ST. PETER'S, BOURNEMOUTH.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOILl
SIR,—Those who love religious liberty are much indebted to you and to Sir Henry Taylor, for drawing public attention to what is undoubtedly a very great blot in our ecclesiastical arrange- ments. It is a flagrant violation of the rights of conscience, that a congregation, or a parish, should be entirely at the mercy of the incumbents as to their teaching and their mode of wor- ship. It was thought a great thing when Nonconformists ob- tained their freedom from being compelled to attend the worship and teaching of the Church which they detested. This saute freedom is denied to the members of the Establishment. It is time they insisted on having it.. Divisions may or may not be desirable. They exist, and they are the necessary and logical outcome of Protestantism and free thought. And, moreover, when it suits us, we plume ourselves on our comprehension,— of different and antagonistic schools of theology.
What, then, can be more unfair than that the partisan of one school should be able to force his views upon the partisans of all the other schools within a geographical area called a parish ? What should we say if all the parishioners, Conserva- tive and Liberal alike, were obliged to attend the political lec- tures of the parish clergyman every week, and to take their children and households with them, and with uo right of reply, or of holding a meeting of their own ? At the same time, as you have shown to demonstration in your article, no change in the system of patronage will mend matters. Bishops may be partisans, so may even Lord Chancellors. There will always, unhappily, be minds to whom it will seem as holy a work to set a parson of strong opinions to harry a con- gregation of opposite ones, as it does to back up the Mahom- medans in harrying the Christians in Turley.
To allow a veto to the congregation would be virtually to give them the patronage. And were this done (as it might equitably be done, by compulsory purchase), it would still leave the minority under the same grievance as that which now affects the whole congregation. There is, I believe, but one effective remedy, and that is to allow to those who are dissatisfied with the worship or teaching in their parish church the same power collectively, which they have now individually, of establishing a private service of their own, with a clergyman of their own choice. The clergyman of the parish would continue to minister as before to all who chose to accept his ministrations, whether at home or in church. As the law stands, the parish clergyman can not only outrage the feelings and convictions of his parishioners iu their parish church to any extent almost that he pleases, but he can prevent their assembling in their own building, for the services and teaching of which he has deprived them.
Whenever disestablishment arrives, it is impossible to suppose that the three great parties in the Church will ever consent to row in the same boat, without some such guarantee as this for freedom of worship and teaching. Is it wise, is it true con- servatism,to force religious persons who feel deeply on the points which distinguish one school of thought from another, to look forward to Disestablishment as their only hope of deliverance from an intolerable tyranny ? Surely Mr. Carvell Williams himself could scarcely suggest a more admirable course, in the interest of the Liberation Society.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
