J*-. 
 
 ^^\' 
 
 
 
 
 
 P?f»| 
 
 m i^iffi^»fi*v, * «,
 
 f 
 
 L I E) RA R.Y 
 
 OF THL 
 
 U N IVLRSITY 
 
 or ILLINOIS
 
 /
 
 i
 
 "/X^ /y^^ -re /C f^//^77 p^d^^hL. H^rxi^- /O if Ccjruc Jca ^-< l^ry^ - - / 
 
 Wt-z^l:^^' /t'^A^. ^^^^^r^/-^!^'^ J^^ ^t^\ lily /u^hil ./kAyeT*r.4 
 
 ■7j '* " /hcfSivicfi^/cf^r^-'S 
 
 II 
 
 •I >, 
 

 
 
 ClinrrI - .rail - ^tnfe 
 I5anini-lknfe 
 
 <0t 51!rgiinintt^, fittt^, anti J^tati^tic^ 
 ^uitcti to tf^t Zimc^. 
 
 
 '// i/tc trzwipet give an wtcertahi sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" 
 
 I Cor. xiv. 8. 
 
 floiition : 
 JDiHiam JtH^acinto^j) 
 
 1866. 
 
 Price One Shillini^.
 
 TO THE 
 
 YEN. CHRISTOPHER WORDSWORTH, D.D. 
 
 AECHDEACON OF WESTMINSTER, 
 
 AN ABLE AND CONSISTENT SUPPORTER OF SOUND AND TIME-HONOURED 
 
 PRINCIPLES IN AN AGE MAINLY CHARACTERISED BY ITS 
 
 HOSTILITY TO THE ANCIENT LANDMARKS OF 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION.
 
 ^mv 
 
 fjHE design of the present work may be thus expressed : — 
 To furnish the Church-and-State politician, in a conveniently 
 small compass, with a fund of information, Scriptural, 
 argumentative, historical, and statistical, calculated to be 
 useful to him in fulfilling his public duties in matters ecclesiastical 
 or semi-ecclesiastical. The subjects dealt with range themselves 
 substantially under three heads : — 
 
 1. The observance of the Lord's Day. 
 
 2. Dissenting aggressions on the Established Church. 
 
 3. Roman Catholicism as an element in British politics. 
 Under the first head I have discussed the Sunday question, from a 
 
 purely Biblical stand-point; and, subordinately, in the light thrown 
 upon it by the authoritative standards of the Church of England, and 
 practical experience. 
 
 Under the second head I have constructed an elementary frame- 
 work of Scriptural argument in favour' of the union of Church and 
 State, following up the same with a large mass of material calculated 
 to be of practical value at the present moment, when such gigantic 
 efforts are being made by organised bands of schismatics to uproot 
 the Church establishment. To illustrate this, let me quote the 
 announced intention of the " Rev." Joseph Parker, D.D., an able 
 supporter of the Liberation Society's principles at Manchester : — 
 
 " I have resolved to visit every principal town in the Mngdoin, so far as 
 jKtsforal duties will permit, and deliver the lectures which I am no^o con- 
 cluding. I have resolved to publish a considerahle number of tracts, short, 
 pointed and explicit, on Nonconformist questions, exposing the heresy of the 
 Fraijer-Booh, the sacerdotalism of the Church, tlie illogical effusions of the 
 C'Jrrgi/, and the abominations of religious establishments. I propose to give 
 tJicsc tracts away at , every. Church Congress, at every Church Missionary 
 Meeting, on the highways, in railway carriages, from house to house, at the 
 seaside, at home, abroad, everyivhere, folloioing the bane icith the antidote, 
 chasing the enemy from den to den, until death shall arrest my labours.^' 
 
 The third head is treated of in as similar a manner with the fore- 
 going as the different character of the sulyect will admit. I have
 
 iv Preface. 
 
 sought to put together witli the utmost brevity some suggestive lines 
 of (Scriptural argument, appending to these some reflections suited to 
 a period like the present, when Popery is making such dangerous 
 inroads into Church and State in England ; for the prophetical notes 
 is claimed only the merit of terseness, so far as I am concerned ; of 
 tolerable certainty, so far as the tivo main conclusions are concerned. 
 
 A few miscellanea conclude the volume. 
 
 To the many friends, known and unknown, in all parts of England 
 who have aided or encouraged the present work in its various stages, 
 I can only here offer general, but none the less sincere, thanks. It 
 has been a great and real satisfaction to find my efforts in the cause 
 of England's Church so widely appreciated. 
 
 Finally, it may be stated that into this work are incorporated the 
 Sussex Tracts for Churchme7i, for the most part long since out of 
 print. 
 
 43, f. €. 
 
 Junior Carlton Club, 
 
 London: Easter 1866. 
 
 Cratmts. 
 
 I. 
 II. 
 
 III. 
 
 IV. 
 
 V. 
 
 VI. 
 
 VII. 
 
 ptiTre 
 
 The Sunday Question . 
 
 The Church of England Tested by Holy Scri 
 A Warning to Churchmen . 
 Chm*ch Statistics 
 A Plea for Church Extension 
 Church Rates .... 
 Inconsistency and Church Defence 
 VIII. The Roman Catholic Question 
 
 IX. Brief Notes on Portions of Daniel and tlie Apocalypse 
 X. Miscellaneous 
 
 5 
 21 
 
 41 
 54 
 6?, 
 69 
 90 
 96 
 J 07 
 118 
 
 , UIUC ^
 
 7^^-, -i-'. -1- .:-!- 
 
 BOOK I. 
 
 It may be safely asserted tliat few questions have drawn forth such dis- 
 plays of artful sophistry as a substitute for solid argument as that which 
 is now to be examined. 
 
 I propose to deal with — 
 
 (i). The pei'petual obligation of the Sabbath [i.e. in the strict Hebrew 
 sense of a weekly day of rest] . 
 
 (2). The secular advantages proveable to arise from it. 
 
 (3). Some practical hints and suggestions. 
 
 The first assertion to be disproved is that the Sahhath is a Jeivish In- 
 stitution, and therefore not hinding on Christians. It will be convenient 
 here to group together some texts for review : — 
 
 Genesis ii. 3. — " And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it 
 He had rested from all His work, which God created and made." 
 
 Exodus XX. 8-1 1. — " Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou 
 labour, and do all thy work : but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God : 
 in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daugliter, thy manservant, 
 nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates : for in six 
 da3'S the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the 
 seventh day : wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." 
 
 E.xodus :s.iiu\. la.— "Six days shalt thou do thy work, and on the seventh day thou 
 shalt rest : that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the 
 stranger may be refreshed." * 
 
 In ascribing a Jewish or Mosaic origin to the Sabbath, our opponents 
 are in duty bound to produce testimony of its actual institution by Moses 
 or some of his contemporaries. This they fail to do, and (assuming 
 ignorance for the present), whoever did institute it, one thing is quite 
 certain, that Moses did not. {Ex, xx. i.) 
 
 The i6tli chapter of Exodus contains a clear intimation that it was 
 known long before the occurrence of the event which forms the main topic 
 of that chapter. One month after their departure from Egypt, the chil- 
 dren of Israel began to fear that they should want food, and mm-mured 
 against Moses and Aaron (ver. 2). Thereupon the Lord told Moses that 
 He would give them bread from heaven, which they should collect day by 
 
 * It is worthy of note that the parallel passage, Dcut. v. 14, has an addendum — "In 
 it thou shalt not do any work, &c., that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest 
 as wc// (IS thou." Let us then understand that we are to apply the obligation not alone 
 to ourselves, as regards our own acts, but also to our dealings witli nnr sorvauts and 
 dependents.
 
 6 The Sunday Question. Book T. 
 
 day, but that on tlie sixtli day they were to prepare a double portion, for 
 which order no reason is assigned. As soon as it fell for the first time 
 they were further commanded to let none remain till the morning ; some, 
 disobeying the command, found that it became putrid. When the sixth 
 day arrived each man gathered two portions instead of one, which fact the 
 elders reported to Moses and Aaron. Now why did the elders act thus ? 
 It has been supposed that the arrangement about the sixth day was not 
 yet communicated to the people ; if so, why did they gather the double 
 portion of their own accord ? It could only have been because they hnew 
 the next day to be the Sabbath ; and therefore its non-Mosaic origin is 
 settled. But in all probability the special instruction was made known ; if 
 so, some other explanation must be found for the elders coming to Moses ; 
 and it must have been this. They did not come to say that the people 
 had transgressed, but to obtain an assurance that the surplus manna should 
 not become putrid by being kept the second day, as had previously hap- 
 pened, and thus leave them without food, Moses's answer, according to 
 the Authorised Version, was, " This is that which the Lord hath said. 
 To-morrow is the rest of the Holy Sabbath unto the Lord ; bake that ye 
 will bake to-day, and seethe that ye will seethe ; and that which re- 
 maineth over, lay up for you to be kept until the morning." But the A. V. 
 is obscure, there being a critical reason why " This is that which the Lord 
 hath said" must relate to what precedes — i.e. the report of the elders, and 
 not to what follows, i.e. the mention of the Sabbath, as the A. V. would 
 lead us to infer. Moses's answer is therefore equivalent to this : ' what 
 has thus been done is Avhat the Lord intended, to-morrow heing His Holy 
 Sabbath. Prepare the manna, and what you do not want to-day put by 
 for to-morrow ; it became putrid on the former occasion, because you at- 
 tempted to keep it against the Lord's instructions, but noiv He has bid you 
 keep it : trust Him, and all will be well.' And having laid by the surplus, 
 when the next morning came it was still good, and (paraphrasing) 
 Moses bade them eat, ' for to-day heinrj the Lord's Sabbath ye will find 
 none in the field ; and so, for the future, ye shall gather it for six days ; 
 but on the seventh, which is as you know, the Sabbath, you will find 
 none.' It is evident throughout that the Sabbath is not spoken of as 
 sometliinrj new and unheard of, but as a thing already familiar to the people, 
 and this paraphrase is scrupulously in accordance with the meaning of the 
 original. When some went out to gather on the seventh day, but found 
 none, they were thus rebuked : " See for that the Lord hath given you the 
 Sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days " 
 (ver. 29). It is an outrageous violation of the plain reasonable meaning 
 of words to attempt to twist such expressions as these into intimations 
 of the institution of a new custom. 
 
 But subsequent events confirm our supposition in a striking manner. 
 Not many weeks afterwards, the Ten Commandments are given from 
 Sinai, and the Fourth is ushered in alone of all the number with the 
 solemn prefix, REMEMBER. What possible necessity could there have 
 been for this, if the custom was of such recent date as we are asked to 
 believe it was ? It could not have been forgotten in so short a space of 
 time, especially when its origin was associated {in this view of the matter) 
 with the miraculous manna. 
 
 Most unquestionably the " Remember " is simply intended to remind the 
 Israelites of some old ordinance (to the intent that they might still keep it 
 up), and not to embody in their code a recently instituted one. But a
 
 Book I. The Sunday Question. y 
 
 reason is assigned (Ex. xx. 1 1 ) which applies to all the -world and not to 
 one nation ; which being the case, the logical inference is that the com- 
 mand is likewise universal and not limited. We read, " six days shalt 
 thmi labour, .... but the seventh .... is the Sabbath of the 
 Jiord, . . . for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, &c., and 
 rested the seventh day, ivherefore the Lord blessed [not the seventh Imf] 
 the Sabbath day and hallowed it." If the ground of the observance of the 
 Sabbath depends, as we are told it does, on the circumstances attending 
 the creation of the world, then it follow^s that its obligation extends to 
 the whole human race, and not to a solitary nation. Had there been two 
 distinct races placed on the earth at that epoch, an obligation laid on one 
 would not have been binding on the other without an express intima- 
 tion ; but as there was only one race, whereof the Jews arose in after 
 time, a general obligation cannot be held binding on them alone, in the 
 absence of a special reason. Proving, as I conceive I have done,* that 
 the obligation was not specifically Jewish, but general, it is therefore 
 binding on all men, consequently on Christians now, inasmuch as it has 
 never been abrogated. We are justified then in saying that we must go 
 further back than Ex. -K.-S.. or xvi. for the origin of the Sabbath, and once 
 agreeing to this we must go all the way back to Gen. ii., where we find 
 the original reason for the sanctification of the seventh day, of which 
 reason Ex. xx. 1 1 merely contains a repetition. 
 
 Whether the creation "days" were periods of 24 hours, which we 
 understand by the word " day," or were simply equal periods of time, 
 the absolute duration of which is undefined and undefinable, is of little 
 moment. " It is obvious that tJie principle involved is the observance of a 
 day of rest unto God follotving six days allotted to labour ; that the stress is 
 laid on that, not on the seventh day of the week, and that according to 
 the strictest letter of the Commandment, by the usage of the Hebrew, 
 which therein resembles other languages which have a definite article, no 
 more is really commanded than that.^' A candid appreciation of this is 
 requisite to meet such taunts as are directed to the fact that we observe 
 the first and not the seventh day of the week. 
 
 The history of Cain and Abel affords internal evidence that a weekly 
 day of rest, appropriated to purposes of worship, w^as in their time in force. 
 Jordan has placed this in a remarkably clear light,- " The very fact of their 
 coming together, and that for the purpose of worship, would of itself lead 
 to the supposition that the time must have been a stated one, and well 
 recognised by both ; for otherwise we cannot conceive what could have 
 induced the jealous Cain to unite wdth the pious Abel in the worship of 
 Jehovah. Had there not been a special day set apart for worship, we 
 should rather have expected Cain to avoid that which Abel chose, from 
 hatred and envy of him. It is, however, plainly implied that there Avaa 
 a certain known time at which they both together worshipped God. 
 The expression denoting this is rendered in the text of the Bible, ' in 
 process of time it came to pass,' but in the margin, ' at the end of days 
 it came to pass.' Now, this latter is not only preferable, as a construction 
 of the original, but it directly points to that day which was 'the end of 
 days,' the last, that is, of the seven." (Jordan, Christian Salhath, p. 37.) 
 
 It may further be remarked that the narrative of the deluge, and Noah's 
 proceedings in reference thereto, abound with so many allusions to 
 
 The argument is Biley's. popularised.
 
 8 > The Sunday Question. Bo<jk i. 
 
 periods of seven days as unmistakeably to prove that soraetliing special 
 and peculiar attached to them. In Jordan's work (C. S. pp. 24-31) will 
 be found a full argument on this matter, identifying different days of the 
 week, and showing that with the seventh was invariably connected some- 
 thing involving rest or cessation. 
 
 Let lis now investigate the particular day to meet the difficulty about 
 the seventh day. A misapprehension often exists here. The fourth Com- 
 mandment does not enjoin the observance of the seventh day of the iveelc. 
 What it does enjoin is six days for work and then a Salbath, a day of rest to 
 he devoted to God. 
 
 Some parallel passages are required to illustrate this. In Judges xix. 
 4, 5, 8, " He abode with him three days, . . , and it came to pass on 
 Hie fourth day," &c., " and he arose early in the morning on the ffth day," 
 &c. These are not the fourth and fifth days of the week, but the fourth 
 and fifth with reference to the previous three. In Ex. xxii. 30, "Seven 
 days it shall be with his dam ; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me." 
 Here the eighth day is not the first day of the week, but the eighth day 
 from the animal's birth, unless we choose to believe that all the young of 
 oxen and sheep were born on the same day of the week ! a too palpable 
 absurdity. Again, in Josh, vi. 3, 4, " Thus shalt thou do six days, . . 
 . . and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times." There is 
 no reason whatever for assuming that the seventh day has any other than _ 
 the obvious meaning of the seventh after they began to compass the city, 
 or that it has any respect to a particular day of the iveeh. 
 
 Kow wherever Sahhath — i.e. the day of rest (the simple meaning of the 
 original word) — is spoken of as the seventh day, it is almost always, if not 
 always, Avith reference to the six previous days of labour ; and now we 
 are brought back, withou.t any straining or perversion of words, to repeat 
 that the sanctification of 07ie day in seven is the principle. 
 
 It is worth while just to mention the fact that for geographical reasons 
 it is absolutely impossible for any two nations under different meridians 
 to observe precisely the same period for Sunday. Sunday evening with 
 us is Monday morning with our brothers and sisters in India. 
 
 We have now to inquire into the particular day of the week adopted as 
 the day of rest under the Christian dispensation, and what indications 
 there are of its having -been settled by Divine authority. 
 
 Justin Martyr, in his Apologia prima pro Cliristianis, written in the middle 
 of the second century A.D., gives us an exact account of the observance of 
 the said first day of the week, for public prayer and reading of the Scrip- 
 tures, &c., which had clearly become an established custom ; and it is not too 
 much to say that a custom of this kind could not have become thus general 
 in the Church, at this very early period, unless it had received the sanction 
 of the Apostles, the last of whom, St. John, had only died within the 
 recollection of the generation then living : receiving the sanction of the 
 Apostles, it must be held to have received the sanction of Him who sent 
 them. Other leading Fathers of the Church, Eusebius, Ignatius, Origen, &c., 
 acquaint us with facts and make statements of their own, all of similar 
 import.* But indications are not wanting that at a much earlier period 
 the first day of the week had some peculiarity attaching to it. In I. Cor. 
 xvi. 2, St. Paul charges the Corinthians, " Upon the first day of the week 
 let every one of you lay by him in store as Cod hath prospered him." 
 
 * For an extended series of these, see Bajdec, Hist. Sahb., p. 97, et seq.
 
 Book I. TJie Sunday Question. g 
 
 (59 A.D.) Now, though there is no actual mention of a religious obsei-- 
 vauce, it will at least be granted that the selection of this clay for an 
 almsgiving purpose is noticeable. In Acts xx. 7, et seq., is narrated St. 
 Paul's visit to Troas and his preaching to the Church there, the members 
 of which were gathered together "upon the first day of the week," evi- 
 dently according to their usual custom (the peculiar wording in v. 7, 
 " when the disciples came together," may reasonably be held to point to a 
 custom of so doing). St. Paul abode there one week ; whence it is clear, 
 there were no motives of haste impelling the selection of the first day, if 
 it were not a common thing : the seventh day, too, is entirely unnoticed, 
 It may be assumed further, that the recognised sanctity of the first 
 day was the cause of the apostle postponing his departure till the 
 second day. 
 
 On these two passages a recent writer has the following observations : 
 " ' As God hath prospered him' is a remark that proceeds on the assump- 
 tion that a day was recognised as that on which trading was discontinued ; 
 and that on the eve of that day they were in a position to ascertain the 
 state of their pecuniary circumstances. As it is the first day of the Aveek 
 of which these things are spoken, it is evident that uj) to it business con- 
 tinued. The previous seventh day was, therefore, an ordinary day of 
 work, and as a Sahbath daj/, was no longer in existence. The glimpse 
 we had at Troas [see ante] of the first day, as the only day of pubhc 
 worship, is here again afforded, with the additional disclosure that 
 it was also a day of exemption from worldly occupations." — (M. Hill, 
 Sahhatli made for Man, p. 121.) 
 
 On presumptive evidence we are safe in asserting that the observance 
 of the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath is of Apostolic 
 authority. Can we do more than this ? Is there any trace of Christ 
 Himself authorising a first-day Christian Sabbath as a substitution for 
 the seventh-day Jewish one ? I believe that there is such a trace. From 
 various passages (^8t. Lulce iv. 16, &c.) we find that it was our Saviour's 
 " custom " to attend the synagogue worship on the seventh day, the then 
 Sabbath ; but it pleased Him to select the first day for that great event 
 — His resurrection from the dead ; and when He rose on that day He 
 went to meet His disciples, and it is further noticeable that passing over 
 tlie next seventh day. He raet them the second time on the first daj^ of the 
 week following His resurrection {St. John xx. 26), and finally it was on 
 the first day of another week, the Day of Pentecost, {Acts ii. i), tliat 
 the great outpouring of the Holy Ghost took place. Without insisting 
 unduly on all these coincidences, it is at least certain that by Christ 
 Himself, when freed from all Jewish associations, a preference was given 
 to the first day of the week, for which no reason is assigned, and, unless 
 our viejv be adopted, no reason is assignable. The revelation made to 
 St. Jolin took place on what was called the Lord's Day {Rev. i. 10). 
 (For proof that the day so called was the first day of the week, see Elliot, 
 IIorcG Apocalypticrr;, iv. 566.)* 
 
 The foregoing points, imperfectly strung together it may be, through 
 a desire for brevity, will have prepared the reader for the following de- 
 ductions, which may be asserted with the fullest confidence : — 
 
 * The expression in tho original is iv tt; KvpiaKrj rii^fpa : it -woiild otliorwisc liave been 
 fv ry r]fj.epa toC Kvpiov, in the day of tlio IjOrd (genitive), wliicii means the day of tho 
 Lord's coming;.
 
 10 Tlie Sunday Question. Book t. 
 
 1. A li-ceJilij Sahhath, or day of rest, 7vas not specially a Jewish institution. 
 
 2. It dates from the origin of the human race. 
 
 3. When instituted it was binding on the whole human race. 
 
 4. Never having been abrogated, it is still binding. 
 
 5. The substitution of the first day for the seventh, as a Sabbath day, has 
 been accepted by the Church from the earliest period, and there is good 
 reason for believing it to be in harmony ivith Ghrisfs tvill, though no express 
 intimation is extant. 
 
 6. Every text of Holy Scripture relating to it is still in essence to be 
 attended to by Christians. 
 
 With these before us, it will scarcely be necessary to do much more 
 than simply qiTote the subsequent passages of the Bible bearing generally 
 on the observance of the Lord's day. We learn from different intimations 
 in the Pentateuch that the extreme penalty of death was affixed to the 
 violation of most of the Commandments. We are to regard this as 
 merely a (divinely appointed) municipal provision, in no respect affecting 
 the thing forbidden itself: for the mitigation of the penalty attaching to 
 (say) the 3rd Commandment no more legahses blasphemy amongst 
 Christians than the mitigation in respect of the 4th Commandment makes 
 the principle of Sabbath observance an indifferent matter. It is well to 
 insist upon the moral aspect of the Decalogue : if one Commandment is 
 to be rejected, why not two, why not three, why not all ? 
 
 Exodus xxxiv. 21. — " Six days shaft thou work, but on the seventh day thou shaft rest : 
 in earing time and in harvest thou shnlt rest." 
 
 iS'ehemiah x. 29-3 1. — "We entered into a curse and into an oath, to walk in God's 
 faw. . . . and that ... if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on the 
 Sabbath day to sell, we would not buy it of them on the Sabbath, or on the holy day." 
 
 Let us imitate the good determination of the Jews of old. Sunday 
 trading prevails in the present day, in the large towns of England, to a 
 fearful extent. The, usually alleged, necessity might in all cases be got 
 rid of by a little foresight on the part of the buyers, more especially if all 
 the employers of labour would pay their workpeople's wages on some 
 other day than Saturday. It is only fair to say that a vast proportion of 
 the sellers are opposed to keeping their shops open, and would heartily 
 welcome a rigorous enfoi'cement of the existing law (29 Car. II. cap. 2). 
 Great difficulties lie in the way of a trader voluntarily closing wherever 
 there is much competition. Compulsory legislation alone will prove a 
 lasting remedj'-. Saturday half holidays also, indirectly, tend greatly to 
 promote Sunday observance. The number of beei--shops, "gin-palaces," 
 &c., open on Sunday is a fruitful cause of evil. Strong rej)ressive 
 measures are impei-atively called for. 
 
 Isai((k Wi. 2. — " Blessed is the man . . . that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it," 
 
 Isaiah Iviii. 13, 14. — "If thoii turn away thj' foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy 
 pleasure on My holy day ; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, 
 honourable ; and shalt honour Him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own 
 pleasure, nor speaking thine own words : then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord ; 
 and I wilf cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth." 
 
 Jeremiah svii. 21. — " Thus saith the Lord ; Take heed to yourselves, and bearno burden 
 on the Sabbath day." 
 
 Jeremiah xvii. 27. — "But if ye wilf not hearken unto Me to hallow the Sabbath day, 
 and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day ; 
 then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, 
 and it shall not be quenched." 
 
 Mark the severity of the punishment ! The existing Sunday railway
 
 Book t. The Sunday Question. 
 
 II 
 
 traffic, Post-Office labour, and newspapers, are a disgrace to tlic English 
 nation. In the matter of the newspapers, it would seem as if a breach of 
 the Di^-ine commandment were ostentatiously made ; for, though dated for 
 Sunday, it is well known that the vast proportion of them are printed 
 and published on the Saturday, and many even on the Friday. 
 
 St. Matthew xii. 12. — " Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days." 
 Examples will be found in St. Idilce xiii. 14; St. John v. 9 ; and 
 ix. 14. 
 
 St. Matthew xii. i. — "At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the corn; 
 and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat." 
 
 St. Lid-o xiii. 15. — " Doth not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or his ass 
 from the stall, and lead him away to watering ? " 
 
 Works of domestic necessity may be performed on Sunday, but not 
 ■works of luxury or amusement. Sunday bands, concerts, holiday parties 
 of all kinds, &c., cannot be too strongly condemned, not only on religious, 
 but on social grounds. 
 
 I may here conveniently draw attention to a most flagrant breach of 
 the Statute Law of England weekly perpetrated in London and elsewhere, 
 in reference to tea gardens, and places of public resort. A good legal 
 authority writes as follows : — " The 21 Geo. III. cap. 49, was passed to 
 restrain a practice very prevalent at the time in London and Westminster : 
 it enacts, that if a house, room, or place, be opened upon Sunday /ur aiti/ 
 puhlic eniertainrnent, or for debating upon any subject, to which persons 
 are admitted by money or tichets, the keepers of it shall forfeit 200I. to 
 any person who will prosecute, the manager or president looZ., and the 
 receiver of the money or tickets 50L, and every -pei^son jyrinting an adver- 
 tisement of such meeting forfeit 50Z." — (Wade, Cabinet Lawyer, p. 458. 
 1 8th ed.) The law thus confers ample power, and it is greatly to be 
 wished that some spirited Englishmen would come forward and demand 
 its enforcement. The Cremorne Gardens are perhaps the best known of 
 these illegally opened places of resort, but there are many others in and 
 around London. The managers indicate their knowledge that they are 
 doing wrong, and at the same time their ignorance of the precise provision 
 of this Act, by advertising that admission is only by tickets, and the 
 advertisements appear in all kinds of newspapers, the printers of which 
 could all be convicted, I think, without difficulty. 
 
 St. Mark ii. 27-8. — " And Jesus said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and 
 not man for the Sabbath : therefore the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath." 
 
 It is requisite to pause to make a comment on this text, because the 
 opponents of Sunday observance invariably use it as an argument that 
 man is superior to the Sabbath, in other words is entitled to use it or 
 misuse it as he chooses. That sucii a meaning is sought to be drawn 
 from it, is of itself good proof that our opponents feel their weakness, and 
 akin to this is their utterly unwarrantable idea that Christ by these 
 words intimated his wish to abolish the Sabbath altogether. Besides, 
 how is Christ's remark {St. Mail. v. 17) that He came not " to destroy the 
 law or the prophets . . . but to fulfil " to be met and accounted for ? Our 
 opponents who desire to claim the Bible as on their side are bound to answer 
 this question. Again, when asked by a rich man {St. Marl: x. 1 7), " What 
 shall I do that I may inherit eternal life ? " ou.r Lord said, " Thou Icnowest 
 the Cominavdments; " and He puts it beyond doubt that He refers to the
 
 1 2 The Sunday Question. Book t. 
 
 decalogue by i-eciting five of tliem. None of tlie commandments belong- 
 ing to the first table are mentioned, but no one will venture to assert that 
 by this omission He intended to exclude say the 2nd ; and if the 2nd is to 
 stand good why not the 4th ? 
 
 Some documentary evidence as to the practical results arising from the 
 due observance of Sunday, whether voluntary, or brought about by 
 legislation, will now be adduced, beginning with a statement that has 
 stood the test of well nigh 200 years : — ■ 
 
 Sir Matthew Hale's Opinion. — " I have found by a strict and diligent 
 observation, that a due observation of the duties of this day hath evei- 
 ioined to it a blessing upon the rest of my time ; and the week that hath 
 been so begun hath been blessed and prosperous to me : and on the other 
 side, when I had been negligent of the duties of this day, the rest of the 
 week hath been unsuccessful and unhappy to my own secular employment ; 
 and this I do not write lightly or inconsiderately, but upon a long and 
 sound observation and experience." 
 
 The debates in Parliament upon Mr. Somes's Public Houses Bill had 
 the effect of drawing forth such an immense mass of evidence as to the 
 good result from past legislation, &c., that it is very difiicult to know 
 what to take and what to reject, my space being' limited. 
 
 Scotla.nd is under the provisions of a total Sunday Closing Act, known 
 as " Porbes Mackenzie's " : — 
 
 In seventeen of the chief towns of Scotland, containing together about 
 a million of inhabitants, the number of cases of drunkenness alone, or 
 of drunkenness and crime combined, on Sundays, amounted, during the 
 three years before the Forbes Mackenzie Act came into operation, to 
 1 1 47 1 ; whilst, during the three first years in which public-houses wero 
 closed on Sundays, cases of the same description amounted, in the aggre- 
 gate, only to 4299. 
 
 The daily average number of prisoners confined in the Edinburgh and 
 Glasgow prisons during the three j^ears before the passing of the Act was 
 1221, while the daily average number during the three years subsequent 
 to the passing of the Act was 864. 
 
 The total number of cases of drunkenness taken charge of by the Edin- 
 burgh police in 1853, the year before the passing of the Act, and in 1861, 
 was as follows — 
 
 In 1853 9730 
 
 In 1861 6656 
 
 Number of cases on Sunday — 
 
 In 1853 1305 
 
 In j86i 858 
 
 Number of cases on Saturdays, Sundays and Mondays — 
 
 In 1853 4420 
 
 In 1861 2918 
 
 Number of cases between 8 a.m. on the Sunday mornings and 8 a.m. on 
 the Monday mornings — 
 
 In 1853 648 
 
 In 1861 205 
 
 " He is something more than a bold man who, with such facts before 
 him, will dare to say that the Forbes Mackenzie Act has demoralised 
 Scotland — has been else than a blessing to the country."
 
 Book I. 
 
 The Sunday Question. 
 
 13 
 
 On the other hand, di'unkenness seems to have greatly increased dnrino- 
 the last few years in England, where drinking in public-honses is per- 
 mitted for many hours on the Sunday. It appears from the police reports, 
 that in 1856 there were apprehended in Manchester, from 10 a.m. on the 
 Saturdays to 10 a.m. on the Mondays, in the whole year, 417 drunken per- 
 sons ; in the year 1 862 the aggregate number of drunken persons appre- 
 hended on those days was 1824. A larger proportion of these apprehensions 
 occurred on the Sunday, and till 10 a.m. on Monday, than on the Saturday. 
 The total number of cases before the Manchester magistrates for drunken- 
 ness in 1862 was 3373; of these cases, 1824 had reference to the 
 Saturdays and Sundays, the remaining 1 549 to the other five days of the 
 week ; so that the whole number for the Saturdays in the year may be 
 taken at 912, that for the Sundays at 912, and the aggregate for each of 
 the other days at 310. The following is a table of public-house and beer- 
 house offences for 1 862 : — 
 
 Gross total of public-houses in Man- 
 chester 
 
 Gross total of beer-houses . 
 
 Number of 
 Houses 
 
 Total 
 Ueported 
 
 Offences 
 
 Week 
 Dajs 
 
 Sundaj's 
 
 482 
 1792 
 
 59 
 595 
 
 13 
 
 136 
 
 46 
 459 
 
 The foregoing is from a most valuable and excellent address issued by 
 the "Derbyshire Lord's Day Society." 
 
 Can any rational being dare to say that the time has not arrived for 
 renewed restrictive legislation for England ? (for Manchester is a fair 
 type of large towns generally). Every police magistrate in the exercise of 
 his judicial functions knows the intimate connection subsisting between 
 licentiousness and Sunday-opened beershops. 
 
 Overwhelming testimony exists as to the good, or the harm felt by 
 human (and animal) beings, according as they are permitted to enjoy the 
 Sabbath day's rest or not.* 
 
 Dr. Farre's opinion, given before a Select Committee of the House of 
 Commons in 1832, has obtained a wide circulation. He says : — "All men, 
 of whatever class, who must necessarily be occupied six days in the week, 
 should abstain on the seventh, and in the course of life would assuredly 
 gain by giving to their bodies the repose, and to their minds the change 
 of ideas, suited to the day for which it was appointed by unerring wisdom. 
 I have frequently observed the premature death of medical men from con- 
 tinual exertion. I have advised the clergyman, in lieu of his Sabbath, to 
 rest one day in the Aveek : it forms a continual prescription of mine. I 
 have seen many destroyed by their duties on that day, and to preserve 
 others I have frequently suspended them for a season from the discharge 
 of those duties. The working of the mind in one continued strain of 
 thought is destructive of life in the most distinguished class of society, 
 and senators themselves stand in need of reform in that particular, I 
 have observed many of them destroyed by neglecting this economy of 
 
 A large number of citations on this point will be found in Gilfillan's valuable
 
 14 The Sunday Question. Boos I. 
 
 life." {Report of Commit fee on iSahhath Ohservance, p. 119.) The cele- 
 brated. Wilberforce also made tliis remark about several Parliamentary 
 contemporaries. (Venn, in Scott's Discourse on Wilherforce, p. 32, note.) 
 
 Dr. Carpenter, in 1852, wrote :—" My own experience is very strong 
 as to the importance of the complete rest and change of thought once in 
 the week." 
 
 In 1853, in petitioning Parliament against the opening of the Crystal 
 Palace on Sunday, 641 London medical men said. : — " Your petitioners, 
 from their acquaintance with the labouring classes, and with the laws 
 which regulate the human economy, are convinced that a seventh day of 
 rest, instituted by God, and coeval with the existence of man, is essential 
 to the bodily health and mental vigour of men in every station of life." — 
 (Association Medical Journal, vol. i. p. 554. June 24, 1853.) 
 
 Sir David Wilkie once said : — " Those artists who wrought on Sunday 
 were soon disqualified from working at all." — (The Sabbath at Home and 
 Abroad, p. 117.) 
 
 The Editor of the ^^ Standard " some years ago recorded his experience 
 in these words :■ — " We never knew a man work seven days a week who 
 did not kill himself or kill his mind." 
 
 Sir William Blackstone, Lord Chief Justice of England, speaks with 
 authority : — -" The keeping of one day in seven holy as a time of relaxa- 
 tion and refreshment, as well as for piiblic worship, is of admirable service 
 to a state, considered merely as a civil institution. It humanises by the 
 help of conversation and society the manners of the lower classes, which 
 would otherwise degenerate into a sordid ferocity and savage selfishness 
 of spirit. It enables the industrious workman to pursue his occupation in 
 the ensuing week with health and cheerfulness ; it imprints on the minds 
 of the people that sense of their duty to God, so necessary to make them 
 good citizens, but which yet would be worn out and defaced by an unre- 
 mitting continuance of labour without any stated times of recalling them 
 to the worship of their Maker." — (Commentaries, vol. iv. p. 63.) 
 
 Elsewhere Sir William says : — " A corruption of morals usually follows 
 a profanation of the Sabbath." 
 
 The Count de Montalembert, a Frenchman, and a Romanist besides, 
 declares : — " II n'y a pas de religion sans culte, et il n'y a pas de culte sans 
 dimanche.' 
 
 Lord Macaulat may fairly be regarded as a witness not likely to be 
 over-biassed on our side. WTiat said the noble lord ? — If the Sunday 
 had not been observed as a day of rest, but the axe, the spade, the anvil, 
 and the loom, had been at work every day during the last three centuries, 
 I have not the smallest doubt that we should have been at this moment a 
 poorer people, and a less civilised people than we are. Of course I do not 
 mean that a man will not produce more in a week by working seven days 
 than by working six days. But I very much doubt whether at the end of 
 the year he will generally have produced more by working seven days a 
 week than by working six days a week, and I firmly believe that at the 
 end of twenty years he will have produced less by working seven days 
 a week than by working six days a week. — (Speeches, jip. 450-1.) 
 
 Wilberforce " well remembers that during the war, when it was pro- 
 posed to work all Sunday in one of the Royal manufactories for a continu- 
 ance, not for an occasional service, it was found that the workmen who 
 obtained Government consent to abstain from working on Sundays 
 executed in a few months more work than the others." — (Life, vol. i. p.
 
 Book I. The Sunday Question. i ^ 
 
 275.) The American and French Governments have testified to the same 
 effect. 
 
 Commercial undertakings in England tell the same tale. 
 
 Mr. Bagnall, a large iron master, discontinncd Sunday work in 1839, 
 and two years after he stated to a Select Committee of the House of 
 Lords : — " We have made rather more iron since we stopped on Sundays 
 than we did before." After a seven years' trial, this gentleman wrote : — 
 " We have made a larger quantity of iron than ever, and gone on in all our 
 six iron works much more free from accidents and interruptions than 
 during any preceding seven years of our lives."- — (Rev. J. T, Baylee's 
 Facts and Statistics, pp. 88-9.) 
 
 Dr. Livingstone, the African traveller, writes : — " On returning from 
 Moamba to the Sindi we found our luggage had gone on, and as the 
 chronometer was with it we had to follow it up on Sunday ; we all felt 
 sorely the want of the Sabbath through the following week. Apart from 
 any divine command, a periodical day of repose is absolutely necessary for 
 the human frame." — (The Zamhesi, p. 311.) 
 
 Mr. BiANCONi, the celebrated Irish coach proprietor, read a paper before 
 the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1843. He 
 stated that he found by experience that it was preferable to work a horse 
 eight miles every week day than six miles all days of the week, including 
 Sunday, besides obtaining an absolutely greater mileage of 4.8 against 42. 
 Proofs of the accuracy of this opinion could be multiplied to any extent. 
 N^ot long since a London cab-driver, whose master owned twenty-four 
 horses, told me that they had given up all Sunday work, because it was 
 more profitable to work six days than seven, the horses remaining longer 
 fit for work, and the men the same. No London cab-rider dare contradict 
 the assertion that during the last ten years an immense improvement has 
 taken place in the bearing of the London cabmen and the condition of 
 their vehicles and horses, in consequence of the extensive adoption of the 
 six-day license. For the omnibus men, no six-day license yet exists, and 
 can a worse set of men be found belonging to any public conveyances ? 
 Let an intelligent traveller compare the servants of the Great Northern 
 and London and North Western Railways, on which Sunday labour is 
 brought to a minimum, with those of the Gi'eat Eastern, Great Western, 
 and London and Brighton, where Sunday desecration, nurtm-ed and forced 
 in every possible way, has attained (as regards England) a maximum. 
 Can there be a moment's hesitation as to which set of men present the 
 superior character as regards civihty, jjliysique, &c. ; and, I add in all 
 confidence, can there he a doubt as to the cause ? 
 
 Now for a few words to a section of Churchpeople who pride themselves 
 on their attachment to, and veneration for, the Church of England and 
 her Prayer Book. 
 
 In her Xlllth Canon, the Church says : — 
 
 " All manner of persons within the Church of England shall from hence- 
 forth celebrate and keep the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday, and 
 all other Holydays, according to God's will and pleasure, and the Order 
 of the Chui'ch of England prescribed in that behalf; that is, in hearing the 
 Word of God read and taught ; in private and public prayers ; in ac- 
 knowledging their offences to God, and amendment of the same ; in 
 reconciling themselves charitably to their neighbours, where displeasure 
 hath been ; in oftentimes receiving the Communion of the Body and
 
 i6 The Sunday Question. Book I. 
 
 Blood of Christ ; in visiting the poor and sick, using all godly and sober 
 conversation." 
 
 And in her Prayer Book she sets before her members tlie 4tli command- 
 ment every time the Communion Service is read. Now, if these circum- 
 stances mean one thing more than another, they mean that tlie Clmrch. of 
 England recognises and lends the sanction of her authority to the perpetual 
 alligation of a strict olservance of Sunday as a day of religious occupations, 
 and abstinence from everything secular and worldly. * 
 
 Now a section of Churchpeople declaim very eloquently and vigorously 
 against a " Pmitanical observance of the Sabbath" as if the old Puritans 
 desired to advocate any novelties in this matter. Sunday is the common 
 property of the whole human race, and not of any one branch of the 
 Cathohc Church, or of any one sect ; it belongs to all, and therefore to 
 associate it with any one set of persons indicates a want of acquaintance 
 with the ti-ue bearings of the question. To reject the strict observance of 
 Sunday because Puritans happened to obtain celebrity for supporting it, 
 would be as great an absurdity as to reject Episcopacy because Rome 
 supports it. How reprehensible then and unchurchlike is the conduct of 
 " High " Churchmen who advocate museums, jDarties, and secular holiday- 
 • making as desirable finales to attendance at Church once a day in the 
 morning. I once heard a clergyman at the West-end of London, the 
 Rev. E. S., preach a sermon to this effect, and could only make the 
 consolmg reflection that there were not many such misguided men in 
 the ministry of the Church of England. The Rev. W. R. has recently 
 received from liis Bishop a valuable preferment at the East-end of London. 
 This individual boasted before a committee of the House of Commons, 
 in 1 860, that frequently during the summer, when he could afford it, he 
 took parties of his parishioners down to Hampton Court on Sunday 
 afternoons ! 
 
 In favouring strong restrictions on Sunday desecration, I desire them 
 to be applied to all classes alike : to the rich no less than the poor. 
 A vast weight of responsibility rests with the former. So long as they ride 
 out in their carriages on Sundays in the parks, &c., and the Royal Family 
 have military bands to amuse them, doubtless our work will be hampered. 
 The analogy sometimes drawn by artful secularists between the poor man's 
 public-house and the rich man's club is a very lame one. The frequenter 
 of the beershop visits that place to drink, either by himself or with friends. 
 The London Clubs, or the majority of them, are necessities to a gi*eat por- 
 tion of their members ; some of them providing beds are hotels, except in 
 name ; others are virtually such, by being places of resort for breakfasts, 
 dinners and suppers, for their members, who are never absent from them 
 except for their actual beds. For all this, the condition of club servants, 
 and in fact of all domestic servants, might be much ameliorated if their 
 superiors would forbear from unnecessarily claiming their services. 
 
 The closing of the parks to carriages and musicians would be an 
 achievement well worth ^considerable exertion to obtain. I hope some 
 day to see an agitation to that end successfully carried out. 
 
 * Further illustrations of what is stated in the text will be found in the Vllth Article 
 and the XXth Homily.
 
 Book I. The Sunday Question. 17 
 
 SUGGESTIONS FOR PROMOTING THE DUE OBSERVANCE 
 OF SUNDAY, ADDRESSED TO EVERYBODY. 
 
 1. Never post letters on Saturday, unless for delivery by some local 
 post on the same day ; never write or post them on Sunday, except in cases 
 of real necessitJ^ 
 
 2. Arrange, if possible, that letters requiring answers shall not reach 
 their destinations on Saturday ; and thus hold out any inducement for 
 replies to be sent by the Sunday post. 
 
 3. Never on Sundays pay worldly visits, make up accounts, &c., or 
 jilan schemes for the ensuing week. 
 
 4. Avoid unnecessary cooking on Sunday ; be content with a cold 
 dinner, &c. &c. 
 
 [There are many Httle ways in which heads of families may lessen the 
 work of their domestics which cannot be particularised here.] 
 
 5. Always loalh to Church, unless sickness or infirmity imperatively 
 necessitates your riding : in which case go early, that your servants be 
 not kept away. 
 
 [The bad habit of running after "popular preachers" causes much 
 needless Sunday labour to be forced on those who are not their own 
 masters by those who are. An omnibus driver some years ago spoke in 
 the following strong terms to a clergyman who was riding by his side on 
 a week-day and conversing with him on the subject : " Sir, there is not 
 a man living that would delight to spend his Sabbath with his family 
 more than I should and go to Church on Sunday, but it is you religious 
 people that prevent me. Upon this line my master finds the omnibus 
 pay better on the Sunday than on any other day of the week, and why is 
 it ? Simpty because people make use of me to drive them to their 
 churches and chapels."] 
 
 6. When hiring cabs in London, be particular to give the preference to 
 those having five-figure numbers {e.g. 10,487) : such have six-day licences, 
 that is to say, they do not work at all on Sunday. It is a good plan to 
 tell the driver why 3'ou select him. 
 
 [Christian members of Vestries, Town Councils, Local Commissions, 
 and Boards, may do much service by promoting the adoption of analogous 
 regulations.] 
 
 7. Never go pleasure-taking on Sunday: no good will come of it: 
 probably much harm. 
 
 [Remember Clayton Tunnel on Sunday, August 25, 1 861, when 100 
 Sabbath- breakers suffered, defying God.] 
 
 8. On Saturday night put aside all newspapers, &c., that there be no 
 temptation given to any to read them on the follo^\ang day. 
 
 9. On no account buy anything of a tradesman who keeps his shop 
 open on a Sunday, but expostulate with him, as opportunity offers. 
 
 I o. Follow the various admonitions of the Bible, quoted in these pages. 
 
 11. Help with your time and money, those who are labouring to jmt 
 down Sunday desecration. The Lord's Day Observance Society (office, 20 
 John Street, Adelphi, W.C.) is well worthy the support of every Christian 
 Englishman. 
 
 12. And finally let each, under whose notice these suggestions may 
 fall, endeavour to persuade his friends to adopt them. Much good may 
 thus be done.
 
 The Sunday Question. Book I, 
 
 APPENDIX TO BOOK I, 
 
 IMPORTANT TESTIMONY AGAINST SUNDAY EXCURSION TRAINS. 
 
 The following is selected from a leading article in HerapatKs Railway Journal (Jan. lo, 
 1863), one of the most important organs of the railway press in this country : 
 
 " It is a fact that the best paying railway companies in this country, excepting one, set 
 their faces against Sunday excursions. 
 
 " All things considered, it is doubtful whether Sunday excursion trains 'pay.' . . , 
 We say, let the matter be inquired into, and let it be ascertained whether excursion trains 
 on the Sunday are profitable or unprofitable. If they do not pay, there can be no reason, 
 human or divine, for keeping up a practice which is viewed as imdoubtedly ' wrong' by 
 some of the best amongst us. If excursions trains do pay, it might be a question whether 
 they should be continued in the teeth of the adverse opinions of those who ought to be the 
 best judges of what is morally right. 
 
 " We have heard it said, ' What can the poor labourer do if the Sunday excursion train 
 is taken off ; labouring all the week long, the luxury of a run into the country will be 
 foreign to him, if he can't take it on Sunday ? ' This is not the language of a poor 
 labourer himself. What does he do when he prefers a short run on the common road to 
 a long one on a railway, spending the whole day out ? He goes on Monday, as a matter 
 of choice; but some of the railway companies tempt him to a railway trip on Sunday, and, 
 perhaps, by their arrangements, compel him to prefer Sunday to Monday for the health- 
 inspiring run, if performed by rail. Necessary Sunday trains may be all very well, but 
 the present question is, whether the professed pleasure ones, which induce the multitude 
 to travel by fares monstrously low, should be continued. The Bishops are dead against 
 them on high grounds On the lower grounds of commercial advantage to the com- 
 panies themselves, the result of an investigation would probably be a recommendation to 
 discontinue them. 
 
 " Excursion trains must add to the work of the railway officials, who are generally in 
 the six days worked up to the full extent of their powers of endurance. We should, 
 therefore, think that the abandonment of the Sunday excursion train would be hailed with 
 joy by many a pointsman, guard, engine-driver, ticket-taker, porter, and money-taker, 
 and that the efficiency of these hands and heads would be all the greater for a relaxation 
 from business usually accorded to people in this country. 
 
 "Forced Sunday work, as great as on ordinary days, and which is diametrically opposed 
 in character to that commonly performed during the day of rest in this country, is hardly 
 calculated to attract to the service of railways tlie best class of servants." 
 
 SUNDAY BATTLES. 
 " The late terrible struggle at Pittsbui'g adds another to the long list of Sunday battles. 
 The facts are so clear in this and numerous other conflicts, and the resiilts have been so 
 uniform and decisive, that comment is not only warranted but demanded, alike by phi- 
 losophy, patriotism, and piety. The general statement cannot be gainsaid, that the more 
 important movements of the national forces, in the early stages of the present war, were 
 made on Sunday, and that they were undeniable failures. Patterson's column was 
 constantly notorious for its manoeuvring on Sunday, and for little else. Big Bethel, Bull 
 Run, and Ball's Bluff were the great blunders and defeats of attacking armies on Simday. 
 All these engagements, excepting Bail's Bluff, under the now-imprisoned General Stone, 
 preceded General M'Clellan's noble Sabbath order. Thenceforward the rebels have made 
 the Sunday assaults, with invariable loss of the battles thus waged. Mill Spring opened 
 their career of Sunday fighting, which closes with Pittsburg. The battle of Winchester 
 was begun on Sunday morning. The first of these battles cost the rebels Kentucky ; 
 the second, the valley of Virginia; and the third, the Mississippi Valley. The Men-imac, 
 too, after its destructive Satiu-day's raid, ran a muck against the Monitor on Sunday, and 
 has spent a month in repairing damages. Add to these facts, that most of the generals 
 commanding, whose names figure as assailants in these battles, were slain in them, or are 
 in disgrace on account of them, and there is food for reflection in these bits of history. 
 What has become of our General Pierce, of Big Bethel memory? What of General 
 Stone ? Where are Zollicoffer and Sydney Johnston ? In short, since we have ceased 
 the business of Sunday fighting, and tlie rebels took it up, we have had only victories to 
 record, and they only defeats and surrenders. Fort Donnelson and Island No. 10 were 
 our Sunday morning benison on week-day prowess. Nor are these isolated histoi'ical
 
 Book I. The Simclay Question. 
 
 facts. History is full of them, The British forces assailed us on Lake Champlain and 
 at New Orleans on Sunday, and were defeated. We assailed them at Quebec ; our army 
 was repulsed, and its leader slain. We began the battle of Monmouth, and had the worst 
 of it. Napoleon began the battle of Waterloo, and lost his army and his empire. The 
 battle of Blenheim, which has been repeatedly cited by the Herald, with its usual 
 accuracy, as a successful Sunday battle, was not fought on Sunday, but began on Wednes- 
 day. We content ourselves with the simple collation of these suggestive facts. Let 
 them go to swell that mighty volume of testimony to the supremacy and stability of a law 
 as old as Creation, which claims quite another iise of one-seventh part of time than the 
 work of willing human butchery." — {New York Times, April n, 1862.) 
 
 THE FOEBES MACKENZIE ACT OF SCOTLAND. 
 
 In 1859 the enemies of the Lord's Day influenced the Government to appoint a Royal 
 Commission to inquire into the operations of this celebrated enactment. The result was 
 satisfactory in a remarkable degree, much to the chagrin of the agitators. No less than 
 749 witnesses were examined, and the Commissioners report as follows : 
 
 " The improvement in large towns has been most remarkable. Whereas formerly on 
 Sunday mornings numbers of persons in every stage of intoxication -were seen issuing 
 from the public houses, to the great annoyance of tlie respectable portion of the population 
 on their way to church, the streets are now quiet and orderly, and few cases of drunken- 
 ness are seen. The evidence of the police authorities proved that, while there has been a 
 considerable diminution in the number of cases of drunkenness and disorder since the 
 passing of the Act 16 and 17 Vict. cap. 67, the change has been more marked on Sunday 
 than on any other day of the week. Employers of labour, and workmen themselves, 
 were unanimous in testifying to the great improvement that had taken place in the regu- 
 larity of attendance at work on Monday morning ; and many publicans examined before 
 us expressed themselves as grateful for the existing law, regarding the cessatioji of business 
 on Sunday as a boon of which they would tiot willingly be deprivaW 
 
 A RAILWAY MANAGER'S OPINION. 
 
 " Combe Wood, Bonchurch, Isle of Wight, Oct. 29, 1861. 
 
 " Mt dear Sir, — In answer to your enquiries, and your desire to have my opinion in 
 regard to Sunday excursion trains, gathpred from my eighteen years' experience as General 
 Manager of the L. and N.-W. Railway, I can only say that during that time no excursion 
 trains ever ran on Sunday ; and I am satisfied that while the interests of the proprietors 
 did not suffer, the discipline and character of the company were promoted. I have had a 
 large experience of excursion traffic, and was always very favourable to its development ; 
 but I believe no company ultimately benefits by working its system to the extent of seven 
 days a week, and that by a well-arranged system of Saturday trains, returning on 
 Monday, an equal pecuniary return, at a much less cost, is produced. Putting the 
 question, therefore, on the lowest ground of argument, I have no hesitation in saying, 
 that a railway company consults its true interests in restraining Sunday work within as 
 narrow limits as possible. The Scotch railways, as a whole, pay better than the English 
 ones, and there the work on Sunday is reduced to a minimum. 
 
 " Yours very truly, 
 
 "Rev. H. V. Elliot, Brighton." " M. Huish. 
 
 One of the numerous evils connected, bid not inseparably, with the railway system, is 
 the undue haste with which contractors press forward the completion of new works, 
 especially under circumstances mainly brought about by want of due energy and foresight 
 at the outset. A consequence of this is very obvious — Sunday Labour. Mi.ss Marsh, 
 discussing this matter, makes the following very practical suggestion : " If each proprietor 
 of land through whose ground the railway passes would not sell it without making a 
 stipulation that the working man should have his seventh day's rest secured, he would 
 bring down a blessing on both sotils and bodies, and would find that the Lord of the 
 Sabbath would repay him sevenfold into his bosom. And if tliis became an integral part 
 of railway contracts, the contractors would bestir themselves at first to secure a large 
 number of men, and so ' take time by the forelock.' " — {English Hearts and Hands, p. 350.) 
 
