THE SCOTTISH GUARDIAN. JULY 1865. THE ENDOWMENT OF THE BISHOPRICS. THE Endowment of the Bishoprics, there can be no doubt, is the key of our whole position. The dioceses of St. Andrews, and Moray and Ross have, therefore, truly shadowed out the object of the movement of 1863. There can be no doubt, if each diocese carried out the principle they have enunciated, a good platform would be erected upon which the movement could proceed safely and surely. We freely confess, that if each diocese followed their example, a greater impetus would be given to our movement than any other event. Such dioceses as Edinburgh and Glasgow paying the paltry sums they do to their Bishops, is really a great discredit to our Church. There can be no doubt, upon the other hand, that Edinburgh has shown unselfishness that cannot be too highly praised. She has had ample means to endow herself over and over again, but her Church feeling, has, to a certain extent, prevailed over her better judgment; and she has given most munificently to the provinces. Hence, such dioceses as Aberdeen, Moray and Ross, Argyle, and Brechin have been mainly dependent upon Edinburgh. But why raise the question; we are all now, at any rate, in the same boat. Edinburgh there can be no doubt has done nobly in the Church. Her spirit of self-sacrifice is the praise of all the Churches. For this we have, in a great measure, to thank Dean Ramsay, and the noble band who have always rallied around him, but we are no less obliged to St. Andrews, and Moray and Ross, for breaking ground as to the Bishop's question. It breaks up that miserable notion of seeking out a man in England, in order to make up for the parsimony of our Churchin order to save the pockets of the wealthy laity. VOL. II.-NO. XVIII. 18 men. By all means have Englishmen, but act towards them like gentleDon't insult them by saying you shall have a Bishopric, and get £127 a year. We cannot offer what you get in England or the colonies, for we have not had time to make up for the loss of an establishment; but we will give you something, at any rate, not unworthy of the Bishop of a voluntary body. As a bench of Bishops, ours is quite equal to any bench in Europe, and. we should like to see the men who have presented brighter examples -which is worth everything else—of princely self-sacrifice and noble self-denial. The movements of St. Andrews, and Moray and Ross, are signs of better days. The men cannot be separated from the movement; anxious as we naturally are to avoid discussing the lives of individuals in a public journal, the names of Eden and of Wordsworth are engraven on the pages of the history of our Church, and any comments of ours appear as so much tautology; but we should be wanting in our duty as journalists of the Scottish Church, did we not return our warmest thanks to the laymen of these two dioceses, for initiating a movement which, we trust, will permeate throughout our whole Church. The Bishoprics must be endowed, if our financial system is to be constructed upon any sure foundation, and the work must be done by the dioceses themselves. If they have any wish for the perpetuity of the dioceses, this is the only sure way of doing it. A diocese, according to the theory of the Church of all ages, is in itself a Church perfect in all its parts. It has every right to act as such, and what more legitimate mode is there than providing an income for its Bishop-the father of the diocese. If a man will not give to that, what earthly right has he to call himself by even that modern name of an "Episcopalian." We are quite as much anxious for dioceses as for united action. We think that the two can be blended together—that there is no need of any collision-that they can co-operate without conflicting. It is desirable that the unity of the Church should be preserved, whilst independent diocesan action is guaranteed. The Church Society, to our mind, exercised a wise discretion in appending the Bishopric move to their platform. It was clearly a defect in their system as a society— that they ignored the first principles of the Church. At any rate, the Bishops and Priests cannot be dissevered. They are a part of the same system, and the Church cannot thank St. Andrews, and Moray and Ross dioceses too much, for bringing prominently forward the claims of the Bishops. In the eyes of Christendom, the destitution of the Bishops is the scandal most deplored. It is a scandal that must be removed. Because noble-hearted Englishmen have thrown themselves into the breach, it does not follow this will continue. It may be all very well as a beginning, but it cannot last, and it is not desirable it should last. If the Church is for ever to be "in forma pauperis," we trust Englishmen will not sacrifice themselves to no good purpose. The best way of testing the Church is the way St. Andrews, and Moray and Ross have done, and this is the surest way of testing whether our Church be merely a congregational concern, or whether she be practically a branch of the Catholic Church. If we are merely an aggregation of congregations nominally under a Bishop, the sooner we tumble over the better for all concerned: there is no use pretending to be a thing we are not. The munificence of St. Andrews, and Moray and Ross can be emulated by all the dioceses. Brechin, which can raise £16,000 for the building of a single church, why can it not endow its bishopric? Aberdeen-the Church of the North-why is it the most backward of all the dioceses of the Church? Glasgow-why should it, with its enormous wealth, with its great capital of the West, pay its Bishop a sum fitted for an underclerk in one of her mercantile establishments. The time has gone by for shams of this kind. If Bishops are necessary, they must be paid, and with liberality. It is no matter whether Bishops are popular or not. If they are unpopular, the more reason Churchmen should support them. What will a man not do to support his father in his hour of distress and penury? Is it to be said the spiritual