Our State and Prospects (part 1 of 2)

The Third Triennial Charge To The Diocese Of Liverpool, October

27, 1887.

My Reverend Brethren, By the mercy of God, we are allowed to meet together once more at the Third Triennial Visitation of the new Diocese of Liverpool. When I came among you seven years ago, I little thought that I should live to address you three times. The gaps and changes in our ranks during the three years which have elapsed since my last Visitation are rather numerous, considering that there are only 200 Incumbents altogether on our muster roll. Two have resigned and are still living--Mr. Brooke of St. Bride, Liverpool, and Mr. Banner of Roby. Four have resigned and died after resignation--Mr. Newenham of Knotty Ash; Mr. Wheeler of St. Ann’s, Liverpool; Mr. Carson of St. Augustine, Liverpool; and Mr. Schonberg of Warrington. Ten have left the Diocese for other positions--Mr. Scott of Christ Church, Bootle; Mr. Cochrane of St. Saviour’s, Everton; Mr. Pearson of Grassendale; Mr. Bower of Woolton; Mr. Lory of St. Mark’s, Liverpool; Mr. Macnaghten of Prescot; Mr. Neale of St. Catherine’s, Edge Hill; Mr. Dunkerley of St. Thomas’s, Toxteth; and last, though not least of our losses, Archdeacon Bardsley of St. Saviour’s, now Bishop of Sodor and Man. Twelve have been removed by death--Mr. Read of St. Paul’s, Liverpool; Mr. Power of St. Alban’s, Bevington; Canon Hume of All Souls, Liverpool; Mr. Boulton of Aughton; Mr. Bryan of Haigh; Mr. Walmsley of Aspull; Mr. Crockett of Eccleston; Mr. Gardner of Stanley; Canon Carr of St. Helens; Mr. Hassall of St. John the Baptist, Toxteth Park; Mr. Quirk of Golborne; and Mr. Turnbull of St. Mary’s, Edge Hill.

In short, no less than 27 names have disappeared from the roll of Incumbents which has been called over this day, and no less than 16 are dead who were with us three years ago. This alone is a startling fact, and one which ought to set us thinking. Sixteen deaths out of 200! Whose turn will it be to go next? Who among us all will be here when the names are called over again at the next Triennial Visitation? May we all so number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom! If called away, may we be found like good servants, with our loins girded and our lamps burning, and ready to meet our Master.

From grave facts like these, which I do not think should be passed over at a Visitation, I shall now turn to the two points which ought naturally to occupy a prominent position in a Bishop’s Charge. In the first place, I will speak of our own Diocese in particular. In the second place, I will say something about the Church of England generally. On both subjects, a Diocese has a just right to expect a Bishop to be unreserved, to keep nothing back, and to speak out his mind.

1. Concerning the Diocese of Liverpool, I see much cause for thankfulness and encouragement. I say this deliberately, at the end of the first seven years of our separate existence. It is cheap and easy work for dwellers at a distance to point the finger of scorn and call our new Bishopric a failure. But not one in a hundred of our unfriendly critics seems to understand and realize the very peculiar difficulties under which the See of Liverpool has been launched. A brief review of these difficulties may be useful.

(1) First and foremost, few persons are aware that the whole framework of the Church of England in this district, is of comparatively modern origin. Two hundred years ago, I believe, there were not twenty-five churches in the West Derby Hundred, which forms the area of our present Diocese. So lately as fifty years ago, when our Gracious Sovereign, Queen Victoria, came to the throne, there were only 78 churches in the space of Lancashire now occupied by the Diocese. No less than 120 of our 200 churches have been built, and separate parochial districts formed, within the last half century! Now, to expect the Church of England to be as deeply rooted and as strong in such a territory, as it is in such counties as Cornwall, Notts, Yorkshire, and Northumberland, where scores of old rectories and ancient churches have been before the eyes of people for five hundred years, is unreasonable and unfair. New work can only be consolidated and thoroughly knit together by time. At present we are more like a Colonial Diocese, or a collection of independent congregational chapels, than any Diocese in the land. (2) In the next place, few people seem to be aware that a very large proportion of the population of our Diocese does not belong to the Church of England, and of course takes no interest in her advancement or prosperity. The county of Lancaster from the time of the Reformation has always been a stronghold of the adherents of the Romish Church. I need not tell you that we have not a few great families in our own district who have retained the faith of their pre- Reformation ancestors to this very day. Beside this, for many years there has been a constant immigration from the sister country in search of high wages and work, and we all know that in the northern parishes of Liverpool, near the docks, Irish Roman Catholics form the great majority of the population, and outnumber all other professing Christians in the proportion of at least three to one. Add to all this the broad fact that you have a very large body of Protestant Nonconformists of all denominations in every part of the Diocese, and not least from Scotland and Wales. Any man with his eyes open will see Dissenting chapels of every kind in every direction. The whole result is, that out of a population of about 1,200,000, within our borders, it admits of grave doubt whether more than a third can be justly classified as Churchmen. One thing at any rate is certain--they know very little who suppose that the formation of our new See was likely to be welcomed by the great bulk of the inhabitants. You cannot expect men to support and rally round a Church to which they do not belong.