 I understand that a gentleman in Kent, now deceased, always made the insertion of 
 certain clauses limiting the number of trains to stop on Sundays at stations on his 
 property a sine qua non to Railway Bills receiving his assent as a landowner. Tliis must 
 be characterised as an excellent plan.
 
 20 The Sunday Question. Book I. 
 
 SUNDAY SLAVERY ON RAILWAYS. 
 A meeting of the signal and switch-men employed upon the various metropolitan rail- 
 ways was held in Loudon on Nov. 8, 1865. There was a very large attendance. Mr, 
 living, of the Brighton line, took the chair. He said that the meeting had been called 
 by a committee of men employed upon the Erighton and South Eastern lines, for the 
 purpose of establishing a society, by means of which it was hoped they would obtain an 
 amelioration of the many grievances under which they laboured, the ■princi'pul of which were 
 lo7ig hours and short pay. If the fuhlic became fidly alive to the dangers they were always 
 exposed to while travelling by railway, consequent upon the overworking of the signalmen, 
 he felt sure they woidd support the men in their present efforts. Mr. Brown, of the South 
 Eastern, said he had been a signalman for 26 years, 16 of which he had served on the 
 Brighton line. For several years his wages were 246-. a week, with 36 trains a day to 
 look after; but the latter portion of his time he had no less than 300 trains daily to look 
 to, and he then obtained a rise of i*-. per week. He was compelled to be in his signal- 
 box 12 and 14 hours at a time, and to get his meals while attending to his duties. Mr. 
 Emery said he had been a signalman on the London, Chatham, and Dover line for 6 years, 
 and his hours of labour were 1 2 on each of the 6 days of the week, and 1 8 on Sundays 
 (shame). During the 6 years he had been off duty but 3 days. His wages were 26.S. per 
 week. Mr. Masters said he was a signalman at the West London Railway, sometimes 
 working 12 hours every day for 6 days, and 1% on Sundays. His wages were 26s. per 
 week, and when he asked for more money he was told he might leave it if he didn't like 
 it. He was compelled to snatch his food in the best way he could, there being no time allowed 
 for meals. If railway companies consulted their own interests they would work their 
 signalmen less hours, and not have to pay so much compensation money for accidents. 
 Mr. Pitcher, signalman at Stewart's Lane Junction, on the London, Chatham, and Dover 
 line, stated he had been on duty 48 hours at one time, and he had then only obtained 5 
 hours' rest before going upon duty again (shame). Several other signalmen made similar 
 statements. 
 
 SUNDAY LABOUR IN THE POST OFFICE. 
 
 In connection with the observations on p. 17, something further may be said. There is 
 no delivery of letters on Sundays in London or the district 12 miles round, in Newcastle- 
 on-Tyne, Gateshead, and many smaller English towns, and in nearly the whole of Scot- 
 land, representing a population of upwards of 4,000,000. It is desired to extend a similar 
 measure of relief to all the letter-carriers of the United Kingdom. 
 
 The British Postal Guide for January 1866 contains the following official notices: — 
 (i) "Any person can have his letters, &c. retained in the Post Office on Sundays by 
 addressing to the Postmaster a written request, duly signed, to that effijct." (2) " If the 
 persons who receive six-sevenths of the Sunday correspondence of any rural district sign 
 a memorial to the Postmaster-General in favour of the discontinuance of the Sunday 
 post, the Sunday deliveries will be stopped." 
 
 Persons desirous of helping the letter-carriers in their effi)rts to secure Sunday rest 
 cannot do better than assist in circulating Sunday Postal Delivery: an Appeal for Pro- 
 vincial Postmen. (Suter and Alexander, 32 Cheapside, E.C. 6d. per 100.) An over- 
 whelming majority of letter-receivers are willing to give to the postman his Sunday's rest, 
 if the matter is only brought home to them. A carrier, who applied for 500 of these 
 papers, stated in his letter, "I am one of those unfortunate fellows that has as much work 
 to do on Sundays as any other day." The papers were supplied, and a few weeks after- 
 wards he wrote as follows : — " I am getting on first rate ; nearly done Sunday work. I 
 have got nearly all the people in my district to sign those papers, and I think in about 
 another week or two my Sunday work will be stopped altogether. I have got somewhere 
 about between 300 or 400 people that have signed, and I do not think that there will be 
 more than 7 or 8 people stand out." This man, whose walk was nineteen miles a day, is 
 now quite free from Sunday work, and besides the higher reasons for congratulation, is 
 saved 1000 miles of walking a year. 
 
 A correspondent, writing from a town where the above handbill has been extensively 
 circulated, says: — "Many of the postmen find their Sunday morning's work much 
 lightened. I heard of one man who had done last Sunday by a little after 7 in the 
 morning; another who only had 9 letters, I believe, to take out; and another told me that 
 h" left something like 200 letters in the office."
 
 
 Book II. 
 
 Part I.— ITS OUTWARD ORDER. 
 
 The following passages are cited to show that the spirit and tenour of 
 Holy Scripture have been followed by the Church in her rites and cere- 
 monies. It is not contended that single texts of Scripture, especially 
 those taken from the Old Testament, do of themselves authorise the 
 customs of the Church ; but it is something to know, that, in arranging 
 her services and ceremonial, the Church has followed, as near as may be, 
 those general principles of Divine worship wliich alone received the 
 sanction and were under the special direction of Almighty God in 
 old time ; and in most instances were adopted by express Divine 
 command. 
 
 I. — The Edifices of the Church. 
 
 Exodns xxix. 44. — " I will sanctify the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar : 
 I will sanctify also both Aaron and his sons, to minister to Me in the priest's office." 
 
 Dtutero)io7>it/ xii. 13-14. — " Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt- oiferings 
 in every place that thou seest: but in the place that the Lord shall choose in one of thy 
 tribes."' 
 
 Exodus xl. 34. — " Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and tlie glory of 
 the Lord filled the tabernacle." 
 
 I. Kings viii. — The dedication of Solomon's temple. 
 
 Ezra vi. 16-17. — The dedication of the second temple. 
 
 I. Corinthians xi. 22. — " What ! have ye not houses to eat and to drink in ? or despise 
 ye the Church of God ? " 
 
 Some think little or nothing of the consecration of churches, and that 
 any buildings will do for public worship. I venture, however, to believe ■ 
 that systematic juiblic worship in any but a consecrated edifice, is tvholly 
 univarnmted Inj Hcrijjture. If not, why in the instances referred to above 
 were so many ceremonies gone through in the dedication of the several 
 edifices to the public service of God ? Those who argue against such 
 evidence can only repudiate this Old Testament authority, as Dissenters 
 do in Church-and-State matters. The Church of England in requiring 
 her churches and churchyards to be consecrated, follows the us;ige of the 
 Christian Church from, time immemorial, and, as we learn above, o\' tlie
 
 22 The Church of England Tested. Book ti. 
 
 Jewish Churcli also. That no particular reference is made in the New- 
 Testament to the consecration of buildings for Christian worship, is 
 explained by the well-known fact that the persecution to which the 
 Church was subjected in the early days of Christianity, and for some 
 time subsequent to the closing of the New Testament canon, prevented 
 the erection of such structures ; but the last of the above quotations 
 clearly shows that a distinction was contemplated even in Apostolic times 
 between Churches and ordinary houses. 
 
 I. Kings vi. ; II. Chronicles iii., iv. 
 
 A minute description is given in these chapters of the temple built by 
 Solomon. From the desciiption handed down to us, Solomon's temple 
 must have been a structure of great beauty and magnificence. So the 
 churches we build for God's worship should be constructed of the very 
 best materials at our command, and as beautiful and costly as our 
 resources will allow. If we erect magnificent dwelling-houses or build- 
 ings for secular purposes, how much more ought we to erect magnificent 
 buildings for God. " The king [David] said . . . See now, I dwell in an 
 house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains." (II. Sain. 
 vii. 2.) 
 
 2. — The Ministers of the Church. 
 
 Hebrews v. 1-4. — " For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men 
 in things pertaining to God .... and no man taketh this honour ten to himself, but 
 he that is called of God, as was Aaron." 
 
 Acts vi. 6. — " Whom they set before the apostles ; and when they had prayed, they [the 
 apostles] laid their hands on them." [St. Stephen and others, candidates for the minis- 
 terial office.] 
 
 Acts xiii. 3. — "And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, 
 they sent them away." 
 
 I. Timothy iv. 14.— "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by pro- 
 phecy, with the laying on of the hands of the jrreshytery ." 
 
 II. Timothy i. 6. — " AVherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of 
 God which is in thee by the putting on of hands." 
 
 Acts xiv. 23. — "And when they had ordained them elders in every church," &c. 
 
 I. Corinthians xii. 28-29. — " ^"^^ Grod hath set some in the church, first apostles, 
 secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers .... Are all apostles ? Are all prophets ? 
 Are all teachers ? " See also Ejihesians iv. 11. 
 
 Titus i. 5. — "For this cause left I [Paul] thee [Titus] in Crete, that thou shouldest set 
 in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed 
 thee." 
 
 Jeremiah xxiii. 21. — " God said, ' I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran.'" 
 
 Eonians x. 1 5 " And how shall they preach except they be sent ? " 
 
 These verses bring under our notice the commission to confer the 
 power to minister, first as deacons, secondly as priests, and tliirdly as 
 biyhops, transmitted by our Saviour, through the apostles, to (inter alios) 
 the bishops of the early British Church, founded independent of Rome, 
 in the second century * of the Christian era, and handed down by them 
 
 * About the year 190 a.d., Lucius, a British king, endowed the Church richly, founded 
 Archbishoprics and Bishoi^rics, and built seven new churches. York and London were of 
 the number of the sees then founded. If a certain statement of St. Clement's (in his 
 Efistola ad Corinthos, sect. 7) be interpreted litei'ally, it follows that the British Church 
 was founded by St. Paul himself; and Archbishop Usher and others take this view of the 
 matter. This Epistle was written in or about the year 98 a.d.
 
 Part I. Its Outivard Order. 
 
 23 
 
 through their successors to the existing bishops of the Chu^rches of 
 England, Scotland, Ireland, the Colonies, and America. 
 
 Dissenters, in general, ridicule this ordinance, and many of them flatly 
 violate St. Paul's warning, inasmuch as they do take this honour to them- 
 selves, by pre/e?if?/»^ that they can, of themselves, legitimately become 
 Ministers of the Gospel, in the special sense of the word. 
 
 The Church rightly set herself against such irregular proceedings by 
 requiring every candidate for holy functions to be carefully trained, 
 before he undergoes the laying on of hands ; in other words, before he is 
 ordained (Heb. v. i). In the case of Dissenters, even if theii' preachers 
 do receive preliminary training, as is now sometimes the case, they set at 
 nought the Apostolic institution of the lapng on of the hands of a 
 bishop. Bishop Home has some powerful remarks on this subject, 
 which will be found under II. Chron. xxvi. 19, in D'Oyly and Mant's 
 Cominentarij. « 
 
 The verse cited last draws our attention to the fact that even under the 
 Jewish dispensation unauthorised teachers intruded themselves into holy 
 functions; and the cases of Korah (Num. xvi. 3), Saul (I. Sam. xiii. 9), 
 and Jeroboam (I. Kings xii. 31), may be mentioned as striking illustra- 
 tions of the light in which self-appointed spiritual guides are regarded by 
 the Lord of Hosts. 
 
 Eomans xv. 20. — " Yea, so have I strived to preach the Gospel, not -n-here Christ was 
 named, lest 1 should build upon another man's foundation y 
 
 Is this a scruple which ever affects the mind of a Dissenting teacher ? 
 I fear not. 
 
 Exodus xxviii. 39-43. — The priests are all to be robed in fine linen "when they come 
 unto the tiibernacle of the congregation, or when they come near nnto the altar to minister 
 in the holy place." 
 
 Whence the Church of England, follo-wlng also the practice of the 
 Christian Church from the earhest ages, appoints her priests to wear 
 white linen surphces, as representing the purity and innocence wherewith 
 God's ministers ought to be clothed. 
 
 Durand (an old Church writer of the 13th century) remarks on the 
 girdle of the ephod spoken of in verse 9 of the following chapter (Ex. 
 xxix.) ; that as the garments used by the Jewish priests were girt tight 
 about them to signify the hcmdage of the law, so the looseness of the sur- 
 plices worn by the Christian priests points to the freedom of the Gospel. 
 
 II. Chronicles Y. iz. — " The Levites, which were the singers .... being arrayed 
 in white linen .... stood at the east end of the altar." 
 
 The Church of England, copying the custom named in this verse, has 
 the clearest authority for jiermitting singers (i.e. choristers) to be clothed 
 in white surplices, and to be placed at the eastern end of the church in 
 which they sing (i.e. in the chancel). 
 
 I. Chronicles xv. 16. — "And David spake to the chief of the Levites to appoint their 
 brethren to be the singers with instruments of music, psalteries and harps and cymbals." 
 
 Instruments of music for use in public worship can hardly deserve the 
 opprobrious epithets applied to them by many Dissenters ; seeing that they 
 have once been sanctioned by God.
 
 24 The Church of England Tested. Book II. 
 
 3. — The Public Worship of the Church. 
 
 Sf. Matthew xxi. 13. — "My house shall be called the house of pbayeh." 
 Many make preaching of more importance than prayer in public wor- 
 ship. The Church, in providing for both, but giving the higher place to 
 the latter, only adopts this strongly expressed wish of our Lord. 
 
 Acts xvi. 13. — "And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river-side, where 
 PEAYER was wont to be made." 
 
 Zeckariah viii. zi. — "And the inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying. Let 
 us go speedily to pray before the Lord." 
 
 II. Chronicles vii. 15. — "Now Mine eyes shall be open, and Mine ears attent unto the 
 PRAYER that is made in this place." [The temple.] 
 
 From these and other passages, where a stated place of worship is re- 
 ferred to, we are warranted in assuming that preaching was intended to 
 be subordinafe to praise and prayer, as our Church mahes it. If reference 
 should be made on the other side to our Saviour's open air preaching, I 
 should simply say that that does not apply here, as He was acting as a 
 missionary and not the duly appointed minister of any one town or 
 synagogue. It is wortby of mention that the Church has copied faith- 
 fally the ancient procedure as it is laid down in those few instances when 
 preaching is referred to, e.g. St. Luhe iv. 1 7 ; Acts xiii. 1 4. The Jews had 
 particular portions of Scripture for particular days, as has the Church. 
 Some few Dissenters even have expressed regret that they have no formal 
 calendar of Christian Seasons, and it seems not improbable that some- 
 thing of the kind may come into use among them along with set forms of 
 prayer. Signs of their yearning after the ritual of the Church are nu- 
 merous just now. Gothic architectui'e, organs, the weekly oSertory, 
 surplices, white neck-ties, &c., aU tell the same tale. 
 
 Hebrews xiii. 9. — " Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a 
 good thing that the heart be established." 
 
 I. Corinthians xiv. 40. — '• Let all things be done decently and in order." 
 
 St. Lulce xi. r-2. — " One of His disciples said unto Him, Lord, teach us to pray, as 
 John also taught his disciples. And He said unto them, "When ye pray, say, Our 
 Father," &c. 
 
 St. Matthew xxvi. 44. — " And He [Jesus] .... prayed the third time, saying 
 the same words." 
 
 II. Timothy i. 13. — " Hold fast the form of sound words." 
 
 The Church of England sets before all her members, as her guide and 
 theirs, Holy Scripture and her Liturgy, or Book of Common Prayer. A 
 settled form of prayer is authorised, having been used, by our Saviour, 
 and was previously used by the Jewish Church ; and that the Christian 
 Church in all ages has had forms, confirms their value as means by which, 
 with one mind and one mouth, the faithful can worship God in a decent 
 and orderly manner. The " form of sound words " is thought to allude to 
 some creed which the Early Christians were in the habit of reciting in 
 their public assemblies. Extemporaneous prayer (if desirable at times for 
 private use) in public worship has been weighed in. the balances and found 
 wanting. Amongst others, Mr. J. A. James, the late well-known dis- 
 senting preacher at Birmingham, has often lamented to his co-religionists 
 the dulness of many of their public prayers, and any frequenter of 
 " Re\'ival " and Prayer-meetings would, or at least rnuld, doubtless, say 
 .the same. Mr. James remarks : — " Uufortunatehj, for the interest of our
 
 Part I. ifo Outivcird Order, 25 
 
 prayer-meetings, the brethren who lead our devotions arc so ouiragcoui^hi 
 long and didl.'" '' We are often prayed into a good frame, and then prayed 
 out ao"ain." " It is also to be regretted that the prayers are so much alike in 
 the arrangement of the parts." — (Christian Fellowship, p. 56, 6th edition.) 
 
 Exodus xxix. 38-39. — A morning and evening sacrifice and service, daily throughout 
 the year, is enjoined by God. 
 
 Acts iii. I. - "Now Peter and John went up together into the temple, at the hour of 
 prayer, being the ninth hour." [3 p.m.] 
 
 In this latter verse we have the authority of two of the leading apostles 
 for the practice of attending daily public woi'ship, and the observance of 
 special hours of prayer. Surely, then, that which is founded upon Divine 
 authority, and confirmed by Apostolic practice, ought not to be disre- 
 garded or disapproved of by any who " call themselves Christians." 
 
 Romans xiv. 5. — "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every 
 day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own miud." 
 
 This verse affords an opportunity of saying a few words on the subject 
 of Saints' Day Commemorations. The Church of England in reforming 
 herself and revising her Liturgy 300 years ago, thought fit to abolish all 
 commemorations which did not relate to Christians celebrated in the 
 canon of the New Testament ; by this means she avoided the superstitions 
 of Rome, and confined herself to Primitive Apostolic usage, for we have 
 direct historical evidence to show that the Early Christians were in the 
 habit of holding special religious services on the anniversaries of the 
 deaths of the apostles and martyrs. — (Tertullian, De Corona Militis,ca]p. 3. 
 198 A.D.) 
 
 Saints' day commemorations are to be regarded as " things lawful, but 
 not essential," and those who dislike them should always act up to the 
 spirit of St. Paul's remarks in the 5th and 6th verses of Romans xiv. — 
 (See Hooker, Ecd. Pol. Bk. V. ch. Ixx. § 8.) 
 
 I. Corinthians is.. 14. — "Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the 
 Gospel should live of the Gospel." 
 
 Galatlans vi. 6. — "Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that 
 tcacheth in all good things." 
 
 The Apostle here strongly censures stinginess towards the clergy. 
 How many wealthy professing Churchmen seem to have no sense of their 
 duty, and the responsibility their wealth confers. Though they have 
 perhaps thousands a year, yet they seem to feel that they have done 
 all that is required of them when they have laid down the standard sum 
 of il. is. per annum. 
 
 I. Corinthians xvi. 2. — " Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him 
 in store as God hath prospered him." 
 
 St. Paul here recommends a weekly collection. The practice obtains in 
 some churches, might it not be extended to all ? As a matter of fact, it is 
 a most successful plan for inducing congregational benevolence, yet many 
 oppose it, thinking more of their purses and their own ease, than of their 
 Church's invitation to alms-giving. This .should not be. Great care 
 should, however, be taken to avoid all semblance of constraint on the 
 part of the collectors. On the example set forth in St. Matt. vi. 4, hags 
 are much preferable to plates or basins.
 
 26 The Church of England Tested. Book II. 
 
 Galatians vi. 9-10. — "And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we 
 shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all 
 men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." 
 
 In distributing alms, or conferring benefits, we are to give the 
 2Jreference to those 'who are of the household of faith.' 
 
 St. Matthew xxviii. 19. — " Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 Here we have the institution of the first of those two sacraments which 
 is declared in our Church Catechism to be " generally necessary to salva- 
 tion." A large body of sectaries repudiate infant baptism as an absurdity.* 
 They are deaf to all argument drawn from analogy, precedent, or 
 tradition, and declare it, to suit their own whims, to be a malpractice. 
 Baptism in the Christian Church, is simply a graft upon the Jewish rite 
 of circumcision, performed when the child was eight days old. If a change 
 was to have been introduced in the Christian dispensation, the former 
 method of initiation into the Jewish covenant at infancy being superseded 
 by an adult initiation into the Christian, it is morally certain that the 
 new procedure would have been explicitly enjoined in the New Testament. 
 It may further be remarked that if Anti-pa^dobaptists can satisfy their 
 own minds that " all nations" only means all grown up people, then a more 
 barefaced perversion of the plain and literal meaning of words can scarcely 
 be conceived. A similar perversion, not in this case of words only, oc- 
 curs in those cases in which whole households were baptized ; we are 
 gratuitously asked to presume that there were no children in these house- 
 holds. The positive testimony of contempoi-ary Church historians that 
 the baptism of infants was actually practised in the times of the Apostles, 
 ought to settle the question. But these new-fangled folks, carrying the 
 very proper right of private judgment to a most extreme limit, set them- 
 selves up as popes, and defy all constituted authority and teaching. 
 
 Actsx'm. 14-17. — "Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Sa- 
 maria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John : who, when 
 they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost : (for 
 as yet he was fallen upon none of them : only they were baptized in the name of the 
 Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." 
 
 Acts xix. 5-6. — " When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord 
 Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands iipon them, the Holy Ghost came on them." 
 
 These verses set forth the Church's rite of confirmation, which is un- 
 doubtedly of Apostolic origin, though railed at by Dissenters.f Those 
 who administer it have ever been held the chief pastors and governors of 
 the Church. Thus in this instance, when Samaria had received the word 
 of God, and had been baptized by Philip, a deacon or inferior minister, 
 Peter and John were sent to administer confirmation to them. And so it 
 has always been administered by the hands of bishops, the successors of 
 the Apostles, as is well known and attested through all ages of the Church. 
 The persons to whom it is administered are all baptized persons, com- 
 petently instructed in the principles of religion. Persons must first be 
 made members of the Church before they can receive the blessings pro- 
 mised and bestowed on it ; and thus it will be seen that confirmation is a 
 
 * Some excellent remarks on this subject will be found in the Eev. J. C. Kyle's E.r- 
 pository Thoughts on St. Mark, p. 205, in reference to St. Mark x. 14. 
 
 t It may surprise many of these to be told that Calvin upheld Confirmation as well as 
 Infant Baptism and Baptismal Kegeneration (Comm. Epist. Mebr.).
 
 Part I. Its Outiccivd Order. 27 
 
 most pi'oper and becoming rite to follow the introduction to the Christian 
 covenant, of which baptism is the first step. — (Hole.) 
 
 This Section may appropriately be concluded with a few remarks on 
 objections frequently made against certain phrases which occur in the 
 Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 1. In the Ceeed of St. Athanasius. — " Whosoever -mil be saved: before all things it is 
 necessary that lie hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole 
 
 and undefiled: without doubt he shall perish everlastingly This is the 
 
 CathoUc Faith : which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved." 
 
 The objection made to these " damnatory clauses," as they are called, 
 is a lamentable instance of the latitudinarian spirit of the age, by which 
 things considered by the Church to be essential to salvation are sought 
 to be quietly set aside to conciliate opponents. If the Catholic faith is 
 now to be regarded as an old-fashioned figment quite out of date in 
 these "Liberal" days of "Progress," then let Churchmen be plainly told 
 so ; let us be asked to declare at once that ' Whosoever will be saved, be- 
 fore all things it is quite superfluous and immaterial that he believe the 
 Catholic faith' — then we shall know what we are about. 
 
 2. In the office of Public Baptism. — " Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this 
 child is regenerate." * 
 
 This objection arises chiefly from the counfounding together " conver- 
 sion" and "regeneration," as words expressing the same meaning, which 
 is not the case.f Conversion is a change of feeling wrought in the 
 facilities, a turning to God after a life of sin. Regeneration is a 
 change of state or condition wrought by external (in this case Divine) 
 agency. 
 
 3. In the office of the Solemnization of Matrimony. — "With my body, I thee 
 worship." 
 
 The objection to the word worship simply proceeds from ignorance. 
 To worship here means to honour. The word is still used in this sense 
 in the phrase " His Worship the Mayor," and which means no more than 
 "His Honour," or "His Excellency the Mayor." In I. Ghron. xxix. 20, 
 we find " and all the congregation bowed down their heads and worshipped 
 the Lord and the King" [Solomon]. It is scarcely necessary to point 
 out that " worship " must bear some other meaning than the most usual 
 one. 
 
 4. In the office for the Visitation of the Sick. — " I absolve thee from all thy sins." 
 The meaning of these words directed to be used by the Visiting Priest, 
 
 * Compare the answer to Question 5 on the Sacraments, in the Church Catechism. 
 "Being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby [?'. e. by the act 
 of baptism] made the children of gi-ace." The passage in Acts ii. 38. — " Kepent and be 
 baptized .... for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost." And again. Acts xxii. 16. — "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins," 
 clearly intimate that some connexion subsists between the act of baptism and the remission 
 of sins. Compare I. St. Peter iii. 21. Wesley's views on this point I shall quote under 
 another head. For an irrefragable argument on the main question, see Sadler's. Church 
 Doctrine, p. 41, et seq. 
 
 t See Dr. NichoU's excellent remarks cited by Bishop Mant, in Xotcs to the Book oj 
 Common Prayer.
 
 28 Tlte Church of England Tested. Book II. 
 
 is obvious to every candid mind when read with the context. " By 
 Christ's authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in 
 the name of the Father," &c. Our Church does not direct her priests to 
 say, ' in my oion name and of my oivii power, I absolve thee from thy sins,' 
 but simply ' if thou be truly penitent, I am empowered to declare (and I 
 hereby do declare) to thee that Christ does remit thy sins, having com- 
 missioned me to be the person through whom that remission is to be 
 audibly conveyed.' 
 
 5. In tlie Burial Service. — " In sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life." 
 
 Possibly this passage might advantageously be verhallij revised, but a 
 
 little patient scrutiny will show that the Avords will not bear the sense 
 
 frequently put upon them. It is not said that ' we commit his body to 
 
 the gTOund in sure and certain hope of his resurrection to 
 
 eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ ; who shall change his vile 
 body,' &c., but "in sure and certain hope of the resurrection 
 who shall change oiir vile body," &c. The difference is most essential ; 
 there is clearly no impropriety in saying that the resurrection is certain, 
 or that the Christian's vile body will be changed. It is no shame on the 
 compilers of our Liturgy or on their apologists, to confess that their 
 language is not always so intelligible to the unlearned as it might be. I 
 think, however, that it may safely be said that few works stand less 
 in need of revision than the Prayer Book of the English Church. 
 
 Part II.— CHURCH AND STATE. 
 
 Very early in the Bible do we find the principle of the union of Church 
 and State showing itself, even as far back as B.C. cir. 191 3. 
 
 Genesis xiv. 1 8-20. — " And Melchizedek, King of Salem, brought forth bread and wine ; 
 and he was the Priest of the most high God. . . . And [Abraham] gave him tithes 
 of all" [the spoils]. 
 
 In Melchizedek were united the headship of the Church and the 
 headship of the State — the priestly office and the kingly. Moreover we 
 lind that the Priesthood was supported by tithes, exactly as the Clergy of 
 the Church of England are now maintained. St. Paul distinctly declares 
 (jffe?>. vii. 14, et seq.) that the new Priesthood of Christ was after [i.e. 
 accoi'ding to] the order of Melchizedek, i.e. an established order. If 
 Melchizedek's Priesthood was consistent with Christianity, and of course 
 it was, then an Established Priesthood, such as we have in England, 
 must of necessity be similarly consistent. It should also be noted 
 that this provision for the support of an established Faith had 
 nothing Jewish about it ; it preceded the Jewish or Mosaic polity by 
 422 years. 
 
 Genesis xxviii. 22. — Jacob makes a tow to choose the Lord for his God, and adds, " of 
 all that thou shalt give me, I will surely give the tenth unto Thee." 
 
 Taken in connection with other passages, this clearly goes to show the 
 existence of a settled order of priests, "and a settled and no doubt Divinely- 
 appointed payment for their support." — (Essays on the Church, p. 21.) In
 
 Part IT. Chuvch and State. 29 
 
 Lev. xxvii. 30, we find tithes spoken of in connection with the Church of 
 the Mosaic dispensation. 
 
 Job xxxi. 26-8. — Jub mentions that if by any waywardness he were led to worship the 
 Sun or the Moon, " this also uure an iniqxdty to be punished by the judge : for I shoukl 
 have denied the God that is above." cir. 1520 B.C. 
 
 Here we have a very ancient example of the power of the State to 
 interfere in religious matters. 
 
 Exodus xxviii. ; Numbers xviii., &c. &c. 
 
 In these chapters we find an account of how Moses (the chief earthly 
 Governor of the Israelites) by God's special commands set apart Aaron 
 and his family, and the tribe of Levi generally, to be the priests of the 
 nation ; in other words, how God, by the hand of Moses, constituted the 
 Jewish State-Church, cir. 1491 B.C. 
 
 My limits prevent me examining in detail the nature of this constitu- 
 tion, but amongst other things we find that the priests were distributed 
 over the country to act as ministers (Josh, xxi.). They were not left to 
 depend for subsistence upon the voluntary offerings of the people, but had 
 an adequate and definite provision of tithes secured to them by law 
 (N7im. xviii. 21) ; they were, in fact, an endowed Ministry, — their endow- 
 ments secured to them by the civil power. In every one of these respects 
 is the Established Church of England an imitation, a fac-simile of the 
 ancient Jewish Church. 
 
 Unquestionably, then, the Jewish Church was a State-Church, and, 
 what is more, was made so by God Himself. " Dissenters themselves are 
 compelled to allow this [Wardlaw, &c.] ; the evidence is too strong to 
 admit of a denial. What then do they do ? They afiirm that the whole 
 Mosaic dispensation was merely typical, or else that the union of Chtu'ch 
 and State in Israel was an exceptional case. But these assertions will 
 not help them much. If the State- Church in Israel was, as they say, a 
 t^'pical Church, there must be an anti-type corresponding to it. Will our 
 Dissenting friends be bold enough to tell us that a /S7a/e- Church in ancient 
 times typified an anti- State Church in modern times ; that when God 
 instituted the umon of Church and State, in the days of old. He did it to 
 typify the separation of Church and State in these latter days ? As well 
 might they afiirm that monarchy is the type of a republic, a marriage 
 typical of divorce. Surely common sense tells us, that if the union of 
 Church and State in Moses' days be typical at all, it is typical of the 
 union of Church and State in the days of the Gospel of Christ." (Eddowes, 
 Lecture on Church and State, p. 8.) 
 
 The second assertion which Dissenters make, viz. : that the Jewish 
 Church was an exceptional case, it being a Theocratic Institution, may 
 be easily disposed of. I will admit that it was an exceptional case ; but 
 for how long ? only for 395 years, till cir. 1095 B.C., when the Israelites 
 demanded a king, that tltiey might be Hke the other nations of the earth 
 (I. Sam. viii. 5). The direct Theocracy terminated ; the exceptional case, 
 therefore, ceased to exist. But did the State-Church system cease to 
 exist? By no means, i 54 years subsequently the pious king Jehosha- 
 phat spnt through the country priests to lead the people and princes 
 (i.e. civil authorities), to back them up (II. Chron. xvii. 7-8). Here ■ .. 
 an instance of what Dissenters would call a most unjustifiable inter- 
 ference of the Government with the religious concerns of the people, yet
 
 30 The Church of England Tested. Book II. 
 
 God approved of it. (See context.) In verse lo, we have tlie result: 
 " and the fear of the Lord fell upon all the kingdoms . . . round 
 about Judah." 
 
 For building his temple Solomon obtained labourers by a " levy," 
 (I. Kings v. 1 3. Marg. " a tribute of men," Did any body ever hear of a 
 government raising a voluntarij tribute ?) The Church in her Church- 
 rates only levies money or goods ; but Solomon under God's authority, 
 went far beyond this, and levied even men to aid in erecting his great 
 Cathedral at Jerusalem. Had there been a " Liberation" Society in those 
 days, here would have been capital for the Jewish Mialls and Fosters to 
 mount the platform with ! All the building arrangements were on a 
 scale that proves them to have been paid for out of the National Treasury. 
 (But earlier than this we meet with a compulsory levy of money for the 
 support of Public Worship. Ex. xxxviii. 26.) 
 
 Other examples of kingly interference with religious matters in the 
 sovereign's official capacity occur in II. Ghron. xxxi. 20-1 ; xxxiv. 33 
 and XXXV. i , et seq. In the first of these especially is the Divine approval 
 expressed in the most unequivocal language : — " And thus did Hezekiah 
 throughout all Judah, and wrought that which was good and right and 
 truth before the Lord his God. And in every work that he began in the 
 service of the House of God, and in the law, and in the Commandments, 
 to seek his God, he did it with all his heart, and prospered." In v. 12 we 
 have an allusion to tithes. In II. Ghron. xxxiv. 8 we are told that Josiah 
 sent the Governor of the city, and the Recorder " to repair the House of 
 the Lord his God." Again, the civil power "interfering" in religious 
 matters. 
 
 By far the most remarkable case, however, is that of the building of the 
 second Temple at Jerusalem, under the auspices of Cyrus and Darius. 
 We have the express authority of the prophet Isaiah that the former 
 heathen monarch in initiating this great work, did it at God's special 
 bidding (Is. xliv. 28), and that consequently the result met with His ap- 
 proval, in spite of the money which procured it having come out of the 
 pockets of the Persian tax-payers. In Ezra vi. 8, we find an account of 
 the decree made by Darius confirmatory of that issued by his predecessor 
 Cyrus. " I make a decree what ye shall do to the elders of these Jews for 
 the building of the House of God : that of the King's goods even of the 
 tribute beyond the river, forthwith expenses be given unto these men." 
 The things necessary for performing the service were included (v. 9.), 
 and the whole proceedings strongly suggest an analogy to the principle 
 and application of Church-rates. Severe penalties were to be inflicted on 
 any who disobeyed the royal edict, (v. i ! . ) 
 
 Nehemiah ix. 34-5 is a rather remarkable passage. It contains a 
 peculiar expression as to the cause of the calamities which had befalle 
 Israel. " Our kings, our princes, our priests, our fathers .... havt 
 not served Thee in their kingdoms." ' Have not adequately employedtheir 
 official influence in God's behalf, and, behold the consequences,' as we 
 may paraphrase it. 
 
 II. Samuel xxiii. — " He that riileth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God." 
 Psalm ii. 10. — "Be wise now therefore, ye kings: he instructed, ye judges of the 
 earth. Serve the Lord with fear." 
 
 Clearly as rulers, as hings, as judges, not as individuals. Else why so 
 pointed a way of putting it ? IsTote the spirit which appears in Psalm
 
 Part IL Chui'ch and State. 3 1 
 
 Ixviii. 29-31 ; Ixxii. lo, 1 1 ; Ixxix. 6 ; cxxxviii. 4. All point to one general 
 fact : that the national acknowledgment of God was a desideratum upper- 
 most in the minds of the writers. 
 
 Isaiah xlix. 23. — " Kings shall be [the] nursing fathers and their Queens [the] nursing 
 mothers " [of the Church. ] 
 
 Isaiah Ix. 12. — "■Nation and kingdom that will not serve Thee shall perish; yea, those 
 nations shall be utterly wasted." 
 
 The more ingenious than candid Wardlaw persists in asserting that it 
 would be as individuals that kings and nations would patronise Christianity, 
 but is this a fair interpretation of words ? Can there be any doubt that 
 " nation and kingdom" means nation and kingdom in its corporate position, 
 and not the individuals forming the nations ? 
 
 Ezekiel xliii.-xlv. 
 
 Is a passage which contains " the lineaments, too clearly traced to be 
 mistaken, of an extensive national establishment." {Essays on the Church, 
 p. 25.) Gill and Matthew Henry, the two eminent Dissenting com- 
 mentators, who lived before Liberation Societies were dreamt of, refer this 
 prediction to some bright era of the Gospel Church, but the great modern 
 anti- State Church writer. Dr. Wardlaw, with characteristic good sense 
 (for his side), says — nothing. 
 
 Jonah iii. 6-10. 
 
 National proclamation of a fast. ^N^ational religious observance by civil 
 authority (Hearken, O ye Dissenters!) "and God saw their works" 
 . and said he would not do unto them the threatened evil. 
 
 Zcchariah ii. 11. 
 
 "Another instance of the common mode of expression throughout the 
 Hebrew Scriptures, in which hings and nations are constantly spoken of as 
 capable of, and responsible for, the knowledge and worship of God." 
 (Essays on the Church, p. 26.) 
 
 To sum up. Some or other kind of State religion has existed in every 
 nation of ancient or modern times with but very, very few exceptions. 
 Egypt, Persia, Greece, Carthage, Regal, Republican, and Imperial Rome, 
 Druidical Britain, and a multitude of states and empires, bear me out. No 
 matter whether that religion were Jewish, Pagan, Mahomedan, or Chris- 
 tian ; in all cases there was a State-united creed. If all nations, in all 
 ages of the world, have deemed a national religion a necessary adjunct to 
 secular government, are English Dissenters for their own caprice and 
 ends to be quietly permitted to overturn that branch of Christ's Holy 
 Catholic Church, which has for well nigh 130c years been established 
 in these realms, to the great spiritual and temporal blessing of the Anglo- 
 Saxon race ? 
 
 As this concludes my considerations based on the Old Testament, it 
 may now be proper to advert to the fact that Dissenters, for Church and 
 State arguments, wholly repudiate the Old Testament Scrijitures, on the 
 convenient j^lea that for matters of this kind, they are altogether super- 
 seded by the New. It is scarcely necessary to point out the reason, namely 
 that the Old Testament so unmistakeably witnesses against them, that tliey 
 are driven at once to say, ' We do not acknowledge your jurisdiction,' a 
 manoeuvre more efficacious than honest. 
 
 I am altogether at a loss to see how schismatics who argue thus, can get
 
 32 The Church of England Tested. Book II. 
 
 over St. Paul's remark, " Whatsoever things were "written aforetime were 
 written for our learning.'''' (Bom. xv. 4.) How can this be reconciled 
 with their practice of regarding the O. T. as so much writing, the im- 
 portance of which has passed away, and which is therefore now only of 
 interest to the Bihlical Antiquarian ? This is, in real fact, how we are 
 asked to regard this portion of the Sacred Volume by these anti- State- 
 Church men. !N".B [i.e. Note ivell.'] — " J.Z/ Scripture is given by inspira- 
 tion of God." (II. Tim. iii. 16.) 
 
 Turning then to the New Testament, a Voluntary will tell you that he 
 defies you to show any authority for a State-Church. Now, though in 
 special terms this may not be easij, yet we can adduce numerous instances 
 in which a State religion comes under the direct notice of our Saviour and 
 His Apostles without receiving a word of condemnation, a fact from which 
 (taken in connexion with remarks elsewhere in the Bible) we must reason- 
 ably infer that His approval was intended to be given to the State-Church 
 2Jrinci2)le. 
 
 St. Luke ii. 21.— " And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the 
 child, His name was called Jesus." 
 
 Thus early in our Saviour's earthly career was He suffered to conform 
 to the established religion of the land in which He was born. Can we 
 believe that this conformity would have been permitted by His Heavenly 
 Father, if He had wished National Churches henceforth to be set at 
 nought ? 
 
 St. LuJce iv. 15. — " And He taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all" 
 St. John vii. 14. — " Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and 
 taught." 
 
 See also St. Matt. xii. 9 ; xxvi. 55 ; St. Mark iii. i ; St. Lulce iv. 16; 
 vi. 6; xiii. 10; xxii. 53; St. John viii. 2; xviii. 20. These references 
 unequivocally show one important fact, viz. that Christ was constantly in 
 the habit of attending and preaching in the Jewish synagogues and 
 temple, and thus tacitly giving His sanction to the national religion as 
 such. 
 
 St. Matthew xxvi. 19-zo. — "And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; 
 and they made ready the Passover. Now when the even was come, He sat down with the 
 twelve." 
 
 Here we have another instance of our Lord's conformity to the Jewish 
 relig-ion, notwithstanding its essential difference from that which He him- 
 self had inaugurated. 
 
 St- Matthew viii. 4. — After cleansing a leper, " Jesus saith unto him ... go tliy 
 way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony 
 unto them." 
 
 Another instance of reverential respect for the ordinances of the 
 Established Church when there was, humanly speaking, little call 
 for it. 
 
 St. Matthno xxiii. 23. — " Ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted 
 the weightier matters of the law." 
 
 Christ here inferentially sanctions the payment of tithe to the Jewish 
 priesthood (and the Christian clergy) ; though He complains of other im- 
 portant matters which the Pharisees had omitted to do.
 
 Part II. CJiurch and State. 22 
 
 Hebrews vii. 8. — "And here men that die receive tithes." 
 
 St. Paul also in this jDassage speaks of tithes in such a manner as (by- 
 implication) to sanction their payment. 
 
 Hebrews vii. 5. — " Verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the 
 priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, 
 of their brethren." 
 
 I merely cite this as a peculiarly exphcit statement of facts affecting 
 the Jewish State- Church, and to point out that throughout the entire 
 New Testament not a syllable can be found warranting the supposition 
 that this precedent was to be superseded and cast off under the New, 
 that is to say the Christian, Dispensation. Surely such silence is in the 
 highest degree significant. 
 
 But, after all, is it impossible to find in the New Testament a distinct 
 assertion of the right of the Apostles to the same kind of public support 
 as that enjoyed by their Jewish predecessors ? I think not. 
 
 St. Paul says : — 
 
 I. Corinthians ix. 13-14. — " Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things 
 live of the things of the temple ? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the 
 altar ? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the 
 Gospel." 
 
 But how were the priests who ministered in the temple and at the 
 altar supported under the law ? Why, by tithes and legally secured com- 
 pulsory offerings. *' Even so," says the Apostle, i.e., in an exactly similar 
 manner, " hath the Lord ordained that they who preach the Gospel should 
 live of the Gospel," i.e., by tithes and legally secured compulsory offerings. 
 It is impossible to draw any other conclusion ; and when Europe became 
 Christian, the right was universally conceded, and was never questioned 
 during htmdreds of years — not in fact till the present century, and then 
 only by insignificant minorities in a few States. 
 
 St. Matthew xxiii. 1-3. — "Then spake Jesus . . . saying, The scribes and the 
 Pharisees sit in Moses' seat : all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe 
 and do." 
 
 Here our Saviour most explicitly calls upon his hearers to attend to the 
 instruction of the established priesthood ; possibly having in his mind the 
 precept in Mai. ii. 7. 
 
 The pages of Holy Writ teem with practical maxims having reference 
 to questions of public concern. I cite disconnectedly the following, as rich 
 in matter for reflection on the part of the Christian citizen, and all more 
 or less involved in the subject of Church and State : — 
 
 Exodus xxii. 28. — " Thou shaft not revile the judges [marg.], nor curse the ruler of thy 
 people." 
 
 Proverbs xxiv. 21. — "My son, fear thou the Lord and the king: and meddle not with 
 thm that are given to change." 
 
 Ecclesiastes viii. 2. — " I counsel thee to keep the king's commandment, and that in regard 
 of the oath of God." 
 
 Ecclesiastes x. 20. — " Curse not the king, no not in thy thought ; and curse not the ricli 
 in thy bedchamber." 
 
 I. Samuel xxvi. 9. — "And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not: for who can stretch 
 forth his hand against the Lord's anointed, and be guiltless ? " 
 
 Happily, in our highly favoured Christian laud such a precept as this 
 might seem almost superfluous ; but though there are not, however, 
 amongst us any actual regicides, there are sympathisers with regicides in 
 abundance. Many Englishmen would shrink from taking up arms (for 
 
 C
 
 34 The Church of England Tested. Book ll. 
 
 the text includes this) against Queen Victoria, who see no impropriety in 
 recommending and helping others to take up arms against their lawful 
 sovereigns, or in feting them when they have done so. The Garibaldi 
 deifionstration which occurred in April 1 864 was a striking illustration 
 of the way in which some people will stultify themselves and their 
 principles of half a century's gi'owth, for a transient and trivial object. 
 Wherein does Garibaldi difier from Guy Fawkes, Titus Gates, Thistlewood, 
 or O'Connell, viewed as a patriot ? Surely Guy Fawkes, if not as suc- 
 cessful, was at least as conscientious as the Italian buccaneer named 
 above. 
 
 Roinans xiii. 1-2.^" Let every soul be subject unto the higher jjnwers. For there is no 
 power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth 
 the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves 
 damnation.'" See also the succeeding verses. 
 
 Romans :s\\i. 7. — " Render therefore to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due; 
 custom to whom custom ; fear to whom fear ; honour to whom honour." 
 
 I. Thessalonians v. 12-1 3-—" And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour 
 among you, and are over yovi in the Lord, and admonish you : and to esteem them very 
 highly in love for their work's sake. And beat peace among yourselves." 
 
 Titus iii. 1-2. — " Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey 
 magistrates, to be ready to every good work, to speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, 
 but gentle, showing all meekness unto all men." 
 
 Hebrews xiii. 7. — " Remember them wliich have the rule over you, who have spoken 
 unto you the word of God." 
 
 Hebrews xiii. 17. — " Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves ; for 
 they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, 
 and not with grief." 
 
 I. St. Peter ii. 13-14. — " Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's 
 sake ; whether it be to the king, as supreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are 
 sent by him." 
 
 I. St. Peter u. 17. — "Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour 
 the king." 
 
 I. Timothy ii. 1-2. — " I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, inter- 
 cessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men ; for kings, and for all that are in 
 authority ; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." 
 
 St. Matthetu xxii. 21. — " Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's ; and 
 unto God, the things that are God's." 
 
 St. Matthew xvii. 24-7. — " And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received 
 the tribute money \in orig. didrachma=is. yl.'] came to Peter, and said. Doth not your 
 master pay tribute ? He saith, Yes." Then in reply to a question by the Apostles, Jesus 
 said, " Lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the 
 fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of 
 money \in orig. stater = 2s. (>d.'\ : that take, and give unto them for me and thee." 
 
 This passage affords, in general terms, a practical comment on the one 
 taken from the 22nd chapter, quoted immediately before ; but a more 
 minute examination of it discloses a singular circumstance. The sum 
 paid for each person, in ovoc money, would be equivalent to is. 3*^. ; now 
 the marginal note siiggests that this was the half- shekel annually levied 
 from every grown-up Jew for the maintenance of divine service {Ex. xxx, 
 13), and the Dissenting commentators. Gill and Matthew Henry, admit 
 that such Avas doubtless the case. It is worthy of remark, as indicating 
 the systematic dishonesty of Dissent, that in some of the modern editions of 
 Matthew Henry's Commentary, his remarks in favour of Dissenters 
 paying Church Taxes ARE wholly suppkessed. They A\ill be given under 
 another head.
 
 Part II. Cliurch and State, 35 
 
 Here, tlien, we liave a positive instance of our Lord paying, without 
 hesitation, CHURCH- RATE towards maintaining services which, though 
 He conformed to them, had nevertheless imbibed corruptions of which He 
 could not possibly have ajjproved. 
 
 Dissenters frequently refuse to pay Church-rates, Easter Dues, and 
 other " tribute, to whom tribute is due," on the convenient plea of " con- 
 science." Now I would never speak ill of a really conscientious man in 
 anything, but I do ask, in all good faith, what Divine command do Dis- 
 senters more plainly and more ohviously disobey than this ? I defy them to 
 explain away, even by the most refined sophistries, such passages as have 
 been quoted above. 
 
 II. St. Pder ii. lo. — " Them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and 
 despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil 
 of dignities." 
 
 How graphically these words describe a large body of the Dissenters 
 of the present day, including some well known as writers and preachers, 
 we shall presently see. 
 
 Acts xxiii. 5. — " Then said Paul, I wist not, brethi'en, that he was the high priest ; for 
 it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." 
 
 Here we have another notable instance of St. Paul's respect for the 
 dignitaries of the Church. Oh that Dissenting ministers, who preach so 
 much about Christian doctrine, would recommend to their brethren and 
 congregations Christian and apostolic iwactice. They should study more 
 than they do St. Matt. vii. 3, and Bom. ii. 21. 
 
 To proceed a little. If we examine the BIBLE (our only guide), not 
 only do we not find there any justification of Dissent, or the sin of schism, 
 but we find schismatics (" Dissenters ")* denounced in the most miqualified 
 language by the " great Apostle of the Gentiles :" — 
 
 Romans xvi. 17-18. — " Now I beseech you, brethren, jnark them which cause divisions 
 and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned ; and avoid them. For they 
 that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly ; and by good words 
 and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." 
 
 I. Corinthians i. 10. — " Now I beseech you, brethen, by the name of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions [schisms in orig.] 
 among you." 
 
 I. Corinthians iii. 3-4. — "For whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and 
 divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men ? For while one saith, I am of Paul ; and 
 another, lam of Apollos; are ye not carnal]" 
 
 II. Timjothy iv. 3. — " For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine ; 
 hut after their own hosts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears." 
 
 Most faithfiilly does St. Paul pourtray and condemn in these verses, 
 schism. Even in his time, he had to deprecate persons calling themselves 
 (as we should say) " Paulites," "Apollosites." So also would he condemn 
 
 * " The distinction between Dissent and Schism seems to have been lost among us ; 
 schismatics being now universally called Dissenters. Dissent is properly a differing in 
 opinion ; Schism is a separation from the communion of the Church." (From an excellent 
 Tract, The Church of England before the Reformation, S. P. C. K. 243.) Dissent, in 
 the accurate definition of the word, is not necessarily unreasonable or noxious. 
 What is popularly called Dissent, being really Schism, why not call it by its right name'i
 
 ^6 The Church of England Tested. Eook II. 
 
 the Irvingites, the Glassites, the Calvinists, and all the other 'ites and 'ists 
 of the present day. Such is the vicious, inherently vicious, nature of 
 Dissent, that even when a body of persons secede from the Church, and 
 form themselves into a sepai-ate community, the new community holds 
 together but a short time. Thus, the " Baptists," originally a single sect, 
 have constantly fallen out amongst themselves. We have now the 
 " General (Unitarian) Baptists," " General (New-Connexion) Baptists," 
 "Particular Baptists,' "Seventh-day Baptists,' "Scotch Baptists," &c., all 
 sects of a sect ; a fact (and many others might be adduced) showing the 
 inevitable tendencies of Dissent. " They heap to themselves teachers." 
 This was true in 66 a.d. ; it is still true in 1866 a.d. 
 
 I now pass to the last book in the Canon of the New Testament — the 
 Book of Revelation. 
 
 Eevelation xxi. 24.—" And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light 
 of it [New Jerusalem], ami the Kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour 
 unto it." 
 
 Bevelation xii. to. 
 
 A song of pi^aise. Gill and Henry both refer the occasion of this 
 song to the extii-pation of Paganism by Constantine, and the Saints 
 returning thanks for the Emperor's patronage of Christianity; " and thus, 
 in the latest portion of Divine Revelation, as in the earliest, we find that 
 which modern Dissenting ■writers unreservedly repudiate, — to wit, 
 nationality, and Government responsibility in matters of religion." — 
 on the Church, p. 28.) 
 
 To the CHURCHMAN who reads these pages I would say. Seek to 
 become mindful of those privileges you possess in being a member of such 
 a SCRIPTURAL CHURCH as is that branch of the Holy Catholic 
 Church which is established in England ; use your influence in defend- 
 ing her ; and avail yourself of opportunities, whenever they arise, of 
 pointing out their en-ors to any who may have seceded from her. 
 
 To the DISSENTER (if haply my remarks should come under the 
 notice of any one such) I would say, " Search the Scriptures," and see for 
 yourself that these things are so. Ponder over calmly (in the spirit of 
 Ps. cxxxiii. I ) the statements herein set before you ; cease to oppose 
 yourself any longer to the whole tenour of the word of God ; rejoin 
 that Church from which you have so unjustifiably seceded, and again 
 become a partaker of those Holy Sacraments and privileges of which you 
 deprived yourself by one fatal step, and we Churchmen will gladly ivelcome 
 you again into our ranks. 
 
 JOHN WESLEY ON CHURCH MATTERS. 
 
 John Wesley's real relations with the Esta>blished Church are painfully 
 naisapprehended in the present day alike by Churchmen and Dissenters : 
 by the former he is not unfrequently looked upon as a schismatic, and in 
 all respects as a man of a most objectionable stamp ; and by the latter as 
 a great apostle of Dissent in its widest acceptation. 
 
