The Outlook

An Address Given At The Opening Of The Sixth Liverpool Diocesan

Conference, 1886.

Reverend and Lay Brethren, I offer you a hearty welcome at the commencement of our Sixth Diocesan Conference. We meet in smaller numbers than I could wish, and I regret to say that none of our Conferences in the last five years has ever been attended by half our members. However, this is a state of things, I believe, which exists in almost every Diocese in the kingdom, and it is useless to complain. So long as these Conferences are purely voluntary associations, whose proceedings possess no binding powers, so long it is vain to expect that all Churchmen will take a deep interest in their meetings and debates.

The subjects about to be brought before you have been carefully chosen, and I think they afford scope for some useful discussion. I take occasion to remind you that the selection of subjects for a Conference is not so easy as some suppose. On the one hand, we do not want questions about which all men are agreed, like themes for little boys at school, such as ‘Honesty is a good thing.’ On the other hand, we do not want burning controversial questions about which the immense majority of Churchmen have made up their minds one way or the other, and are not in the least likely to change them. What we want to discuss are really practical subjects, about which more light is wanted, and there is a great deal to be said on both sides. If Church patronage, the condition of domestic servants, Church music and singing, and modern preaching, are not subjects of this kind, I am greatly mistaken. At any rate, I think there is room for a great deal more information about them, and I hope we shall get it.

In my own opening address I shall follow the example of most of my brethren on the Episcopal Bench, and seize the opportunity of saying something about the outlook of our own Diocese in particular, and of the Church of England generally.

Under each head I have something to say.

1. The outlook of the Diocese of Liverpool is, as usual, a very chequered one. Taking a bird’s-eye view, as a Bishop, I see many things which are painful and discouraging, and I heartily wish that I did not see them. But I will not complain. I should be ungrateful if I did not publicly acknowledge many causes for thankfulness. There are clouds, no doubt, on our Diocesan horizon, as I have said more than once before. But there is also a good deal of blue sky. (1) The extremely limited support given to our Diocesan Institutions continues to be a very gloomy spot in our Diocesan outlook, and reflects some discredit on the Churchmen of the West Derby Hundred. When I tell the Conference that the total amount of money received in 1885 by our six great Diocesan Institutions was only £3982, that the whole number of annual subscribers to these Institutions was only 638 in our Diocese of 1,200,000 people, and that out of 200 incumbents 80 never made any collection at all for the support of this important Diocesan machinery, I think you will admit that I have a right to call this an unsatisfactory state of things. Nevertheless even here there are two sides to the picture. It would be absurd and unfair to measure the liberality of Churchmen by the amount of money given to the Diocesan Institutions. We all know that very large sums are annually contributed for Church purposes which never pass through the hands of the Treasurers of our Finance Association. It is the same in every Diocese throughout the land. As long as human nature is what it is, men will give their money directly to the Church, or School, or Mission-room, or Curate’s fund, which is close by their own doors, and they will not put it at the disposal of a Diocesan Committee. A great deal more money is given in our own district in this way, than through the medium of our Office in Commerce Court. It is useless to say, ‘this ought not to be so.’ We must accept the position, and remember it is one of the many consequences of ‘our unhappy divisions.’ After all, the outside critics who are so fond of running down the new Diocese of Liverpool, would do well to remember the princely donations which have been recently given to the cause of the Church by individual Churchmen residing within the boundaries of the new See. Within the last six years, since the creation of this Bishopric, our venerable friend Charles Groves has given £10,000 in one sum towards the building of churches. Mr. Horsfall has spent £20,000 in the erection of St. Agnes. Messrs. Knowles and Pearson have given £10,000 towards building a church at Ince. An anonymous contributor sent me £2,000 last year in one donation, to be applied to Diocesan purposes. And last, but not least, an honourable lady, whose name I need not mention in this room, has given £20,000 this year for the formation of a Pension Fund for aged and invalided Clergy in the Diocese, after having contributed most munificently to the erection of the three new churches, of St. Athanasius, St. Gabriel, and St. Bede’s, in each case about £2,000; after giving a Parsonage to St. Athanasius at a cost of £2,000, and a Parsonage to St. Paul’s, Prince’s Park, at a cost of £2,500; and after building and endowing a large and beautiful House of Rest for Incurables. In the face of such facts as these, which are but six years old, they are not to be heard for a moment who tell the world that the Diocese of Liverpool has done nothing in the way of giving money since its creation. (2) Concerning the outlook of Church Building in our Diocese, I see much ground yet unoccupied, while I thankfully admit that much has been done. Fifteen churches built and consecrated and forming the centre of Parochial districts, four large churches built and opened by licence though not yet consecrated, five new churches founded and in process of building, besides three churches rebuilt, three restored at an expense of £3,000 each, and four enlarged by new chancels, tell a tale which speaks for itself. But when I look at such parishes as St. Aidan’s, Kirkdale; St. Paul’s, North Shore; St.

