ARCHDEACON Sinclair . . .limited himself pretty much to a consideration of topics suggested by the extensive enfranchisement of the working classes consequent on the Reform Act of last year. A great majority of them (he said), notwithstanding the recent multiplication of churches and church schools throughout the land, rarely joined in Christian worship, and still more rarely partook of the Holy Communion. The fact was undeniable, the causes of it were numerous and various, and he inclined to think that some of them had not hitherto received the attention they deserved. They would, as he conceived, form a not unseasonable subject for their present consideration. He began with a reason of a very general nature, of which the working classes themselves were quite unconscious, but which was continually exercising a pernicious influence over their minds. He referred to the moral and religious disadvantages to which all inhabitants of large towns and especially the working classes, were subjected, in consequence of their exclusive familiarity with the works of man, and their comparatively scanty acquaintance with the works of nature and of God. Streets and squares, looms and fly-wheels, steam engines and warehouses, with all the incessant turmoil of human industry and dissipation, occupied their whole thought and senses. Almost all that they saw or heard of was human and artificial—it was merely secular and suggestive of nothing beyond. Under these circumstances a so-called philosophy, under the name of 'Secularism,' had arisen which insisted that secular business was the sole concern of man, that religious matters were too vague, too distant, and too uncertain too deserve his serious attention. A second source of irreligion in the working classes had a tendency to produce not merely indifference but positive hostility. He referred to the state of mind engendered in the working classes by the licentiousness of the Press, and the style of reading to which they were most unhappily addicted.
Infidel writers in former times addressed their blasphemies and immoralities to educated persons in the higher walks of life, and used language studiously elegant and refined. Their object was to render vice and scepticism fashionable in courts and palaces in the library and the drawing-room. During the last half century, however, anti-Christian writers had condescended to popularise their so called philosophy and to disseminate the poison of eternal death among the masses of the community. The ability they had shown in this work of destruction was as unquestionable as their design was abominable. They had contrived to make themselves not only intelligible but interesting to the artisan, the petty trader, the shopman, the clerk, and other similar classes for whom they write. Although not really profound in argument, they contrived to appear so, and by impudent assertion imposed on their unwary readers. Writings of this description issued daily, monthly, and yearly from the press by millions.
The Archdeacon did not hesitate to say that the books written by way of defence against, these aggressions had not been so vigorous, so popular, or so effective, as the attack. Too low an estimate had been formed of the popular understanding. Many miserable and meagre attempts, only fit for the comprehension of children, had been placed in the hands of shrewd and clear-headed mechanics familiar with "The Age of Reason " and the " Vestiges of Creation." He rejoiced to say that there was reformation in these respects, but much room for improvement remained. He would remark, therefore, that the improvement required was not merely in the authors and publishers of books and tracts, but in the purchasers and distributors. The best possible reply to an infidel work must be utterly useless if it was not appreciated and circulated, and it would neither be appreciated nor circulated if the clergy disparaged the mental powers of the class for whom it was designed. They must beware, therefore, of underrating the intelligence of the working classes. They might not always understand technical terms, classical allusions, or Johnsonian grandiloquence, but they could thoroughly appreciate strong argument and well-chosen Anglo-Saxon words. No doubt the populace of Athens could not all read, but they could all hear, understand, enjoy, and profit by the orations of Demosthenes. The working men of the present day could read, and were, therefore, fully able to appreciate a tract written in the homely masculine phraseology of Leslie or Paley, or Cobbett or Defoe. The irreligion produced among the working classes by the two causes which he had considered would admit of occasional misgivings and apprehensions. The sceptical mechanic might from time to time be led to ask himself, What if after all Christianity should be proved to be, not a cunningly devised fable, but a revelation from the God of truth, enforced by the tremendous sanction, "He that believeth not shall be condemned' ? But here the source of irreligion which they had thirdly to consider came into operation to stultify these wholesome reflections, namely, the idea that religion was not a work of any urgency, and that the commencement of a holy life might safely be deferred to the near approach of death. The desire to reconcile "the pleasures of sin for a season," with the hope of everlasting salvation, had suggested for that purpose a variety of expedients more or less plausible, as, for instance, a deathbed baptism, a deathbed communion, and a deathbed or extreme unction. In the books and tracts circulated in thousands among the working classes, and especially among the young, they found numerous stories of hardened men and froward children suddenly, by a kind of miracle, elevated into saints, and after a few days or hours of conversion looking down upon ordinary Christians from the loftiest heights of full assurance.
A further reason for the irreligion of the working classes was one which perhaps might not have occurred to Churchmen, but which had been alleged both by artisans themselves and by writers on their behalf. Artisans complained that the clergy did not sympathise with them in their combinations to raise their wages and to uphold the rights of labour. Political writers reiterated this complaint. A work entitled "Questions for a Reformed Parliament" made the following statement: "As for the clergy, not only is their ministration impotent to reach the moral difficulties of the labour market, but their whole habit of mind, and their social position, alike place them on the side of authority; and whatever sympathy they may have for the poor, they have, as a class, none for the operative striving towards intellectual, social, and political emancipation." The kind of subjects thus suggested, namely, trade unions, strikes, and lock-outs, although unspeakably important to the nation, were quite foreign to the professional studies of the clergy, and belonged rather to statesmen and legislators than to divines. Nor was it, perhaps, desirable that the clergy should expose themselves to needless obloquy by taking a prominent part in such discussions. At the same time it was obviously necessary that they should not betray absolute ignorance, but should be able, when occasion arose, to explain how far they agreed with unionists or differed from them, and on what grounds. After some remarks on benefit societies, the Archdeacon said he did not wish the working classes to be by law prevented from forming themselves, if they saw fit, into trade unions, or for striking if they saw fit for an increase of wages. But, on the other hand, he maintained that they had no right to interfere with the freedom of others.
After speaking of the evils of intemperance, Dr. Sinclair observed that one great reason for the irreligion of the working classes was the filthy and crowded state of their dwellings, which in many places was not only incompatible with religion, but even with common decency. This evil was unquestionably a great scandal to the nation. He would remind them, however, that it had been greatly aggravated by the most benevolent legislation that was ever introduced into the code of any country. Our poor law made it the interest of the ratepayers to provide as little accommodation as possible for the poor lest they became chargeable to the parish. If any owner or occupier of land, either from philanthropy or hope of gain, resolved to build lodgings or cottages for the poor, he was too often looked upon by his fellow parishioners as a public enemy, mischievously adding to the already grievous burden of parish rates. In conclusion, the Archdeacon urged upon churchwardens the duty of making the best possible provision for all who were desirous of being present in their parish church —Pall Mall Gazette.
The Sydney Morning Herald 17 July 1868,
No comments:
Post a Comment