverty by any great merchant or
nobleman. Five thousand a year, therefore, or even ten
thousand, some will say, is not too great an income for a
man who holds a place among the Peers of the realm, and
who is expected to keep up his position accordingly. Again
it will be said that in many of the cases cited above, these
Bishops were men belonging to high or wealthy families,
and had large private means of their own, in addition to
their episcopal revenues. Many of thorn also were men of
talent, who increased their incomes by literary labours, and
who could, perhaps, have gained quite as much from other
sources, mercantile or professional, as they received from
the Church. And again, there may be others who will
argue that whatever they received as Bishops came to them
honestly, as the authorised revenues of their Sees ; and that
at any rate, whether these revenues were large or small,
they did not create that state of things, but simply came
into it, and accepted what was given to them by custom or
by statute. If the question is to be looked at from a
�15
worldly point of view, and judged by the tone of feeling
which prevailed in former days, even in the first half of this
century, and within the memory of many men still living,
then indeed much weight may be given to such considera
tions as these. But I venture to say, we know better in the
present day; we are not to be blind-folded now by the
traditions of past generations ; nor must we attempt to
maintain any principles or practices which have nothing
better than traditional usage to recommend them; which
■are not in accordance with the true and fundamental
principles of the Church itself. No, I think it is time now
to go back to first principles, and to ask, What is a Christian
Bishop ? What are his duties 1 What should be his
character ? What should be his position 1
VI. True and False Views of
a
Bishop’s Office.
What are the Bishops of the Church of England ?—We
know how the world in general looks upon them; as
Clergymen who have distinguished themselves by learning,
by preaching, or otherwise, and who, by favour of the
Prime Minister for the time being, have been advanced to
the highest rank of their profession; with a seat in the
House of Lords, and a good income to correspond. In the
■eyes of the world, a Bishopric is a great prize : and who
shall say how many a man, even among the Clergy them
selves, has looked upon it in the same light, and hoped for
it as the highest dream of his ambition! This is the
outside, superficial view of the matter. But it is idle to
ignore the truth that there is another and a much more
�16
serious estimate of the position ; an estimate so grave, and
yet so evidently true, that it seems marvellous how somany men, even including some Bishops themselves, could
apparently shut their eyes to it. A Bishop is a man whohas undertaken the highest, the gravest, the most onerous,
the most responsible office which any man can undertake
in this world—to preach the Gospel of Christ, to deliver
a message which he believes to have come from Almighty
God, and to be the great instrument of saving men’s souls
from perdition, and bringing them to eternal life. This,,
at any rate, whatever other men think of Christianity, this
is what he professes to believe ; and it is strictly on the
strength of this profession that he holds his office in theChurch, with all the advantages and responsibilities belonging
to it. If he does not really believe in these fundamental
principles, these manifest doctrines of his Bible and his
Prayer-book, then he is clearly living under false pretences
and no itinerant fortune-teller, who pretends to some sort
of supernatural gifts ; no “ Clerical impostor,” who passeshimself off for an ordained Clergyman, by false 1 ‘ Lettersof Orders,” is more worthy of reprobation than a man who,
in the position of a Bishop, and for the sake of a Bishop semoluments, professes to deliver a message from God,
and to convey spiritual gifts, which he does not himself
truly believe in. This however, in the most general
terms, is a Bishop’s duty, to preach the Gospel, to
preach and enforce its truths, its principles, its hopes,
and its warnings, with all the ability, and with all the
means that he possesses : and not merely to preach it as
one man out of many, but to be the chief preacher thereof
�17
in his own particular field of labour, in his own Diocese.
And I think we may safely say that if he cannot preach
it sincerely, he had better not try to do it at all. W e are
not indeed to expect a Bishop, who is still only a man, to
be absolutely perfect; he may not be able to show forth in
his own character all the virtues and all the graces which
he must insist upon or recommend to others : but at least,
there must be some relation between preaching and
practice ; any great discrepancy between the two must not
only be fatal to his own efficiency, but must even expose
him to ridicule. And yet, simple and commonplace as this
truism must appear, can it be denied that this discrepancy
does exist to a very serious extent, in the case of the
Bishops of modern times ? In many respects, their public
character and position are palpably at variance with the
principles they have to teach; and in nothing, perhaps, is
this variance more conspicuous, in nothing is it more
serious, than in this matter with which we are now dealing,,
the high emoluments which they enjoy.
VII. Christian Teaching about Eiches.
The subject of riches is one which occupies a very
prominent place in the ethics of Christianity; as indeed
it must necessarily do in any system of religion or
philosophy which attempts to deal practically with human
wants and desires. Some means of living we must all have.