 I will now cite a few passages fi'om Wesley's works indicative of the 
 writer's real ideas on Church matters, for few seem acquainted with them. 
 Comments of my own scorn for the most part scarcely requisite : —
 
 Part II. John Wesley on Church Mattel's. 37 
 
 "Are we not unawares, by little and little, gliding into a separation from the Church? 
 Oh, use every means to prevent this ! i. Exhort all our people to kcrp close to the Church 
 and the Sacrament. 2. Warn them against niceness of hearing, a prevailing evil ! 3. 
 Warn them also against despising the prayers of the Church. 4. Against calling otir 
 Society the Church. 5. Against calling our preachers ininisters — our houses meeting- 
 houses* ... 6. Bo not license them as Bissenters. . . . We are not Dissenters in the 
 only sense which our law acknowledges — namely, those who renounce the service of the 
 Church. We do not, we dare not separate from it. We are not seccders, nor do we bear 
 any resemblance to them. We set out upon quite opposite principles. The seceders laid 
 the foundation of their work in judging and condemning others ; we laid the foundation 
 of our work in judging and condemning ourselves, . . . and never let us make light of 
 going to Church, either by word or deed. Remember Jlr. Hook, a very eminent and 
 zealous Papist, when I asked him ' Sir, what do you do for public worship here, where 
 you have no Romish worship ? ' he answered, ' Sir, I am so fully convinced it is the 
 duty of every man to worship God in public, that I go to church every Sunday. If I 
 cannot have such worship as I would, I will have such worship as I can.' But some 
 may say, "Our (Methodist) worship is public worship.' Yes, but not such as su2J(rscdes 
 the Church Service.'' 
 
 Quest. 46. — A Methodist inquires, " Nay, but is it not our duty to separate from the 
 Church, considering both the wickedness of the clergy and the people ? " 
 
 Answer by Wesley. — " We conceive not. 1. Because both the priests and the people 
 were fully as wicked in the Jewish Church, and yet it was not the duty of the Holy 
 Israelites to separate from them. 2. Neither did our Lord command his disciples to 
 separate from them. He rather commanded the contrary. 3. Hence it is clear that 
 could not be the meaning of St. Paul's words ' Come ye out from among them, and 
 be ye separate.' " 
 
 (Minutes of Conversations between John Wesley and others. i6mo. London, pp. 29- 
 31. No date, but apparently about 1780.) [It is not xmworthy of note that the preced- 
 ing disappeared in the edition of 1797, published 6 years after Wesley's death, as re- 
 printed in 1850! ! !] 
 
 "My brother and I closed the conference by a solemn declaration of our purpose 
 never to sejwrate frojn the Church." — (Minutes of Confrence, Aug. 25, 1756.) 
 
 " What may be reasonably believed to be God's design in raising up the preachers called 
 Methodists ? Not to form any new sect, but to reform the nation, particularly the Church, 
 and to spread scriptural holiness through the land." — ( W^orks, 8vo. London, 1 8 3 1, vol. xxiii.) 
 
 Under date of 1787, Jan. 2, Wesley writes : — " I went on to Deptford, but it seemed I 
 was got into a den of lions. Most of the leading men of the Society were mad for sepa- 
 rating from the Church. I endeavoured to reason with them in vain ; they had neither 
 sense nor good manners left. At length, after meeting the whole Society, I told them, 
 ' If you are resolved, you may have your service in cMirch hours ; hut remember, from that 
 time you will see my face 710 more.' This struck deep, and from that time I have heard 
 no more of separating from the Church." — (Last Journal, p. 26.) 
 
 " I never had any design of separating from the Church. I have no such design now. 
 I do not believe Methodists in general design it when I am no more seen. I do, and 
 will do, all that is in my power to prevent such an event. I declare once more, that I 
 live and die a member of the Chiirch of England, and that none who regard my judgment 
 or ad\ice will separate from it." — December 1789. 
 
 At Athlone : — " I was among those who both feared and loved God, but to this day 
 they have not recovered the loss which they sustained when they left off going to church. 
 It is true they have long since been convinced of their mistake ; yet the fruit of it still 
 remains ; so that there are very few who retain that vigour of spirit which they before 
 enjoyed." — (Works, vol. iii. p. 283.) 
 
 In the year 1758, John "Wesley drew up " Reasons against a Separation 
 from the Church of England." These are classed under three heads ; they 
 are too lengthy to be given here, and would suffer by abridgment. They 
 will be found in his Works, vol. xiii. pp. 193-9. In a iDostscript, Charles 
 
 * The term applied in law. Acts of Parliament, &c., to the places of worship belonging 
 to those who have seceded from the Church. How careful the good man was to avoiil all 
 appearance of evil — the slightest appearance of cncoiu'aging secession from the l-^stablished 
 Church.
 
 38 The Church of England Tested. Book II. 
 
 Wesley writes, " I think myself bound in duty to add my testimony to 
 my brothers.' His twelve reasons against our ever separating from the 
 Church of England are mine also. I subscribe to them with all my heart; 
 only with regard to the first, I am quite clear that it is neither expedient 
 nor lavjful for me to separate, and I never had the least inclination or 
 temptation to do so. My affection for the Church is as strong as ever, and 
 I clearly see my calling, which is to hve and die in her communion. This, 
 therefore, I am determined to do, the Lord being my helper." — (Ihicl. 
 p. 199.) 
 
 " I hope this may suffice to show any fair and candid inquirer that it is very possi- 
 ble to be united to Christ and the Church of England at the same time ; that we need 
 not separate from the Church in order to preserve our allegiance to Christ." — ( Works, 
 vol. X. p. 505.) 
 
 " I believe there is no liturgy in the world, either in ancient or modem language, which 
 breathes more of a solid, scriptural, rational piety than the Common Prayer of the Church 
 of England ; and though the main of it was compiled considerably more than 200 years 
 ago, yet is the language of it not only pure, but strong and elegant in the highest degree." 
 —{Works, vol. xiv. p. 317.) 
 
 "Having had an opportunity of seeing several of the Churches abroad, and having 
 deeply considered several sorts of Dissenters at home, I am fully convinced that our own 
 Church, with all her blemislies, is nearer the Scriptural plan than any other in Europe." 
 — (Letter from J. W. to Sir H. Trelawny : Works, vol. xiii.) 
 
 " I hold all the doctrines of the Church of England. I love her Liturgy, I approve 
 her plan of discipline, and only wish it could be put in execution.' — (Sermon in Arminian 
 Magazine, 1790.) 
 
 ' ' We believe it would not be right for us to administer either baptism or the Lord's 
 Supper, unless we had a commission to do so from those Bishops whom we a-pprehend to be in 
 succession from the Apostles. 
 
 " We believe that there is and always was in every Christian Church an oiitward priest- 
 hood ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice oiFered therein by men authorised 
 to act as ambassadors for Christ and stewards of the mysteries of Grod." 
 
 " We believe that the threefold order of ministers is not only authorised by its apos- 
 tolic institution, but also by the written Word." — (Journal : Works, vol. ii. p. 329, ed. of 
 1809.) 
 
 Addressing lay preachers — and all are lay preachers who are not or- 
 dained by a Bishop — as to their desire to administer sacraments, Wesley 
 says, " You believe it to be a duty: I BELIEVE IT TO BE A SIN." 
 
 Godfathers and Godmothers — 
 
 " Are highly expedient; for when they are prudently chosen, they may be of xmspeak- 
 able use to the persons baptized, and a great relief and comfort to the parents of them." — 
 {Works, vol. X. p. 507.) 
 
 BAPTISMAL EEGENERATION. 
 " By baptism we who were ' by nature children of wrath ' are made the children of 
 God; and this regeneration, which our Church in so many places ascribes to baptism, is 
 more than barely being admitted into the Church, though commonly connected therewith ; 
 being 'grafted into the body of Christ's Church we are made the children of God by 
 adoption and grace.' This is grounded on the plain words of our Lord, ' Except a man 
 be born again of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' 
 (John iii. 5.) By water, then, as a means, the water of baptism, we are regenerated or 
 bom again, whence it is also called by the Apostle ' the washing of regeneration.' Our 
 Church, therefore, ascribes no greater virtue to baptism than Christ himself has done. 
 Nor does she ascribe it to the outward washing, but to the inward grace, which, added 
 together, makes it a sacrament. Herein a principle of grace is infused, which will not 
 be wholly taken away unless we quench the Holy Spirit of God by long outward wicked- 
 ness." — {Works, vol. X. p. 191, 8vo., London, 1830.) 
 
 The foregoing opinions, taken from many more similar ones, ought to 
 suffice for showing what Wesley used to think, and I fully believe thc,-j
 
 Pakt II. Old Dissenters and Church Matters. 39 
 
 til ere are plenty of Kis followers who will say " ditto." Indeed some of 
 these have already boldly come forward and proclaimed their desire to 
 uphold the Church as estabhshed in England. 
 
 Having cited thus much from Wesley, I add the following general 
 testimonies by prominent Dissenters : — 
 
 John OWEN, D.D. (Independent.) 
 
 " Some think if you [members of Parliament] are well settled, you ought not, as 
 rulers of the nation, to put forth your ^ower for the interest of Christ. The Lord keep 
 your hearts from that apprehension ! " 
 
 " If it comes to this, that you shall say you have notliing to do with religion, as rulers 
 of the nation, God will quickly manifest that he hath nothinc] to do with you as rulers of 
 the nation. Certainly, it is incumbent on you to take care that tlie faith which you have 
 received, which was once delivered to the Saints, in all necessary concernments of it may 
 be protected, preserved, and propagated to and among the people which God hath set you 
 over . . . if you will justify yourselves as fathers or rulers of your country, you, will find 
 this to be incumbent on you." — (Sermon on " Christ's Kingdom and the Magistrates' Fower," 
 preached before Parliament. ) 
 
 John PLAVEL (Presbyterian). 
 
 " What is the duty of political fathers or magistrates to their political cliildren's 
 subjects ? It is to rule and govern the people over whom God hath set them, with 
 wisdoin,carefully providing for their souls, in everyplace in their dommions." — (Assembly's 
 Catechism.) 
 
 Matthew HENRY. 
 
 " Church duties legally imposed are to be paid notwithstanding . Church corrtiptions. 
 If Christ pay tribute, who can pretend to an exemption ?" — (Commentary : St. Matt. 
 xvii. 24-7.) 
 
 " It is the duty of rulers to take care of religion, and to see that the duties of it be 
 regularly and carefully performed by those under their charge, and that nothing be wanting 
 that is requisite thereto." 
 
 "Let us much, more give God Tpvaise {or the national establishnent of our religion ; . . . 
 that the Eeformation was in our land a national act ; that Christianity, thus purified, is 
 supported by good and wholesome laws, and is twisted in with the very constitution of our 
 Government." 
 
 John HOWE, 
 
 Anticipating a bright future for the Christian Eeligion, looked to see this prosperity 
 brought about, "First by means of the kings and potentates of the earth. . . . Think 
 whetiier this will not do much to the making of a happy State as to the interest of religion 
 in the world." 
 
 Philip DODDRIDGE. 
 
 " Ministers of all denominations claim our prayers, and peculiarly those of Established 
 Churches. . . . Nor ought we to forget those more learned and pious men whom our 
 governors may from time to time think fit to raise to exalted stations amongst the 
 Clergy. . . . By their pious and zealous endeavours an Establishment will flourish, and 
 separate interests decrease." — (Sermon on Deut. xxiii. 9.) 
 
 Richard BAXTER, 
 
 Addressing civil riders, says: — "Let none persuade you that you are such terrestrial 
 animals that have nothing to do with the heavenly concernments of your subjects. . . . 
 You must bend the force of all yuur government to the saving of people's souls." — 
 (Christian Directory, Works, vol. vi. p. 14., 8vo., London, 1830. 
 
 It is not a little significant that some Dissenters who are Voluntaries in 
 England are State- Churchmen abroad. Does not this go far to show that 
 jealousy is at the root of much of their hostility to the Church ? Thus, 
 the directors of the Independent "London Missionary Society" once
 
 ^o The Church of England Tested. Book li, 
 
 wrote to tlie sovereign of a Polynesian State, " advising him to lanish the 
 national idol, and to attend to the instructions of the Missionaries." 
 (Ellis, Tolynesian Researches, vol. ii. p. 528.) In Ceylon the Missionary 
 waited, in the first instance, on the Governor to ask advice where he (the 
 Missionary) had better go. The Governor ofiered, and the Independent 
 Missionary accepted, 50 dollars a month, and he was promised further 
 assistance ! ! ! 
 
 More recently the "Rev." W. Tyerman and G. Bennet, Esq., visited the 
 South Sea Islands, and confess having " had a long interview with the 
 King (of Hawaii), in which ive urged the propriety of publicly adopting 
 Ghristianity as the religion of his dominions ! ! .' " {Travels, vol. i. p. 439.) 
 In referring to New Holland, these same Independent gentlemen remark 
 (very properly, vie Glmrchmen say,) that " It is deeply to be lamented 
 that Protestant Governments take so little care to convey the Jcnoioledge of the 
 true religion wherever they carry their arms, their commerce, or their arts 
 in colonisation." 
 
 "Rev." William KIRKUS, LL.B. (Independent). 
 
 Mr. Kirkus is the Head Master of a large Dissenting school at Hackney. 
 
 " There is no book, excepting the Bible, from which I have derived so much benefit as 
 from the Book of Common Prayer. It seems to me, perhaps, the very gravest of the 
 misfortunes almost inseparable from my position as a Dissenter, that I am unable to malie 
 constant use of it in public worship. Yet perhaps this misfortune should hardly be 
 called inseparable from the position of a Dissenter. The Book of Common Prayer belongs 
 to every Englishman. It is still the test of orthodoxy ; and has done more than any 
 other book to preserve the majority of sober-minded men from infidelity on the one hand, 
 and fanaticism on the other.' —(Preface to Miscellaneous Essai/s. 1863.) 
 
 APPENDIX TO PART II. 
 
 Chuechmen may be interested to know how the Dissenters meet our arguments drawn 
 from the Bible. Dr. "Wardlaw, one of their ablest champions, offers I. Cor. ix. 1 1 and 14; 
 Gal. vi. 6 ; I. Thess. v. 1 2-1 3 ; and St. John xviii. 36 — " My kingdom is not of this world." 
 Our argument is drawn from a wide range of God's Word, Genesis to Revelation : in time 
 it reaches over 1550 years: and it is met by five passages all written within 25 years, to 
 eay nothing of the fact that only one of the five has even the outward appearance of 
 having anything to do with the question. " My kingdom is not of this world " simply 
 indicates that at the time when Christ spoke, circumstances were adverse to the Church in 
 matters temporal. Our Sa-s-iour elsewhere said, that " the Son of man had not where to 
 lay his head." St. Paul laboured in " hunger and thirst, in cold and nakedness." Surely 
 anti-State-Churchmen do not mean to say that this kind of existence is the proper normal 
 one for ministers of the Gospel ! No ; it is like the "My kingdom, &c." — a plain state- 
 ment of the then subsisting facts. These five passages (and the other four have nothing 
 on earth to do with Church and State) are all that Dissenters urge against the coincident 
 testimony of the Old and New Testament scriptures all but universally accepted by the 
 Church and the Sects alike, down to the year 1830. 
 
 The climax of Dr. Wardlaw's argument [?] is reached when he tells us {Lectures) that 
 his doctrine is concealed in the adverb " now ; " but " now is my kingdom not from hence." 
 The accomplished essayist pertinently remarks: — " Think of a doctrine, which Dr. Ward- 
 law represents as of immense importance, lying hidden in the Greek adverb vvv ! A scrip- 
 tural argument, which at last shrinks into the compass of a subordinate word of three 
 letters ! The thing is too absurd. It has only to be named to be at once appreciated." — 
 {Essays, p. 33.) 
 
 The question of Church and State, argued from the New Testament, is simply this : 
 Our Saviour came into the world and found a State Church ; He recognised and supported 
 it ; and He left it as He found it. Every analogy warrants us, nay, compels us, to believe 
 that His silence was designed; that had He intended to dispense with State Ciiurches, He 
 would have said so.
 
 Book III. 
 % JlDanting to C^urcljiiicn, 
 
 The following quotations are put fortli for the purpose of showing 
 Churchmen heretofore ignorant of, or indifferent to, the aggressions of 
 the Political Dissenters, the nature of the fierce attacks to which the 
 Estabhslied Church is now being subjected. The struggle before us is 
 one of. CHURCH or NO CHURCH: it will be a desperate one, and 
 Ave must all be stirring ; high and low, rich and poor, Tory and Whig, 
 ought all to join in UNION IN THE CAUSE OF CHURCH 
 DEFENCE. 
 
 It cannot, however, be too explicitly and too plainly understood by the 
 country, that not we, but the Dissenters, commenced the conflict ; we were 
 content to allow them civil and religious toleration, and, in the fond hope 
 of securing peace and harmony, we accorded them a great deal too 
 much of both. Our good nature has been shamefully abused : let us then 
 arouse ourselves, ere it be too late, to defend our beloved Church, not the 
 creature of yesterday, but the progressively-developed institution of 1 600 
 years' standing. 
 
 Religious Dissent is all but eng-ulphed in Democratic Dissent ; Dissent 
 is for the most part no longer synonymous with spiritually-minded 
 religion, but with REVOLUTION. The last 30 years have seen the great 
 bulk of English Dissenters (more particularly the Antiptedobaptists and 
 the Independents) transformed into a mob of intriguing political agitators, 
 bound together by no one tie but that of " envy, hatred, malice, and all " 
 possible " uncharitableness " towards the Church of England. 
 
 Fellow-Churchmen, read the following pages, and see for yourselves 
 whether my statements are not borne out by facts. 
 
 THE LIBERATION SOCIETY. 
 
 The mainsprings of the present onslaughts on the Temporalities of the 
 Church of England are located, as is well known, in an obscure building 
 in Serjeants' Inn, Fleet Street, London, the offices of a powerful organisa- 
 tion of disaffected schismatics, martyrs (as they fancy themselves to be) 
 to the persecuting spirit of the Chiu'ch, known all over the country as 
 " The Society for the Liberation of Religion from State Patronage and 
 Control," though originally termed, at its formation in 1845, " The British 
 Anti-State-Church Association," — an appellation far more telling <han the 
 Jesuitical one it has since adopted.
 
 42 A Warning to Churchmen. Book III. 
 
 Its objects, as stated in its publislaed prospectus, are : — 
 
 " The abrogation of all laws and usages which inflict disability, or confer privilege, on 
 ecclesiastical grounds, upon any subject of the realm." 
 
 " The discontinuance of all payments from the Consolidated Fund, and of all Parlia- 
 mentary grants and compulsory exactions, for religious purposes." 
 
 "THE APPLICATION TO SECULAR USES, after an equitable satisfaction of 
 existing interests, of ALL national property now held in trust by the united Church of 
 England and Ireland, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and, concurrently with it, the 
 liberation of those Churches from all State control." 
 
 My limits forbid me entering into a detailed account of the Society's 
 macbinery, and bow it is worked : I must tberefore rest content with a 
 short statement. Its income is about 4000Z. a year, which sum is spent in 
 sending lecturers through the country ; in distributing Anti-Church 
 tracts and handbills, particularly in parishes Hkely to be the scene of 
 Church Rate contests ; in promoting the presentation of Anti- Church 
 petitions to Parliament ; in pubhshing a monthly journal called 
 The Liberator, for the dissemination of Anti-Chureh news ; and, in fact, 
 in defraying all the obvious expenses incidental to the conduct of a widely 
 'based POLITICAL organisation having ramifications in all parts of Eng- 
 land, and subscribers of some kind in almost every village. 
 
 Besides The Liberator, several MetropoHtan and Provincial Newspapers 
 are, to a greater or less extent, "inspired " by the Society, amongst which 
 the Nonconformist, the Morning Star, the Daily Nevjs, and the Leeds Mermry 
 may be named. 
 
 The following measures, introduced into Parliament at various times 
 within the last few years, may, with strict truth, be stated to have 
 been more or less the work of, or slyly abetted by, or to have found their 
 chief supporters in, those who are also the chief supporters of the Liberation 
 Society : — 
 
 1. Abolition of the Irish "Ministers' Money." [Carried.] 
 
 2. Abolition of Jewish Disabilities. [Carried.] 
 
 3. Abolition of the English " Regium Donum," [Carried.] 
 
 4. Abolition of Church Rates. 
 
 5. Abolition of the Irish " Regium Donum." 
 
 6. Endowed Schools Bill. (Mr. Dillwyn.) 
 
 7. Trustees of Charities Bill. (Mr. Dillwyn.) 
 
 8. Qualification for Offices Bill. (Mr. Hadfield.) 
 
 9. Nonconformists' Burials Bill. (Sir S. M. Peto.) 
 
 10. Liberty of Religions Worship Bill. (Mr. Locke King.) 
 
 1 1. Opposition to the Religious Worship Census. [Carried.] 
 
 12. Abohtion of the Edinburgh Annuity Tax. 
 
 13. Legalisation of Marriage with a deceased Wife's Sister. 
 
 14. Oaths and Affirmations Bill. (Sir J. Trelawney.) 
 
 15. Abolition of the Bible Printing Patent. 
 
 16. Clergy Relief Bill. (Mr. Bouverie.) 
 
 17. Oxford Tests Abolition Bill. (Mr. Coleridge.) 
 
 18. Fellows of Colleges Declaration Bill. (Mr. Bouverie.) 
 
 A short exposition of the present demands of the Dissenters may be useful 
 to those who do not pay much attention to the proceedings in ParHament : — 
 
 4. Everybody knows what Church Rates are, and what their abolition 
 means. 
 
 5. The Begium Donum is an allowance of about 30,000?. a year paid to 
 certain Dissenting Preachers in Ireland out of the public funds.
 
 Book III. Parliamentary Matters. 43 
 
 6. The Court of Chancery has decided that, unless there is a special 
 provision to the contrary in the trust deed, "religious teaching" in an 
 endowed school must be held to mean the teaching of the Church of 
 England, as the religion alone recognised by the law. Mr. Dillwyn wishes 
 to annul this decision, and to throw open to Dissenters all endowed schools 
 not ed'iAlcithj tied to the Church of England, and so to alienate from 
 Chui'chmen endowments left by Churchmen for Church Education purposes. 
 By a conciliatory Bill passed in 1859, Dissenters' childi'en are admitted to 
 schools whose trust deeds are not explicit, without being forced to re- 
 ceive instruction in Church doctrines ; but this good-natured concession 
 will not satisfy the Liberation Society. 
 
 7. This Bill is intimately connected with the preceding. Under the 
 existing law, Dissenters are ineligible to act as trustees to Church charities. 
 Mr. Dillwyn claims a share in the administration of such charities. 
 
 8. Persons accepting certain public offices are required to declare that 
 they will not iise their official influence to subvert the Established Church. 
 Mr. Hadfield proposes to permit them so to use their influence if they 
 choose. 
 
 9. This Bill is to legalise funeral services in churchyards by anylochj. 
 If passed, it would go further to degrade the Church to the position of a 
 sect than any measure ever introduced by the Dissenters. 
 
 10. Under the existing law, no Clergyman can conduct a public service in 
 any parish without the consent of the Incumbent. Mr. Locke King- 
 wishes to abolish this very proper provision. 
 
 12. The Annuity Tax provides for the maintenance of certain Pres- 
 byterian Preachers at Edinburgh. The North-of-the-Tweed Radicals 
 apply the same epithets to it that their Southern brethi'en do to Church 
 Rates. 
 
 13. Explains itself. 
 
 14. Is a Bill for the abolition of all oaths, and the substitution of a 
 simple declaration on the part of a witness that he will speak the truth. 
 This is emphatically the Atheist's Bill. 
 
 15. The only persons licensed to print the Holy Scriptures in England 
 and Wales are the Queen's Printers and the two Universities. As this 
 arrangement savours of " State interference with religion," the Dissenters 
 tried in i860 to get it abolished, but failed. 
 
 16. This Bill, as originally brought forward, enacted that by a sixpenny 
 declaration a clergyman might throw off his Orders, and become, to all 
 intents and purposes, a layman, thus controverting, by the authority of 
 Parliament, a well-known maxim held by the Church in all ages. A 
 select committee, however, removed some of the most objectionable features 
 of this Bill ; but even thus diluted, the Bill was happily rejected on the 
 third reading. 
 
 1 7 and 1 8 are Bills to throw open University Degrees and Fellowships, 
 and consequently the Government of the Universities, to all corners. 
 
 The Society has also a " Parliamentary Sub-Committee," whose duties 
 consist in carrying on a system of " touting " of Members of Parliament, 
 to induce them to vote for the Society's Bills, followed (if the attempt 
 fails, tvhich formerly it seldom did) by threats of the displeasui'c of their con- 
 stituents, and possible loss of their seats, if the Society's iufluenco can 
 bring about that result, wliich occasionally it can, as at Huddersfield in 
 1859-
 
 44 ^ Warning to Churchmen. Book III. 
 
 THE ALLIANCE BETWEEN DISSENT AND POPERT. 
 
 The following letter from the Secretary of the Irish National Association 
 (a semi-Fenian league) reveals two or three interesting facts. It appeared 
 in various newspapers during the General Election of 1865 : — 
 
 " Dear Sie, — Mr. Carvell "Williams, Secretary of the Liberation Society, asks me what 
 we are doing at the canvass for the coming elections. He says the Liberation Society got 
 13,000^. out of the 25,000/. required to extend their working. They sent down the Rev. 
 Mr. Conder, a Nonconformist minister, to harangue the electors of the Isle of Wight in 
 favour of Sir J. Simeon, a \^Roman'\ Catholic. I think the Liberation people will carry 
 Simeon's election. — Yours, &e., „ j q,^ DAUNT " 
 
 And so they did, to their eternal infamy. The Wesleyans alone, I believe, 
 protested against the compact between Rome and Greneva to trample down 
 the Church of England, represented by the Protestant candidate, Sir C. 
 Locock, Bt. 
 
 THE BI-CENTENARY MOVEMENT. 
 
 What was avowedly proposed may be learnt from many sources ; but 
 that a huiid fide religious commemoration of the expulsion, by-the-by, of 
 Dissenting Ministers from the Clmrcli's benefices was intended is now 
 proved unmistakeably to be false. (See pos/, Book X.) 
 
 " The Liberation Society is deeply interested in the proceedings to which Nonconformists 
 are looking forward, but there are good reasons why it should not organise any special 
 
 movement The plain truih is, let the occasion be improved in any way, and 
 
 the Church Establishment is suee to suffee damage." — Liberator, Feb. 1862, p. 26. 
 
 Under cover of a religious demonstration, the Dissenters expected to be 
 able to do a little Church revilement business ; the proceedings of 1662 
 were not the end, but the means to an end widely different. 
 
 The schismatics charged our clergy with — 
 
 " Frightfid demoralisation of conscience',' which was said to be " produced by a solemn 
 subscription to tests which the inner man repudiates," with " clerical insincerity, bred and 
 nourished by the reluctant constraint which the Clergy take upon themselves in obedience 
 to the Act of Uniformity;" with ''official self -consciousness ;" with "official sophistry;" 
 with "self-inflcdlng hallucinations," &c. &e. — Nonconformist Newspaper, Feb. 12, 1862. 
 
 " How is it that they [the Evangelical Clergj-] do not see— for we must suppose they do 
 not— that their position is irreconcilable with some of the most ordinary principles of 
 public morality ? " " The fact which we would ever\-where proclaim is this, that the Act 
 of Uniformity shuts men up to this alternative— PERJURY or SECESSION."— TAe 
 Ipswich Bi-Centenary Committee (in one of their Tracts). 
 
 ''Are the Evangelical Clergy, in the matter of suhscription, dishonest and mitruthfod? 
 . . . . Yes, the Evangeliccd Clergy are guilty of unfaithfulness, and they know it."-^ 
 Patriot Newspaper, April 1862. 
 
 Hundreds of pages might be made up, of reprints from the various 
 journals and magazines of the Sects, published during 1862-3, all couched 
 in the bitter, unchristian style of the above ; but no good purpose would 
 be served by further quotations. The malignant fury of the Dissenters 
 is now sufficiently established all over England. The plague was rife 
 among them, and, outside the Wesleyan body, comparatively few were 
 hostile to the movement. Here and there a Dissenter ventured to ex- 
 postulate with his fellows on their violence, and he was quickly put down : 
 e. g., at a " Congregational Conference " on February i, 1862, the "Rev." 
 J. Stoughton suggested that " this is not the occasion when they should 
 bring forward, as the basis of their proceedings, the principles and practice
 
 Book III. " Elegant Extracts y 45 
 
 of the An ti- State- Clmrch Association." Wherenpon the "Rev." J. G. 
 Rogers jumped up and said that " in Lancashire it was felt that it was 
 more niijwrtant to bring out the principles of the Liberation Society than 
 anything else." 
 
 DISSENTmG SUNDAY-SCHOOL TEACHERS. 
 
 The connection between these and what I am now discussing may not at 
 first sight be obvious, but it soon will become so. Some years ago there 
 was published, at the office of the Liberation Society, an AJdress to Teachers 
 of Dissenting Schools, by the "Rev." William Forster. 
 
 After reminding the teachers how powerful their influence is in forming 
 the minds of those under their control, the pamphlet proceeded to urge 
 them to exercise it in antagonism to the Church. Thus : — 
 
 " The tone of feeling in the next generation is to be given, to a very great extent, by 
 your culture." — p. 12. 
 
 " And if 'you engraft into their minds the deep conviction that every State-Church is 
 anti-Christian in its foundation, constitution, pohcy, spirit, and working, then will you 
 awaken a sentiment which will strengthen, swell, and spread, until it has swept every 
 State-Church, as a secular institution, from the statute-book of this kingdom." — p. 12. 
 
 Then, referring to the Church, we were told : — 
 
 " Tlie immense funds which it swallows up, the servile spirit which it generates, the 
 sympathy which it extends to all illiberal institutions, the impediment which it places 
 before the course of just legislation, the barrier which it opposes to the intellectual and 
 social progress of the people, call upon all patriots and philanthropists to labour for its 
 downfall." — p. 13. 
 
 "But all these evils are reduced to insignificance compared with the spiritual mischief 
 which it works on the souls of men — a mischief deep as hell and durable as eternity. 
 Now, Dissenters are the only individuals who have the remedy for this prodigious evil. 
 ' They are the salt of the land.' " — p. 1 3. 
 
 Then as to Dissent : — 
 
 " Before your scholars can enter into the reasons of Dissent, yoii must tell them it is 
 right and true. It is in this way you give them your own notions about God, their souls, 
 sin, Christ, the Holy Scriptures, and other religious topics. They believe what you affirm 
 or deny of these things, not because you have proved your propositions, but on your bare 
 word."~p. 18. 
 
 "All the first ideas of a child respecting religious objects come to it through its faith 
 in man. All infant education goes upon this j^rinciple of communicating knowledge. 
 We mention this fact in order to induce you to act on it in inculcating Dissent. Speak 
 of it as something in accordance with the will of God. Let your scholars feel that you 
 consider separation from State-Churches as highly pleasing to Christ. Tell them that 
 national -establishments of religion are sinful, are wrong in themselves, and in all their 
 workings. If you do this, you will jjroduce a deep faith in Dissent; you will connect it in 
 their earliest associations with the true and honourable ; you will knead it into their 
 inmost moral nature."— p. 18. 
 
 These extracts speak for themselves ; but I would venture to remark, 
 that their importance chiefly consists in the fact that such sentiments 
 may be inculcated on Sundays to children who during the Avcek 
 attend, the Church school and get a good education at our expense, 
 and that those •whose minds are to be " deeply convinced " of the anti- 
 Christian character of the national Church, are a class who in after-life 
 are liable to be greatly influenced^ by their early teaching. I should like 
 to see prevail generally the rule which many Church school managers lay 
 down, that they will take into their day schools none who do not also 
 attend their Sunday schools.
 
 46 A Warning to Churchmen. Book hi. 
 
 Pass we on now to the publicly declared sentiments of some of the 
 Members and Friends of the Liberation Society. 
 
 Mr. Edward MIALL (Independent), 
 
 Mr. Miall was formerly Preacher at an Independent Meeting-house at 
 Ware, and afterwards of one at Leicester; M.P. for Rochdale, 1852-7; 
 and proprietor of the Noncovformist Newspaper. I place him first, not 
 only on account of the peculiar bitterness with which he has for many 
 years past assailed the Church of England, but because he is usually 
 considered by his party as their leader-in- chief. My quotations are 
 from the Nonconformist's SJcetch Booh, 8vo. London, 1842 ; but the author's 
 British Churches in relation to the British People, should also be consulted, 
 
 " The time for trifling has gone by. The Establishment, a life-destroying upas, deeply 
 rooted in our soil, undisturbed, drinks up fresh vigour. It sprouts again. It puts forth 
 fresh branches. It sheds its noxious seeds in our colonies. If there be evil in it, that 
 evil is daily becoming confirmed, augmented, perpetuated. The curse is going down to 
 our posterity, abroad to our emigrants, aggravated in its intensity. For our part., we are 
 resolved to wash our hands of the guilt. In the name of myriads, victims of an impious 
 PEETENCE — when they lean upon it, fatally deluded ; when they discern its hollowness, 
 rendered infidels for life — in the name of unborn generations, of the untold millions that 
 shall one day populate the distant dependencies of Britain — in the name of Christianity, 
 misrepresented, disgraced, downcast, trodden under foot by aristocratic legislation, we 
 charge the body of Dissenting Ministers with unfaithfulness to sacred principles, evasion 
 of a noble mission, and seeming recklessness of all the mighty interests at issue." — Sketch 
 Book, p. 16. 
 
 " A State Church ! Have they never pondered upon the practical meaning of that word? 
 Have they never looked into that dark, polluted, inner chamber of which it is the door? 
 Have they never caught a glimpse of the loathsome things that live, and crawl, and gender 
 there ? " — Ibid. p. 1 6. 
 
 The Church is an " Abomination," to be swept away ; it is " the most fitting refuge for 
 wealthy worldhness."' — Ibid. p. zo. 
 
 " We believe that Dissenting Ministers have swerved into dishonesty " [no doubt about 
 it]. — Ibid. p. 20. 
 
 The Established Church is " an admitted evil — an evil of feightful magnitude." . . . 
 The Church of England is " an image carved with mai-vellous cunning, tricked out in 
 solemn vestments, a part woven by human fancy, a part stolen from the chest of truth 
 —an image, we repeat, an outside semblance, a counterfeit .... empty, without 
 heart, destitute of any well-spring of ritality .... Kings, nobles, and bishops, 
 under the sanction and on behalf of their Church, perpetuate a thousand enormities, violate 
 every maxim of religion, degrade, insult, harass, imprison — regard neither justice nor 
 mercy in their pursuit of pelf." — Ibid. p. 27. 
 
 " To shatter this image, and give the dust of it to the four winds of heaven . . . . 
 is the sacred mission of Frotestant Dissenting Ministers''— Ibid. p. 29. 
 
 The Church of England is " a, great aristocratic imposture — a disgustittg pretence, the 
 hollowness of which may be easily exposed — a falsehood cloaked in truth, which levies 
 fearfid imposts, produces bitter dissensions, stands in the way of all national progress, 
 engenders infidelity to a most alarming extent, misrepresents and dishonours true re- 
 ligion." — Ibid. p. 34. 
 
 " Racks, thumb-screws, and bootikins — the sword and the faggot— squabbles for money 
 — scrambles for place — a population escaping from brutal superstition, only to rush into 
 the bosom of daring and profligate infidelity ; these are the results and the trophies of 
 coercion — of a State Church." — Ibid. p. 39. 
 
 "Are there not vested interests planted in every square mile of the country [i.e. 
 Parish Clergy] to nip and extinguish Christianity in earnest V — Ibid. p. 41. 
 
 The presence of Bishops in the Upper House of Parliament answers " no earthly 
 purpose but to keep alive bigotry and embitter strife." — Ibid. p. 58. 
 
 " The resumption [i.e. robberj'] for civil purposes of all funds now devoted by the 
 State to the maintenance of the Church — the abolition of all priA'ileges connected with 
 the profession of a authorised creed — and the repeal of all statutes empowering the
 
 Book III. ^^ Elegant Extracts^ 4y 
 
 magistrate to interpose his aid in religious affairs, is what we mean by the separation of 
 Church and State." — Ibid. p. 60. 
 
 " 15,000 Clergy . . . stationed at convenient intervals over the length and breadth 
 of the land, and thus coming in contact with society at all points — could mechanism more 
 fatal to religion [?], or more serviceable to the interests of the upper class, be framed and 
 put together ?" — Ibid. p. 68. 
 
 " Whatever rehgion is mixed up with it [the Church of England] is there by accident, 
 is frowned on as intrusive, is not only not necessary to the system, but, in so far as it is 
 consistent, is antagonistic to it." — Riid. p. 70. 
 
 The Church of England " desecrates religion, and obstructs popular freedom. ... It 
 becomes every lover of his country, as well as every Christian, to denounce it. No man 
 can be regarded as a sound-hearted patriot who advocates the maintenance of a State- 
 Church." — Ibid. p. 70. 
 
 The English Clergy are " men who of necessity are inimical to all reform, abettors 
 of every abuse, united, organised, and therefore formidable opponents of progressive 
 improvement." — Ibid. p. 72. 
 
 The English Establishment " obstructs general improvement, cripples intelligence, 
 stunts the national mind, and keeps people fools in order that they may be slaves." — 
 Ibid. p. 72. 
 
 '■ The selfishness, ambition, intolerance, and hypocrisy " of the English Clergy. "What 
 deeds of darkness have been too foul, what malignant attacks upon the rights of man 
 have been too infernal, to be perpetrated" by them? . . . "In what page of our 
 national records are we to look for the disinterestedness, the liberality, or the gentleness 
 of the Clergy ? . . . They have been invariably the deadliest foes of liberty, civil and 
 religious. Despotism and tyranny always found in them the ready tools to enslave the 
 people. . . . Their hatred of improvement, their scorching intolerance, remain just 
 what they were, modified only by the spirit of the age. ... The education of the 
 people ovres nothing to them[?]. They checked it as long as decency would forbid, and 
 when nothing could effectually stay its progress, they advertised and puflfed off an article 
 of their own, steeped in the bigotry of their religious system. . . . The body [of them] 
 has been a political curse. They have uniformly stood in the way of their country's 
 improvement." — Ibid. p. 75. 
 
 " Democracy is a reality — a State-Church is a mere conventionalism ; reason animates 
 the one — the other can only live in the absence of reason ; the former is a sincerity, 
 a vital, glowing, earnest sincerity — the other a semblance only, a form, a disguise, a 
 falsehood, having designs which it dares not avow, and avowing designs which it never 
 had." — Ibid. p. 118. 
 
 " Could we but trace the history of our Establishment [in England], and mark its 
 influence upon the national character, we should find that against deep, intelligent, self- 
 denying piety, it has always set its face as a flint" [! ! !] — Ibid. p. 185. 
 
 " In the eye of a State-Church, immorality and licentiousness are trifles " [! ! !] — 
 Md.-p.iS5._ 
 
 " As a spiritual institution, we are warranted in pronouncing the Chiu'ch of England to 
 be at once a blunder, a failure, and a hoax" [! ! !] — Ibid. p. aiz. 
 
 " The separatio7i of Church and State, as it is their [the Dissenters'] real object, so in 
 our judgment it is their proper, their right noble inission" — Ibid. p. 270. 
 
 " The useful reforms she [the Church of England] obstructs — the vicious principles, 
 both social and political, to which she gives her sanction . . . the debasing influence 
 she exerts upon the religion of all parties and sects . . . render her a public 
 I^uisANCE, the speedy removal of which interests eveiy class of people in this country." — 
 Ibid. p. 278. 
 
 " Upon all national Churches is enstamped, in deep and indelible characters, the mark 
 of the beast." — Ibid. p. zfo. 
 
 " Homage the most indirect paid to the State-Church is, in essence, the recognition of 
 falsehood and the worship of a lie ! " — Ibid. p. 280. 
 
 The " Rev." Thomas BINNEY (Independent). 
 
 Mr. Binney is tlie Preacher at the Weigh-liouse Meeting-house, Fi-sh 
 Street Hill, London. 
 
 " It is witli me, I confess, a matter of deep, serious, religious conviction, thut the 
 Estabhshed Church is a geeat national evil ; that it is an obstacle to the progress of
 
 48 A Warning to Churchmen. Book 111. 
 
 truth aud godlinesss in this land; that IT DESTEOYS MOEE SOULS THAN IT 
 SAVES ; and that thprefore its end is most devoutly to be wished for by every lover of 
 G-od and man. Eight or wrong, this is my belief." — Address delivered on laying the first 
 stone of the New King's Weigh-house Meeting-house, 1834, p. 52. 
 
 "I wish to assent to the principle that the Churches are the property of the whole nation, 
 including the Dissenters ... I believe the time will come when the nation and not 
 a sect will have the use of them."— Speech at the Anti-Church Rate Conference, Freemasons' 
 Hall, Feb. 12, 1 861. 
 
 Mr. John BRIGHT (Quaker). 
 
 It is needless to say that Mr. Bright is the well-known Peace-at-any- 
 price M.P. In Church matters, however, he is for War-at-any-price. 
 
 " The Dissenters regard this matter [Church Eates] as a matter of supremacy. It is 
 not as matter of twopence in the pound that they regard it. . . . But it is really a 
 question of supremacy, and of supremacy, too, on the part of a great establishment 
 which is as much political as religious, against which their forefathers have fought, and 
 against which they are still obliged to contend. . . . Anything which binds them to a 
 subjugation to your Church, gives it a supremacy, or enables it especially to exact money 
 from them, is a thing to whicli it is im-possihle for them in any way to assent." — Speech on 
 the Second Beading of the Church Bates Abolition Bill, Feb. 27, 1861. 
 
 The " Rev." William BROCK (Antipsedohaptist). 
 
 Mr. Brock is the Minister of Bloomsbury Meeting-house, London, and 
 is well known to most persons as the biographer of Sir H. Havelock, who 
 held the same views. 
 
 " I have never concealed my opinions upon the question of Church and State, and am 
 more than ever convinced that until a separation takes place there will be no peace for 
 England religiously. All we ask for is the perfect equality of all denominations, and we 
 shall never be satisfied with less than this." — Speech at the Annual Meeting of the Libe- 
 ration Society, May 2, 1861. 
 
 "We would have all ecclesiastical buildings [Churches, &c.] recognised as belonging to 
 the State. We would have all ecclesiastical lands come gradually into the actual possession 
 of the State. We would have all property represented by the word tithe revert to the use 
 of the State, either by the ordinary process of redemption, or by some such other equitable 
 arrangement as the Legislature may devise." — Lecture at the Norwich Beligious Liberty 
 Society, Feb. 9, 1847. 
 
 Mr. George Joseph COCKERELL (Independent). 
 
 Mr. Cockerell is a large Coal Merchant at Cornhill, London ; and was 
 Sheriif of London in 1861-2. In politics he is an ultra- Radical. 
 
 " I do not believe in just stopping short at the matter of Church Eates" — i.e. we must 
 go on much farther. — Speech at the Annual Meeting of the Liberation Society, May 2, 1861. 
 
 The " Rev." J. CROMPTOK 
 
 Mr. Crompton is a Dissenting Preacher, but I have been unable to 
 ascertain any particulars relating to him. 
 
 " As an order, the existence of the English Clergy, on their present footing, is an evii. 
 (and has been so through history) of a gigantic nature. . . They are, and have been, 
 the greatest obstacles of progress and improvement the country possesses." — Lecture at the 
 Norwich Beligious Liberty Society, Feb. 23, 1S47. 
 
 The " Rev." R. W. DALE (Independent). 
 
 Mr. Dale is the Preacher at the Carr's Lane Meeting-house, Birming- 
 ham, having succeeded the late Mr. J. A. James. 
 
 The Pilgrim Fathers " denied the Churcli of England to be a true Church at all, though
 
 Book III. " Elegant Extracts.' 
 
 49 
 
 there were very many excellent Christian persons in it ; and to that denial I firmly 
 HOLD." — Lecture on the I'ihjrim Fathers. i6mo. London, 1S54, p. 13. 
 
 Mr. Johx foster. 
 
 Mr. Foster was a distinguislied anti-Churcliman of tlie last genei'atioia. 
 The Editor of the Cliristiaii Witness saysthathe "will be generally accepted 
 hy the Dissenters of England as an advocate worthy of their cause." 
 
 " Making religion a part of the State, is anti-Christian in theory and noxious in 
 practice." — Quoted in The Christian Witness, Feb. 1847, p. 76. 
 
 " A fearful mass and variety of e\'ils, consistently, and for the most part necessarily, 
 result from the very nature of an Established Church, and are not accidental and separable ; 
 and therefore the thing is radically and fundamentally bad, and pernicious to religion." — 
 Ibid. p. 78. 
 
 The English Clergy are "multitudes of authorised teachers, who teach not the Gosjiel.''' 
 —Ibid. p. 78. 
 
 The Cluirch of England " we judge to be ANTI-CHRISTIAN, UNSCRIPTURAL. and 
 CORRUPT."— 7W(?. p. 80. 
 
 The "Rev." John Howard HINTON (Antiptedobaptist). 
 Mr. Hinton is the Preacher to the congregation Meeting at Devonshire 
 Square, Bishopsgate, London. 
 
 " I have been a soldier in this battle [Abolition of Church Rates] from my youth, and 
 I am in better hope to-day than I ever have been of seeing the victory won. (Loud cheers.) 
 And I say this, that whether Parliament chooses to give us this out of justice or not, wo 
 will have it, with them or without them. (Loud cheers.)" — Speech at the Anti-Church 
 Bate Conference, Freemasons' Hcdl, Feb. 12, 1861. 
 
 The late "Rev." John Angell JAMES (Independent). 
 The late well-known Preacher at the Carr's Lane Meeting-house, Bir- 
 mingham. 
 
 The alliance of the Church of England " witli the State is a great evil, and the prolific 
 source of many others, and, as long as it remains as a system of religious instruction, 
 must inevitably corrupt it, and render it to a considerable extent an engine of secular 
 policy." — Works, Vol. xiv. p. 148, 8vo. London 1862. 
 
 Church reform, as suggested by some of her friends, "would not meet the case. It 
 would at best only purify the stream, and leave the fountain still polluted. The alliance 
 (IF THE Church with the State is the mighty mischief. No provisions, however 
 wisely ordered, nor precautions, however judiciously framed, can guard against the cor- 
 ruptions which must inevitably result to the Church from an Establishment. As long as 
 this remains, the Church cannot preserve its gravity." — Ibid. p. 162. 
 
 The "Rev." John KELLY (Independent). 
 Mr. Kelly is a great man at the " Congregational Union." 
 ' The Church of England is a mode of government marked by titles and claims whica 
 Christ has expressly forbidden his servants to assume — a mode of government which, m 
 its working, is proving itself imbecile for good, and potent only for evil.'' — Address : Ccn- 
 ijregationai Year Booh; 1861, p. 45. 
 
 The late "Rev." George LEGGE, LL.D. (Independent). 
 Mr. Legge was an Independent Preacher at Leicester, and was Chair- 
 man of the " Congregational [fashionable Avord for Independent] Union 
 of England Sivd Wales," for 1859. Holding this high position in his 
 
 D
 
 ^o A Warning to Churclimen. Book III. 
 
 sect, and liaving received an unanimous vote of thanks for liis address, 
 the Union are, of course, authoritatively pledged to Mr. Legge's opinions. 
 " Further, there is Church-and-State-ism, or Establishment-arianism, which we [the Con- 
 gregational Union] regard as at once a BLUNDER and a '^W^— Address at Aberdare, 
 Sept. 13, 1859. Cungrcgational Year Book, i860, p. 42. 
 
 The Hon. and Rev. Baptist Wkiotheslby NOEL ( Antipsedobaptist) . 
 
 Mr. Noel's antecedents are too well known to i-equire a lengthy notice 
 here. He is de jure a clergyman of the Church of England ; but in 1848, 
 while Incumbent of St. John's Chapel, Bedford Row, he became do facto 
 a schismatic, and is now Preacher at an Antipsedobaptist Meeting-house in 
 the same locality. He is of noble birth, being the brother of the Earl of 
 Gainsborough. My quotations are from his Essay on the Union of the 
 Church and the State, 2d edition, 8vo. London, 1849. 
 
 "The Union between the Church and State in anyconntrj is unprincipled, absurd, and 
 mischievous." — Essay, p. 2,38, 
 
 The Church of England and its Clergy " are corrupted, and the Union [of Church and 
 State] being one principal cause of their corruption, the Union is at this time one great 
 obstacle to the progress of religion in the country." — Ibid. p. 543. 
 
 " It is impossible that the Estabhshment, under the control of worldly politicians, led 
 by worldly prelates, and taught by worldly pastors chosen by worldly patrons, can possibly 
 extend the empire of spiritual religion through the land." — Bnd. p. 545. 
 
 " The safety of the constitution demands the immediate removal of the Union of Church 
 and State. It disfigures our constitution, distracts our social peace, revolts our sense of 
 justice, is condemned by religion [?], and irritates millions [?] against the social system 
 under which they live." — Ibid. p. 562. 
 
 A " Separation of the Church and State is the distinct tendency of the present nations 
 of Europe, which must, sooner or later, govern tlie course of the rest." Mr. Noel then 
 goes on to refer to the proceedings of the French National Convention in 1795, and the 
 G-erman National Assembly in 1848 (both short-lived Democratic bodies), in repudiating 
 National religion, whose example, our author hopes, will be followed soon by English- 
 men \}.\\\—Ibid. p. 563. 
 
 The separation of Church and State " has been put to the test by a great nation across 
 the Atlantic with extraordinary success [! ! !], the events of Europe are happily hastening 
 it on ; and may England be among the earliest of the European nations to fulfil the duty 
 and reap the advantages." — Ibid. p. 571. 
 
 The late " Rev." Andrew REED, " D.D." (Independent). 
 
 Mr. Reed was the Preacher at the Wyclifie Meeting-house, Com- 
 mercial Road, and was well known, in connection with the Asylum for 
 Idiots, Redhill. 
 
 " The majority of the Clergy in the Established Church ever has exerted, and still does 
 exert, a powerful influence against what we regard as the Eeligion of the Bible." — Lecture 
 at the Norwich Religious Liberty Society, Feb. 23, i?47. 
 
 The "Rev." Charles Haddon SPURGEON (Antipjedobaptist). 
 
 It is hardly necessary for me to state that this is the well-known 
 " popular Preacher " at Newington. I am given to understand by those 
 who have heard him, that insults to the Church and her Spiritual Rulers 
 are constantly indulged in by him in his sermons. The quotations below 
 are from the Baptist Magazine, 8vo. London, 1861. 
 
 " To Churchmen we would say, What right has jxur sect to be j^atronised by the 
 State in preference to all others ? Do you not perceive that the power which has 
 made you the State-Church can unmake you, and withdraw its golden sanctions ? Your
 
 BcoK III. " Elegant Extracts^ 51 
 
 Church was originally fashioned by despotic will, and elected to supremacy Ly arbitrary 
 jiower ; but there are no despots now to whom you can look, no irresponsible conclaves 
 on whom you can rely. . . . You shall rue the day in which oppression unloosed our 
 tongues. We will expose your abuses to the very children in the street ; we will teach 
 the peasant at the plough to loathe the inconsistencies of your Prayer Book, and the 
 pauper on the road shall know the history of your ferocious persecutions in the days of 
 yore [!]. We will collect statistics of your Ministers, and let our citizens know how 
 many or how few are Evangelicals ; we will demand Scriptural proof for Confu-mation 
 and for Priestly Absolution ; and we will never permit the nation to subside into apathy 
 so favourable to proud pretensions. We court not the struggle, but we are ready for it 
 if you are ambitious for the combat. We know your unhealed and unmoUified wounds, 
 and our blows will tell upon your piitrefying sores. Our armoxiry is filled with arrows, 
 feathered with your follies and barbed with your backslidings. Provoke not the fray. 
 . . . . You will find it a hard matter to retrace your steps if you go astray much 
 farther." — B.M. June, p. 334. 
 
 The " Rev." Thomas TOLLER (Independent). 
 
 Mr. Toller is or was a Preaclier at Kettering, !N"ortliamptonsliire. 
 
 " We hold that the connection of a Church with the State carries absurdity on the face 
 of it ; that all civil establishments of religion are inconsistent with the very nature of 
 religion ; a violation of the inalienable rights of men, and, therefore, contradictory to the 
 laws and spirit of Christianity." — Sermon published in the Congregational Pulpit, October 
 1855, p. 201. 
 
 The "Rev." Robert VAUGHAN, "D.D." (Independent). 
 Mr. Vauglian is a highly infliiential Preacher (unattached) in London. 
 He was for many years the Editor of the British Quarterly Bevieiv, and 
 one of the few real scholars his sect can boast of; he is also one of the 
 Honorary Secretaries of the Religious Tract Society. 
 
 " Some have been much surprised, or have affected to be so, of late, in having dis- 
 covered, as they would lead us to suppose, that Dissenters are really opposed to an 
 Established Church. Why, a Congregational [Independent] Dissenter, from the 
 
 VERY essence OF WHAT IS DISTINCTIVE IN HIS PROFESSION, MUST BE OPPOSED TO IT. 
 
 If there be a State Endowment of religion, there must be State influence and control in 
 relation to it. But it is of the very essence of our Independency to resist all such 
 INTERFERENCE. We Cannot forego this controversy — we dare not." — Speech at the Elect- 
 ing of t/ie Congregational Union, at Birmingham, October 9, 1861, 
 
 This is an authoritative denial of what, in spite of every fair proof to 
 the contrary, many Churchmen will persist in trying to believe is possible, 
 viz. that there can be lasting peace and harmony between Church and 
 Dissent. Churchmen have often, ere this, been warned of the fatal 
 delusion they, were under, but all in vain. However disagreeable or 
 unpalatable it may be to many of us, nothing short of a stern determina- 
 tion to crush the social and political influence of Dissent will save the 
 Establishment, as such. Every Churchman who entertains a particle of 
 self-respect either for himself or his Church, ought to cease from all 
 dealings with political schismatics. Churchmen ought all to retire from 
 the Bible Society, the Tract Society, the City Mission, and all " mixed " 
 institutions ; and if none already exist in connection with the Church, 
 they should found them. The Rev. Dr. Miller, the esteemed Rector 
 of Gfreenwich, set a noble example when at Birmingham, whicli I hojie 
 will be widely followed.
 