(3) In the next place, few people in England seem to be aware that a very great portion of the wealth of Liverpool is not in the hands of Churchmen. That the second city in the empire, and the first seaport in the world, should be regarded as a rich place is natural enough. But we who live in Lancashire know well that a very large number of the merchants and leading inhabitants of the Diocese belong to Churches outside the Church of England, and cannot reasonably be expected to assist our own Church objects and Church work. The floating idea in many minds that our great city is a vast magazine and storehouse of Church wealth is not justified by facts. Our upper ten thousand are an exceedingly variegated body in the matter of religion, and money is not concentrated in any one set of hands any more than at New York. Even when the new Bishopric was first founded, the sum required by the Act of Parliament was principally made up by a few very large contributions from a limited number of persons. That there is noble liberality in Liverpool for objects in which all can co-operate, the subscription lists of the University and the Royal Infirmary supply abundant proof. But if any dweller in distant parts of England imagines that it is easy to get money for strictly Church purposes in Liverpool, he is mistaken.

(4) In the next place, few people at a distance seem to realize how fearfully undermanned this Diocese is in the matter of clergy. Our population in 1881 was 1,085,000. At the present moment, I believe, it is little less than 1,200,000. And what spiritual provision does the Church of England make for this huge multitude? We have only 200 Incumbents, besides curates, or, upon an average, one Incumbent to each 6,000 souls! Nor is this all. We have not a few parishes with populations of 21,000, 20,000, 18,000, 15,000, 12,000, and 10,000. It is absurd to suppose that the Established Church is properly represented in such districts, or can keep touch with the people. Real pastoral work in these parishes is impossible, and thousands live and die like sheep without a shepherd, and might almost as well be in a heathen land. And, worst of all, these vast, overgrown parishes are often inhabited by the poorest of the labouring classes, who can hardly earn enough to keep themselves from downright poverty, and are utterly unable to give substantial help to the clergy.

Truly the contrast between my old Diocese of Norwich, with 1,050 incumbents and only 700,000 people, and the Diocese of Liverpool, with 1,200,000 people and only 200 incumbents, is terribly painful. Both are Dioceses within the pale of the Established Church of England; but there is a startling difference between their conditions. (5) In the next place, few people appear to realize the extremely disadvantageous position in which our Diocese is placed by the miserably low endowment of many of its largest parishes. Out of our 200 Incumbents, at least 98, or nearly one half, receive an income of not more than £300 a year, and not a few receive even less. Yet many of these parishes are exactly the most densely populated and the poorest in the whole Diocese. The difficulties of a vicar with the nominal charge of ten or twelve or fifteen thousand souls, and an income of £300 a year, are more easily imagined than described. It is a painful, pitiable, heart-breaking, depressing state of things; and I often wonder that men can be found to fill such posts. So long as such a condition of clerical incomes exists, it is useless to expect first-rate Oxford and Cambridge men to come to our Diocese, whatever anonymous newspaper writers may please to say, or to stay when they come. At best, a title for orders in the north end of Liverpool, or in Wigan, Warrington, Widnes, or St. Helens, is not very attractive. But when you add to this the slender chance of promotion to anything worth calling a living which stares a curate in the face, you cannot wonder that wranglers and first-class men hesitate to come to Liverpool Diocese! Such men naturally prefer a post in East London, where they are within reach of College contemporaries who are in business or reading the law, or they embark in some Diocese where the Bishop has patronage with which to reward deserving men, such as, by an unhappy oversight of Parliament, the Bishop of the new See of Liverpool has not got. The whole subject of endowments and clerical incomes deserves more attention than it has hitherto received. It has been too much forgotten that to endow new churches is quite as important as to build them. Clergymen cannot live on air any more than other people, and nothing degrades a minister so much as a constant sense of pecuniary difficulties. If the laity of this Diocese want to get first-rate men into our churches, they may depend upon it they must offer more inducements to first-rate men to come.

