What Is Wanted?

The Opening Address At The Fourteenth Liverpool Diocesan

Conference, November 5, 1895.

Reverend and Lay Brethren, I offer you a hearty welcome to our Fourteenth Diocesan Conference, and I trust you will find it as interesting and useful as it has been in former years. Our subjects have been carefully chosen by a Standing Committee freely elected by all the Rural Deaneries. They are subjects which are coming to the front in the present day, and it is well to hear what can be said about them, and try to make up our minds. When a whole Diocese assembles, as ours does for only two days in a year, time is too precious to spend on matters of second-rate importance.

1. Our Own Diocese. The story of our own Diocese during the last twelve months I must pass over rather briefly, for want of time. I need not remind you that things have happened since we last met in this room, of unspeakable importance to Church and State--things which few expected, things which will make history for our children’s children, things which demand the serious attention of all Churchmen who are awake and know their duty. About some of these things, as your Bishop, you have a right to expect me to speak. In the meantime I will review the annual history of our Diocese as shortly as I can.

We have lost two of our incumbents by death since our last Conference--Mr. Barton of Rainhill and Dr. Knowles of Lydiate. Three have resigned--Canon Fergie of Ince, Mr. Everard of St. Andrew, Southport, and Canon Livingston of Aigburth. Our entire staff of clergy at the present time consists of 205 incumbents and 213 curates, 90 more curates and 25. more incumbents than I found here when this Diocese was formed in 1880, giving an average of 6,000 people to each parochial district, and a singularly large proportion of curates. It is needless to say that such a provision is utterly inadequate to the spiritual wants of a new Diocese of 1,200,000 souls. Our good ship is thoroughly undermanned, and we cannot overtake either the pulpit or pastoral work that ought to be done. We do our best, and are working on. But it is rather trying to patience to be continually asked by strangers, and even by men who are not strangers, ‘When are you going to build a cathedral?’ No doubt a grand cathedral, like some which I could name, would be an ornament to Liverpool, and a beautiful luxury. A day may possibly come when some Lancashire man will come forward with an offering of half a million, and build and endow one. But in the meantime more clergy and more churches, within easy reach of every family, are a positive necessity in many of our overgrown parishes, and until they are provided it is waste of time to talk of a cathedral.

To the list of personal losses and changes in the last year, I must be allowed to add one name which I cannot pass over in silence. I refer to that honoured Christian layman, Mr. Edward Pemberton Parry. As Chairman of two most important Institutions--the Scripture Readers’ Society and the Diocesan Church of England Temperance Society--he was probably known to many. For depth of religious character, consistency of life, wisdom in counsel, firmness in maintaining the Protestantism of the Church of England, readiness to give money to every good cause, I have found few lay Churchmen like him since I became Bishop of Liverpool. Quiet and unobtrusive as he was, his removal has made a wide gap in our ranks, and Liverpool is poorer by the departure of Mr. Parry.

Church building has made comparatively little progress in our Diocese during the last year. St. Gabriel, Huyton, is the only new church which I have been asked to consecrate. The old Parish Church of Farnworth has been reopened after a restoration so thorough and complete that it has cost at least £4500. A better restoration, next to Ormskirk, I have never seen, and it is one which does infinite credit to the incumbent and his parishioners, as well as to the architect. St. Simon and St. Jude in Walton is rapidly approaching completion, and will be consecrated about the end of this year. Christ Church, Waterloo, in the new Rural Deanery of Bootle, and Trinity, Formby, are almost finished, and want little but more money to make them ready for consecration. A scheme for a large new parish church at North Meols has been launched, and is in hands which are not likely to let it drop. In fact, the foundation is laid. More churches are still greatly needed in some districts, where the population is continually growing; and I know it well. Blundell Sands; St. Luke, Walton; St. John’s, Bootle; and Kensington Fields, are examples of what I mean. If the Established Church will not provide means of grace for the inhabitants of such districts, we must not be surprised if they join the ranks of Dissent. I have no great Church building Fund in my hands, as some suppose, in order to meet our wants. I can only look on with anxiety, and long for the return of days when Liverpool merchant-princes used to come forward and build churches themselves, like some men whom I could name. To tell us, in the meantime, that some of our existing churches are half empty, and we need no more, is a very weak and ignorant argument. Any intelligent Churchman understands why this state of things exists. As a general rule, a right man in the pulpit, and diligent, wise, and loving house-to-house visitation in the parish, are the cure for empty churches.

School building and school improvement, I am glad to say, have made great progress during the last year. In order to meet the heavy demands of the Education Department, and to prevent an increase of School Boards, our Diocese has made noble exertions, and raised very large sums of money. I cannot sufficiently thank the clergy and laity in some parts of our district for the gallant manner in which they have risen to the occasion, and shown a determination to retain the education of the Church’s children in the Church’s hands. At Wigan, at St. Helen’s, at Warrington, at Southport, at Walton, a generous liberality has been exhibited, without which we could not have held our ground. I trust that ground will be maintained, however great the struggle may be. The last words of Sir Henry Lawrence to his successor, before he died of his wounds at the siege of Lucknow, should not be forgotten: ‘Never, never surrender!’ In saying all this, I disclaim the least idea of enmity to Board schools. Here in Liverpool, as well as in London, they are a positive necessity. Without them, in many districts the children would grow up perfect heathens or infidels. Here, at any rate, I gratefully acknowledge that they provide a large amount of religious instruction. But I must prefer schools in which boys and girls are distinctly and regularly taught such doctrines as the Incarnation and Divinity of Christ, the Personality of the Holy Ghost, and the Atonement. Of such schools I hope the Diocese of Liverpool will never fail to keep up a supply, and I wish they could be found in every parish.

