LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S ON SACRILEGE.
ma ED/TOR OF THE "SPECTATOR"] Sin,—You have pointed out that, while speaking of sacrilege in the House of Lords, I did not explain what I meant by the word. It is true that I tacitly accepted the common notion of the thing, and did not feel that an exact definition was necessary for my immediate purpose. I cannot regret the omission, since it has given occasion to the excellent remarks which I read in your last number. I agree with you that it is much to be lamented that in common parlance the word has been restricted to a narrow techni- cal sense, which excludes the worst cases to which it would be most properly applied. I believe that if I say sacrilege is the diverting of things set aped for pious uses to purposes of an essentially different kind, I shall be giving a definition which perfectly coin- cides with the popular notion, while it includes every kind of sin which really falls under the same bead. But I mean the word things to be taken in the largest sense, so as to comprehend all that belongs to persons not only outwardly, as their property, but inwardly, as the faculties of their nature. I assume that the elevation of the human spirit to a conformity of mind and will with the Father of Spirits, is the highest purpose to which any instrument or agency can be devoted. Whatever is designed to minister, directly or indirectly, to this end is set apart for a pious or sacred use ; and the diverting of it to one entirely different, as the satisfaction of a brutal appetite, is sacrilege. In this sense the phrase "robbery of God" does not grate upon my ear or shock any understanding. I also assume that public worship is one and a peculiarly efficacious means of promoting that elevation. And then all its accessories and material appliances, however in them- selves utterly insignificant, and incapable of producing such an effect, may yet in their measure contribute to the general result,
and by association acquire a kind of reflected and relative sanctity which may be the subject of a sacrilegious desecration.
Agreeing as I do with you in the general tenor of your remarks, I must own it seems to me that you have needlessly complicated the question by the introduction of a foreign element, when yott make the sin of sacrilege to depend upon the subjectivity of the offender. No doubt the sin of the thief who steals the vessels of the sanctuary is greatly aggravated, if he not only understands, but recognizes, their sacred character ; but I conceive that his ignorance and unbelief, however they may extenuate his fault, do not affect the objective quality of the deed. The definition of course does not affect to determine the question whether a parti- cular use is a really pious use. That is a point on which there may be contradictory views, not only between men of different creeds, but within the same religious communion. In the eyes of the idolater, the iconoclast who demolishes his idols is guilty of most atrocious sacrilege ; but he may be animated by the most fervent piety and the purest charity. The Ritualist believes that the splendour of a gorgeous ceremonial is highly conducive to the end of public worship. To the Puritan it appears to have a directly opposite tendency.
According to my definition, the guilt of sacrilege is incurred by all the acts to which the name is popularly attached. But it is contracted in a far higher degree by others to which the name is never applied. The offence of the robber who plunders a church. is light and venial in comparison with that of the clergyman or- the schoolmaster who makes a sinecure of his office, that he may enjoy its emoluments without fulfilling any of its duties. Bub there are cases much more difficult and complicated, in which a question may arise as to the application of the word "sacrilege.' We know that uses which were once pious, as those of the mon- astic endowments, may, partly through an error in the original design, partly through change of circumstances, lose their cha- racter, and become injurious to the interests which they were in- tended to promote. Is it, then, sacrilege to divert the funds set apart for those uses to others by which the object is attained in a different way, as was done, though unhappily only in a very few instances, at the Reformation with the property of the Monas- teries? According to my definition, the real sacrilege would have consisted in retaining the old abuses, which robbed God of all the benefit that a better employment of the funds would have yielded to man.
But a case still more difficult and complicated arises, when a.
disposition of Church property, not liable to this objection, but productive of much good, is nevertheless found to be at variance with the welfare of the community, and to endanger its safety. Whenever such circumstances arise, it seems clear that, on the principle of my definition, all private and particular interests, though in their several spheres each of the highest order, must give way to that which is the common ground in which they all take root and find their sustenance. Whether such circumstances have actually arisen in the case of the Established Church in Ireland is a totally distinct question ; and even if the fact be admitted, the right or best mode of dealing with them becomes a most per- plexing problem, on which wise and good men may take different views ; but which cannot be brought nearer to a solution by denunciations of sacrilege, or by a repetition of texts which—to- say nothing of a leap in the dark out of the Old Dispensation into. the New—are utterly irrelevant, unless they are supposed to con- tradict some of the clearest passages in the Bible.—I am, Sir, &c.„ C. ST. DAVID'S.
Previous page