(6) In the last place, our Diocese is placed in considerable difficulty by the want of a proper Cathedral, and a body of endowed clergy connected with it. In this respect our new See is worse off than any See in England. The modern Dioceses of Manchester, Ripon, and Southwell found Cathedrals ready for them. The parish churches of Newcastle and Wakefield are large and handsome enough to be made Cathedrals with ease. In Truro, the energetic Bishop, having hardly any new churches to build, has been able to devote himself to the erection of the new Cathedral, which is soon to be opened. In Liverpool, on the contrary, we have not a single church in the whole city which could justly be called a suitable Cathedral.

I frankly admit that I cannot make an idol of a Cathedral, as some people seem to do. I do not think it a primary object in such a Diocese as ours, where more churches and living agents are the first thing wanted. But I should be blind indeed if I did not see that a large Cathedral enables many things to be done which cannot be done without it. For large Diocesan gatherings of any kind, for services and functions connected with Congresses and Conferences, for assemblies of choirs, voluntary lay-helpers, Sunday-school teachers, Societies of young men or young women, and, above all, for popular nave services like those held in St. Paul’s and Westminster Abbey--for all these purposes a stately ecclesiastical building, capable of accommodating 2,000 or 3,000 people, would be most useful in Liverpool. At present we have nothing of the kind; and whether we ever shall have seems doubtful. It is certain that, to build and endow a magnificent Minster, such as Emerson, Boodle, and Brooks designed, would cost half a million of money; and at present I do not see where this immense sum is likely to be raised.

But that the want of a proper Cathedral is in many ways a serious disadvantage to our Diocese, I have no doubt at all.

I wind up the list of our difficulties here, and I make no apology for dwelling on them at such length. They are difficulties which are neither known nor realized by Churchmen who are not acquainted with Liverpool. They are difficulties which ought to be looked at and weighed, if people want to form a just estimate of the condition and progress of our new Diocese at the end of the seventh year of its existence. About that condition I will now supply a few plain facts, and give a brief account of our agencies, machinery, and organization in a summarized form.

(1) When the See of Liverpool was created in 1880, the official staff of the area of the district consisted of one Archdeacon and six Rural Deans. We have now two Archdeacons, and nine Rural Deans, and by the division of the Deanery of North Meols, which is sanctioned and will shortly be gazetted, we shall soon have ten.

(2) We have twenty-four Honorary Canons of our Cathedral, all unendowed, by whom the Cathedral pulpit is supplied every Sunday afternoon.

(3) We have a regular Cathedral service at five o’clock every day; a choir, of which we have no cause to be ashamed; and an afternoon service and sermon at three every Sunday. More than this we cannot manage at present, because St. Peter’s Cathedral is the parish church of Liverpool, and parochial demands for marriages and baptisms have to be satisfied. For this Cathedral service we have not at present a single penny of endowment. It is entirely kept up on the voluntary system.

(4) We have 200 Incumbents in the Diocese--a painfully small number for the large population. In 1880 there were 182. We have 194 stipendiary Curates; in 1880 there were only 120. This is an increase of 74 Curates in seven years.

(5) We have an organized Church of England Scripture Readers’ Society in Liverpool, supplying 45 Readers, who are doing excellent work in our large parishes.

(6) We have a Mission of 31 Bible-women in Liverpool, in order to hold mothers’ meetings, and do work which can be better done by women than men.

(7) We have two Church societies for promoting the spiritual welfare of seamen in this the first seaport in the world--the Mersey Mission to Seamen and the St. Andrew’s Waterside Mission. (8) We have four Diocesan Institutions--one for Church building, one for Church aid by the provision of missionary curates in large parishes, one for Augmenting and helping small livings, and one for Educational purposes, including a paid inspector of religious instruction in the Diocese.

(9) We have an enrolled and registered Diocesan Finance Association, for the reception and management of all moneys contributed to the Diocesan Institutions, and to any other Religious Societies.

(10) We have a powerful Church of England Temperance Society, with branches and ramifications in every part of the Diocese, which is doing great good.

(11) During the last seven years I have consecrated twenty entirely new churches, and opened by licence two others, which only need an endowment. Three others are being built, and will be completed before long. This makes twenty-five in all. Restoration, or the addition of chancels, at Halsall, Upholland, Ormskirk, Haigh, and St. Paul’s, Prince’s Park, have in each case cost very large sums of money. (See APPENDIX, CHAPTER 6.) It is worthy of notice that no less than forty new churches have been built and consecrated in the little corner of Lancashire forming this Diocese within the last fourteen years.