Concerning the general machinery for carrying on the work of the Diocese, I shall say very little this year, because I have not time. Our Diocesan Institutions continue to receive very slender support, and of course can do very little for those who apply to them for grants and aid. It is a state of things not in the least peculiar to our own district. All over England, Churchmen seem unwilling to support great common funds; they prefer giving money to objects near their own doors. I only wish the clergy of the Diocese would understand this, for at present many seem unable to do so. They have a vague impression that our Institutions have very large funds to dispose of; and when they apply for help, and get a very small grant, they are displeased, and think themselves unfairly treated. Once for all, let it be remembered that our Committees can only give what they have received; and if the Diocese gives little, they can give little in return. Those admirable Societies, the Liverpool Scripture Readers’ Society and Diocesan Temperance Society, continue to do a large amount of useful work. The Mersey Mission to Seamen, the Girls’ Friendly, and the Bible Women’s Society, in their respective fields of labour, are most helpful to the cause of pure and undefiled religion. The newlyformed Mothers’ Union is little known at present, but I believe it deserves very active support. The Sustentation Fund continues its valuable work, and, in my opinion, is far more likely to prosper on Diocesan than on National lines. On each and all of these agencies I could say much, if I had time.

I cannot close the report of our Diocese in the last twelve months without mentioning three things which appear to me to give cause for much thankfulness. These three are, the success of the general Mission in Liverpool last winter, the poll of Churchmen at the School Board election, and the demonstration in defence of the Welsh Church at the Philharmonic Hall, when Lord Cross, Mr. Boscawen, and Alderman Phillips, came down to visit us. On each occasion I believe we might have done far better. But on each, I must frankly say, the result far surpassed my expectations. The Church of England gave some proof of her power, if she will only rise to the occasion, come forward and use it, as our Nonconformist brethren and the Roman Catholics always do. Churchmen this year, and especially at the School Board election, have exhibited a capacity for organized co-operation and active assertion of their just position, which I began to think they did not possess. In Liverpool they have shown that they are finding out their strength, and are beginning to use it. Far more might be done all over England at educational, municipal, and political elections, if all Churchmen would only awake, turn out, and vote on every occasion, instead of sitting lazily at home, and saying, ‘It is no affair of mine.’ For a reviving interest in public affairs in 1895 I am deeply thankful. I only hope it will continue, and we shall not go to sleep again.

2. Social Problems. From this brief sketch of things within our own Diocese I must now turn to matters of far more public and farreaching importance. I refer to the new and critical position in which the Established Church has been suddenly placed by the recent Parliamentary election; and I feel it a plain duty, as your Bishop, to invite your attention to the consequent duties which are likely to devolve upon us as Churchmen.

I need hardly remind you that the reins of power have been placed in the hands of a Government which commands the largest majority in the House of Commons which any English Government has had since the Reform Bill of 1832. (In June 1895 Lord Salisbury formed his third (Conservative) Government.) Nor need I remind you that a large proportion of that majority consists of men who are likely to support the Church of England, and not allow it to be disestablished and disendowed without very good reasons. Now, what is this new Government likely to do? This is the point to which I propose to direct your attention.

We are told by men of ‘light and leading’ and influence, that plain social problems, not sweeping revolutionary changes of the British Constitution, will receive the special attention of the new Government, and that active efforts will be made to solve them. I am not surprised to hear this. We are in a critical position about social subjects in the present day, and I am sure that they demand the special attention of our rulers. Let me try to explain what I mean. Every observing man knows that during the last sixty years there has been an immense increase of wealth among the upper ranks in England, and, at the same time, a comparatively small improvement in the pecuniary circumstances of the working classes, and a consequent tendency to estrangement and want of harmony between the two bodies. No doubt this is partly accounted for by the altered conditions under which much work is now done. Formerly, business was carried on by men of small capital, who employed small numbers of workmen and knew every one whom they employed. Now it is carried on by great companies of employers on a large scale, who cannot possibly know all whom they employ. One result is, that the gulf between masters and men is much wider than it was in the days of our grandfathers, and the relations between employers and employed have gradually become less friendly and intimate than they used to be.

Under these circumstances, you cannot find fault with the formation of Trade Unions in the present day. For anything I can see, they are likely to do good and promote peace, provided they are reasonably conducted, and do not interfere with the liberty of those who object to join them. So long as business is conducted on the vast scale of modern times, the working classes must not be blamed if they co-operate, combine, and endeavour to protect their interests and defend their rights in every legal way. But it is vain to shut our eyes to the fact that a new and very delicate condition of things has now been created, in which there is continual danger of friction between masters and men, which requires the vigilant attention of a wise Government, in order to secure justice to both sides. How to lessen that friction is one of the great social problems of our times, and demands the thoughtful notice of every Englishman. We in Lancashire, at any rate, ought to help forward all efforts to bridge the gulf between employers and employed, and to promote friendly relations between them. We should strive to get disputes settled by Boards of Conciliation and Arbitration. We know by bitter experience the untold misery which trade disputes and strikes and lock-outs are continually bringing into our parishes, and the hindrances which they cause to the pastoral work of a clergyman. I am sure that any legislative measures for the promotion of temperance, purity, and thrift, and to secure the possession of healthy dwellings, plenty of good water, reading-rooms, and recreation grounds, ought to receive the active support of all clergymen who want to work their parishes with comfort. These things, of course, are not the gospel, and will not save souls. But they are helps and aids, and ought not to be despised.