John the Baptist’s, Toxteth Park; or the districts attached to the mother churches of Warrington and St. Helen’s, or the Bootle quarter, you may well believe that I long to see more done in the matter of Church Building. So long as there is only one incumbent and one consecrated church in a population of 10,000 or 15,000, it is absurd to suppose the Church of England is duly represented, and can make her influence felt. Such districts are the weakness of the Established Church, and supply weighty arguments to Liberationists. Common sense points out that an immense proportion of the dwellers in such districts are like sheep without a shepherd. They know nothing of the clergyman of the parish, and care nothing for a Church which does not seem to care for them. No doubt the immediate remedy such districts require is a supply of plain, cheap mission-rooms, simple elementary evangelistic services, and an increased staff of missionary curates and lay-agents. But after all, these are only temporary stop-gap arrangements. Our ultimate aim should be to break up these overgrown parishes into districts of a manageable size, and to plant in each territory a church, a resident vicar, and a parsonage. I hope and pray that God may yet incline some of our wealthy citizens to come forward, and to build, as some have nobly done, more churches for the great city in which their wealth has been made. At present, however, while I am deeply thankful for the progress we have made in Church Building, I heartily wish the progress was more rapid.

I cannot, however, drop this subject of Church Building without raising a warning voice, and offering some friendly advice to all promoters of new churches. I entreat them, for one thing, to beware of extravagant designs, and to take care that they are not victimized by architects naturally anxious to show their talents. By all means let us have handsome churches, if we can get them, but let us not waste money on bricks and mortar, especially in poor districts. For another thing, I entreat the promoters of new churches to beware of opening them with a heavy debt on them. Nothing, I am certain, so paralyses the minister of a new church as the incessant struggle to pay off a debt. It is like a mill-stone round his neck, and seriously cripples his usefulness, at that critical period, the beginning of his work. Last, but not least, I ask all promoters of new churches to consider more seriously than they sometimes appear to do, the income of their ministers. That question, in poor parishes, where the offertory must always be small, will one day be a very difficult one to solve. A grand Gothic church, with a half-starved Incumbent in the pulpit, is a very sorrowful and unsatisfactory sight.

I cannot leave this branch of my address without mentioning a few things in which I heartily wish I could see a change for the better. I do not forget that ‘wishing’ is said to be waste of time, but I do want to put my finger on some things about which I long to see alteration and amendment. I will mention them as briefly as possible. (i) I want to see more done in Liverpool for those two valuable Institutions, the Scripture Readers’ and Bible-women’s Societies. There is an enormous field of usefulness before each of those bodies, which for want of funds they are quite unable to reach.

(ii) I want to see more done in the Diocese for the Church Aid Society’s cause. It is useless to wait till large new churches are built in our overgrown districts. I see no chance of breaking them up, and reaching the people, except by a multiplication of living agents and plain mission-rooms.

