.i'r:

't,

AN ADDRESS TO THE
MEMBERS OF THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
BOTH LAY AND CLERICAL,
fyc. ^c.

IS37
\\2S

AN
ADDRESS
TO THE
OF THE
CHUECH OF ENGLAND,
ISotJ Hag mis Clerical,
ON THE
NECESSITY OF PLACING THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE CHURCH IN THE HANDS OF MEMBERS OF
ITS OWN COMMUNION.
BY THE
REV. JOHN WARREN, M.A.
CHANCELLOR OF BANGOR, AND RECTOR OF GKAVELEY, CAMBRIDGESHIRE.
LATE FELLOW AND TUTOR OF JESUS COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE;
LONDON:
SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO. STATIONERS' HALL COURT :
STEVENSON, CAMBRIDGE ;
AND ROBERT EDIS, HIGH STREET, HUNTINGDON.
1837.

Mkcl4 IZ37

The author of the following " Address," at
the request of a few of the Cambridgeshire Clergy,
about two years ago, committed to writing his
views with respect to the necessity of placing the
Government of the Church in the hands of Mem
bers of its own communion ; and the manuscript
was circulated among the Clergy in the neigh
bourhood : and now, at the desire qf several of the
Clergy, both of Cambridgeshire and Hunting
donshire, (who have Teindly undertaTcen to bear
part of the expense of publication) he ventures to
communicate these vieivs to the public, in the form
of an Address to the Members of our Church, both
Lay and Clerical.

AN ADDRESS,
4-c.

Members of the Church of England,
My object in the following pages is to
call your attention to the dangers which have
arisen from the admission into Parliament,
and into His Majesty's Ministry, of persons
not members of our communion ; and to urge
all zealous Churchmen, whether Laymen or
Clergymen, to the adoption of such measures
as may best tend to counteract these dangers,
and to preserve our faith in its purity.
Every one who directs his attention to the
present state of ecclesiastical affairs, must be
convinced that our Church is placed in a
most anomalous situation ; for persons who
are not Members of our communion have
legislative power in the internal affairs of the
Church, and also power and influence in the
appointment of its Bishops, and in other
matters relating to its government and patro
nage.

8
This state of affairs is so contrary to all
sound principles of Church-government, that
we can hardly believe that the Members of our
Church would ever have submitted to be placed
in such a situation, had a direct and open
attempt been made to bring them into it.
Under these circumstances, then, it will be
something more than a mere matter of curiosity
to inquire by what steps our ecclesiastical affairs
have arrived at their present state, and how
Dissenters and Roman Catholics acquired
power in the internal matters of our Church,
Therefore, before I enter further into the
consideration of the dangers to which we are
now exposed, I will endeavour in a few words
to trace the gradual changes which have taken
place since the Reformation, by which these
dangers have come upon us.
At the Reformation, that thorough and com
plete union of Church and State took place
which at present subsists ; at that time the
King became the head of the Convocation, so
that the Convocation could not assemble except
by his authority, and when assembled, could
not make any Canons without his approbation ;
also at the same time the King became the
judicial head of the Church, a power of appeal
being then established from the Archbishop's
Court to the King, in the Court of Delegates,
(which Court of Delegates has lately been

abolished, and the Privy Council now made
the ultimate Court of Appeal in matters eccle
siastical) : at the same period the King acquired
the absolute patronage of the Bishopricks, they
being before in the gift of the Deans and Chap
ters, the King granting the conge d'elire, and
possessing (as well as the Pope) the right of
approbation of the person elected, but not
having by law, as now, the undisputed patro
nage of the Bishopricks, Parliament also at
that time began to legislate in the internal affairs
of the Church, which does not appear to have
been the practice before. Thus, at the Refor
mation, that thorough and complete union of
Church and State took place which continues
to the present day ; there was indeed a union
of Church and State to a certain extent before
the Reformation ; but not such a union as at
present subsists ; that is to say, one by which
the Church is completely merged in the State,
and can do no act except by the intervention
of the State,
Now, one consequence of such a complete
union of Church and. State (if founded on
sound religious principles) is this, that persons
who cannot safely be trusted with power in
the internal affairs of the Church, must be
excluded from offices in the State : for the
Church and the State being under one and the
same government, power in the State implies