If all men were content with a moderate supply of theordinary wants of human nature, probably there would be
�18
a sufficient amount of food and other necessaries within
easy reach of all: not all ready to hand without any
trouble; but fairly within the reach of those who would
use the powers and faculties which Nature has given them
for this purpose. Unhappily, many men,—a very large
proportion, I fear we must say,—are not satisfied with their
own fair share of the good things of this world; but having
obtained the means of grasping a great deal more than is
necessary for themselves, they leave a corresponding
deficiency for the rest of mankind. This is the principle
of selfishness; and while, no doubt, it may be found at
work in all the various conditions of the human race,
barbarous or civilized, there is evidently in some respects
more scope for its development in what we call a high
state of civilization, such as our own,—much more than
in a more primitive state, where men have to live more
directly upon the fruits of nature, and to gather them daily
with their own hands. Now, the teaching of Christianity
is directed most earnestly and most unequivocally against
this principle of selfishness : it attacks the love of riches,
with the consequent desire of accumulating money, on all
sides, and on various grounds. As nourishing self-indul
gence, and the lower appetites of the flesh, instead of the
higher aspirations after spiritual life; as showing a want
of faith in the goodness and providence of the Creator;
but most especially as showing a want of love and sympathy
towards our fellow creatures, and oftentimes inflicting even
grievous injustice and suffering upon them,—for all these
reasons Christianity condemns the principle of covetousness
and selfishness : and it enforces all these lessons by dis
�19
playing the greatest example of unselfishness, of love, of
self-sacrifice, which the world has ever seen. Whatever
men may think about the personality or the Divinity of
Jesus of Nazareth, this at least is not denied, that his was
a grand example of self-sacrifice, of voluntary self-devotion
for the good of others; and that, as such, it is worthy to
be held up not only for the respect and admiration of men,
but also most signally for their imitation. These are some
of the prime lessons and principles of Christianity; and I
venture to say with great confidence, that of all the theories
and conclusions arrived at in the field of political economy •,
of all the methods proposed by men for controlling and
•correcting the evils of poverty, and the multifarious
difficulties of social existence, this great principle of the
Gospel, the principle of unselfishness, of brotherhood, of
love, is not only the most elevated, but it is the most
effectual, the most indispensable. Without this, all others
must inevitably fail. Such is the constitution of the
world, and of man himself as much as any other part of it,
that some individuals will always be stronger than others ;
more powerful in frame of body, or in intellect, or in
shrewdness, or by having a better start in life ; and these
favoured individuals, if they choose to push their own
advantages, and to use them for their own selfish
ends, must always be able to oppress those that are
weaker, in spite of any human laws to the contrary. The
true remedy is to govern and rectify the hearts of men : and
there is no power that has yet been known in the world
more able to do this than the faithful preaching of
Christianity.
�20
VIII. Why
the
Bishops cannot do
their duty.
And this is the work that is put into the hands of then
Bishops of the Christian Church; this is the work which
our own Bishops have undertaken to perforin : having in
the first place received a direct commission thereto from
their predecessors in the Ministry, and one that, as most of
them probably believe, is ultimately derived from the
Apostles, and from Christ himself: having also, in the
second place, been appointed to their offices, and endowed
with their revenues by the Crown, or the Civil Power of'
the Nation. And the Nation is now asking, with much
eagerness, as it is certainly entitled to ask, Have they done
the work which they undertook to do ? Have they fairly
and adequately fulfilled those great duties for which sucli
ample opportunities, such liberal endowments, have been
given to them, and on which the welfare of the people so
intimately depends ? Have they effectually rooted out
the principle of selfishness, of covetousness, and planted a
spirit of Christian brotherhood in place of it ? Have they
even made any substantial progress in this direction ?—
These are not vain questions, asked merely for rhetorical
effect: they are matters of the deepest and widest import
ance. Men and women are living and dying, by thousands,
in the midst of poverty, hardship, suffering, and misery,
which ought to be remedied, which might be remedied
the existence of which is a disgrace to us as a professedly
Christian Nation. The fault of these things must lie
heavily somewhere; and amongst other classes that are
partly responsible for it, no small portion of the blame
�21
must undoubtedly rest upon the Church itself. The
Church has not done its duty to the Nation : it has
not evangelized the masses; it has not Christianized the
middle and upper ranks of the community. And if the
Church, as a whole, has not done its work in these respects,
it must clearly be the Rulers of the Church who are chiefly
in fault. A great battle is not won by the desultory
fighting of the rank and file of an army, and of its
subaltern officers. There must be a General in supreme
■command, a man of ability, a man of energy, a man who
has his heart in the cause for which he is engaged.
