By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Clergymen of the Church of England
Author: Trollope, Anthony
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Clergymen of the Church of England" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

produced from scanned images of public domain material
from the Google Books project.)

                                of the

                           ANTHONY TROLLOPE

                                OF THE



   I. THE MODERN ENGLISH ARCHBISHOP                                    1

  II. ENGLISH BISHOPS, OLD AND NEW                                    16

 III. THE NORMAL DEAN OF THE PRESENT DAY                              31

  IV. THE ARCHDEACON                                                  42

   V. THE PARSON OF THE PARISH                                        54

  VI. THE TOWN INCUMBENT                                              66

 VII. THE COLLEGE FELLOW WHO HAS TAKEN ORDERS                         78

VIII. THE CURATE IN A POPULOUS PARISH                                 92

  IX. THE IRISH BENEFICED CLERGYMAN                                  105

   X. THE CLERGYMAN WHO SUBSCRIBES FOR COLENSO                       119




The old English archbishop was always a prince in the old times, but the
English archbishop is a prince no longer in these latter days. He is
still a nobleman of the highest rank,--he of Canterbury holding his
degree, indeed, above all his peers in Parliament, not of Royal blood,
and he of York following his elder brother, with none between them but
the temporary occupant of the woolsack. He is still one before whose
greatness small clerical aspirants veil their eyes, and whose blessing
in the minds of pious maidens has in it something almost divine. He is,
as I have said, a peer of Parliament. Above all things, he should be a
gentleman, and,--if it were always possible,--a gentleman of birth; but
he has no longer anything of the position or of the attributes of a

And this change has come upon our archbishops quite in latter times;
though, of course, we must look back to the old days of Papal supremacy
in England for the prince archbishop of the highest class. Such careers
as those of Thomas à Becket or of Wolsey have not been possible to any
clergymen since the days in which the power of the Pope was held to be
higher on matters ecclesiastical than the power of the Crown in these
realms; but we have had among us prince archbishops to a very late
date,--archbishops who have been princes not by means of political
strength or even by the force of sacerdotal independence, but who have
enjoyed their principalities simply as the results of their high rank,
their wealth, their reserve, their inaccessibility, as the result of a
certain mystery as to the nature of their duties,--and sometimes as the
result of personal veneration. For this personal veneration personal
dignity was as much needed as piety, and was much more necessary than
high mental power. An archbishop of fifty years since was very difficult
to approach, but when approached was as urbane as a king,--who is
supposed never to be severe but at a distance. He lived almost royally,
and his palace received that respect which seems, from the nature of the
word, to be due to a palatial residence. What he did, no man but his own
right-hand chaplain knew with accuracy; but that he could shower church
patronage as from the east the west and the south, all clerical
aspirants felt,--with awe rather than with hope. Lambeth in those days
was not overshadowed by the opposite glories of Westminster. He of York,
too, was a Northern prince, whose hospitalities north of the Humber were
more in repute than those of earls and barons. Fifty years since the
archbishops were indeed princes; but now-a-days we have changed all
that. The change, however, is only now completed. It was but the other
day that there died an Archbishop of Armagh who was prince to the
backbone, princely in his wealth and princely in his use of it, princely
in his mode of life, princely in his gait and outer looks and personal
demeanour,--princely also in the performance of his work. He made no
speeches from platforms. He wrote no books. He was never common among
men. He was a fine old man; and we may say of him that he was the last
of the prince archbishops.

This change has been brought about, partly by the altered position of
men in reference to each other, partly also by the altered circumstances
of the archbishops themselves. We in our English life are daily
approaching nearer to that republican level which is equally averse to
high summits and to low depths. We no longer wish to have princes among
us, and will at any rate have none of that mysterious kind which is half
divine and half hocus-pocus. Such terrestrial gods as we worship we
choose to look full in the face. We must hear their voices and be
satisfied that they have approved themselves as gods by other wisdom
than that which lies in the wig. That there is a tendency to evil in
this as well as a tendency to good may be true enough. To be able to
venerate is a high quality, and it is coming to that with us, that we do
not now venerate much. In this way the altered minds of men have
altered the position of the archbishops of the Church of England.

But the altered circumstances of the sees themselves have perhaps done
as much as the altered tendencies of men’s minds. It is not simply that
the incomes received by the present archbishops are much less than the
incomes of their predecessors,--though that alone would have done
much,--but the incomes are of a nature much less prone to produce
princes. The territorial grandeur is gone. The archbishops and bishops
of to-day, with the exception of, I believe, but two veterans on the
bench, receive their allotted stipends as do the clerks in the
Custom-house. There is no longer left with them any vestige of the power
of the freehold magnate over the soil. They no longer have tenant and
audit days. They cannot run their lives against leases, take up fines on
renewals, stretch their arms as possessors over wide fields, or cut down
woods and put acres of oaks into their ecclesiastical pockets. They who
understand the nature of the life of our English magnates, whether noble
or not noble, will be aware of the worth of that territorial position of
which our bishops have been deprived under the working of the
Ecclesiastical Commission. The very loss of the risk has been much!--as
that man looms larger to himself, and therefore to others also, whose
receipts may range from two to six hundred a year, than does the
comfortable possessor of the insured medium. The actual diminution of
income, too, has done much, and this has been accompanied by so great a
rise in the price of all princely luxuries that an archbishop without a
vast private fortune can no longer live as princes should live. In these
days, when a plain footman demands his fifty pounds of yearly wages, and
three hundred pounds a year is but a moderate rent for a London house,
an archbishop cannot support a semi-royal retinue or live with much
palatial splendour in the metropolis upon an annual income of eight
thousand pounds.

And then, above all, the archbishops have laid aside their wigs.

That we shall never have another prince archbishop in England or in
Ireland may be taken to be almost certain. Whether or no we shall ever
have prelates at Canterbury or York, at Armagh or Dublin, gifted with
the virtues and vices of princely minds, endowed with the strength and
at the same time with the self-willed obstinacy of princes, may be
doubtful. There is scope enough for such strength and such obstinacy in
the position, and our deficiency or our security,--as each of us
according to his own idiosyncrasy may regard it,--must depend, as it has
latterly been caused, by the selections made by the Prime Minister of
the day. There is the scope for strength and obstinacy now almost as
fully as there was in the days of Thomas à Becket, though the effects of
such strength or obstinacy would of course be much less wide. And,
indeed, as an archbishop may be supposed in these days to be secure from
murder, his scope may be said to be the fuller. What may not an
archbishop say, and what may not an archbishop do, and that without fear
of the only punishment which could possibly reach an archbishop,--the
punishment, namely, of deprivation? With what caution must not a
Minister of the present day be armed to save him from the misfortune of
having placed an archbishop militant over the Church of England?

The independence of an archbishop, and indeed to a very great, though
lesser extent of a bishop, in the midst of the existing dependence of
all others around him, would be a singular phenomenon, were it not the
natural result of our English abhorrence of change. We hate an evil, and
we hate a change. Hating the evil most, we make the change, but we make
it as small as possible. Hence it is that our Archbishop of Canterbury
has so much of that independent power which made Thomas à Becket fly
against his sovereign when the archiepiscopal mitre was placed upon his
head, though he had been that sovereign’s most obedient servant till his
consecration. Thomas à Becket held his office independently of the king;
and so does Dr. Longley. The Queen, though she be the head of the
Church, cannot rid herself of an archbishop who displeases her. The
Queen, in speaking of whom in our present sense of course we mean the
Prime Minister, can make an Archbishop of Canterbury; but she cannot
unmake him. The archbishop would be safe, let him play what tricks he
might in his high office. Nothing short of a commission de lunatico
inquirendo could attack him successfully,--which, should it find his
grace to be insane, would leave him his temporalities and his titles,
and simply place his duties in the hands of a coadjutor. Should an
archbishop commit a murder, or bigamy, or pick a pocket, he, no doubt,
would be liable to the laws of his country; but no lawyer and no
statesman can say to what penalties he can be subjected as regards the
due performance of the duties of his office. A judge is
independent;--that is, he is not subject to any penalty in regard to any
exercise of his judicial authority; but we all know that a judge would
soon cease to be a judge who should play pranks upon the bench, or
decline to perform the duties of his position. The archbishops, as the
heads of the endowed clergymen of the Church of England, are possessed
of freeholds, and that freehold cannot be touched. It is theirs for
life; and so great is the practical latitude of our Church, that it may
be doubted whether anything short of a professed obedience to the Pope
could deprive an archbishop of his stipend.

It may, therefore, be easily understood that a Prime Minister, in
selecting an archbishop, has a difficult task in hand. He is bound to
appoint a man who not only has hitherto played no pranks, but of whom he
may feel sure that he will play none in future. In our Church, as it
exists at present, we have ample latitude joined to much bigotry, and it
is almost as impossible to control the one as the other. Such control
is, in fact, on either side absolutely impossible; and, therefore,
archbishops are wanted who shall make no attempts at controlling. And
yet an archbishop must seem to control,--or, else, why is he there? An
Archbishop of Canterbury must be a visible head of bishops, and yet
exercise no headship. He must appear to men as the great guide of
parsons, but his guidance must not go beyond advice, and of that the
more chary he may be, the better will be the archbishop. Of course it
will be understood that reference is here made to doctrinal guidance,
and not to moral guidance--to latitude or bigotry in matters of
religion, and not to the social conduct of clergymen. How difficult then
must be the position of a Minister who has to select for so dangerous a
place a clergyman who shall be great enough to fill it, and yet small
enough; and one who shall also be just enough to remember always that
he is bound to retain that quiescence for which credit was given him
when he was chosen? The archbishop must be a man without any latent
flame, without ambition, desirous of no noise, who shall be content to
have been an archbishop without leaving behind him a peculiar name among
his brethren. He should hope to be remembered only as a good old man,
who in troublesome times abated some trouble and caused none, who smiled
often and frowned but seldom, who wore his ecclesiastical robes on high
days with a grace, and exercised a modest and frequent hospitality,
having no undue desire to amass money for his children.

It is not, perhaps, too much to say that the sort of man exactly wanted
may be selected for any post, and be found adequate to the required
duties so long as the sword of deprivation or dismissal can be made to
hang over the occupant’s head. But it is very difficult to find a man
who shall do his work, not after the fashion which may seem best to
himself, but in the way which seems most desirable to others, who, when
once placed, cannot be removed from his place. Will your groom or your
gardener obey you with that precision which you desire when he comes to
know that you cannot rid yourself of his services? And human nature is
the same in gardeners and in archbishops. It is not that the man is void
of conscience and that he resolves to disobey where he has promised to
obey, but that he tells himself that in his position duty requires no
obedience. Your gardener with a taste for tulips would, under such
circumstances, grow nothing but tulips; and what is to hinder your
archbishop from putting down the miracles or putting up candlesticks?
With Lambeth all ablaze with candlesticks the archbishop would still
hold his place.

The same thing may be said of the bishops; but among so many bishops it
is felt to be well that there should be some few who shall have a flame
of their own. In the house that has many rooms the owner may indulge in
many colours on the walls, and some of them may be of the brightest; but
in the house that has but one or two chambers the colours should be
chosen with a due regard to the ordinary quiescence of every-day life.
Had we not High Church and Low Church among our ordinary bishops, were
we to be deprived of our dear ---- and our dear ----, we should miss much
that we feel to be ornamental to the Establishment and useful to
ourselves. There are a few among us of course who would be glad to see
lights of the same splendour, even though so dangerous, at Canterbury
and at York; but it behoves a Prime Minister to be a moderate man, and a
man moderate, above all things, in religion. In the religion of to-day
moderation is everything. And, therefore, whatever else he may be, let
the archbishop be a moderate man. Let him always be throwing oil upon
waters. Nothing should shock him--nothing, that is, in the way of
religion. Nothing should excite him; nothing should make him angry. He
should be a man able to preach well, but not inclined to preach often.
In his preaching he should charm the ears of all hearers, but he should
hardly venture to stir their pulses. He should speak, too, occasionally
from platforms and chairs; only let him not make himself too common. He
should be very affable on Mondays and Tuesdays, secluding himself
somewhat on the other five days of the week, answering his
correspondents with words which may mean as little as words can be made
to mean, and carefully watching that he commits himself to nothing. How
hard it is to find the man who shall have talent enough for this, and
yet the self-command never to go beyond it, even though no penalties
await him, except such as may come from the venomous baiting of other

But it must not be supposed that the archbishop of to-day can be, or
should be, an idle man. It is his duty to be the precursor--probably the
unconscious precursor--of other men in that religion which shall teach
us that the ways of God are very easy to find, though they may not be so
easy to follow; that forms are almost nothing, so that faith be there.
Of all men, an archbishop should be the least of a fanatic. Can any one
imagine an archbishop of the present day abhorring a Dissenter, or
refusing to dine with a Roman Catholic because of his religion? And to
do this is much, even though it be done unconsciously. An archbishop
thus leading the van against bigotry has to stand with placid unmoved
front against assailants by the hundred. Let us only think of the
letters that are addressed to him, of the attacks made upon him, of the
questions asked of him. Against every attack he must defend himself, and
yet must he never commit himself. He must never be dumb, and yet must he
never speak out boldly. He must be always true to the Thirty-nine
Articles, and yet never fight for any one of them. In the broad his
creed must be infallible, but he himself may make a standing-point on no
detail. To carry an archbishop’s mitre successfully under such
circumstances requires much diligence, considerable skill, imperturbable
good humour, and undying patience.