 52 A Warning to Clturchmen. Book III. 
 
 The " Rev." T. A. WHEELER (Antipseclobaptist). 
 
 Mr. Wlieeler is or was a Preacher at Norwich. 
 
 "A 'sectarian Clergy' appropriate annually 9,000,000^. .sterling [! ! !] of strictly 
 national property." — Lecture at the Norwich Eeligious Liberty Society, March 2, 1847. 
 
 Notoriously a LIE. 
 
 A national Religious Establishment is "the friend and ally of arbitrary power, the foe 
 of popular advancement, denying freedom of action to the mind, and impeding the progress 
 of truth, and as snch we look npon it as meriting our severest censure, and demanding our 
 most persevering opposition." — Ibid. 
 
 " The .system itself [of the Church of England] we denounce, and are peepahed for 
 
 A WAR AGAINST IT WHICH NO TRUCE SHALX LULL, AND NOUGHT BUT ITS OVEE- 
 
 THROW SHALL END."— /6/(^. 
 
 AN ANONYMOUS WRITER. 
 
 I have mislaid the reference to this paragraph, but it is rather an im- 
 portant one, more particularly as its sentiments were unfolded by one of the 
 witnesses before the Lords Committee on Church Rates. — (Seejoost, p. 85.) 
 
 " We demand that the national property [i.e. our Churches and Chapels] shall be 
 used for national purposes, or leased out to its present holders at a rental which shall 
 acknowledge national proprietorship," &c. 
 
 THE " CHRISTIAN'S PENNY MAGAZINE " 
 
 Is a popular periodical " issued by the Congregational Union of 
 England and Wales," and edited until recently by John Campbell, D.D. 
 Its circulation, which at one time amounted to 100,000 copies per number, 
 is now, happily, much diminished. 
 
 In the worship of the English Church, " God is defied to his face by a man daring to 
 call himself the Minister of Christ." [?]—C. P. M., Jan. 1846, p. 14. 
 
 The Bishops of the Church of England " ride in carriages, seldom preach [?], and 
 yearly spend thousands of the public money in pride, luxury, and idleness.'^ — Ibid. 
 March 1847, p. 76. 
 
 " The Church of England practically denies the suFricitNCY of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures." — Ibid. p. 76. 
 
 " The Church of England ... IS AN ENGINE IN THE HANDS OF SATAN, 
 TO DELUDE AND DECEIVE THE PE0PLE."-7i«/. p. 70. 
 
 The Archbishops, Bishops, and inferior Clergy are, •' most of them, carnal men, enemies 
 to a free Gospel Church and to the spread of the Gospel." — Ibid. p. 77. 
 
 The people who pay rates, tithes, &c. , "receive nothing but insult from the lordly 
 priesthood" of the Church of England. — Ibid. p. 77. 
 
 The village clergyman " is the principal opposer of the power of godliness." — Ibid. p. 77. 
 
 The reader has by this time been pretty well initiated into the choice 
 language and elegant phraseology of the Dissenters ; but he will, I think, 
 be scarcely prepared for the following example of what is neither more 
 nor less than BLASPHEMY OP THE VILEST KIND— the production, 
 too, not of a professed Infidel, but of a self-styled Christian. Worthy 
 indeed is the Christian'' s Penny Magazine of standing side by side with 
 Tom Paine's Age of Heason., and the many blasphemous works of Voltaire, 
 Hone, Holyoake, and other Atheists of their stamp.
 
 Book III. 
 
 " Elegant Extracts.'' 
 
 S3 
 
 'THE EIGHT TO PLUNDER 
 DICATED : 
 
 VIN- 
 
 " Being Chap. XXIX. of the Acts of the 
 AjMstles, lately added for the Upholding 
 of Church Rates, ^'c* 
 
 "Veese 1. Now it came to pass, while 
 Paul tarried at Corinth, that he made a rate 
 of two-peuce iu the pound upon the Jews, 
 and upon the Gentiles, and upon the Church 
 of God : and the rate was upon tliis wise : 
 
 2. When the brethren came together on 
 the first day of the week, Stephanas, which 
 was the first fruits of Achaia, being 
 churchwarden that same year, moved that 
 a rate should be made of two-pence in the 
 pound for the mitre of Paul, and for his 
 apron, and for the wine, and for the bell- 
 ringers, and for the organist, and for the 
 painted window, and for the beadle, and for 
 the grave-digger, and for the clerk. 
 
 3. So a brother whose name was Aris- 
 tarchus seconded the motion. 
 
 4. And Paul the Lord Bishop of Achaia 
 sat in the chair, in his rochet ; and the very 
 reverend Gaius, Dean of Corinth, sat at his 
 right hand. 
 
 5. And a man whose name was Albinus 
 rose up straightway in the midst, and spake 
 against the rate, . . . 
 
 6. But the brethren lifted up their 
 voices in the vestry with one accord, and 
 cried mightily for about the space of half 
 an hour. Turn him out ! and they threw 
 dust in the air, and made no small stir, 
 stamping with their feet, and hissing ; in- 
 somuch that Albinus was put to shame and 
 held his peace. 
 
 7. And Paul the apostle took the vote, 
 and the brethren lifted up their hands, and 
 they made a rate. . . . 
 
 8. 9. 10. II. And the churchwardens 
 departed to collect the rate, and coming 
 unto the house of one Silvanus, a Hebrew 
 of the Hebrews, and a ruler of the syna- 
 gogue, behold he refused to pay. So the 
 brethren hasted to tell it to the saints. 
 
 13. And Paul spake, and said unto the 
 churchwardens, and unto the beadle. Go 
 quickly into the street which is called 
 Straight, unto the house of the ruler of the 
 Jews, nigh unto the gate of the city, with 
 staves in your hands, and carry away sud- 
 
 denly his table, and his bed, and his silver 
 jug, and his spoon, and the spoon of his 
 wife, and whatsoever he hath, and bring 
 them into the market-place, and sell them 
 unto all that pass by, until the rate shall 
 be paid. 
 
 14. And if he will shut up the door of 
 his house, behold, ye shall break into it; 
 and if he hold fast to his table, or his bed, 
 or his jug, or his spoon, or anything which 
 is his, ye shall smite him with your trun- 
 cheon very grievously, and carry him away 
 to the dungeon, and give him the bread of 
 affliction and the water of affliction for six 
 months, until he repent. 
 
 15. So the churchwardens went their 
 way, and they took with them a brother 
 whose name was Phlegon, which was the 
 beadle of the church ; and he was arrayed 
 iu scarlet apparel for glory and for beauty, 
 and he had a cocked hat upon his head, 
 and a staff like unto a weavers beam in his 
 hand. 
 
 16. 17. And they came unto the house 
 of the ruler of the synagogue, and having 
 entered in by violence. . . . 
 
 19. Phlegon looked up to heaven, and 
 seized upon the table, and upon the jug of 
 the ruler, as Paul had commanded; upon 
 his silver spoon also, and upon the spoon 
 of his wife, which he had given her. 
 
 20. And S Ivanus held fast with his 
 hand iipon the table. Then Phlegon sighed, 
 and took him by the beard and smote him 
 upon the head, so that he fell upon the 
 eai'th. . . . 
 
 21. Then the churcliwardens and tlie 
 beadle took the bed, and the table, and the 
 jug, and the spoons of Silvanus, and they 
 departed unto the market-place, mourning 
 over his unbelief, and sold them unto them 
 which passed by, and payment was made. 
 
 23. And great fear came upon the Chris- 
 tians, and upon the heathen, and upon tlie 
 Jews, and they paid the rate of two-pence 
 in the pound, and all men glorified the 
 power of the Church and of the apostles. 
 
 24. And Paul gave a parish with light 
 dut^', and a living in Macedonia, unto the 
 sons of the churchwardens : and they gave 
 unto Phlegon, the beadle, soup for tlie 
 comfort of his body, and blankets, and an 
 
 •allotment at Christmas, for the zeai which 
 he showed." — C.P. M., March 1848, p. 71. 
 
 I leave this disgraceful composition to my readers to make tbeir ov^'n 
 comments on ; I will add nothing myself beyond saying that I concur 
 in the opinion that it " is a foul and lasting blot upon Dissent, and 
 shows how weak and how wicked she must be when she has no better 
 weapons than profaneness and ribaldry the most disgusting." 
 
 * The principal passages are given verbatim ; the remainder are abridged as nearly 
 possible in the words of the original.
 
 Book IV: 
 
 Ant statement of figures relating to a portion of a population is at once an 
 index, more or less trustworthy, to the whole. Thus if, of the adult 
 population of any given village of loo persons, 49 were men and 51 
 women, the chances are very great that in an adjoining village four times 
 the size there would be, of 400 adults, 196 men and 204 women. Ap- 
 plying this well-known principle of statistical science to certain numbers 
 presented to our notice in difierent Government returns, &c., we are able 
 to obtain some calculations as to the numerical strength of the Church and 
 Sects in England and Wales, which I here tabulate : — 
 
 Separate Places of Worship, 1851 
 
 Attendance on Census Sunday Morning, 1851 
 
 Accommodiition, 1851 
 
 Ministers of Keligion, 1 861 
 
 Burials ...... 
 
 Government Grants of Money, 1864 
 Schools ...... 
 
 Marriages in Places of Worship, 1863 
 Members of Parliament (H. C), 1866 
 
 Mean 
 
 44"4 
 546 
 
 57-1 
 67-9 
 
 71-5 
 
 76-z 
 83-0 
 
 85-5 
 926 
 
 70-4 
 
 The Sects. 
 Per cent. 
 
 55-6 
 45-4 
 429 
 3Z-I 
 28-5 
 238 
 17-0 
 145 
 7-3 
 
 296 
 
 In connection with the Census of 1851, an attempt was made, in an 
 unauthorised and very indirect manner, to obtain some knowledge of the 
 relative numbers of the adherents of the Church on the one hand, and of 
 the different Sects on the other, by counting the number of those who 
 attended the different places of worship. By a most elaborate series of 
 calculations, from the data afforded by these Census returns, Mr. Horace 
 Mann (himself a Dissenter, and therefore, if anything, prejudiced against 
 the Chui'ch) obtained the following results : — 
 
 Churchmen 
 Pomanists 
 Dissenters, &c. : — 
 
 Wesleyans 
 
 Independents . 
 
 Antipsedobaptists 
 
 All others 
 
 Total worshipping population 
 Eemainder, uou-worslaipping 
 
 2.308,953 
 
 1,321,904 
 
 979.964 
 
 692,788 
 
 7,546,948 
 610,786 
 
 5,303,609 
 [3,461,343 
 4,466,266 
 
 [7,927,609 
 
 
 Per cent, of 
 Population, 
 
 2-8 
 
 
 7-3 
 5-4 
 
 3-8 

 
 Book IV. Churcli Statistics. ^^ 
 
 This table reveals the fact that of the woj-.-^/i'^Jji^if/ population of England 
 and Wales, 56 per cent, attend the ser\dces of the Established Clmrch, 
 and only 44 the meeting-houses of the Sects. To the remaining 25 per 
 cent, of the population, the Church performs ndssioiiary work, as tlio 
 Sects, by their own avowal, have nothing to do with our home heathen 
 poor. According to Mr. Spurgeon's candid confession, there is gradually 
 growing up amongst Dissenters a feeling of disinclination to have any- 
 thing to do with those ivho cannot pay. 
 
 There is one thing to be noted, concerning the enumeration from which 
 Mr. Mann's figures are derived, of considerable importance, and it is this. 
 Sunday, March 8, [851, the day on which it was taken, was verij generally 
 wet, and the Bishop of Oxford pointed out what effect this would have on 
 the numbers. The strength of Dissent lies in the large towns, where 
 people live for the most part in close proximity to one another, and to 
 their places of worship. On the other hand, the strength of the Church 
 lies in the rural districts, where population is thin, and where people live 
 for the most part at some distance (often very considerable) from their 
 places of worship. The consequence is of course well known to be, that 
 in inclement weather country Churches lose a much larger proportion of 
 their ordinary congregations than io^Y\\ Churches. The Census Sunday 
 being wet, the resulting enumeration would be less unfavourable to the 
 Sects than it would be to the Church, and go it may reasonably be doubted 
 whether 56 per cent, does not fall short of the normal number of the 
 Church's worshippers. A man may not mind 300 yards of wet pavement, 
 but human nature is generally too ready to refuse a 2-mile walk through 
 muddy lanes. I omit all reference to the probable circumstance that the 
 Sects would be far more likely than the Church to whip up for the occasion. 
 That a whip did take place, and a pretty vigorous one too, is proved by 
 such facts as the following : — A Wesleyan Reformed meeting-house at 
 Leeds, returned as accommodating 200 persons, had a morning congrega- 
 tion of 650, an afternoon ditto of 723, and an evening ditto of 1030 ! A 
 Wesleyan Association meeting-house in St. Marylebone, returned as ac- 
 commodating 198 persons, had a mornir-g congregation of 277, and an 
 evening ditto of 336. A General Baptist meeting-house at Coventry, re- 
 turned as accommodating 300 persons, had a congregation of 397. It can 
 scarcely be doubted that there was much exaggeration on the part of the 
 Sects, as instances like these can be multiplied by reference to the official 
 retiirns. 
 
 On the whole, we are unquestionably warranted in assuming that the 
 Church comprehends in its fold fully huo-thlrds of the entire population of 
 England and Wales (Mr. Mann says 6"/ per cent. ; Mr. Mann, it Avill be 
 recollected, vjas a Dissenter). And the general fact that the Church is in 
 some kind of a majority is triumphantly proved by the extraordinary 
 vehemence -with which the Dissenters agitated in 1 860 against the pro- 
 posed personal inquiry into the religious belief of every individual, in the 
 Census of 1861. Their anxiety bordered on temporary insanity ; and Lord 
 Palmerston, most unfortunately, after pledging himself to maintain the 
 proposed clause, ultimately yielded to the Dissenting clamour. It would 
 have been a crucial test, but our opponents were — afraid.
 
 56 
 
 Churcli Statistics. 
 
 Book IV. 
 
 The following list of Parliamentary divisions during the last i 3 years 
 comprise almost all those relating to great Church questions, and a few 
 others besides for general reference. Some of these latter extend further 
 back. The totals, for and against, include tellers, pairs, and members 
 shut out. The numbers in columns 7 and 8 will occasionally be found to 
 d iffer from the announced figures, because members shut out are included : 
 
 ABOLITION OF OATHS IN COURTS OF JUSTICE BILL. 
 
 Date 
 
 Stage 
 
 Ayes 
 
 Noes 
 
 Total 
 for 
 
 Total 
 against 
 
 Majority 
 
 Total 
 voting 
 
 Commons. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 For 
 
 Agst 
 
 
 1861, June 12 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 66 
 
 n6 
 
 80 
 
 151 
 
 — 
 
 li 
 
 231 
 
 1862, June 24 
 
 Leave 
 
 88 
 
 59 
 
 90 
 
 61 
 
 29 
 
 
 151 
 
 1863, March 11 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 96 
 
 142 
 
 113 
 
 159 
 
 
 46 
 
 272 
 
 ABOLITION OF THI:: 
 
 EEGIUM DONUM 
 
 (Irish Presbyterian). 
 
 
 Date 
 
 Stage 
 
 Ayes 
 
 Noes 
 
 Total 
 for 
 
 Total 
 against 
 
 Majority 
 
 Total 
 voting 
 
 Commons. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 For 
 
 Agst 
 
 
 1853, May 20 
 
 Vote 
 
 46 
 
 181 
 
 48 
 
 183 
 
 — 
 
 135 
 
 231 
 
 1854, July 6 
 
 Vote 
 
 62 
 
 149 
 
 70 
 
 157 
 
 — 
 
 «7 
 
 227 
 
 1855, July 30 
 
 Vote 
 
 32 
 
 96 
 
 45 
 
 109 
 
 — 
 
 H 
 
 154 
 
 1856, April 18 
 
 Vote 
 
 60 
 
 230 
 
 62 
 
 234 
 
 — 
 
 172 
 
 396 
 
 1857, July 13 
 
 Vote 
 
 41 
 
 117 
 
 49 
 
 127 
 
 — 
 
 78 
 
 176 
 
 1858, July 12 
 
 Vote 
 
 55 
 
 165 
 
 60 
 
 170 
 
 — 
 
 1 10 
 
 230 
 
 1859, July 29 
 
 Vote 
 
 40 
 
 126 
 
 45 
 
 131 
 
 — 
 
 86 
 
 176 
 
 1861, July 23 
 
 Vote 
 
 li 
 
 78 
 
 20 
 
 80 
 
 — 
 
 68 
 
 100 
 
 1862, July 21 
 
 Vote 
 
 16 
 
 58 
 
 19 
 
 61 
 
 — 
 
 42 
 
 80 
 
 1863, March 26 
 
 Vote 
 
 26 
 
 53 
 
 28 
 
 55 
 
 — 
 
 27 
 
 «3 
 
 1864, June 26 
 
 Vote 
 
 21 
 
 127 
 
 24 
 
 130 
 
 
 106 
 
 154 
 
 OXFORD UNIVERSITY TESTS ABOLITION BILL 
 
 Date 
 
 Stage 
 
 Ayes 
 
 Noes 
 
 Total 
 for 
 
 Total 
 against 
 
 Majority 
 
 Total 
 voting 
 
 Commons. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 For 
 
 Agst. 
 
 
 1864, March 16 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 211 
 
 189 
 
 228 
 
 206 
 
 22 
 
 — 
 
 434 
 
 „ June I 
 
 Committee 
 
 236 
 
 226 
 
 281 
 
 271 
 
 10 
 
 — 
 
 552 
 
 ,, Jidy I 
 
 3rd Reading 
 
 150 
 
 140 
 
 237 
 
 227 
 
 10 
 
 — 
 
 464 
 
 n 
 
 3rd Reading 
 
 170 
 
 170 
 
 25« 
 
 257 
 
 I 
 
 — 
 
 515 
 
 
 Pass 
 
 171 
 
 173 
 
 258 
 
 260 
 
 — 
 
 2 
 
 5.8 
 
 1865, June 14 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 206 
 
 190 
 
 246 
 
 230 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 476 
 
 1866, March 21 
 
 2ud Reading 
 
 217 
 
 103 
 
 223 
 
 109 
 
 114 
 
 
 332
 
 Book IV. 
 
 Parliamentary Divisions. 
 
 57 
 
 LEG.ILISATION OF MAERIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER. 
 
 Date 
 
 Stage 
 
 Ayes 
 
 Noes 
 
 Total 
 for 
 
 Total 
 against 
 
 Majority 
 
 Total 
 voting 
 
 Lords. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 For 
 
 Agst 
 
 
 1856, April 25 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 24 
 
 43 
 
 *4 
 
 43 
 
 — 
 
 19 
 
 67 
 
 1858, July 23 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 22 
 
 46 
 
 22 
 
 46 
 
 — 
 
 24 
 
 68 
 
 1859, March 22 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 39 
 
 49 
 
 54 
 
 64 
 
 — 
 
 10 
 
 118 
 
 Commons. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1855, March 13 
 
 Leave 
 
 87 
 
 53 
 
 138 
 
 104 
 
 34 
 
 — 
 
 242 
 
 jMay 9 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 i6s 
 
 157 
 
 171 
 
 162 
 
 9 
 
 — 
 
 333 
 
 185S, March 23 
 
 Leave 
 
 105 
 
 62 
 
 154 
 
 no 
 
 44 
 
 — 
 
 264 
 
 „ Mays 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 174 
 
 134 
 
 206 
 
 166 
 
 40 
 
 — 
 
 372 
 
 ., July 2 
 
 3rd Reading 
 
 100 
 
 70 
 
 102 
 
 72 
 
 30 
 
 — 
 
 174 
 
 1859, Feb. 8 
 
 Leave 
 
 155 
 
 8S 
 
 158 
 
 87 
 
 7J 
 
 — 
 
 245 
 
 ,. "6 
 
 2ud Reading 
 
 135 
 
 77 
 
 154 
 
 96 
 
 58 
 
 — 
 
 250 
 
 ., March 3 
 
 3rd Reading 
 
 137 
 
 89 
 
 179 
 
 131 
 
 48 
 
 — 
 
 310 
 
 1861, April 17 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 172 
 
 177. 
 
 197 
 
 202 
 
 — 
 
 5 
 
 399 
 
 1862, Feh. 19 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 144 
 
 133 
 
 146 
 
 135 
 
 II 
 
 — 
 
 281 
 
 „ March 12 
 
 Committee 
 
 116 
 
 148 
 
 146 
 
 181 
 
 
 35 
 
 327 
 
 RELIGIOUS AVORSHIP BILL (Hon. P. J. Locke King). 
 
 Date 
 
 Stage 
 
 Ayes 
 
 Noes 
 
 Total 
 for 
 
 Total 
 against 
 
 Majority 
 
 Total 
 voting 
 
 Commons. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 For 
 
 Agst. 
 
 
 i860, March 14 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 131 
 
 168 
 
 135 
 
 172 
 
 — 
 
 37 
 
 307 
 
 1 861, May I 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 145 
 
 191 
 
 147 
 
 193 
 
 
 46 
 
 340 
 
 TEN-POUND COUNTY FRANCHISE BILL (Hon. P. J. Locke Kino). 
 
 Date 
 
 Stage 
 
 Ayes 
 
 Noes 
 
 Total 
 for 
 
 Total 
 against 
 
 Majority 
 
 Tot.al 
 voting 
 
 Commons. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 For 
 
 Agst. 
 
 
 1858, June 10 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 226 
 
 168 
 
 309 
 
 251 
 
 58 
 
 — 
 
 560 
 
 1 86 1, March 13 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 220 
 
 248 
 
 253 
 
 281 
 
 
 28 
 
 534 
 
 1864, April 13 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 227 
 
 254 
 
 262 
 
 289 
 
 
 '' 
 
 551
 
 £ 8 Church Statistics. Book IV. 
 
 SIX-POUND BOROUGH FRANCHISE BILL (Mr. Baines). 
 
 Date 
 
 Stage 
 
 Ayes 
 
 Noes 
 
 Total 
 for 
 
 Total 
 against 
 
 Majority 
 
 Total 
 voting 
 
 Commons. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 For 
 
 Agst. 
 
 
 1861, April n 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 193 
 
 245 
 
 238 
 
 289 
 
 — 
 
 51 
 
 5^7 
 
 1864, May II 
 
 and Reading 
 
 216 
 
 272 
 
 243 
 
 298 
 
 — 
 
 55 
 
 541 
 
 1^65, May 8 
 
 and Reading 
 
 214 
 
 288 
 
 247 
 
 321 
 
 
 74 
 
 5b8 
 
 ABOLITION OF CHURCH RATES. 
 
 Date 
 
 Stage 
 
 Ayes 
 
 Noes 
 
 Total 
 for 
 
 Total 
 against 
 
 Majority 
 
 Total 
 voting 
 
 Lords. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 For 
 
 Agst. 
 
 
 1858, July 2 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 ,6 
 
 187 
 
 61 
 
 212 
 
 — 
 
 151 
 
 273 
 
 i860, June 19 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 31 
 
 128 
 
 67 
 
 164 
 
 — 
 
 97 
 
 231 
 
 Commons. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1853, May 26 
 
 Motion 
 
 172 
 
 220 
 
 182 
 
 230 
 
 — 
 
 48 
 
 412 
 
 1854, May 23 
 
 Leave 
 
 129 
 
 62 
 
 162 
 
 96 
 
 68 
 
 — 
 
 2S8 
 
 „ June 21 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 182 
 
 209 
 
 211 
 
 238 
 
 — 
 
 27 
 
 449 
 
 i8c?, March 29 
 
 Leave 
 
 155 
 
 76 
 
 188 
 
 109 
 
 79 
 
 --- 
 
 297 
 
 „ May 16 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 217 
 
 189 
 
 252 
 
 222 
 
 30 
 
 — 
 
 474 
 
 1856, March 5 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 221 
 
 178 
 
 251 
 
 206 
 
 45 
 
 — 
 
 457 
 
 1858, Feb. 17 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 213 
 
 160 
 
 241 
 
 188 
 
 53 
 
 — 
 
 429 
 
 „ May 13 
 
 Clause I 
 
 227 
 
 153 
 
 286 
 
 210 
 
 76 
 
 — 
 
 496 
 
 „ June 8 
 
 3rd Reading 
 
 266 
 
 203 
 
 295 
 
 233 
 
 62 
 
 — 
 
 S28 
 
 i8<9, March 1 1; 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 242 
 
 168 
 
 284 
 
 209 
 
 75 
 
 — 
 
 493 
 
 „ July 13' 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 263 
 
 193 
 
 309 
 
 239 
 
 70 
 
 — 
 
 548 
 
 1S60, Feb. 8 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 263 
 
 234 
 
 29s 
 
 266 
 
 29 
 
 — 
 
 S6i 
 
 „ April 27 
 
 3rd Reading 
 
 235 
 
 226 
 
 280 
 
 269 
 
 1 1 
 
 — 
 
 549 
 
 1861, Feb. 27 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 281 
 
 266 
 
 305 
 
 290 
 
 15 
 
 — 
 
 595 
 
 „ June 19 
 
 3rd Reading 
 
 274 
 
 274 
 
 297 
 
 298 
 
 
 I 
 
 595 
 
 1862, May 14 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 286 
 
 287 
 
 304 
 
 305 
 
 — 
 
 I 
 
 609 
 
 .. .. 
 
 Resl. ag. Ab. 
 
 272 
 
 287 
 
 274 
 
 289 
 
 — 
 
 15 
 
 563 
 
 1863, April 29 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 275 
 
 28s 
 
 294 
 
 304 
 
 — 
 
 10 
 
 598 
 
 1866, March 7 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 285 
 
 252 
 
 314 
 
 279 
 
 35 
 
 
 593 
 
 NONCONFORMIST BURLILS BILL (Sir S. M 
 
 . Peto). 
 
 
 Date 
 
 Stage 
 
 Ayes 
 
 Noes 
 
 Total 
 for 
 
 Total 
 against 
 
 Majority 
 
 Total 
 voting 
 
 Commons 
 1861, April 24 
 1863, April IS 
 
 2nd Reading 
 2ud Reading 
 
 155 
 96 
 
 236 
 221 
 
 171 
 
 120 
 
 252 
 245 
 
 For 
 
 Agst. 
 81 
 125 
 
 423 
 365
 
 Book IV. 
 
 Parliamentary Divisions. 
 
 59 
 
 ABOLITION OF THE MAYNOOTU GKANT. 
 
 Date 
 
 Stage 
 
 Ayes 
 
 Noes 
 
 Total 
 for 
 
 Total 
 against 
 
 Majority 
 
 Total 
 •voting 
 
 Lords. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 For 
 
 Agst. 
 
 
 1853, April 18 
 
 Enqy. Com. 
 
 53 
 
 no 
 
 64 
 
 121 
 
 — 
 
 57 
 
 185 
 
 Commons. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1853, May 19 
 
 Omit the vote 
 
 74 
 
 54 
 
 160 
 
 I^O 
 
 20 
 
 — 
 
 300 
 
 1854, July 3 
 
 Res. for vote 
 
 90 
 
 106 
 
 97 
 
 "■? 
 
 — 
 
 16 
 
 210 
 
 1855, July 20 
 
 Select Com. 
 
 97 
 
 76 
 
 99 
 
 73 
 
 21 
 
 — 
 
 177 
 
 1856, April 15 
 
 Leave 
 
 »59 
 
 133 
 
 211 
 
 185 
 
 26 
 
 — 
 
 39b 
 
 ,, June 25 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 174 
 
 i6i 
 
 222 
 
 216 
 
 6 
 
 ■ — • 
 
 43« 
 
 1857, Feb. 19 
 
 Motion 
 
 '59 
 
 167 
 
 186 
 
 194 
 
 — 
 
 8 
 
 380 
 
 „ May 21 
 
 Motion 
 
 91 
 
 125 
 
 212 
 
 246 
 
 — 
 
 34 
 
 45« 
 
 1858, April 29 
 
 Motion 
 
 IS5 
 
 210 
 
 163 
 
 218 
 
 — 
 
 55 
 
 381 
 
 i860, Feb. 14 
 
 Motion 
 
 128 
 
 186 
 
 172 
 
 230 
 
 — 
 
 S^ 
 
 402 
 
 1 86 1, June 4 
 
 Motion 
 
 114 
 
 191 
 
 137 
 
 214 
 
 — 
 
 77 
 
 351 
 
 1862, May 6 
 
 Motion 
 
 III 
 
 193 
 
 132 
 
 214 
 
 — 
 
 82 
 
 34b 
 
 1863 June z 
 
 Motion 
 
 100 
 
 198 
 
 122 
 
 219 
 
 
 97 
 
 349 
 
 THE BALLOT. 
 
 Date 
 
 Stage 
 
 Ayes 
 
 Noes 
 
 Total 
 for 
 
 Total 
 against 
 
 Majority 
 
 Total 
 voting 
 
 Lords. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 For 
 
 Agst. 
 
 
 i860, March 19 
 
 Resolution 
 
 4 
 
 39 
 
 4 
 
 39 
 
 — 
 
 35 
 
 43 
 
 Commons. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1853, June 14 
 
 Leave 
 
 172 
 
 232 
 
 177 
 
 236 
 
 — 
 
 59 
 
 413 
 
 1854, June 13 
 
 Leave 
 
 157 
 
 J 94 
 
 173 
 
 213 
 
 — 
 
 40 
 
 38b 
 
 1855, May 22 
 
 Leave 
 
 166 
 
 218 
 
 201 
 
 253 
 
 — 
 
 52 
 
 454 
 
 1856, May ao 
 
 Leave 
 
 III 
 
 151 
 
 157 
 
 195 
 
 — 
 
 38 
 
 352 
 
 1857, June 30 
 
 Leave 
 
 189 
 
 257 
 
 218 
 
 288 
 
 — 
 
 70 
 
 506 
 
 1858, Junes 
 
 Leave 
 
 197 
 
 294 
 
 223 
 
 319 
 
 — 
 
 9b 
 
 542 
 
 1859, April 2 
 
 Leave 
 
 99 
 
 102 
 
 138 
 
 141 
 
 — 
 
 3 
 
 279 
 
 i860, March 20 
 
 Leave 
 
 147 
 
 254 
 
 190 
 
 297 
 
 — 
 
 107 
 
 487 
 
 1 861, April 23 
 
 Leave 
 
 154 
 
 279 
 
 185 
 
 310 
 
 — 
 
 125 
 
 495 
 
 1862, May 27 
 
 Leave 
 
 85 
 
 5^ 
 
 195 
 
 162 
 
 33 
 
 — 
 
 357 
 
 „ July 2 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 126 
 
 211 
 
 178 
 
 263 
 
 
 85 
 
 441 
 
 1864, June 21 
 
 Resolution 
 
 123 
 
 212 
 
 163 
 
 252 
 
 — 
 
 89 
 
 41S 
 
 1865, June 16 
 
 Resolution 
 
 74 
 
 1x8 
 
 
 158 
 
 
 42 
 
 271
 
 6o 
 
 Church Statistics. 
 
 Book IV. 
 
 QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES BILL. 
 
 Date 
 
 Stage 
 
 Ayes 
 
 Noes 
 
 Total 
 for 
 
 Total 
 against 
 
 Majority 
 
 Total 
 voting 
 
 Lords. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 For 
 
 Agst. 
 
 
 i860, March 22 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 21 
 
 44 
 
 21 
 
 44 
 
 — 
 
 
 65 
 
 1861, March 19 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 ^8 
 
 49 
 
 S8 
 
 49 
 
 — 
 
 
 87 
 
 1862, May 13 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 55 
 
 88 
 
 55 
 
 88 
 
 — 
 
 
 143 
 
 1863, April 24 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 52 
 
 69 
 
 63 
 
 80 
 
 — 
 
 
 143 
 
 1865, May I 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 49 
 
 72 
 
 61 
 
 84 
 
 — 
 
 23 
 
 145 
 
 Commons. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 86 1, Feb. 20 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 9^ 
 
 80 
 
 96 
 
 88 
 
 13 
 
 — 
 
 179 
 
 1862, Feb. 19 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 63 
 
 64 
 
 65 
 
 58 
 
 
 — 
 
 123 
 
 ,, ^6 
 
 3rd Reading 
 
 140 
 
 127 
 
 153 
 
 140 
 
 13 
 
 — 
 
 293 
 
 1863, Feb. 18 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 74 
 
 63 
 
 76 
 
 65 
 
 II 
 
 — 
 
 141 
 
 „ March 4 
 
 3rd Reading 
 
 175 
 
 172 
 
 223 
 
 220 
 
 
 — 
 
 443 
 
 1865, March 23 
 
 3rd Reading 
 
 130 
 
 56 
 
 135 
 
 61 
 
 74 
 
 — 
 
 196 
 
 1866, Feb. 19 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 176 
 
 55 
 
 183 
 
 62 
 
 121 
 
 
 245 
 
 CLERGY RELIEF BILL 
 (Mr. E. p. Bouveuie). 
 
 Date 
 
 Stage 
 
 Ayes 
 
 Noes 
 
 Total 
 for 
 
 Total 
 against 
 
 Majority 
 
 Total 
 voting 
 
 Commons. 
 1862, July 9 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 88 
 
 98 
 
 101 
 
 III 
 
 Tor 
 
 Agst. 
 10 
 
 212 
 
 TRUSTEES OF CHARITIES BILL 
 (Mr. L. L. Dillwyn). 
 
 Date 
 
 Stage 
 
 Ayes 
 
 Noes 
 
 Total 
 for 
 
 Total 
 against 
 
 Majority 
 
 Total 
 voting 
 
 Commons. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 For 
 
 Agst. 
 
 
 1861, Feb. 20 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 164 
 
 157 
 
 198 
 
 191 
 
 7 
 
 — 
 
 389 
 
 „ April 17 
 
 Committee 
 
 171 
 
 200 
 
 204 
 
 233 
 
 
 29 
 
 437
 
 Book IV. 
 
 Parliamentanj Divisions. 
 
 ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL 
 (Mb. L. L. Dill"v\'yn). 
 
 Date 
 
 Stage 
 
 Ayes 
 
 Noes 
 
 Total 
 for 
 
 Total 
 against 
 
 Majority 
 
 Total 
 voting 
 
 Commons. 
 1S59, July 6 
 i860, March 21 
 
 2nd Eeading 
 2nd Heading 
 
 210 
 120 
 
 192 
 190 
 
 240 
 134 
 
 222 
 207 
 
 For 
 18 
 
 Agst. 
 73 
 
 462 
 341 
 
 DIVISIONS ON MOTIONS OR BILLS AFFECTINO THE OBSERVANCE 
 OF SUNDAY. 
 
 Date 
 
 Subject 
 
 For Ob- 
 servance 
 
 Against 
 Observ. 
 
 For 
 
 Against 
 
 Majority 
 
 Total 
 voting 
 
 Commons. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 For 
 
 Agst. 
 
 
 1850, May 30 
 
 Motion, P. 0. 
 
 93 
 
 68 
 
 108 
 
 80 
 
 38 
 
 
 
 188 
 
 „ July 9 
 
 Motion, P. 0. 
 
 112 
 
 19s 
 
 116 
 
 199 
 
 
 83 
 
 315 
 
 1855, March 20 
 
 Museums 
 
 235 
 
 48 
 
 245 
 
 57 
 
 18S 
 
 
 302 
 
 1856, Feb. 21 
 
 Museums 
 
 376 
 
 48 
 
 3S2 
 
 50 
 
 332 
 
 — 
 
 432 
 
 1 86 3, June 8 
 
 Gardens 
 
 123 
 
 107 
 
 135 
 
 119 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 254 
 
 „ March 17 
 
 Public Houses 
 
 141 
 
 52 
 
 143 
 
 54 
 
 89 
 
 — 
 
 197 
 
 ,, June 3 
 
 Public Hotises 
 
 103 
 
 278 
 
 105 
 
 282 
 
 
 177 
 
 387 
 
 1864, May 6 
 
 Pulilic Houses 
 
 87 
 
 123 
 
 129 
 
 165 
 
 — 
 
 36 
 
 294 
 
 ,, Juno 20 
 
 Railways 
 
 40 
 
 21 
 
 42 
 
 23 
 
 19 
 
 
 65 
 
 1865, March 22 
 
 Railways 
 
 42 
 
 39 
 
 44 
 
 41 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 85 
 
 1866, March 14 
 
 Railways 
 
 200 
 
 83 
 
 202 
 
 85 
 
 117 
 
 
 287 
 
 ACT OF UNIFORMITY AMENDMENT BILL 
 (Mr. E. p. Bouverie). 
 
 Date 
 
 Stage 
 
 Ayes Noes 
 
 For 
 
 Against 
 
 Majority 
 
 Total 
 voting 
 
 324 
 267 
 
 Commons. 
 
 1863, May 5 
 
 1864, July 13 
 
 Leave 
 
 2nd Reading 
 
 •57 
 101 
 
 135 
 
 157 
 
 173 
 106 
 
 151 
 161 
 
 For 
 22 
 
 Agst. 
 55
 
 62 
 
 Church Statistics. 
 
 Book IV. 
 
 IMPORTANT PARTY DIVISIONS, 
 
 Marked * led to changes of Ministry or Dissolutions of Parliament. 
 
 Date 
 
 Subject 
 
 L. 
 
 C. 
 
 Total L. 
 
 Total C. 
 
 Majority 
 
 Total 
 voting 
 
 LoBns. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 L. 
 
 C. 
 
 
 *i84i, Aug. 24 
 
 No confidence 
 
 96 
 
 168 
 
 lOI 
 
 173 
 
 — 
 
 72 
 
 274 
 
 1846, May 28 
 
 Corn Bill, 2° 
 
 211 
 
 164 
 
 212 
 
 165 
 
 47 
 
 — 
 
 377 
 
 ,, June 15 
 
 Corn Bill 
 
 136 
 
 102 
 
 175 
 
 142 
 
 33 
 
 ■ — 
 
 317 
 
 „ 16 
 
 Corn Bill 
 
 140 
 
 107 
 
 140 
 
 107 
 
 33 
 
 — 
 
 247 
 
 1849, May 8 
 
 Navigation B. 
 
 173 
 
 163 
 
 183 
 
 J73 
 
 ID 
 
 — 
 
 3S6 
 
 >, >. ^i 
 
 ,, 
 
 116 
 
 T03 
 
 162 
 
 149 
 
 13 
 
 — 
 
 311 
 
 1850, June 17 
 
 Greece 
 
 132 
 
 169 
 
 152 
 
 189 
 
 — 
 
 37 
 
 341 
 
 1858, May 14 
 
 Vote of Ccns. 
 
 158 
 
 ,67 
 
 158 
 
 167 
 
 — 
 
 9 
 
 325 
 
 i860, Mav 21 
 
 Paper Duty 
 
 104 
 
 193 
 
 139 
 
 227 
 
 — 
 
 88 
 
 3-6 
 
 1864, July 8 
 
 Denmark 
 
 168 
 
 177 
 
 190 
 
 199 
 
 ~ 
 
 9 
 
 389 
 
 COMIIOXS. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 841, May 18 
 
 Sugar 
 
 281 
 
 317 
 
 301 
 
 337 
 
 
 
 36 
 
 638 
 
 * „ June 4 
 
 No confidence 
 
 311 
 
 312 
 
 324 
 
 325 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 649 
 
 * „ Aug. 27 
 
 „ 
 
 269 
 
 360 
 
 273 
 
 364 
 
 
 
 91 
 
 637 
 
 1846, Feb. 27 
 
 Corn Bill 
 
 337 
 
 240 
 
 339 
 
 242 
 
 97 
 
 — 
 
 581 
 
 „ March 27 
 
 Corn Bill 2° 
 
 302 
 
 214 
 
 334 
 
 245 
 
 89 
 
 — 
 
 579 
 
 „ May 15 
 
 Corn Bill 3° 
 
 327 
 
 229 
 
 329 
 
 231 
 
 99 
 
 — 
 
 560 
 
 * „ June 25 
 
 IrishCoercion 
 
 219 
 
 292 
 
 222 
 
 294 
 
 — 
 
 72 
 
 516 
 
 1 848, June 29 
 
 Sugar 
 
 260 
 
 245 
 
 283 
 
 268 
 
 15 
 
 — 
 
 551 
 
 J 849, March 12 
 
 Navigation 
 
 266 
 
 210 
 
 269 
 
 213 
 
 56 
 
 — 
 
 482 
 
 „ April 23 
 
 Navigation 3° 
 
 275 
 
 214 
 
 296 
 
 235 
 
 61 
 
 — 
 
 531 
 
 1850, June 28 
 
 Confidence 
 
 310 
 
 264 
 
 3.6 
 
 267 
 
 49 
 
 — 
 
 583 
 
 1 85 1, Feb. 13 
 
 Agric. Distress 
 
 281 
 
 267 
 
 296 
 
 282 
 
 14 
 
 — 
 
 57^ 
 
 *i852, Feb. 20 
 
 Miliria 
 
 125 
 
 136 
 
 155 
 
 166 
 
 — 
 
 II 
 
 321 
 
 * „ Dec. 16 
 
 Budget 
 
 3°5 
 
 286 
 
 321 
 
 302 
 
 19 
 
 — 
 
 6z3 
 
 *i855, Jan. 29 
 
 Crimea 
 
 .48 
 
 305 
 
 182 
 
 339 
 
 — 
 
 157 
 
 52. 
 
 1856, May I 
 
 Kars Censure 
 
 303 
 
 176 
 
 334 
 
 205 
 
 129 
 
 — 
 
 539 
 
 *i857, March 3 
 
 China 
 
 247 
 
 263 
 
 273 
 
 289 
 
 — 
 
 16 
 
 562 
 
 *i8s8, Feb. 19 
 
 T. M. Gibson 
 
 215 
 
 234 
 
 219 
 
 238 
 
 — 
 
 19 
 
 457 
 
 ^1859, March 31 
 
 Eeform 
 
 330 
 
 291 
 
 340 
 
 301 
 
 39 
 
 — 
 
 641 
 
 * „ June 10 
 
 No confidence 
 
 323 
 
 310 
 
 328 
 
 315 
 
 13 
 
 — 
 
 643 
 
 i860, June 7 
 
 Postp.Reform 
 
 269 
 
 248 
 
 308 
 
 287 
 
 21 
 
 — 
 
 595 
 
 ., Aug. 6 
 
 Bags 
 
 266 
 
 233 
 
 315 
 
 282 
 
 33 
 
 — 
 
 597 
 
 i86i,May 2 
 
 Tea 
 
 299 
 
 282 
 
 322 
 
 305 
 
 17 
 
 — 
 
 627 
 
 ,. 29 
 
 Paper 
 
 296 
 
 281 
 
 312 
 
 297 
 
 15 
 
 — 
 
 609 
 
 1864, Jime 17 
 
 Ashantee 
 
 233 
 
 226 
 
 287 
 
 2S0 
 
 7 
 
 — 
 
 567 
 
 „ July 8 
 
 Denmark 
 
 313 
 
 L—^ 
 
 295 
 
 1 
 
 3^4 
 
 306 
 
 18 
 
 
 630
 
 
 p!^l 
 
 Book V. 
 % pea for Cljurcf) (JBjrtnijafion. 
 
 The great problem of tlie day is, how to meet tte spiritual destitution 
 wliicli unfortunately prevails to so alarming an extent in all our large 
 toAvns, from London downwards. In stating this, I may have to deal 
 with those who do not believe in the existence of the deficiency we 
 allege, so I shall commence at once mth some figures and facts. 
 
 The first subject for inquiry is, in the usual order of things, what per- 
 centage of the population can go to Church if they choose ? 
 
 Deducting young children, the sick and infirm, and those engaged in 
 works of necessity, and those compelled to labour on Sunday for the 
 avuisements and jyleasures of others, in connection with railways and 
 other public conveyances, it has been determined by Mr. Mann, a high 
 authority, that accommodation ought to be provided for 58 per cent, of 
 the general population of England and Wales. Rural requirements are 
 necessarily less than urban, in consequence of the distance of the Churches 
 unavoidably operating to diminish the attendance. However, we shall 
 probably be near the truth in assuming 50 per cent, as the required ac- 
 commodation. Let us now see what practically exists. 
 
 I will divide England into town districts and country districts, in- 
 cluding in the former all the places containing above 10,000 inhabitants 
 in 1 85 1. From the former I deduct one-third for the accommodation 
 provided by the Meeting-houses of the Sects, and one-fifth from the latter 
 for the same reason. It will thus appear that for town districts the 
 Church requires Church room for 3 3 '3 per cent., and for country districts 
 Church room for 40 per cent, of the gross population, in order that all 
 should possess facilities for attending her Public Worship. Now, in 
 1 8 5 1 the position of afiairs was as follows : — 
 
 Per cent, of Pop. Boficiciicy 
 
 Sittings provided for Per cent. Absolutely. 
 
 
 Population 
 
 ToMTi districts . 
 
 . 9,229,120 
 
 Country districts 
 
 . 8,698,489 
 
 1,995,729 21-6 11-7 1,099,807 
 
 3,322,186 382 i"8 156,572 
 
 In words, then, in England, in 1851, nearly 1^ millions of our popula- 
 tion were utterly destitute of Clmix'li accommodation, after making 
 every allowance for the supplies furnished by the Sects, not large in 
 quantity (Wesleyans, I2"2 per cent, of population; Independents, 6 per 
 cent. ; all others much less), and very inferior in quahty. It is hii^'-h time
 
 64 ^ ^^^« for Church Extension. Book V. 
 
 foi" English Churclanien to look tliese appalling facts boldly in tlie face. 
 But it may be said, " Your statistics are old ; perhaps they will not hold 
 good now." This is true, but, unfortunately, only in a very small degree. 
 The following table, however, does convey some cheering information : — 
 
 Increase of Population and Increase of Church Accoinmodatlon, 1 801 -51. 
 
 
 
 Town 
 
 Districts. 
 
 
 COUXTRY 
 
 Districts. 
 
 
 Date. 
 
 Increase of 
 
 Increase of 
 
 Increase of 
 
 Increase of 
 
 
 Pop. per 
 
 cent. 
 
 Sittings per cent. 
 
 Pop. 
 
 per cent. 
 
 Sittings per cent. 
 
 801-II . 
 
 . 181 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 117 . 
 
 
 0-4 
 
 8II-2I . 
 
 . 23-0 
 
 
 27 
 
 
 14-5 . 
 
 
 o-b 
 
 821-31 . 
 
 . 22-8 
 
 
 . 8-5 . 
 
 
 10-4 . 
 
 
 I "4 
 
 831-41 . 
 
 20-2 
 
 
 I4'2 
 
 
 9-6 . 
 
 
 47 
 
 841-51 . 
 
 • 193 
 
 
 . 24-2 
 
 
 6-3 . 
 
 
 107 
 
 We learn from this that down to 1841 the population was increasing 
 much more rapidly than the Church accommodation. After 1 841 the tide 
 turned, and the sittings augmented more than the population, which so 
 far satisfactory state of things is certainly still kept up ; but it is the large 
 arrears to be cleared off which cause the difficult3^ 
 
 Between 1851 and 1 861 the actual increase in the population 
 amounted to 2,134,116. Allotting four-fifteenths to schism {fvohahly 
 it ought to be much less), this new population would require 784,000 
 sittings. As the augmentation of sittings in the 1 831-41 period was 
 only 294,000; as in the i84i-i;i period, the augmentation was no less 
 than 542,000 ; and seeing that in the last 10 years Church extension has 
 been going on at a wonderful rate, it is not too much to hope that not 
 only have the 784,000 sittings been provided, but that something con- 
 siderable has been done towards wiping out the i^ millions deficiency 
 with which we started in 1851. However, it will be no misrepresentation 
 of facts, allowing a little for Mission Chapels and licensed rooms, to say 
 that at this moment there are one million of our fellow-countrymen 
 unprovided with Church accommodation, however anxious they may be 
 to have it. 
 
 Surely, here, then, we have an incontrovertible fact, which requires our 
 most eai-nest attention ; and my object in penning these few lines is 
 to urge on Chu.rchmen the paramount duty of joining in the work of 
 Church extension, with their money and with their personal efforts. As 
 a general rule, a Society is the best agent for distributing funds for 
 Church-building purposes. The management expej'ises are necessarily 
 much less in amount than those of the generality of charitable institu- 
 tions, and really pressing claims have a better chance of being provided 
 for than if the distribution is left to individual effort. Of course, 
 when Church extension .operations are going on in one's own district 
 or parish, the case is different. 
 
 Now a few words of suggestion to each reader, in harmony with the 
 plan of letting charity hegia at home. If you are in London, make it your 
 Ijusiness (as unquestionably it is your duty) to give an annual subscrip- 
 tion to the London Diocesan Church Building Society (Office, 21 Regent 
 Street). Never mind your not being able to give much; if such is the 
 case, think of the object and the principle : annual sums as low as five 
 shillings will, no doubt, be thankfully received. The spiritual destitution 
 of our great metropolis is so fearful to contemplate, that this Society has 
 claims on the sympathy of all Englishmen, whether living in London or 
 not. If you live in the country, probably a Church Extension Society of
 
 Book V. A Plea for Church Extension. 6^ 
 
 some kind exists in your own diocese or county ; if so, become a subscriber 
 to it without delay. If one does not exist, or some strong reason indis- 
 poses you to join it, there is yet the Incorporated Church Building Society, 
 of London, but national in its sphere of usefulness (Office, 7 Whitehall). 
 This Institution is not nearly so well supported as it used, and deserves 
 to be. The suppression by a non- Church-loving Government of the 
 annual Queen's Letter, forme^rly read in all our Churches once a year, has 
 materially injured the financial affairs of the Society, and contributed to 
 lessen the circle of its acquaintances. " Out of sight, out of mind." 
 
 We require to raise funds for two objects in intimate connexion with 
 each other — Church Building and Church Endowment. The latter is in- 
 variably most neglected, but, in a general way, and in a certain sense, of 
 more importance than the former. If a newly-formed district were 
 adequately endowed at the outset, the edifice would follow sooner or later 
 to a certainty ; but the converse is not by any means always the case. 
 People are very -willing to give money when they see a tangible result 
 (bricks and mortar) ; but money applied to the sustentation of the Clergy- 
 man does not outwardly show, proportionately to its amount. 
 
 The Rev. G. Venables has recently put forth some very sensible and 
 practical remarks, the substance of which I now proceed to give, for they 
 deserve careful attention. 
 
 We should resort to every legitimate way of raising funds, and not con- 
 fine ourselves to the stock plan of collecting, in donations of cash down. 
 The following may be mentioned as eligible means : — 
 
 (i.) A revival of the ancient and noble spirit of Christian liberality by 
 which all the machinery for working a new parish is provided, in the 
 erection of a Church, Schools, and Parsonage, with an endowment, by the 
 private munificence of an individual, of a firm, or of a public company. 
 Instances of this kind are happily becoming commoner every day. Land- 
 owners and millowners are gradually learning that the possession of pro- 
 perty confers a mighty responsibility in reference to the spiritual and 
 temporal wants of those under them. The Northern millowners particu- 
 larly require to be stirred up, and glad we should be to see that it is being- 
 done. 
 
 (2.) The voluntary restoration of impropriated tithes, by those laymen 
 who at present enjoy what belongs to God and the Church ; to whom 
 shall be given the patronage of the new parishes endowed therewith. 
 
 (3.) A moderate rent-charge laid by owners on their estates, lands, 
 mines, &c. Of all plans of endowment none appears to be so easy and so 
 simple as for a freeholder to lay an annual charge on his property for the 
 glory of God for ever. It demands but little self-denial, and the results 
 are permanent. Six or eight proprietors in a parish, by charging their 
 property to the amount of 40Z. or 50^., might thus secure, without great 
 cost to themselves, a fair income for their minister, with the further satis- 
 faction of knowing that the benefits would be secured to their parish in 
 perpetuity. 
 
 (4.) Weekly or monthly collections in eveiij CJmrcli, the proceeds to be 
 applied in providing local endowments, or for augmenting small benefices. 
 Supposing every Church in England and Wales were to produce weekly 
 the paltry sum of 12s., the gross sum (4.68, oooL) would suffice to endow 
 100 new parishes or Churches in a year ; but how very much more than 
 1 2.S. a week Avould 4 Churches out of 5 produce on an average, even 
 allowing for occasional collections for other purposes.
 
 66 A Plea for Church Extension. Book V. 
 
 Sucli is a concise outline of the various ways, some or other of which 
 could be resorted to by every one, to meet the pressing demand which 
 exists for wholesale Church extension. I^o Churchman, be his income 
 50?. or 50,000^., can, with any show of reason, refuse to join in the great 
 work, on the ground that he cannot afibrd it, or does not know how to 
 set about it ; there is work for all. 
 