Assuredly, the chief responsibility in this matter lies with
the Bishops personally. One stirring Sermon preached in
the heart of this Metropolis, preached with earnestness,
preached with the power which goes only with perfect
sincerity, preached by the Church’s chief Minister and
Representative,—such a Sermon would be listened to and
remembered; such a Sermon, or a few of them, if they
were indeed worthy of their subject, would produce an
effect on the public mind, a lasting and practical effect on
public religion and morals. But when has any such
Sermon been preached, on the subject of riches and
covetousness, on Christian brotherhood and unselfishness ?
Who has ever heard it, or even heard of it ? No : the
thing has been impossible ; and for the simple reason that
the Bishops themselves, with very few exceptions, have
been among the greatest offenders against these very
principles which it is their bounden duty to enforce. Their
tongues are tied, their lips are closed, upon such a topic;
the words which ought to be heard would verily stick in
�22
their throat if they attempted to utter them. No man,—
the case is as clear as daylight,—certainly no Bishop could
possibly stand up before a Congregation, and declare those
solemn warnings of the New Testament on the subject of
laying up treasure upon earth, how hard it is for a rich man
to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and such like, while he
knew that he himself had been steadily laying by large
sums of money for the last twenty or thirty years of his
life, and that he was at that moment in possession of
capital, to the amount of fifty, sixty, or seventy thousand
pounds. Yet these are the facts of the case; facts, which
are now no secret, but which are entirely public property,
which any man is entitled to know. Ought they not to be
known 1
IX. The influence of their Example.
The Bishops, of all men in the world, ought to be the
most eminent examples of obedience to the words of their
Divine Master ; the salt of the earth, the light of the
world. But the position which they now hold compels
men to ask this serious question,—Do the Bishops them
selves believe in the truth and divine authority of these
Holy Scriptures ? Is it possible that they can really believe
in the truth or the force of those precepts, so repeatedly
and earnestly insisted on by Christ and His Apostles, when
they are so plainly setting them at defiance ? There is no
disguising the fact that such questions as these are, raised
very extensively among all ranks of society, and are
answered in a spirit adverse to the Bishops themselves.
�23
And I think it is hardly possible to overrate the gravity of
the issues involved in this circumstance. The character
and authority of the Bible is one of the most vital and
fundamental questions in religion ; vital, not only as a
matter of controversy, but as one of deep practical import
ance to every sincere and earnest seeker after truth. But
it is a question which cannot be solved for the bulk of
mankind by appeal to historical and critical arguments.
Such arguments, difficult even for learned Scholars, arealtogether beyond the reach of ordinary people. The only
practical argument for the world in general,—that which
has always been the real working power in religion,—is
the sincerity and earnestness of the preachers themselves.
If they, the Ministers of the Gospel, show that they
thoroughly believe the message which they preach, and live
according to it in their own persons as far as may be
practicable, then their words and their example combined
will not fail to produce a due effect on the rest of the
world. But if there is any manifest inconsistency between
the two, the preaching and the practice, then the inevitable
result must be to cast a suspicion, not only upon their own
integrity, but upon the truth of that message of which they
profess to be the authorized bearers. And the world has
seen so much of priestcraft, so much of lying fables told in
the name of Religion, that there is indeed no small excuse
for men, if, in doubtful cases, they lean rather to the side
of incredulity than otherwise. Can it be doubted that a
very heavy responsibility does lie upon the Clergy generally,
and most especially upon the Bishops, on this account 1
Whatever amount of unbelief, of irreligion, is produced by
�24
the influence of their example, will they not have to
answer for it ?
X. Not Poverty,
but
Moderation, Required.
There are many other grounds also, both of principle
and of practice, on which the possession of great wealth
in the Ministers of the Christian Church is clearly injurious
and indefensible ; but I will not dwell upon them on the
present occasion. It is perhaps hardly necessary to observe
that in making this protest against excessive wealth, I do
not intend to advocate anything like the opposite extreme.