10
power in the Church; and therefore if the
Church is to be preserved in its purity, persons
who cannot safely be trusted with power in the
Church, must also be excluded from power in
the State ; that is to say, all persons who are
not of the established religion must be excluded
from power in the State, — such persons can
only be tolerated even as citizens; they cannot,
under such a union of Church and State, be
admitted to authority in the State, without
destroying that security which is necessary for
the preservation of the Church,
Upon these principles the Constitution
appears to have been formed at the Reformation,
and to have continued upon the same princi
ples for a considerable time afterwards. Per
sons who were not members of the Established
Church were, by various laws, excluded from
all important offices in the State, and thus se
curity given for the preservation of the purity
of the Church,* When I say this principle was

* Till the reign of William III. Nonconformists were not
even tolerated. In that reign, toleration was granted to
Protestant Dissenters, and in the reign of George III. it was
extended to Roman Catholics ; but even after these toleration
acts, persons who did not communicate with our Church still
continued (by the Test and Corporation Acts) incapable of
holding either Civil or Military offices, or offices in bodies
Corporate, and Roman Catholics were also (by 30 C. 2, st,
2, c, 1) prevented from sitting in Parliament,

11
acted upon, I do not mean to say that there
were no anomalies or inconsistences, and that
every thing was adapted to this rule, for there
always will be anomalies in every state, but
that in the main it was acted upon as a prin
ciple of the Constitution of this country.
This principle, as I have already said, was
for a considerable period the acknowledged
principle on which our Constitution stood.
But, in process of time, new opinions and
notions began to gain ground of a very different
kind ; it was maintained, by the advocates of
these new opinions, that all persons, whatever
might be their religious professions, were
equally entitled to civil rights, and that it was
the grossest injustice to exclude any person
from an office in the State merely on account of
his religion.
As these new opinions made a progress,
changes were gradually introduced into the
laws of this realm, in accordance with such
opinions, and consequently contrary to the
principles on which the Constitution stood at
the Reformation.
At length, in the Duke of Wellington's
administration, these new opinions came into
powerful operation, and by the repeal of the Test
and Corporation Acts, and the Catholic Eman
cipation Bill, Roman Catholics were admitted
into Parliament, and both Roman Catholics

12
and Dissenters into the greatest offices of State,
with one or two exceptions, and into offices in
bodies corporate ; and since that time the same
privileges have been extended also to Quakers,
Thus, by the laws of this land, as they now
exist, all persons who call themselves Christ
ians, are become capable of sitting in Parlia
ment, and holding important offices in the
State, And at the same time that these changes, so
unfavourable to the Church, have been taking
place in the State, the union of Church and
State has been becoming closer than ever, the
Convocation having, in the meantime, practi
cally ceased to exist,
I have now given a short history of the
gradual changes in the Constitution of the
country, by which persons who are not Mem
bers of our Church have obtained the right of
sitting in Parliament, and holding offices in
His Majesty's Ministry, and thus have acquired
the power of legislating in the internal affairs
of our Church, also power in the appointment
of our Bishops, and in other matters relating to
the government and patronage of our Church,
Such is the state in which the Church of
England is at present placed, and I think a
little reflection will point out to us the danger
to which such a situation necessarily exposes
us.

13
The great object of the Church, throughout
the whole world, is the propagation and the
maintenance of true Christian faith. Now that
faith cannot be maintained in its purity in any
particular Church, unless all persons who are
unsound in their religious notions be excluded
from authority in that body. Consequently,
every well-constituted Church admits no person
to authority in its internal affairs unless he
holds what that Church considers to be the true
faith. This principle of Church-government is
so universally received that I never heard it
controverted as a principle.
But this principle, essential as it is to sound
Church-government, is nevertheless violated in
the existing state of the Church of England ;
for the only legislative body with respect to
the Church is Parliament, which is not com
posed entirely of Members of the Church :
Also, with respect to the executive in the
Church, the appointment of Bishops is in the
hands of the King's Ministers, who likewise are
not necessarily Members of the Church,
Thus the principles of Church-government
are broken through, and all security destroyed
for the preservation of the true faith.
This, certainly, is an alarming state of eccle
siastical affairs ; nevertheless some people say,
" all this is mere theory, there is no real danger,
because a large majority of both houses of Par-