The selections that have been made by the Ministers of the Crown for the
last twenty or twenty-five years have all apparently been made on the
principle of selecting such archbishops as have been here described, and
English Churchmen in general seem to think that the Ministers of the
Crown have exercised wise discretion in the appointments which they have



If it were said that the difference between bishops of the old school
and of the new consists chiefly in the fact that the former wore wigs
and that the latter have ceased to do so, the definition would be true
enough if it were followed out, not literally, but with a liberal
construction. In former days the wig and apron, of themselves, almost
sufficed; but now, these outer things having been, to so great an
extent, laid aside, other things, much more difficult of acquirement,
are needed. There was, however, such an odour of pious decorum round the
episcopal wig, that we cannot but regret its departure; and then, again,
so much of awe has gone, now that the wig is abandoned! We who can
remember the bishops in their full panoply can hardly understand how a
bishop of these times can be a bishop at all to his subject parsons. And
that veneration which arose from outer circumstances used to be so
peculiarly the perquisite of the bench of bishops, that men of the
laity, thinking over it all, are at a loss to conceive why appendages so
valuable should have been abandoned thus recklessly. Even aprons are not
worn as aprons were worn of yore,--but in a shorn degree, showing too
plainly that the reverend wearer is half ashamed of the tranquil
decoration; and lawn sleeves themselves do not seem to envelop the
occupant in so extensive a cloud of sacred millinery as they did in the
more reverent days of George the Fourth. Have the bishops themselves
made this suicidal change; or have they only succumbed to the invincible
force of public opinion in thus abandoning those awful symbols which
were so valuable to them?

A full and true answer to this question would go far towards giving a
history of the Church of England during the last sixty or seventy
years,--from the days in which Lord Eldon was first consulted as to the
making of a bishop, down to the last decade of years in which bishops
are popularly supposed to have been selected in accordance with the
advice of a religious Whig nobleman. Such a history cannot be given
here, but the peculiarities of the old and new bishop may perhaps be so
described as to show something of the result of the changes that have
taken place.

The bishop of George the Third and George the Fourth was never a prince,
as was the archbishop,--but he was a wealthy ecclesiastical baron,
having the prestige of a Peer of Parliament, even when he did not use
the power, living like a great lord in his palace, drawing his income
from territorial domains,--an income which was often so much greater
than his needs as to afford him the means of amassing a colossal
fortune. And as he generally entered upon the possession of this income
without any of the encumbrances which are incidental to the hereditary
possessors of great properties, and usually considered himself to be
precluded by the nature of his profession from many of those
wealth-consuming pursuits to which his lay brother nobles are prone, it
came to pass that the bishop was ordinarily a rich man. He kept no
race-horses; he was not usually a gambler; he could provide for clerical
sons and clerical sons-in-law out of the diocesan pocket: and was
preserved by the necessary quiescence of clerical life from that
broadcast magnificence which is so costly to our great nobles, because
it admits of no check upon its expenditure. The bishop, let him live as
handsomely as he might, was not called upon to live beyond the scope of
accounts;--and many of our bishops were good accountants.

But in those halcyon days, there was this drawback to being a bishop,
that the good things did not all come at once. What was a bishopric with
three thousand a year, when there were others of equal rank with seven,
or eight, or occasionally with ten thousand,--not to speak of the
sublimity of Canterbury, or the magnificence of York, or the golden
opulence of Durham, or the ancient splendour of Winchester, or the
metropolitan glory of London? The interest which made a bishop could
translate a bishop, and, therefore, no bishop in those days could rest
in comfortable content in the comparatively poor houses of Exeter or
Gloucester, while Ely might be reached, or at least Worcester. Thus it
came to pass that men, who in those days were never young when they were
first chosen, were still living always in hope of some rich change; and
that when the rich change came at last, the few remaining years, the
wished-for opportunities of wealth, were used with a tenacity of purpose
which might almost put a usurer to the blush.

But it would be unreasonable to feel strong abhorrence against the old
bishops on this account. Men in all walks of life do as others do around
them, and bishops are but men. It was thought to be the proper thing
that a bishop should exercise his power over the domains of the see to
the utmost extent rendered possible by the existing law. He would run
his life against a lease on the ecclesiastical property. If he died
before the lease expired the benefit would be to his successor. If he
survived he could lease the property for a term of years to his son at a
peppercorn rent, and the see would be so far robbed. It was an
interesting, exciting mode of life, and as the ecclesiastical lands grew
in value as all lands grew,--town lands, for instance, which gradually
covered themselves with houses,--the game became so delightful that it
is almost a pity that it should have been brought to an end. Let no man
say to himself that had he been a bishop in those days he would have
done otherwise,--unless he is quite sure that he is better than those
around him, even in these days.

But when such good things were going who were the men who got them? And
to this may be added a further question, How far did they deserve the
good things which were given to them? It used to be said that there were
three classes of aspirants to bishoprics, and three ladders by which
successful clergymen might place themselves on the bench. There was the
editor of the Greek play, whose ladder was generally an acquaintance
with Greek punctuation. There was the tutor of a noble pupil, whose
ladder was the political bias of his patron. And there was he who could
charm the royal ear, whose ladder was as frequently used in the closet
as in the pulpit. To these was afterwards added the political
aspirant,--the clergyman who could write a pamphlet or advocate a
semi-ecclesiastical cause by his spoken or written words.

That scholarship should be remunerated was very well; that men in power
should reward those who had been faithful to themselves and their
children was, at any rate, very natural; that the Sovereign should
occasionally have a voice in making those selections which, as head of
the Church, it was popularly supposed that he always made, seemed only
to be fair;--and who can say that a Minister was wrong to recompense
ecclesiastical support by ecclesiastical preferment? But it must be
admitted that the bench of bishops as it was constituted under the
circumstances above described was not conspicuous for its clerical
energy, for its theological attainments, or for its impartial use of the
great church patronage which it possessed. They who sat upon it
ordinarily wore their wigs with decorum and lived the lives of
gentlemen; but, looking back for many years, a churchman of the Church
of England cannot boast of the clerical doings of its bishops. Under the
great wig system much of awe was engendered, and that amount of good was
attained which consists mainly of respect and reverence for the unknown.
The mere existence of a Llama is good for people who have no more
clearly expressed God to worship,--and in this way the old, rich,
bewigged bishops were serviceable. But, with a few exceptions, they did
but little other clerical service. New churches were not built under
their auspices, nor were old churches repaired. Dissent in England
became strong, and the services of the State Church were in many
dioceses performed with a laxity and want even of decency which, though
it existed so short a time since, now hardly obtains belief. The wigs
have gone, but in their places have come,--as we are bound to
acknowledge,--many of those qualities, much more difficult of
acquirement, which men demand when wigs will no longer satisfy them. Let
any middle-aged man of the present day think of the bishops of his
youth, and remember those who were known to him by report, repute, or
perhaps by personal intercourse. Although bishops in those days were not
common in the market-places as they are now, some of us were allowed to
see them and hear them speak, and most of us may have some memory of
their characters. There were the old bishops who never stirred out, and
the young bishops who went to Court; and the bishop who was known to be
a Crœœsus, and the bishop who had so lived that, in spite of his
almost princely income, he was obliged to fly his creditors; and there
was the more innocent bishop who played chess, and the bishop who still
hankered after Greek plays, and the kindly old bishop who delighted to
make punch in moderate proportions for young people, and a very wicked
bishop or two, whose sins shall not be specially designated. Such are
the bishops we remember, together with one or two of simple energetic
piety. But who remembers bishops of those days who really did the work
to which they were set? In how many dioceses was there a Boanerges of
whom the Church can be proud? It is almost miraculous that the Church
should have stood at all through such guidance as it has had.

This has now been much altered, and the modern bishop is at any rate a
working man. And while we congratulate ourselves on the change that has
been made, let us give thanks where thanks are due. No doubt the
increased industry of the bishops has come, as has the increased
industry of public officers, from the demand of the people whom they
are called upon to serve. But in no way and by no means has more been
done to create this energy than by that movement at Oxford which had its
beginning hardly more than thirty years since, and of which the two
first leaders are still alive. Dr. Newman has gone to Rome, and Dr.
Pusey has perhaps helped to send many thither; but these men, and their
brethren of the Tracts, stirred up throughout the country so strong a
feeling of religion, gave rise by their works to so much thought on a
matter which had been allowed for years to go on almost without any
thought, that it may be said of them that they made episcopal idleness
impossible, and clerical idleness rare. Of course, it will be said, in
opposition to this, that no school of clergymen has so run after
wiggeries and vestments and empty symbols as have the followers of the
men whom I have named. But the wiggeries and vestments have been simply
the dross which has come from their fused gold. If you will make water
really boil, some will commonly boil over. They have built new churches,
and cleansed old churches, and opened closed churches. They have put on
fuel and poked the fire, till heat does really issue from it. It is not
only with the High Church,--with their own brethren,--that they have
prevailed, but equally with the Low Church, whose handsome edifices and
improved services are due to that energy which has been so hateful to

The modern bishop is a working man, and he is selected in order that he
may work. He is generally one who has been conspicuous as a working
parish clergyman, and may be and often is as ignorant of Greek as his
former parish clerk. In discussing archbishops it has been said that the
chosen candidate must have no strong Church predilections of his own. In
choosing a bishop a Minister is bound by no such limit. Perhaps it would
be well if High Church, Low Church, and Broad Church could be allowed to
have their turns in rotation,--as used to be the case with the two
universities. For many years past the Low Church has been in the
ascendant, and the chances now are that in meeting a bishop one meets an
enemy of the Oxford movement. But the bishop’s own predilections matter
little, perhaps, if the man will work with a will. There are few, I
think, now who remember much of the Low Church peculiarities of the
Bishop of London, having forgotten all that in the results of his

But, alas, in losing our fainéant bishops we have lost the great priest
lords whom we used to venerate. A bishop now has no domain, but is paid
his simple salary of 5,000_l._ a year,--quarterly, we suppose,--and
knows not and recks not of leases. He is paid 5,000_l._ a year if his
see was in former days worth as much, or less if the see of old was
worth less. London, Durham, and Winchester are more gorgeous than their
brethren, but even London and Durham have simple salaries, and
Winchester, on the next vacancy, will be reduced to the same humble
footing. It is a great fall in worldly state, and consequently bishops
may be now seen,--as bishops never were seen of yore,--sitting in cabs,
trusting themselves to open one-horse chaises, talking in the
market-places, and walking home after an ordination. These ears have
heard and these eyes have seen a modern bishop hallooing from the top of
his provincial High-street to a groom who was at the bottom of it,
brandishing his episcopal arms the while with an energy which might have
been spared. It is so with all things. In seeking for the useful, we are
compelled to abandon the picturesque. Our lanes and hedgerows and green
commons are all going; and the graceful dignity of the old bishop is a
thing of the past.

There still, however, remains to the bench one privilege, which, though
shorn of its ancient grandeur of injustice, has in it still much of the
sweet mediæval flavour of old English corruption. The patronage of the
bishops is as extensive almost as ever; and though its exercise is now
hemmed in by certain new stringencies of ecclesiastical law,--as in
regard to pluralities, and is also subject to the scrutiny of public
opinion, so that decency must at least be respected,--nevertheless
patronage remains, as the private property of the bishop. A bishop is
not bound, even in theory as the theory at present exists, to bestow his
patronage as may be best for the diocese over which he presides. He
still gives, and is supposed to give, his best livings to his own
friends. A deserving curate has no claim on a bishop for a living as a
reward for the work he has done. The peculiarly strong case of a Mr.
Cheese may, here and there, give rise to comment; but unless the
nepotism is too glaring, nepotism in bishops is allowed;--nay, it is
expected. A bishop’s daughter is supposed to offer one of the fairest
steps to promotion which the Church of England affords.

Is it not singular that it should be so,--that the idea of giving the
fitting reward to the most deserving servant should have to reach the
Church the last of all professions and of all trades? Sinecures and the
promotion of young favourites used to be common in the Civil Service;
but the public would not endure it, and the Civil Service has cleansed
itself. The army and navy have been subjected to searching reforms. A
great law officer has been made to vanish into space because he was too
keen in appropriating patronage to family uses. Bankers and brewers will
no longer have men about their premises who do not work; and yet bankers
and brewers may do what they like with their own. But the bishop, in
whose hands patronage has been placed, that he might use it in the
holiest way for the highest purpose, still exercises it daily with the
undeniable and acknowledged view of benefiting private friends! And in
doing so he does not even know that he is doing amiss. It may be doubted
whether the bishop has yet breathed beneath an apron who has doubted
that his patronage was as much his own as the silver in his
breeches-pocket. The bishop’s feeling in the matter is not singular, but
it is singular that bishops should not before this have been enlightened
on the subject of Church patronage by the voice of the laity whom they



If there be any man, who is not or has not been a Dean himself, who can
distinctly define the duties of a Dean of the Church of England, he must
be one who has studied ecclesiastical subjects very deeply. When
cathedral services were kept up for the honour of God rather than for
the welfare of the worshippers, with an understanding faintly felt by
the indifferent, but strongly realized by the pious, that recompence
would be given by the Almighty for the honour done to Him,--as
cathedrals were originally built and adorned with that object,--it was
natural enough that there should be placed at the head of those who
served in the choir a high dignitary who, by the weight of his presence
and the grace of his rank, should give an increased flavour of
ecclesiastical excellence to those services. The dean then was the head,
as it were, of a college, and he fitly did his work if he looked after
the ceremonies of his cathedral, saw that canons, precentor, minor
canons and choristers, did their ministrations with creditable grace,
took care that the building was, if possible, kept in good repair,--and
thus properly took the lead in the chapter over which he presided. But
the idea of honouring our Creator by the excellence of our church
services,--though it remains firmly fixed enough in the minds of some of
us,--is no longer a national idea; and we may say that deans are not
selected by those who have the appointment of deans with any such view.
We use our cathedrals in these days as big churches, in which multitudes
may worship, so that, if possible, they may learn to live Christian
lives. They are made beautiful that this worship may be attractive to
men, and not for the glory of God. What architect would now think it
necessary to spend time and money in the adornment of parts of his
edifice which no mortal eye can reach? But such was done in the old days
when deans were first instituted. Multitudes, no doubt, crowded our
cathedrals in those times,--when bishops and deans were subject to the
Pope--but they were there for the honour of God, testifying their faith
by the fact of their presence. That all this has been changed need
hardly be explained here; but in the change it would seem that the real
work of the dean has gone,--except so far as it may please him to take
some part in those offices of the church service which it is necessary
that a clergyman should perform. It is now ordinarily believed that to
the dean is especially entrusted the care of the structure itself; and
luckily for us, who love our old cathedrals, we have had some deans of
late who, as architectural ecclesiastics, have been very serviceable;
but should a dean have no such tendencies,--as many deans have had
none,--no penalty for neglect of prescribed duty would fall upon him. A
certain amount of yearly residence is enjoined; and it is expected, of
course, that a dean should show himself in his own cathedral. Let him
reside and show himself, and the city which he graces by his presence
will hardly demand from him other services.