 Signs are not wanting that the true bearings of the Tithe Question are 
 gradually becoming understood in quarters greatly in need of enlighten- 
 ment. With all respect it may be said, that the bulk of our landowners 
 have hitherto regarded impropriated tithes as purely secular property, 
 standing on the same footing as houses, lands, &c. That such an esti- 
 mate is entirely erroneous is clear to every thoughtful Churchman ; but 
 the thing to be done, now, is to work a change in the minds of the 
 thoughtless titheowners themselves, to make them understand that they 
 have no other right to possess tithe property than that conferred by force. 
 The subject is, in a certain sense, a delicate one, and we are not desiring 
 to press too heavily on existing titheowners, seeing that the Church pro- 
 perty they possess came to them by inheritance, through no fault of their 
 own. It is, however, impossible to characterise their original secularisa- 
 tion by Henry VIII. by any other name than that of ruthless plunder to 
 satisfy the rapacious demands of courtiers. Their descendants are free 
 from blame in the receiving, but certainly not in the retaining, and this 
 is the point which should be put prominently forward. 
 
 Spiritual destitution is a subject uppermost in the minds of Churchmen 
 just now, and the rapid multiplication of District Churches, and con- 
 sequently of poor ill-paid Benefices, is working evils which already begin 
 to make themselves felt. At the present moment, the tithes of 4000 
 parishes in England and Wales are alienated from the Church, and their 
 annual value (1,500,000/.) is such that, if restored as they should be, we 
 should hear no more of poor Livings (or starvings) for a long time to 
 come, and the Church corporate, relieved from the painful anxiety of pro- 
 viding sustenance for her Ministers, would be able to apply herself with 
 redoubled energy to her great work of saving souls. According to the 
 Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for 1835, there were 297 
 Benefices in England and Wales under 50Z. per annum; 1629 Benefices 
 over 50Z., and under 100?. ; 1602 Benefices over 100?., and under 150/. ; 
 and 1354 Benefices over 150Z., and vmder 200?. per annum: some have 
 since had their tithes, in part, restored, and thus have secured pecuniary 
 augmentation ; but the spiritual destitution arising from the alienation 
 of tithes is extreme ; and the above figures probably understate the case 
 now subsisting, in consequence of the increase of " districts." 
 
 Earnest-minded Churchmen in want of work can render no greater 
 service than by agitating for the restoration of impropriated tithes by 
 seeking to influence friends and relations who are titheowners. The 
 work once done is done for ever. So there is this incentive for action, 
 that everything will be going forward, no repetition of exertions (for 
 the same case) being requisite, as happens in connection with many other 
 good efibrts. 
 
 The commutation of tithes effected in 1837 has, undoubtedly, worked 
 well on the whole ; but we may congratulate ourselves on the fact, that the 
 desired abolition of the word tithe has failed. Legislators, influenced 
 little by friendly feeling towards the Church, sought to introduce the 
 word rent-charge, but without success. " We are all aware that by the
 
 Book V. A Plea for Church Extension. 67 
 
 legislation of modern times, tithes eo nomine are said to be extinguished 
 by commutation, in spite of Ethelwolf's decree that they should be 
 *■ incommutahiles,'' having been at length discovered to be a vexatious 
 impediment to the improvement of land, and an inconvenient lien held 
 by the Church upon the produce of the soil ; and it vs^as at that time 
 hoped ere long that the very name of tithe would be blotted out of our 
 vocabulary and abolished throughout the country. But such is the con- 
 servative force of practical religious tradition, that though the tldng is 
 said to be commuted, the name remains fixed in the mind and language 
 of the people of England. N'o farmer is at the pains of calling the 
 customary payment he makes to the Clergyman of his parish rent-charge 
 — he calls it, as his father did before him, tithe. Nay, you may see the 
 thing itself still. Go into the fields in harvest time, and watch the reapers : 
 you will find ten sheaves still placed together in one shocJc, for the con- 
 venience of satisfying the ancient claim of one sheaf in ten for tithe — a 
 silent vdtness, unconsciously borne year after year, by the English peasant, 
 to the ancient portion due to God." 
 
 There is an association at work for promoting the restoration of tithes, 
 which is far less well supported than it should be. It is called the Tithe 
 Redemption Trust (Secretary, Rev. W. W. Malet, 7 Whitehall), and it 
 aims at furnishing grants of money for purchasing tithes and defraying 
 the necessary expenses. 
 
 The parochial system, handed down to us from Saxon times, is by far 
 the best and most effectual means of meeting spiritual destitution. Money 
 spent in developing it, and at the same time in increasing the Episcopate, 
 will be well spent. "We want and we must have an increase in the 
 number of our parishes, and we must also have a large increase in our 
 Episcopate. The Bishops are not sufficiently numerous to do all that is 
 wanted of them, and hence they are too often unpopular, " and get charged 
 with neglect of diocesan duties, a complaint which is often perfectly well- 
 founded, but in no sense due to voluntary neglect. 
 
 Let those laymen, who are constantly finding fault with Bishops and 
 Clergy for not doing all that they might do, see Avhether no responsibility 
 rests on their own shoulders. More Bishops and more Clergy, and more 
 endowments to support them (which the laity are the proper persons, in 
 the main, to furnish), will be the only effectual remedy for Pastoral ne- 
 glect, the existence of which, in many large towns, it would be affectation 
 to deny. 
 
 When Henry VIII. came to the throne there were 22 Sees for a popu- 
 lation of about 4^ millions, giving one Bishop, on an average, charge of 
 200,000 souls. Daring that monarch's reign, 6 new Sees were actually 
 created, and 4 more proposed. One of these was soon afterwards sup- 
 pressed, and the number remained at 27 till recently. Coincidently with 
 the ill-advised union of Gloucester and Bristol (by the Whigs) in 1836, 
 Ripon was founded, and in 1847, Manchester. This is all that has been 
 done ; so we have now a population of 2 1 ^ millions spiritually super- 
 intended by 28 Bishops, or one to every 760,000 souls, and 700 Clergy. 
 Can the Bishops be expected to do their work properly ? 
 
 If their numbers were douhled, they would then be far from numerous, 
 compared with those of other Churches, ancient and' modern. 
 
 Each of the 7 Churches (Bcv. i.-iii.) had its own Bishop, whose charge 
 was comparatively limited. 
 
 Ireland has 1 2 Bishops, or i to every 480,000 souls. 
 F. 2
 
 68 A Plea for Church Extension. Book v. 
 
 Scotland has 7 Bisliops, or i to every 430,000 souls. 
 
 The British Colonies (exclusive of India, whose EjDiscopate is absurdly 
 inadequate) have 48 Bishops, or i to about every 190,000 souls. 
 
 The Episcopates of the Romish and Greek Churches are far more 
 numerous than ours ; a recent authority assigns to the former 1013 Sees. 
 
 The evils arising from the present state of things are manifold ; the 
 Clergy are not sufficiently looked after, and thus abuses are apt to creep 
 in, which better supervision would necessarily prevent. The Clergy and 
 Laity ahke are unable to avail themselves of the good counsel which 
 Bishops, in general, are well qualified to give. The Bishop of Lincoln 
 once stated that for him to visit each parish in his diocese and spend a 
 Sunday in it, would take 1 5 years ! ! 
 
 The general discipline of the Church suffers much from the present 
 anomalous state of things ; the solemn Rite of Confirmation, instead of 
 being administered annually, is often administered but once in 3 years ; 
 consequently many young persons grow up without ever being confirmed 
 at all. 
 
 In the Confirmations that are held, everything is of necessity done 
 more or less in a scramble ; the candidates dealt with by rails-full instead 
 of individually, as the Church intends ; numerous widely-distant parishes 
 taken together, instead of a few contiguous ones, thus putting all parties 
 to needless inconvenience and expense, and some to the risk of positive 
 temptation. 
 
 Other drawbacks resulting directly from an inadequate Episcopate 
 must be obvious. 
 
 Let all Churchmen then who value Apostolic order and the advantages 
 of Episcopal supervision, combine to demand " More Bishops " as, being 
 with new Church- discipline and building Acts, the most important kind 
 of " Church-Reform" wanted. 
 
 If the Ministers of the Crown would only make a beginning (and it is 
 for Churchmen out-of-doors to compel them), few practical difiiculties 
 would be found to exist. Large available funds are in the hands of the 
 Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which Parliament and private beneficence 
 would readily supplement. There are many fine Churches, easily con- 
 vertible into Cathedrals, now in existence, and the " Political " difficulty 
 might be got over, if 7iecessary, by adopting the plan already in force, 
 whereby the Junior Bishop for the time being has no seat in the House of 
 Lords. [Suffi'agan Bishops with only 2,oooZ. a-year and no Parliamentary 
 duties (as some have proposed) would create an invidious distinction, and 
 be altogether a very poor expedient.] 
 
 The following new dioceses have been proposed as an instalment : — 
 
 Bristol, taken out of Gloucester, 
 Coventry, „ Worcester. 
 Cornwall, ,, Exeter. 
 
 Jersey, ,, Winchester, 
 
 The subdivision of the diocese of London is most urgently needed. 
 
 Newcastle, taken out of Durham. 
 Southwell, „ Lincoln. 
 
 St. Albans, „ Rochester. 
 Westminster, „ London.
 
 
 Book VI. 
 
 There is reason to believe that a good deal of the opposition raised to 
 Church Rates proceeds from ignorance as to their true nature and 
 origin : it is proposed to state in popular language a few historical notes 
 and facts. 
 
 The first remark made by an opponent of Church Rates invariably is, 
 that it is unjust to tax one man against his will to support another man's 
 religion. If it were a fact that, in the levying of a Church Rate, a 
 man is taxed against his will to pay for another man's religion. Dissenters 
 might oppose Church Rates with some s1k)w of reason and equity; but 
 this statement per se is a gross (and it is to be feared, too often, a wilful) 
 misrepresentation. A rate to be valid must be voted by a majority of 
 persons registered as ratepayers ; but in general, most of those persons 
 who take part in the proceedings in vestry have nothing to do with 
 paying the rate, so far as their oivn pockets are concerned. Church Rate 
 is not a personal tax. If a man is a freeholder, he pays it in respect of 
 his property ; if he is only an occupier, he merely acts as a middle-man 
 between his landlord and the rate-collector. Church Bate is nothing more 
 and nothing less than a charge on land, assessed and collected for convenience 
 sake from the occupier.* N'o casuistry, however subtle, can explain away 
 this statement. The occu2ners, who are not freeholders, and who in general 
 comprise nineteen- twentieths of householders of a parish, have notliing 
 whatever to do with the Church Rate, except to act as agents for their 
 landlord. They have therefore no fair pretext for exclaiming against 
 l^aying these rates on conscientious grounds. 
 
 The remarks which follow are condensed from a well-known pam- 
 phlet by a well-known Dissenter,t whose clear and candid statement of 
 the legal bearings of the question has already brought round many 
 Nonconformists actively to support Church Rates : — 
 
 It is alleged by some that, in opposing Church Rates, they are resisting 
 tyranny and imposture, and State support to an already State-supported 
 
 * "No man held any species of property, the enjoyment of which was more sacredly 
 guarded by law than the obligation to pay "Church Kates. By the law ofEncjIand, Chiinli. 
 Rates were a charge upon the Imnl." — (Lord St. Leonards [ex-Lord Chancellor]. Speech 
 on the Church Rates Abolition Bill, July z, 1858. Hansard, vol. cli. p. 807.) 
 
 t Toulmin Smith, True Paints at Issue on the Church Rate Qucstwn. Loudon, 1856.
 
 yo Church Rates. Book vt. 
 
 Church. The facts are, however, entirely the reverse. A more careful 
 consideration will show that what the opponents of Church Rates are 
 really setting themselves up against are — responsible control, free dis- 
 cussion, the rights of the laity, the requirements of consistency and 
 honesty, and the principles and practice of English self-government. 
 Churchwardens are secular ofl&cers chosen annually by every parish to 
 act in its name and in its behalf, both internally and in the external rela- 
 tion of the parish to the State. They have many specific and important 
 duties to perform, the greater part of which have nothing at all to do 
 with the Church. What Church duties they have are simply on behalf 
 of the laity. They are the chief oflRcers of the secular institution of the 
 parish ; which institution is itself the recognised and actual basis of all 
 civil government in England. They are accountable to the parishioners 
 in vestry for all their acts and expenditure. To enable them to fulfil 
 their duties, funds are necessary, for no man can reasonably be asked to 
 fulfil public duties and pay the expenses out of his private purse. For 
 many centuries the necessary funds have been provided annually by a 
 Church (or as it would much more accurately be called, a Church- 
 warden's) Expenses Rate. It being a common law obligation that every 
 parish is to repair its Church, part — in most cases, perhaps the larger 
 part — goes to meet the cost of these repairs (whence the exclusive use of 
 the word Church to describe the rate). jS'one ever goes or ever can go 
 to pay the stipends of the Clergy, but the remainder is appropriated to 
 other and purely secular expenses, the parish clerk, &c. The maintenance 
 of the churchyard, the jpuhlic hurial ground of the ])arish,the Church clock — ■ 
 which everybody, he he Ghtirchman or he he Dissenter, jji'ofits hy — are also 
 amongst the reasonable charges defrayed hy the so-called Church Rate. 
 
 The rate made to meet all these expenses incidental to the Church- 
 warden's oflB.ce can be made solely by the parishioners, whom the law 
 regards as the most fitting judges of what is and what is not wanted : 
 its amount depends solely on their will. It has no speciality whatever 
 (as many imagine) as a Church Mate. Lord Chief Justice Coke expressly 
 says in a celebrated case, that the inhabitants may " make ordinances or 
 bye-laws for the reparation of the Church, or of a highway, or of any 
 such thing as is for the general good of the public.'' And all the eludges 
 of the Common Pleas, in another case, declare that the Parish Church 
 " is liJi-e to a bridge or a highway ; a distringas shall issue against the 
 inhabitants to make them repair it ; but neither the King's Court nor 
 the Justices of the Peace can impose a tax for it." The Churchwardens 
 cannot. None but Parliament can impose a tax. But the greater part of 
 a parish can make a bye-law for a rate.* This has always been the law 
 in England ; it is still the law. 
 
 There has never been an Act of Parliament for the compulsory levying 
 of Church Rates, except (such is human consistency !) in the time of the 
 Commonwealth, when the Church was down and the Nonconformists in 
 power, who eyforced Church Rates in parishes whether the inhabitants 
 liked it or no. 
 
 Such allegations as tyranny, oppression, and imposition, are not only 
 without meaning : they are dishonest [mark well all this ; also that a 
 distinguished Dissenting barrister is the writer]. They only serve to 
 mislead the well-meaning, but ill-informed. Those therefore who seek 
 
 * Eogers v. Davenant, Modern Reports, vol. i. p. 154.
 
 Book VI. Chuvcli Bates. 
 
 71 
 
 to abolish Cliurcli Rates in general are seeking to deprive Englislimen, 
 bj ah.solufe coercion, of the power and right of spending their own money 
 according to their own lildng. Those who seek to abolish the Chiirch Rate 
 in their own parish are endeavouring to evade the common law, and dis- 
 honestly to embezzle money which does not belong to them. They are 
 douig far more : they are driving Episcopalians to narrow the limits of 
 their communion. What a part of the rate helps to do, is simply to 
 sustain the fabric and decent condition of a place in every parish in 
 England, to which every man can resort by right : that is, the parishioners 
 vote supplies to sustain the ancient and valuable common right of every 
 man to have the opportunity of hearing his Bible read without being 
 tacked and ticketed to some sect. Can Nonconformists reasonably expect 
 Episcopalians to let them retain all these rights and privileges, and many 
 others, such as meeting in piMic vestry, if they refuse to join in paying the 
 necessary expenses? So far is the "State" from at present supporting 
 the Church, that every Parish Church in England was founded, oiot by 
 the State, but by individual donation in ages past ; while the Parson's 
 income is entirely derived, partly from similar soiu-ces, and partly from 
 a charge (far heavier than any Church Rate) which has been attached, 
 like any rent-charge, to the ownership of certain classes of property for 
 centuries. The State supports, in the sense of paying, neither the one nor 
 the other. To say that it does, as many Dissenters do, is either sheer 
 ignorance or wilful misrepresentation. The State is simply a trustee. 
 
 It is clear that if the fabric and deoent condition of the Church are not 
 maintained by the Church Rate they must be maintained by other means 
 — such as the county rate or the consolidated fund. Every man will thus 
 have an enforced tax to pay, without the chance of a voice in the matter, 
 but there will be an end of responsibility and discussion, and painsh 
 control. To expect the State will ever allow the Church to go a-begging 
 on the voluntaiy system, or to expect that Dissenters are ever going to 
 become powerful enough to coerce Churchmen to put up with that, is out 
 of the question. As no one Dissenting body can claim to be numerous 
 enough to be entitled to exclusive use of the Parish Churches, it becomes 
 a simple question between tolerance and intolerance, charity and bigotry; 
 whether because their own doctrines are not preached in them, they would 
 have all Churches closed by withholding funds for keeping them open in 
 the customary manner. Whether, as they cannot have exclusive pos- 
 session, the general good of the public is not in the meantime best served 
 by the Parish Churches being maintained (urder the eye and control of 
 (dl parishioners, of all sects) in such state that there may be no parish in 
 England without some place in it where men can go, as of right, to hear 
 habitually that life and man were made for something more than what is 
 merely work-a-day and worldly. Is it to be declared by a new coercive 
 and restrictive b.w, that, because individual sects cannot each persuade 
 every man to be of their religious opinions, therefore the common right 
 which Englishmen have inherited through centuries, to have a place 
 maintained in every parish where every man may go up and worship if 
 he pleases — just as they have inherited the riglit to have the highway 
 maintained, by which they may go to or from that place — shall be taken 
 away? The parishes of England made desolate of any ministry, and 
 void of the necessary presence of some man whose duties arc the ever- 
 present words and deeds of Christian charity ? 
 
 Voters against Church Rates, however they may gloss over the fact,
 
 72 Church Rates. Book VI. 
 
 are doing all tliey can to force on the country a direct State support of 
 the Church, at the same time destroying all responsible management 
 and local control over local interests. No man, whatever his creed, can 
 consistently or honestly, or in a spirit of Christian charity or tolerance, 
 refuse his vote to the granting of reasonable and proper supplies to the 
 Churchwardens. 
 
 The cause really at stake, then, is the cause of constitutional liberty ; of 
 responsible administration ; of honest and common right ; of religious con- 
 sistency and charity ; of free discussion ; of avoidance of sectarian domina- 
 tion, and of local interest and share in local affairs. These are the true 
 matters involved. They are indeed matters of trae and vital " principle." 
 Every man who loves free institutions, civil and religious liberty, re- 
 sponsible management, independent thought, discussion and action, simple 
 manly honesty, and Christian charity, coupled with the assertion and 
 maintenance of the rights of all the laity in the Christian Church (what- 
 ever its form of doctrine), will support the voting of Church Bates, and 
 resist those who seek their abolition. Those who oppose the voting of 
 Church Rates in any parish are doing all they can to violate the spirit of 
 English institutions. 
 
 After this eloquent appeal to Dissenters, hy a Dissenter, it is certainly 
 needless for a Churchman to say anything more on the general principle 
 of Church Rates. Elsewhere Mr. Smith says : — 
 
 "Everyone who knows anything of the history of Nonconformity in England must 
 know that I should be one of the first, from family and traditionary associations, to op- 
 pose Church Rates, were such opposition really other than an ad caj^tandum cry. But 
 the long and careful study of our institutions, and of the groundwork and mainstay of 
 our liberties, has taught me to see the matter in a very different light; and I rejoice to 
 say that on this occasion [Church Rate contest at Hornsey] my reasons and arguments 
 have led a large number of previously staunch opponents of Church Rates, and very many 
 Dissenters, to vote for the rate'' 
 
 The following Answers on the subject of Church Rates are all taken 
 from the Minutes of Evidence (Parts i. and ii.) laid before the celebrated 
 Committee of the House of Lords on Church Rates, which sat in 1859-60. 
 A few verbal alterations have been necessary to abbreviate and connect 
 the sense of some of the paragraphs. 
 
 Thomas P. BIIN'TING, Esq. (Wesleyan Methodist). 
 
 «Q_ 555. — -Why are Methodists not hostile to Church Rates, like other Dissenters? — 
 A. 1 think there is a general feeling that the Church of England is a power of essential 
 importance to the religion of the country, and increasingly so ; and we should be very 
 sorry to destroy anything in which we thought there was a blessing." _ 
 
 " Q. 596. — Do you consider the abolition of Church Rates would injure the Church? — 
 A. Decidedly so. ... I think it would be a heavy blow and great discouragement to 
 the Church; which would have considerable, and it might be permanent, influence. It 
 would be to the disparagement of the Church in the eyes of the common people ; and the 
 common people ought not, I think, to be alienated from it. " 
 
 "A. to Q. 597.— The Church of England is certainly the 0?% Church or sect which 
 makes any permanent and general provision for thepoor." 
 
 "A. to Q. 598. — I believe there would be a great increase of vice and irreligion if any 
 serious damage were done to the Church, such as the abolition of the law of Church Rate 
 would cause." 
 
 " A to Q. 616-7. — My opinion is, that the present state of things is almost the most per- 
 fect tvMch could he devised, except that greater power is wanted for the recovery of rates, 
 and further provisions for district rates."
 
 Book VI. Cliurch Rates. 73 
 
 Mr. Charles ERWIN (Wesleyan Methodist). 
 
 " Q. 247. — Viewing the present state of the law, by which it is left to the majority to 
 vote or refuse a Church Eate, do you consider that satisfactory, or do you wish to see it 
 changed? — A. I should not luish any chcmgc, certainly." 
 
 " A. to Q. 277.— My experience during these 40 years has been that there is a very 
 close feeling of attacnment on the part of the [old] Wesleyan community towards the 
 Church." 
 
 TouLMiN SMITH, Esq. ( ? ) 
 
 " Q. 458. — The power to make a Church Rate depends upon a power inherent in the 
 parishioners to make it themselves for any purpose ?— A. That is precisely the point. It 
 is not that there is anything specially inherent in a Church Eate, as is commonly sup- 
 posed ; but the parishioners have the power to make a rate for any purpose which con- 
 cerns the common interest of the parish. Attention is particularly called to that. . . 
 The words of the preamble of Sir J. Trelawny's Bill are, ' Whereas it is expedient that 
 the power to make Church Eates shoidd be abolished.' It is put by the promoters of that 
 Bill as if abolishing Church Eates was abolishing au impost, but it is no such thing ; it is 
 abolishing the power of the parish to do what it likes with its own for the good of the neigh- 
 bourhood ; it is an attempt to substitute a coercive prohibition in place of the voluntary 
 system which at present exists." 
 
 Mr. George OSBORIST (Wesleyan Metliodist Teacher). 
 
 " A. to Q,. 1763. — It is a patent and notorious fact that no public and collective action 
 against Church Eates has ever been taken by the Methodist body at large." 
 
 "A. to Q. 1766. — As an individual, I should deplore the extinction of the National 
 Church as one of the greatest ccdamities that coidd befall my native country." 
 
 "A. to Q. 1767. — I consider that the Established Church provides instruction and 
 worship of which all may avail themselves if they will, and I look upon it as the greatest 
 Home Missionary Institution of which I have any cognizance." 
 
 " Q. 1795- — Supposing it were thrown upon the Ministers of the Church not only to 
 appeal to their congregations for their various charities, but also to undertake the task of 
 obtaining voluntary subscriptions to maintain the fabric, woidd not that intirfre very 
 much with the pastoral work, and with their engagements in diiferent directions ? — A. / 
 think so, and I should regret to see it thrown upon them. I cannot understand why, if a 
 parish is willing to tax itself for the maintenance of the fabric, and the current expenses 
 of the worship, the Legislature should interfere to prevent it from doing so. The pro- 
 vision which allows it to tax itself appears to me to be a just and reasonable provision ; and, 
 where it freely imposes a tax, it does appear to me to be quite an inexplicable violation of 
 the principle of religious liberty tliat it should be forbidden to tax itself, except the object 
 is entirely to overthrow the Established Church. If that is the intention, I'can under- 
 stand the object [of the proposed prohibition]." 
 
 "A. to Q. 1 80 1. — I am not aware that any Methodist takes an active or leading part 
 in the affiiirs of the Liberation Society." 
 
 " Q. 1805. — Do you participate in the desire for the separation of Church and State? 
 — A. I differ from it toto coelo : " in other words, most certainly not. 
 
 The Liberation Society is in the habit of putting forth flaring- pla- 
 cards, with sensation titles, such as " Churchmen, follow your leaders." 
 A few selections from the published statements of its own political 
 chiefs, comprehending some of the most distinguished members of the 
 "Liberal" party, are here given. Let Dissenters gainsay them if they 
 can. 
 
 Earl EUSSELL. 
 
 " Certainly I for one cannot assent to the principle put forward by the Protestant Dis- 
 senters, that, as a matter of conscience. Church Eates ought to be abolished. That is a 
 somewhat new scruple on their part. When it was proposed in fonner days that Dis- 
 senters should not be compelled to attend Church, and that they should not be prevented
 
 '74 Church Rates. Book VI. 
 
 from having Chapels of their own, it was veiy properly argued, that it was a principle of 
 religious liberty that they should be allowed to worship God according to their own 
 forms ; but it was not then contended that they should not be compelled to make any 
 
 payment to the National Church. That claim has arisen in more modern times 
 
 Having sanctioned the abolition of Church Eates without providing a substitute, fresli 
 attacks would be made on the Church ; and not being willing to countenance or favour 
 those attacks, I shall oppose the second reading of the Bill." — (Speech in the House of 
 Commons, March 5, 1856. Hansard, voL cxl. p. 1918.) 
 
 " I have only to say that I cannot really imderstand how we could have a National 
 Church Establishment without some provision or other for repairing its places of worship. 
 They liave such a provision both in Scotland and Ireland, and it does seem to me un- 
 reasonable that we should have a provision to maintain the minister, but no provision to 
 
 maintain the Churches If we come to the question of an absolute al)olition 
 
 of the rate, I must vote against that, as a violation of the principle of a Church Establish- 
 ment." — (Speech in the House of Commons, April 27, 1858. Hansard, vol. cxlix. p. 1 863.) 
 
 The late Lord PALMERSTON, M.P. 
 
 " Viewing Churches, therefore, not as emblems of sectarian division, but as national 
 fabrics applicable to the Christian worship of God, it really appears to me that there is 
 no ground for this objection [' conscientious scruples '] against contributing to their 
 maintenance." — (Speech in the House of Commons, May 16, 1855. Hansard, vol. 
 cxxxviii. p. 688.) 
 
 Tlie fact that both these noble lords, after giving this testimony, found 
 it politically expedient to record a simple vote in favour of Church Rates 
 abolition, does not lessen the indli of their observations. 
 
 Earl GREY. 
 
 "I cannot concur in the prayer [of some petitions for Church Rate abolition], because 
 I do not consider, now that it has been decided that the minority of a vestry could not 
 make a valid Church Rate, that there is any substantial grievance in the law [for Dis- 
 senters to complain of] I should deeply regret to find the law so altered as 
 
 to enable a few malcontent persons to withhold a Church Rate against the will of the 
 majority, nor can there be any injustice in allowing the majority of the vestry to impose a 
 Church Rate." — (Speech in the House of Lords, April 17, 1855. Hansard, vol. cxxxvii. 
 P- I499-) 
 
 The late Lord Chancellor CAMPBELL. 
 
 " I confess that the proposal for the total abolition of Church Rates deeply shocks mo, 
 and I am surprised that it has met with support in some quarters from which I thought a 
 strong opposition would have been manifested ; for I look upon siich a measure as neitlier 
 more nor less than one of SPOLIATION." — (Speech in the House of Lords, April 27, 
 1855. Hansard, vol. cxxxvii. p. 1849.) 
 
 The late Right Hon. Sir Robert PEEL, Bart., M.P. 
 " I hope the House will not hastily come to a resolution by which they would discharge 
 members of the Church, being landed proprietors, from obligations to which they are now 
 legally liable. What was the resolution [' that Church Rates ought to be abolished,' Mr. 
 J. S. Trelawny, M.P., Tavistock] in effect, but a resolution that the land should be 
 relieved from this burden ? If the ground of religious scruples were to be admitted in 
 the case of Church Rates, what security had they that they might not next week have a 
 similar objection urged against the payment of tithes? If you exempted the Dissenter 
 from payment of Church Rates on the ground of religious scruples, why not relieve him 
 from all contributions towards th 6 Church? .... Is it fitting, then, that we should 
 exempt the land from this charge by a resolution hastily passed by landowners them- 
 selves ? .... I do hope that the gentlemen of England will not consent to relieve 
 themselves from a burden to which their estates are now subject, in order to devolve that 
 burden on the Church." — (Speech, March 13, 1849. Hansard, vol. ciii. p. 667.)
 
 Book VI. Cliuvch Bates. 75 
 
 Vice-Chancellok Sir William Page WOOD (Whig ex-M.P.). 
 
 "For my own part, as a member of the Church of England, I confess that if I had 
 received property charged with a rate for the maintenance of Baptist, Wesleyan, or 
 Eoman Catholic edifices of worship, and if that charge had been made upon the pro- 
 perty from the earliest times, I should not have conceived my conscience to have been in 
 
 the slightest degree affected by the pajTiient of that rate I cannot concur 
 
 in the opinion that we ought to abolish Church Rates altogether." — (Speech in the House 
 of Commons, March 13, 1849. Hansard, vol. ciii. p. 648.) 
 
 The late Mr. DRUMMOND, M.P. (Irvingite). 
 
 " The arguments of the supporters of this Bill [Church Rate Abolition] woidd tell as 
 much against the monarchy as against Church Rates. By-and-by we should hear of 
 honourable geutlemen getting up in that House to relieve a ' eonseientious minority ' from 
 the burden of supporting the Throne and the other institutions of the country. All these 
 ' conscientious objections ' were always connected with the pocket, somehow or other. You 
 never heard anything about them except when there was something tangible, someihing 
 more than a mere principle or theory, but which the objectors tried to keep in the back- 
 ground. The Bill tends to destroy the Church of England, and on that ground I oppose 
 it."— (Speech in the House of Commons, February 17, 1858. Hansard, vol. cxlviii.p. 1570.) 
 
 This declaration, bj a Dissenter, is significant. 
 
 Mr. Edmund AKROYD (Whig M.P.). 
 
 "Certainly, I can never consent to transfer 300,000/. a-year from the Church to the 
 landoioners, who, for the most pai't, never asked for it, nor desired it. Just reverse the 
 operation — talk of transferring 300,000/. a-year from the landowners to the Church, and 
 see the outcry that would be made. And was the Church of England so passive that she 
 would tamely submit to such injustice ? " — (Speech in the House of Commons, Jmie 8, 
 1858. Hansard, vol. cl. p. 1712.) 
 
 The declarations which have been put on record by eminent Dissenters, 
 condemnatorij of those of their brethren who refuse to pay Church Jiatcs, 
 are so numerous that it is a matter of difficulty to know what to repro- 
 duce and what to reject for such a purpose as that which I have now in 
 view ; and it is significant to the highest degree that it was not till 
 within the time of the present generation that objections to Church Rates 
 began to be raised at all : thus clearly connecting this anti- Church agita- 
 tion with the political movements of 1830. The first Dissenting place of 
 worship was raised in the year 1616, and from that epoch down to the 
 year 1830 or thereabouts (a period of 214 years), it may be said that the 
 general body of EugHsh Dissenters regularly paid their Church Rates. 
 Only one authority, and that a Dissenting one, will be called to prove this. 
 Messrs. Bogue and Bennet write as follows in the year 1833 : — "Other 
 Dissenters condemn tithes, but Quakers ALONE refuse to pay either them 
 or what are called Church Bates.''' — {History of Dissenters, vol. i. p. 198.) 
 
 Of the many Dissenting writers entitled to the patient attention of 
 Nonconformists of the present day, none hold a higher place than 
 Matthew Henry. ^Vliat said this eminent divine, commenting on St. 
 Matt. xvii. 24-7 ? — 
 
 He [Christ] did this to set an example (i) "Of rendering to all their due, tribute to 
 whom tribute is due," Rom. xiii. 7. . . . (2) Of contributing to the support of the 
 public woi'ship of God in the places where we are. If we reap spiritual things, it is fit 
 we should return carnal things. The temple was now made a den of tliieves, and the 
 temple-worship a pretence for the opposition which the chief priests gave to Christ and 
 his doctrine, and yet Christ paid this tribute. Note, CHURCH DUTIES LEGALLY
 
 76 Church Rates. Book VI. 
 
 IMPOSED ARE TO BE PAID, NOTWITHSTANDING CHURCH CORRUPTIONS. 
 AYe must ' take heed of using our liberty as a cloke to covetousness or maliciousness, 
 /. Peter ii. 16. If Christ pay tribute, who can pretend to an exemption?" — {Exposition 
 on the Old and New Testaments, vol. iv. 5th edition. London, 1763.) 
 
 Mr. Ebenezer Bailej, of Hull, one of the numerous Dissenting teachers 
 who have come over to the Church vpithin the last few years (now, I 
 believe, at Cambridge, preparing to enter the ministry of the Church), in 
 a celebrated pamphlet, addressed the following powerful exhortation to 
 his former Congregational (Independent) friends : — 
 
 "But against compulsory payments for the support of religion, it is urged that it is 
 unjust to compel Dissenters to contribute towards the expense of a Chui'ch to which they 
 are conscientiously opposed. I reply, that no man's scruples of conscience can interfere 
 with the general duty of the Government. If so, of what use are our civil rulers ? The 
 writer just now quoted says, ' If it be right to give up a national Church because some 
 conscientiously object to an Establishment, it is equally right to give up an army and navy 
 because some conscientiously object to war. It is no answer to this to say that they who 
 think an Established Church unlawful are many, while they who think war unlawful are 
 few. The question is, whether it be right in Government to support by national funds an 
 institution which is beneficial to the nation, although some of the people conscientiously 
 object to it ? And if it be wrong in a Government so to do in one case, it is equally wrong, 
 though it might not excite so much clamour, to do it in another case. If it be wrong— if 
 it be coercion of conscience — if it be shameful tyranny in the Government to compel 1000 
 Dissenters to pay taxes, a portion of which shall be devoted to the extension of the national 
 Church — it is equally wrong — equally coercive of conscience^-equally shameful tyranny, 
 and more disgraceful persecution, because committed against a weaker and more defence- 
 less body, to compel one single helpless Quaker to pay taxes, a portion of which shall be 
 devoted to the support or enlargement of the national ai-my.' 
 
 " Moreover, I see not how it can be a violation of the rights of conscience, inasmuch as it 
 is a charge which compels not to conformity in either doctrine or worship, but only to a 
 pecuniary contribution for the promotion of the public good. I deny that any Dissenter 
 is compelled to support the religion of the Church of England ; he gives to the demands 
 of the magistrate. It is true the civil ruler, when he receives the taxes, appropriates a 
 portion of them to the support of the Church, but this is his act, and in no way touches 
 the conscience of the man who pays the tax. The distinction will be seen at once by the 
 recollection that none could be more opposed to heathen worship than the apostle of the 
 Gentiles, and yet he exhorts the disciples to pay tribute to Caesar, though Caisar, when he 
 got it, appropriated a portion of it to the support of a false religion. Supposing Dis- 
 senters do not in any way profit from an Established Church (which can by no means be 
 granted), yet it does not follow that the supreme magistrate is to be debarred on that 
 account from applying a part of the national revenue to what he conceives the most useful 
 and important of national objects. The public expenditure flows and must flow in various 
 channels from which the bulk of the people derive no immediate advantage. From the 
 army, the navy, the customs, the excise, a harbour, a breakwater, a canal, a bridge, and a 
 thousand other things, this or that person may reap no direct benefit ; but it would be 
 absurd to assert that they cannot be justly called upon to contribute to the expense, even 
 though they may consider one or all of these objects absolutely unlawful. It cannot be 
 urged for a moment that every man who pays taxes is responsible for their proper distri- 
 bution. If those monies which are demanded of an individual are erroneously appro- 
 priated, he is not at fault. His cash-box may suffer, but certainly not his conscience. 
 And in thus arguing I am putting the Church of England on a par with the worship of 
 Jupiter, and regarding her clergy as no better than the priests of a heathen temple ; and 
 even on that ground I have proved scripturally that it is the duty of Dissenters to pay 
 tribute. But how is my argument confirmed by the fact, that the Church is not evil, but 
 good, and that her object is to dispense the blessings of salvation all around. It 
 appears to me that, so long as the support of the Establishment, by legal provisions, shall 
 be deemed necessary or proper by the constitutional authorities, they have an undoubted 
 right to tax the community of eveiy description for that purpose, and that a difference of 
 opinion entertained by individuals as to the fitness of the object is no groimd of exemp- 
 tion. The State enjoins me to pay, and by force of the social compact the State has a 
 right to my obedience, and my paying is the evidence, not of my submission of opinion, 
 but of my civil obedience to the State ; and if the State applies, or orders me to apply, the
 
 Book VI. Church Rcites. 77 
 
 money paid to an object wbich I do not apprehend to be aid-worthy, that is no ground 
 for my refusal to obey, or there is an end to civil obedience at once, and the private opinion 
 of every individual becomes the measure of his submission. The duty of the subject is to 
 render ' tribute to whom tribute is due,' and the reciprocal duty of the ruler is to spend 
 the public money in the way most conducive to the public interest. The Dissenter who 
 conscientiously believes the Church of England to be an evil instead of a good, may use all 
 la^vful means to procure a change in the law which legalises the appropriation of public 
 monies to its use ; but in the meantime, while the law remains unchanged, we claim the 
 exercise of that Christian forbearance which submits to every ordinance of man for the 
 Lord's sake, and declines to take the law into its own hands. 
 
 " It has been necessary thus fully to state the principle for which we contend, but I think 
 it right to say that this principle is seldom called into operation except in the article of 
 Church Rates, which, from the smallness of the amount, ought not to be regarded as bur- 
 densome. The endowments and possessions of the English Church are, for the most part, 
 Toluntaiy grants, and have no right to be regarded as a tax imposed by the Government. 
 Much is heard from time to time about the voluntary system. It is trumpeted forth from 
 pidpit, hustings, and platform, in every variety of publication, daily, weekly, and monthly ; 
 but let those who catch up the phrase to flourish it in the face of the Church know that 
 to a very great extent the Church of England depends upon the voluntary principle, since 
 nearly all her endowments were at first the ^villing gifts of wealthy individuals. Pious 
 proprietors of estates did in days gone by erect our Chiu-ches for their villagers : and 
 instead of enriching the Church with lands, they entailed on their childi-en the parochial 
 tithes for religious purposes. The building and endowment of a Cliurch by a nobleman, 
 an opulent commoner, or by subscription, is a purely voluntary act ; and when years and 
 ages have rolled away, that act does not lose its voluntary character. He who gives a 
 thousand pounds in bequest to a charitable institution, to be paid by equal annual instal- 
 ments, is as truly a voluntary contributor as though he gave the whole to be expended at 
 once. We, however, affirm, notwithstanding, that the Church of England has a right to 
 legal revenues for her support. 
 
 " Seeing, then, that the Church of England is established by the Government of our 
 country (and we have shown that it is lawful, expedient, and imperative for the rulers of a 
 nation thus to advance the best interests of their people), what is the rule of conduct to 
 be observed by those who dissent from it? It is difficidt to imagine anything more 
 express and plain than the divine commandment is with respect to submission to the civil 
 power. I must cite the well-known language of the apostles, ' Let every soul be subject 
 nnto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God : the powers that be are ordained 
 of God,' &c. {Romans :si\\.)— {Conformity to the Church of England, and ed., i8mo. 
 London, 1864, p. 18 e^ seq.) 
 
 I will now direct attention to a few historical facts relating to Churcli 
 Rates, for the purpose of showing that the obligation on the part of 
 parishes to contribute collectively to the repair of the parish church is a 
 time-honoured one, bound up with the foundations of the civil fabric of 
 the Enghsh Constitution. 
 
 In 696 A. D., the Anglo-Saxon Legislature of Ina passed a law, that every 
 dwelling was to be valued at Christmas ; and the rate so imposed, called 
 " Cyric-Sceat," or Church Scot, was to be paid in produce, money being 
 scarce, at the follomng Martinmas. Defaulters were to be fined forty 
 shilHngs, and to pay the Church Scot twelve fold. — (Leges Ince, 4 ; in 
 Thorpe, Ancient Laivs, vol. ii. p. 460.) 
 
 " This pious care of Divine ministrations may be considered as the legal origin of 
 Church Rates. Thus, earlier than almost any English written laws, appears on record a 
 legislative provision for the due performance of holy offices." — (Soames, Anglo-Saxon 
 Church, 3rd Edition, 8vo. London, 1844, p. 92.) 
 
 102 1 A.D. King Canute and his Legislative Council, held at Win- 
 chester, decree that, " In the repair of the Church, all the people ought to 
 assist according to what is right;" or, as we should say, according to 
 their assessment. — (Thorpe, Ancient Lctivs, vol. i. p. 410.) 
 
 " The law of Canute places the existence of contribution, on the part of the people, at
 
 7 8 Church Rates. BookVL 
 
 as early a period as 1030 beyond a doulit. It is mere shuffling to say that our present 
 law of Church Rate derives no support from it, because when the law lays the burden on 
 the people it does not say ' how they were to assist it,' or in what jjroportions they were 
 to contribute to it. That they were to assist is certain, and that is all any man can be 
 supposed to mean when he says that Church Rates are as old as the time of Canute, and 
 that they have existed for 800 years." — (Archdeacon Hale, Antiquity of the Church Rate 
 System. London, 1837, p. 29.), 
 
 In 1026, Canute writes a letter urging the regular payment of tlie 
 Churcli dues according to the ancient laws. Among them is named the 
 KirTi Scot payahle at the Feast of St. Martin to the parish church. (See 
 the letter in Florent. Vigorn. anno 103 1.) I^ot only is the liability 
 affirmed as one of right, but the King says he will set in operation the 
 recognised machinery to enforce the right. We soon meet with the dis- 
 tinction of payment by the parishioners for the nave, and by the rectors 
 or vicars for the chancel. 
 
 In 1285 is passed the statute " Circumspecte Agatis " (13 Ed. I.), re- 
 straining the Crown from interfering with the Ecclesiastical Courts 
 granting monitions to compel the repairs of churches and churchyards. 
 
 " The obligation upon the parishioners to repair, thus recognised and placed beyond all 
 reasonable dispute, is the law of England to this day." — (Denison, Church Rate, a National 
 Trust, p. 60.) 
 
 Or, in the words of a high legal authority : — 
 
 " It is admitted that the parishioners are under an imperative legal obligation to pro- 
 vide fdr the necessary repair of the Church, and the expenses incidental to public 
 worship." — (Lord Truro ; Judgment in the Braintree case, 4 Clark, H.L.C. 794.) 
 
 In 1370, a case came before the Court of Common Pleas, in which the 
 judges admitted the power of parishioners to rate themselves and enfoi-ce 
 rates by distraint. (Year Book, 44 Ed. III. p. 18. See Archdeacon 
 Hale's account in his Charge of i860, p. 25.) Thus it appears that there 
 were " Church Rate Martyrs " 494 years ago. 
 
 For the popular purpose I have in view, it is not requisite to pursue 
 farther this branch of the subject ; suffice it, that the great antiquity 
 of Church Rates is proved : and that, moreover, when a Dissenter refuses 
 to pay his Church Rate, duly voted by a majority of the ratepayers in 
 vestry, he is resisting one of the plainest common law obligations any- 
 where to be met with. 
 
 A Dissenter frequently asks the following question : " How would you 
 Churchmen like to have to pay for other people's religious worship ? 
 "Why, therefore, should we pay for yours ? " The second question is hastily 
 put in immediate succession to the first, on the gratuitous assumption 
 that a Churchman must object to do as indicated. It may not be gene- 
 rally known (and, to avoid being compelled to ascribe the question to a 
 malicious motive, I desire, in charity, to suppose that it is not generally 
 known), that Churchmen, whether they I'lhe it or not, do, as a matter of fact, 
 pay a very considerable sum annually to the sustentation of creeds other 
 than their own, A certain gift, called the Regium Donum, is paid every 
 year to the Irish Dissenters, to be apportioned into salaries for their 
 ministers ; and, till the year 1851, a similar gift used to be paid out of 
 the Imperial Treasury to the English Dissenters. It is a question of 
 principle, not of amount, and Dissenters should be careful to avoid too 
 nice inquiries into some of these subjects. 
 
 To this it may be added that Dissenters do not refuse to pay poor rates
 
 Book VI. CJiurck Rates. 79 
 
 or county rates ; yet out of the former are paid the clergy who are work- 
 house chaplains, and out of the latter those who are prison chaplains ; so 
 that, in point of fact, under a state of things existing for a considerable 
 time past, Dissenters themselves contribute toivards religious ivorship expenses 
 'not their oujn and in which they do not concur, tvlthout heing consulted, and 
 more than that, tvithoid grmnhling. To be consistent, if they find fault 
 with Church Rates, they should find fault with poor rates and county 
 rates : from all three, contrihutlo'ns toivards Church tvorship are derived. 
 
 Again, of 10,367 parishes in England and Wales, Churchmen are re- 
 turned as sole possessors in 1455, and as chief possessors in 7825. On 
 the other hand, the parishes in which the owners are either Dissenters or 
 equally divided, are only 1087. Therefore, on the commonest ground of 
 justice, if Dissenters are entitled to be thought of, much more so are 
 Churchmen, seeing how largely as landowners they outnumber the 
 Dissenters. But more than this, it must be borne in mind that of the 
 ratepayers who take part in the voting in vestry, very few are landowners, 
 and therefore very few really pay the rate, except as deputies, as men- 
 tioned at the beginning of this Book; so that we Churchmen have an-" 
 other ground entitling us to appeal to Dissenters to exercise forbearance 
 in reference to parochial matters atfecting the Church. Dissenters may 
 depend upon it that this view of the matter has not escaped consideration. 
 A distinguished Whig nobleman. Lord Lyttelton, publicly stated at a 
 meeting in London in 1 864, that if any of his tenants persisted in refusing 
 to pay the Church Rate, he should add the amount to their rent, and 
 hand over the difference to the churchwardens. 
 
 Granting that the present state of the law is most unsatisfactory — as 
 undoubtedly it is — Dissenters who desire alteration should appeal to Par- 
 liament, but in the interim should pay the dues, and refrain from disturb- 
 ing the peace of parishes. There are plenty of public duties to which their 
 attention might usefully be directed ; and it may well be a question 
 Avhether such a course would not be more in harmony with the practical 
 exemplification of those great principles of charity and brotherly love set 
 forth in Holy Scripture. The churchwardens and ratepayers of every 
 parish are charged, not to renovate the laws, but to administer them ; 
 therefore Dissenters having anything to find fault with should go to 
 the Legislature direct and not to the parish vestry, there to raise a tur- 
 moil against those peaceable ratepayers who desire to do their duty as 
 good citizens, by carrying out the provisions of the law, and repair- 
 ing the houses of God by a duly regTilated assessment on the parishioners 
 at large. 
 
 By the law of England, as now understood, no Church Rate can be 
 levied but by the consent of the majority. This is the principle, and 
 acknowledged to be a sound one, by which all taxes are imposed upon us 
 in Parliament, and all rates in parishes. It is one of the characteristics 
 of Englishmen that they willingly bow to the decision of the majority : a 
 majority levy a highway rate, and demand payment, whether men. use that 
 tvay or not ; a majority levy a gas rate, and demand payment, wliether men 
 benefit by the light or not ; rates are levied to provide public baths and 
 libraries, and no man is exempted from payment on the ground that he 
 iiecer avails himself of them. To exempt Dissenters from payment on the 
 ground that they build their own meeting-houses, &c., is just as conclusive 
 as if a man should object to pay a poor's rate, because he pi'ovides for his 
 own family. Church Rates are levied by the majority of the ratepayers
 
 8o Church Rates. Book VI. 
 
 for what tliey believe to be for the good of the whole j^arish, and Dis- 
 senters are required to paj, not because they are Dissenters, but because 
 tltey are parishioners. 
 
 No appeal such as the present would be complete without some further 
 allusion, however brief, to a movement now being- agitated for " Liberating 
 Religion from State Patronage and Control," as its promoters say, but 
 which would be more accurately described as intended to liberate the 
 Church frorii her property. In self-defence, we are called upon to take 
 note of it. Its openly avowed object is to destroy evert vestige of a 
 PUBLIC NATIONAL PROFESSION OF RELIGION. As means to an end, it is 
 busily engaged in assaulting the Established Church, and in promoting 
 legislative aggressions on her civil position and specially on her property. 
 The Society alluded to has a large annual income (4000Z.), which it 
 spends in stirring up religious strife and dissension in every parish with 
 which it comes in contact. Just now its eiforts are mainly directed 
 against Church Rates, regarding them, and justly, as an outwork of 
 the great fortress Church-and- State, — National Religion. It is well 
 known that many Dissenters joined the Society in the belief that it had 
 nothing further in view than to secure relief to Dissenters from Church 
 Rates. That belief, if ever well founded, has long since been a thing of 
 the past, and the Society's recognised leaders have publicly proclaimed a 
 war to the knife against the Church of England. (See ante, p. 41 et seq.) 
 
 Upon those who glory in this ungodly policy, words of expostulation 
 would probably be thrown avs ay ; but we Churchmen do earnestly entreat 
 the many constitutional Dissenters, who have voted against Church 
 Rates without thought or reflection, to consider whether the time has not 
 come for them to declare their convictions in a tangible form. Let all 
 such Dissenters who really regard the Church as the great bulwark of 
 religion in the land, sever themselves from these dangerous revolu- 
 tionists of whom I have been speaking, now that they clearly know 
 that Church Rate Abolition is designed to involve, and very likely %vo^dd 
 involve, something much more serious. 
 
 " The Dissenting Leaders openly avowed, in their evidence before the House of Lords 
 in 1859, that the present movement against Church Eates is only a wedge by which they 
 are trying to separate between Church and State. They warned us that even if Church 
 Rates are abolished, Dissent cannot be satisfied and will not rest until all property belong- 
 ing to the Church of England, as the National Church, shall have been taken from it, and 
 applied, not even to education, but to ordinary Government purposes. And this, whether 
 the property has been originally granted by public law, or, being of private gift, was only 
 eecured to the Church by Act of Parliament at the Eeformation, or before, or since. They 
 demand that all Parish Churches. Cathedrals, Parsonages, Advowsons, Tythes, Glebes, and 
 Church land, shall be seized by Parliament, and sold to any who may choose to buy, for 
 any use whatever ; and that the proceeds, after satisfying existing interests, shall be 
 thrown into the ordinary Tax Fund for Army, Navy, or other public purposes. What a 
 goodly use to be suggested by professing ministers of the gospel of peace, for property 
 granted at first to spread the kingdom of the Prince of peace ! Every village would then 
 lose its Church and Clergyman, unless the inhabitants chose to subscribe money enough to 
 buy back their own Church, and undertook to provide every year for the Clergyman's 
 necessary income, and also for repairs. Can they be friends of the jpoor who propose 
 such schemes ? How few parishes could raise money for this, even if they consented to 
 do it ! And all this would soon have a wider result. There would no longer be church- 
 wardens, nor vestry ; and after a while, no parishes, and no power of managing their own 
 alFairs among themselves alone. Everything would be done by Unions ; and all local 
 business would gradually pass away from villages themselves, and be managed or con- 
 trolled by some central despotic power in London, like the Poor Law Commissioners. Are 
 Englishmen prepared thus to yield up local self-government, which is in fact the principle 
 of Parliament, and of a Municipality also ? to have nothing to say in their own local
 
 Book VI. Ckurcli Rates. 8 1 
 
 affairs ? to change tlieir habits and feelings, and lose all that which they arc accustomed 
 to reverence, value, and look up to ? Woidd England be happier, more godly, or better 
 oflF, for losing at once, as a national institution, all her Parish Churches and Clergy ? 
 Would the poor, the sick, the aged, the children, be better cared for? The whole plan 
 is only a vast scheme for mere godless robbt^ry of the poor, and of parishes, and of the 
 Church of God. It is easy to say that the scheme is too wild to be worth fearing. But 
 the Dissenting Leaders know better — ' Little by little' is their watchword. 
 