fathers are to be continued to be paid this miserable £127 a-year? Is this scandal to be perpetuated? St. Andrews and Moray and Ross have answered us with a goodly sum. Edinburgh has answered even more distinctly, by giving nearly two-thirds of what was given last year, to be distributed amongst the College of Bishops. As the organ of the Church in Scotland, we say, No! for it would be fatal to our movement. We believe 1865 will pronounce a verdict in our favour; but, whether it does or not, the agitation will be continued through the breadth and the length of Scotland, until £500 a-year is made up for each diocese, and the disgrace removed from the escutcheon of our Church, of the present beggarly sum being paid to our Bishops. THE WORK BEFORE US. THE work before us is, there can be no doubt, arduous and continuous; but it is, at any rate, not harder than it has been for the last eighteen years. Many difficulties which appeared then to be insurmountable have been overcome. A new generation has arisen much faster than the author of the "Scottish New Generation" ever dreamt of. Difficulties there ever will be in the onward march of the Church; and they must be overcome. In the meantime, the Church is completely organised. Any Churches which have not committees are not much worth thinking of. They are the veriest "dry bones" in Christendom. Let them sleep, in the meantime, in their unhealthy dreamland. The Church is completely organised, and the movement must now take its own course. It is no longer a mere dream; it is a stern reality. It is no longer the wish of a few earnest minds in Edinburgh contending against great odds-amidst insult, ingratitude, defeat, and reviling, courageously fighting the battle of the Church. It is, on the contrary, a movement extending from Shetland to Kelso; and in every congregation, in the bosom of every family which recognises the authority of the Church in Scotland, as she has existed for these eighteen hundred years, is the battle being fought and won. The question before the Church is a very plain and simple one. It is intelligible to the meanest understanding-Whether it is the duty of the members of the Church, or not their duty, to provide a decent maintenance to the Bishops and Clergy. The question must be answered Yea or Nay. There is no evading it. We say there can be but one answer; and we say fearlessly, that those of our Church, whether they be bishops, priests, or laity, who do not aid in this cause, are in the Church under false pretences. They are traitors in the camp. Both as gentlemen and as Christians, they are bound to relinquish a position which is not honest or intelligible. The Church is fairly committed to the struggle. She cannot retire from it, even if she desired it. The money must be got, or we are disgraced in the eyes of Christendom. There are many quarters from which assistance may reasonably be expected. Amongst other sources are Scotchmen abroad and in England. The canvass going on in Scotland promises well. Many are giving who have for years lived under a miserable "congregationalism." The district visiting is going on continuously and successfully, but we must get money from all who have been nurtured in the true faith-who have sworn allegiance to the Church in Scotland. Non-subscribers already have lost these many blessings. It is a privilege to which they are entitled, and a privilege which they have a right to claim. We pointed out, in our last number, the danger of the move ment degenerating into one of small sums, and the large donations falling off. We have every liking for the Voluntary principle, which we believe essential to the well-being of the Church; but we are also convinced that the Endowment principle as a foundation is equally essential. Even the large societies in England feel the evils of dependence upon subscriptions altogether; and we do trust we have heard the last of any attempt to encroach upon the capital of the Society. The Endowment of the Bishoprics we hold to be laying the foundation of a Christian Church. The Endowment of £100 a-year, we hold to be essential to the very existence of congregations. By in any way altering the scheme, you loosen very foundations of the movement. We have lost quite enough, as has been shown in another column, in Argyleshire and the Highlands, without losing more ground elsewhere. These must be put upon the very platform of the movement, or else the movement loses its sense of security and consciousness of power. the In resorting to the diocesan principle alone, or each diocese providing for its own Bishop, we fall into the fatal course of localising the movement, of making a mere county or district affair of it. It is not so bad as Congregationalism, for it recognises the Episcopal system, but it is akin to it. We have had quite enough of the withering reign of Congregationalism, without reviving this localising. We have had quite enough of narrowness, of pettiness, of cliquism, without propagating it through the country. The movement must continue to be a movement of the whole Church, or it is no movement at all. Let gentlemen give their money in any way they like, but it must be through the movement. There is a large margin allowed as to the mode of apportionment. At any rate, let the movement have a fair trial. Of this much we are convinced, that if once the principle of unity is infringed upon-if once the movement be split up into some half-a-dozen movements in the different dioceses, the Church will most materially suffer; and will eventually be compelled, for her self-preservation, to fall back upon the united action of the whole body. It can only be by acting as one that we can succeed in the present undertaking. Every church, as we say, has its committee -every congregation is split up into districts-every one has now the means of giving in proportion to his means, in any way he likes. Let all dissensions be forgotten. Let a minority be ruled by a majority. Let us all remember that the work on which we are |