We need not suppose that it is necessary for every
minister of Christ in the present day to surrender all his
temporal possessions, as many of the Apostles did, in order
to follow this calling. St. Paul himself claims for those
who labour in this vocation, as well as in any other, at
least a reasonable maintenance; “the labourer is worthy
of his hire.” And not only this, but he says also very
reasonably, “ Let the Elders that rule well be counted
worthy of double honour, or double payment.” But still,
moderation is clearly required; and a man who is covetous,
•or who accumulates large sums of money, is as much
disqualified for the office of a Bishop, as one who is a
winebibber, a passionate man, or a polygamist. And this
applies not only to the case of rich endowments and high
stipends drawn from within the Church; but also to wealth
derived from external sources. It is sometimes pleaded as
a merit of the present condition of our Church, that so
much money is brought into it by individual members of
�25
the Clergy, men who have private incomes of their own,
and spend much of them in their own parishes. No doubt,
many of those large sums which appear in our Table, were
derived in a great measure from private property; and
therefore, in the view of some persons, the fact of these
large amounts of personalty being left at their death is not
to be imputed as a fault to those individual Bishops. But
pleas of this kind, as I have before said, though they may
be all very well from a w’orldly point of view, yet clearly
they do not hold good against the plain and wide-reaching
words of Christ himself. His words, on this as on many
other points, are undoubtedly of a most uncompromising
character; and men must either serve him on his own
terms, or not at all. A rich man therefore, if he wishes tokeep his money for his own personal use and enjoyment,
should at least avoid the responsibility of becoming a
Minister of the Church of Christ; above all, he should not
accept a Bishopric, as so many men have done, for the sake
of the social position and advantages which it gives him.
Or, on the other hand, if he desires the office for its own
sake, he must be prepared to devote his money freely, as
well as every other talent that he possesses, to the great
work he undertakes. Indeed, I do not hesitate to say that
a man who was really possessed of a proper Christian
spirit could not keep these large sums of money in his own
possession; he could hardly do it in any sphere of life ;
least of all could he do it as a Chief Pastor and Shepherd
of Christ’s flock. Seeing all the distress and misery
existing around him, and which, as a Bishop, it is his duty
to see and to care for, so much suffering which is un-
�26
■deserved, so much which might be at once effectually
relieved by a small donation from his own purse, the mere
■crumbs from his own rich table :—I say, a Bishop who saw
all this, and possessed but a reasonable measure of humanity
and true Christian charity, would never be able to keep his
purse strings closed. A Bishop without humanity is an
anomaly, indeed ! Surely, the tale of Dives and Lazarus,
which is so often repeated upon earth, will be repeated also
in its terrible sequel, and with startling effect upon some of
those who have “ prophesied in Christ’s name,” but have
not done their best to feed the hungry, and to clothe the
naked : unless indeed all these words are altogether an
•empty fable !
As to the other case, where men have actually enriched
themselves out of the revenues of the Church, this is, of
•course, much worse than the former one ; and it is difficult
to speak of it in terms of truth and justice, without using
language which might seem intemperate.—“ Will a man
rob God 1 ”—This is a question which is sometimes applied
to those who resist the payment of tithes and other
ecclesiastical charges for purposes which they do not care
for, or do not approve of. But I think the man who robs
God most truly and most daringly, is he who appropriates
to his own personal indulgence and aggrandizement the
proceeds of a rich benefice, the funds which have been
dedicated to the service of God, of His Church, or of the
poor; funds which are urgently needed for all these
important objects. The offence indeed is common enough;
but I do not think it will escape condemnation on this
account.
�27
XI. Who is to blame—the Men, or the System ?
That the condition of Bishops “ rolling in wealth ” is
altogether inconsistent with their office, is indeed too plain
to need further argument. The truth is clearly admitted
in that sentence which I have quoted from Bishop Ryle in
the beginning of this Paper : the very vehemence with
which he repudiates the imputation implies not only a con
demnation of such a state of things, but also that such
■condemnation is a self-evident and palpable truism. The
Bishop is sound enough in his principles; but unfortunately,
he is very far from being correct in his facts.
The practical question then is this : Is all the blame for
this state of things to be laid upon the heads of those
individual Bishops themselves ; or is it to be attributed in
a great measure to the System in which they were placed 1
It seems indeed impossible that they should be altogether
acquitted as individuals for that disregard of the divine
■commandments of which they have individually been
guilty. But yet, looking at the general character of the
persons to whom these observations apply,—some of them
surely good and earnest men,—we can hardly bring our
selves to believe that the whole responsibility lies upon
them personally. And if not so, then the only alternative
must be to lay very much of it upon the system, the position,
the Constitution of our Church, as it now exists. And
this, I believe, is the true and fair explanation of the
matter. A Bishop, in the present day, is evidently
placed in a false position : even if he desires to be faithful
to his calling, it is hardly possible for him to be so. With
�28
his large income, and his flattering position in Society, he
can hardly help being, to a very great extent, a man of the
world, subject to the influences of the world, subject to the
feelings, the ambitions of the world, and continually tempted
to conciliate the favour of the world. It is indeed a cruel
temptation for one who ought to be pre-eminently a man
of God, a servant of God : it is all the more perilous,
because it is so insidious; it may exist in company with
such a very fair, very respectable exterior.