 " Let us look the Dissenters' plan in the face, and think for a moment what the results 
 ■would be. This country would be Old England no longer : all would be new and 
 strange, sour and heartless. The effects would be felt in every parish — in some more, in 
 some less. Eeligion would be turned at once into so much Qnonci/s worth. Three-fourtlis 
 of the parish churches would be without miiiistors, for what would they have to live upon ? 
 The churches, in far the greater number of parishes, would be sold for barracks, ware- 
 houses, barns, or other common uses, or pulled down for the materials, because the 
 parishes would be too poor to buy them. Eoman Catholics would buy many, and what 
 then would become of the Protestant poor? Dissenters would buy some ; and, probably, 
 fit up part of the church as a dwelling-house for their minister. Eieh landowners would 
 buy some and put in ministers, of whatever sort or so_ct they liked. What an uneasy blank 
 ■would be everywhere felt ! No longer in every village, rich or poor, a minister of God 
 appointed, as a matter of course ; maintained and controlled by lawful authority, to 
 uphold the cause and teach the will of God ; a bond of union among all classes ; a prin- 
 cipal inhabitant, spending generally from his own private property much more than he 
 draws from the place. Tythes and rent-charge now go into the hands of a friend to the 
 inhabitants, but then they would be drawn by the tax-gatherer, or by some lay purchaser 
 eager to make the best interest on the money price he had paid. Who could then spare 
 t'me from making his own daily bread to do the missing minister's outward work in a 
 parish ? Who would take care — whom would the poor trust to take care — of schools, 
 clothing clubs, and the other benevolent arrangements to alle-viate poverty and distress ? 
 AVho would be leader, j-ear after year, in all the nameless means of good, spiritual and 
 temporal, to the poor ? To what sure and faithful friend would the distressed and 
 sorrowful, the sick and needy, go, and claim a right to go, for comfort-, help, and advice ? 
 Hard and heartless, and unfeeling to the poor, is the whole of this atrocious plan for 
 doing away with the National Church. Let the thinking and foreseeing poor of England, 
 answer for themselves whether it would not prove so." — {The Church, Church Rates, and 
 Dissenters, p. lo.) 
 
 Hear -what Dr. Pje Smitli said in his controversial correspondence 
 with Professor Lee, of Cambridge : — 
 
 " I know, however, that there are some, and those persons of unquestionable moral 
 excellence, and who would abhor any violation of what is strictly just, who recommend 
 the resumption (or rather it would be the assumption, for the State could not resume what 
 it never gave) of the Church property by the Government, as a part of the desired reform. 
 This to my apprehension -would be downright robbery. May our country never be dis- 
 honoured by it ! " 
 
 In the opinion of this eminent Dissenter, the Liberators are embarked 
 in a cause which, if crowned with success, will be justly branded as an 
 act of " downright robbery," and " a dishonour to our country." 
 
 Attention is invited to the following extract from the well-known Dis- 
 senting periodical, the Eclectic Eevi&iv. If the words had been penned 
 for the express purpose of condemning Mr. Miall's mis-statements in his 
 recently published book on Church Property, they could not have been 
 more direct and emphatic : — 
 
 "It is, however, equally fallacious to talk of the Church property as being vested in the 
 Legislature. Dissenters who hold this langiiage expose themselves to the charge of being 
 either very ignorant, or guilty of wilful and malicious misrepresentation. The tithes arc 
 lio more vested in the Legislature than are the Irish estates of a London Company, or 
 the endowments of our Dissenting academics and meeting-houses. The manner in which 
 the abolition of tithes by a simple Act of Parliament is sometimes spoken of as a thing 
 quite feasible, legal, and desirable, might have suited a French Constituent Assembly. 
 But that British Christians — hay, ministers of the Gospel — nay, individuals enjoying the 
 
 F
 
 82 Church Rates. Book vi. 
 
 benefit of endowments — should Le so far misled by party zeal as to join in the unprincipled 
 clamour against Church property raised by the advocates of uncom^^ensated spoliation, 
 forgetful alike of consistency, the decencies of their sacred office, and the plain dictates of 
 common honesty — this, we must avow it, has filled us with amazement and shame. The 
 cause of Dissent is under small obligations to those who have brought down upon it this 
 deep disgrace." — {E. R., February 1832, p. 129.) 
 
 The following statistics desei-ve serious consideration : — 
 From a Parliamentary return for 15 years preceding 1856, relating to 
 9676 parishes, it appears that Church Rates were granted in 8280 (85"5 
 per cent.) and refuse.d in 408 (4" 2 per -cent.). The residue possessed en- 
 dowments, &c., or gave dubious replies. The question inevitably suggests 
 itself : Are the 8000 to be coerced to please the 400, or shall the 400 yield to 
 the 8000 ? 
 
 Again, another return shows the following results : — 
 
 Total parishes giving replies 9647 
 
 Relying on Church Rates alone . . . , .. . . .5291 
 
 „ Church Rates and Endowments . . . . . . .684 
 
 „ Church Rates and Endowments and Voluntary Subscriptions . 365 
 
 ,. Church Rates and Voluntary Subscriptions . . . . .1775 
 
 „ Endowments only . . . . . . . . .430 
 
 „ Endowments and Voluntary Subscriptions ..... 297 
 
 „ Voluntary Subscriptions only ....... 805 
 
 Adding together the first four numbers, we ascertain that Church Rates 
 enter into the financial arrangements of no less than 81 15 parishes (84" i 
 per cent.), but do not do so in 1532 parishes (15.9 per cent.) — a result 
 well in accordance with the previous one, though arrived at by a wholly 
 different process. 
 
 WHY IT IS SOUGHT TO ABOLISH CHURCH RATES ? 
 
 In the summer of 1859, the Duke of Marlborough obtained a Com- 
 mittee of the House of Lords to inquire into the question of Church Rates. 
 That Committee sat on numerous occasions in 1859, ^^^ ^^^'^ ^^ ^^^ early 
 part of 1 860, their Report and the evidence taken before them being laid 
 before Parliament in the month of March in that year. The information 
 they elicited was of great importance, both as regards the designs of the 
 Dissenters, and the consequences which would ensue were those designs 
 permitted to be carried into effect. Churchmen have been so entirely in 
 the dark relative to the real question at issue, that it is most desirable 
 that they should be made clearly acquainted with the demands of the Dis- 
 senters, as expressed by their representatives at that Committee. I 
 therefore make no apology for directing attention to the following extracts 
 from the minutes of the evidence, comprehending some of the more im- 
 portant topics touched upon by the two leading Political Dissenting wit- 
 nesses, Messrs. Morley and Foster. 
 
 Mr. Samuel MORLEY. 
 
 Question 661. (ijord Wensleifdcdc.) You object to a State religion altogether? — 
 Answer: I do. 
 
 A. to Q. 662. Distinctly: if yon were to relieve Dissenters to-day from any prospective 
 payment in respect of reHgion, their efforts would remain as vigorous as they have hitherto
 
 Book VI. Chuvcli Rates. 8j 
 
 been, in order to establish tlie general principle of exemption on the ground of injury to 
 religion. [?] 
 
 A. to Q, 696. / quite believe that the concession of this question of Church Rates will 
 not satisfy the ultimate expectations, or I will say, if you please, the requirements of 
 Dissenters. 
 
 Q. 698. You have alluded to ultimate objects; would you feel it consistent with your 
 position before this Committee to state what those ultimate objects might be? — A. I 
 should be sorry to misrepresent those objects, but I can state only my own impression of 
 what they are. 1 believe that the great object is to separate religion from the slightest 
 connection with the State. 
 
 Q. 699. Would Dissenters feel that Church Eates being abolished, and, so far, there 
 being by that abolition a line of demarcation drawn between tlie interests of the Dissenter 
 and the interests of the Churchman, the Churchman should be left in the enjoyment of 
 the endowments which have been provided for the sustentation of the Church ? — A. That 
 is a very important question. That the settlement of the Church Eate question 
 
 WOULD meet the DIFFICULTIES WHICH DiSSENTERS MAKE, I DO NOT BELIEVE. I think yoU 
 
 would find that the organisations which at present exist would remain so long as there 
 existed any foim of interference by legislation with religion. 
 
 A. to Q. 700. I believe that the opinion of Dissenters is, that Church property is 
 national pro'perty, and that it would have to be dealt with according to the judgment of 
 the nation. 
 
 Q. 7Z2. (Lord Bishop of London.) I think you have stated that it is the view of 
 certain Nonconformists that they regard Church Establishments altogether as things 
 which are injurious to religion ? — A. I do believe so. 
 
 Q. 723. And that ultimately they may hope, in the extreme future, to find an oppor- 
 tunity of taking the property which is now appropriated to the Establishment and applying 
 it otherwise? — A. That would certainly be the course of events, if they shape themselves 
 as, no doubt, many sanguine minds are anticipating. 
 
 Q. 738. Can you state what proportion of free sittings there are in Dissenting Chapels? 
 — A. The proportion is very small indeed. I am bound to make that acknowledgment ; 
 and it is a difficidty. 
 
 A. to Q. 753. I daresay the phrase has sometimes met your lordship, " the separation 
 of Church and State." I believe that is the object which numbers of earnest men have 
 set before themselves : and I venture to say, and I would take the liberty to repeat itj 
 whose object, and only object, is a religious one. [?] 
 
 Q. 754. That step is the taking away from the Church its property, and giving it to 
 the State for some general purposes ? — A. That is not the only result that is necetsarUy 
 involved. 
 
 Q. 756. In fact, this question of Church Eates, as you present it, is but a small point 
 altogether as compared with the great question of the separation of Churcli and State ? — 
 [Answered in the affirmative.] 
 
 Q. 763. You have stated that there is a strong opinion on the part of Dissenters that 
 Church Eates ought to be abolished even as applicable to Churchmen? — A. YES, 
 CLEAELY. 
 
 Q. 674. Would that apply to all Dissenters? — A. With very few exceptions, probably 
 it would. 
 
 Q. 772. {Chairman.) Still you do look upon the abolition of Church Eates as taking 
 off one link in the connection of Church and State ?— A. UNQUESTIONABLY. 
 
 Q. 773. And a step in the direction of that ultimate object which it is desired to attain 
 for the promotion of the interests of rehgion ? — A. I quite think so. 
 
 Q. 778. So tliat I believe that the views entertained by the Dissenters whom you re- 
 present [the Independents] would be these : that they do not look upon the question of 
 Church Eates as a grievance which they desire to be removed from them, but that they 
 look upon it as a great religious question which they would wish to see carried out iu 
 the country ? — A. I quite believe that is the feeling of a large number whom I represent. 
 Q. 791. In fact, the great principle whicli you think ought to permeate and to actuate 
 religion in everything is the voluntary principle ? — A. I quite believe that. 
 
 A. to Q. 797. I have no hesitation in saying, that if a Bill were introduced into the 
 House of Commons to-night, the object of which should be to charge upon Churchmen the 
 support of their own places of worship, there would be opposition to it commenced to- 
 morrow which would be fatal to the measure. 
 
 Q. 799. (Lord Bishop of London.) I do not quite see what the ground of that oppo- 
 siiion would be, unless it were with the view of some ulterior measures. Why should 
 F 2
 
 H 
 
 Church Rates. Book vr. 
 
 any Dissenter object to a Churchman, who conscientiously thinks that the State has a 
 right to charge him, being charged by the State? — A. The object of the Dissenters is to 
 .get off of the statute-book all enactments which bring the policeman into operation with a 
 view to enforce payment by anybody. Your lordship may not be able to believe that 
 there is a religious basis for that opinion, but I can assert that there are numbers of men 
 who have that opinion. [?] 
 
 Q. 800. (Lord Wensleydale.) You would not only object to the compulsory rate for 
 yourselves, the Dissenters, as regards the sustentation of the fabric of the Church, but 
 you would object to Churchmen being compulsorily called upon to support their own 
 Churches ? — A. Quite so. 
 
 Q. 828. Asked by the Lord Bishop of London, whether, seeing that out of 12,000 
 parishes only 500 refuse Church Bates, it is not very unfair to compel the remaining 
 11,500 to give way to 500, and how a Dissenter would answer this? — A. I am bound to 
 say there is much substantial reason for the diifieulty. 
 
 A. to Q. 842. (Chairman.) I merely meant to refer to the fact that there is in every 
 constituency a representative body of the views which I have put before the Committee. 
 The particular Society to which reference has been made, has correspondents in every 
 constituency, and there is a degree of co-operation with them, not on behalf only, I beg 
 the Committee to believe, of mere noisy talkers, but of earnest, thoughtful persons in 
 every constituency and in every moderately large town ; and there is a course of action 
 which candidates understand perfectly well, and which is found to be operative on this 
 particular question. 
 
 Q. 844. (Earl of Bomney.) Does your Society send down individuals into different 
 parishes in the country ? — A. Not frequently.* 
 
 Charles James FOSTER, LL.D. 
 
 Q. 1507. {Chairman.) May I ask what the objects are which your Society have in 
 view? — A. We wish to what is comnnonly called separate the Church from the State. We 
 wish to take away all funds and property with which the State has endowed any religious 
 denomination whatever. We wish also to free all denominations of persons who may 
 happen to be under special legislation, on religious grounds, from such special legislation. 
 
 Q. 151 1. Do you include tithes? — A. YES. 
 , Q. 151 9, Suppose that persons not conforming to the Church were exempted from the 
 payment of Church Eates, would that satisfy the body of Dissenters ? — A. I THINK 
 NOT. 
 
 Q. 1522. Do you think it is consistent with the principles of civil and religious 
 liberty, for one part of the community who entertain one view to force that view upon 
 another portion of the community who do not entertain it? — A. No ; certainly not. 
 
 Q. 1523. Is not that the course taken by your Society ? — A. Hardly that. [?] [This 
 question completely trapped the witness, and he was unable to make a straightforward 
 reply.] 
 
 Q» 1529. (Lord Bishop of London.) In the first place, you object to Church Kates as 
 they are; and, secondly, you object to the connection between Church and State? — 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. 1530. Is that opinion entertained, do you think, by the great majority of Dissenters 
 in this country? — A. I do not think that the second point in the question would be 
 entertained by the great majority of the Dissenters. 
 
 Q,. 1 5 3 X . When you speak of Dissenters, you probably mean not to include Wesleyans ? 
 — A. Very slightly so. 
 
 Q. 1532. Do not the Wesleyans form a very large portion of the population? — A. 
 Yes. Until recently they had decidedly declined to have any political connection with us. 
 
 Q. 1533. Your impression is that the Wesleyans might object to Church Rates, but 
 certainly would not object to the connection between Church and State ? — [Answered in 
 the affirmative.] 
 
 * This statement is, I believe, in substance thoroughly untrue. There are probably 
 very few parishes to which, during the last few years, when a Church Rate contest was 
 going on, iv visit has not been paid by " J. Carvell Williams, Esq.," the Secretary of the 
 Liberat:cn Society, to stir up the evil passions of a schismatic and irreligious mob. I 
 can testify to this from personal experience. 
 
 i
 
 Book VI. CllUrch RatCS. 85 
 
 Q. X551. Then, in fact, all endowments for Dissonting meeting-houses are quite as 
 much public property as endowments of the Church of England ? — A. Under that con- 
 dition they would be. [Here the witness was again admirably caught in his own trap.J 
 
 Q. 1583. (Lord Bishop of London.) Would it be right to say that the objects of the 
 Liberation Society are the application to secular uses, after the equitable satisfaction of 
 existing interests, of all national property now held upon trust by the United Church of 
 England and Ireland, and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and concurrently with 
 that, the liberation of those Churches from all State control ? — A. Yes ; except that it is 
 not quite complete. Tlie Eegium Donum is also one of the objects of our Society. 
 
 Q. 1596. {Chairman.) Do not many men pay a Church Rate because it is the law, 
 ■who do not attend Church, but who, if the law were removed, would not make a volun- 
 tary gift for the maintenance of the Church ? — A. I think there are such persons. 
 
 A. to Q. i6oi. Oiu- Society is called one for the Liberation of Religion, and it may 
 naturally be supposed that we are interested in the spread of religion ; and we think that 
 the arrangements made by the English Church hamper the means of spreading religion. [?] 
 Q. 1604. Your object is, as I understand you, the promotion and spread of religion? 
 — A. I hope that is my personal object, and I believe this to be the object of those with 
 whom I act. [? J 
 
 Q. 1 612. (Lord Bishop of London.) The Society has, I think, printed a number of 
 publications pointing out what flaws in Church Rates could be found, and suggesting a 
 mode by which legal difficulties might be thrown in the way of raising a Church Rate ?• — 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. 1 61 3. Is it your impression that, in the election of members of Parliament, there 
 was any particular activity in the Parliamentary Committee as to those elections ? — A. 
 ■Undoubtedly ; it is part of our duty. 
 
 Q.. 1 6 14. All legitimate and constitutional means to return members who are pledged 
 against Church Rates are, of course, used by the Parliamentary Committee ? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. 1632. (Lord Bishop of Oxford.) You stated that you could not feel the returns 
 that were referred to by the Bishop of London to be correct. Have you any data or 
 figures which enable you to question their correctness ? — A. No, I have not. 
 
 Q. 1642. {Chairman.) You have spoken of communications that came from villages 
 and from market towns ; do those communications come from Dissenters or from Church- 
 men ? — A. I have no doubt they come from Dissenters. 
 
 Q. 1664. I understand the Society for the Liberation of Religion have formed no 
 
 definite idea as to what would be the objects to wliich the property of the Church should 
 
 be applied? — A. I do not suppose that the Society considers that any part of its business. 
 
 Q. 1667. In fact, it is rather an object which is held out as oue of the intentions of 
 
 the Society, than anything that they have substantially made up their minds upon? — A. 
 
 I do not admit that Supposing our Society to continue, the accomplishment 
 
 of our object will come before long. 
 
 Q. 1678. That is to say, you look upon the Episcopalians merely as tenants of the 
 ecclesiastical edifices, without paying rent for them ? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q,. 1679. I believe I am right in saying that the view you entertain of Church Rates 
 is, that a settlement of the Church Rate question would by no means settle the objects 
 you have in view, but that there are ulterior objects which you also wish to see accom- 
 plished, even although the question of Church Rates was settled to-morrow ? — A. YliS. 
 Q. 1684. (Lord Bishop of Oxford.) You are aware that the great Fathers of Evan- 
 gelical Dissent in England have been opposed to the separation of Church and State? — 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. 1688. Asked whether the original desire to see the separation of Church and State 
 was likely to have been connected with any political movement? — A. I think it is not at 
 all unlikely. 
 
 Q. 1691. I think the Committee understand that you give it quite as your impression, 
 that if the Church Rate question was settled to-morrow, it would not tend to produce 
 what I may call peace between the Established Church and the body of Evangelical 
 Dissenters ? — A. It could not be regarded as settling the questions in which we feel that 
 we have an interest. 
 
 Q. 1701. (Earl of Powis.) With regard to secularisation, do you consider the tithes' 
 now held by ecclesiastical bodies to be national property ? — A. YES.
 
 86 Church Rates. Book VI. 
 
 THE CON"SEQUENCES OF ABOLISHma CHURCH RATES. 
 
 "We are not left in tlie dark on this point ; the evidence of which I have 
 already quoted so much is full of warning. 
 
 The Rev. John C. MILLER, D.D, 
 
 "Q. 178. {Chairman.) Are you able to state whether there is very great difficulty ex- 
 perienced in providing the sums necessary for the performance of divine worship, as well 
 as for the maintenance of the fabrics ? — A. There is in many parishes the greatest possi- 
 ble difficultJ^ The present system, as carried on in Birmingham, is a perfect millstone 
 round the necks of a great majority of the ministers of the town. I do not speak from 
 theory or opinion ; I speak in that respect from my knowledge of facts. I may be allowed 
 to add to that answer, that so sti-ong was my own feeling upon that point, that being 
 called on often to have begging sermons for arrears of congregational expenses, I at last 
 announced to my people, so wearied was I with it, that I never woidd allow those collec- 
 tions in my church again — that we must cut down our expenses to what we could raise in 
 some other way ; and I have never allowed any such collections in my church since ; but 
 most of the clergy are obliged to have quarterly collections to pay their wardens' expenses, 
 and some of them put an addition on to the pewage." 
 
 " A. to Q,. 233. (Lord Bishop of London.) I believe that if the system which is pursued 
 in Birmingham with respect to Church Bates [viz. the voluntary] were once extended to the 
 whole of this country, spiritually, it would be the greatest national calamity that could 
 befall tcs." 
 
 "Q. 238. (Chairman.) Is it not the case at present, that whether for the building of 
 churches or the erection of schools, the clergymen are obliged to make very widely ex- 
 tended appeals, not only to their own people, but to persons very foreign to their parishes ? 
 A. The truth is, that begging is now a chief element in our duties." 
 
 " Q. 239. Then, if the provision of the funds necessary for repairing the churches were 
 thrown upon the voluntary system, would not it oblige the clergyman to extend his 
 begging operations very largely ? — A. He would have to extend them ; and as a result 
 of my own observations of Birmingham, I should say he would extend them unsuccess- 
 fully, and that the churches would go to decay." 
 
 " Q. 240. Would it not very seriously interfere with the time which he ought to give to 
 his parochial duties ? — A. It does now most seriously." 
 
 . "Q. 241. Would it not add very largely to his anxieties? — A. It does now most 
 heavily y 
 
 " Q. 242. And in those ways very seriously prejudice his spiritual work. — A. We all 
 feel in Birmingham that we are becoming secularised more and more every day; we get 
 on by constant begging." 
 
 "Q. 342. {Chairman.) Have you not sometimes had promises of voluntary contributions 
 for the repair of churches which you have not afterwards had fulfilled ? — A. When I 
 first went to Birmingham, the churchwarden in office as the people's warden, who, like 
 other people's wardens, had gone into office pledged against the rate, told me that he had 
 had very fair promises that if they did not insist on the rate one would give a e,l. note 
 and another would give a 5^. note, and soon ; but he gave me to understand that after 
 the rate had been refused many of them left him in the lurch. 
 
 The Yen. Archdeacon SANDFORD. 
 
 " Q,. 1043. {Chairman.) What is the general state of repair of the Churches in your 
 archdeaconry? — A. The Churches in Birmingham itself are going into decay, and I con- 
 sider that the state of the Birmingham Churches is conclusive against the theory of the 
 honourable member for Birmingham, Mr. Bright, as to the efficiency of the voluntary 
 system, because Birmingham enjoys the advantages of very exemplary and energetic 
 clergy, who, if any men could uphold their fabrics by the voluntary system, would 
 do so. . . . 
 
 Dr. Miller's opinion is confirmed by — 
 
 The Right Hon. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P. 
 
 " I think the practical result of the simple abolition of Church Eates would be to 
 throw in the rural parishes upon the clergy — who are already in many respects over-
 
 Book VI. Church Rates. 87 
 
 burdeued, with but limited stipends, with their, I must say, generally unbounded liberality, 
 and the absence in many cases of aid derived from other resources — a charge which it would 
 be most unjust to them to impose on their shoulders, and which would have the eifect of 
 making a fresh demand for secular objects on time which ought to be at the disposal of 
 their parishioners for spiritual purposes." — (Speech in the House of Commons, March 7, 
 1866. Hansard, vol. cxxxi.) 
 
 Enough : if anything I have written shall lead to the more correct 
 understanding of the true points at issue in the Church Rate question — 
 Avhich are something more than who is to pay for washing Mr. A.'s 
 surplice, or repairing Mr. B.'s gown — my labours will not have been 
 altogether in vain. To put the matter in a few words, those who vote for 
 a Church Rate vote not sim])!]] in favour of a tioopenny-halfj)enny tax of 
 mere local concern, but ptihliclij declare their solemn belief that an Established 
 faith is a blessing to a nation, and ought to be strenuously upheld. 
 
 APPENDIX TO BOOK VI. 
 
 SUGGESTED SETTLEMENTS OF THE CHUECH RATE QUESTION. 
 
 As it may be expected that the Church Rate question will at no distant period come 
 before the country for fair common-sense discussion in a,nticipation of a settlement, it may 
 be convenient to lay before the reader abstracts of some of the more rational schemes 
 which have been more or less formally propounded. The abstracts are taken from papers 
 circulated by the Church Institution. I leave out of consideration 2 proposals whieii ai-e 
 both equally bad : total abolition, and letting the present law remain, in its essential 
 points, untouched. 
 
 I. The Duke of Maelborough. — " Bill to amend the law relating to the Assessment 
 and Levying of Church Rates." 
 
 Jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts as to Church Rates to cease, and that of the Tem- 
 poral Courts to be substituted. 
 
 Whenever a majority refuse a rate in a parish where no rate has been voted for two 
 years last preceding, the Churchwardens annually to cause inquiry to be made of every 
 parishioner whether he is desirous that his name should be omitted from the registry of 
 persons entitled to vote at Vestry meetings for making a rate and electing Churchwardens ; 
 and the Churchwardens to enter in a " Church Register Book " the names of all who shall 
 not within a certain time have signified such desire, and only such persons are to be en- 
 titled to be present and vote, and the rate is to be laid upon such persons only. 
 
 For the purpose of a Chiirch Rate, the word " parish " is to include every ecclesiastical 
 district. 
 
 Church Rates to be assessed and collected after the manner of Poor Rates. 
 
 II. Mr. Hubbard, M.P. — " Bill to amend the law of Church Rates." 
 Every parish or district to hold a Church vestry to transact business connected with 
 Church Rates only, to consist of ratepayers not disquahtied under this Act, and of such 
 owners (or their agents) qualified by this Act. 
 
 Church Rates to be assessed on the same valuation as the Poor Rates, and for each 
 assessment not exceeding 61., the owner, unless he claims exemption, to be rated at not less 
 than three-fourths of assessment, and to possess the right of voting at vestry in lieu of 
 tenant, exercising one vote for every such property to the extent of 6 votes. 
 
 Jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts for recoveiy of Church Races to cease ; but the visi- 
 tation of the ordinary, or his officer on his authority, not to be affected. All persons not 
 conforming to the Church of England who may choose to claim exemption by giving the 
 necessary notice to the Churchwardens before January 8 in each year to be exempted, in 
 ■which case the owner to be rated unless he also claims exemption before January 29. 
 Such owner, without prejudice to his own right, also to possess the right of voting at vestry 
 in respect of such property.
 
 88 Church Rates. Book VI. 
 
 Persons while exempt to be precluded from attending the Church vestry, to be deprived 
 of seats in Church, and not to act as Churchwardens in any matter relating to the Church. 
 Eates to be levied as at present, where money has been raised on security of the same. 
 
 III. Mr. Cross, ex-M.P. — " Bill to amend the law of Church Kates." 
 
 Any person may exempt himself from the rate by notifying to Churchwardens, between 
 January i and March i, his desire not to be rated; but no person, during the period of 
 his exemption, is to be entitled to vote on the appointment of churchwardens or the 
 making of rates, or to have any seat in the Church to the exclusion of those who pay 
 rates. 
 
 Jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts as to Church Eates to be abolished. 
 
 Church Eates to be assessed and collected after the manner of Poor Rates. 
 
 The Small Tenements Act to be applicable to Church Eates, so as to render the owners 
 of tenements imder yearly value of 61. liable instead of the occupiers. 
 
 IV. Mr. EsTCOUKT, ex-M.P. — :" Bill to abolish the Jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts in 
 respect of Church Eates, and to alter and amend the Law relating to Church Eates." 
 
 Jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts as to Church Eates to be transferred to the 
 tribunals which deal with Poor Eates. 
 
 Each Ecclesiastical District to be a separate parish for the purposes of this Act. 
 
 Churchwardens once in each year to publish on the Church door for three successive 
 Sundays, and to levy and collect an owner's Church Eate, not exceeding id. in the pound 
 upon all property which has been assessed to a Church Eate within the last 5 years, such 
 rate to be solely applied to the repairs of the Church, Church clock, bells, and belfry, the 
 maintenance of the churchyard, the providing of registers, the performance of Divine 
 worship ; insurance ; and the payment of fees. This rate to be payable by tenants, who 
 are to deduct it from rent due to the landlord. 
 
 Church vestry to levy an occupier's Church Eate for any purpose connected with 
 Divine worship, to be collected only from occupiers who are members of the Church 
 vestry. 
 
 The Church vestry to consist solely of owners rated as aforesaid, and of all occupiers 
 who shall during the preceding 12 months have paid any Church Eate, or, being ratepayers, 
 shall have contributed to any subscription in lieu thereof, and who shall not decline to be 
 members of such Church vestry by delivering a notice to that eflFect to the Churchwardens 
 before Easter in each year. 
 
 Church vesti-y to control the audit of Churchwardens' accounts ; furniture and fittings 
 of the Church ; salaiy of officers ; appropriation of seats ; and all expenditure incurred for 
 the benefit of the congregation. 
 
 Small Tenements Acts to be applicable to occupiers' rates under this Act. 
 
 Church Eates to be assessed after the manner of Poor Eates. 
 
 v. Mr. Alcock, ex-M.P. — " Bill for the voluntary Commutation of Church Eates." 
 
 The Charity Commissioners to be a Corporation, under the title of Church Eate Com- 
 mutation Commissioners. , 
 
 Such Commission, on having a yearly sum secured to them, either in Consols or in 
 rent-charge, sufficient to defray the expenses properly payable out of Church Eates in any 
 parish, to award that no Church Eate shall thenceforth be raised. 
 
 Commissioners to release such rent-clmrges on having transferred to them an equivalent 
 sum in dividends from Consols, and to release portions of ld,nd from liability where th^ 
 residue affijrds sufficient security. 
 
 VL 
 
 The rate to be levied only for expenses connected with the fabric, conceding expenses 
 connected with the services in return for improved facilities for enforcement. 
 
 District parishes to bo exempted from paying Church Eates to the parish out of 
 which they were taken, and to levy Church Eates for themselves. 
 
 The Churchwardens to possess the power to excuse from the payment of Church 
 Eates. 
 
 Landowners (including tenants for life) to possess the power, by deed or will, to 
 charge their land with the Church Eate.
 
 Book VI. Churcli Rates. 
 
 The average rate of the preceding 25 years to be the amount on which the parish shall 
 be for the future assessed, such amount to be considered due on January i in each 
 year. 
 
 Property which under the present law would be liable to Church Rates, to be liable to 
 this commuted payment. 
 
 Remedies for recovery to be the same as those given for tithes, under the Tithe Com- 
 mutation Act. 
 
 District parishes to share in such ■ commutation, the amount assessed being according 
 to the rateable value of the property within such district parish. Chapels of ease to be 
 treated as one with the mother church. 
 
 If any exemption be conceded, anyone exempting himself by a written notice, on or 
 before January 8 in each year, to relinquish his rights in Church vestry, or parochial 
 matters connected with the Church. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 The direct charge of Church Rates, and all powers of imposing and levying the same, to 
 be transferred from the tenants to the owners of property, and such owners to have con- 
 ferred upon them the further powers of exercising their votes by means of voting papers ; 
 also, of commuting their liability to the rate. 
 
 The present jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts to be abolished, and the mode of 
 assessing and recovering Church Rates to be assimilated to the law now in force with 
 respect to Poor Rates. 
 
 A tribunal of appeal from owners' vestries, either for or against the rate, to be provided. 
 
 Every ecclesiastical district to be a separate parish for Church Rate purposes. 
 
 IX. 
 
 The general incidence of the existing law to remain untouched. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts to cease in matters of a strictly temporal 
 nature— that is to say, in matters not having reference to the objects for which the rate is 
 made. 
 
 Churchwardens to be protected when collecting rates by providing that in no case 
 shall allegations of invalidity justify a refusal to pay, or be a defence when payment is 
 sought to be enforced. 
 
 The following machinery for deciding upon questions of validity is suggested : — Pre- 
 vious to collecting, Churchwardens to submit their rate to the justices of Petty Sessions, 
 who shall confirm, quash, or amend the same in any way that they shall deem proper, 
 and their determination to be final unless any persons who consider themselves ag- 
 grieved shall appeal to a higher tribunal. 
 
 The Small Tenements Act to apply to Church Rates, and vestries to have power to ex- 
 cuse from payment. 
 
 The Justices to have power to audit Church Rates, analogous to the power given them 
 by 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 50, as to Highway Rates. At such audit any parishioner may object 
 to any item of disbursement, that it was made for a purpose not authorised by law ; such 
 objection not to be gone into by the Justices, but machinery to be provided by which it 
 will, under their authority, be sent up to the Spiritual Courts. 
 
 The Bill to be framed with especial reference to existing Acts of Parliament, and 
 their actual words made use of when practicable, so that the duties imposed upon Justices 
 would be such as tbey are constantly called upon to perform in other matters. 
 
 A Bill embodying the proposals of No. IX. has been prepared by Mr. J. G. N. Darby, 
 of the Church Institution, and has received considerable attention. Should a convenient 
 opportunity offer, it is probable that it will be brought before Parliament.
 
 r^ 
 
 
 Book VII. 
 
 The inconsistency of many professors of what is riglat and proper in the pre- 
 sent day is truly deplorable. Many Christians go to Church, Sunday after 
 Sunday, and would not wish to be absent themselves on any account, who 
 think nothing of habitually requiring their servants to desecrate the Lord's 
 Day by using carriages and horses, &c. (and thus in many cases hindering 
 their attendants from joining in public worship), without the slightest 
 occasion for it. If they are hond fide invalids, it is another thing ; but what 
 proportion do the invaKds who ride in carriages on Sunday bear to the 
 non-invalids ? 
 
 The Post Office is another field for an extensive display of Christian 
 inconsistency. Many who will not work themselves by writing letters on 
 Sunday, will make Post Office servants work by posting letters on Saturday 
 and Sunday, which in nine cases out of ten would well keep till Monday. 
 Thoughtlessness is probably at the root of much of this. 
 
 Equally as marked as the preceding is the inconsistency of professing 
 Churchmen in certain ecclesiastical matters. How many who dislike Dis- 
 sent of all kinds, both in theory and practice, and who would be unwilling 
 to have anything to do with the ministrations of Schism, or attend the 
 meeting-houses of the Sects, think nothing of indirectly countenancing 
 Dissent with their money. How many deal with Dissenting tradesmen and 
 not with Church ditto, for no better reason than that a little trouble is saved 
 thereby ? The former are nearer their residences ; to go to the latter would 
 involve a Httle longer walk, a little more trouble, forgetting all the while 
 that by patronising Dissent in small things, they encourage Dissent in large 
 matters. The whole strength of Dissent in England lies with the small 
 tradesmen. Everybody knows there are few Dissenters among the upper 
 and lower classes of the community. 
 
 What interest the lower classes have in religion (alas, that it is so little !) 
 is exclusively given to the Church, as the affair at Bedford, in July 1 862, 
 proves. How when a mean-spirited sectary began to burn a Prayer Book 
 in the public street, he was set upon by a mob, who taught him and 
 his a lesson which they will be slow to forget. 
 
 But I am digressing. So long as professing Church folks patronise 
 Dissenting shopkeepers,* so long and no longer will Dissent upraise itself 
 
 * Dissenting shopkeepers are in general much more independent, not to say impudent, 
 than their Church brethren. Churchmen have many annoyances to put up with in 
 consequence.
 
 Book VII. Inconsistency and ChuirJi Defence. 91 
 
 like a hydra-lieadecl monster in England. I liave before me a recent 
 number of the Liberator, and the large number of half-crown and five-shil- 
 ling subscriptions is an undoubted confirmation of the accuracy of this 
 reasoning. Dissenters do not display the same inconsistency as Church- 
 men. You will not find Dissenters dealing with Church-people, and 
 passing over their own brethren of Ebenezer and Bethel. No ; they are 
 too keenly alive to the consequences that the Church would flourish and 
 Dissent pine away. I am not insisting too much on this trade question, 
 but simply offer it as one of the ways in which Dissent could be brought 
 low, and ought to be brought low, if the Church of England as a religious 
 establishment is to be preserved. The toleration of Dissent is one thing, 
 the encouragement of it another. Churchmen ought to see that they cannot 
 encourage Dissent and preserve the Church at the same time. 
 
 All that I have said above applies, mutatis mutandis, to professing 
 Churchmen as Conservative* politicians ; though these have, as it were, a 
 special way of their own of trumpeting forth their inconsistencies, in the 
 resolute refusal of large numbers of them to support their own newspapers. 
 They seem unable to recognise the mighty power of the newspaper press 
 for good or for evil, as the case may be. 
 
 How many thousands oi lyrofessing Conservative Churchmen, Clergymen 
 included, read nothing but the miserable trash doled out by the (Democratic) 
 Daily Telegraph, or the (Dissenting) Morning Star ? By co acting, they 
 not only throw discouragement on the organs of their own party, but com- 
 placently suffer themselves to be victimized, often by the most extravagant 
 falsehoods and misrepresentation, on the part of their " Liberal " proteges ; 
 but this serves them right. 
 
 The following facts are worthy of attention : — ( i ) Conservative Opinions 
 are held by a large proportion of the people of England : (2) They are 
 supported by very nearly one-half the members of the House of Commons : 
 and (3) there is an overwhelming preponderance of Whig and Radical 
 newspapers daily instilling the most mischieTous ideas into all (but more 
 particularly the working) classes. Can we doubt that the large circulation 
 now enjoyed by many Whig-Radical papers, both London and Provincial, 
 (the former especially,) is due to any other cause than that in too many 
 instances Conservatives habitually purchase these journals, to the exclusion of 
 their oivn ? Our opponents do not act in this short-sighted and unprincipled 
 manner. I think it may be asserted without fear of contradiction that 
 no Radical supports the Morning Herald; that no Dissenter subscribes 
 to the Tablet : and that no Romanist relies on the Protestant Layman for 
 news. Oh, that Conservative Churchmen would take a little lesson of 
 consistency from their opponents ! 
 
 If Conservatives generally would only give a hearty support to their 
 own newspapers, all cause for complaint would speedily vanish ; seeing 
 that the Leoelopement of QUALITY and INFLUENCE depend on 
 INCREASE of CIRCULATION. The Standard and the Times are 
 instances of the never-failing truth of this Rule : time was when both 
 papers charged for 4 pages jd. Now we can get 8 pages for id. — and 16 
 pages for 3d. respectively ; all because the daily circulation of each has 
 increased from 5,000 to 50,000 or thereabouts. 
 
 * Perhaps this word is rather an equivocal one for nse here. I desire to desi{i;nate that 
 large class of Englishmen who are in theori/ firm constitutionalists, opjiosers of democracy 
 and organic change, not always exactly Tories, not always exactly Whigs.
 
 92' Inconsistency and Church Defence. Book vil. 
 
 The following extract admirably sets forth this point : — 
 " In 'proportion to their numbers, their means, and their position, neither tlie clergy nor 
 the laity of the Church, by their subscriptions or their communications, afford that constant 
 and substantial support to Church niwspapers which Dissenters give to their organs. The 
 consequence of this is, that beyond the affairs of their own parish, and in all the controver- 
 sies and movements which affect the Chiu'ch as a body, the majority of the members of 
 the Church are much less informed, and less prepared to do their duty in such matters, 
 than the majority of the Dissenters are in what concerns the special interest of their sect. 
 It is the few, comparatively, who support Church newspapers and help them fight the 
 Church's battles. The others take in Punch, or some other no-Church or anti-Church 
 publication, and they occasionally borrow their neighbour's 'Church newspaper." 
 
 Conservative Churchmen in general, and Clergymen in particular, often 
 betray great want of principle in their publishing arrangements. How 
 many good sound works on political and religious matters have first seen 
 light at the hands of Radical, Dissenting, and Infidel printers and publishers? 
 
 N'ot long since, a clergyman who wanted to publish a Reply to the 
 Essays and Reviews, actually entrusted it to the publisher of that miserable 
 book, instead of going to some orthodox Church bookseller. Another 
 clerical work which lately came under my notice was issued by one of 
 the Liberation Society's Agents. 
 
 Closely akin to, and equally to be reprehended with the foregoing, is 
 the conduct of many Conservative Churchmen at Parochial and Parlia- 
 mentary Elections. How many Church Rates have been lost, — how 
 many seats have been lost, solely by the base and discreditable indolence 
 of electors professing sound opinions, who were too lazy to walk across 
 the road to put them in force, by recording their votes in the good cause ? 
 
 Some again, in answer to remonstrance, say, " Oh ! what good is my 
 one vote ? " wholly overlooking the fact that everything in the universe is 
 made up of " one votes," of atoms, that is to say. History records many 
 instances of the good and the harm done by these " one votes." It was 
 *' one vote " which led to Lord Melville's impeachment in 1805. It was 
 " one vote " which paved the way for the advent to power of Sir Robert 
 Peel, in 1841. Last, but not least, it was " one vote " which saved the 
 Church her Church Rates for the session of 1862. If 30 more "one 
 votes " had been forthcoming at the polling booths during the Ceneral 
 Election of 1859, Lord Derby would not have been driven from ofiice, 
 and the Church might have been spared some at least of the assaults of 
 the Dissenters, connived at by the Whigs, to which she has since been 
 subjected in the House of Commons. 
 
 In the Registration Courts, Conservative Churchmen seldom appear to 
 advantage ; frequently, figure apart, do not appear at all. There are 
 hundreds and thousands of Conservative Churchmen, possessing the 
 requisite qualifications for Parliamentary votes in boroughs and counties, 
 who are utterly heedless of the fact that the franchise is a sacred trust, 
 to be exercised for the good of the community, and not simply a worthless 
 privilege to be sought for and exercised, or the contrary, according as 
 their legs dispose them. Sir R. Peel it was who said that the battle of 
 the constitution must be fought in the Registration Courts, if it was to be 
 fought properly or at all — words of solemn import. 
 
 The question of money is another on which great numbers of professing 
 Churchmen seem all astray. They appear quite above the commonplace 
 idea that the possession of wealth confers responsibility on its pos- 
 sessor. They have hundreds and thousands of pounds for spending in 
 useless luxuries, but can only afibrd il. is. for this or that charitable
 
 Book VII. Incoiisistencij and Church Defence. 93 
 
 object. Many Claurclimen, liOAvever, who are inclined to spend tlieir 
 money, see no inconsistency, as tliey draw a cheque of 500/. for the new 
 Church, in drawing at the same time another for perhaps 50?. for the new 
 Meeting-house, the first sermon in which is more than likely to be in 
 abuse of the Church or her Clergy, or both. 
 
 The instances which are too often met with of Churchmen subscribing 
 to the funds of Dissenting Meeting-houses, are humiliating examples of 
 the personal inconsistency of some professors. Dissenters do not subscribe 
 to build Churches ; very, very, very seldom at least, I suspect. Conserva- 
 tive Churchmen, as a body, are very backward in diving into their 
 pockets for political objects. For the hundreds Churchmen subscribe for 
 Church Defence purposevS, the Dissenters put down thousands for Church 
 Destruction purposes. Thus, the Liberation Society for destroying the 
 Church as an Establishment, has an income more than three times as great 
 as that of the Church Institution for defending the same (Office, 4 Tra- 
 falgar Square). Some have spare time, hit not spare funds ; others have 
 spare funds, but not spare time : if the latter did their duty, they would 
 come forward ungrudijingly toith their money, and then plenty of active and 
 diligent workers, loho would make good use of it, would be sure to offer 
 themselves. 
 
 Now for a few practical observations on organisation for Church De- 
 fence, as arising out of what has just been said. 
 
 The Church is now assailed by three classes of enemies: (i.) The 
 Infidels who, disliking religion, dislike the Church because she is religious : 
 (2.) The Voluntaries who disapprove of her connexion with State ; and 
 (3.) Those who are envious of her wealth and position. This latter class 
 is more numerous than is commonly supposed. The Church is rich in 
 worldly possessions {given to her by her pious and attached sons and 
 daughters), but their own sects are poor and much in want of the same, 
 and therefore they are jealous and wish to appropriate (steal) her pro- 
 perty. However, these three classes of Englishmen, comprehending — 
 (Liberator, Aug. 1862, p. 143) — "Independents, Baptists, United Presby- 
 terians, Quakers, Unitarians, Wesleyan Methodists, Methodist Free Church- 
 men, and Primitive Methodists," have formed themselves into an Association 
 whose grandiloquent title is, " The Society for the Liberation of Religion 
 from State Patronage and Control," whose aim may be thus curtly ex- 
 pressed, TO DEPRIVE THE CHURCH OF ALL HER PROPERTY, 
 AND TO DEGRADE HER TO THE POSITION OF A SECT. 
 
 The object of the Church Defence Movement is simply to counteract and 
 defeat the revolutionary intrigues of the Dissenters, and their guiding star, 
 the Liberation Society. This is the plainest way of stating what we are 
 doing, and we ask help with money, and, if possible, with ivfluence and 
 time. Our opponents have at their disposal vast sums of money, no in- 
 considerable portion of the newspaper press, lecturers, paid and unpaid — 
 in fact, a gigantic machinery for the dissemination of their opinions. If 
 a seat in Parliament becomes vacant, the Liberation Society sets to work 
 to try and secure the return of an anti- Church candidate ; if a Church- 
 rate contest is impending in a parish, the Society supplies the enemies of 
 the Church with tracts and bills, &c., to carry on the warfare : not un- 
 frequently they send down lecturers to descant on the (supposed) hard- 
 ships of having to pay these rates, and generally to abuse the Church and 
 her system, setting forth at the same time the distinctive principles of their
 
 94 Inconsistency and Clturch Defence. Book VII. 
 
 Society. What I now insist upon in the most emphatic language possible 
 is, that the attainment of these unconstitutional ends can only be pre- 
 vented by Churchmen steadily resolving to meet the Dissenters with 
 their own weapons, man for man, money for money, tract for tract, &c. 
 
 Let it not be for one moment fancied that these assaults on the Church 
 of which I am speaking come from a small knot of insignificant politicians, 
 destitute of anything but impudence. Such an idea is wholly the reverse 
 of the truth. There are in England alone, hundreds of thousands of per- 
 sons (comprising nearly all sectaries but Wesleyans) pledged by their 
 teachers and preachers, and representatives in Parliament, to the total and 
 unconditional subversion of the Established Church. Add to these, the 
 numerous Irish Romanists hostile to the Irish branch of the United 
 Church, and we get a large sum-total of enemies. 
 
 We have already seen that the Church is assaulted by the Dissenters 
 not only with their money and influence, but with their pens and tongues. 
 
 I ask any rational Churchman possessing a particle of self-respect 
 for himself or his Church, whether a limit of forbearance has not already 
 been reached, beyond which it is not goodwill, but reprobation, which 
 we may fairly pour down upon the Dissenters, — beyond which forbear^ 
 ance ceases to be laudable, and becomes culpable and cowardly? 
 
 The foregoing observations must have pointed out the propriety, nay, the 
 necessity, of a Church Defence movement, such as that conducted by the 
 Church Institution. The expense of carrying on adequately this move- 
 ment is very great, and its promoters are most inconveniently crippled by 
 want of funds. What they have they spend in the following, amongst 
 other ways : — 
 
 (i.) The preparation and presentation of petitions to Parliament, 
 N.B. The 20,000 Church Defence petitions sent up since i860 have con- 
 tributed in a large degree to the pleasing fact that hardly a single measure 
 in the least hostile to the Church has passed into law since the move- 
 ment was begun. (2.) The whipping up of friendly members, and the 
 canvassing of doubtful and hostile members, in relation to impending 
 divisions in Parliament, (3.) The pubhcation of circulars and handbills 
 calculated to explain aggressive proposals, and so warn friends. (4.) 
 The holding of public meetings, setting forth to the ignorant and apa- 
 thetic the dangers which menace the Chui'ch, &c. &c. 
 
 It is not easy to define in so many words what is required to be done, 
 but any person at all conversant with the working of an organised system 
 of public agency will readily comprehend that money, in greater or less 
 abundance, is absolutely and indispensably necessary for duly carrying 
 on the same. Half-an-hour spent at the oflice in Trafalgar Square during 
 the height of the Parliamentary session will do more to enlighten a 
 stranger than many pages of \vritten explanation. During a particular 
 week in February 1861, 80,000 circulars (chiefly on the Church Rates 
 Abolition Bill) were sent out from the office, which there is every reason 
 to believe contributed largely to the ultimate rejection of the Bill ; and 
 we may say, ex uno disce omnes. Up to the end of 1865, it had issued 
 520,000 publications — a fact alone proving that it has not been 
 idle. 
 
 Unless Churchmen put their hands into their pockets and pull out plenty 
 of money, the temporaUties of the Church are irretrievably lost ; nothing 
 but a bountiful supply of the "sinews of war" will enable us to with- 
 stand the combined atta^iks of Dissenters, Romanists, Secularists, et hoc
 
 Book VII. Inconsistency and Church Defence. 95 
 
 genus omne. It is a matter for great thankfulness tliat so mnch good 
 has already been done ; but the work done bears a very small proportion 
 to that in store for us. The separation of Church and State is the great 
 question which is coming. 
 
 Let me entreat every reader of this forthwith to constitute himself (or 
 herself) a local Church Institution, and diligently to canvass his friends 
 for money, asking for five shillings here, one shilling there, ten shillings 
 here, half-a-crown there, according as he thinks the parties he is addressing 
 can afford to give. It is hardly to be credited what large sums may be 
 obtained in a short time by unflagging energy and determination in 
 collecting isolated small sums. INDIVIDUAL EXERTIONS is the point 
 I A\ash to enforce on all. 
 
 Work ! work ! work ! ought to be the golden rule of every loyal and 
 consistent Churchman. Nothing short of extraordinary exertion will 
 suffice to meet an extraordinary danger. Above all, let it be remembered 
 that il. no%D is worth t,1. paid three years hence. 
 
 It is a grave reproach to our professing friends that they are so indifferent 
 about this money question. How little sovereigns are grudged for luxury 
 and finery on the part of many who " cannot afford " more than a shilHng 
 (sometimes nothing at all) for the preservation of that for which, if once 
 lost, a substitute could never be found, — the National Church of England ! 
 The enemy are clamouring at the gates : take warning, ye English 
 Churchmen and English Chui'chwomen, ere it is too late, and they get 
 within the fortress ! 
 
 Always distrust persons who wish you every success, &c. &c., but who, 
 when pointedly asked to give their time or their money to a good cause, 
 begin to make excuses. The principles of such persons are not worth 
 much. 
 
 As a concluding remark, I would say that so long as PROFESSORS are 
 not ACTORS, neither the Church nor the cause of Constitutional Conser- 
 vatism can flourish as they ought in England. 
 
 APPENDIX TO BOOK VII. 
 
 A protest against certain current misnomers may not be inappropriate here. " Why 
 not call things by their right names?" is a very necessary question just now. In tho 
 good old days of our forefathers, there used to be Meeting-houses, Conventicles, Sectaries, 
 Schisms, and Schismatics, Now, matters are changed for the worse, thanks chiefly to 
 callous Churchmen. Meeting-houses have risen into " Chapels " and " Churches ; " Sec- 
 taries into "Dissenters" and "Free Churchmen;" a Teacher and Preacher of Schism 
 into "Dissenting Minister" and a "Dissenting Clergyman." John Stiggins's Anabaptist 
 meeting-house hiis become the " Baptist Church ; Minister, the Bev. John Stiggins," It 
 now rests with Churchmen to repudiate these cool assumptions of the Clerical style, that 
 love of aping the ChiU'ch which characterises aU forms of Dissent in the present day, but 
 a special repudiation shoidd be bestowed on that insulting gimcrack toast, " The Bishop 
 and Clergy of all denominations." Catholic and Protestant are two words excessively 
 misused ; English Churchmen are all Catholics and ought always to be Protestants in the 
 sense of protesting against the errors of Rome and schism, but the fashion of dubbing all 
 Romanists " Catholics," and all Anglicans " Protestants," is a very misleading and 
 objectionable one.
 
 
 Book VIII. 
 
 Part I.— WHAT SAITH HOLT SCRIPTURE ? 
 
 It is here proposed simply to place in juxta-position certain texts of tte 
 Bible and certain doctrines of tlie Romish Church for the purpose of 
 showing the antagonism existing between the latter and the former. 
 
 I. — Celibacy of the Clergy. 
 St. Maifhew viii. 14. — " And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's 
 mother laid and sick of a fever." 
 
 "We learn from this passage that St. Peter, reputed to have been the 
 first bishop of Rome, had a wife. If there is one man more than another 
 whom Roman Catholics profess to revere, it is the Apostle Peter, yet his 
 example if followed would countenance the marriage of the clergy, 
 
 I. Corinthians ix. 5. — "Have we not power to lead aboiit a sister, a wife, as well as 
 other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas?" 
 
 Some subtle Romanists attempt to get over this passage by saying that 
 " wafe " in the A.V. is a perversion, the original word signifying no more 
 than " woman." That the Greek word bears this meaning is quite true, but 
 it is a suppressio veri not to say that " wdfe " is one of its usual meanings. 
 Not the least noticeable feature about this quotation is the writer's allu- 
 sion to St. Peter's wife, previously spoken of by St. Matthew. 
 
 I. Timothy iii. 2.- — "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife." 
 Hebrews xiii. 4. — "Marriage is honourable in all." 
 
 It may therefore be asserted in the most decided manner that the com- 
 pulsory celibacy of the clergy is one of the most unscriptural of all the 
 dogmas of the Church of Rome. From Acts xxi. 9, we learn that St. 
 PhiHp the Evangelist had a wife, and St. Ambrose tells us that all the 
 Apostles save SS. John and Paul had wives. In Acts xviii. it is expressly 
 stated that Aquila, a well known Apostolic preacher, had a wife. 
 
 " Siricius, who according to Dufresnoy died in the year 399, w^as the 
 first pope that forbade the marriage of the clergy ; but it is probable 
 that this prohibition was but little regarded, as the celibacy of the clergy 
 seems not to have been completely established till the papacy of Gregory
 
 Part I. What saitli Holy Scripture? 97 
 
 yil. at tlie end of the eleventli century ; and even then it was loudlj 
 complained of by many writers. The history of the following centuries 
 abundantly proves the bad effects of this abuse of Chui'ch power." — 
 {Bp. Tomline.) 
 
 2. — Public Worskij') in an ^mhno^vn tongue. 
 
 I. Corinthians xiv. 2-19. — "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue spcaJceth not unto 
 men, but imto God: for no man understandeth him ... In the church I had rather 
 speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than 
 ten tliousand words in an unknown tongue." 
 
