PARISHIONERS AND INCUMBENTS IN AMERICA. [TO Tna mune OF Tu
a " SPEOTATOR:1 SIR,—Will you allow one who has been a constant reader of your paper for many years to say a few words in regard to the selection of incumbents by parishioners? I must confess myself at a loss to understand how a system whioh works efficiently in the States should be regarded by you as impracticable in England.
In what I have to say on this subject, I shall confine myself to the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country. You are doubt- less aware that in most, if not all, the States the Legislature has given full corporate powers to all congregations. The members of these religious corporations are sometimes the proprietors of pews, and sometimes those who join them and pay a certain amount yearly for their support, without regard to the holding of pews. These Church members elect annually on Easter Monday two wardens and a vestry, varying in number from, say, six to twenty, which is the governing body of the association. To it is entrusted usually the election of the rector. Sometimes a veto-power is reserved to the Church members at large,
but generally I believe not. The person elected rector is instituted by the bishop, whose powers, I imagine, are about the same as with you. This system has its faults of course, but in the main it works well. It is certain that the laity would never con- sent to any system which deprived them of all control over the choice of their ministers, and this feeling is gradually extending to the British provinces, and will result eventually in the system being universally adopted there.
The boundary between the spiritual authority of the rector and the secular authority of the wardens and vestry is of course very vague, and misunderstandings do at times arise. But these con • troversies are not more frequent and more bitter with us than with you, and less disastrous to the Church at large ; for with us, if a rector and his congregation disagree, either the former resigns and leaves, or if he be supported by a majority, the minority, if large enough, leave the church, and get the requisite authority to establish another (so that there are two churches where there was but one before); or they join other churches in the neighbourhood. In many parts of England, however much the parish, as I under- stand it, differs from the rector, the members must either submit or become Dissenters.
The powers of our Rectors are small as compared with yours, although these greatly vary in different dioceses, and even in dif- ferent churches in the same diocese; but it is generally the clergy- man's own fault if he does not have all the control which any reasonable man could desire. The tenets of perhaps one-quarter of the Churches in the land, chiefly those in large places, are well defined. For instance, Trinity Church, New York (the wealthiest religious corporation in the world, with half-a-dozen largo auxiliary churches and an income of nearly £100,000 a year), is High- Church. Its vestry, one may assume, will always confine itself to High-Churchmen in selecting its numerous clergy. St. George's Church, in the same city, is, on the other hand, strongly Evangelical, and its rector always belongs to that party. But the groat majority of the parishes are more colourless in their opinions, and although the Evangelical party regard the bulk of them as High-Church in tendency, the members dislike extremes, and regard Dean Close, Mr. Purchas, and Mr. Voysey (though the latter, I am thankful to say, is a variety not found in our Church) alike as nuisances, and wish the Church well rid of them. In these Churches a moderate High-Churchman may and often is succeeded in the rectorship by a moderate Evangelical, and the opinions of the rector for the time being and of the bishop have great influence. Indeed, the advisory influence of the bishop is so great, that a prelate of tact and judgment can really, I should say, nominate half the rectors in his diocese. Most of the churches are always ready to listen to his opinion ; many of them ask him to select their rector for them.
I am a member of the vestry of an Episcopal Church in one of our largest cities. We pay our Rector $6,000 a year. When he was elected, twelve years ago, the church was strongly Evangelical in opinion, and elected a distinguished clergyman of that party. The members of the church have so changed in opinion that I imagine his successor will be a man of far less pronounced views. Still he is as firmly supported in his rights and his wishes, as attentively followed, as a rector would be under any circumstances. The entire secular government of the church is in the vestry. The rector does not wish to interfere, and the church members take so little interest in it that the vestry really fills the vacancies made in its own body, and it is difficult to get five-and-twenty persons together at the Easter meeting. In the election of a rector the views of the members of the church would be sought for and respected, but as no one knows when a rector is to be chosen, the vestrymen are not selected with that in view.
One great evil with us is the migratory lives our clergymen lead, seldom remaining many years in the same place. But I think this is chiefly owing to other causes than the mode of election,— the changeable character of our people, the inequality of incomes, &c. One result of it is that merit is more respected with us than with you, and the better livings are occupied by the abler clergy.
I know there is a great difference between an Established Church and a voluntary association. All who attend our churches are Episcopalians from choice, and they alone govern them. With you the rights of all parishioners, whether Churchmen or Dis- senters, whether devout or irreligious, must be regarded. Still I never visited an English country parish without perceiving the evils resulting from the despotic powers of the parson and his independ- ence of his people, and without being somewhat shocked at the low property views which seemed to be prevalent with regard to so sacred a trust and calling ; and I have not been convinced even by your arguments that these frightful evils cannot be in part reme- died. Even such a scene as was witnessed lately during the election of a parson by the ratepayers seems to me less scandalous than the advertisement which recently appeared in the Field newspaper of a clergyman seeking for a " sole charge " for the winter in a hunting district, or than any of the advertisements of livings for sale which appear in the Times.
One word in conclusion. You say " the ratepayers as a mass are either careless or Calvinist." This classification I should have expected to find in the Record rather than in your columns. With us the Calvinists are in a very decided minority, and my observa- tions in England made me suppose it was so with you. But assuming it to be so, would the " careless " leave the election entirely to the Calvinists ? Are there not a large class—careless Gallic.; if you please—who, nevertheless, have some interest in religious worship, and who have sufficient wisdom and power to insist on that liberality which the Calvinists detest ? Do you not believe that High-Churchmen like Goulburn and Liddon and Broad-Churchmen like Maurice and Brooke would find livings, and good livings too ? It seems to me you do not make sufficient allowance for the wide diversity of tastes, opinions, and early education, which would, I think, cause a like diversity in the chosen rectors. Besides, the most numerous Dissenting body in England is not Calvinistic. If, however, the great body of earnest Churchmen in England are Calvinist, although I am not one myself, I am not prepared to say that they have not the right usually allowed to every majority,—the right to the chief voice in government.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