One thing, however, we must never forget--no legislation, however clever and well-meant, will ever make all men rich and leave nobody poor. As long as the world stands, and human nature is unchanged, there will always be a vast amount of inequality. The Bible says, ‘The poor shall never cease out of the land’ (Deuteronomy 15:11). Some men will be wise and some foolish, some will work hard and some will be lazy, some will be intemperate and some will be sober, some will be strong and some will be weak. This is a state of things which no laws and no Government can possibly prevent, and forgetfulness of such simple truths is one fertile source of our present-day social troubles. To meet the wave of unhealthy Socialism which is spreading over the country, and to promote the growth of a really healthy Socialism by bringing classes and masses more together, should be an object which all Churchmen should keep before them if they want to strengthen the Church of England. I earnestly hope that every wise pastor of a Lancashire parish will not forget this. The working man needs to be reminded that labour cannot do without capital, any more than capital can do without labour; that you cannot command crops and weather and markets, and prevent occasional depression of trade and excessive competition; that it is impossible to keep wages and supply of work at one uniform level; and that it is quite possible to frighten away capital and drive it into foreign countries. The rich employer, on the other hand, needs to have continually pressed on him the important duty of taking more personal interest in those whom he employs, the duty of going among them from time to time and seeing them face to face, the duty of dealing with them as those who have feelings and hearts and souls, as well as hands to do his work and fill his pockets. If there was more of this sort of thing, and more practical sympathy among employers, we should hear less of strikes among the employed. I have immense faith in the power of sympathy and kindness in dealing with the British workman. If the House of Commons will do its duty by wise social legislation, and the clergy will back it by kind house-to-house visitation, I believe there would be a great increase of ’sweetness and light’ in Great Britain.

I cannot, however, leave this part of my address without making one remark which, at first sight, may appear strange. It is my deliberate opinion that the root of many of our social troubles in these days is the absence of a sufficiently high standard of Christian ethics throughout the land, and of plain Christlike teaching about every man’s duty to his neighbour. We have certainly had a great revival of doctrinal teaching through missions. We have had a great revival of Catholic and Church teaching, so called. I must think that we need a great increase of thorough, searching teaching about the simple duties of charity, love, kindness, and sympathy among all classes, from the highest to the lowest. Of course such teaching alone will not save souls. It is not the famous three Rs--ruin, redemption, and regeneration. But we have no more right to neglect it than justification by faith or the Ten Commandments. It is my firm conviction that if more was heard from all our pulpits about such simple topics as brotherly love, consideration for one another, good nature, good temper, unselfishness, and readiness to be helpful and make the best of one another, it would go far to make the machinery of our social system work more smoothly than it does now. In short, England would be a happier country if there was more of the Sermon on the Mount and the 13th chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians in all churches.

I leave the thorny question of social problems by repeating my opinion, that an immense amount of good might be done if the heads of great Concerns in the manufacturing and colliery districts would take up the practice of going occasionally among their hands and talking with them face to face. To visit some of the houses in those long, dreary, monotonous lines of cottages, which are so often found near coalpits and cotton mills; to shake hands with the dwellers, and sit down, and exhibit a kindly interest in the births and deaths and marriages and sorrows and joys of the family--all this would cost little, but would do much. It would do more to bring master and man together than fifty Acts of Parliament. We are all of one blood, whether rich or poor. We are all travelling to the same long home, and shall need the same atoning blood at last. These things ought never to be forgotten. ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’ was the selfish saying of the first murderer, Cain.

3. Church Reform. Next to social problems, I hope that our new Government will not refuse to consider the very serious subject of Church Reform. I know that this is a wide, vague-sounding topic, and many shrink from it as useless and unpractical. But we may go too far in this direction. Events move very rapidly in these days, as they did when the Irish Church was disestablished in 1869. I think it wiser to face the subject betimes, and I propose to direct your attention to it today.

Some people, I know, will tell me that no one wants Church Reform. Such objectors cannot have noticed the speeches made in every part of the country during the recent campaign in defence of the Welsh Dioceses of the Established Church. I have read many of them carefully, and I have been greatly struck by the repeated declaration, ‘We must have our Church reformed as well as defended.’ No less a person than the Archbishop of Canterbury has reminded us in the words of a Prayer-Book Collect, that our Church needs to be ‘cleansed as well as defended.’

Some people will tell me that no Church Reform is needed. I think such objectors cannot have considered what they are saying. There have been hardly any changes in our good old Church for 230 years. During that long period most of our institutions have been so changed, altered, and reformed that we are like a new nation. Reason and common sense point out that our great ecclesiastical machine must need repairs, alterations, and adaptation to the times. To tell me that it is perfect, and needs no change, is like telling me that which is contrary to the experience of every human institution. The wear and tear of 230 years has done its work, and the machine is capable of improvement.

The field of Church Reform is so wide and varied that I have not the least idea of discussing everything which it includes.

