THE MATAMOROS PAPERS.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1949, 4 August 1869, Page 2

THE MATAMOROS PAPERS.

No. VI. The characteristic mark of the thinkers of the present clay is that they are under the influence of a spirit of enquiry, which considers nothing too venerable, nothing too holy, to be subjected to searching investigation. Religion, morality, the affections, all have been arraigned at the bar of scepticism -and compelled to give an account of themselves. “We accept nothing on trust. This is the first principle, the starting-point,” the dictum de omni et radio of modern thinkers. “If you can subscribe to this,” say they, “ something may be made of you. If not, you are an utterly hopeless case; for any deliverance you are likely to work out in this world for yourself or anybody else, Fyou might as well be utterly abolished and done away with.” Nevertheless, there are many comparatively unimportant institutions anti customs, handed down to us from our ancestors, which have well nigh escaped being subjected to examination, smaller game, considered by great thinkers as hardly worth powder and shot. It is but fair, however, that these institutions should be handled ovev the coals too : as great philosophers pass them by, I suppose a little philosopher may try his hand at them. Such men as Mill, Gladstone, Disraeli, may discuss, for instance, the question, of State Church disestablishment and disendowment ; I, for my part, will see what can be made of some of the very much smaller church questions, clerical institutions, and so forth. And first, as an example of the Satisfactory results produced by a course of honest inquiry, I will give the solution which I have obtained by long-continued industry of a question which has always seemed to my mind obscure and difficult to explain. The Canon Law of the Church of England (and, to the best of my belief, that of other respectable religious bodies also) provides that clergymen shall invite to their dinner parties only the richest and most influential members of their congregation. They are allowed to be civil to working men, may visit them at their houses, may even be condescendingly jocular with them ; but to ask them to dinner is a thing positively forbidden.

You must not that I am setting myself up as an authority in eccle siastical law, I have never as far as my memory serves me, road any of the books containing the laws of any church; but it must be as I have stated above, for though I have often djiaed with clergymen myself* I have never

met at their tables—a working man. This seems at first to be a very severe regulation. The ministers must find it very oppressive, and for this reason. It is well known that their duties take them most of their time, amongst the most idle and frivolous members of their congregations. It is natural that these should require more pastoral care than others, more than those, for instance, who have to earn their daily bread, and do earn it. Hence it is necessary that a clergyman should spend as much of his time as possible at pic nics and flower shows, exhibitions of all kinds, and especially in fashionable calls, the object aimed at being tnat his pastoral eye may overlook in the course of the day as many as possible of the more giddy and lightheaded members of his flock. Now does it not seem rather hard, that, after going through a day’s work of so painful and toilsome a nature, a minister should have for the most part, to pass his evenings in the company of a set who have long ago thrown all the light they are capable of throwing for one another on every conceivable subject; who have in fact long since become bores to one another 1 Is it not bard, too, that the only chances which come in his way of escaping from this sort of thing are often taken away from him, by the neccsitjßl under which he labors • of attending grand evening parties and dances 1 How much fairer it would seem to be, that he should he allowed to consider his evenings at least as his own, as a time which he might spend in relaxation, in the company of men whose way of life was different from his own. He might, for instance, make the acquaintance of artisans and mechanics, might go to their houses or invite them to his own, and thus bring his own ideas into contact with theirs, to the manifest benefit of all concerned. But all this is perfectly Utopian. A moment’s consideration shows us this. If ministers were to go in for this sort of thing, all the workmen in the place would go to church, and what a dreadful thing that would be ! How it would deteriorate the tone of many a congregation. Just imagine half of the space in one oi our fashionable churches being taken up by people in inferior circumstances, and more or less seedy clothes ! It would never do! Why, do we not take very great pains to make our churches thoroughly respectable, by charging high pew rents, and by sending a collection bag round every service I The reason for the existence of the canon referred to is therefore manifest enough. But I cannot help thinking, that the main reason why ministers are commanded, in using their hospitality, to make the rich alone their guests and familiar friends is, that as it is a matter of extreme difficulty for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven, it is natural that he should require more pastoral support and assistance than does the poor man, who has, we are told, great influence and a staunch friend in very high quarters. Besides all this, the rich men are the principal contributors to the bag. St. Ouen.