(iii) I want to see more done for the cause of seamen in this huge seaport. Far more might be done if the agencies which are specially devoted to their benefit were not hindered by want of funds. (iv) I want to see more life and zeal for evangelization in our Voluntary Lay Helpers Association. It is easy work to enrol the voluntary helpers in well-worked parishes, and to make out a long list of district visitors, Sunday-school teachers, and the like. But I long to see volunteers offering themselves to go out from their own particular parishes, to assist some of the Incumbents of our large, overgrown districts, where at present there is a dearth of helpers, by visiting from house to house, and aggressive evangelization. (v) I want to see a much larger number of candidates for Confirmation from some of our large parishes. The number presented to me from year to year in some cases is sadly small, and leaves a painful impression that ‘Young Liverpool’ is not as much under the influence of the Church of England as Churchmen could wish.

(vi) I want to see legal parochial districts assigned and attached to every church in the city of Liverpool. Few persons, perhaps, are aware that there are large and important churches in this city which at present have no legal district at all. The streets around them are only worked by conventional arrangements, and the incumbents are under no legal obligation to do anything outside the walls of their own churches. Any pastoral work they do is done on the voluntary system, and they are exempt from the requirements of the Pluralities Act. This is a great evil, and I do hope that some day, with a due regard to vested interests, the evil may be remedied. At this moment I believe that St. Andrew’s, Holy Innocents, St. Mary (Edge Hill), St. Margaret (Prince’s Road), Holy Trinity (Walton Breck), St. James (West Derby), St. John (Knotty Ash), and St. Michael’s in the Hamlet, have no legal parochial districts.

I trust you will understand my meaning in naming these wants. I hope I am not a grumbler or complainer, but I long to see the ‘things set in order that are wanting.’ For an immense amount of good work done in the Diocese, I am deeply thankful. For readiness to meet my wishes, and assist me in every possible way, I shall always be grateful, both to clergy and laity. Few people have the least idea of the enormous difficulties which this new Diocese presents to a Bishop. A population of 1,200,000 with only 200 incumbents, and a population of which at least one-half are Roman Catholics or Nonconformists, a large number of comparatively new Churches most miserably endowed, particularly in the poor districts; the almost entire absence of ecclesiastical prizes to induce first-rate men to settle among us; the want of a great central Cathedral with its Dean and endowed Chapter to make a rallying point for Churchmen on great occasions; the fierce competition of commercial business, which allows so few laymen time to assist the Church’s movements, with every good will to do so; the startling proportion of very poor working men and artisans who live without a rich man among them in some of our parishes; all these circumstances added together make an enormous mass of difficulties which are very trying to faith, and to which there is nothing like in any other Diocese in England or Wales. However, I do not despair. I believe that God is with the Church of England in Liverpool, and that there is a bright future yet before us, though I may not live to see it. So much for the outlook of the Diocese. There is only one point which I have left untouched, and that is the Cathedral. I have said nothing about it, for the simple reason that there is little or nothing to say. You all know that a site has been chosen, which appears, in spite of obvious objections, to be the best site available; an Act of Parliament has been obtained for that site, and plans of a building worthy of this great city have been invited and sent in. We are still waiting for the report of Mr. Christian, the President of the Royal Society of Architects, which has been delayed by his illness. What the final result will be, I do not pretend to say. It is vain to expect that any design will ever satisfy everybody, any more than the choice of the site.

One thing at all events is very certain. No Cathedral worthy of Liverpool will ever be built and endowed without an immense expenditure of money, and until the present commercial depression passes away, I suppose it is useless to expect very much money to be given. Nothing of course is impossible. It is the unexpected which often arrives. Some mighty gift or legacy may yet be in the future which may settle the whole question both of the building and the endowment. At present we can only wait and hope.