In truth, the lines of deans have fallen in pleasant places. Man, being
by nature restless and ambitious, desires to rise; and the dean will
desire to become a bishop, though he would lose by the change his easy
comfort, his sufficient modest home, and the grace of his close in which
no one overtops him. To be a Peer of Parliament, to rule the clergy of a
diocese, and wear the highest order of clerical vestment, is sweet to
the clerical aspirant. A man feels that he is shelved when he ceases to
sing excelsior to himself in his closet. But the change from a deanery
of the present day to a palace is a change from ease to work, from
leisure to turmoil, from peace to war, from books which are ever
good-humoured to men who are too often ill-humoured. The dean’s modest
thousand a year sounds small in comparison with the bishop’s more
generous stipend:--but look at a dean, and you will always see that he
is sleeker than a bishop. The dean to whom fortune has given a quaint
old house with pleasant garden in a quaint old close, with resident
prebendaries and minor canons around him who just acknowledge, and no
more than acknowledge, his superiority,--who takes the lead, as Mr.
Dean, in the society of his clerical city,--who is never called upon to
discharge expensive duties in London, though he may revisit the glimpses
of the metropolitan moon for a month, perhaps, in the early summer,
showing his new rosette at his club,--seems indeed to have had his lines
given to him in very pleasant places.

There is something charming to the English ear in the name of the Dean
and Chapter. None of us quite know what it means, and yet we love it.
When we visit our ancient cathedrals, and are taken into a handsome but
manifestly useless octagonal stone outhouse, we are delighted to find
that the chapter-house is being repaired at an expense of, say, four
thousand pounds, subscribed by the maiden ladies of the diocese; or if
we find the said outhouse to be in ruins,--in which case the afflicted
verger will not show it if we allow him to pass easily through our
hands,--we feel a keen regret as though all things good were going from
us. That there should be a chapter-house attached to the cathedral,
simply because a chapter-house was needed in former days, is all the
reason that we can give for our affection; and we think that the old
ladies have spent their money well in preserving the relic. We also
think that the Ecclesiastical Commission spends its money well in
preserving the chapter, and should feel infinite regret in finding that
any diocese had none belonging to it. We are often told that ours is a
utilitarian age, but this utilitarian spirit is so closely mingled with
a veneration for things old and beautiful from age that we love our old
follies infinitely better than our new virtues.

Though it is difficult to define the duties of a modern dean, we all of
us know what are the qualities and what the acquirements which lead to
deaneries in these days; and most of us respect them. As it is now
necessary that a man shall have been an active parish parson before he
is thought fit to be a bishop, so it is required that a clergyman shall
have shown a taste for literature in some one of its branches before he
can be regarded among the candidates proper for a deanery. The normal
dean of this age is a gentleman who would probably not have taken orders
unless the circumstances of his life had placed orders very clearly in
his path. He is not a man who has been urged strongly in early youth by
a vocation for clerical duties, or who has subsequently devoted himself
to what may be called clerical administrations proper. He has taken
kindly to literature, having been biassed in his choice of the branch
which he has assumed by the fact of the word “Reverend” which has
attached itself to his name. He has done well at the university, and has
been a fellow, and perhaps a tutor, of his college. He has written a
book or two, and has not impossibly shown himself to be too liberal for
the bench; for it is given to deans to speak their thoughts more openly
than bishops are allowed to do. Indeed, this is so well acknowledged a
principle in the arrangement of church patronage, that it has struck
many of us with wonder that the Government has not escaped from its
difficulty in regard to the Bishop of Natal by making him a dean in

And, when once a dean, the happy beneficed lover of letters need make no
change in the mode of his life, as a bishop must do. He is not driven to
feel that now and from henceforth he must have his neck in a collar to
which he has hitherto been unused, and that he must be drawing ever and
always against the hill. A bishop must do so, or else he is a bad
bishop; but a dean has got no hill before him, unless he makes one for

Who that knows any of our dear old closes,--that of Winchester, for
instance, or of Norwich, or Hereford, or Salisbury,--has not wandered
among the modest, comfortable clerical residences which they contain,
envying the lot of those to whom such good things have been given? The
half-sequestered nook has a double delight, because it is only half
sequestered. On one side there is an arched gate,--a gate that may
possibly be capable of being locked, which gives to the spot a sweet
savour of monastic privacy and ecclesiastical reserve; while on the
other side the close opens itself freely to the city by paths leading,
probably, under the dear old towers of the cathedral, by the graves of
those who have been thought worthy of a resting-place so near the
shrine. It opens itself freely to the city, and courts the steps of
church matrons, who are almost as clerical as their lords. It is true,
indeed, that much of their glory has now departed from these hallowed
places. The dean still keeps his deanery, but the number of resident
canons has been terribly diminished. Houses intended for church
dignitaries are let to prosperous tallow-chandlers, and in the window of
a mansion in a close can, at this moment in which I am writing, be seen
a notice that lodgings can be had there by a private gentleman--with a
reference. But still it is the Close. There is still an odour there to
the acutely percipient nostrils as of shovel hats and black vestments.
You still talk gently as you walk over its well-kept gravel, and would
refrain within its precincts from that strength of language which may
perhaps be common to you out in the crowded marts of the city. The
cathedral, at any rate, is there, more beautiful than ever,--thanks to
the old ladies and the architectural dean. The musical rooks fly above
your head. The tower bells delight your ear with those deep-tolling,
silence-producing sounds which seem to come from past ages in which men
were not so hurried as they are now; and you feel that the resident
tallow-chandler and the single gentleman with a reference have not as
yet destroyed the ancient piety of the place.

The dean and chapter! How pleasantly the words sound on the tongue of a
reverent verger! The chapters, I fear, are terribly shorn of their old
glory, and each chapter must look at itself, when it meets, with
something of wistful woe in its half-extinguished old eyes. And why does
a chapter meet? Its highest duty is a congé d’élire,--permission to
choose its own bishop. Permission is sent down from the Prime Minister
to the chapter to choose Dr. Smith,--a very worthy evangelical
gentleman, whose name stinks in the nostrils of the old high and dry
canons and prebendaries who still hang round the towers of the
cathedral; and,--under certain terrible penalties,--they exercise their
functions, and unanimously elect Dr. Smith as the bishop of that
diocese. There must be something melancholy in such moments to a
reflective dean and chapter. We may suppose that the number of clerical
gentlemen who really meet together to carry on the business of the
election is not great. It is as small, probably, as may be; but
something of a chapter must be held. The ignorant layman, as he thinks
of it, wonders whether the work is really done in that cold unfurnished
octagonal stone building, which has just been so beautifully repaired
at the expense of the devout maiden ladies.

How English, how absurd, how picturesque it all is!--and, we may add,
how traditionally useful! The Queen is the head of the Church, and
therefore sends down word to a chapter, which in truth as a chapter no
longer exists, that it has permission to choose its bishop, the bishop
having been already appointed by the Prime Minister, who is the nominee
of the House of Commons! The chapter makes its choice accordingly, and
the whole thing goes on as though the machine were kept in motion by
forces as obedient to reason and the laws of nature as those operating
on a steam engine. We are often led to express our dismay, and sometimes
our scorn, at the ignorance shown by foreigners as to our institutions;
but when we ourselves consider their complications and irrationalistic
modes of procedure, the wonder is that any one not to the manner born
should be able to fathom aught of their significance.

Deans and chapters, though they exist with a mutilated grandeur, for the
present are safe; and long may they remain so!



A dean has been described as a Church dignitary who, as regards his
position in the Church, has little to do and a good deal to get. An
archdeacon, on the other hand, is a Church dignitary, who in diocesan
dignity is indeed almost equal to a dean, and in diocesan power is much
superior to a dean, but who has a great deal to do and very little to
get. Indeed, as to that matter of getting, the archdeacon,--as
archdeacon,--may be said to get almost nothing. It is quite in keeping
with the traditional polity and well understood peculiarities of our
Church that much work should be required from those officers to whom no
payment is allotted, or payment that is next to none; whereas from those
to whom affluence is given little labour is required. And the system
works well enough. There has as yet been no dearth of archdeacons; nor
shall we probably experience any such calamity.

Nevertheless, archdeacons are seldom allowed to starve. The bishops have
it in their power to look to that, and knowing that in these days
starving men seldom can exercise much authority, they take care that
their archdeacons shall be beneficed. The archdeacon always holds a
living. In former happy days he not unfrequently held more than one, and
there are probably archdeacons still living in that halcyon condition.
He always holds a living, and almost always a good living. He not
unfrequently is a man of private means, and has been selected for his
position partly on that account. He is the nominee of the bishop, and
is, therefore, not unfrequently intimately connected with episcopal
things. He is, perhaps, the son or nephew of a bishop, or has married a
wife from the palace, or has, after some fashion, sat in his early days
at episcopal feet. He is one whom the bishop thinks that he can love and
trust; and therefore, before he has obtained his archdeaconry, he has
probably been endowed with that first requisite for a good servant--good
wages. A poor archdeacon, an archdeacon who did not keep a curate or
two, an archdeacon who could not give a dinner and put a special bottle
of wine upon the table, an archdeacon who did not keep a carriage, or at
least a one-horse chaise, an archdeacon without a man servant, or a
banker’s account, would be nowhere,--if I may so speak,--in an English
diocese. Such a one could not hold up his head among churchwardens, or
inquire as to church repairs with any touch of proper authority.
Therefore, though the archdeacon is not paid for his services as
archdeacon, he is generally a gentleman who is well to do in the world,
and who can take a comfortable place in the county society among which
it is his happy lot to live.

But, above all things, an archdeacon should be a man of the world. He
should know well, not only how many shillings there are in a pound, but
how many shillings also there are in a clerical pound,--for in these
matters there is a difference. Five hundred a year is much more in the
hands of a country parson than it is in the hands of a country
gentleman who is not a parson,--all which the efficient archdeacon
understands and has at his fingers’ ends to the last shilling of the
calculation. He should understand, too, after what fashion his brother
rectors and vicars live around him,--should know something of their
habits, something also of their means, and should have an eye open to
their welfare, their pursuits, and their amusements. Of all these things
the really stirring archdeacon does in fact know very much.

The archdeacon is, in fact, a bishop in little, and as such is often
much more of a bishop in fact than is the bishop himself. To define,--or
rather to make intelligible by any definition,--an archdeacon’s power
and duties, would be very difficult; as also it is very difficult, or I
may say impossible, to do so with reference to a bishop’s functions. The
archdeacon holds a court, and makes visitations. These visitations may
be made pretty much at his pleasure. He must, I believe, make them once
in three years, but may make them every year if he thinks fit. He
inquires as to the administration of the services, seeing that the
canons are maintained, but has no power to alter aught; and as there
seems to be much difficulty in knowing when and by what the canons are
maintained, and when and by what they are not maintained, we may imagine
that the inquiries of a discreet archdeacon into the practices of a
respectable and efficient parson will not be too close or searching in
this matter of the canons. It is, however, easier to see whether the
windows of a church are in repair, and whether the roof keeps out the
rain, than it is to be intelligibly and efficiently explicit on the
subject of canons, and, therefore, the outward structure of the parish
church gives very safe employment to an archdeacon. The little
difficulty as to church rates which sometimes follows upon an order for
repairs is not uncongenial to the archdeacon’s mind. It hinges upon
politics, and upon a vexed political question in which the archdeacon,
as a strong local Conservative, has hitherto had his victories. There
remain so very few subjects which are still grateful to him in the same
way, that church rates, with all their little impediments and embargoes,
naturally present themselves to him as pleasant matters. And then the
archdeacons receive reports from the churchwardens, if churchwardens
have anything to report,--any scandal of which to tell, or evil
practices on the parson’s side of which complaint has unfortunately
become necessary according to the judgment of those churchwardens! By
the word “scandal” let not the uninitiated reader be led to think that
undignified tittle-tattle with his neighbour’s churchwardens is the duty
or the employment of an archdeacon. Open moral misconduct in a
clergyman’s life is supposed to be matter of justifiable public
scandal--the scandal arising with the clerical sinner, and not with
those who tell of the sin--and, as such, is, by the constitution of our
Church, an especial subject for the care of our archdeacons, and indeed,
under them, of our churchwardens. But in such matters archdeacons are
liberal, and much prefer to wink an eye than to see too much. We may
imagine that a churchwarden, misunderstanding his mission with regard to
scandal, and taking upon himself too promptly the duty of watching the
moral conduct of his parson, would not receive much comfort from a
visiting archdeacon. No one knows better than an archdeacon--no one
knows so well as an archdeacon--that it is needless and absurd to look
for a St. Paul in every parsonage. He would, indeed, be very little at
his own ease with a local St. Paul, much preferring a comfortable
rector, who can take his glass of wine after dinner and talk pleasantly
of old college days. St. Pauls, however, do not trouble him; nor is he
troubled much by the scandals of his clerical neighbours; but he must be
troubled sorely, I should think, by the increasing number and increasing
influence around him of those “literate” clergymen who--from want of
better, as we must in sorrow confess,--are flocking to us from
Islington, Birkenhead, and such like fountains of pastoral care. The man
who won’t drink his glass of wine, and talk of his college, and put off
for a few happy hours the sacred stiffnesses of the profession and
become simply an English gentleman,--he is the clergyman whom in his
heart the archdeacon does not love.

