SECTION IX.

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

I.

It is affirmed that our principles interfere "with vested interests-with the sacred nature of property."

Although it may appear to our readers a digression, we shall, in answer to this objection, take the Lord Bishop of London on his own premises, anxiously desiring not to scandalize any one, especially so superior a character. But who shall deliver his lordship from the dilemma in which he has placed himself?

First, as to the dreadful and disgraceful spiritual destitution which prevails in this metropolis, his lordship's own diocese. He writes thus:

"I am continually brought into contact, in the discharge of my official duties, with vast masses of my fellow-creatures living without God in the world. I traverse the streets of this crowded city with deep and solemn thoughts of the spiritual condition of its inhabitants. I pass the magnificent church which crowns the metropolis, and is consecrated to the noblest

L

of objects—the glory of God, and I ask of myself, in what degree it answers that object? I see there a dean and three residentiaries, with incomes amounting in the aggregate to between 10,000/. and 12,000l. a year: I see, too, connected with the Cathedral, twenty-nine clergymen, whose offices are all but sinecures, with an annual income of about 12,000l. at the present moment, and likely to be much larger after the lapse of a few years. I proceed a mile or two to the east and northeast, and find myself in the midst of an immense population in the most wretched state of destitution and neglect artisans, mechanics, labourers, beggars, thieves, to the number of at least 300,000."

Secondly, we have it conceded by his lordship, and by his colleague, his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, that one-half of the emoluments of each of the sacred offices which their lordships hold in the church will be amply sufficient to maintain the dignities thereof. And then, as delegated Commissioners of Church Reform, they proceed to prepare, propound, and publish an Act of Parliament, which is to limit the income of every future Archbishop of Canterbury, and every future Bishop of London, to such moiety of revenue, giving the other moiety to a fund, now accumulating, for the supply of the spiritual destitution which it is discovered so dreadfully prevails.

Our question is, how such an arrangement is to be reconciled to reason, to common sense, and to pro

priety? And the answer given is, that to take away the moiety above spoken of now, or any part of it, from the present possessors, would be to commit an act of spoliation, confiscation, and so forth-it would be to trespass upon the sacred nature of property. So, then, the three hundred thousand perishing souls, in a part only of that very city in which these exalted church dignitaries reside, are to remain, in a great degree, in their present miserable state of spiritual destitution, rather than that this figmentthe sacred nature of property-should be invaded!

The old-fashioned plea by which rich incumbents used to justify their exactions from their poor parishioners, is now given to the winds. The constant apology of all was, that each one held his benefice in trust, and that he was bound in honour and duty to leave it to his successor just as good and as productive as he found it. And this they would plead on the selfsame principle-the sacred nature of property.

Now to the moral of all this. Our diocesan calls upon us, each and all, to make some immediate sacrifice of our limited earnings, and to contribute as much as we can to the fund now being raised for the purpose of delivering perishing souls from eternal perdition, and to supply spiritual food to so many hundreds of thousands of our neighbours now entirely destitute. To this call some voice has replied, “The Church possesses ample revenues within herself for all these purposes, but the holders of these revenues

misapply them;" and this leads to inquiry; inquiry brings out an acknowledgment of the fact, that the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury has wasted 15,0007. a-year, and that the episcopal see of London has spent 10,000l. per annum in superfluous things. And it is ordained by statute that hereafter — i. e. when these two exalted dignitaries shall be gathered to their fathers then this superfluous 25,000l. per annum shall enrich the required fund!

Christian reader, again we ask, say we not well when we call Mammon a sorcerer? The prejudices of education, the effects of habit, mere human frailty, or the grossest self-love-none of these considerations adequately account for the arguments by which our opponents thus uphold their axiom as to the sacred nature of property. It is the witchery of Satanic possession.

This delusion-the sacred nature of property - is not confined to private opinion or to private life; it pervades the state. We have a remarkable proof of this in the twenty millions sterling of compensation money which the government of the country has given to the slave holders, as an inducement to them to relinquish their slave property. Compensation truly ! Recompence and remuneration for giving up a property which they obtained and held by a violation of the word and will of the Lord Jehovah! Again, say we not well, that the god of wealth is a sorcerer—one who bewitches and fascinates those who yield to his

seductive advances? Reader! the time has come for this murky delusion to vanish; the light of the Christian Dispensation is already bright enough to dispel the mists of former days.

And yet these great truths are not to be told. And why? Wherefore is it that these matters of fact-matters of fact which are rooted data of the Christian Dispensation on the earth-are to be suppressed and hushed? Is it so because the existing constitution of things amongst us is so good and so happy that it must not be disturbed in its sweet repose? or is it so because the real condition of society is so bad, so depraved, and vicious, that it cannot bear the truth?

Let the reader take our apothegm in his hand, and he will hardly find a dark and dreary controversy now rife amongst us, that will not yield to its effulgence. Look, for instance, at the "four years" disputation upheld by the Rev. Sydney Smith and the Lord Bishop of our diocese respecting a new distribution of the revenues of the Church; and you will find the whole magic and mystery of the controversy fall before the fact, that Mammon, as Antichrist, reigns. Upon what other principle can we unriddle the problem (referred to above) settled upon by these exalted commissioners, that whilst they admit that one half of the immense incomes now derived from the revenues of the Church severally to the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury, and the episcopal see of London, is quite adequate to maintain the state, honour, and