2. From the outlook of the Diocese I now turn to the outlook of the Church of England generally. I feel it a plain duty to say something annually on this point. The days are past and gone for ever when the Bishop’s triennial or septennial Charge was thought sufficient for the communication of his thoughts to his clergy. Great events, both political and ecclesiastical, follow each other in such rapid succession in these times, and questions seriously affecting the whole Church are so continually cropping up, and pressing for settlement, that it is not easy to keep our minds abreast with them without constant watchfulness. Whatever affects the Church generally, affects each Diocese particularly. Here in Lancashire we are only part of a great body, and the general condition and health of that body ought always to be interesting to us. I make no excuse therefore for offering a few remarks on certain points in our Church’s present condition; and I desire, as your Bishop, to invite your particular attention to them.

What, then, is the real condition of the Church of England in the present day? I find it extremely difficult to answer that. question. At a first glance we seem to be in a very satisfactory state. There is a great amount of stir, and bustle, and activity which did not exist fifty years ago. There is undeniably a great show of life. The revival of Convocation, the foundation of Theological Colleges, the institution of Church Confesses and Diocesan Conferences, the formation of six new Dioceses at home, and about seventy in the Colonies, the growth of missionary work at home and abroad, the vast amount of money spent on church building and church restoration, the general readiness to use new means and machinery which would have made our grandfathers’ hair stand on end--all these are broad, undeniable facts in English Church History of the last fifty years which nobody can pretend to deny. But what does it come to after all in the sight of God? How much increase of spiritual life is there behind this great outward appearance of ecclesiastical prosperity? I repeat that I find it very difficult to answer these questions. Deeply thankful as I am for the material advances which our Church has certainly made, and the quantity of ecclesiastical machinery which has been set up, I wish I could feel satisfied that, below the surface, all is right. For this expression of a doubtful feeling I know that some of my friends will call me a gloomy pessimist. There are not a few amiable Churchmen, especially in high places, who can never see anything wrong in our condition. They live in a happy, complimentary frame of mind, and are always putting telescopes to blind eyes when faults are pointed out. I fail to see the wisdom of this excessive optimism about the state of our Church. At all events I see some very black clouds on our horizon which threaten mischief, and I think it a plain duty to call your attention to them. I look at those clouds with great uneasiness. Unless they disperse, we may suddenly find ourselves some day in the crash of some tremendous catastrophe like an earthquake. The sun rose as usual on the day when Sodom was burned by fire from heaven. The eruption of Vesuvius buried Pompeii without any warning. The recent convulsions of the earth in Java and New Zealand were not preceded by premonitory symptoms. The Charleston earthquake earlier this year began in a moment. (South Carolina, USA. About 70 people were killed and much property damaged.) It may be the same with the Church of England. Let us not be high-minded, but fear.

(i) The first and worst cloud that I see in our Church’s outlook is the widespread disposition to regard religious externalism as a substitute for vital soul-saving Christianity.

When I speak of externalism, let me explain what I mean. We all know that the outward part of religion has received a large amount of new attention during the last forty years. All over the land it has become the fashion to restore churches, to get rid of old square pews, to improve the singing and music, to have a surpliced choir, to decorate the church-building in a most elaborate style at great festivals, and, in one word, to adorn, beautify, and improve the whole exterior of Church Christianity. Do I say there is anything sinful or wrong in all this? Nothing of the kind! I abhor everything like slovenliness in the ceremonials of worship. I dislike square pews, and bad music, and bad singing as much as any one. But I do say that I fear an external improvement often takes place in a parish church without the slightest corresponding increase of godliness in the worshippers. No doubt there is far more show and name of religion in our Churches, but it is very doubtful whether there is more vital Christianity, more presence of the Holy Ghost, more heart and conscience work, in the naves of our Churches and the homes of our people. I fear that in hundreds of cases men have rested content with having secured a handsome church and a ‘bright and hearty service,’ and have forgotten that what God looks at is the hearts of the worshippers, and the quantity of grace to be found among them. This is a very delicate subject, and I should be sorry to be misunderstood, or to give pain to any one in handling it. But I am obliged to say plainly, that I fail to see that all the outside improvement of the last forty years is accompanied by any corresponding growth of practical holiness in the land. I cannot hear that there is any decrease of gambling, extravagance, or breach of the Seventh Commandment among the rich, or of intemperance, dishonesty, or general immorality among the poor. On the contrary, I hear good judges say that there is positively less repentance, faith, holiness, Sabbath-keeping, Bible-reading, and family religion, in proportion to the population, than there was forty years ago. If this state of things is not a most unhealthy symptom in the condition of a Church, I know not what is.