(12) There are fifty licensed Mission-rooms in the Diocese. In Walton two districts, and in Bootie one, have been regularly assigned to missionary curates, and services are carried on in temporary buildings till churches can be erected.

(13) In the seven years that I have been Bishop of Liverpool I have ordained no less than 217 Deacons. In the seven years before the See was created the number ordained for the same district was only 133.

(14) The number of young persons Confirmed in the first year that I began confirming was 4,700. The annual number is now between 6,000 and 7,000, and these are supplied by only 200 congregations. During the last six years I have held 291 Confirmations, and confirmed 35,458 young persons.

(15) We have a Diocesan Conference, which has met regularly every year since 1881. It differs from all others, I believe, in one remarkable point. It is open to every licensed clergyman in the Diocese, and is only elective for two lay representatives from every parish.

(16) We have in every Rural Deanery a Ruri-decanal Chapter of clergy only, and a Ruri-decanal Conference of clergy and laity combined, each meeting twice annually.

(17) We have a powerful Sunday-school Institute, which is increasingly useful every year, and there are 69,776 scholars in our Church Sunday schools.

(18) We have a Society of voluntary Lay helpers, with 500 enrolled members. Of these, forty-four have been formally admitted as Readers with a special religious service, and have received stamped letters of approval from my hands.

(19) We have a most valuable Pension Fund for the benefit of aged and invalid clergy, for which we are indebted to the noble gift of £20,000 from a well-known lady in Liverpool. At present the income of this fund, which is more than £700 a year, seems likely to meet the wants of the whole Diocese.

(20) We have a large Girls’ Friendly Society, which, under the untiring superintendence of Lady Lathom and other zealous ladies, is doing good service to young women.

(21) We have three distinct religious services in the Welsh language in Liverpool--one at the old St. David’s Church behind the Adelphi, and two in licensed rooms--one at Kirkdale, at the north end of the city, and one at the south end, in St. Nathaniel’s. This is a matter which has been rather overlooked in past days. We have a large Welsh population in our city, and if we do not provide Church services we have no right to wonder if our Welsh brethren go to chapels.

(22) Last, but not least, I must testify that the 200 churches of the Diocese, on the whole, as buildings, are in remarkably good order and condition. I may be allowed to speak with authority on this point. I have preached 650 times for my clergy in the last seven years, and have-either preached or held Confirmations in no less than 180 churches out of the 200 in the Diocese; and I do not hesitate to say that it is an exception to see a consecrated building in this district which is not clean, well kept, and in good repair. We certainly cannot point to grand ecclesiastical structures, such as you will find in East Anglia. But in point of condition I believe our churches are second to none. For this I think we are much indebted to active churchwardens and sidesmen.

I close my account of Diocesan agencies, machinery, and Institutions at this point. Not a few of them I found already existing and in operation when I became Bishop of Liverpool. I claim no credit for them, but have gladly adopted them as part of our organization. The large annual contributions of the Diocese to the Home and Foreign Missions of the Church of England might have been added; and the whole list might easily be lengthened if time permitted. Much of my long statement no doubt applies exclusively to Liverpool proper. But this is natural when it is recollected that one-half the population of the Diocese dwells in our great city. I do not forget that a large amount of good Church work is continually done in Wigan, Warrington, St. Helens, and Southport, of which I cannot speak particularly; and perhaps it is more parochial than diocesan. I am also thankful to add that a very large quantity of religious and philanthropic work is continually done in Liverpool by Churchmen and Nonconformists combined. But you will readily understand that in a Visitation Charge I naturally confine myself to the work of the Church of England. And on the whole I think we have no cause to be ashamed of our new Diocese. In short, I am bold to assert that, considering our many difficulties we have much ground for thankfulness. Whatever our enemies may please to say, we are not standing still, but moving. We are not asleep, but awake. We are not dead, but alive.