 If ever words had any meaning attached to them these have, in con- 
 demnation of the Prayers of the Romish Church being in Latin. As 
 Burkitt well remarks, the Apostle pleads in particularly strong terms the 
 necessity of all public ofl&ces of religion being performed in a lang-uage 
 known and itnderstood by all the congregation, and the impiety and 
 absurdity of the contrary practice is very manifest. 
 
 3. — Worship of the Virgin Mary. 
 
 St. Matthew iv. 10. — "It is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only 
 shalt thou serve." 
 
 It is difficult to conceive how any Cliristian with a Bible in his hands 
 can reconcile this, and the numerou.s texts akin to it, with adoration of 
 the Virgin Mary. A well-educated Romanist once endeavoured to make 
 me believe that they only worshipped the Blessed Virgin in the same 
 sense that the word is used in our marriage service and elsewhere, that of 
 respect or esteem ; but this was an obvious falsehood. That there is no 
 special warning against this error to be found in the New Testament may 
 well be explained on the assumption that such Divine adoration as 
 Romanists uphold is too palpably a violation of the whole spirit of both 
 Testaments to require special notice. And much the same holds good 
 with another modern Romish blasphemy, the Immaculate Conception of 
 the Virgin Mary. It is for Romanists to prove the affirmative rather 
 than for us to prove the negative. The best way of meeting a Romanist 
 is to challenge him — " What saith the Scripture ? " and then he must be 
 silenced. The doctrine of the immaculate conception was not invented 
 till the middle of the twelfth century, hence it is that a general condem- 
 nation of it is all that is provided, e.g. " All have sinned and come short 
 of the glory of God." Our Saviour Christ alone had an immaculate con- 
 ception. No Romanist can prove the contrary, that is, that any one els© 
 that ever lived was conceived without sin. 
 
 3. — The Assumption of the Virgin Mary. 
 
 This is one of the numerous fables of the Romish Church concerning 
 which Holy Scripture and Church History alike are silent. The story 
 goes (and the story seems fabricated to extenuate her worship) that she 
 was miraculously carried up into heaven, to which some apocryphal 
 accounts add, that she had previously risen from the dead. 
 
 4. — The doctrine of Seven Sacraments. 
 
 In common with all branches of the CathoHc Church, the Church of 
 Rome recognises the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper ; 
 but to these she adds, withotd any Scripttural authority, five others (so- 
 
 G
 
 98 The Roman Catholic Question. BookVIII. 
 
 called) — viz. Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, Penance, and Extreme 
 Unction. The Anglican Clmrch recognises in the first three, solemn 
 ordinances agreeable to Holy Scripture, but she rightly refuses to place 
 them on the same level as Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The other 
 two are mere ceremonies, of which the latter is absolutely unscriptural. 
 
 Romanists found their doctrine of Extreme Unction on 8t. MarJc vi. 13, 
 and James v. 1 4, but a little reflection will show the weakness of such a 
 basis of argument. " In both cases the anointing with oil is expressly con- 
 nected with the healing of those anointed. Extreme Unction, on the con- 
 trary, is an anointing administered to a dying person when there is no 
 hope of his recovery. This discrepancy between the anointing of the 
 apostolic times and the anointing practised by the Church of Rome is so 
 glaring that some of the ablest Romish controversialists have been 
 obliged to acknowledge that Extreme Unction is founded on Church 
 authority, and not on the authority of Scripture." — (Uyle.) 
 
 5. — Refusal of the Gup to the Laity. 
 
 I. Corinthians xi. 25-6.— Jesus "took the cup, -when he had supped, saying, This cup 
 is the new testament in my blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of 
 me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death 
 till he come." 
 
 It is important to observe that the apostle is addressing the whole 
 Corinthian Church, clergy as well as laity, and beyond any question the 
 cup was intended for both alike ; or had it been otherwise the restriction 
 would have been expressed, not left to be inferred. 
 
 " It appears from the unanimous testimony of the Fathers, and from 
 all the ancient rituals and hturgies, that the Sacrament of the Lord's 
 Supper was, in the early ages of the Church, administered in both kinds 
 as well to the laity as to the clergy. The practice of denying the cup to 
 the laity arose out of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The belief that 
 the sacramental bread and wine were actually converted into the body 
 and blood of Christ naturally produced, in a weak and superstitious age, 
 an anxious fear lest any part of them should be lost or wasted. To 
 prevent anything of this kind in the bread, small wafers were used, which 
 were put at once into the mouths of the communicants by the officiating 
 rainisters ; but no expedient could be devised to guard against the occa- 
 sional spilling of the wine in administering it to large congregations. The 
 bread was sopped in the wine, and the wine was conveyed by tubes into 
 the mouth, but all in vain ; accidents still happened, and therefore it was 
 determined that the priests should entirely withhold the cup from the 
 laity. It is to be supposed that a change of this sort in so important an 
 ordiuance as that of the Lord's Supper could not be effected at once. The 
 first attempt seems to have been made in the 1 2th century ; it was 
 gradually submitted to, and was at last established by the authority of 
 the Council of Constance in 1414 ; but in their decree they acknowledged 
 that ' Christ did institute this sacrament of both kinds, and that the 
 faithful in the primitive Church did receive both kinds ; yet a practice 
 being reasonably introduced to avoid some dangers and scandals, they 
 appoint the custom to continue of consecrating in both kinds, and of 
 giving to the laity only in one kind, ' — thus presuming to depart from the 
 positive command of our Lord respecting the manner of administering 
 the sign of the covenant between himself and mankind. From that time 
 it has been the invariable practice of the Church of Rome to confine the
 
 Part I. What saitli Holy Scripture? 99 
 
 cup to tlie priests. And it was again admitted at the Council of Trent 
 that the Lord's Supper was formerly administered in both kinds to all 
 communicants, but it was openly contended that the Church had power 
 to make the alteration, and that they had done it for weighty and just 
 causes." — {Bisliop Tomline.) 
 
 " There is not any one of all the controversies that we have with the 
 Church of Rome in which the decision seems more easy and shorter than 
 this. And as there is not any one in which she has acted more visibly 
 contrary to the Gospel than in this ; so there is not any one that has 
 raised higher prejudices against her, that has made more forsake her, and 
 has possessed mankind more against her, than this. This has cost her 
 dearer than any other." — (Bisliop Burnet.) 
 
 6. — The Boohs of the Apocrypha not Canonical. 
 
 By no section of the Apostolic Church were the books of the Apocrypha 
 regarded as a portion of the canonical Scriptures or employed (to quote 
 St. Jerome's words) "to confirm the authority of the Church's doctrines." 
 They were properly looked upon as human compositions, from which, 
 however, some good might be got. They are neither cited nor mentioned 
 by any of the inspired writers of the New Testament. Neither do Philo 
 or Josephus make any allusion to them at all, much less to their being 
 geniiine " oracles of God." Yet, in spite of all this, the Council of Trent 
 boldly and unblushingly affirmed them to be of equal authority with the 
 inspir-ed books always received by the Church without dispute. 
 
 7. — Justification hy Meritoriotis Woo-Jcs. 
 
 Bomans iii. 28. — "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith." 
 St. James ii. 17.— " Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." 
 
 Faith and works go hand in hand, the latter arising out of the former ; 
 but the Church of Rome has decreed that good works " are truly meri- 
 toi'ious towards obtaining eternal life." "As this doctrine of the merit of 
 good works is one of the most arrogant and scandalous of the corruptions 
 of the Romish Church, so it is one of the most modern, having never 
 been generally in that Church itself before it was settled by the Council 
 of Trent (in 1546)." — {Br. Nicholls.) 
 
 8. — Worlcs of Supererogation. 
 
 St. Ltike-s.\{i. 10. — "So likewise ye, when ye have done all those things which are 
 commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants : we have done that which was our 
 duty to do." 
 
 In the face of this, the Church of Rome asserts that there are such 
 things as " good works not commanded by Christ," but recommended to 
 the consideration of the faithful. The Church of England speaks thus 
 in her XlVth Article : — " Voluntary works besides over and above God's 
 commandments, which they call works of supererogation, cannot be 
 taught without arrogancy and impiety, for by them do men declare that 
 they not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that 
 they do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required." Bishoj) 
 Tomline justly characterises the above cited text as so clear and decisive 
 that it is unnecessary to explain or enforce it.
 
 loo The Roman Catholic Question. BookVIII. 
 
 9. — Mortal and Venial 8ms. 
 
 St. James ii. 10. — "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is 
 guilty of all." 
 
 Romans vi. 23. — "The wages of sin is death." 
 
 " The error of the Romanist is this — that he makes the two classes of 
 sin ['mortal' and 'venial'] to differ not only in enormity and degree, 
 which we admit to he the case, hut also in their nature and hind. No 
 amount of venial sins, according to Bellarmine, would ever make a mortal 
 sin." — (Dean Hook.) 
 
 In point of fact, the Church of Rome says that ' some sins are mis- 
 takenly so called ; they are not really sins, and in nowise endanger the 
 salvation of souls.' The glaring antagonism between this notion and 
 St. James's statement requires not to be pointed out. 
 
 10. — Purgatory. 
 
 Ecclesiastes ix. 5-6. — " The dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a 
 reward ; for the menaory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their 
 envy, is now perished ; neither have they any more a portion for ever in anything done 
 under the sun." 
 
 . Cardinal Bellarmine thus explains what Purgatory is : — "Purgatory is 
 a certain place in which, as in a prison, the souls are purged after this 
 life, which were not fully purged in this life ; to wit, so that they may be 
 able to enter into heaven, where no unclean thing is." In other words, 
 there is no pressing necessity for repentance on earth ! The Council of 
 Trent declared that — " There is a purgatory, and that the souls detained 
 there are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the 
 sacrifices of the acceptable altar." 
 
 (S'^. John V. 24 is a striking refutation of Bellarmine's words. See also 
 Bishop Beveridge's able reasoning, cited in Hook's Church Dictiona/ry, 
 art. " Purgatory." 
 
 1 1 . — In 
 
 Indulgences are (so-called) pardons for sin invented by Pope Urban II., 
 as incentives to persons to join the Crusades for the recovery of Palestine ; 
 subsequently they became purchaseahle at certain prices, proportioned to 
 the enormity of the special sin requiring pardon, as estimated hy the Romish 
 authorities. Many of these can only be obtained from the Pope himself, 
 at Rome. A pardon for having been a heretic costs 36L 9?. of our money ; 
 but a Romanist murdering a man will be let oS* for ys. 6d. A pardon 
 for perjury is sold for gs. ; one for robbery for 1 2s. Of all the blas- 
 phemous assumptions of the Church of Rome, few surpass in iniquity this 
 one of pretending to power to forgive sins, which rests in God alone. In 
 I. St. John i. 9, we are told that it is God who " cleanseth us from all 
 unrighteousness," emphatically disproving the existence of any human 
 power of efficacious absolution. The decisive passage in Isaiah Iv. 1 can 
 laardly fail to come into the mind — " Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye 
 to the waters, and he that hath no money ; come ye, buy, and, eat ; yea, 
 come, buy wine and milk without money and without price." The most 
 obtuse mind could scarcely venture to say that this does not refer to 
 spiritual things — salvation for endangered souls. The case of Simon 
 Magus (Acts viii. 18) ought to be till the end of time a decisive refutation 
 of the very idea of buying remission of sin.
 
 Part I. What saitli Holy Scripture f loi 
 
 12. — Image Worship. 
 
 Ejcodus -xx. 4.-5. — " Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. . . . Thou 
 shalt not bow do-rni thyself to them." 
 
 In this matter the Romish Church has thoroughly paganised herself ; 
 and we may reg'ard image worship as one of her most flagrant breaches of 
 Di\'ine law. The apologists of images commonly shelter themselves under 
 the plea that they do not really adore the images, but merely employ them 
 as reminders of duty. This, whether true or false, is anyhow repugnant 
 to the aphorism of St. John — " Little children, keep yourselves from idols " 
 (I. St. John V. 21). A thing of this kind, set on foot with the best of 
 motives, frequently lays the foundation for grievous abuse, as in fact has 
 been the case in this matter. Images were not authoritatively adopted 
 into the Romish Church till the second Council of Nice, 787 a.d. 
 
 13. — Belies. 
 The worship of rehcs, now an article of faith in the Romish Church, is 
 a corruption closely akin to that condemned in the previous section, 
 though if anything it is a trifle more absurd, revolting, and idolatrous. It 
 is a further exemplification of what may arise from a laT^-fal thing unlaw- 
 fully indulged in. About the 4th century, we find beginning to spring up 
 an excessive love and veneration for things which had belonged to dis- 
 tinguished professors of the Ckristian faith ; especially such things as 
 theu' garments, and even their haii', bones, &c. Gradually these relics came 
 to be regarded as something more than curious and interesting remains 
 of bygone times. Monks carried them about for show and pecuniary 
 gain, and thence the successive steps of reverence and absolute worship 
 were not long postponed. This chmax was consummated by the Council 
 of Trent, 1562, recording a solemn curse against aU who impugned the 
 doctrine of I'ehc worship. 
 
 14. — Invocation of Saints. 
 I. Timothy ii. 5. — "For there is . . . one mediator between God and men, the man 
 
 Christ Jesus." 
 Ephcsians ii. 18.— " Through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father." 
 Colossians n. 18. — "Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility 
 
 and worshipping of angels." 
 
 The Invocation of Saints is an error which arose in the Churph of 
 Rome, almost contemporaneously with that of veneration of relics. The 
 early Christians instituted commemorations of saints, which were harmless 
 enough in themselves, but after the lapse of time it became customary 
 to deHver public orations to celebrate their virtues ; then they were 
 addi-essed in formal apostrophes, and urged to use their influence with 
 God in heaven ; till finally, their intercession was directly prayed for. 
 This stage was reached about the 5 th century, and the Council of Trent 
 confirmed the custom as a proper one by decreeing that " all men are to 
 be condemned who do not own that the saints reigning with Christ ofier 
 their prayers to God for men ; and that it is useful to invoke them, to 
 procure their assistance in asking God for blessings through Christ." In 
 the present day, the impiety is carried to extreme lengths. Not long since 
 there appeared in some of the newspapers a long Htany imploring a number 
 of saints (so called), whose names were given, to intercede with God for 
 the perversion of England to the Romish Faith ! !
 
 102 The Roman Catholic Question. BookVIII. 
 
 T 5 . — Transuhstantiation. 
 
 Perhaps the most erroneoiis of all the errors of the Church of Rome 
 is that with which I conclude this section — Transuhstantiation. " The 
 idea of Christ's bodily presence in the Eucharist was first started in the 
 beginning of the 8 th century, and it owed its rise to the indiscretion 
 of preachers and writers of warm imaginations, who, instead of explain- 
 ing judiciously the lofty figures of Scriptui-e language upon this subject, 
 understood and urged them in the literal sense. Thus the trae meaning 
 of these expressions was grossly perverted ; but as this conceit seemed to 
 exalt the natui-e of the Holy Sacrament, it was eagerly received in that 
 ignorant and superstitious age ; and was by degrees carried farther and 
 farther by persons still less guarded in their application of these meta- 
 phorical phrases. This has always been a favourite doctrine of the 
 Church of Rome, as it impressed the common people with higher notions 
 of the power of the clergy, and therefore seemed to increase their 
 influence." — (J^p- Tomline.) 
 
 In arguing against this doctrine, we may first observe that it is utterly 
 repugnant to our physical senses, since we see and taste the bread and 
 the wine after the consecration, and know that they are still only bread 
 and wine. Again, the circumstances of the institution, if the Gospel 
 naiTatives convey a just account of it (which of course they do), forbid 
 any such supposition as that the Apostles were presented with material 
 flesh and blood, to say nothing of the fact that they were forbidden to 
 drink blood by the Mosaic law, which regulated at that time not only 
 their actions but those of their Divine Master. Romanists, not great 
 adepts at quoting Scripture, profess to base their doctrine on the well- 
 knovvn " Hoc est corpus meum" (St. Matt. xxvi. 26 — " This is my body"), 
 wilfully blind to the obvious necessity of interpreting this and other 
 kindred expressions figuratively and typically : but with those who 
 profess such reverence for authority and traditions, it surely ought to 
 suffice that this doctrine was never broached till the pontificate of 
 Gregory III. Its final confirmation was as late as the Lateran Council 
 of 1 2 1 5 A. D. That the figurative interpretation was the only one accepted 
 by the primitive Church we leam from the writings of more than twenty 
 fathers, without a single testimony on the other side. 
 
 Two Scripture passages may be noted as disproving any such doctrine 
 as Transuhstantiation. In St. Matt. xxvi. 29, our Saviour, after the 
 consecration of the elements, speaks of "this fruit of the vine ": on the 
 Romish view he ought to have said this hlood. Again, St. Paul, in I. Cor. 
 xi. 26, says : " As often as ye eat this hread and drink this cup, ye do 
 show [or commemorate] the Lord's death till he come." The Roman 
 Catholic ceremonies of elevating and adoring the Host are entirely human 
 figments, and the fact that the whole doctrine did not rise up till nearly 
 700 years after Christ's departure from the earth, ought to prove to every 
 rational being that it is a human fabrication, wholly destitute of the 
 slightest foundation in apostolic authoiity. 
 
 The foregoing will serve to point out some of the worst departures of 
 the Romish Church from the pure Christian Faith and "Word of God, and 
 may be found useful for impressing on one's mind a feeling of thankfulness 
 for the purity of the Church of England.
 
 Part II. .Political Aspects of Romanism in England. 103 
 
 Part II.— REFLECTIONS ON THE POLITICAL ASPECTS OF 
 ROMANISM IN ENGLAND. 
 
 The Reformed Church numbers among its assailants few so active and 
 uncompromising as the Romanists, of whom I now propose to speak, in 
 the hopes of persuading some at least of my readers, that fraternisation 
 with Popery on the part of English Churchmen is the height of folly. 
 
 The following Romish opinions are sufficiently candid to be worth an 
 extended circulation : — 
 
 " If ever there was a land in which work is to be done, and perhaps much to suifer, it 
 is here. I shall not say too much, if I say that we have to subjugate and subdue, to 
 conquer and rule, an imperial race ; we have to do with a will which reigns throughout 
 the world as the will of old Rome reigned once ; we have to bend or break that will 
 
 which nations and kingdoms have found invincible and inflexible Were 
 
 heresy [i.e. Protestantism] conquered in England, it would be conquered throughout the 
 world. All its lines meet here, and therefore in England the Church of God must be 
 gathered in its strength." — -(Rev. Dr. Manning in the Tablet, August 6, 1859.) 
 
 " The [Roman] Catholic Church is getting to feel its true dignity and right position in 
 this country. Wliat we of course aim at, in God's good time and way, is to be, as we have 
 ■ once been, the dominant Church of England. We had gradually, under the pressure of the 
 penal laws, forgotten oiir place in the world as God's only Church ; we had been snubbed 
 so successfully, that we thought it gain even to make common cause with the sects of 
 yesterday [Dissenters], and, pinning ourselves to their sleeve to get, if it might be, a 
 share in the poor pickings of concession which, with mighty professions and small fruit, 
 were from time to time vouchsafed to us. What can have led [Roman] Catholics to 
 detach themselves from this ignoble, though frofitable, alliance, except a growing conscious- 
 ness of their true strength and nobility?" — (Rev. F. OAXELEvinthe Tablet, M.a.y 14, 1859.) 
 
 " You ask, if the Roman Catholic were lord in the land, and you were in a minority, if 
 not in numbers yet in power, what would he do to you? That, we say, would entirely 
 depend upon circumstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism, he would 
 tolerate you ; if expedient, he would imprison you, banish you, fine you ; possibly he 
 might even hang you. But be assured of one thing — he would never tolerate you for the 
 sake of the ' glorious principles of civil and religious liberty.' .... 
 
 " Shall I hold out hopes to the Protestant that I will not meddle with his creed, if he 
 will not meddle with mine ? Shall I lead him to think that religion is a matter for private 
 opinion, and tempt him to think that he has no more right to his religious views than he 
 has to my piirse, or my house, or my life-blood ? No ! [Roman] Catholicism is the most 
 intolerant of creeds. It is intolerance itself, for it is truth itself. We might as rationally 
 maintain that a sane man has a right to believe that two and two do not make four, as 
 this theory of religious liberty. Its impiety is only equalled by its absurdity." — (^Rambler 
 [Romish magazine], September 1851.) 
 
 Pure and unadulterated treason is freely indulged in by many Romanists, 
 both in this country and in Ireland. Let one specimen suffice. When it 
 was generally expected that the EmjDeror of the French contemplated an 
 invasion of England, the Tablet, in a leading article, wrote : — 
 
 " It will be the most popular act of his life. He will have every Frenchman on 
 his side, with the unconcealed sympathies of every nation in the world. When he sets 
 out upon his campaign on English soil, he need fear no secret societies or insurrections at 
 home ; he will be hailed as the avenger of nations, and as the scourge of a race that is 
 impopular wherever it is known. We have the great honour of imiting against ourselves 
 the good wishes of all people, and that will be no pleasant recollection when the French 
 are seen upon our soil." — (July 16, 1859.) 
 
 There are probably few newspaper readers who cannot call to mind 
 analogous instances, in the shape of altar denunciations, &c. ; and the 
 tampering with the law continually practised by the Romish Clergy in 
 Ireland at elections and elsewhere, is a matter of too common notoriety 
 to require further allusion here. Since these pages were prepared for the
 
 I04 The Boman Catholic Question. BookVIU. 
 
 press, no less a man than Mr. J. A. Roebuck, M.P., has publicly 
 declared in bis place in tbe House of Commons (February 17, 1 866), and 
 amidst tbe applause of tbe assembled members, tbat tbe Irisb Roman 
 Catholic priests " have taught the people to hate the English name, and 
 that for years they have been preaching sedition." The kidnapping of 
 children may also be included under this head. 
 
 Admitting these evils, we may go on to ask, What is the cause, and what 
 is the remedy? 
 
 The cause is to be found in the unfaithfulness of English Churchmen 
 in days gone by. The Emancipation Act of 1 829, and the Maynooth and 
 " Godless " Colleges' Acts of 1845, were three of the most mischievous 
 enactments which were ever placed on the statute-book. The evils 
 resulting from the Emancipation Act are thus graphically expressed by 
 one of its avowed supjjorters : — 
 
 " It is only due to the memory of men who underwent much obloquy for the time, and 
 were even treated with a peculiar and galling kind of contempt not usual in English 
 political warfare, to ask ourselves, after an experience of just thirty years — Which side 
 was in the right? Have the results been in accordance with the sanguine anticipation of 
 Canning, of Mackintosh, of Grey, and of Brougham ? or has the measure turned oiit as 
 was predicted by Lord Eldon— 'that hater of all that was liberal and pleasant' — and by 
 Lord Winchelsea, at whose tirades we have all laughed so heartily? There is, un- 
 happily, no doubt about it; the genius, the liberality, and the eloquence were wrong; 
 the naiTOwness, the bigotry, and the prejudice were right. Ever since the day of deliver- 
 ance, the conduct of the Roman Catholics has more and more confirmed the predictions 
 of their enemies, more and more disappointed the anticipations of their friends. On 
 abstract grounds it was right to give them political power ; but it would be childish to 
 deny that we have raised up among ourselves a party which is neither Liberal nor Con- 
 servative, neither English nor Irish, which holds its allegiance to a foreign Power para- 
 mount to its allegiance to its domestic Sovereign ; which is the decided, if not the declared 
 enemy of knowledge and enlightenment ; which seeks to widen and render more intense 
 its isolation from the rest of the community, and to make the divisions of society and the 
 common intercourse of life strictly co-extensive with its religious belief. .... 
 Where, but in a Roman Catholic meeting, presided over by a Bishop, and harangued by 
 Deans and Canons, could the name of the Queen be received with a burst of disappro- 
 bation which rendered the speaker inaudible, from the very voices which yelled out a 
 determination to fight for the Pope ? 
 
 . . . . " There is no divided allegiance, as was apprehended. The allegiance is 
 wholly given to one person, and nothing is left for the Queen but yells of disapprobation, 
 
 and the accusation of having starved two millions of her subjects They 
 
 [the Roman Catholics] must be content to accept the most desponding predictions of Lord 
 Eldon as less than true, and to be regarded by the world as holding their liberties, in 
 spite of their own slav^lsh tenets, by the free will and grace of the people and the Sove- 
 reign whom they libel, as the only friends of despotism in the land of freedom, and the 
 only partisans of ignorance in an age of enlightened progress." — {Times, Dee. 13, 1859.) 
 
 The injurious influence of this Act and the Maynooth Act is still being 
 felt by the Reformed Faith generally, and the English Church in particular. 
 So far from satisfying the Romish party, they have only been stimulated 
 to greater demands, which successive Whig Ministries, anxious to catch a 
 few Romish votes in Parliament, have unhesitatingly, though, perhaps, 
 reluctantly, given in to. The progress made by the Romish party in 
 England and Scotland is hardly to be conceived without the aid of 
 statistics ; thus : — • 
 
 1829. ISfin. 1861. 1865. 
 
 Clergy 447 — '342 ••• 13^8 ... 1521 
 
 Chapels, &c 449 ••• ,993 ••• 1019 ••• 1132 
 
 Monasteries o ... 47 ... 50 ... 58 
 
 Convents o ... 155 ... 162 ... 201 
 
 Colleges 2 ... 12 ... 12 ... 12
 
 Part II. Political Aspects of Eomamsm in England. 105 
 
 Between 1853 and i860 the number of Romish. Army Chaplains Avas 
 increased from 85 to 160, and the salaries from zjozl. to 8093Z. 
 
 The amount annually paid out of the Imperial Exchequer towards the 
 sustentation of the most intolerant Church on earth, and one of the 
 Church of England's bitterest foes, amounts to the enormous sum of 
 385,462/., according to the return for 1864. Can it then be wondered at 
 that Popery is making the rapid strides it is ? that the throne, and all that 
 civil and religious liberty which every Englishman holds to be his birth- 
 right, is endangered ? Romanism upraises itself everywhere ; even our 
 most gracious Sovereign's household is infested with it : its numerical 
 streng-th in high places is considerable, and, under Lord Palmerston's 
 auspices, increased rapidly. Romish Bishops arrogate to themselves 
 territorial titles, in open defiance of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and 
 members of the Government look on silently and complacently, and in 
 many matters actually encourage the party. Thus, in 1859 an order was 
 issued by the Poor-law Board [its Secretary being a Dissenter!] giving, 
 in effect, to the Romish Clergy power to enter at all times into our work- 
 houses. The good feeling of the country was successfully aroused, 
 prompt organisation was resorted to, and in consequence of the vigorous 
 opposition the order met "with, the Government gave Avay, by admitting 
 that it was only to be held permissory. Great vigilance is necessary, as 
 the Romish party are as warm about the matter as ever. 
 
 A few sessions ago a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons 
 by a professing member of the Church of England (and a Whig), to 
 thx^ow open to Romanists several high offices of State from which they 
 are now debarred. This, and several others of a similarly aggressive 
 character, was defeated ; but further efforts are certain to be made when 
 a favourable moment ofiers itself. A Bill carried by Sir G. Grey, on 
 behalf of the Government, for the appointment of salaried Romish Chap- 
 lains for prisons is one of the latest innovations we have witnessed ; and it 
 was followed up by something almost as objectionable — the elevation to the 
 English Bench of Mr. Serjeant Shee, the well-known Romish barrister. 
 
 I have thus pointed oiit certain evils, and the cause is the flagrant in- 
 consistency of English Churchmen in patronising Popery individually, 
 and collectively, through the Government. The reviedy is : — The uncon- 
 ditional repeal of all statutes conferring on Roman Catholics anything 
 more than the right to worship God according to their own forms, un- 
 interfered with by any body, beginning with the Maynootli Grant. A 
 great many Churchmen, Members of Parliament, and others, oppose the 
 repeal of this iniquitous endowment, beheving that by so doing they 
 should be violating a compact. If this were really the case, it might 
 be unfair to meddle with it. A compact uris made, it is true, but only 
 for 20 years after the union of Ireland with England in 1801. That time 
 expired in 1821 ; from that year till 1845 the money was paid by an 
 annual vote of the House of Commons as a voluntary gift from England 
 to Ireland. Then, in 1845, ^^ unprincipled Minister carried a Bill for the 
 permanent endowment of the college with some 26,000/. a-year. These 
 are the simple historical facts of the question. The Maynooth Grant was 
 originally instituted with this idea — that Irish Romanists would have 
 Romish Clergy ; Romish Clergy would be educated. If they were not 
 educated at home, they would be abroad, and many bad foreign ideas 
 "would be superadded to their education ; therefore (argued expediency 
 statesmen), it is better for us English Churchmen to pay the expenses,
 
 io6 The Roman Catholic Question. BookVIII. 
 
 as the lesser evil. In point of fact, however, tlie Roman Catholic popu- 
 lation of Ireland has so largely fallen off that Maynooth educates not 
 only Clergy for Ireland, but for many of the Colonies. The mischief 
 brought about by St. Patrick's College is thus cosmopolitan, not local. 
 A State professing the Reformed Catholic Faith is a party to the whole- 
 sale propagation of " damnable heresy." Roman Catholics are not con- 
 ciliated by it, and Reformed Catholics cannot reasonably be expected to 
 desist from agitation till the pohtical blot is removed. 
 
 It is impossible to set forth in a small compass a tithe of the evils 
 arising fi^om the latitudiuarian spirit of the age in reference to Popery. 
 Some cannot see, and others will not see, and so the mischief increases. 
 There ever will exist real antagonism between the Anglican and Roman 
 Churches so long as the latter presents itself as it now does in Christendom ; 
 and what is wanted more than anything else in the present day is high- 
 principled, consistent recognition of the fact that Popery is in its essence 
 a sworn enemy to most things that Enghshmen hold dear. 
 
 APPENDIX TO BOOK VIII. 
 
 PKOTEST AGAINST THE MAYNOOTH BILL. 
 
 The following admirable Protest from the late Archbishop (Sumner) of Canterbury and 
 other members of the House of Peers was recorded twenty years ago against the third 
 reading of the Maynooth Bill. It has lost none of its truth and logical power since ; and 
 can more forcible arguments than it contains be now wanted for the continuance of oppo- 
 sition to the Endowment of Maynooth, and for protests and petitions against the national 
 iniquity and dishonour which are involved in the maintenance, out of the public purse, of 
 that seminary of Jesuit propagandism :— 
 
 " Dissentient : 
 
 " I. Because I hold it to be contradictory to the first principles of the Reformation to 
 provide for the establishment of an order of men to be educated for the express purpose 
 of resisting and defeating that Eeformation — men whose office and main duty it will be 
 to disseminate and perpetuate those very corruptions of the Christian faith which the 
 Oliurch of England has solemnly abjured, and some of which the whole legislature of 
 England has declared to be superstitious and idolatrous. 
 
 " 2. Because the most unbounded toleration of religious error does not require us to 
 provide for the maintenance and growth of that error, but rather imposes upon us a 
 strong obligation to prevent by all just and peaceful means its increase, and to dis- 
 courage its continuance. 
 
 " 3. Because this measure has a tendency to raise in the public mind a belief that 
 religious truth is a matter of indiflference to the State ; and by consequence to subvert 
 that principle of succession to the throne which is the title of the present dynasty, and 
 which forms an integral and essential part of the constitution of this kingdom." 
 
 The signatures appended were those of the Bishops of Cashel, Chester, LlandafF, 
 London, and Winchester, and of the Earls of Cadogan, Clancarty, and Winchelsca. — ■ 
 {Times, June 19, 1845.) 
 
 PAPAL AVERSION TO THE BIBLE. 
 
 The following remarkable " Extract from a despatch addressed hy Mr. Odo Bussell to 
 the Earl of Clarendon, dated Borne, Feb. 8, 1866," has been lately issued from t^je Foreign 
 Office :— 
 
 " Travellers visiting the Pope's dominions should be very careful not to bring forbidden 
 books or Colt's revolvers with them, the Custom House officers having strict orders to 
 contiscate them. . , . Forbidden books are those condemned by the Congregation of the 
 Index. . . . But, above all, travellers should be careful not to bring English, Italian, or 
 other Bibles with them, THE BIBLE BEING STRICTLY PROHIBITED." 
 
 Here we see Popery in its tnie colours, as the bitter, uncompromising, malevolent foe 
 to God's Word.
 
 Book IX. 
 
 2D>ncf li>otc^ on tftc ^ropjjctical ^pottion^ of tjc 25ooft^ 
 of ^anid aiiti t^t ^gocalpj^c* 
 
 The following notes are in no sense whatever original : they are derived 
 from the concurrent testimony of the Christian Church in all ages, and are 
 designed more to suggest reflection and encourage inquiry, than to do ovei- 
 again what has already been often done — unfold an elaborate train of 
 argument. To save space, the scriptui-al quotations will not be set out 
 at length, and no references to authorities will be given ; it must suffice, 
 therefore, to say that they are chiefly the following : — JSTewton, Elliott, 
 Bickersteth, Wordsworth, Mant, and Barnes. The reader is, in all cases, 
 supposed to have read the verses before perusing the notes, otherwise the 
 latter may appear involved, and, at times, ungrammatical. 
 
 Daniel Vii. 3. These represent 4 powerful kingdoms which were 
 to arise in succession on the earth. 
 
 VerSG 4. The union of the attributes of the lion and of the eagle 
 denotes the combination of great power with great activity: the plucking 
 of the wings points to a curtailment of the power ; and finally, the human 
 transformation foreshadows a civilising or taming result. 
 
 Comraentators are very generally agreed that this beast signifies the 
 Chaldsean monarchy, and the changes it underwent under a succession 
 of weak rulers. 
 
 Verse 5. The bear typifies cunning and ferocity ; and " devouring 
 much flesh " means conquering many nations. 
 
 The Medo-Persian monarchy is here referred to. The Modes and Persians 
 were a fierce and unpolished race, and the bear is an apt symbol for them. 
 The 3 ribs may incidentally refer to the constituent kingdoms — Media, 
 Persia, and Lydia — which formed Cyrus's empire 544 B.C. 
 
 Verse 6. Fierceness and strength are symbolised. The 4 wings 
 point to a large and rapid range : the 4 heads specify its being a power, 
 which was afterwards to become severed into 4 smaller powers. 
 
 The Macedonian empire is spoken of. The extent and grandeur of Alex- 
 ander the Great's conquests are well known : it is equally well kno'\\ni that at 
 his death, his dominions underwent a quadiipartite division amongst 4 of
 
 io8 Brief Notes on the Prophetical Portions of Book IX. 
 
 liis generals. The spots on tlie leopard may lia.ve some reference to the 
 great number of the nations who owned Alexander's sway. 
 
 Verse 7. General expressions of power, foreshadowing an empire of 
 extreme territorial rapacity. 
 
 The application is to the Roman empire, celebrated for its mighty power. 
 The I o horns point to i o smaller kingdoms which were to arise out of it 
 when it was destroyed. 
 
 Verse 8. The language here points to the developement at some 
 future period, after the beast acquired its l o-horned form, of a new feature 
 which should gradually rise into a new power, absorbing 3 of the existing 
 ones. The eyes denote intelligence, intellectual ability. The concluding 
 clause explains itself; arrogance, &c. 
 
 Verse 11. The final overthrow of the 4th beast, on account of the 
 blasphemies of the 11th horn, is here described. 
 
 Verse 12. The general notion which this verse would seem intended 
 to convey is, that the 3 first beasts would be superseded ^without any 
 general convulsion, and would escape that ruthless destruction with which 
 the 4th beast would be consumed wJiSU its 1 ifh-horn phase became matured. 
 It did in fact happen that the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Macedonian 
 monarchies disappeared quietly from the page of history. 
 
 Verses 18-21 . it need merely be mentioned further that the " look 
 more stout than his fellows " (20) denotes that the authority typified by 
 this horn which absorbed 3 of the 10 horns would become the most con- 
 spicuous and important of all the 11. The "war against the saints" 
 naturally prefigures that the i ith horn would persecute the chosen jieople 
 of God. 
 
 Verse 23. The Roman empire, as above, verse 7. 
 
 Verses 24-5. The lo kingdoms seem to have been as follows : — 
 
 r*Ostrogoths. 
 
 4 Vandals. 
 
 7*Heruli. 
 
 9 Huns. 
 
 2 Visigoths. 
 
 5 Franks. 
 
 8 Saxons. 
 
 io*Lombards 
 
 3 Sueves. 
 
 6 Burgundians. 
 
 
 
 Commentators are very generally agreed upon 7 of the above, but 
 concerning the other 3 there have been some slight differences of opinion. 
 The names with asterisks denote, according to the best evidence, the 3 
 nations which soon became absorbed. It remains to be added that various 
 eminent Romanists (Calmet, Bossuet, Machiavelli, Dupin, &c.) concur in 
 this decem-partite division of the old Roman empire. 
 
 Finally, that the httle or 1 1 th horn represents the PAPACY there can 
 be no substantial doubt. 
 
 " Speaking great words against the Most High" aptly represents that 
 race of men who arrogate to themselves the title of Vicars of Christ, — and 
 who claim to receive or have sanctioned the bestowal on themselves of 
 names and prerogatives which can belong only to God, such as " His 
 Holiness" and many others. 
 
 "Wearing out the saints " eminently prefigures those multitudinous 
 persecutions with the record of which every student of history is familiar. 
 What thrilling scenes will not the mind instinctively recal in thinking of
 
 Book IX. The Books of Daniel and the Ajwcaly.pse. 109 
 
 the expressions, 'Inquisition,' ' Waldenses,' 'Queen Maiy ' ("the bloody 
 Mary ") of England,' ' The Massacre of St. Bavtholomew's Day,' &c. 
 
 " Changing* times and laws " at once reminds us of the Gregorian 
 Calendar, Saints' days. Celibacy of the Clergy, Transubstantiation, &c. &c. 
 
 The last clause of verse 25 states the duration of this little horn. 
 
 According to prophetical language, " time and times and the dividing 
 of time," (or half a time) are 3^ years ; and the ancient Jewish year, con- 
 sisting of 1 2 months of 30 days each, " a time and times and half a time," 
 are reckoned in the Apocalypse as equivalent to "forty and two months," 
 "or a thousand two hundred and three-score ■ days ; " and a day in the 
 language of the prophets being used for a year (Ezek. iv. 6), we have the 
 duration of the little horn set down at 1 260 years. 
 
 The most natural period from whence to start this computation* is 606 A. D., 
 wdien the Emperor Phocas conferred on the Pope the title of " Universal 
 Bishop ;" thus w-e have it that the Papacy will be destroyed in 1866 a.d. 
 
 The remainder of the book of Daniel, with perhaps two exceptions, deals 
 with events more or less connected with the Jewish polity up to and in- 
 clusive of the death of Christ, and has no special connection with the 
 events now to be discussed as revealed in the Apocalypse. The possible 
 exceptions alluded to are the prophetical periods given in chaps, viii. 14, 
 and xii. 11-12. Many think that these are to be taken as literal years, 
 and run on to our own times. All that can be said is that no clue to the 
 real interpretation has in this case been vouchsafed to us. 
 
 The Opening of the Seven Seals. 
 
 Hevelation Vi. 2. The white horse, the bow, and the crown, all 
 obviously symbohse a period of victorious triumph and general national 
 prosperity. 
 
 The application is to the state of the Roman empire between 96 and 
 1 80 A.D. — an era remarkable for the position to which this empire attained 
 during it. (See a striking passage in Gihhon, vol i. p. 137 and p. 216, an 
 unintentional but most efficient commentator on the Apocalypse.) White 
 horses were generally used by the Romans for all purposes of State dis- 
 play and pageantry. The introduction of the bow into the symbol has 
 been thought to have reference to the fact that Nerva, one of the emperors 
 of this epoch, was by birth a Cretan, and the Cretans were distinguished 
 for their skill as archers. The javelin was the usual Roman impeinal 
 badge, and the substitution of the bow for the javelin can hardly fail to 
 have some special meaning. The crown (^ar icparoq) was in use now, but 
 was superseded in the 3rd century by the hadrjida. 
 
 Verse 4. Obviously a sjonbol of bloodshed and extensive warfare 
 generally. 
 
 The Roman empire onwards from i8o a.d. Bloodshed of every kind 
 characterised this period. An emperor came to the throne usually by 
 foul means : jealousy led to his assassination : his murderers then fought 
 amongst themselves about the succession. Often it happened that em- 
 
 * Rome commontators prefer 533 a.d., when Justinian promulgated an edict declaring 
 the Bishop of Rome to be the head of the Church. The duration would thus have run 
 out about 1793 A.D. The least that can be said is that the discredit and damage brought 
 on tlie Papal power at this period by the French revolution furnishes a singidar coin- 
 cidence.
 
 •f lo Brief Notes on the Prophetical Portions of BookIX. 
 
 perors were put to deatli hj some one fresh on the scene, who seized the 
 imperial purple for himself, but only kept it perhaps for a few months, 
 when retribution overtook him, and some other wretch stepped into his 
 shoes. Thirty-two emperors and 27 pretenders passed across the stage 
 in 92 years ! ! ! 
 
 Verses 5-6. The expressions here point to oppressive taxation and 
 scarcity of food. 
 
 The Roman empire, circa zoo. For some remarkable proofs of the 
 financial hardships under which the Roman people laboured about this 
 time, see Gibbon, Decline andFall,i. 293, (Ed. of 1854) and the authorities 
 there cited. 
 
 Verse 8. Whilst this seal is in the fullest sense self-expressive, we 
 have not to seek far for its historical representation — viz., the events which 
 happened between 235 and 284 a.d. Gibbon must again be referred to 
 for particulars ; sufiice it to say, that he estimates that one half-the human 
 race were cut off by war, pestilence, and famine, "in a few years." 
 — (VoLi. p. 415.) 
 
 Verse 9. A clear allusion to a period when there was a great on- 
 slaught on the upholders of the Christian faith ; and though there were 
 many such, the last under Pagan Rome — Diocletian's, 303 a.d. — is the 
 one here prefigured.- — (See Gibbon, vol. ii. p. 269.) 
 
 Verses 12-17. These verses point to the destruction of the Roman 
 empire. The emperors had become feeble and powerless. All martial 
 prowess seemed to have fled from the people, and the whole face of the 
 empire was in a word revolutionised, when afiairs came to a cHmax with 
 the siege, capture, and sacking of the imperial city by the Goths under 
 Alaric, 410 A.D. When the reader is reminded that it was during this 
 period of decline that Christianity finally triumphed over Paganism, the 
 metaphor of "a great earthquake " may be said to have been abundantly 
 fulfilled both politically and ecclesiastically. In Gibbon will be found 
 ample illustration of the circumstances foreshadowed in these verses, 
 many of them spoken of to the very letter — e.g., that the year 365 
 was signalised by an appalling earthquake along all the coasts of the 
 Mediterranean, whereby thousands upon thousands of lives were lost. 
 (Decline, vol. iii. p. 293.) There is nothing unreasonable in accepting a 
 twofold fulfilment in such cases as these — a literal as well as a figurative. 
 
 Revelation Viii. 1. The seventh and last seal difiers from the pre- 
 vious ones in being subdivided into seven periods, each heralded by a 
 trumpet. The series of events prefigured are of course continuous and 
 successive. Whilst no certain explanation can be given as to the meaning 
 of the half hour's silence, it seems not unlikely that it may signify that 
 there would be a pause in the occurrence of events after the sixth seal 
 and before the first trumpet. 
 
 The Sounding of the Seven Trumjpets. 
 
 Verse 7. These expressions symbolise a very widespread desolation, 
 and the reference is to the extent of the ravages of Alaric over Europe 
 subsequent to his capture of Rome.
 
 Book IX. The Books of Daniel and the Apocalypse. 1 1 1 
 
 Verses 8-9. The language would be that which would apply to de- 
 vastation carried on through the agency of a marine force. And there is 
 no difficulty in finding the required parallel — viz., the incui'sions of Genseric 
 and his Vandals on the seaboard of the Mediterranean, between 428 and 
 468 A.D. 
 
 For graphic details of the ravages effected by the piratical fleets of this 
 great conqueror, see Gibbon, vol. iv. p. 276. 
 
 Verses 10-11. The great star represents some mighty leader, and 
 the other expressions describe the baneful results of his career. 
 
 Expositors are very generally agreed that Attila, King of the Huns, is 
 here referred to. Whilst the brilliancy of his exploits fitly entitled him 
 to be compared to a star, he who was called the " Scourge of God" 
 might also aptly be further designated as " wormwood." — (See Gibbon, 
 vol. iv. p. 194.) 
 
 Verse 12. Likewise symbolic of important mundane calamities. 
 
 Here is represented the advent into Italy of Odoacer, King of the Heruli, 
 476 A.D., who extinguished the name of the western Roman empire, and 
 became himself King of Italy. 
 
 Revelation ix. 1. From the 13th verse of the preceding chapter, 
 it may be inferred that there was some kind of a pause to be expected 
 between the fourth and the fifth trumpets. The " star " is again some dis- 
 tinguished leader to whom great powers for doiug mischief were granted. 
 
 Verse 2. The " smoke " is some false doctrine which was to spread 
 very widely over the earth. 
 
 Verse 3. Voraciousness may be regarded as the ruling notion 
 here. 
 
 Verse 4. There is a command in the Koran to this eff"ect. This 
 is a singular coincidence, in view of the interpretation to be offered 
 below. 
 
 Verse 5. Five months = i 50 days = 1 50 years prophetically. Wliat 
 it is intended should be conveyed here (and in verse 6) is an intima- 
 tion of much sufiering and oppression, rather than excessive destruction 
 of life. 
 
 Verse 7. The turbaned cavalry of the East might well be prefigured 
 here. 
 
 Verse 8. The bloodthirsty and bearded oriental furnishes an apt 
 type of the ideal ci-eature thus pourtrayed, whose powers of offence and 
 defence would be further described by the figurative language of verses 
 9 and lo. 
 
 The reader will be prepared to learn that it is generally agreed that 
 Mahomet and the Saracen hosts form the subject of the preceding 
 imagery. As regards the period mentioned in verse 5, it will be found, 
 by examining the pages of Gibbon (the infidel Gibbon), that proceeding 
 onwards from 622 a.d., the date of the celebrated flight of Mahomet, by the 
 year 772, or thereabouts, a marked change had come over the Saracens :
 
 1 1 2 Brief Notes on the Prophetical Portions of Book ix 
 
 they had been generally checked, had relaxed their efforts at conquest 
 in consequence, and had begun to settle down into something like a 
 peaceful and refined community. Astronomy is particularly indebted 
 to the Arabians, as is well known. 
 
 Verses 13-14. It is a natural inference that the power about to be 
 alluded to would have some local connection with the River Euphrates, 
 and be a confederated power of four distinct members. 
 
 Verse 15. The time here mentioned is a prophetic indication of the 
 period during which this woe would continue ; and on the principles already 
 discussed (i day = i year), modified by the necessary substitution of 
 Julian for Jewish reckoning (365^ days to the year, instead of 360), re- 
 presents 365^ + 30 + I + an hour (2^4th of a year, = 15 days), or 396 
 years 106 days. 
 
 The description is that of the modern Turkish power — an amalgamation 
 more or less of the four dynasties which arose on the death of Malek Shah, 
 Sultan of Persia. — (Gibbon, vol. vii. p. 168.) 
 
 Now, the termination of the Turkish woe must undoubtedly be taken as 
 1453 A.D., the year of the capture of Constantinople (the exact day being 
 May 29), and the fall of the eastern Roman empire, at which period the 
 Turks are considered to have reached the zenith of their fame and power. 
 Now, reckoning backwards, 396 years 106 days takes us to 1057 A.D. ; and 
 the next matter for inquiry is, can we obtain from the page of history any 
 well-defined epoch at or about 1057 which would reasonably serve as a 
 terniimis a quo for the present trumpet. We can. In 1055 the Turks 
 captured Bagdad, and overthrew the empire of the Caliphs. In February 
 1 05 7 the Turkish Sultan, Togrul, having embraced Islamism, set forth from 
 Bagdad at the head of an immense horde to conquer and ravage the habitable 
 globe, and from the day of his departure to the fall of Constantinople 
 there elapsed 396 years 130 days — an interval of 24 days (an insignificant 
 quantity) only in excess of the assumed prophetical interval.* Who will 
 presume to say that there is not in this coincidence to be seen the finger 
 of God ? 
 
 Verses 16-19, especially 17. It is well known that artillery 
 was first used on a large scale for purposes of warfare at the siege of Con- 
 stantinople, and we have here a prophetical description of it. — (See Gibbon, 
 vol viii. p. 1 60.) 
 
 Verses 20-1. " Even the western Christians, under the influence of 
 Rome, and the Roman Catholic Governments, who had seen the Eastern 
 and Greek Churches thus punished and quite destroyed, for their su- 
 perstitious and vicious practices, yet even they still persevered in the 
 practice of idolatry, saint- worship, and image- worship ; nay, would not 
 so much as reform that cruel spirit of persecution, nor of putting cheats, 
 delusions, and impositions on the understandings and properties of man- 
 kind."— P^/Ze. 
 
 * Bishop Newton used the old 360-day reckoning, making up a period of 391 y. 15 d., 
 and he considered this began to run from 1281 a.d., the date of the first recorded Ottoman 
 victory over the Christians to 1672, the date of the capture of Cameniec, the last of the 
 said victories. This may be; but what is given in the text is .preferable for several 
 reasons.
 
 Book IX. The Books of Daniel and the Apocalypse. 1 13 
 
 Revelation X. 1-3. The Reformation is here announced : the 
 "Httle book" is the Bible, now rendered accessible to the people, the 
 universality of its range being typified by the position of the angel's feet. 
 It need hardly be mentioned that the seven thunders refer to the Papal 
 denunciations of the Reformation, but a critical jDroof of this will come 
 more conveniently under a later chapter. 
 
 Verses 5—8. it is important to point out that there is a very re- 
 cognised mis-translation here: It should be "the time shall not be yet;" 
 that is to say, the end would not be directly after the appearance of the 
 second angel, as the A. V. seems to have it, but in the future, when the 
 seventh trumpet should sound. 
 
 Verse 9. The consequence of eating — i.e. reading the little book — 
 might either arise, internally as it were, from the unpalatable or rebuking 
 character of its contents ; or externally, from the results which would flow 
 from the being known to have perused it. Either interpretation would be 
 good grammatically ; but no doubt the second is the true one, for it 
 harmonises with the historical facts, Bible-reading by the masses being, 
 as is well knovpn, altogether proscribed by the Papal authorities, with 
 what concomitants it is needless to particularise. 
 
 Revelation Xi. 1-2. In reference to the omission hero enjoined 
 in regard to the court of the Gentiles, Barnes says : — " Though near the 
 Temple, and included in the general range of building, yet ii. does not 
 pertain to those who worship there, but to those who are regarded as 
 heathen and strangers. . . They occupied it, not as the people of God, 
 but as those who were without the triie Church, and who did not appertain 
 to its real communion. , . The intei-pretation would demand that they 
 should sustain some relation to the Church, or that they would seem to 
 belong to it — as the court did to the Temple ; but still, that this was in 
 appearance only, and that in estimating the ti'ue Church it was necessary 
 to leave them out altogether- Of course, this would not imply that there 
 might not be some sincere worshippers among them as individuals . . . 
 but what is here said relates to them as a mass or body — that they did not 
 belong to the true Church, but to the Gentiles." 
 
 "Forty and two months" is 1260 days (as above) — that is, 1260 
 years ; and this is merely another method of indicating the time 
 mentioned in Da7i. vii. 25. And therefore in this view of the matter 
 the treading under foot of the Holy City by the Gentiles for 42 months 
 alludes for the second time to the duration of the supremacy of the 
 Papacy under the collective name of " the Gentiles." The inference, then, 
 has been drawn that in its corporate capacity the Church of Rome is not a 
 part of the true Church of Christ. I refrain from expressing any opinion.* 
 
 Verse 3. N'o significance need be attached to the number " two ;" 
 it probably means nothing more than that there would be preserved from 
 apost/acy a .'sufficient amount of testimony to keep up the evidence of 
 truth, two being, under the Law^ the nunAer of witnesses necessary to 
 decide a cause (Deuf. xix. 15). The period here, it will be observed, is 
 the same as in the previous verse ; but it will presently appear why it 
 
 * "If it be possible to be then where tin; true <?hiirch is not, then it is at T\unie."— 
 Homily for Whit&undaij.
 
 114 Brief Notes on the Prophetical Portions of BookIX. 
 
 seems preferable to understand 1 260 literal days or 3^ literal years (of 
 360 days each) to be meant. 
 
 Verses 7-11. The opening sentence of this passage we are -to 
 understand as meaning that after such an interval as the Almighty con- 
 sidered proper, the beast would institute an aggressive movement against 
 all the faithful witnesses to truth. Accordingly, we find this fulfilled in 
 the persecutions raised by successive Popes of Rome against all who pro- 
 tested against their man-made dogmas. It has been computed, and on 
 satisfactory grounds, that since the rise of the Papacy 50 millions of 
 persons have been put to death in Europe for their religious opinions. 
 
 From the language employed we should be led to expect an apparent 
 triumph over the witnesses, to be followed after a short interval (3^ days 
 = 3-^ years) by their resuming their functions. 
 