We may depend upon it that knowledge of Christ, obedience to Christ, and the fruits of the Spirit, are the only tests by which God weighs and measures any Church. If these are absent, He cares not for beautiful buildings, fine singing, and a pompous ceremonial. These are ‘leaves,’ and He desires to see not leaves only, but fruit. The tree of the Church of England perhaps never had so many leaves on it as it has just now. I wish I could think there was a corresponding quantity of fruit. We must never forget that the Temple service at Jerusalem in the day of our Lord’s crucifixion was the most perfect ceremonial that ever was, whether for singing, order, vestments, or general magnificence and beauty. Yet we all know that at this very time the Jewish Church was thoroughly rotten at heart, and after forty years was swept away. Who can doubt that the little upper chamber, where the apostles met on the day of our Lord’s ascension, was far more beautiful in God’s sight than the temple in which Annas and Caiaphas were the High Priests, and which our Master Himself called ‘a den of thieves’? I heartily wish that English Churchmen in this day would remember this more than they appear to do. The disposition to make an idol of externals, and to sacrifice the inside of religion to the outside, is, in my judgment, one of the darkest clouds on our ecclesiastical horizon.

(2) The second thing which I see with pain in the outlook of the Church of England at the present time, is the growing tendency to ignore all distinct doctrine.

The leading idea of many minds in this day appears to be, that it does not signify much what a man believes or teaches about what are commonly considered the principal verities of the Christian faith. A wave of extravagant liberalism in religion, as well as in everything else, is sweeping over England. Concerning the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the atonement, the Person and work of the Holy Ghost, conversion, justification, the inspiration of Scripture, the future state, and the like, it seems to be agreed that men may believe as much or as little as they please, and nobody is to find fault. The only question you are to ask is, whether a man is ‘earnest, sincere, and zealous,’ and if he is, you are not to ask anything more. It is thought very narrow and illiberal to say that any opinion in religion is false, or that anybody is unsound in the faith. Distinct and positive statements about anything in Christianity are thought downright uncharitable. All the old dogmas are to be held in solution, and never to be put forward in a solid, tangible state, or to be put forward in such a foggy, misty manner that, like a half-developed photographic plate, they are never to come out distinct, sharp, and clear. I challenge any one who observes closely the pulpit utterances of this day, or reads platform speeches which touch religion, to deny the accuracy of what I have just said.

Now all this, no doubt, sounds very noble and generous and liberal. It is in perfect harmony with the political tendencies of the age, which all lean in the direction of the principle, that everybody is to be allowed to do what he likes, and to be at liberty to do anything except commit suicide, theft, or murder. Moreover, these ideas save men a great deal of trouble in the way of thinking and inquiry in order to find out truth. But the question still remains to be answered, Can this indifference to doctrine stand the test of crossexamination? Is it really true that there are no limits to the Church’s comprehensiveness? If it does not matter what we believe, where is the use of the Bible, Creeds, Confessions, and Articles of faith? We may as well throw them aside as useless lumber. Beside this, does history show that any good work has been done in improving human nature during the last eighteen centuries by any instrumentality except that of distinct and positive doctrine? Did the apostles turn the world upside down by proclaiming everywhere, ‘Be earnest, be sincere, be moral, be charitable, and it does not matter what you believe’? Did the early Fathers, or the Continental and English Reformers, work on these lines? Do the missionaries to the heathen abroad, or to those who are practically heathen at home, ever obtain success without distinct doctrinal statements? And, to come home to ourselves at last, is there a man or woman among us who would be content on a deathbed to be told, ‘Never mind what you believe; if you are in earnest you will go to heaven’? Questions like these demand very serious consideration. I commend this whole subject to the attention of all who hear me. I am convinced that it is a very dark spot in the outlook of our Church at the present time, and I apprehend great danger in this quarter. I admit most fully, and have always maintained, that the Church of England is eminently comprehensive, and that all the three great schools of thought, High, Low, and Broad, were intended to have room in her pale. But surely we must stop somewhere. There is such a thing as liberality and ‘breadth of thought’ gone mad. We all know very well that the first steps to infidelity are to be found in the theory, that all faiths are false, and destitute of foundation. But I confess that the modern notion that all faiths so called are equally good and true, appears to me just as dangerous, and just as replete with mischief, to men’s souls.