Of course we are far from perfection. Standing on the watchtower which a Bishop occupies, and looking over the whole area of our Diocese, I see many things wanting which I long to see supplied. (1) We want some of our large overgrown parishes wisely broken up and subdivided, and new churches built, and legal districts constituted, with a resident incumbent and his staff in each. The position of such parishes as St. John the Baptist, Toxteth Park; St. Mary, Kirkdale; St. Paul, North Shore; St. Mary, Bootle; and the Rectory Parish at Warrington is utterly unsatisfactory. It is absurd to suppose that the Church of England can be properly represented, or her pastoral work kept up, in such enormous districts. No one can wonder that Dissent abounds in them, and that the Church is neither known, nor felt, nor respected by many of the inhabitants. (2) We want more mission-rooms in many of our large parishes, if we cannot get churches. Good, solid, plain buildings of this kind, accommodating 400 or 500 people, and costing little compared to a church, are of unspeakable value to an active clergyman, and pave the way by elementary services for churches to be built at some future time. Such rooms as I have seen at Blowick, Southport; All Saints’, Hindley; and St. Nathaniel’s, Liverpool, are examples of what I mean. I commend such rooms as these to the special attention of my clergy. I am sorry to say that the days of £200 a year endowments from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for every new church with 4,000 people in its district, seem coming to an end, in consequence of agricultural depression. We must no longer reckon on this help, and future churches must be self-supporting. Let us not despair. If we cannot build churches, let us build rooms.

(3) We want far more liberal subscriptions to our Diocesan Institutions. At present their income is disgracefully small, and their usefulness is thereby crippled. No doubt times have been very bad for the last seven years, and there is a great shrinkage in the profits of business. But there is too much reason to believe that myriads of Churchmen both here and all over England never see the positive duty of giving regularly for the promotion of Christ’s cause. They appear to think that going to Church on Sunday is the whole of religion. The late Canon Hume used to tell me that he could not find the names of 3,000 persons in all the subscription lists of Liverpool. I do not hesitate to say that this is the weakest point in the character of English Churchmen. They do not seem to understand the duty and privilege of giving money in order to do good. It is a point in which we are far behind English Nonconformists and Scotch Presbyterians. When I find that one-third of the churches in this Diocese have no collection at all for Diocesan Institutions, I am grieved. It is only one among many proofs that the corporate action of the Church of England--a great body with many members--is at present very imperfectly understood in South-West Lancashire. Congregations are too much disposed to think only of themselves, and to forget their neighbours.

I know well that Diocesan Institutions are everywhere unpopular, and are badly supported. But I fail to see how any Diocese can be worked without them. In every Diocese there ought to be a central fund, to which all clergymen wanting help for Church work ought to be able to apply, and through which the richer parishes may help the poorer. The management of such funds cannot, of course, be left in the hands of one school of thought, and all parties ought to be represented on the Committees. My own observation of the annual grants of our wretchedly supported Diocesan Institutions for some years, leads me to the conclusion that they are impartially and fairly administered, and I heartily wish they had larger funds to dispense. My Reverend Brethren, this matter is a very serious business, and I trust it will not be forgotten and thrown behind your backs. It is gradually becoming a grave question, if our Diocesan Institutions are not better supported, whether they must not be given up altogether and wound up. For the honour of the Diocese, I hope such a discreditable consummation may be avoided. But we really must have more annual subscriptions and Church collections. I hope you will not oblige me to say, when I am asked to occupy your pulpits for some parochial object, ‘I cannot give you a sermon if you do not have an annual collection for Diocesan purposes, for one or other of our four great Institutions.’

(4) Finally, we want to see more of the laity coming forward to take part in all the affairs of the Church in our Diocese. It pains me to see how few find time to attend our Committees, to come to the meetings of our Religious Societies, and to take part in our Diocesan Conferences. The demands of business seem to absorb all their days. Yet there never was an era in the history of our Church when she needed the strong sense and the well-balanced minds of her lay sons more than she does now. The affairs of the New Testament Churches were quite as much cared for by the laity as the clergy, and it ought to be the same in the Church of England. It is not a healthy symptom of our condition when it is not so. I say all this with a sorrowful recollection of our recent losses. Men like Mr. Bushell, Mr. Groves, and Mr. Bailey make gaps, when they are removed, which are not easily filled up. It is a constant prayer of mine that God would incline some of the younger lay Churchmen in Liverpool to come forward and help us more than they do.

However, after all I have now said, I must repeat what I said at the beginning, that on a retrospect of the last seven years, and a calm survey of our progress and condition, the feeling which predominates in my mind is one of deep thankfulness. In the face of many difficulties, and with an uphill battle to fight, much has been done, and much is doing, in our new See. We have as large a proportion of hard-working, diligent clergy, I believe, as any Diocese in England. There is a vast amount of quiet, solid work going on of which the outside world knows nothing, and which is never blazoned and trumpeted in Church newspapers. The mere presence of a Bishop will not work miracles, or convert inefficient clergymen, who have mistaken their calling, into apostles and prophets. But considering what human nature is, and what we have a reasonable right to expect from it, and what obstacles we have to contend with, I believe the new Diocese of Liverpool has abundant reason to thank God and take courage.