I shall not touch the subject of liturgical revision. Our good old Prayer-book is not perfect, for it was compiled by uninspired men. But I see no minds in any of our schools of thought capable of mending it. Moreover, one set of revisers would want to throw overboard the Creeds and Articles as useless lumber, while another would want to bring back the very defective First Liturgy of Edward VI.

I shall not touch the subject of reunion with our Nonconformist brethren. I regard it as a beautiful castle in the air, and, until the nature of Englishmen alters, utterly impracticable. Keep the walls of separation as low as possible, and shake hands over them as often as you can. But do not dream that you will ever get the walls down. It is too late. It has been hopeless since the unhappy Act of Uniformity in 1662.

Finally, I shall not touch the subject of reunion with the corrupt Church of Rome. The very proposal is monstrous. It would be a disgraceful desertion of the principles of the Protestant Reformation, and an insult to the men who laid down their lives to procure for us the priceless privileges of an open Bible and a pure Gospel. A reform of this kind would be enough to make Bishop Jewel’s bones turn in his grave under the floor of Salisbury Cathedral. It would be a base attempt to return to Egypt, and would ruin the Church of England.

I shall simply content myself with mentioning four practical points which appear to my eyes to deserve serious consideration. Three of them I shall touch very briefly. The fourth and last will necessitate handling at some length.

(1) We need reform of the Lower Houses of Convocation, in the representation of the parochial clergy, both in the Province of Canterbury and of York. The population of the whole country has grown immensely during the last 230 years, and especially in the North. The number of the parochial clergy is probably ten times what it was in the reign of Charles II. But all this time the proctors (Proctors--persons managing causes (in this case ecclesiastical) in courts administering canon law.) of the parochial clergy are pretty much what they were--excepting, of course, the addition of those returned by the new Dioceses. This cannot be right, and the parochial clergy have a just cause to complain. If this proportion of representation was right in the days of the Stuarts, it must be wrong in the days of Queen Victoria.

(2) We need reform of our Ecclesiastical Courts, and a revival of order and godly discipline in matters of doctrine and ritual. At present such order appears almost extinct. The stupid maintenance of the barbarous penalty of imprisonment for contumacy makes legal proceedings for disorder practically impossible. A clergyman has only got to be put in prison to make himself a popular martyr. The result is, that every clergyman does what is right in his own eyes, and liberty of ritual as well as doctrine is threatening the disruption of the whole Church of England. To go on year after year proclaiming to mankind that British wisdom cannot devise some reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts is a sad reflection on British common sense.

(3) We need, thirdly, a reform and reconstruction of our Canons. At present they are practically useless, and many Churchmen know nothing of their existence, and, of course, know nothing of their contents. Yet other Churches, beside their great Confessions of faith and doctrine, have codes of rules and regulations about minor matters, and it is hard to see why the Church of England should not have hers. At present not a few of our Canons are obsolete, and some of them superseded and abrogated by the law of the land. In fact the whole body of Canons is like a stuffed beast in a museum, a venerable curiosity, but of no practical benefit to the Church. Surely the time has come for a change. The Northern House of Convocation has made a move about the matter, and I trust it will not come to a standstill.

(4) The fourth and last subject about which Church Reform is needed is one of such serious importance that I shall be obliged to handle it at some length, and perhaps startle you by saying some very strong things, and perhaps things with which many will not agree. That subject is the very unsatisfactory position of lay Churchmen in the present day, and the absolute necessity of some clear recognition of their rights in the management of the Church’s affairs.

I will begin with a definition. When we talk of the laity of a Church, what do we mean? We mean, of course, all within her pale who are not ordained to any ministerial office. We mean the people of the Church, and especially the communicants, in contradistinction to the clergy. How immensely important a body they are, it is needless to say. It would be a waste of time to dwell long on such a point. Without the lay members a Church can hardly be said to exist. No doubt the old saying is true, ‘Ubi tres, ibi ecclesia.’ (‘Where three (come together), there is the church’.) But a general without an army, a colonel without a regiment, or a ship-captain without a crew, are not more useless and helpless than a Church consisting of clergy without laity. In the Church of England at any rate there is at present no lack of laymen. There are probably five hundred lay members in proportion to each clergyman. In point of numbers alone, therefore, apart from all other considerations, the laity are a most important part of the Church of England.

I will next inquire, What was the position of the laity in New Testament Churches? This is an inquiry which demands special notice, and deserves special attention. I am much mistaken if a close examination of this point will not astonish some people, and make them open their eyes. I can hardly find an instance in God’s Word in which the ministers alone are ever called ‘the Church,’ or ever act for the Church without the laity uniting and co-operating in their action. Are the deacons appointed? The Twelve recommend it, ‘but the multitude’ choose. (Acts 6:5) Is a Council held to consider whether the heathen converts should be circumcized? The decision arrived at is said to come from ‘the apostles, and elders, and brethren.’ (Acts 15:23) Are inspired Epistles written by St. Paul to particular Churches? In eight cases they are addressed to the ‘Church--the saints--the faithful brethren’ and in only one case (the Epistle to the Philippians) is there any mention of ‘bishops and deacons’ in the opening address, and even there they come in at its end. That there was to be a distinct order of men to minister to the Church is, to my eyes, most plainly taught in the New Testament. But that ‘the Church’ in every city or country meant the laity, and especially the communicants, and the ministers were only regarded as the ’servants of the Church’ (2 Corinthians 4:5), seems to me as clear as the sun at noonday. As for a Church in which the clergy acted alone, settled everything, decided everything, judged everything, and managed everything, and the laity had no voice at all, I cannot find the shadow of such a thing in the Acts or Epistles of the New Testament. I trust that Churchmen who remember the Sixth Article of our English Church will not fail to observe this.