(3) A third black cloud which I see in the present outlook of the Church of England, is the almost entire suspension of ecclesiastical discipline.

It is well known that next to preaching of the Word and right administration of the sacraments, discipline has always been considered to be one of the marks of a pure visible Church. You will find this distinctly asserted in the 28th Homily of our Church. Reason and common sense alike point out that in every large community of persons united together for a particular object, there must be order, and that this order can only be maintained by rules and regulations, which every member of the community is bound to obey. In the army no regiment could be governed if the colonel was not obeyed. In the navy no ship would be safe if the captain had not supreme command. In a firm of merchants no business could be long transacted if every member of the firm did what was right in his own eyes, and the articles of partnership were continually transgressed. It is just the same with a well-ordered Church. When differences and disputes arise about doctrine or ritual, there ought to be some person or body of persons to whom the matter may be referred, and the decision of such person or persons ought to be the final settlement of the affair, and the decision ought to be obeyed. These are obvious truisms, I know, but it is well to state them.

Now what is the present condition of the Church of England in the matter of ecclesiastical discipline? I am not going to discuss who is right and who is wrong on the many controverted questions of the day, which have been the subjects of lawsuits in the last forty years. I only remark that they are not mere trifling questions of more or less ‘ornament’, as some people are fond of saying, but something far more serious and deep. However, I certainly will not drag them into our Conference. I simply wish to call your attention to the painfully anomalous position which our Church occupies in the face of Christendom.

At this moment we possess an Ecclesiastical Court for the trial of disputed points under the Clergy Discipline and Public Worship Acts, and from this Court there is an appeal to the Judicial Committee of Privy Council. In addition to this, we have the Bishop’s private and fatherly monitions, which all clergymen swear to obey ‘in all things lawful and honest.’

Such is the machinery which the law has provided for our Church. It may be very defective, very clumsy, very dilatory, and very expensive. It might very easily, in my opinion, be improved and amended. The imprisonment of clergymen for contumacy, for example, is a relic of barbarism which ought to be swept away. However, this is the only machinery which the Church possesses at present; and although its faults have been freely pointed out in the Report of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Courts, it still stands, and has not been destroyed. The Report has led to no result whatever, except that of unsettling men’s minds. In fact, it has fallen dead, while The Clergy Discipline Act and the Public Worship Act have not been cancelled, abrogated, or repealed. They live still. The decisions of the Courts they constitute are still binding on all the Queen’s subjects, and they represent the Royal Supremacy which, according to the Thirty-seventh Article, the Crown possesses in things ecclesiastical as well as civil.

Now, consider quietly for a moment where we are. A small, but able and well-organized minority of Churchmen refuse to recognize the authority of the existing Ecclesiastical Courts. They refuse to plead before them, they refuse to obey their decisions, they proclaim loudly that these decisions are null and void, and are not binding upon the Church. In short, they set the existing law at defiance, because they think it bad, and the Courts defective in constitution. Of course in a free country they have a right to think anything they please. But I cannot help remarking that most wise men hold that defective laws ought to be obeyed until they are repealed, in England as well as in Ireland, and that the worst state of things is to have no law at all.