Thus the archdeacon is a bishop in little as regards his own
archdeaconry, which may probably comprise half a diocese; and as an
energetic financial secretary at the Treasury may, under an
uninstructed Chancellor of the Exchequer, have much more to do with the
finances of the country than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, so
may an energetic archdeacon have a much stronger influence on his
clerical district than the bishop who is over him. He is the bishop’s
eye, or should be so, and may not improbably become the bishop’s hand.

But the archdeacon, in spite of all his power and authority, though he
be so great among his brother parsons, is hardly in the way to better
promotion. High promotion in the Church now comes from political
influence or from the friendship of Ministers,--from those things,
combined of course with high clerical attainments--and an archdeacon is
not often in the way to obtain political influence or the friendship of
Ministers. As deans live in towns, so do archdeacons live in the
country; and like other country gentlemen they are always in opposition.
And then they are men who have been made what they are by the bishops,
and, therefore, are known well in their dioceses, but are not much known
beyond them. They culminate in their own local dignity, and, knowing
that they do so, they make the most of it. An archdeacon who is potent
with his bishop, and who is popular with his clergymen, who works hard
and can do so without undue meddling, who has a pleasant parish of his
own and is not troubled by ambitious or indifferent curates, who can
live on good terms with the squires around him, understanding how far it
is expedient that he should be restricted by his coat, and how for he
may go in discarding hyper-clerical constraint, is master of a position
in which he need not envy the success of any professional gentleman in
the kingdom. But he is not on the direct road to higher things, and will
probably die in his rectory, an archdeacon to the last.

If an archdeacon be ambitious of moving in higher clerical matters than
his archdeaconry affords him, he generally looks to gratify that desire
by sitting in Convocation. This method of doing something more than
routine duty is easier and less likely to fail than the other method of
publishing a volume of sermons. Sermons are not read now as they were
some thirty or forty years since, and Convocation has lately held its
head a little up, obtaining recognition in the newspapers, and
appearing to do something. An archdeacon is just the man to believe that
Convocation can do much; and this faith on his part is evidence of a
moral freshness and a real earnestness which adds a charm to his normal
character. Who can bring himself to believe that a bishop believes in
Convocation--a bishop, that is, who takes his seat in the House of
Lords, talks to other peers, and knows what is going on in the
well-instructed blasé London world? Such a one cannot but see, cannot
but know, that Convocation is a clerical toy, a mere debating society to
which belongs none of the vitality of power. But the archdeacon, fresh
from the country, believes in Convocation, and works there with some
real conviction that he is one of a clerical Parliament, and that he is
animated by true parliamentary life.

But it is in his own rectory that an archdeacon must ever shine with the
brightest light. I have said that he is a bishop in little, and I may
also say that he is the very chief among parsons; and as the country
parson--the country parson with pleasant parsonage, pleasanter wife, and
plenty of children--is the true and proper type of an English
clergyman, to which bishops, deans, canons, and curates are mere
adjuncts and necessary excrescences, so is the archdeacon the highest
type of the country parson. He is always married--an exception here or
there would but prove the rule--he generally has a large family; of
course he has a pleasant rectory. He must be an earnest working parish
clergyman, or he would hardly have been selected as an archdeacon. He is
necessarily--I may say certainly--a gentleman. Alas! that the day should
have gone by when the same might have been said of every clergyman
bearing orders in the Church of England. He is a man of the world, as I
have above explained, and as such it is not probable that he will be a
fanatic, though living examples may probably be adduced that fanaticism
can exist under an archdeacon’s hat. And he walks just a head taller
than other clergymen around him, receiving that pleasant attitude from
the modest authority which he carries. Of all attitudes it is the most
pleasant. He who stands high on a column can hardly talk pleasantly with
those who stand round his pedestal; and that haranguing with loud voice
from column top to column top is but a cold ceremonial conversation.
Who can imagine two archbishops slapping each other’s backs and being
jolly together? But an archdeacon is not raised by his dignity above a
capability for jovial intimacy, and yet he walks with his head
pleasantly raised above the heads of other parsons around him.



The word parson is generally supposed to be a slang term for the rector,
vicar, or incumbent of a parish, and, in the present day, is not often
used without some intended touch of drollery,--unless by the rustics of
country parishes who still cling to the old word. But the rustics are in
the right, for of all terms by which clergymen of the Church of England
are known, there is none more honourable in its origin than that of
parson. By that word the parish clergyman is designated as the palpable
and visible personage of the church of his parish, making that by his
presence an intelligible reality which, without him, would be but an
invisible idea. Parsons were so called before rectors or vicars were
known, and in ages which had heard nothing of that abominable word
incumbent. A parson proper, indeed, was above a vicar,--who originally
was simply the curate of an impersonal parson, and acted as priest in a
parish as to which some abbey or chapter stood in the position of
parson. The title of rector itself is new-fangled in comparison with
that of parson, and has no special ecclesiastical significance. The
parson, properly so called, had not only the full charge of his parish,
but the full benefit derivable from the tithes; and then he came to
change his name and to be called politely a rector. The vicar was he who
had the full charge of his parish, as also he has at present,
vicariously at first for some abbey or chapter; and now, in these days,
vicariously for some lay improprietor,--but who had and has the benefit
only of the so-called small tithes; and then he also came to be called
the parson. Rectors and vicars at present hold their livings by tenures
which are equally firm, and they have done so now for more than four
hundred years. The rustics above mentioned would be much surprised if
told that their vicar was not a real parson. In speaking, therefore, of
the parson of the parish, let us be understood to mean the parish
clergyman, who has that full fruition of his living which is given by
freehold possession. There is a pleasant flavour of old crusted port
present to the palate of one’s imagination when mention is made of a
rector, which he misses perhaps in inquiring after the vicar, whose beer
may be better than his wine; and the rector cuts lustily from the
haunch, while the vicar is scientific with the shoulder. But we expect,
on the other hand, and are gratified in expecting, a kinder and more
genial flow of clerical wit from the vicar than the rector gives us; and
I have generally found the vicar’s armchair to be easier than that of
his elder brother. But here, in speaking of the English parson,--of the
priest who has full clerical command in his parish,--no distinction
between rector and vicar shall be made.

The parson of the parish is the proper type and most becoming form of
the English clergyman as the captain of his ship is of the English naval
officer. Admirals of the Red and Admirals of the Blue, and Commodores
with authority ashore, are very fine fellows, and may perhaps be greater
in their way than the captain can be in his; but for real naval
efficiency and authority the captain of the ship on his own quarter-deck
stands unequalled. And so it is with the parson of the parish in his
own glebe. He is pure parson and nothing else, and in the daily work of
his life, if he does that daily work diligently, he cannot but feel that
he is devoting himself to those duties which properly belong to him.
Whether a bishop in the House of Lords may so think of himself, or a
bishop speaking from a platform, or a bishop in the turmoils of
correspondence, or even a bishop dispensing his patronage, may be more
doubtful. And the easy dean may doubt whether such ease was intended for
him when he took upon himself to bear the arms of St. Paul. And the
fellow of a college, even though he be tutor as well as fellow, may feel
some qualms as to that word reverend with which he has caused the world
to address him. But the parson in his parish must know that he has got
himself into that place for which he has been expressly fitted by the
orders he has taken. The curate, who is always a curate, to whom it is
never given to exercise by his own right the highest clerical authority
in his parish, cannot be said to have fulfilled the mission of his
profession satisfactorily, let him have worked ever so nobly. He is as
the lieutenant who never rises to be a captain. But the parson requires
no further exaltation for clerical excellence. The higher he rises above
parsondom, the less will he be of a clergyman. He may become a peer of
Parliament, or the head of a chapter, or a local magistrate over other
clergymen, as is an archdeacon; but as simply parish parson, he fills
the most clerical office in his profession.

The parson of the parish in England, a few years since, was almost
necessarily a man who had been educated at Oxford or Cambridge. An
English parish might indeed have an Irishman from Trinity College,
Dublin; and, now and again, an outsider was admitted into the fold as a
shepherd. There was a small college in the north to fit northern
candidates for northern congregations, and the rule was not absolutely
absolute; but it prevailed so far that it was felt to be a rule. And
thence came an assurance, in which trust was put more or less by all
classes, that the parson of the parish was at least a gentleman. He was
a man who had lived on equal terms with the highest of the land in point
of birth, and hence arose a feeling that was very general in rural
parishes, and as salutary as it was general, that the occupant of the
parsonage was as good a man as the occupant of the squire’s house. It
would be interesting to us to trace when this feeling first became
common, knowing as we do know that for many years after the Reformation,
and down even to a comparatively late date, the rural clergyman was
anything but highly esteemed. We are told constantly that the parson
left the dining-room when the pudding came in, and that he by no means
did badly for himself in marrying the lady’s maid. We most of us know
the character of that eminent divine Dr. Tusher, who lived in the reign
of Queen Anne. Then came the halcyon days of British clergymen,--the
happy days of George III. and George IV., and the parson in his
parsonage was as good a gentleman as any squire in his mansion or
nobleman in his castle. There is, alas! a new order of things coming on
us which threatens us with some changes, not for the better, in this
respect. There are theological colleges here and there, and men and
women talk of “literates.” Who shall dare to say that it may not all be
for the best? Who will venture to prophesy that there shall be less
energetic teaching of God’s word under the new order of things than
under the old? But, as to the special man of whom we speak now, the
English parish parson, with whom we all love to be on familiar
terms,--that he will be an altered man, and as a man less attractive,
less urbane, less genial,--in one significant word, less of a
gentleman,--that such will be the result of theological colleges and the
institution of “literates,” no one who has thought of the subject will
have any doubt.

And in no capacity is a gentleman more required or more quickly
recognized than in that of a parson. Who has not seen a thrifty
household mistress holding almost unconsciously between her finger and
thumb a piece of silk or linen, and telling at once by the touch whether
the fabric be good? This is done with almost an instinct in the matter,
and habit has made perfect in the woman that which was born with her.
Exactly in the same way, only much more unconsciously, will the English
rustic take his new parson between his finger and thumb and find out
whether he be a gentleman. The rustic cannot tell by what law he judges,
but he knows the article, and the gentleman he will obey and respect,
in the gentleman he will believe. Such is his nature. While in the
other, who has not responded favourably to the touch of the rustic’s
finger, the rustic will not believe, nor by him will he be restrained,
if restraint be necessary. The rustic in this may show, perhaps, both
his ignorance and servility, as well as the skilled power of his
fingering,--but such is his nature.

But the adult parson of the parish in England,--the clergyman who has
reached, if I may so say, the full dominion of his quarter-deck,--is
still customarily a man from Oxford or from Cambridge, and it is of such
a one that we speak here. He has probably been the younger son of a
squire, or else his father has been a parson, as he is himself.
Throughout his whole life he has lived in close communion with rural
affairs, and has of them that exact knowledge which close communion only
will give. He knows accurately, from lessons which he has learned
unknowingly, the extent of the evil and the extent of the good which
exists around him, and he adapts himself to the one and to the other.
Against gross profligacy and loud sin he can inveigh boldly, and he can
make men and women to shake in their shoes by telling them of the
punishment which will follow such courses; but with the peccadilloes
dear to the rustic mind he knows how to make compromises, and can put up
with a little drunkenness, with occasional sabbath-breaking, with
ordinary oaths, and with church somnolence. He does not expect much of
poor human nature, and is thankful for moderate results. He is generally
a man imbued with strong prejudice, thinking ill of all countries and
all religions but his own; but in spite of his prejudices he is liberal,
and though he thinks ill of men, he would not punish them for the ill
that he thinks. He has something of bigotry in his heart, and would
probably be willing, if the times served his purpose, to make all men
members of the Church of England by Act of Parliament; but though he is
a bigot, he is not a fanatic, and as long as men will belong to his
Church, he is quite willing that the obligations of that Church shall
sit lightly upon them. He loves his religion and wages an honest fight
with the devil; but even with the devil he likes to deal courteously,
and is not averse to some occasional truces. He is quite in earnest,
but he dislikes zeal; and of all men whom he hates, the over-pious young
curate, who will never allow ginger to be hot in the mouth, is the man
whom he hates the most. He carries out his Bible teaching in preferring
the publican to the Pharisee, and can deal much more comfortably with an
occasional backslider than he can with any man who always walks, or
appears to walk, in the straight course.

It almost seems that something approaching to hypocrisy were a necessary
component part of the character of the English parish parson, and yet he
is a man always on the alert to be honest. It is his misfortune that he
must preach higher than his own practice, and that he is driven to
pretend to think that a stricter course of life is necessary than that
which he would desire to see followed out even in his own family. As the
mealman in the description of his flours can never go below “middlings,”
knowing that they who wish to get the cheapest article would never buy
it if it were actually ticketed as being of the worst quality, so is the
parson driven to ticket all his articles above their real value. He
cannot tell his people what amount of religion will really suffice for
them, knowing that he will never get from them all that he asks; and
thus he is compelled to have an inner life and an outer,--an inner life,
in which he squares his religious views with his real ideas as to that
which God requires from his creatures; and an outer life, in which he is
always demanding much in order that he may get little. From this it
results that a parish parson among his own friends differs much from the
parish parson among his parishioners, and that he is always, as it were,
winking at those who know him as a man, while he is most eager in his
exercitations among those who only know him as a clergyman.

The parish parson generally has a grievance, and is much attached to
it,--in which he is like all other men in all other walks of life. He
not uncommonly maintains a mild opposition to his bishop, upon whom he
is apt to look down as belonging to a new order of things, and whom he
regards, on account of this new order of things, as being not above half
a clergyman. As he rises in years and repute he becomes a rural dean,
and exercises some small authority out of his own parish, by which,
however, his character as a parish parson, pure and simple, is somewhat
damaged. He is great in the management of his curate, and arrives at
such perfection in his professional career that he inspires his clerk
with mingled awe and affection.