How the mischief is to be corrected,—by reform, by dis
establishment or disendowment,—these are wide and
difficult questions with which I will not attempt to deal
further in this place. I confine myself here to this single
point, which is certainly not yet generally recognised as
clearly as it ought to be, namely, that the mere fact of
Ministers of the Church holding these positions of wealth
and worldly grandeur is an evil in itself; mischievous to
themselves, mischievous to the Church at large : and I do
not think that any reform in the Church will be effectual
or satisfactory until this state of things is thoroughly got
rid of.
�29
Lately Published.
Price Sixpence.
BODY AND SOUL:
A PRACTICAL VIEW OF THE RELATIONS OF
PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL LIFE,
By the Bev. MERCER DAVIES, M.A.,
Formerly Chaplain of Westminster Hospital.
The Bishop of Carlisle writes :—“ Thank you for your
Pamphlet on Body and Soul, which I have read with much
interest. Your notion of the brain generating a soul, and the
analogy of electricity and galvanism, are very curious and
ingenious.”
“ I have read it through with much interest. I thoroughly
believe with you that we shall be in the next world what we
have made ourselves here. . . . Your Pamphlet I think a very
good one.”—Rev. John Tagg, M.A., Rector of Meilis.
“We like this short Essay. It is not biblical, and does not
profess to be. Nor is it deeply scientific ; but it is pervaded by
the scientific spirit, and in that spirit deals with the Brain, with
Conscience, and with the Soul. It is certainly practical.”—The
Rainbow.
“ A singularly practical and useful Essay. . . . This attempt
to trace the dangers of living against the conscience, in the
physical disturbance and disorganisation of the Brain, is perhaps
the most original and ingenious part of this little Essay. It
seems at least worthy of attention, as suggestive of a new field
of inquiry.”—The Church of England Pulpit.
London:
ELLIOT STOCK, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW.
May be had of the Author, 35, Fisher's Lane, Chiswick.
POST FREE ON RECEIPT OF STAMPS.
�30
SEVEN
PSALMS & HYMNS;
WITH TUNES,
COMPOSED AND ARRANGED IN VOCAL SCORE, WITH ACCOMPANIMENT'
FOB THE
ORGAN
OR
PIANOFORTE,
BY THE REV. M. DAVIES, M.A.
1—WHEN WE, OUR WEARIED LIMBS TO REST—Psalm 137.
2. —LIFT UP YOUR HEADS.—Psalm 24.
3. —GREAT GOD OF HOSTS, COME DOWN IN THY GLORY.
4. -LORD, HAVE MERCY, AND REMOVE US.
5. —THE LORD OF MIGHT FROM SINAI’S- BROW.
6. —THOU ART GONE UP ON HIGH.
7. —THOU, WHOSE ALMIGHTY WORD.
Note on the Tenor Clef.
The Tenor stave consists really of the three upper lines of the Bass stave,,
the one lowest of the Treble, with the middle C line included. In these pages
this middle C line is .left blank. By this plan it is hoped that the difficulty of
reading the Tenor Clef (so common with amateurs) will be entirely removed.—
M. D.
London :
NOVELLO AND CO., 1, BERNETS’ STREET, W.
NATIONAL SOCIETY’S DEPOSITORY, WESTMINSTER, S.W.
Or from the Author, 35, Fisher’s Lane, Chiswick :
POST FREE ON RECEIPT OF STAMPS.
Reduced Price, 1-s. 3<Z. ; or, each Hymn separately, Twopence.
�31
THE SOUTHERN PUBLISHING 60.,
Political publishers,
LITHOGRAPHERS,
LETTERPRESS
DESIGNERS, ENGRAVERS, AND
DIE
PRINTERS,
SINKERS,
160, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C.
Pamphlets, Leaflets, Reprints of Speeches, and every
kind of political matter produced and distributed with
despatch and economy.
ESTIMATES
FREE
ON
APPLICATION.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The bishops and their wealth : containing some remarkable evidence from the Probate Office
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Davies, Mercer
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 31 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Publisher's advertisements on p. 29, 30 and 31.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Southern Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1886
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
T393
Subject
The topic of the resource
Church of England
Clergy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The bishops and their wealth : containing some remarkable evidence from the Probate Office), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Church of England
Clergy
Socialism
Wealth