As to the Bishop’s fatherly monitions, such as the law provides at the time of ordination, licensing, and institution, and every clergyman swears to obey, they are practically useless. A clergyman has only got to tell his Bishop, even when he admonishes him about things non-essential, that his monitions are not ‘lawful and honest,’ and the unfortunate Bishop is checkmated, brought to a dead standstill, and can do no more.

But this is not all. If any Churchman, anxious to maintain order, proposes to take proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court for what he believes, rightly or wrongly, are illegal practices in the conduct of public worship, and the Bishop of the Diocese, in the exercise of his discretion, and on the great principle laid down in Magna Charta, that justice must never be denied to a subject, allows him to take these proceedings, at once there arises a storm of dissatisfaction and displeasure against the Bishop and the aforesaid complaining Churchman, of the violence of which few people have the slightest conception. The late Bishop of Manchester, (James Fraser, 1870-85.) in the Miles Platting case, is an example of what I mean; and I am obliged to say that I have drunk a little of the same cup myself. Now I appeal to any impartial Englishman of common sense to say whether this is a healthy state of things. Healthy indeed! It is nonsense to use such a word. It is a state of chaos, confusion, and anarchy! We have Queen’s Courts which are not respected! We have decisions which are not obeyed! We have Bishops’ monitions about things non-essential set at nought! If all this does not constitute a complete suspension of ecclesiastical discipline, I do not know what can. The most contradictory practices are to be found in our churches about one of the most solemn ordinances of our religion; but it seems impossible to obtain a binding decision as to who is right and who is wrong. Every clergyman does what is right in his own eyes, and the laity ask in vain, ‘What is truth about the ritual of the Lord’s Supper?’

Last, but worst of all, I cannot see the least symptom of any attempt being about to be made to reform the Ecclesiastical Courts, or to create a new tribunal. If the existing law about Church discipline is bad, by all means let it be altered. But I can hear of no memorial to the Archbishop of Canterbury from that busy minority of Churchmen which objects to the present Court, praying his Grace to obtain powers to create a new tribunal. I cannot hear that those able men, Lord Halifax and Mr. Beresford Hope, propose to bring a Bill into either House of Parliament in order to destroy Lord Penzance’s Court (The Court for the trial of disputed points under the Clergy Discipline and Public Worship Acts, presided over by Lord Penzance) and erect a better one. In short, nothing is being done, and the delay is annually increasing, hardening, solidifying, and crystallizing our unhappy differences. The result is that we stand before the world in the position of a Church content to have no discipline, and prepared to run the risk of all the painful consequences which will certainly ensue. For evil consequences there certainly will be if the present state of things goes on much longer. Those evil consequences are nothing less than disruption, disestablishment, disendowment of the grandest old Church in Christendom. Come they will, whether we like it or not, unless something is done. Order is heaven’s first law, and a Church which will not have order must not expect to live.

I leave this subject here. I trust I have given many of you some food for reflection. Nothing pains me so much as the inability of Churchmen to see the dangerous position which we occupy from our present want of ecclesiastical discipline, and the enormous damage which it is inflicting on our Zion. I know, of course, that many will tell us that the state of things which I complain arises entirely from the dislike of Churchmen to go to Parliament for a remedy. I will simply remark that it is waste of time to say anything on that point. It is as certain as anything can be certain that the laity of the Established Church of England will never allow Spiritual Courts composed of Bishops and clergy alone to settle disputed points without having a voice in the settlement. We are not living in the days of Tudors and Stuarts, but in the latter part of the 19th century, and the schoolmaster is abroad. It is equally certain that the House of Commons will never allow any Ecclesiastical tribunal to be set up without its sanction and approval. If the Ecclesiastical Courts are to be reformed, we shall be obliged to go to Caesar, and without Caesar nothing will be done.

(4) The last but not the least cloud in the outlook of the Church of England is the slowness of the Church, as a body, to take up the important subject of Church Reform.