Such is the English parish parson, as he was almost always some fifty
years since, as he is still in many parishes, but as he will soon cease
to become. The homes of such men are among the pleasantest in the
country, just reaching in well-being and abundance that point at which
perfect comfort exists and magnificence has not yet begun to display
itself. And the men themselves have no superiors in their adaptability
to social happiness. How pleasantly they talk when the room is tiled,
and the outward world is shut out for the night! How they delight in the
modest pleasures of the table, sitting in unquestioned ease over a ruddy
fire, while the bottle stands ready to the grasp, but not to be grasped
too frequently or too quickly. Methinks the eye of no man beams so
kindly on me as I fill my glass for the third time after dinner as does
the eye of the parson of the parish.



Dr. Johnson tells us that an incumbent is he who is in present
possession of a benefice, and by quoting Swift shows us that, though in
possession of a benefice, the incumbent may be in possession of very
little benefit from his benefice. “In many places,” Swift says, as
quoted by Johnson, “the whole ecclesiastical dues are in lay hands, and
the incumbent lieth at the mercy of his patron.” The word, therefore, is
legitimately used in its ecclesiastical sense, and can apparently be
legitimately used in no other sense; but, nevertheless, it has no
pleasantly ecclesiastical flavour, and carries with itself none of that
acknowledged right to respect which is attached to other clerical
titles. To be named as a curate is almost better than to be named as an
incumbent; for the curate is supposed to be young, and is on his proper
road to higher church grades, whereas the incumbent is one who has
obtained his promotion, but who is, after all, only an--incumbent. Every
parish parson in the kingdom is no doubt an incumbent, but in ordinary
parlance we hardly apply the name to the country rector or to the vicar
blessed with a pleasant parsonage. The incumbent, as we generally
recognize him, is a clergyman who has obtained a town district, who has
a church of his own therein from whence he draws what income he may
make, chiefly by the letting of sittings, and is so called simply
because no other clerical title seems properly to belong to him. No
clerical aspirant would be an incumbent,--so to be called,--who could
become a parson proper.

The town incumbent, therefore, is rarely a man well to do in the world.
He is one who earns his bread hardly in the sweat of his brow, and too
often earns but very poor bread. It is not he who has married or who
will marry the bishop’s daughter. Indeed, before he becomes a town
incumbent he has generally put himself beyond such promotion as that by
marrying the girl of his heart without a penny. Had he not done so, and
thus become terribly in want of an income,--an income at once, though it
be a small income,--he would not have taken a district church, and have
submitted his neck to the yoke of town incumbency. He knows that in
doing so he is consenting to place himself in that branch of his
profession which is the least honoured, though not perhaps the least
honourable. He is subjecting himself to the heaviest clerical work with
but a small prospect of large clerical loaves or fine clerical fishes;
and he is prepared to live in a much lower social rank than that which
is enjoyed by his more fortunate brothers in the country. The country
parson is all but the squire’s equal,--is below the squire in parish
standing only as a younger brother is below his elder; but the town
incumbent is not equal to the town mayor, and in the estimation of many
of his fellow-townsmen is hardly superior to the town beadle. Indeed, he
is too often simply recognized as the professional gentleman who has
taken his family into the last built new house in Albert Terrace.
There, in Albert Terrace, he looks out upon a brickfield, and writes his
sermons with very little of that prestige which belongs to the genuine
British parson of the parish. His flock are his hearers, not his
parishioners. They sit under him, some because his district church of
St. Mary is the nearest to them, some because the sittings at St. Mary’s
are 5_s_. 6_d_. a year cheaper than they are at the next place of
worship,--for St. Mary’s is a place of worship rather than a church to
the minds of the townsmen,--and some because they prefer his preaching
to the preaching of another town incumbent. They sit under him, but they
are not his people jure divino, for him to deal with them concerning
their eternal welfare as he may please. He does not even know the name
of the man who lives next door to him in Albert Terrace; whereas the
true parson of the parish knows every detail as to every child born
within his domain. The one is simply the town incumbent of St. Mary’s as
another man may be an attorney, and a third an apothecary; whereas the
rural parson is the personage of his parish.

To the position of the town incumbent are attached none of those
half-barbarous but picturesque circumstances which still make the
position of our country parsons almost unintelligible to the inquiring
foreigner. One clergyman, with little or nothing to do in his parish,
has fifteen hundred a year and a beautiful house for doing that
little,--which after all is done by a curate; while his neighbour in the
next parish with four times the area and eight times the population,
receives one hundred and fifty pounds a year in lieu of the little
tithes! And yet neither does the one feel himself to have been unduly
favoured, nor does the other think himself to be injured! Such are the
more-than-half-barbarous, but still picturesque circumstances of our
rural parishes. But there is nothing either barbarous or picturesque
about the town incumbent. He has allotted to him a district, with such
or such a population,--a certain number of thousands over whom it must
be much beyond his power to achieve anything approaching to a pastoral
surveillance,--with a church in the middle of it, and an income which
will fluctuate as the seats in it may be full or empty. Here, in this
arrangement, all the principles of political economy are kept in view.
Here are supply and demand. Those who want him will come to him and pay
him,--as they do to the baker or the dentist. If they don’t think he
suits them, they will leave him,--as also in similar circumstances they
leave their baker and their dentist. If he can fill his church he will
live well and become sleek. If his gifts in preaching are small, or if
his piety be unrecognized and his labours disregarded, he will live
badly and his outward man will become rusty. Among town incumbents the
rusty greatly exceed the sleek in numbers.

The town incumbent of whom we are here speaking generally finds himself
located among the growing outskirts of a manufacturing town. Here he
sees the world increasing around him with wonderful rapidity, and sees
also much of the success of the world. The man who began his struggle in
life as a manufacturer, when he, the incumbent, also began his struggle,
soon rises from step to step, adding chimney to chimney, and buys his
villa residence and sets up his carriage. In his career, failure was, of
course, possible, but the road to success was open to him, and has been
quickly reached. This his neighbour, the clergyman, sees, and tells
himself, not without bitterness, that for him there is no such road. For
him there must always be poverty and hard work,--that worst of all
poverty which has to hide itself under a black coat, and work which is
not only ceaseless, but too often thankless and apparently without
adequate result! This must be his lot in life, he tells himself,--unless
he can preach himself into a reputation. If he can do that, if he can be
a M‘Neale or an English Ward Beecher, then, indeed, there will be a
career open to him. Then he will be sleek, and people will ask him to
dinner, and the wife of his bosom will hold up her head among other
dames, and his name will become familiar in the columns of newspapers.
This after all is what men want, town incumbents as well as others; and
so the town incumbent sets himself to work to make a reputation for
himself by pulpit eloquence. As he walks along the dull new streets of
his district he fills himself with this ambition, and declares to
himself that he will be great as a preacher. He will fill his seats, and
draw men to him,--or, if not men, at least women. He will denounce sins
with a loud voice and eager accents. And he will denounce not only sins,
but heresies also, and lax doctrines. By denouncing simply sin few
clerical aspirants have become noted among their neighbours, but the man
who will denounce his neighbours’ opinions as well as his sins will
become famous. And so the town incumbent settles himself to his desk and
goes to work.

It will be said, no doubt, that a monstrous accusation is here brought
against a body of men who are very eager in doing good works. It is not
meant as any accusation. No charge is intended to be made against town
incumbents, or against any clergyman, in the description here given.
They endeavour simply to succeed in their profession, as every man
blessed with activity will attempt to succeed in his profession if it be
one in which there is room for success. Given the church to fill, and
the incumbency to be made valuable by filling it, and it is simply human
nature that an energetic man shall endeavour to fill his church and make
his profession valuable. He cannot fill his church by visiting the poor.
He cannot earn for himself even a decent position in the district in
which he lives by a careful performance of ordinary clerical duties. If
he simply reads the services and officiates at the communion table, and
preaches drowsy sermons, he will starve on some 200_l._ a year, and
never get his head above water, either as regards money or reputation.
Of course he will do his best for himself, and of course he will teach
himself to believe that in doing so he is doing the best for the cause
which he really loves in his heart. He is not a bad man, or a hypocrite,
because he denounces heresies and lax doctrines in a loud voice, instead
of endeavouring to teach his people simply that they should not lie, or
get drunk, or steal. He is probably a very good man; but he is a good
man who would like to have 1,000_l._ a year and a name, instead of
200_l._ a year and no name at all.

But he probably fails. It is sad to say it, and sad to think of it, but
failure is the ordinary lot of man. A few among us do advance far enough
in the accomplishment of their aspirations to merit the reputation of
success, and they are heard of in the world; but the mass of men strive
for a while to do something, and then sink down into the common ruck,
finding the struggle to be too hard for them. They earn bread and live;
and at last, perhaps, are contented. So it is with the town incumbent.
He preaches for a while with all his force. He spends sleepless nights
in the composition of his sermons. He becomes bolder and bolder in his
denouncings. But it is of no avail. He has not the gift of pouring forth
either honey or liquid fire from his lips, and his energy is all wasted.
He throws himself in despair on the bosom of his wife, who alone has
believed in him, and declares that his people have adders’ ears and
hearts of stone. From that time forth, with saddened spirit and heart
all sick within him, he trudges on upon his daily round of duties, not
cursing the day, but reviling the day with an asperity purely clerical,
on which he became--a town incumbent.

But it is possible that he does not fail. There are, no doubt, town
incumbents who succeed in preaching themselves into fortunes and
reputations, and who become very sleek and very famous, who are able to
mount higher than their pulpits, on to platforms, and can then enjoy
the inestimable privilege of abusing their opponents without fear of
reply. But, of all clergymen, the successful town preacher seems to be
the farthest removed from those clerical excellences of charity and
good-will among men, and the farthest also from those special clerical
duties for which our clergy are most valued. They will preach;--yes, by
the hour together! Nine times a week we have heard of such a one
preaching, and have then known him to speak of himself as a martyr in
the service! But they will do nothing else.

For the unsuccessful town incumbent we all of us have sympathy. His work
is hard, his payment is small, and his lines have fallen to him in
unpleasant places. But for the successful town incumbent, for the
clergyman who fills his church with prayerful, tearful, excitable, but
at the same time remunerative ladies, few men can have any sympathy.

The position of the town incumbent is not, in truth, in unison with the
Church of England as established among us. The glory of the English
parson is that his position is ensured to him whether he satisfies those
whom he is called upon to serve, or whether he does not satisfy them.
Consequently he can be, and is, independent of his congregation. He will
wish of course to be on pleasant terms with them, but it will not be for
his pocket’s sake. And it seems that such independence as this is
essential to the position of a clergyman of the Church of England. It is
doubtless true that the number of rural rectors and vicars among us will
never be increased, whereas the number of town incumbents will continue
to increase from year to year. As the population grows, so will their
number grow. But it is to be hoped that the peculiar evils of their
position may be remedied by altered arrangements as to their income. If
this be not possible, or be not done, we shall hardly find that sons of
English gentlemen will continue to seek the Church as a profession.



In speaking of a college fellow, a fellow of a college at Oxford or
Cambridge is the fellow of whom we intend to speak. There may, probably,
be other fellowships going in these prolific days, as there are other
universities, and degrees given by other academical bodies; but we will
claim, for the moment, to belong to the old school in such matters, and
will recognize as college fellows only those who are presented to us as
fellows by the two great sister universities.

When a man becomes a fellow various possessions and privileges are
conferred upon him, such as a certain income, a certain rank in his
college, a residence within his college, and a place at the high table
in hall; and among these privileges and possessions is the great
privilege--of a title to orders. In respect to some fellowships this
privilege may be enjoyed or neglected according to the will of the
individual fellow. In respect to others the fellow must avail himself of
it, and must become a clergyman, if not absolutely at once, then within
a short period of his election. And there is a third condition, such as
that which prevails at the greatest of all our colleges, namely,
Trinity, Cambridge, in accordance with which certain years of grace are
allowed, and a fellow may remain a fellow for a period of years without
taking orders. But, as we believe, at all these colleges a fellowship
confers a title to orders,--the right, that is, on the part of the
fellow to demand ordination from the bishop; and, as a rule, this
privilege is enjoyed. As we are dealing in these sketches with none but
clergymen, the fellow who has availed himself of this title is the
fellow whom we will keep in view.

All our readers will know what is meant by taking orders,--the process
by which a layman becomes a deacon or a priest under the bishop’s
hands; and most of them will understand that a title to orders is the
possession in prospect of such sacerdotal position as will justify a
bishop in turning a layman into a clergyman. Thus, for instance, a man
has a title to orders who can show that there is a living waiting for
his enjoyment and for his services. The offer of a curacy confers a
title, and this is the title by which the great body of aspirants to the
sacerdotal profession claim their right to admission. Such claimants the
bishop is bound to ordain, providing that they show themselves to be
fit;--but without a title, or recognized place of clerical duty ready
for the candidate as soon as he shall become a clergyman, no bishop will
ordain any one. And among other titles there is the title conferred by a
college fellowship. The fellow of a college goes before a bishop
demanding to be ordained simply because he is a fellow,--and the bishop
ordains him. It is a great privilege, for that man is Reverend from that
time forth for evermore. In all future ages he will be written down as
having been Reverend.