I will now proceed to examine the present position of the laity in the Church of England. It is a position which falls very short of the New Testament standard. It is vain to deny that in the actual working machinery of our Church, in its arrangements, plans, schemes, and normal organization, the lay members have comparatively no place at all! Do the Bishops meet in solemn conclave at Lambeth Palace to consider the state of our Zion? There is no place for the laity. Does Convocation hold its annual debates? There is no representation of the laity. Has a vacant Living or Incumbency to be filled up? The appointment is generally made without the slightest regard to the opinion of the parishioners. I state simple facts. I defy anyone to deny their correctness. With every desire to make the best of our Church and its Constitution, I cannot avoid the conclusion, that in the matter of the laity its system is at present defective and infra-scriptural. I cannot reconcile the position of the English lay Episcopalian in 1895 with that of his brother in any apostolic Church eighteen centuries ago. i cannot make the two things square. To my eyes, it seems that in the regular working of the Church of England almost everything is left in the hands of the clergy. In all this there is no intentional slight. Not the smallest reflection is implied on the trustworthiness and ability of the laity. But from one cause or another they are left out in the cold, passive recipients and not active members in a huge ecclesiastical corporation; sleeping partners and not working agents in an unwieldy and ill-managed concern. In short, in the normal action of the Church of England, lay Churchmen have been left on a siding. Like soldiers not wanted, they have fallen out of the ranks, retired to the rear, and sunk out of sight.

What is the true cause of this anomalous state of things? It is one which may easily be detected. The position of the English laity is neither more nor less than a rag and remnant of Popery. It is part of that ‘damnosa haereditas’ (An inheritance entailing loss.) which Rome has bequeathed to our Church, and which has never been completely purged away. Our Reformers themselves were not perfect men, and the characteristic Tudor jealousy of Queen Elizabeth prevented their perfecting the work of the English Reformation. Among other blots which they left on the face of our Church, I must sorrowfully admit that neglect of the interests of the laity was not the least one. To make the clergy mediators between Christ and man, to exalt them far above the laity and put all ecclesiastical power into their hands, to clothe them with sacerdotal authority and regard them as infallible guides in all Church matters--this has always been an essential element of the Popish system. This mischievous element our Reformers, no doubt, ought to have corrected by giving more power to the laity, as John Knox did in Scotland. They omitted to do so, either from having been originally brought up under the Romish system, or from want of time, or from want of Royal permission. The unhappy fruit of the omission has been that gradually the chief authority in our Church matters has fallen almost entirely into the hands of the clergy, and the laity have been left without their due rights and powers. What are the consequences of this unsatisfactory state of things? They are precisely what might be expected--evil and only evil. Departure from the mind of God, even in the least things, is always sure to bear bitter fruit. Lifted above their due position, the English clergy have always been inclined to sacerdotalism, and an overweening estimate of their own privileges and powers. Fallen below their due position, the English laity, with occasional brilliant exceptions, have taken little interest in Church matters, and have been too ready to leave everything ecclesiastical to be managed by the clergy. In the meantime, for three centuries the Church of England has suffered great and almost irremediable damage. Seldom considered, seldom consulted, seldom trusted with power, seldom invested with authority, the English lay Churchman, as a rule, is ignorant, indifferent, or apathetic about Church questions. How few laymen know anything about Church work in their own Diocese! How few care one jot for Convocation! How few could tell you, if their lives depended on it, who are the Proctors of their own Diocese! How few understand the meaning of the great doctrinal controversies by which their Church is almost rent asunder! How few exhibit as much personal interest or anxiety about them, as a Roman spectator would exhibit about the fight of a couple of gladiators in the arena of the Colosseum! How few could tell you anything more than this, ‘that there is some squabble among the parsons; and they don’t pretend to understand it’! This is a melancholy picture; but I fear it is a sadly correct one. And yet who can wonder? The English laity have never yet had their rightful position in the management of the Church of England.

You may lay it down as an infallible rule, that the best way to make a man feel an interest in a business is to make him a ‘part of the concern.’ The rule applies to ecclesiastical corporations as well as to commercial ones. The Scotch Presbyterians, the English Nonconformists, the Irish and American Episcopalians, the Colonial Episcopalians, all realize the importance of this principle, and take care to carry it out. The Established Church of England alone has lost sight of this principle altogether. The laity have never been properly employed, or trusted, or considered, or called forward, or consulted, or placed in position, or armed with authority, as they ought to have been. The consequence is that, as a body, they neither know, nor care, nor feel, nor understand, nor think, nor read, nor exercise their minds, nor trouble their heads as much as they ought to do, about Church affairs. The system under which this state of things has grown up is a gigantic mistake. The sooner it is cut up by the roots and turned upside down the better. If we want to remove one grand cause of our Church’s present weakness we must completely alter the position of the laity. On this point, if on no other, there is great need of Church Reform.

But what are the reforms that are needed? Grant for a moment that we have at length discovered that our lay Churchmen are not in their rightful position. What is the remedy for the evil? What is the change that is required? What ought to be done?