When I speak of Church Reform, I ask you not to misunderstand me. I have not the slightest sympathy with those who would throw overboard the Creeds, pull the Prayer-book to pieces, or cancel the Articles. Least of all, I have not the slightest sympathy with those who want to go back to the first Prayer-book of Edward VI. On the whole, I am quite content with the Prayer-book as it is, and I do not want to spoil it by tinkering amendments, though some of the additions of the Irish Prayer-book, or of the proposed American Annexed Book, would in my judgment be great improvements. But I am quite willing to let well alone. The reforms I have in view are of a more practical kind, and I will mention some of them.

Convocation stands sorely in need of reform. To say, as the Canons do, that it is ‘the Church of England by representation’ in the present day, is really going rather too far. The laity need to be brought forward to a more distinct, authorized, and efficient position in everything that concerns the Church. The House of Laymen, no doubt, is a move in the right direction; but it must possess far more power than it does at present if it is to be of much use to the Church. The whole question of Patronage requires thorough improvement, and the sale of advowsons and next presentations to private persons ought to be entirely prohibited. The inhabitants of every parish ought to have some voice in the selection of a minister. We need far more elasticity in the use of our churches, and the employment of gifted laymen in their pulpits on some occasions. The present autocracy of Bishops imposes upon them a far too heavy responsibility. They ought to be assisted by a small Council of picked clergymen and laymen in the consideration of the many difficult questions they have to deal with. For want of such a Council they are always in danger of doing too little or too much, or committing gross errors of judgment. The autocracy of the incumbents of large parishes ought to be restricted. The Bishop and his Council ought to have power to interfere and send a missionary clergyman into a parish of 10,000 or 15,000 people, when it is evident the incumbent cannot possibly look after them himself. The lay communicants of every parish ought to be more frequently consulted by the incumbent in every step that he takes. Few things do more harm than the occasional introduction by a clergyman of practices and ceremonials to which his congregation are not accustomed, without first consulting the laity. I do not want Mr. Albert Grey’s Parish Councils, but I do want to see the laity brought forward more frequently, and more use made of that constitutional old body the Sidesmen.

I might easily add to this list of reforms, but for want of time I must stop. I know that many will think that my suggestions are needless and quixotical. But I ask any one of common sense to consider whether it is likely that after three hundred years, since the days of Queen Elizabeth, and after the immense advances the world has made in every department of knowledge, there may not be a strong probability that even our good old Church may admit of improvement? It is surely not too much to suppose that the clothes which fitted her three centuries ago are not quite large enough now-, and that machinery which has done so much good work may not be altered with advantage, and more adapted to the nineteenth century. Long bows were very useful at Crecy, flint-locks at Waterloo, and wooden three-deckers at Trafalgar. But they are useless now. One thing at all events is very certain. Timely reforms are the best defence of the Established Church against the repeated attacks on her connection with the State, and her tithes and endowments, which are sure to come. If we would only remove all admitted abuses, fill up the gaps in our defences, and strengthen the points that are weak, we need not fear the battle. But it is nonsense to say there are no weak points in the Church of England, and the sooner they are removed the safer she will be.

We live in very perilous times, but I have great faith in the strength and vitality of the Church of England, if Churchmen will only do their duty, unite, and ’set in order the things that are wanting.’ We are far stronger than we were in 1747, when the famous Bishop Butler, author of the Analogy, refused to be made Archbishop of Canterbury, saying, ‘It was too late for him to try to support a falling Church.’ We are ten times stronger than we were a hundred years ago, and we might be stronger still if we were not so miserably divided. On one point, at all events, I think we shall all be agreed. We need more of the presence of that Holy Spirit who alone can make men of one mind in a house. For that presence let us all pray night and day. Let a cry go up from every parish of the Diocese: ‘Lord, revive Thy work among us year by year, and send down upon us more of the grace of the Holy Ghost.’