There can be no doubt that when this pleasant arrangement became a
portion of college law there was good reason for it. The colleges were
ecclesiastical bodies, generally if not entirely under ecclesiastical
governance, and a fellow not an ecclesiastic would have been very much
in the way at most of them. Men who were clergymen, and men who were
not, differed much more strongly then than they do now, both as to the
inner life of the man and the outward appearance of the man. And it was
then recognized as a part of the great Church system of the day, that in
many places ecclesiastics, who were of course unmarried, should live
together, passing their time in that state which was then considered to
be for them the most salutary and to others the most useful,--saying
prayers for the laity which the laity could hardly be got to say for
themselves, and maintaining by their continued presence at the
universities something of the result of their education, and some show
of learning and piety. In those days the fellows of our colleges were
monks of a favoured order,--especially favoured because they were, or
were presumed to be, especially learned. Looking at our Church, our
colleges, and our religion, as they then existed, we shall feel little
doubt as to the propriety of fellows having been clergymen in those
days. But now,--now that things are so much altered in our Church and in
our colleges and in our religion,--sometimes a doubt does creep upon us
as to the expediency of this title to orders which a fellowship conveys,
and the use which is made of this title.

In the Roman Catholic Church worship seems to have been ordained for the
gratification of God. The people were, and indeed are still, taught that
God and his saints like prayers and incense and church services, and
will reward those who are liberal in bestowing them. It is, therefore,
natural that in the Church of Rome there should be,--or, more natural
still, that there should have been when this idea was more prevalent in
Roman Catholic countries than it is now,--legions of priests whose
church administrations were performed with a view to their effect on the
Creator, and with no view to any effect on man. But in Protestant
countries worship is used, as we suppose, simply for the use of man. It
is the duty of the clergyman, as clergyman, to assist other men in
worshipping rather than to achieve anything by worship on his own part.
If such be the case,--and such appears to be at any rate the existing
theory of our own Protestant Church,--it is difficult to conceive how
any man can become a clergyman of the Church of England who has no
intention whatsoever of helping others to worship,--who has not before
him any prospect of performing the duties of a clergyman.

It will be said, doubtless, that the statement here made is wrong and
untrue, because the clerical fellow of a college has always before him
the prospect of succeeding to a college living, and does generally end
his days as the parson of a parish to which he has been presented by his
college in the regular order of good things accruing to him. It is quite
true that the clerical fellow does in this way become a real clergyman,
or a parson proper if I may so call him, in the latter half of his life,
when at forty or forty-five he begins to feel that he would like to have
something softer near to him than his gyp or laundrywoman, and bethinks
himself of some Eliza whom he has long half loved, but would never
before allow himself to love altogether,--because of his fellowship.
The fellow then drops his fellowship, and takes a living, and goes to
his parish and becomes a real clergyman. But the fact that he does so
offers only another and a stronger objection to his original ordination,
while it does not, in truth, at all invalidate that already stated. It
is true that the fellow becomes a clergyman at last; but who will
maintain that any man has fitly used a profession to which he has never
applied himself during those years of his life in which his energy was
the strongest, and which he embraced without any view to using it at
all? The fellow of a college is ordained in order that he may hold his
fellowship,--because in old days, when the fellowship was instituted,
fellows were supposed to live the life of monks. We do not think that
any existing fellow of a college at Oxford or Cambridge will declare
that he has undergone ordination with an express view to the living to
which he may succeed after ten or fifteen years.

And now we will venture to say a few words as to that stronger objection
to the practice of ordaining fellows which we maintain is to be found in
this practice of their succeeding to college livings by rotation. When
we employ a doctor or a lawyer or an architect, we select a man who
knows his profession, and who has proved that he knows it by his
practice. Young men entering these professions make their way upwards to
that reputation which will bring them practice by attaching themselves
to those who are older and more experienced, or by consenting to
practise for a while, as it were, experimentally, without much view to
income. And in the Church generally the same order of things prevails.
It is admitted on all hands within the church, by bishops, by
archdeacons, by all working parish clergymen,--by all men who have
interested themselves on the subject,--that the only fit education for a
parish parson is to be found in a parish curacy. As a man to be a good
bishop should have been a parish parson, so to be a good parson a man
should have been a curate. That we take to be good clergyman’s law; but
that law is infringed on every occasion on which a college living is
taken by a resident college fellow. A college fellow may, of course,
become a curate, and when such a one succeeds to his living all is
well. But the man who does so should have been ordained on the title of
his curacy, not on the title of his fellowship.

Does any man believe that that very pleasant fellow whom he has known at
college, and who has sparkled so brightly in common room, who has been
so energetic in the management of the college finances, and in the
reform of college abuses,--who has gradually succeeded during his
fifteen years of residence in putting off all those outward clerical
symbols which as a novice he found himself constrained to adopt, and who
during his annual visit to London has become a well-instructed man of
the world,--can any one, we say, believe that such a one at the age of
forty can be fit to go into a parish and undertake the cure of the
parochial souls? There are, we fancy, some who do so believe; but they
are those who think that nothing is necessary to make a parson but
orders and a living,--that the profession of a clergyman is unlike any
other trade or calling known, requiring for the due performance of its
duties no special fitness, no training, no skill, no practice, no
thought, and no preparation.

The Reverend Joseph Brown stands senior on the list of the fellows of
St. Lazarus, within the walls of which happy institution he has lived as
fellow and bursar for the last thirty years. No man understands better
than the Reverend Joseph Brown the proper temperature of port wine, or
the amount of service which a college servant should render. But at the
age of fifty-five he falls into unexpectedly tender relations with an
amiable female, and on that account he undertakes the pastoral care of
the souls of the parish of Eiderdown! What if Eiderdown got its doctor
in the same way, or its butcher? What if the ladies of Eiderdown were
bound to employ a milliner sent to them after some such fashion? But no
man or woman can conceive the possibility of any workman presuming to
attempt to earn his bread by his work after such a fashion as
this,--excepting always a clergyman. In the Church, because it is so
picturesque and well-beloved in its old-fashioned garments, we can put
up with anomalies which elsewhere would be unendurable. A bishop uses
his patronage as personal property, and college fellows become clergymen
and succeed to livings by right, as though in this business of the cure
of souls, and in this business only, there were no necessity for that
progress in skill and efficiency which all other callings demand! There
was a time when men became captains of ships and colonels of regiments
in much the same way; but the picturesque absurdities of the army and
navy were less endearing than those of the Church, and they therefore
have been made to succumb.

It will probably be admitted that the Reverend Joseph Brown, much as he
was liked by all who knew him at St. Lazarus, and much as he was
respected by those who were brought into collegiate relations with him,
was not the very best pastor whom the Church of England could have given
to the people of Eiderdown; but many who will admit this will still
think that in being ordained as a young man on the title of his
fellowship, he did that which was becoming to him as one who had passed
through his university education with honour and success. Fellows of
colleges always have been clergymen, holding high characters as such in
their profession, and why not the Reverend Joseph Brown? Is it not also
known to us that such a man, located as a bachelor in his college, is
more likely to lead a good and sober life as a clergyman than he would
do as a layman? Such, probably, would be the arguments used in defence
of clerical fellowships; and we will admit that the Reverend Joseph
Brown has throughout his whole career given support to such arguments by
his conduct. But yet he has never in truth been a clergyman. Though an
ordained priest, he has done no priestly work, and has always been
somewhat angry when any one has suggested to him that he should take a
part in any clerical duties. At first, indeed, he was somewhat careful
in maintaining outward clerical symbols, and was occasionally anxious to
feed himself with inward clerical thoughts, having been moved thereto by
the terrible earnestness of his ordination,--by the solemnity of a
ceremony which, though he had determined to regard it simply as the
means of placing him in the possession of certain temporal advantages,
so impressed itself upon him as being personal to himself, that he could
not at once escape from its bonds. But gradually he overcame that
weakness, and found himself enabled to live, as any other gentleman
might live, an easy pleasant life, with nothing of the clergyman about
him but the word Reverend attached to his name on his cards and letters.
The colour of his lower vestments approaches perhaps nearer to black
than it would have done had he not been so encumbered, and men in the
world at large are perhaps a little less free in their remarks before
him than they would be before other men. This he regrets painfully; but
it is all that he has to regret. The fellows, his predecessors in the
old days,--who were, in fact, monks as well as fellows,--were called
upon to live in accordance with certain monastic and ascetic rules,
which they either obeyed to their supposed glory, or disobeyed to their
supposed peril. Matins, lauds, nones, vespers, complines, and what not,
were their lot,--and came upon them heavily enough, no doubt, if they
did their duty; but now-a-days we do not care much, even at our
universities, for lauds and complines. Undergraduates indeed must “keep”
so many chapels a week, but the clerical fellow is under no such bond.
Even if he were under such bond he could say his prayers in his college
chapel as well as a layman as he can as a clergyman. And one may suppose
that as a layman he would abstain from doing so when the opportunity is
provided with an easier conscience than he can have as a priest. But his
conscience is easy, because he knows that in fact he is no clergyman. He
has simply undergone a certain ceremony in order that he may enjoy his
fellowship,--and hereafter take a living should the amiable and tender
relationship of matrimony fall in his way.



Would that it were possible to enforce upon the bishops, as a part of
their duty, the task of furnishing annually a statistical return which
should show what proportion of the clerical duties in their dioceses was
done by curates, and what proportion by other clergymen; and also what
payment had been made to the curates for the work so done, and what
payment to those who were not curates. Such statement might show us for
instance, in a tabulated form, how many morning services and how many
evening services had been performed by each curate, how many sermons
preached by him, how many children baptized, how many dead men buried,
how many marriages celebrated, and, above all, how many cottages
visited. Then, if we could see, together with all this, what amount of
the payment received could be justly appropriated to each task
performed, we should have some clear idea of the manner in which the
revenues of the Church are divided among those who do the work of the
Church. We all know that no such statistical information is within our
reach. The bishops are altogether beyond our power, and cannot be
ordered by any one to do anything. The idea of comparing the work done
with the payment given for the work would be horrible to the imagination
of every beneficed clergyman in the Church of England. It would be
horrible even to the imagination of the curates themselves, who, like
the needy knifegrinder, have no adequate conception of the injustice
they are themselves suffering; and who are, as a body, so well inclined
towards the rules and traditions of the profession to which they belong,
that they have not as yet taught themselves to wish for a change. No
clergyman in our Church has, as yet, taken it into his head that there
should be any analogy, or any proportion, between work and wages in his
profession, as there is such analogy and such proportion in all other
professions. There is a something of revolutionary tendency in the
suggestion that clergymen should be paid in accordance with their work,
which is almost profane to the mind of a clergyman, and which vexes him
sorely as being subversive of that grand position which he holds as the
owner of a temporal freehold. The very irregularity of the payments
still made to parish parsons, and formerly made to bishops, half
justifies a latent idea that clergymen, though they work and receive
payment, are not labourers working for hire. A second son inherits his
living as the elder son inherits his estate;--and the rector who
receives his living from his bishop is equally firm in his possession.
He may be blessed with 1,000_l._ a year for doing very little, or have
200_l._ a year for doing a great deal; but in either case what he
receives has no connection with what he does, and therefore no such
statistics as those of which we have spoken can be supplied. No
revelation will be made to us tending in any degree to give us the
information for which we ask.

That there will come an adjustment between work and wages in the Church,
as in all other professions, is certain. Indeed, much has been done
towards this adjustment already, though not after the fashion above
proposed. The incomes of all bishops have been arranged on such an
idea,--to the great detriment, as has before been explained, of
episcopal magnificence. Deans and canons have fallen beneath the
levelling hands of ecclesiastico-political economists. And out of the
funds which have been acquired by these adjustments and curtailings of
ecclesiastical wealth, certain incumbents working in populous parishes
have received augmentations of pay, making their incomes up to the very
modest stipend of 300_l._ per annum. But nothing in all this has touched
the great body of the clergymen of the Church of England, or has as yet
shown any general recognition of the principle that the hire of the
labourer should be proportioned to the labour done.

In speaking of the work and wages of curates, it must of course be
admitted that in all professions and all trades the beginner should be
contented to work his way up, taking at first, and being contented to
take, a modest remuneration for the very best that he can do. The young
barrister does not get fifty-guinea fees at once, nor does the young
medical practitioner jump at once into the good graces of the old ladies
and gentlemen who make the fortunes of mature doctors; but at the bar,
and in the profession of physic, there is at least some proportion kept.
The man who gets the most money is generally the hardest-worked man;--or
if, in some cases, it be not so, the lower man who works harder than him
above him receives something like a fair share of the spoil. If he be
successful in work he is successful in pay also. Being successful in
work, he will not work without success in pay. But the curate, let his
success in work be what it may, does not even think that he has, on that
account, a claim to proportionate remuneration. If he can get to the
soft side of his bishop, if he have an aunt that knows some friend of
the Lord Chancellor, or a father who has means to buy a living for
him,--and he be not himself of too tender a conscience in the matter of
simony,--then he may hope to rise. But of rising in his profession
because he is fit to rise he has no hope. The idea has not, as yet, come
home to him that he has a positive claim upon his bishop because he has
worked hard and honestly in his profession.

It is notorious that a rector in the Church of England, in the
possession of a living of, let us say, a thousand a year, shall employ a
curate at seventy pounds a year, that the curate shall do three-fourths
or more of the work of the parish, that he shall remain in that position
for twenty years, taking one-fourteenth of the wages while he does
three-fourths of the work, and that nobody shall think that the rector
is wrong or the curate ill-used! All the world,--that is to say, the
rector’s friends and the curate’s friends also,--have been so long
accustomed to this state of things, the bishops have had it so long
under their eyes, the idea of a temporal freehold in a living being a
good thing for the parson instead of a good thing for the parishioner
has got such a hold of us all,--that we none of us see the injustice of
the present practice, or stop to inquire how it grew up among us,
originating in a practice that was not unjust. When the rectors and
vicars were very many among us in comparison to the curates, when a
curate was needed in but few parishes,--the ordinary tenure of a curacy
was, of course, short. There have been instances, no doubt, since the
earliest years in which curates were employed, of curates who have
remained curates till they were old men; but the succession from the
smaller number of the inferior grade to the much larger number of the
superior grade was, of course, rapid, and a clerical babe would be
contented to take a curacy even at seventy pounds a year, who might
reasonably expect to be raised from that humble position after a service
of two or three years. But now-a-days, since the immense increase of
population has forced upon us an increase of curates,--any increase in
the number of endowed rectors and vicars being out of our reach,--the
clerical babe must become a clerical old man on the same pittance, and
it is coming to pass that young men whose friends have been at the
trouble of giving them a good education, do not like the prospect of
becoming curates, without any prospect of rising from their curacies to
the glories and comforts of full-blown parsondom.