The reform I plead for in the position of our laity is simply this. I plead for the general recognition of the mighty principle, that nothing ought to be done in the Church without the laity, in things great or in things small. I plead that the laity ought to have a part and voice and hand and vote in everything that the Church says and does, except ordaining and ministering in the congregation. I plead that the voice of the Church of England ought to be not merely the voice of the bishops and presbyters, but the voice of the laity as well, and that no Church action should ever be taken, and no expression of Church opinion ever put forth, in which the lay communicants have not an equal share with the clergy. They have a voice in all our Colonial Churches. They have a voice in the Irish and American Episcopal Churches. I fail to see any good reason why they should not have a voice in all the affairs of the Established Church of England. Such a reform would be a return to New Testament principles. Such a reform would increase a hundredfold the strength of the Church of England.

(1) In my opinion, No English Convocation ought ever to be gathered together without an equal representation of the laity. The existing Convocations of Canterbury and York sometimes discuss measures of self-reform. They may spare themselves the trouble of incubation unless they are prepared to throw open their doors, and admit to their counsels the laity. No mere clerical Parliament, however rich in deans, archdeacons, canons, and parochial clergy, will ever possess the country’s confidence, or be regarded with much interest, or command much attention. The laity must have a voice and place in Convocation, if the laity are to care for Convocation’s proceedings. Once let them in, and recognize their title to sit on equal terms with the clergy, and Convocation debates would soon be diligently studied, and become a different thing. A well-selected body of sensible lay Churchmen would never allow long weary speeches about the ‘reserved sacrament,’ or let union with decayed and unsound Churches be discussed, while Protestant Nonconformists are completely ignored.

(2) In my opinion, No parochial clergyman ought ever to attempt the management of his parish or congregation without constantly consulting the laity. If he does not like to have anything so stiff and formal-sounding as a ‘parochial council,’ let him at any rate often confer with his church-wardens and leading communicants about his work. Especially let him do nothing in the way of changing times and modes of worship, nothing in the matter of new ceremonials, new decorations, new gestures, new postures, without first taking counsel with his lay people. The church is theirs, and not his; he is their servant, and they are not his: they have surely a right to be consulted. Who can tell the amount of offence that might be prevented if clergymen always acted in this way? No people, I believe, are more reasonable than lay Churchmen, if they are only approached and treated in a reasonable way. Above all, let every parochial incumbent make a point of teaching every communicant that he is an integral part of the Church of England, and is bound to do all that he can for its welfare. On this point, I grieve to say, the Methodists and Dissenters beat Churchmen hollow. With them every new member is a new home missionary in their cause. Never will things go well with the Church of England until every individual member realizes that he is ‘a part of the concern,’ and has a duty to do to his Church, and keeps that duty continually in view. (3) In my opinion, No appointment to a living or cure of souls ought ever to be made without allowing the laity a voice in the matter. This is a strong opinion, I know; but it is one which I have deliberately formed. Our present system is a total mistake, and a grievous abuse. Clergymen are constantly thrust upon unwilling parishes and disgusted congregations, who are entirely unfit for their position. The parishioners are consequently driven away from Church, and the Establishment suffers irreparable damage. It is high time to give up this system. I have no faith in Diocesan Patronage Boards. I doubt extremely if they would work well and give satisfaction. I believe they would either be divided among themselves, or else would fill the Church with weak, colourless clergymen. By all means keep patronage where it is at present, divided, and not in any one set of hands. But let every patron, or body of patrons, be required to send the name of the clergyman whom it is proposed to nominate to a vacant living, to the church-wardens, one month before the name is presented to the Bishop. Let the name of the proposed new incumbent be publicly read out in church, and affixed to the church doors on four Sundays consecutively, and let anyone be invited to object if he can. Let the objector be obliged to satisfy the Bishop that there are good reasons, whether doctrinal or practical, for his objections; and let the Bishop have power, if satisfied, to refuse the patron’s nominee, with liberty to the patron to appeal. Of course such a safeguard as this might often be ineffectual. The parishioners may pay no more attention to a ’si quis’ (If anyone’ (has objections to offer).) about the appointment of a new incumbent than they do to a ’si quis’ about the squire’s fox-hunting son, who proposes to be ordained and to change a red coat for a black one. The Bishop may find himself sometimes in a very disagreeable and troublesome position, and make great mistakes. But there is nothing new in that. No Bishops are infallible. The objections to the nominee may often be frivolous or incapable of proof. But at any rate a principle would be established. The laity of a parish could no longer complain that they are perpetually handed over to new parsons without having the slightest voice in the transaction. One right the laity possess already, I remind them, which I heartily wish they would exercise more frequently than they do. They may effectually prevent young men being ordained who are unfit for orders, by objecting when the ’si quis’ is read. Well would it be for the Church of England if the laity in this matter would always do their duty!

Such are the reforms I suggest in the position of lay Churchmen. They are no doubt very wide and sweeping, and bristle with difficulties. But I have yet to learn that they are not most desirable in the abstract, and imperatively required by the times. They will bring down on me a host of objectors. For this I am quite prepared. ‘Sacrilegious reform!’ some will cry. They. think it downright wicked to let the laity have anything to do with spiritual matters. They wish them to be nothing but Gibeonites, hewers of wood and drawers of water for the clergy.