2. I must now, turn away from our own Diocese, and take up a far wider and more difficult subject. That subject is, the general condition of the great Established Church of England, of which our Diocese forms a part, and with which, for weal or woe, we are bound up. I approach it with a deep sense of its difficulty and importance. We are all apt to think there never were such times as those we now live in; and this is natural.

They are the only times with which we are quite familiar. But I am bold to say there never was a period in which there were so many critical and burning questions demanding attention as the present. Our ecclesiastical horizon has very dark clouds in some quarters, and much depends on the activity, wisdom, and moderation of Churchmen in the next five years.

I shall surprise some of you when I begin by saying that, in many points of view, I regard the condition of the Established Church of England as remarkably cheering, encouraging, and satisfactory. It is impossible to deny that there is an amount of life, and energy, and activity and zeal, and stir, and ‘go,’ if I may use a modern term, among Churchmen in the present day, which was utterly unknown fifty years ago. I do not admit for a moment that this change has arisen from the so-called High-Church revival, as some are fond of saying. The large and growing income of the Church Missionary Society this very year shows clearly that there is no decay in the zeal and influence of the Evangelical body. The fact is, that the change is to be seen in every school, and party, and department, and section of Churchmen. All over the land things are utterly unlike what they were half a century ago. The Church of England is no longer asleep, but awake. The energies of her children in some cases may be sadly misdirected, and do much mischief. But her worst enemies must admit that she is moving. She is not quite dead, but very much alive. I will mention a few facts in order to prove the truth of what I say. (1) First and foremost, I point to the immense amount of money which Churchmen have voluntarily expended in building new churches and restoring old ones during the last fifty years, and notably to the sums expended on our grand old Cathedrals. The total of this money is not less than thirty millions of pounds! Of course it is easy to say that bricks and stones and mortar do not make up religion. No doubt that is true. But it is also true that our grandfathers coolly saw the population growing round them and built no churches at all, while the Dissenters built many chapels. I have read that Bishop Porteus (Beilby Porteus, Bishop of London, 1787-1808.) only saw one new church built in the Diocese of London during the whole period of his episcopate. In temporal matters, when merchants and tradesmen begin to enlarge their premises, it does not look like failure and decay.

(2) In the next place, I point to the great and undeniable change in the general character and conduct of the clergy. No doubt there may be false shepherds, and wolves in sheep’s clothing, and black sheep in our ranks, just as there are rotten members in every profession; and as long as human nature is what it is, we must expect this to the end of the world. But I confidently assert that the general standard of the clergy as a body is to a certainty better than it was at the early part of this century. Scandalous lives, gross neglect of pastoral duty, perfunctory and slovenly discharge of Church services, sacred buildings closed from Sunday to Sunday, dirty and untidy pews and benches, the Lord’s Supper only administered once a quarter, no weekly services, children not gathered into schools, the masses left to the Methodists and Nonconformists without any compunction--all these things were the rule in many English parishes at the beginning of this century. Now, I am bold to say, they are the exception. Will any one deny that this is an immense improvement?

(3) In the next place, I point to the enormous change for the better in the sermons of the clergy of this day, when compared with the sermons which our ancestors were compelled to hear. It is vain to deny that the sermon of the old times was too often nothing better than a moral essay, and from beginning to end of it there was a conspicuous absence of the chief distinctive doctrines of Christianity. The atonement, the work of the Holy Spirit, justification, conversion, repentance, faith, were seldom, if ever, enforced or explained. It is not so now. Most of these mighty verities, even though sometimes stated with questionable clearness, are rarely quite ignored. Nor are they the monopoly of any one school in the Church. You may often hear them in pulpit after pulpit from men who in many points differ widely. Surely we ought candidly to admit that this is an immense improvement.

(4) In the next place, I point to the great increase of parochial work which is regularly done by many clergymen, compared to what was done in days gone by. Week-day services, Bible classes, meetings of Sunday-school teachers, organized gatherings of young men and young women, temperance meetings, and many other agencies for good, have sprung into existence, and are kept up in every part of the land. I sometimes feel amazed in Liverpool churches, when I hear the long list of engagements for the coming week, which is read out to the congregation, and marvel that so many irons can be found to put in the fire, and all kept hot. But the fact is undeniable, that far more is done in 1887 than in 1,800, and I am thankful.