And in considering this matter we must remember that the curate of
to-day is deprived of a great advantage which belonged as a matter of
course to the curate of yesterday. The latter was presumed to be, by
virtue of his calling, a gentleman, and as such possessed almost a right
to be admitted into society which neither his fortune nor his own
abilities would have opened to him. He was a gentleman as it were by Act
of Parliament, and it was understood that he might receive where he
could not give, and so enjoy many of those good things which a liberal
income produces, though such things were beyond the reach of his own
purse. Thus the pains of his position were mitigated. And in this way
the poor clergyman mixed with men who were not poor, and received a
something from his status in the world, to which no disgrace was
attached, though it was something which he could not return. But we may
say that all this is now altered. A clergyman is no longer a gentleman
by Act of Parliament. Till the other day he was admitted into all
families simply because he had a place in the reading-desk of the parish
church;--but he is no longer so admitted. Things have become changed
within a few years, and mothers are becoming as chary of admitting the
curate among their flocks--till they know exactly what are the curate’s
bearings--as they have ever been in regard to the new young doctor till
they have known his bearings. Under these circumstances, all men who
care for the Church of England are beginning to ask themselves how the
race of curates is to be continued.

Let us for a moment look at the life of a curate of the present day. We
will suppose that he comes from some college at Cambridge or Oxford. We
will so suppose because Cambridge and Oxford still give us the majority
of our clergymen, though we can hardly hope that they will long continue
to be so bountiful. He enters the Church, moved to do so by what we all
call a special vocation. During the period of his education he feels
himself to be warmed towards the teaching of the English Protestant
Church, and as he finds the ministry easily in his way he enters it--and
at about the age of twenty-four he becomes a curate. He is at first
gratified at the ease with which are confided to him the duties of an
assistant in the cure of souls, and does not think much of the stipend
which is allotted to him. He has lived as a boy at the university upon
two hundred a year without falling much into debt, and thinks that as a
man he can live easily upon seventy pounds. Hitherto he has indulged
himself with many things. He has smoked cigars, and had his wine
parties, and been luxurious; but as a curate he will be delighted to
deny himself all luxuries. His heart will be in the service of his God,
and his appetites shall be to him as thorns which he will make to
crackle in the fire. To eat bread without butter and to drink tea
without milk is a glory to him,--and so he begins the world.

And for a year or two, if he be not weak-minded, things do not go badly
with him. The parson’s wife sees far into his character, and is kind to
him, stirred thereto by a conviction of which she is herself
unconscious, that the money payment made by her husband is insufficient.
The dry bread and the brown tea are still sweetened by reminiscences of
St. Paul’s sufferings, and the young man consoles himself by inward
whisperings of forty stripes save one five times repeated. To be
persecuted is as yet sweet to him, and he knows that in doing all the
rector’s work for seventy pounds a year he is being persecuted. But
anon there grows up within his breast a feeling in which the grievance
as regards this world is brought into unpleasant contact with the
persecution in which he has a pietistic delight. He still rejoices in
the reflection that he cannot possibly buy for himself a much-needed
half-dozen of new shirts, but is uncomfortably angry because the rector
himself is not only idle, but has bought a new carriage. And then he
gives way a little--the least in the world--and at the end of the year
owes the butcher a small bill which he cannot settle. From that day the
vision of St. Paul melts before his eyes, and he sighs for replenished

But he still works hard in his curacy,--perhaps harder than ever, driven
thereto by certain inward furies. What will become of him,--of him, with
his seventy pounds a year, and nothing further to expect as professional
result, if he be deserted by his religious ecstasy? But religious
ecstasy will not permit itself to be maintained on such terms, and
gradually there creeps upon him the heart-breaking disappointment of a
soured and an injured man. In the midst of this he takes to himself a
wife. It is always so. The man who is most in the dark will be the best
inclined to take a leap in the dark. In the lowest period of his
despondency he becomes a married man--enjoying at the moment a little
fitful gleam of shortlived worldly pleasure. Then, again, he is a male
saint for a few months, with a female saint beside him; and after that
all collapses, and he goes down into irrevocable misery and distress. In
a few years we know of him as a beggar of old clothes, as a man whom
from time to time his friends are asked to lift from unutterable depths
of distress by donations which no gentleman can take without a crushed
spirit--as a pauper whom the poor around him know to be a pauper, and
will not, therefore, respect as a minister of their religion. In all
this there has been very little, we may say nothing, of fault in the
curate himself. As a young man, almost as a boy, he placed himself in a
position of which he knew the old conditions rather than those then
existing around him--and through that mistake he fell.

But young men are now beginning to know, and the fathers of young men
also, what are at present the true conditions of the Church of England
as a profession, and they who have been nurtured softly, and who have
any choice, will not undergo its trials--and its injustice! For men of a
lower class in life, who have come from harder antecedents, the normal
seventy pounds per annum may suffice; but all modern Churchmen will
understand what must be the effect on the Church if such be the recruits
to which the Church must trust.



The difference between an Irish and an English parson is greater,
perhaps, than that which exists between Irishmen and Englishmen of any
other special denomination, and is of a nature exactly contrary to that
which generally marks the distinctive character of the Milesian and the
John Bull. The normal Irishman is a jolly fellow; but the normal Irish
Protestant clergyman is a severe, sombre man, one who speaks of life in
sad, subdued tones,--unless when he is minatory in the pulpit,--one who
looks at things around him with a continual remembrance that life is but
a span long, that men are but grass of the field, that the sickle is
ready and the oven heated, and that it is worth no man’s while to be
comfortable here on earth. He is preaching every moment of his life,
preaching in his gait, preaching in every tone of his voice, preaching
in every act that he does, preaching in every turn of his eyes. Find him
asleep, and you will find him preaching with a long-protracted,
indignant, low-church, Protestant snore, very eloquent as to the scarlet
woman. But an English parson, let him be ever so much given to
preaching, preaches only from his pulpit. He may scold, advise, or
cajole in the school, the cottage, or the drawing-room; but he keeps his
sermons for his Sunday work. An Irish clergyman does not shake hands
with you without leaving a text or two in your palm,--with his own
special comments on their tenour as regards the Pope.

The reason of this is not far to seek. The Irish clergyman does not live
in the midst of Protestants with whom he sympathizes, but is surrounded
by Roman Catholics with whom he cannot sympathize, and against whom he
is driven to feel almost a personal enmity, not only by reason of their
creed which he sorely hates, but by reason also of the anomalies of his
own position which are so hateful to them. He is always in a state of
feud,--in a state of feud, not only against the devil, as should be the
case with all of us whether clergymen or laymen, but against Antichrist
on the Seven Hills, against the scarlet woman who goes about devouring,
against the Pope who is to him a ravenous old woman as to whom he cannot
say whether he is most ravenous or most old-womanish, against a creed
which has for him none of the attractions of Christianity,--in which he
sees only the small points of divergence from his own, and which is,
therefore, worse to him than the creed of Mussulman or of Jew. He is
therefore always serious, as is a soldier who is ever buckling on his
armour, and somewhat sad, as is a soldier who cannot get his enemy down
so that he may take away his standard and trample on him. The Irish
Protestant clergyman is ever longing to lead troops of the Roman
Catholics of Ireland in triumph to the top of the Tarpeian rock of
conversion; but they succeed in bringing thither but one and another,
and these one and another are such that they hardly grace the chariot
wheels of their victors.

The popular idea of an Irish clergyman in England is, we think, somewhat
incorrect. He is often supposed to be an idle man, listless for want of
occupation, given to self-indulgence, ill-educated, eager only in
defence of his temporalities, and warmly attached to the party politics
of Protestants, rather than to their religion. Such men may doubtless be
found among the holders of livings in Ireland, as they may also in
England; but such is not the general character of the Irish clergyman.
He is a man always active, though unfortunately his activity has but
small field of usefulness. His air is not the air of a listless man, but
of a man disappointed,--as it may well be. As he goes on in life he may
come to love too dearly his slippers and his armchair, and perhaps to
feel, as disappointed men will feel,--will feel but not
acknowledge,--that the consolations of the dinner-table are, and that
none others are, reliable; but such is not his normal condition of body
or mind. I will not say that he is generally well-educated,--because the
word means so much. But the Irish clergyman has generally read as much
as his brother in England, though his reading has been of a different
nature. Of reading applicable specially to his own profession he has
probably endured more than his brother in England. In short he is more
of a clergyman and less of a man of the world than the English
parson,--with this misfortune, that his clerical activities are always
at work against enemies and not on behalf of friends.

There would not be space for me to say much, in this short sketch, of
the now acknowledged anomalies of the position of the Church of England
as established in Ireland; but I will endeavour to describe the outward
form and bearing of the clergyman whom these anomalies have produced,
begging my readers to believe at the outset that the Irish clergyman may
be regarded, nine times out of ten,--ninety-nine out of a hundred I
think we might say,--as a sincere man, as a man with strong convictions,
who has no shadow of doubt in his own mind that the surest road to
heaven, if not the only one, is by that special pathway of which he
professes to have the clue. There is no reservation within his mind, as
to his religion with its intricacies being good for the ignorant, for
instance, though perhaps not altogether needed for the educated. He has
no doubts. The Eureka with him is a certainty. That men will be saved
and will be damned as they live remote from or attached to papistical
teachings is to him a reality. Now it is something that a man should be
capable of a sincere belief, and that he should succeed in attaining to

The Irish beneficed clergyman has almost always been educated at
Trinity, Dublin, and has there been indoctrinated with those high
Protestant principles with which he has before been inoculated. He is,
of course, the son of an Irish Protestant gentleman, and has therefore
sucked them in with his mother’s milk. He goes before his Protestant
bishop and takes his orders with a corps of other young men exactly
similarly circumstanced. And thus he has never had given to him an
opportunity of rubbing his own ideas against those of men who have been
educated with different proclivities. He has never lived at college
either with Roman Catholics, or with Presbyterians, or with Protestants
of a sort different from his sort. In his cradle, at his father’s table,
at school, at the university, in all the lessons that he has learned, in
all the games that he has played, in his converse with his sisters, in
his first soft, faint, whisperings with his sisters’ friends, in his
loud unreserved talkings with his closest companions, the same two
ideas, cheek by jowl, have ever been present to him,--the State
ascendancy of his own Church, and the numerical superiority of another
Church antagonistic to his own. When we consider all this, and look at
the training which the Irish clergyman has undergone, how can we wonder
at his idiosyncrasies?

Irish clergymen are thus bound together more closely than clergymen in
England, chiefly from the want of opportunity for divergence. Not only
education goes always in the same course, but the circumstances of
professional career attach themselves very closely to one form. The
livings are more generally in the gift of the bishops than with us, and
the Irish bishops, perhaps, are more inclined to give promotion solely
on the score of merit than are the English bishops. There is, we
believe, less of Church patronage,--or rather of the exercise of Church
patronage for the furthering of private ends; and if this be so, the
Irish Church in that respect is superior to our own. But as the Irish
curate is to get his living from the Irish bishop, and is to receive it
as a reward for his clerical zeal, and not because he is his father’s
son, it is absolutely incumbent on him to work as a curate up to the
established diocesan mark. And this mark or standard will not be the
standard fixed exactly by the bishop himself. Bishop’s predecessors and
bishop’s chaplains, and the very air round the bishop’s residence, will
have been for years impregnated with high Protestant principles. And
even a bishop who may himself be lacking in that fiery Protestant zeal
which is regarded as Church of England orthodoxy in Ireland, will not
find himself able to subdue the strength of the atmosphere in which he
is called upon to live. There have been bishops sent to Ireland,--nay,
there still are bishops in Ireland, placed over dioceses there because
they have been considered to be,--we will not say anti-Protestant, but
liberal in their tendencies towards Roman Catholics and Presbyterians;
but the clergymen who come forth ordained from under the hands of the
liberal Whatelys are nearly of the same form as those who, from time out
of mind, have been given to us by the orthodox Trenches and the orthodox
Beresfords. The stream runs too strongly to be stemmed by any
bishop;--so that the Irish clergyman who desires to swim must, almost of
necessity, swim with it.