Well! I reply, look at the Irish Church, and learn wisdom. If Disestablishment comes, and come it may, you will be obliged to cast yourselves on the aid of the laity, whether you like it or not. Even if it does not come, you will never be really strong unless you place the laity in their rightful position. As to the vague talk about sacrilege, it is all nonsense. Touch the idea with the Ithuriel spear of Scripture, and it will vanish away.

Footnote In Milton’s Paradise Lost, Ithuriel was one of two angels sent by Gabriel to search for Satan after his entry into Paradise. He was armed with a spear, the slightest touch of which exposed deceit.

But ‘it is a dangerous reform,’ some men will cry. ‘The laity will take the reins into their hands, and lord it over the consciences of the clergy.’ Such fears are simply ridiculous. There is far more real danger in letting the laity sit idle, and giving them no active interest in the Church’s affairs. I have a better opinion of the laity than these alarmists have. The new ecclesiastical machinery may work awkwardly at first, like a new steam-engine, when its joints are stiff and its bearings hot. The laity may kick over the traces at first a little, and not understand what they have to do. But give them time, give them time. Show them that you trust them, and make them see what is wanted, and I have no doubt the laity would soon settle down in their place, and work with a will.

I leave the subject of Church reforms at this point. I shall never live to see them myself. Church work is particularly slow work, and reform-works slowest of all. I can only commend them to your serious attention. They will all come to the front sooner or later; and before the next attack on the Establishment comes (and come it will), I hope Churchmen will set their house in order, and boldly amend the things that are wanting. It is useless to flatter ourselves that there are no weak points in our line of Church defence. The recent campaign in defence of the Welsh Dioceses has shown that there are not a few, and it will be judicial blindness to ignore them.

4. Our Divisions. The last and most sorrowful subject which I propose to handle in this Address is the continuance of our unhappy divisions. I do not see at present the slightest symptom of their abatement. On the contrary, they seem to my eyes to increase, harden, and crystallize. So long as the mass and the confessional and Mariolatry are tolerated, permitted, and let alone in every direction, so long a large number of the clergy, and a still larger proportion of the laity, are vexed, uneasy, and dissatisfied, and are beginning to say, ‘What is the use of the Established Church of England?’ It is a state of things which cannot last for ever. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Remedies and healing medicines at present I can see none. Our ecclesiastical horizon is dark and gloomy in every quarter. Unity no doubt is an excellent thing, and many seem ready to sacrifice precious truth in order to obtain it. But to my eyes unity among Churchmen seems as far off as ever. It will never be obtained by holding meetings, and making fine speeches about it, and wailing over our divisions, while nothing practical is proposed. Such mere talk of the lips reminds me of a baby crying in the dark. It will never be obtained by trying to make all preachers avoid disputed subjects, and be content with a vague, dead-alive, pointless, toothless, negative theology. I look with amazement at the simplicity of those amiable people who dream of unity on such lines, and forget that nothing does good in a fallen world except a full outspoken statement of the whole Gospel of the grace of God.

However, if you wish to know my opinion about the roots of our troubles, you shall have it. I am convinced that much of our division is traceable to two grave defects in the Churchmen of this day. I will state them briefly and commend them to your thoughtful attention. (1) For one thing, I believe there is everywhere in this day a most serious diminution of the good old custom of private reading of the Bible. Between the growth of periodicals and the mischievous influence of what is called ‘Higher Criticism,’ I have a strong impression that Bibles are not read as much and as carefully as they were two hundred years ago. Men ‘err, not knowing the Scriptures.’

I am well aware that there are more Bibles in Great Britain at this moment than there ever were since the world began. There is more Bible-buying and Bible-selling, more Bible-printing and Bibledistributing, than there ever was since England was a nation. There is a general and righteous determination to have the Bible read by children in our schools. But all this time I fear we are in danger of forgetting, that to have the Bible is one thing, and to read it privately ourselves quite another.

I am afraid that the Bible of many a man and woman in Great Britain is never read at all. In one house it lies in a corner, stiff, cold, glossy, and fresh as it was when it came from the bookseller’s shop. In another it lies on a table, with its owner’s name written in it, a silent witness against him day after day. In another it lies on some high shelf, neglected and dusty, to be brought down only on grand occasions, such as a birth in the family, like a heathen idol at its yearly festival. In another it lies deep down at the bottom of some box or drawer, among the things not wanted, and is never dragged forth into the light of day until the arrival of sickness, the doctor, and death. These things are sad and solemn. But they are true. I am afraid that many in Great Britain who read the Bible, do not read it aright. One man looks over a chapter on Sunday evening, but that is all! Another reads a chapter every day to his servants at family prayers, but that is all! A third goes a step further, and hastily reads a verse or two in private every morning, before he goes out of his house. A fourth goes further still, and reads as much as a chapter or two every day, though he does it in a great hurry, and omits it on the smallest pretext. But each and every one of these men does what he does in a heartless, scrambling, formal kind of way. He does it coldly, as a duty. He does not do it with appetite and pleasure. He is glad when the task is over. He forgets it all when the book is shut. This is a sad picture. But in multitudes of cases, oh, how true! But why do I think all this? What makes me speak so confidently? Listen to me a few moments, and I will lay before you some evidence. Neglect of the Bible is like disease of the body. It shows itself in the face of a man’s conduct. It tells its own tale. It cannot be hid.