(5) In the next place, I point to the constantly growing desire of the clergy to get together, confer, discuss, take counsel, and pray. As evidences of what I mean, I ask you to remember that Congresses, Conferences, Ruri-decanal gatherings, Retreats, Quiet Days, and the like, are all comparatively modern inventions, and were utterly unknown to our grandfathers, who were content with an occasional quiet clerical meeting. No doubt the gatherings I have mentioned are not always very useful, and sometimes are very dull. But they certainly evidence a state of feeling in the clerical body very different from that of the ‘good old times,’ when many an Incumbent never stirred out of his parish from January to December, or only met his clerical brethren in order to eat, drink, and play at cards. (6) In the next place, I point to the increased usefulness of our venerable Cathedrals. I remember the time when they were generally regarded as matchless specimens of architecture, and hardly anything more. People went to see them as they went to see the Elgin Marbles in the British Museum, and admired the wonders in stone and wood and glass which they contained. But what did the Cathedrals do for the cause of Christ and true religion? Little, very little indeed! A few stray sheep in the cold wilderness of the choir on week-days, two or three hundred on Sunday afternoons to. hear a good anthem, this was the Cathedral’s contribution to the cause of religion in old times! I thank God there is an end to all this. Select picked preachers, lively nave services, accompanied by a popular service of song, have obtained a new lease of life for the grand old Ministers and Abbey Churches of the land. The man who attends St. Paul’s or Westminster Abbey on a Sunday afternoon, can no longer say that the Cathedrals are weighed in the balances and found wanting.

(7) In the next place, I point to the astonishing increase of the Colonial Episcopate during the last fifty years. In the midst of vast exertions to promote missions to the heathen and missions at home, the Church of England has found time and money to found new Dioceses in every part of the Colonial Empire, and to plant her Prayer-book and her form of government in every land where the British flag flies, and her children are forming new homes. In the year 1840 there were only ten Colonial Bishops. In the year 1887 there are 73. It goes without saying that Bishops alone do not make a Church, any more than officers make an army, without rank and file. But there is abundant proof that, as soon as a Bishop is sent out to a colony, and a diocese formed, the almost invariable result is a large increase of clergy, means of grace, and congregations. When a great tree begins to decay, one of the first symptoms is the withering and death of the extreme branches. This is precisely what is not the case with the Church of England. The colonies supply abundant proof that she is not dead but alive in every part of the globe. (8) In the last place, I point to the astonishing growth of aggressive evangelistic operations which is to be seen all over the land in the present day. It is only thirty years ago that I had the high honour of taking part in the first mission service, which, I believe, was ever held. It was held for six evenings successively in St. Martin’s Church, Birmingham, and Dr. M’Neile, (Hugh M’Neile, Canon of Chester, 1845-68.) Dr. Miller, (John Cole Miller; became Incumbent of St. Martin’s Birmingham in 1846.) and myself were the preachers. That week’s effort was regarded as a very dubious experiment, and many predicted failure. But now, at the end of thirty years, Special Missions have become an organized institution of the Church of England. They are approved, patronized, and supported by every school of thought. In some Dioceses a mission clergyman is a recognized officer of the Diocese. There are hardly any large towns in which missions have not been held. In short, a determination to carry the Gospel to every class, and to go down to those who will not come up to us, is an unmistakeable sign of the times. If Wesley, and Whitefield, and Berridge, and Grimshaw, had been told a hundred and twenty years ago that the whole Church of England would ever take up aggressive evangelization like our present Special Missions, I can hardly think they would have believed it. But the fact is before our eyes.

I ask your best attention to the list of facts which I have now laid before you. I challenge any one to deny their correctness. They form the ground on which I confidently build the assertion, that there is much that is cheering, hopeful, and encouraging in the present condition of the Church of England. If we are to be disestablished and destroyed, as some think we shall be, at any rate we shall not die sleeping. ‘Oportet imperatorem stantem mori.’ (‘In standing at our post of duty it behoves us to be prepared to die.’) Like the gallant sentinel of Pompeii, we are awake, and shall die at our post. Let me add to all this, that one of the healthiest symptoms in the Church of England is the general growing desire to reform abuses, and to ’set in order things that are wanting.’ Measures have been brought forward, both in Parliament and out of it, for the improvement and strengthening of the Church, most of which deserve the support of all loyal Churchmen, and I think it my duty to make a few remarks about them.