The clerical aspirant becomes first a curate. One would be disposed to
think that there could be no great need for curates in Ireland,--that as
the population of the country is chiefly Roman Catholic, and as not much
above one-half even of the Protestants conforms to the Church of
England,--so that the proportion of even nominal church-goers is less
than one in eight,--and as there is a beneficed parson in every parish,
whether there be much, little, or nothing to do,--curates could not be
needed in addition to rectors and vicars; but curates seem to be as
common in Ireland as they are in England,--the souls of men requiring,
we must suppose, more surveillance, and the work, we must presume, being
more closely done. The young clergyman almost always becomes a curate,
and then looks to his bishop for a living. Depending thus on the bishop,
he lives strictly, works with energy, is constant in his adherence to
all the exigencies of his cloth, and in the ripeness of time is blessed
with a living of, we will say, two hundred and fifty pounds a year with
a glebe. Irish livings are thought to be very good, but the value here
named is above the average. In the rich diocese of Meath, perhaps of all
the Irish dioceses the richest, the endowment of more than one-half of
the livings is less than the sum above named. Then begins the real
battle of his life. Of course our Irish clergyman marries, and of course
he has a family, and, even in Ireland, the support of a wife and family
upon two hundred and fifty pounds a year is not easy. His glebe is
probably remote from any town, and far removed from the houses of other
gentry. The parish squire is a personage who, as such, hardly exists in
Ireland. Here and there a resident landowner is to be found with a large
house and a wide demesne; but the parish squire who has interests in the
parish almost identical with those of the parson does not exist. The
clergyman, therefore, located in the country lives alone, and his
nearest neighbours are the rectors and vicars of other parishes. He
lives alone, and the solitude of his life does not tend to make him
jovial, or even satisfied with things around him. But he has his
religion, and he tells himself that that should suffice for him;--that
that should be all in all to him. He has his religion, and he
endeavours to make the most of it. It is to be not only his guide
through life to things spiritual, but his chief comfort in things
temporal. He must abide by it in every phase under which it has been
presented to him; he must hang to it as the politician does to his
party; he must trust to it,--not merely for the God and Saviour whom he
knows through its assistance, but for his very politics, thoroughly
believing that all its doctrines and all its formularies are essentially
necessary, and that they must be taken with the exact tenets and with
all the twists which have been given to them by his side in church

Of all men the Irish beneficed clergyman is the most illiberal, the most
bigoted, the most unforgiving, the most sincere, and the most
enthusiastic. He is too often an unhappy man, being poor, aggrieved,
soured by the misfortunes of his own position, conscious that something
is wrong, though never doubting that he himself is right, aware of his
own unavoidable idleness, aware that when he works he works to little or
no effect, feeling that prayers said and sermons preached to his own
family, to three policemen and his clerk, cannot be said to have been
preached to much effect. It is a life-long grief to him that in his
parish there should be four hundred and fifty nominal Roman Catholics,
and only fifty nominal members of the Church of England. But yet he is
staunch. There is a good day coming, though he will never see it. He
consoles himself as best he may with the certainty of the coming
triumph; but cannot refrain from sadness as he tells himself that it
certainly will not come in his days.

There is nothing more melancholy to a man’s heart, nothing more
depressing to his feelings, than a doubt whether or no he truly earns
the bread which he eats. The beneficed clergyman of the Church of
England in Ireland has no doubt as to his right to his bread,--as to his
right either by the law of man or by the law of God; but he cannot but
have a doubt as to his earning it. He tells himself that it is the fault
of the people,--that it comes of their darkness; that he is there if
they will only come to him. But they do not come; and he has on his
spirit the terrible weight of wages received without adequate work
performed. It is a killing weight. To preach to three policemen is as
hard as to preach to three hundred educated men and women,--nay, perhaps
it is much harder; but he who so preaches feels that his preaching is
nothing. He is as the convict labourer who moves sand from one hole to
another;--and who can get no comfort from his work.

And he is daily told,--this Irish beneficed clergyman of the Church of
England,--that of all men he is the most overpaid. Newspapers which he
cannot but see, speakers on public platforms to whose orations he cannot
entirely stop his ears, are telling him constantly that he is a drone,
growing fat upon honey which he does not help to make, threatening him
with Parliamentary annihilation, and invoking against him all the ardour
of all the Radicals. In the meantime, he knows that he and his are
barely able to subsist on the pittance which the Church allows him. He
has terrible temporal grievances in poor rates, charges for his glebe,
deductions on this side and on that, till he knows not how to pay his
butcher and his baker, and the wife of his bosom is driven to painful,
stringent economies. He has not, he tells himself, half of that which a
liberal Church in old days had intended for the parish, and yet they
tell him that he is robbing the public! He is there to do his duty. Why
do not the people come to him? For what he receives, whether it is much
or little, he is ready to work, if only his work might be accepted.

But his work is not accepted, and there is no slightest sign in Ireland
that it will be accepted. The anomalies of the Church of England in
Ireland are terribly distressing, and call aloud for reform. But to none
can they be so distressing as to the beneficed clergyman in Ireland; and
in the behalf of no other class is that reform so vitally needed.



We have heard much of the Broad Church for many years, till the
designation is almost as familiar to our ears as that of the High Church
or of the Low Church; but the Broad Church of former times,--some twenty
years ago, we will say, when the ecclesiastical world was all on fire
because the then Prime Minister was minded to give a mitre to a certain
professor of divinity at Oxford,--held doctrines very far indeed behind
those to which the liberal parsons of these days have made progress. The
ordinary Broad Church clergyman of that era was one who showed himself
to be broad by his tolerance of the doubts of others, rather than by the
expression of doubts of his own. He was not uncomfortably shocked at
finding himself in company with one who was weak in faith as to the Old
Testament miracles, and listened with placid equanimity to discussions
which went on around him to show that our ancient Bible chronology was
defective. But now we have got much beyond that. The liberal clergyman
of the Church of England has long since given up Bible chronology, has
given up many of the miracles, and is venturing forward into questions
the very asking of which would have made the hairs to stand on end on
the head of the broadest of the broad in the old days, twenty years
since. There are bishops still living, and others have lately died, who
must have been astonished to find how quickly their teaching has had its
results, how soon the tree has produced its fruit.

The free-thinking clergyman of the present time is to be found more
often in London than in the provinces, and more frequently in the towns
than in country parishes. They are not many in number, as compared with
the numbers of all parsondom in these realms; but they are men of whom
we hear much, and they are sufficiently numerous to leaven the whole.
There are many things, gone recently altogether out of date, which the
meek old-world clergyman dares no longer teach, though he knows not
why,--the placid, easy-minded clergyman who would be so well satisfied
to teach all that his father taught before him,--the actual six days for
instance, the actual and needed rest on the seventh; but the placid
clergyman dares not teach them, not knowing why he dares not. He has
been leavened unconsciously by the free-thinking of his liberal brother,
and his teaching comes forth conformed in some degree to the new
doctrines, although, to himself, the feeling is simply that the ground
is being cut from under him, and that that special bit of ground,--the
actual six days,--has slid away altogether from the touch of his feet.

In London and in the large towns, where they most abound, these new
teachers have their own circles, their own flocks, their own churches,
and their admirers who have become familiar with them. And it is when so
placed, no doubt, that they are most efficacious in operating on the
education of laymen and of other clergymen. But it is when such a one
finds himself placed as a parson in a country parish, out, as it were,
alone among the things of another day, that he calls upon himself the
greatest attention. He has around him antediluvian rectors and pietistic
vicars, who regard him not only as a bird of prey who has got into a
community of domestic poultry, but, worse still, as a bird that is
fouling its own nest. They hate his teaching, as all teachers must hate
doctrines which are subversive of their own--which, however, they can
themselves neither subvert nor approve. But they hate more intensely
that want of professional thoroughness, that absence of esprit de corps,
which these gentlemen seem to them to exhibit. “He has taken orders,”
says the antediluvian rector, speaking of his free-thinking neighbour to
his confidential friend, “simply to upset the Church! He believes in
nothing; nothing in heaven, nothing on earth,--nothing under the earth.
He told his people yesterday that the Book of Exodus is an old woman’s
story. And the worst of it is, we cannot do anything to get rid of
him;--no, by Heaven, not anything!” To which the rector’s confidential
friend replies that the rector has still the power left of preaching
his own doctrine. “Psha!” says the rector, “preach, indeed! Preach the
Devil as he does, and you can fill a church any day! What I want to know
is how a man like that can bring himself to take four hundred a year out
of the Church, when he doesn’t believe one of the Articles he has sworn
to?” Now the special offence of the liberal preacher on this occasion
was a hint conveyed in a sermon that the fourth commandment in its
entirety is hardly compatible with the life of an Englishman in the
nineteenth century. And the laymen around are astounded by the man,
feeling a great interest in him, not unmixed with awe. Has he come to
them from Heaven or from Hell? Are these new teachings, which are not
without their comfort, promptings direct from the Evil One, who is ever
roaring for their souls, and who may thus have come to roar in their own
parish? There is mystery as well as danger in the matter; and as
mystery, and danger also when not too near, are both pleasant, the new
man is not altogether unwelcome, in spite of the anathemas of the
neighbouring rector. What if the new teaching should be true? So the
men begin to speculate, and the women quake, and the neighbouring
parsons are full of wrath, and the bishop’s table groans with letters
which he knows not how to answer, or how to leave unanswered. The
free-thinking clergyman of whom we are speaking still creates much of
this excitement in the country; but in the town he is encountered on
easier terms, and in London he finds his own set, and has no special
weight beyond that which his talents and his energy can give him.

It is very hard to come at the actual belief of any man. Indeed how
should we hope to do so when we find it so very hard to come at our own?
How many are there among us who, in this matter of our religion, which
of all things is the most important to us, could take pen in hand and
write down even for their own information exactly what they themselves
believe? Not very many clergymen even, if so pressed, would insert
boldly and plainly the fulminating clause of the Athanasian Creed; and
yet each clergyman declares aloud that he believes it a dozen times
every year of his life. Most men who call themselves Christians would
say that they believed the Bible, not knowing what they meant, never
having attempted,--and very wisely having refrained from attempting
amidst the multiplicity of their worldly concerns,--to separate
historical record from inspired teaching. But when a liberal-minded
clergyman does come among us,--come among us, that is, as our
pastor,--we feel not unnaturally a desire to know what it is, at any
rate, that he disbelieves. On what is he unsound, according to the
orthodoxy of our old friend the neighbouring rector? And are we prepared
to be unsound with him? We know that there are some things which we do
not like in the teaching to which we have been hitherto subjected;--that
fulminating clause, for instance, which tells us that nobody can be
saved unless he believes a great deal which we find it impossible to
understand; the ceremonial Sabbath which we know that we do not observe,
though we go on professing that its observance is a thing necessary for
us;--the incompatibility of the teaching of Old Testament records with
the new teachings of the rocks and stones. Is it within our power to get
over our difficulties by squaring our belief with that of this new
parson whom we acknowledge at any rate to be a clever fellow? Before we
can do so we must at any rate know what is the belief,--or the
unbelief,--that he has in him.

But this is exactly what we never can do. The old rector was ready
enough with his belief. There were the three creeds, and the thirty-nine
articles; and, above all, there was the Bible,--to be taken entire,
unmutilated, and unquestioned. His task was easy enough, and he believed
that he believed what he said that he believed. But the new parson has
by no means so glib an answer ready to such a question. He is not ready
with his answer because he is ever thinking of it. The other man was
ready because he did not think. Our new friend, however, is debonair and
pleasant to us, with something of a subrisive smile in which we rather
feel than know that there is a touch of irony latent. The question asked
troubles him inwardly, but he is well aware that he should show no
outward trouble. So he is debonair and kind,--still with that subrisive
smile,--and bids us say our prayers, and love our God, and trust our
Saviour. The advice is good, but still we want to know whether we are to
pray God to help us to keep the Fourth Commandment, or only pretend so
to pray,--and whether, when the fulminating clause is used, we are to
try to believe it or to disbelieve it. We can only observe our new
rector, and find out from his words and his acts how his own mind works
on these subjects.

It is soon manifest to us that he has accepted the teaching of the rocks
and stones, and that we may give up the actual six days, and give up
also the deluge as a drowning of all the world. Indeed, we had almost
come to fancy that even the old rector had become hazy on these points.
And gradually there leak out to us, as to the falling of manna from
heaven, and as to the position of Jonah within the whale, and as to the
speaking of Balaam’s ass, certain doubts, not expressed indeed, but
which are made manifest to us as existing by the absence of expressions
of belief. In the intercourse of social life we see something of a smile
cross our new friend’s face when the thirty-nine articles are brought
down beneath his nose. Then he has read the _Essays and Reviews_, and
will not declare his opinion that the writers of them should be
unfrocked and sent away into chaos;--nay, we find that he is on terms
of personal intimacy with one at least among the number of those
writers. And, lastly, there comes out a subscription list for Bishop
Colenso, and we find our new rector’s name down for a five-pound note!
That we regard as the sign, to be recognized by us as the most certain
of all signs, that he has cut the rope which bound his barque to the old
shore, and that he is going out to sea in quest of a better land. Shall
we go with him, or shall we stay where we are?

If one could stay, if one could only have a choice in the matter, if one
could really believe that the old shore is best, who would leave it? Who
would not wish to be secure if he knew where security lay? But this new
teacher, who has come among us with his ill-defined doctrines and his
subrisive smile,--he and they who have taught him,--have made it
impossible for us to stay. With hands outstretched towards the old
places, with sorrowing hearts,--with hearts which still love the old
teachings which the mind will no longer accept,--we, too, cut our ropes,
and go out in our little boats, and search for a land that will be new
to us, though how far new,--new in how many things, we do not know. Who
would not stay behind if it were possible to him?

But our business at present is with the teacher, and not with the
taught. Of him we may declare that he is, almost always, a true
man,--true in spite of that subrisive smile and ill-defined doctrine. He
is one who, without believing, cannot bring himself to think that he
believes, or to say that he believes that which he disbelieves without
grievous suffering to himself. He has to say it, and does suffer. There
are the formulas which must be repeated, or he must abandon his ministry
altogether,--his ministry, and his adopted work, and the public utility
which it is his ambition to achieve. Debonair though he be, and smile
though he may, he has through it all some terrible heart-struggles, in
which he is often tempted to give way and to acknowledge that he is too
weak for the work he has taken in hand. When he resolved that he must
give that five pounds to the Colenso fund,--or rather when he resolved
that he must have his name printed in the public list, for an anonymous
giving of his money would have been nothing,--he knew that his rope was
indeed cut, and that his boat was in truth upon the wide waters. After
that it will serve him little to say that such an act on his part
implies no agreement with the teaching of the African bishop. He had, by
the subscription, attached himself to the Broad Church with the newest
broad principles, and must expect henceforth to be regarded as little
better than an infidel,--certainly as an enemy in the camp,--by the
majority of his brethren of the day. “Why does he not give up his
tithes? Why does he stick to his temporalities?” says the old-fashioned,
wrathful parson of the neighbouring parish; and the sneer, which is
repeated from day to day and from month to month, is not slow to reach
the new man’s ear. It is an accusation hard to be borne; but it has to
be borne,--among other things,--by the clergyman who subscribes for


*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Clergymen of the Church of England" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.