 The period when the Papacy held most absolute sway is universally 
 allowed to be the beginning of the 16th century. On May 5, 15 14, there 
 was held a sitting of the Lateran Council, at which an official member 
 made, amid loud demonstrations of applause, the following memorable 
 and momentous announcement in reference to the Roman faith :— " Jam 
 nemo reclamat, nuUus ohsistit ;'' which may be freely translated — "There 
 is an end to resistance to the Papal supremacy." Let us take this date — 
 May 5, 1514 — and reckon onwards t,\ years (3 y. 180 d.), and see to what 
 we are brought. Three years onwards makes May 5, 15 17. Then 180 
 days will be— 
 
 May 5-31 27 
 
 June 30 
 
 July 31 
 
 August 31 
 
 September 30 
 
 October . 31 
 
 180 
 So that the i8oth day from May 5, 15 17, was October 31, 15 17. Now, if 
 a reference be made to any suitable book of history, we shall find that it 
 was on this precise day — October 31, 15 17 — that Lddher inanr/iirated the 
 Reformation, hrj posting tqj his renowned theses on the doors of the Church at 
 Wittemberg. Can this be described as an accidental coincidence ? Cer- 
 tainly not. " The great city which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, 
 where also our Lord was crucified," is therefore the city of Rome. It 
 has been objected " this cannot be," for our Lord was not crucified there. 
 To this there is the unanswerable retort, " all the phraseology here is 
 figurative, and there is no impropriety in saying that our Lord has been 
 figuratively crucified at Rome as often as his jDcople have been murdered 
 by decrees emanating frona Rome." 
 
 Verse 13. To liken the Reformation to an earthquake is no unreason- 
 able simile. Many have supposed that the fall of the "tenth part of the 
 city " alludes to the complete severance that was effected between Great 
 Britain and Rome at the epoch now under review. This may be so, or 
 merely a slight general falling away may be prefigured. It must never be 
 forgotten that at no time was the connection between our country and the 
 See of Rome more than one of acquiesced-in alliance. England never 
 acknowledged nationally the Papal supremacy, even to the slight extent 
 that Sardinia does in the present day. 
 
 I
 
 EooK IX. The Boohs of Daniel and the Apocalypse. 1 1 5 
 
 Verse 15. Introducing tlie closing scene in tlie world's history, -vvliich 
 we shall presently see bears several subdivisions. 
 
 Revelation Xii. 1-2. The Church about to be increased. The 
 imagery here is not uncommon in different parts of Holy Scripture. The 
 original of ' wonder ' is (TrjfieToy, a sign, which is more expressive. 
 
 Verse 3. Bishop Newton remarks : The dragon is the well-known 
 sign or symbol of the Devil or Satan, and of his agents or instruments. 
 In this case the agent is Rome. Concerning the seven heads and ten horns, 
 see j^ost, on Rev. xvii. 9-10. It may be added that in the 3rd century A.D., 
 the eagle, as a Roman national ensign, was superseded by the dragon. 
 
 The remainder of this chapter oflTers no features of particular difficulty. 
 The periods mentioned in verses 6 and 14 are identical in every sense 
 with those found in Dan. vii. 25, and Rev. xi. 2, which see. 
 
 Revelation Xiii. 1. Here commences an enlarged description of 
 the Ijeast, which was simply mentioned in chap. xi. 7. The beast is Rome 
 in its several forms. It will be more convenient to postpone the proof of 
 this till we come to chap, xvii., where the whole question is again gone 
 into ; meanwhile, let it be remembered that Romanists admit that the beast 
 typifies Rome, but they say it is Rome Pagan. St. John himself refutes 
 them : " I saw a beast rise," not ' I saw a beast which had risen.' Rome 
 Pagan had risen in St, John's time ; therefore Rome Pagan is not alluded 
 to here, whatever may be. 
 
 Verse 5. Forty- two months, equal to 1260 days (years). See note 
 to Rev. xii, 3, and the references there given. 
 
 Verse 11. This is called another beast, in the sense that it superseded 
 the first, had many of the attributes of the first, and others super- 
 added peculiar to itself. Rome in its spiritual character is here alluded 
 to ; what we understand by the one word " Papacy." 
 
 Verse 12-13. Nothing could possibly be more descriptive of the 
 Papacy than this. It has maintained its sway by deception and delusion, 
 by its pretended miracles, down to the present day. 
 
 Verse 18- The Greek word AATEINOS, Lateinos, the Latin, [man] was 
 remarked by Irenseus, avIio died circa 200 a.d., as fulfilling according to the 
 Greek system of expressing numbers by alphabetic letters the requisite con- 
 ditions, and the resulting opinion is now pretty generally received by 
 members of the Reformed Church, British and Foreign. In the Church 
 of Rome " they Latinise everything : mass, prayers, hymns, litanies, 
 canons, decretals, bulls, are conceived in Latin. The Papal Councils 
 speak in Latin. Women themselves pray in Latin. The Scriptures are 
 read [when read ! ! !] in no other language under the Papacy than Latin. 
 In short,. all things are Latin," 
 
 Revelation Xiv. 8. Not the literal Babylon, because that had 
 long ago fallen, whereas the vision had reference to something future, as 
 from St. John's time; " By Babylon is here meant, Rome, as all authors 
 of all ages and countries agree." — J>/&7(op Newton. Compare I. Peter v. 1 3.
 
 1 16 Brief Notes on the Prophetical Portions of Book ix. 
 
 Cardinal Bellarmine relies on this text to prove that the apostle was at 
 Rome at least once in his life. He says, " that Peter was at one time at 
 ilome, we show first from the testimony of Peter himself, who thus 
 speaks at the end of his ist Epistle," &c. &c. 
 
 The Pourlng-otd of the Seven Vials. 
 
 Revelation XVi. 2 The French revolution of 1789, a truly 
 " grievous sore," is here prefigured. 
 
 VerSQ 3. Pourtrays the great naval warfare carried on by England 
 against Europe, which did not end till there were no more ships for her to 
 capture. 
 
 Verse 4. The Napoleonic wars in Northern Italy — pre-eminently a 
 country of rivers. 
 
 Verse 8. The great European wars, 1804-15. 
 
 Verse 10. The overthrow of the Pope's authority and his expulsion 
 from Rome, 1 799, which continued for some years. 
 
 Verse 12. The curtailment of the Turkish power. This began in 
 1 820 with the commencement of the Greek insurrection, and has continued 
 to the present day, being even now in progress. 
 
 Verse 13. The common interpretation of this verse is that it fore- 
 shadows the attacks made on the Church by Infidelity, Popery, and 
 Mahometanism. There is less certainty on this point than on most others 
 arising in the course of the present enquiry. 
 
 Verses 17-21. A lively image of the fall of Babylon, or Papal Rome, 
 involving in her fall the ruin of all the nations in league with her. The 
 concluding sentence prefigures an awful destiny. 
 
 Revelation XVii 3-7. A very noticeable feature in these visions of 
 St. John here forces itself very prominently on our attention — namely, the 
 variety of the imagery employed to designate things in themselves identi- 
 cal. The beast, the scarlet woman, and Babylon, are figurative represen- 
 tations of one and the same object, and that object i^ none other than the 
 CHURCH OF ROME, according to almost universal behef. 
 
 Verse 6. Let us now look a little into this. The partiality of Popery 
 for scarlet is notorious ; it is the recognised colour of popes and cardinals. 
 Equally notorious is her love of excess of ornaments, of gaudy pageantry 
 and of theatrical display, generally in public worship (which, alas ! some 
 professing English Churchmen are imitating, to the entire destraction of 
 real genuine piety). 
 
 In reference to the characteristic mentioned in verse 6, who will 
 presume to say that the Church of Rome is not in an eminent degree 
 " drunken with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus ? " 
 
 Verses 8-9. Rome, it is well known, is built on seven hills, and 
 the Latin equivalent, sejjticoUis, is met with in the classics. 
 
 Verses 10-^11. The seven kings here are seven forms of Roman
 
 Book IX. The Boohs of Daniel and the Apocalypse. 117 
 
 government : five had passed away wlien St. Jolin wi'ote — viz. i , Kings ; 
 2, Consuls; 3, Dictators; 4, Decemvirs ; 5, Military Tribunes, (Livy, Tacitus.) 
 The one existing in the Apostle's time was the Imperial; and the seventh, 
 ihen future, was the Ducal, which lasted from 568 to 727 a.d. ; the eighth, 
 the Papal, followed. 
 
 Verses 12-14. See on Daniel vii. 24-5. " One hour" means simply a 
 short time. That whilst there would ever be ten kingdoms during the 
 existence of the beast, any given set of constituent members would only 
 remain intact for a brief space, as has truly been the case according to 
 history. There were no symptoms of a decempartite division of the 
 Roman empire in St. John's time. 
 
 Verses 15-17. The events described in these verses are of course in 
 the main still future, but things are happening now day by day, eminently 
 calculated to pave the Avay for them. The foreign correspondence of our 
 newspaper press teems with evidence that the hold of the Papacy over 
 Romanists, in professedly Roman Catholic countries, is gro"vving gradually 
 but steadily weaker : as witness the state of ecclesiastical politics in France, 
 in Belgium, in Sardinia, in Naples, in Italy generally. We may deplore 
 the seeming alternative, infidelity ; but it is none the less true that 
 Roman Christianity is thoroughly undermined over the greater part of 
 the continent of Europe. 
 
 Verse 18. As if to avoid every trace of doubt as to what is really 
 the subject of these visions, verse i8 is added for the vindication of 
 philosophic Christians, for the silencing of scoffers generally. " The 
 woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigiieth over the kings 
 of the earth." Observe the word " reigneth ; " it is in the present tense : 
 present, therefore, as regards St. John's epoch. And what was the great 
 city which reigned over the kings of the earth in St. John's time ? Can 
 any mortal man doubt that it was of ROME alone that such words could be 
 true ? 
 
 "Revelation XViii. 12-13. I pause over chapter xviii. only to 
 draw attention to the last three words in verse 13. I ask boldly and un- 
 flinchingly, Is it not a literal truth that the Church of Rome makes a 
 vierchandise of the souls of men? Let history and the reader's conscience 
 answer. 
 
 Lack of space hinders me from saying anything about I. Thessa- 
 louians, ii. 3-12, and I. Timothij iv. 1—3, as I had designed; suffice it to re- 
 mark, that there again, I think, we have Popery pourtrayed. Verses 2 and 3 
 of the passage cited from the Epistle to Timothij are a life-like pictui'C of 
 the Church of Rome. 
 
 I have finished my recital. If any ask " Cui bono ? " I say simply 
 that whilst history may serve to illustrate the inspiration of Daniel and 
 St. John, Churchmen and Statesmen may be constrained to fulfil their 
 national duties in England, imbued with a belief that Roman Catholicism 
 has a destiny foreshadowed for it in Holy Writ, namely, its destruction 
 in a few years. Further, that it is still, as it ever was, a mighty engine of 
 tyranny — a mighty power of darkness not to be trifled with, much less 
 to be petted. If these points were thoroughly appreciated. Popery would 
 receive different treatment at the hands of our rulers to what it does.
 
 Book X. 
 
 LIST OF USEFUL BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 In tlie following list are given the names of a variety of works wliich. will 
 be found useful in carrying out a systematic Church, and State policy. All 
 are new or recent, and, it is presumed, still in print : — 
 
 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 Batlee, Eev. J. T. — History of the Sahhath. (Seeley & Co. 3s. 6d.) 
 BiLEY, Key. E. — The Perpetual Obligation of a Sabbath. (Seeley & Co. is.) 
 GixFLLLAN, Z.—The Sabbath. (Edinburgh : A. Elliott. 6s.) 
 Hill, M. — The Sabbath made for Man : a PrizeEssay. (J. F. Shaw. 8s.) 
 Stevens, Rev. H. — Forty-nine Opinions of Eminent Men. 
 Stevens, Eev. H. — The Sabbath and the Decalogue ; a reply to Dr. Maeleod. (Seclcy 
 
 & Co. IS.) 
 "WoKDSwoETH, Van. Archdeacon — The Perpetual Obligation of the LordJs Bay. (Eiving- 
 
 tons. 6fZ.) 
 
 ENGLISH CHURCH HISTORY. 
 Haevet, Rev. F. B. — Historical Sketch of English Nonconformity. (Church Institution, 
 
 4 Trafalgar Square.) 
 Short, Bishop T. V. — History of the Church of England. (Longmans. 10s. 6d.) 
 Smith, Rev. E. — The Church of England before the Be format ion. (S.P.C.K., 243. yl.) 
 SoAMES, Rev. W. A. — History of the Anglo- Sascon Church. (Parker & Son. 7s. dd.) 
 Venables, Rev. G. — Our Church and our Country. (Macintosh. (>d.) 
 
 CHURCH AND STATE. 
 Bardsley, Rev. J. — The Scriptural Connection between Church and State. Manchester, 
 
 C.D.A., No. 7. (Rivingtons. \d.) 
 Bayi.ee, Rev. J., and E. Miall — Discussion on Church Establishments. (Macintosh. 6d.) 
 Chapman, Rev. D. F. — Questions and Answers on an Established Church, {Herald 
 
 Office, Preston, id ) 
 Eddowes, Rev. 3.— What docs the Bible say About Itl Bradford CD. A., No. 4. 
 
 (Macintosh, id.) 
 Lyttleton, Hon. and Rev. W. H. — Church F.stablislmients. (S.P.C.K. /^d.) 
 Massingham, Eev. J. D. — The Scriptural Connection between Church and State. 
 
 (Macintosh, zd.) 
 Essays on the Church. By a Layman. (Seeley & Co. 5s.) 
 
 THE BICENTENARY OF 1662. 
 
 Clifford, Rev. J. B. — Lecture on the Bicentenary. Bristol CD. A. (Macintosh. 3^.) 
 Venables, Rev. G.—How did They Get There? (Macintosh, zd.) 
 Walker, Rev. J. — The Sufferings of the Clergy. (J. H.Parker. 5s.)
 
 Book X. Miscellaneous. 119 
 
 DEFENSIVE ORGANISATION. 
 
 Church Institution Publications— I., III., X., XII., and XIII. (Office, 4 Trafalgar 
 Square. Gratis.) 
 
 Hale, Yen. Archdeacon — Designs of the Liberation Society. (Rivingtons. 6d.) 
 
 Masheder, K. — Dissent and Democracy. (Macintosh. 3s. (>d.) 
 
 MoLESwoRTH, Eev. I. E. N., D.D. — TIw Necessity and Design of Church Defence Asso- 
 ciations. Manchester CD. A., No. 6. (Rivingtons. id.) 
 
 CHURCH RATES AND ENDOWMENTS. 
 Denison, Ven. A.Tdidie2iCoia.— Church Bate a National Trust. (Saunders, Otlcy, & Co. 5^.) 
 1110.^, Y eTi. ATchAesLCQU— Charge on Church Bates. 1859. (Rivingtons. is.) 
 Hale, Ven. Archdeacon — Charge on Church Bates, i860. (Rivingtons. is. 6ir/.) 
 HLiRVEY, Rev. F. B. — Opfosition to Church Bates. (Church Institution, 4 Trafalgar 
 
 Square.) 
 Magee, Very Rev. Dr. — The Voluntary System : can it Siqjply the place of the Estab- 
 lished Church ? (Bath : R. E. Peach.) 
 O'Connor, Rev. AV. A. — Church Establishments and Church Bates. Manchester CD. A., 
 
 No. 4. (Rivingtons. id.) 
 Tottenham, Rev. E. — The Established Church and Church Bates. (Macintosh, id.) 
 Venables, Rev. G. — Tithes and Offerings. (Macintosh, id.) 
 The Church and its Endowment. (Macintosh, id.) 
 
 CHURCH PRINCIPLES. 
 
 Bailey, E. — Conformity to the Church of England. (Hamilton, Adams, & Co. 4^.) 
 
 Caudwell, E. — The Church of England the best Church; or Seasons for being a Church- 
 man, (Masters, zd.) 
 
 Storr, Rev. F. — A Threefold Cord that binds Me to My Church. (Macintosh, id.) 
 
 Stowell, Rev. Canon — lam a Chicrchman. (Macintosh, id.) 
 
 Stowell, Rev. Canon — The Moderation of the Church of England. Bristol CD. A. 
 (Macintosh, ii^) 
 
 Tatlor, Rev. T. G.— Why lam a Chicrchman. (S.P.CK., 184. zd.) 
 
 THE ROMAN CONTROVERSY. 
 Barnes, A, — Notes on Daniel and the Bevelaiion. (3 vols. Rontledge. 12s.) 
 Wordsworth, Ven. Archdeacon — Babylon; or the Question Considered 'Is the Church 
 
 of EoTue the Babylon of the Apocalypse?' (Rivingtons. is.) 
 Wordsworth, Ven. Archdeacon — Lectures on the Ap>occdypse. (Rivingtons. los. M.) 
 
 THE IRISH CHURCH. 
 
 Hume, Rev. A., D.D. — Besults of the Irish Census of 1861 with reference to the Church 
 in Ireland. (Rivingtons. is. 6(Z.) 
 
 Lee, Rev. A. T.— Facts respecting the Present State of the Church in Ireland. (Riving- 
 tons. zd.) 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 Glabon, J. M. — Church and Party: Bemarks on the Duty of Churchmen in and out of 
 Parliament. (Rivingtons.) 
 
 Cree, Rev. E. D.— Lay Preaching. (J. H. Parker, zd.) 
 
 Hook, Very Rev. Dr. — Church Dictionary. (Murray. 12s.) 
 
 Hume, Rev. A., D.D. — Various Statistics. Birmingham C.D.A., Nos. 3, 4. (J. H. 
 Parker. 4^^.) 
 
 Miller, Rev. Canon — Churchmen and Dissenters. Birmingham C.D.A., No. 2. (.1. H. 
 Parker, id.) 
 
 PuLMAN, John — The Anti-State Church Association Unmasked. (Macintosh. 8s. ()d.) 
 
 Wordsworth, Ven. Archdeacon — The Episcojiatc. (Rivingtons.) 
 
 LIST OF IMPORTANT PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS ON 
 CHURCH QUESTIONS OF RECENT DATE. 
 
 The names within parentheses are those of the members who moved for 
 
 the committee or the return, or who brought in the Bill, as the case may be. 
 
 Where a publication bears no " sessional number," it is because it was
 
 1 20 Miscellaneous. Book X. 
 
 " presented to botli Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty," 
 An asterisk denotes House of Lords' returns. The titles have been 
 abbreviated somewhat in most cases : — 
 
 Aechdeacoxries : Eetum of the Oflfices held by each Archdeacon, with Incomes attached 
 to each (Mr. Hadfidd). [ 1 8 60 : No. 613. ^d.'\ 
 
 Bible Feinting Patent: Keport and Evidence, &c., from the Select Committee on (Mr. 
 Baines). [i85o: i6z. i.s.] 
 
 BuEiALS Bill: Minutes of Proceedings of the Select Committee on (Sir S. M. Pcto). 
 [1862:306. Id.] 
 
 BuEiALS : Eetums of the Burials in Cemeteries formed under the Burial Acts, distinguish- 
 ing the numher of Interments in Consecrated and Unconsecrated ground (Mr. Had- 
 field). [1860:560. zd.] 
 
 Cajmbeidge Univeesity : Eeport and Evidence, &c., from the Commissioners on the State, 
 Discipline, Studies, and Kevenues of the University and Colleges of Cambridge, &c. 
 [1852. 8s.] 
 
 Cathedi4Al Commission : Reports of the Commissioners on the State and Condition of the 
 Cathedral and Collegiate Churches in England and Wales. [1854-5. ^°^- ^'^•] 
 
 Chaeities : Eeturn of the number of Infonnations, Petitions, Proceedings at Law, and 
 Probable Amount of Income of Charities in Chanceiy. [i85Ji: 94. 3*",] 
 Ditto Supplementary Eeturn (Mr. Pe^/«^i;). [1856:177. is. 3d] 
 Ditto Suppkmentai-y Eeturn (Mr. C'qpt7rt«c^.) [1861:298. 4s. 2t^.] 
 
 Chuech Building Acts : Eetum of Parishes Divided and Districts Assigned to Churches 
 under the Provisions of the Church Building Acts, and the Parish of Manchester Di- 
 vision Act (Mr. i)eecZes). [1861:557. I0(/.] 
 
 Chuech Eates Eefused : Names of all Parishes in which (during the last fifteen years) 
 Church Eates have been refused, and since that refusal have ceased altogether to be 
 collected (Lord 7?. Cecil). [1856: 319. 2s,] 
 
 Chuech Eates : Eeport and Evidence, &c., from the Select Committee on the Assessment : 
 and Levy of Church Eates. [1851: 541. 4s. 2tf.] 
 
 Chuech Eates : Eeport and Evidence, &c., from the Select Committee of the House of Lords 
 on the Present Operation of the Law and Practice respecting Assessment and Le^'y of 
 Church Eates (Duke of Marlborough). [1859, 2nd Sess. : 24.* 3s. 6fZ.] 
 Ditto Ditto [Part IL 1860:154. is.] 
 
 Chuech Eates : Eetum from each Parish, setting forth the Gross Amount expended dur- 
 ing the last seven yeate for Church purposes, with Supplemental Eeturn. (Commonly 
 called Mr. Walpoles'RetVLvrte). [1859. 5*0 
 
 Chuech Eates : Eetum of all Moneys received and expended by Churchwardens from 
 Easter 1853 to Easter 1854 (Sir W. Clay). [1856 : 323. 2s. 6d] 
 
 Chuech Eates: Eetum of the Number of Eates refused, 1833 — 51. [1852: 346. 8^^.] 
 
 Chuech Eates : Eeturn of the several Bills introduced into Parliament in relation to 
 Church Eates during the last twenty years, together with the Names of the authors 
 {l,lv. Bristow). [1861:47. Id.] 
 
 Common Prayer Book : Eetum for Copy of the Alterations in the Book of Common 
 Prayer, prepared by the Eoyal Commissioners for the Eevision of the Liturgy in 1689. 
 [1854: 332.*] 
 
 Ecclesiastical Commission : Eeport and Evidence, &c., from the Select Committee on 
 Qilv. H. Seymour). [1862:470. 5s. 6f?.] 
 Ditto Supplementary Eeport, &c. (Mr. //, /Se^OTOwr.) [1863:457. 4s.] 
 
 Education (Dissenting Schools) : Eeport to the Education Commissioners by the Com- 
 mittee appointed by them in reference to Dissenters' Schools (Mr. Billwyn). [1861 : 
 
 410. z\d:\ 
 
 Education Geants : Eetum of the Amount paid to each Parish or Place in the years 1859 
 
 and i860 (Mr. i/e»%). [1862:101. is.] 
 Education (Populae): Eeport of the Commissioners on. [1861. i8,s. 3(f.] 
 Education (Destitute Childeen) : Eeport and Evidence, &c., from the Select Committee 
 
 on. [1861 : 460. 3s.] 
 Established Church : Eeports (5) of Commissioners on the State of the Established Church 
 
 with reference to Ecclesiastical Duties and Eevenues, with Maps. [1835-7. 6s.] 
 Local Taxation Eeturns (transmitted annually to the Home Office, [i 862 : 437. 4s. zd.] 
 Ditto [1863 : 496. 4s. lorf.] 
 Ditto [1864: 524. 4s. io(Z.] 
 Ditto [1865: 447. 4s. 4^.] 
 Maynooth Coil ege : EeiTOit from the Commissioners on. [1855. 7*. 6c/.]
 
 Book X. Miscellaneous. \ii 
 
 Oxford University : Eeport and Evidence, &c., from the Commissioners on the State, 
 Discipline, Studies, and Revenues of the University and Colleges of Oxford. 
 [1852. 8..] 
 
 Pluralities : Returns of all Clergymen holding more than one Church or Chapel, show- 
 ing the full Income derived from each. [1861: 517. 6(^.] 
 
 Prisoners, Denomination of : Return showing, in each Prison in the United Kingdom, on 
 January I, 1 86a, the number of Prisoners of each Religious Denomination. [1862: 
 
 233. IOC?.] 
 
 Public Schools : Report and Evidence, &c., from the Commissioners on. [ 1 864. 4 parts, 
 il.] 
 
 Religuius Worship: Mr, Horace Mann's Report and Tables. [1853. 2s. 6fZ.] 
 
 Sabbath : Report and Evidence, &c., from the Select Committee on the Laws and Practices 
 relating to the Observance of the Sabbath. [1832. zs. 6(7.] 
 
 Spiritual Destitution : Eeport and Evidence, &e., from the Select Committee of the 
 House of Lords on the Deficiency of Means of Spiritual Instruction in populous dis- 
 tricts, and to consider the fittest means of meeting the diiEculties of the ease (Bishop 
 oiExcttr). [1858:387. 7*-.] 
 
 Sunday Railway and Canal Traffic : Report and Evidence, &c., from the Select Com- 
 mittee of the House of Lords on the expediency of restraining the practice of Carry- 
 ing Goods on Railways and Canals on Sundays. [184I: ^54. 2.S. 4fZ.] 
 
 SaNDAY Trading : Report and Evidence, &c., from the Select Committee of the House of 
 Commons on the prevalence of. [1847: 666. 2a\] 
 
 Tithes : Return of all Tithes commuted and apportioned. [1848 : 298. 3«. yJ.'\ 
 
 A FEW FACTS BEARING ON THE BICENTENARY MOVEMENT ; 
 
 OR, 1862, 1662, AND 1642. 
 
 A.D. 1640-1650.- — A period of much civil and religious discord, cul- 
 minating in open rebellion, and the murder of England's lawful king. 
 Puritanism, under the twofold form of Presbyterianism and Independency 
 successively, gains the ascendant. The Church, with her Bishops and 
 Clergy, is set at defiance, spitefviUy entreated, dis-established, and for a 
 short time crushed. In the place of monarchy, that most bitter of des- 
 potisms, democracy, is set up, first in the garb of Presbyterianism, and. 
 afterwards in that of Independency. Its ultimate characteristics under 
 both are hatred of the King, the Bishops, and the Clergy, and all who 
 differ from it. Nonconformists as well as Churchmen, if the former do not 
 belong to the dominant sect. Toleration is not thought of, except for 
 one's own clique. Bishop Jeremy Taylor writes a book on Liberty of Con- 
 science, and a Puritan answers it by another, in which Toleration is de- 
 nounced as a damnable sin. Another says, " If the Devil were to ask a 
 courtesie of a State, he would ask no more than a Universal Toleration, 
 and an uncontrolled libertie in every one to preach and expound the 
 Scripture," whence "we are to infer that Toleration is devilish ! 
 
 Now for a few details : — 
 
 1 641, Dec. — Ten Bishops imprisoned in the Tower. 
 
 1642, Feb. — Bill passed turning all the Bishops out of the House of 
 Lords. Committees appointed by the Commons to inquire into the 
 "scandalous immoralities" of the Parochial Clergy. They deprive of 
 their Benefices, in the most cruel manner, at least 7,000, whose " immo- 
 rality," in most cases, consists only in their having Episcopal Ordination, 
 and supporting the King. Many are forcibly expelled by the Puritan 
 soldiers of the Parliamentary armies, and many sell oft' their property and 
 escape to the Royal armies for refuge. Of those on whom the Puritans 
 can lay hands, great numbers are imprisoned, some in hulks in tlio 
 Thames. The brutal atrocities and inhuman cruelties perpetrated by
 
 122 Miscellaneous. BookX. 
 
 these odious persecuting fanatics, would have done credit to the most 
 bigoted Papist of the preceding century. The Church Livings thus 
 rendered vacant are filled up by the appointment of Presbyterians, Inde- 
 pendents, Anabaptists, and other ]!^onconformist Ministers, and not a 
 few lay sectaries. As a compensation, the ejected Clergy are promised 
 a fifth of their tithes annually ; but, as might have been expected, the 
 promise is seldom kept. 
 
 1643, July. — The Westminster Assembly of Divines decree the "Direc- 
 tory for Public Worship," the " Confession of Faith," and two Catechisms. 
 [N.B. These are in substance still adopted by the Scotch Presbyterians, 
 all of whose Ministers are, I believe, pledged to the extirpation of " black 
 Prelacy," or the Episcopal form of Church Government.] Ordinance 
 passed for defacing and destroying all ornaments in Churches of a Popish 
 character. Many Puritans forthwith take hammers and chisels and com- 
 mence business on their own account, and the marks of their sacrilegious 
 hands remain in many Churches to the present day. 
 
 1645, Jan. — Ordinance passed displacing in Public Worship the Prayer 
 Book, by the Directory. Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, murdered on 
 the scaffold. Aug. 23. — Ordinance passed utterly prohibiting the use of 
 the Prayer Book even hy iirivate individuals. Penalty : first and second 
 offences, a money fine ; third offence, one year's imprisonment. 
 
 1646. — Presbyterianism established pro tern., and in 1649 permanently. 
 
 1649, Jan. — ^The King murdered on the scaffold. Feb. — The House of 
 Lords abolished. The office of king abolished. [Thus we see that the 
 prosperity of the civil power is intimately bound up with that of 
 the Church : the latter goes, and, by consequence, the former soon 
 follows.] 
 
 1 650 -1 660. — Presbyterianism wanes; Independency supplants it. 
 Persecution carried on by both against all who differ from them. The 
 Quakers, particularly, suffer much at the hands of their Puritan tyrants, 
 and nearly 2000 are thrown into prison. 
 
 1656, Dec. — By order of Parliament, James Naylor is set in the pillory, 
 whipped from Westminster to the Exchange, his tongue bored with a hot 
 iron, his forehead branded with the letter B, also with a hot iron, sent to 
 Bristol and publicly whipped, imprisoned in the London Bridewell for two 
 years, condemned to hard labour, and all for what ? Because he is a 
 Quaker ! We are told that " he put out his tongue very willingly, but 
 shrinked a little when the iron came upon his forehead." 
 
 Voila ! Dissent and Democratic liberty [?] in 1656. 
 
 1660, May. — The Monarchy and Church restored. The ejected Clergy 
 of 1 643 are restored to their Benefices by Act of Parliament, but only 
 a few hundreds out of the 7,000 are in a position to avail themselves of 
 the offer. 
 
 1661, May. — Bishops re-admitted to the House of Lords. 
 
 1662. — The Act of Uniformity passed. By the Act of 1660 a few 
 hundreds out of the 7,000 Clergy ejected in 1643 came back to their 
 Cures, but as most of them (that is to say, 6,000 or more) were either 
 dead or unwilling to claim their own just rights, it follows that a similar 
 number of Nonconformists are still in possession of Livings oiot their own. 
 By the Act of Uniformity now passed, these 6,000 are offered permission 
 to retain what they had unjustly acquired 2)ossession of, on the following con- 
 ditions :— That they would receive Episcopal Ordination, renounce the 
 League and Covenant, declare their assent to the Pyayer Book, and sign
 
 Book X. Miscellaneous. 1 23 
 
 a declaration of conformity to it. Three months, ending on St. Barbholo- 
 mew's Day, are allowed for them to make up their minds, and when that 
 day arrives it is found that the great majority of these Dissenters have 
 conformed ; those who have not, said to be in number about zooo (though 
 it is believed to have been much less), of course retire from Livings 
 ivhich never belonged to them, and it was to commemorate the ejection 
 of these 2000 intruders that the Dissenters of 1862 proposed to 
 celebrate 
 
 "the BI-CBNTENARY of 'black BARTHOLOMEW,' 1662." 
 
 This is the case stated, I believe, with perfect impartiality. The Dis- 
 senters of 1862 proposed commemorating a body of men with whom they 
 could have had no legitimate sympathy whatever. The ejected Ministers 
 were friendly to an Established Chvirch and a National Liturgy, only they 
 preferred the Presbyterian to the Episcopalian form of Church Govern- 
 ment, both of which the Bi-centenarians hate with a bitter hatred. 
 
 The Bi-centenarians speak of the ejected Dissenters of 1662 as their 
 religious ancestors, concealing the fact that of the 300 Meeting-hoiises 
 foiTnded by the ejected Ministers, only a few remain which are not in 
 the hands of Unitarian infidels. 
 
 The plain fact is that, under cover of a great religious movement, the 
 Political Dissenters sought to palm off on Englishmen a gross political 
 swindle. The Liberation clique threw their influence into the scale, and 
 the whole business gradually assumed the form of a great political de- 
 monstration of anti- Church enmity and spite. On the Dissenters the blow 
 recoiled ; and on them, and not on Churchmen, rested the blame of all the 
 ill-feeling and bickerings which sprung up. 
 
 ULTRA-RITUALISM. 
 
 I have not hitherto taken much part in the discussions which have been 
 going on lately concerning Ritualism ; but really things are now being 
 said which render it incumbent on all sober-minded Churchmen to exert 
 themselves to curb that lawless spirit which, because it is one of the signs 
 of the times in the world at large, would have been eschewed, one would 
 have thought, by all professing Churchmen.* 
 
 As a sincere member of the Anglican Church, yielding to none in the 
 firmness of my allegiance to her, I must confess to having perused with 
 great disgust many of the recent literary effusions of the Ultra- Ribual party. 
 If it were only going to end in the secession of the mass of them to their 
 natural sphere — the Church of Rome — regrets might be spared. It is, 
 however, their professed desire to remain in the English Church that I 
 regret, for I am fearful of our beholding ere long the peace and prosperity 
 of the Church imperilled — at a period, too, when she possesses a greater 
 amount of popularity and substantial hold on the affection of the nation 
 than she has possessed for many generations. 
 
 * The perusal of any casual number of the Church Times newspaper will furnish a 
 striking example of the manner in which the party seeking to Papalise the Church of 
 England will repudiate, if necessary for their own ends, things which, in their calnier 
 moments, they profess to regard as of great importance. These people appear to he Epis- 
 copalians only by tradition ; for when their p]piscopal overseers venture on remonstrance, 
 all tlu-y meet with is scornful defiance; (sec the Kev. E. Stuart's letter in the Guardiun, 
 August 9, 1865.)
 
 1 24 Miscellaneous. Book x. 
 
 As regards the law of the matter, if the letter is uncertain the spirit is 
 not ; and if the result of the present Romanising agitation should be an 
 attempt on the part of persons rightly regarded as not very safe custodians 
 of the Church's interests to make the letter conform to the spirit — in 
 other words, to prohibit as illegal, once and for all, incense, vestments, 
 and the thousand and one follies daily perpetrated by the Ultra- Ritual 
 clergy — ^ whilst I should so far rejoice, I should further hold these said 
 individuals directly responsible for all inconveniences which might follow 
 in the wake of legislative action of the character announced to be immi- 
 nent, though not at first sight connected with a Romanising Ritual 
 Abolition Bill. The Ritual party are now as surely doing the work of 
 the Eburyites as is possible, could they but see it. I have no sympathy 
 with the Prayer-Book Revision movement, and it is precisely on that 
 account that I wish the Ultra- Ritualists could be made to see the nearly 
 certain results of their courting an effort against themselves, which it 
 seems to me they are now doing. In contending, as they do, for so many 
 antiquated un- Anglican ceremonies, the Ultra- Ritualists are fighting, not 
 over the kernel, but over the husk of religion ; they are diverting their 
 minds and those of their congregations from vital practical Christianity 
 to empty theatrical and mechanical forms. 
 
 The Ultra- Ritual party are not consistent. They profess to take their 
 stand on the Prayer-Book of 1549, yet they use a variety of articles of 
 dress not included in those mentioned in that book. The Canons of 1603, 
 the latest promulgated, it may further be remarked, are at variance in the 
 matter of vestments with the Prayer-Book of 1549, and the revisers of 
 1662 jumbled the two together in a most unfortunate way. However, it 
 is beyond dispute that till within quite a recent period the ministers of 
 the Church of England modelled their dress and the accessories of their 
 worship far more on the Canons of 1603 than on the Edwardian Prayer- 
 Book of 1549, and with these (less ornate, it may be) usages, which have 
 now the acceptance of a couple of centuries to back them, Churchmen 
 would do wisely in resting content. As a Churchman who values a 
 moderate ritual calculated to secure decent and orderly worship, free alike 
 from Puritan coldness and Romish mummery, I must confess that I should 
 be glad to see wholly prohibited all that sensuous paraphernalia with 
 which it is attempted to weigh down the Reformed Church of England — 
 theatrical millinery, incense, excess of genuflections, prostrations, auricu- 
 lar confession, et hoc genus omne. When we find " advanced" Ritualists 
 beginning to talk of the desirability of having "high mass" in our 
 churches, surely it is time for moderate men to act. I have little doubt 
 that Ultra- Ritualism will ere long be checked. I wish there were a pros- 
 pect of its being checked by the forbearance, self-denial, and moderation 
 of its supporters rather than by the strong arm of a hastily improvised 
 Parliamentary enactment, the very preliminary discussion of which may 
 be fraught with consequences calculated to engender new and bitter party 
 strife — a result which would be deplorable after the rapprochements of 
 recent years. 
 
 Mr. Gresley (no Puritan, be it remembered), in his Short Treatise on 
 the English Gliurch (1844), expressed in vivid terms his regrets that 
 there existed such slight willingness amongst Churchmen to conciliate 
 one another. An excellent passage, too long to quote, begins with — " It 
 is surprising how much evil is done, how much ill-will excited, by ob- 
 stinacy in non-essential points. Members of the same Church ought to 
 
 I
 
 Book X. Miscellaneous. 
 
 125 
 
 be ready to yield to eacli other in things of no decided importance." If 
 appHcable to Low Churchmen 22 years ago, how much more applicable 
 to the extreme Ritualists of the present day ! Will the warmest of the 
 latter venture to assert that he can only guarantee the fervour of his 
 prayers when he is vested in " alb, amice, and chasuble ?" If not, why 
 persist in childish displays, eminently calculated to bring odium on our 
 Church, and di'ive her worshipping members to the meeting-houses 
 of the Sects ? 
 
 CHRISTIAN UNITY. 
 
 Few things are more to be deplored than the divisions subsisting in 
 Christendom, but in giving way to this regret many English Churchmen 
 are in the habit of making light of the Errors of the Roman and Greek 
 Catholic Churches, and of sacrificing leading principles of the Reforma- 
 tion : under these circumstances, the following able but anonymous appeal 
 issued in 1865, sounds a much-needed warning : — 
 " Brother Churchmen, 
 
 "You are asked to give money to an 'ASSOCIATION FOE PEOMOTING THE 
 UNITY OF CHEISTENDOM.' Unity is a good thing ; but unity obtained by the 
 sacrifice of truth is a very bad thing. We must ' speak the truth in love,' for true 
 ■wisdom is 'first pure, then peaceable.' {St. James iii. 17.) 
 
 " The prospectus of the Association says that ' the daily use of a short form of prayer, 
 together vn\h.one ' Our Father,' for the intention of the Association, is the only obligation 
 incurred by those who join it ; to which is added, in the ease of priests, the offering, at 
 least once in tliree months, of the Holy Sacrifice for the same intention.' 
 
 " In this single sentence several Eomish errors are quietly insinuated. That the efficacy 
 of the Lord's Prayer depends upon the frequency of its repetition (so that, for example, six 
 Pater-Nosters are better than one 'Our Father'), or that the meaning of the Lord's 
 Prayer is determined, not by His own words, but by our narrow, one-sided ' intentions.' 
 is surely a mischievous superstition, tending to drag down our Lord's teaching to our level, 
 instead of raising us up to His. 
 
 " Again, the notion that there is a propitiatory sacrifice capable of being offered ' at least 
 once in three months '-for any object which a priest may 'intend,' is purely Eomish: a 
 source of power, and of fees to the sacrificing priest, but widely different from the sacra- 
 ment ' which the Lord hath commanded to be received.' The doctrine of ' Intention ' 
 was never heard of until the 1 2th century, when ignorance and vice had overspread the 
 whole of Christendom. Consider the consequences which this doctrine involves. If the 
 efficacy and the application of sacramental grace is dependent upon the ' intention ' of 
 priests, we can never feel sure of the validity either of the priest's own orders or of the 
 sacrament which we receive from him, because we can know nothing of the secret 'inten- 
 tions ' of ecclesiastics. The conduct of many priests at the French Eevolution, the 
 autobiography of the celebrated Blanco AVhite (for many years a Spanish priest, and 
 afterwards a graduate of an English University), the history of Jansenism, the example of 
 Hoadley, Colenso^ and many others, prove that it is no rare thing for priests to disbelieve 
 utterly in the rites which they celebrate. If, then, the doctrine of ' Intention ' be true, 
 we can never know whether there be any really ordained clergy, or really baptised laity 
 to constitute the hypothetical 'Christendom' for which we are to 'pray.' 
 
 " At any rate, as members of the Church of England we are already members of an 
 ' Association ' which has provided ample opportunities of authorised intercessory prayer in 
 the Litany, in the prayer for ' all sorts and conditions of men,' in the Collect for Good 
 Friday, and in the beautiful ' Prayer for Unity ' in the Accession Service. The Pope (at 
 the instigation of the schismatical 'Archbishop' Manning) has already condemned the 
 new ' Association,' which under pretence of uniting Christendom (!) is alienating and 
 estranging from one another the children of our dear mother, the Church of England." 
 
 Fraternisation with Greek Catholics is week by week prated about in 
 one London newspaper (The CkurcJtvian) in a way that is simply nauseous, 
 puerile, and ridiculous, to the exclusion of matters vitally important to the 
 best interests of the Ano-lican Church.
 
 126 Miscellaneous. BookX. 
 
 CHURCHWARDENS AND PEWS. 
 
 Considerable misappreliension appears to exist in the present day as to 
 tlie exact state of the law governing churchwardens in the allotment of 
 seats in parish churches, and that, too, on the part of persons who, from 
 their position, might be expected to know fully all about it ; so I Avill state 
 briefly some of the chief points as laid down by the leading authorities. 
 The references appended will enable those interested in pursuing the matter 
 farther to do so. 
 
 Sir John Nicholl,in a well-known case, speaks as follows: — "The general 
 law with respect to pews and sittings in churches is little understood. 
 Erroneous notions on this subject are current at least in many parts of 
 the country, and have led to much practical inconvenience. By the 
 general law, and of common right, all the pews in the parish church are 
 the common property of the parish ; they are for the use in common of 
 the parishioners, who are all entitled to be seated orderly and con- 
 veniently, so as best to provide for the accommodation of all. The distri- 
 hution of seats rests with the churchwardens as the officers, and subject to 
 the control of the ordinary [the Bishop]. Neither the minister nor the 
 vestry have amj right ivhatever to interfere with the churchivardens in seating 
 omd arranging the j^fO'ishioners, as often erroneously supposed ; at the same 
 time, the advice of the minister, and even sometimes the opinions and 
 wishes of the vestry, may be fitly invoked by the churchwardens, and to 
 a certain extent may be reasonably deferred to in this matter." — (Fuller 
 V. Lane; 2 Addams, 425.) 
 
 Special attention should be directed to the sentence above which is 
 italicised, as it frequently happens that a good deal hinges upon it, where 
 attempts are made to interfere with the exclusive rights of the church- 
 wardens. 
 
 Another very eminent lawyer writes as follows : — " All the pews in a 
 church are prima facie at the disposal of the churchwardens as the 
 parochial officers of the ordinary, except the chief seat in the chancel, 
 which custom appropriates to the rector, whether lay or ecclesiastical, and 
 sometimes to the vicar ; for with regard to the other seats in the chancel, 
 it seems the better opinion that their power extends to them also." — 
 (Rogers; Ecclesiastical Law, p. 164.) 
 
 On this extract Prideaux writes : — " The summary of the law upon the 
 subject by the late Mr. Rogers is so able, that no apology, it is confidently 
 felt, "will be required for setting it out in this place." — (Ghurchivarden' s 
 Chiide, 311.) Prideaux himself says the same thing elsewhere, and I may 
 also refer to Burn's Ecclesiastical Law, Cripps's Laivs of the Clergy, and 
 Stephen's Laws of the Clergy, all works of the highest authority, as stating 
 the matter in perfectly similar terms. 
 
 Nothing, I take it, can be clearer than that the churchwardens are the 
 sole judges of what arrangements it is fit should be made, subject only to 
 the Bishop of the diocese as a judge of appeal for dissatisfied parties to 
 resort to. The minister has no power as of right. 
 
 I make one more citation of considerable importance : — " It shoiild 
 be farther mentioned, that although every parishioner has a right to be 
 seated, he has not a right to a pew, and that persons not being parishioners 
 have no right to a pew or sitting." — (In re St. ColumVs Chiirch, London- 
 derry ; S L. T., N.S., 861.) 
 
 In churches for which commissioners of competent autbority have 
 
 I
 
 BookX. Miscella7ieoiis . •ii'j 
 
 fixed a scale of pew-rents, and in which the pews are accordingly let, 
 the power of the Churchwardens is in some measure restrained by the 
 provisions of the Church Building Acts ; and in certain cases the actual 
 selling of pews is legalised, although the preferential claims of parishioners 
 over non-parishioners are carefully protected (3 George IV., cap. 72, § 24.) 
 
 In the case of parishes cut up into new districts (now very numerous), 
 all inhabitants of such new districts must be treated as parishioners in 
 regard to their claims to seats in the mother-church, until the districts 
 become " new parishes," "distinct and separate parishes," or "district 
 parishes." In "new parishes," persons who shall have claimed and shall 
 have had assigned to them sittings in the church of such new parish, 
 thereby surrender a corresponding number of sittings in the old church 
 (19 & 20 Vict. cap. 104, § 5). There is no similar provision in the case 
 of " distinct and separate," or " district " parishes ; but as these are 
 2mrishes for all ecclesiastical purposes, it is apprehended that the 
 inhabitants cease to have a right to occupy sittings in the old church, at 
 all events to the exclusion of inhabitants in the district remaining con- 
 nected with the said old church. 
 
 Churchwardens, especially in populous parishes, would often do well 
 to break in upon the vicious practice still very prevalent, of allowing 
 small families to monopolise large pews. In all cases, however, re-arrange- 
 ments involving considerable change should be negotiated with tact and 
 discretion, so that long-established uses should not be violently interfered 
 with ; nor should these monopolies be touched without strong cause, or 
 the remedy may work greater evils than did the original disease. Finally, 
 churchwardens should pay full attention to the needful wants of the poor, 
 the more so as they are less able to take care of themselves ; and neglect 
 on the part of churchwardens often di-ives them altogether aAvay from 
 church, or even to the meeting-house. 
 
 ARE "LIBERATION" DISSENTING MINISTERS 
 
 HABITUAL LIARS? 
 
 The following extract from a lecture delivered by the Rev. J. D. Mas- 
 
 singham, M.A., the lecturer of the Church Institution at Huddersfield, on 
 
 Feb. 24, 1866, "will furnish some material for answering the above 
 
 inquiry : — 
 
 " I remember that cue of the supporters of the Liberation Society told in my hearing of 
 a poor woman — of course a poor widow woman, to make the case more pitiable — who had 
 the clothes taken from off her clothes line and sold to pay the church rate of our bloated 
 national church. I was very impudent, I am sometimes, the Liberation Society think so — 
 (laughter) — and I wish them to think so. (Laughter.) I inquired the name of the woman 
 who had her clothes taken, and could not learn that ; then the name of the parish, but 
 could not learn that ; but the only thing the ' rev.' speaker coidd tell me was vouched for 
 was that it was in Ireland, and he was siure of it. (Laughter.) Of course ihat teas quite 
 enough for me, for in Ireland there is no such thing as a church rate, so it mattered little 
 where the parish was. (Laughter). The whole tale was an audacious mendacity. (Ajiplauso.) 
 Another advocate of the society, Mr. Charles Williams, stated in my presence some of the 
 most daring assertions I ever heard. For instance, he said that Sir Eobert Harry Inglis, 
 in his speech, July 19, 1836, held that Church property was public property. I knew he 
 was rather more of a Toiy than I wished him to be, consequently I did not fancy that ho 
 ■would join the Liberation Society, or that he would say anything of the kind, and without 
 looking at his words I felt sure that the representative of our University of Oxford never 
 uttered such a sentence. (Hear, hear.) I could not test it at the time, but went down 
 to London and consiilted Hansard, and on page 344 of vol. xxxv. I found these words : — 
 Sir R. H. Inglis rose to oppose the Bill ' because it gave a vantage ground to those who
 
 128 Miscellaneous. Book X. 
 
 sought the overthrow of the whole system of the Church. For the first time in respect to 
 England, by an Act of the Legislature, unsanctioned by the Church itself, it recognised 
 the principle that Church property was public property. He was himself very unwilling 
 to occupy the attention of the House, but he was stiU more unwilling to admit sucli a Bill 
 to pass without recording his opposition to its principles and provisions. The Church of 
 England had not been endowed by the State. The State, at the Reformation, did no 
 more than confirm the measures which the Claurch, individually and collectively, had pre- 
 viously adopted. The State therefore had no right to interfere with the property, which 
 the State had not given to the Church. Adam de Beke, the great Bishop of Durham, six 
 centuries ago left his estate to that see : had he left it to the corporation of Durham that 
 could not be alienated to a poorer corporation.' Mr, Williams admitted the truth of my 
 quotation, but said Sir Harry Inglis had made use of the words uttered by him. So Mr. 
 Williamsjjist picked out the zvords he wanted, and made Sir B. H. Inglis to afjirove of what 
 he rose to protest against. I need not ask, is not this shamefully dishonest ? Why, Mr, 
 Williams might as well say that the Bible teaches atheism : ' There is no God,' leaving 
 out the previous words that the fool said so : or that the Bible teaches suicide — ' He went 
 out and hanged himself,' — ' Go thou and do likewise.' By selecting such words as we 
 want for a purpose, apart from the fair connexion, we may utterly misrepresent any hook 
 or speech. A cause must be very desperate when it requires such a shameful line of 
 advocacy. I say that a man, or body of men calling themselves Dissenting ministers — 
 ministers of the gospel of Christ, who will write in books or state in speeches things of this 
 kind, which are positively untrue, merely to bring a stigma on the Church of England, I say 
 they ought to be hooted from the land. (Loud applause.) And then it is attempted to be 
 made out that the clergy of the Church of England are maintained by taxes levied on 
 the people. Why, in a Huddersfield paper I find that at Longwood, the ' Rev.' J. 
 Parker (of Salendine Nook) — Parker seems a famous name, by-the-by, just now — said 
 'he believed the union between Church and State was unnecessary, and yet it cost the Go- 
 vernment of this country 7,000,000^. sterling a-year.' Fancy the impudence of a man 
 getting up to state that ! I only ask him to prove it, and I will give him zol. for his 
 proof— (hear, and applause) — and, if he cannot prove it, call upon him to retract his 
 falsehood (Loud cheers.) The fact is, it is quite untrue." — {Huddersfield Chronicle, 
 Feb. 28, 1866.) 
 
 AN" ELECTION^EERING EPISODE. 
 
 The following is abridged from the Standard of July 19, 1865. It 
 confirms what I said on p. 79 about rents as affected by Church Rates, 
 and it is a testimony (Dissenting, withal) to the accuracy of my reasoning 
 on the incidence of Church Rate (ante p. 69) : — 
 
 " At a meeting at the Hertford Corn Exchange, on the 7th instant, Mr. Garratt got on 
 a stand and said : — ' I wish to ask Mr< Cowper, who is contesting the county and going 
 for the abolition of Church Rates, whether there is not a gentleman on his committee 
 who has had a clause inserted in his tenants' agreements that when Church Rates are 
 abolished their rents should be raised 10/. a year?' (Cheers from the Consei-vatives.) 'I 
 am not afraid to mention him — Mr. Bosanqilet — there!' (Tliere was no attempt to 
 answer this, except by shouting. ) ' And yet Mr^ Cowper comes forward as a Liberal, 
 and for the abolition of Church Rates, having on his committee a gentleman whose 
 tenants' rents are to be raised 10^. a yeaf when Church Rates are abolished ! Is that 
 liberal ? You say I have turned, but I always was a Liberal, and am proud to be a 
 Liberal, although a True Blue ! You are like the cuckoo — liberal, but only in song. I 
 never have turned ; it is you who have turned ; but, if you had been knocked about as I 
 have, you would have resisted. Mr. Cow|3er I respect as a man ; but tell me the company 
 a man keeps, and I will tell you his character.' (Cheers and uproar.) ' You say you are 
 Liberal. I say you are il-liberal. There is not a Conservative at the present time who 
 has put such a clause in his tenants' agreements.' (A voice: 'Sir E. Lytton!') 'Prove 
 it ! Although a Dissenter, last year I had the honour of paying Church Rates in seven 
 different parishes. It is just like tithe ; a man bargains to pay it when he takes the land, 
 and knows he has to pay it. Suppose there were two pieces of land, exactly similar, for 
 sale, one paying tithe and one tithe free, for which would yon give the most ? "Wliy, of 
 course, for the tithe free. Then why tiy to shirk it ? It is disgraceful and dishonest. 
 I have hitherto supported the Dissenters' cause, and will always support it till they try 
 to crush Church Rates, and then I will desert them.' (Cheers and hisses.)" 
 
 SPOTIISWOODK AND CO., PKIMiKS, NEW-bTUBBT SQUARE, LOUDON. /

 
 /'*\ 
 
 
 • ••: 4»T?: 
 
 ■■•<jm 
 
 
 
 '*yjgt 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ dlillll ■ ■♦SflheB 
 
 
 ^f> 
 
 '?'^-