(1) The Bill about Tithes, transferring their payment from occupiers to landlords, appears to me a most important and valuable measure, and one which ought to be thankfully received. I have always held that this arrangement ought to have been made originally, when the Tithe Commutation Act was first passed. It seems impossible to make some farmers understand that the payment of tithes lowers their rent, and is a part of the conditions on which they hold their farms. So long as they themselves have to pay the money they think that they are injured and aggrieved. I trust that this measure may soon become the law of the land.

(2) The Church Patronage Bill contains some most excellent provisions, for which most thinking Churchmen have long sighed in vain. The sale of presentations is to my mind a scandal. The sale of advowsons ought only to be allowed under special circumstances, and should be fenced by safeguards. Power ought to be given to a Bishop to refuse the institution of any clergyman nominated to a living who, from age or bodily or mental infirmity, is clearly unfit for his office. Liberty and opportunity ought to be granted to parishioners to show reasons, if they can, why a clergyman nominated should not be instituted, provided always that, if their objections are frivolous and vexatious, they must pay the costs of objection. In my opinion, the weakest and worst point, in the original Bill was the proposed Diocesan Patronage Board in every Diocese. I am confident that such a cumbrous Board would not have worked well. In one Diocese, it would have fallen into the hands of some one strong mind. In a second, it would have produced nothing but colourless milk-and-water appointments. In a third, it would have been a scene of perpetual compromise or controversy. I trust we shall never hear of it again. Only let the most patent and glaring abuses of the present system be removed, and then the more patronage is divided and scattered the better. Nothing, I believe, would be a greater misfortune to our Church than to concentrate and accumulate patronage in one set of hands. I would leave it between the Crown, the Chancellor, the Bishops, the Colleges, private patrons, and accredited bodies of trustees. It is the only way to keep up the comprehensive character of the Church of England. (3) The Bill for permitting the sale of glebe-lands is one which I must honestly say I regard with some doubtful feelings. I hope it might work well, but I am not very enthusiastic about it. I can quite understand that incumbents of livings endowed with land, and not with tithes, are often placed in a most painful position during the present agricultural depression. They are liable to have their glebe thrown on their hands by the failure of their tenants. They are too often in such cases utterly unable to farm the land, partly from want of capital and partly from want of skill. We cannot wonder that in such livings an Incumbent would like to have the power to sell the glebe, and turn it into hard cash, to be invested in some good and safe security. No doubt there are occasional instances in which the sale might be advantageously effected, and some wealthy landowner might occasionally be ready to give a good price for an addition to his wide domains. But I fear there are very many parishes in which it would be impossible to sell the glebe-land except at an immense sacrifice and a permanent loss of more than half the value of the living, which, if better days come, would be regretted too late. However, it may perhaps be expedient to have a permissive Act. I only maintain that the sale of glebe-lands should always be approached with very great caution, and that a full report of its desirability should be made by competent commissioners residing in the Diocese and close by the parish. To all this let me add my own private impression, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, from their long acquaintance with Church property, are the persons to whom the whole transaction should be entrusted.

Turning from the inside of Parliament to outside movements, schemes, and matters which have come into being during the last three years, and are now pressed on the attention of Churchmen, there are four points about which I have something to say, and points about which you have a just right to expect some expression of opinion from your Bishop.

(1) First and foremost comes the newly-created House of Laymen in the Province of Canterbury. I regard that House with great satisfaction, and read the reports of its proceedings with close attention. It is a valuable experiment, and a move in the right direction. Nevertheless, I cannot expect so much from it as some do. So long as it has no legal status whatsoever, and is not recognized by Queen, Lords, and Commons; so long as it is a mere consultative body, without power to originate anything, or to do anything beside talking and passing resolutions, and this under some little restraint; so long as it is elected in the present fashion; so long I do not think it will gather into its ranks the chief laymen of light and leading in the Province of Canterbury, or excite lasting interest in its proceedings. I repeat, however, that it is essentially a move in the right direction. It is the admission of a great principle, far too long most foolishly ignored, that the laity of a church have a right robe consulted, and ought to have a voice in all its proceedings.>/p>

Footnote ‘Till it be proved that some special law of Christ hath for ever secured unto the clergy alone the power of making ecclesiastical laws, we are to hold it a thing most consonant with equity and reason, that no ecclesiastical laws be made in a Christian commonwealth without consent or will of the laity as well as of the clergy’. Hooker. Eccles. Polity, Book viii. chap. vi.