I fear that many neglect the Bible, because of the enormous ignorance of true religion which everywhere prevails. There are thousands of professing Christians in this country who know literally nothing about the Gospel. They could not give you the slightest account of its distinctive doctrines. They have no more idea of the meaning of conversion, grace, faith, justification, and sanctification, than of so many words and names in Arabic. And can I suppose such persons read the Scriptures? I cannot suppose it. I do not believe they do.

I fear that many neglect the Bible, because of the utter indifference with which they regard false doctrine. They will talk with perfect coolness of others having become Roman Catholics, or Socinians, or Mormonites, or Deists, or Agnostics, as if it did not signify much, and was all the same thing in the long run. And can I suppose such persons search the Scriptures? I cannot suppose it. I do not believe they do.

I fear that many neglect the Bible, because of the readiness with which they receive false teaching. They are led astray by the first false prophet they meet with who ‘comes in sheep’s clothing,’ and has a pleasant voice, a nice manner, and a gift of eloquent speech. They swallow all he says without inquiry, and believe him as implicitly as papists do the Pope. And can I suppose such persons search the Scriptures? I cannot suppose it. I do not believe they do. I declare my firm conviction, that an idle neglect of the Bible is one cause of the ignorant formal Christianity which is so widely prevalent in these latter days, and one root of our unhappy divisions and disunion.

(2) But neglect of private Bible-reading is not the only defect among the Churchmen of the present day. I suspect there is a growing disposition among the clergy to disregard the Thirty-nine Articles, and to ignore their teaching on many important points. I need not remind you that those Articles are practically the Church’s Confession of Faith. The preface to them in the Prayer-book distinctly asserts this, and you cannot repeal or abrogate them without pulling to pieces the Church of England. Moreover, every clergyman, when he is instituted to a living must publicly read them before his congregation, and solemnly declare his assent to their contents. What then are we to say when a clergyman, after this serious public act, proceeds continually to teach doctrines which cannot be reconciled with the Articles, and especially with the Articles about the Lord’s Supper? What indeed are we to say? I cannot answer. It exhibits a most unhealthy and dangerous condition of things within our Church, and makes me tremble for the ark of God. Our forefathers used to think that subscriptions and declarations meant something, and that it was not honourable to ignore them, or teach what they were intended to condemn. But the old order seems to have changed. I make no attempt to explain it, and can only look on with sorrow and amazement.

Nothing, however, I am satisfied, will ever make the majority of inteiligent lay Churchmen in this day believe that the Thirty-nine Articles were meant to be a dead letter, or that the many ritual novelties in public worship which are to be seen all over the land were ever intended by Parker, Jewel, Grindal, Whitgift, and the other Elizabethan Reformers, to be Church worship. Nothing will ever make them believe that sacerdotalism and sacramentalism are the true doctrine of the Church of England. Nothing will ever make them believe that the Articles and Prayer-book give any sanction to the mass, auricular confession, prayers for the dead, invocation of saints, and an ex opere operato view of the sacraments, (The view that the sacraments yield their benefits by the mere outward act of administration.) as if they conferred grace on all who receive them, while the Articles distinctly say, ‘in such only as rightly receive the same, they have a wholesome effect and operation.’ They are watching, waiting, and wondering whereunto this state of things will grow. The Upper Ten Thousand, and many ecclesiastics in high position, appear to my eyes like men in a balloon, and not to realize what is going on upon earth among the laity. I have no doubt the English layman is a patient creature, and will stand a good deal. But there is a limit to patience. I believe that any attempt at this moment to prohibit evening communion, or to enforce the eastward position on every clergyman, would create most serious disturbance in thousands of parishes, endanger the very existence of the Established Church, and set people thinking about secession or disruption. There are breakers ahead, and it is the duty of wise pilots not to disregard them.

Some men, I know, laugh at the idea of the Church being in danger. They point to the recent elections, and victories at the polling booths, and tell us that the Church was never so strong as she is just now. I cannot agree with them. To my mind it seems foolish to talk of the Church’s strength when such painful divisions exist in our Church’s ranks. I am afraid there is silently growing up among our middle-class laity, and the intelligent artisans, a strong feeling of dislike to the Romanizing tendency of the last fifty years, and the morbid hungering of many of the clergy for more Romish novelties in our worship. They are offended, irritated, and annoyed, and mischief is being done. The voting power at Parliamentary elections is in their hands, and unless there is a change for the better they will use it one day. I have grave doubts whether some of our lay Churchmen will continue to defend our Establishment if another attack is made, unless they can have some assurance that its Protestantism is to be fully and honestly maintained. At present their confidence is greatly shaken. They will defend a Protestant Establishment, but not a semi-Popish one. They will fight to the bitter end to maintain the Church of the Reformation, but they will not lift a finger to support a weak imitation of the Church of Rome.

The Church’s dangers, I firmly believe, are more from within than without.

My Reverend and Lay Brethren, we are drifting, drifting, drifting, and what the end will be no man can tell. In the meantime, we must cultivate meekness, kindness, good temper, charity, and patience, and work together, when we can, and while we can, and where we can. With God nothing is impossible. Our grand old Church has survived many storms and trying seasons. Who can tell that there may not be ‘a good time coming,’ and she may yet begin the next century in a healthier and more united condition than that which she is in just now? For this, let us agree to pray. Let us daily pray that the Reformed Church of England may be so ‘guided and governed by the Holy Spirit, that all her members may be led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life.’