14
liament and of the King's Ministers are Mem
bers of the Established Church,"
But let us consider the force of the objection.
First, Let us enquire whether Parliament is
fitted for direct and immediate legislation in
Church matters without the intervention of a
body composed entirely of Members of our own
communion. With respect to the House of Commons, it
may be observed that most of the members are
elected by constituences composed partly of
Churchmen and partly of Dissenters; and that
in the discussions of that house there is a dis
position to avoid giving offence to either of these
religious persuasions; and consequently, in de
bates upon all matters relating to the Church,
there is an inclination to avoid discussing the
question on religious grounds ; therefore such
questions are merely looked at in a secular
point of view, and thus the most important
considerations entirely neglected. And in the
House of Lords the same spirit appears in a
great degree to prevail : therefore neither House
is well fitted for legislating on matters relating
to the Church, What I have just said is, I be
lieve, in accordance with the feelings of most of
the religious persons of our own communion.
There has, for a long time, been a great unwil
lingness among the well-disposed of our Church
to have Church matters brought before Parlia-

15
ment: they have not felt any confidence in
Parliament on such subjects (and this is one
reason why many important reforms have not
taken place in the Church),
But if there was a want of confidence in the
Legislature some years ago, in matters ecclesi
astical, how much greater must be that want of
confidence now, when Roman Catholics are ad
mitted into Parliament, and every encourage
ment given both to them and Dissenters, by
throwing open to them the greatest offices in
the State.
So much for the fitness of Parliament to legis
late in the internal affairs of our Church.
Now let us consider the fitness of His Majes
ty's Ministers to have the patronage of the
Bishopricks, and thus to exercise the greatest
authority over the Church.
It is now a principle of the constitution of this
country that all persons who call themselves
Christians are equally eligible to offices in the
State ; and any Ministry who expect to retain
their places for any length of time, would feel
themselves compelled to act up to this principle
in giving away their patronage in the State.
Now, I will ask, is a body who act upon these
principles a proper body for choosing Bishops
of our Church ? Can it be expected that a body
whose object is to please all sects will be careful
to appoint zealous and active Bishops sincerely

16
attached to the doctrines of our Church? I
should fear not. — I should fear that they would
be as anxious to please the Roman Catholics
and Dissenters in appointing Bishops, as the
orthodox and conscientious members of our own
Church. Suppose a bishoprick vacant in Ire
land, is it to be expected that a Ministry consti
tuted in the present state of things would look
for a man zealously attached to the doctrines of
our Church, and prepared to oppose the doc
trines of the Romish Church ? Is it not more
probable that on the ground of avoiding irrita
tion and keeping things quiet, they would look
for one of quite a contrary disposition ? It is to
be feared they w^ould — it is to be feared that
they would seek the favor of the Roman Catho
lics as much as that of the members of our own
Church, and thus would betray their trust in
the appointment of Bishops ; this is what is
naturally to be expected: as they look up to a
Parliament constituted on the principle that all
Christian sects are to be equally attended to, it
can hardly be expected that in matters relating
to the Church they would shew that zeal, which
in all other duties of their office would be op
posed to the very principles of the Constitution.
In saying this, I do not mean to speak of the
present or any particular Ministry, but to say,
that any Ministry acting upon constitutional
principles, (as the Constitution now exists)

17
would, by its feelings and general mode of pro
ceeding, be unfitted for the appointment of
Bishops, Nor do I mean to say that any par
ticular Minister might not be zealously attached
to the Church, and might not discharge his duty
faithfully in the appointment of Bishops, not
withstanding the present Constitution ; but I
do mean to say that the Constitution would act
against such a minister, and that the case of
such a minister would be the exception, not the
rule. Upon this point I will conclude by observing
that the principle that the Church should be
governed, in its internal affairs, by a body
composed partly of churchmen, and partly of
persons not Members of the Church, is a bad
principle ; and that the principle being bad,
we may be certain that many evils will flow
from that bad principle, though we may not be
able to foresee all these evils.
Now it will naturally be asked, what remedy
I have to suggest for these evils ? To this I
answer, the plain and obvious remedy, viz :
to place the government of the internal affairs
of the Church in the hands of a body composed
entirely of Members of its own communion.
But it will be asked, what should be the
constitution of such a body ? In answer to this
question, I will say a few words with respect to
two plans which have already been proposed

18
by persons who have seen the danger in which
the Church is placed. The first plan is that
of the Archbishop of Dublin, viz. that the
management of the affairs of the Church should
be placed in the hands of a commission, con
sisting entirely of Members of our communion.
This plan is manifestly inadequate to the
purposes for which it is intended ; for the
Commissioners would be appointed by His
Majesty's Ministers, who would act under the
influence of Parliament in their appointments,
that is, under the influence of a body not
wholly composed of Members of our Church ;
and thus little would be gained by the appoint
ment of such a Commission ; except the acknow
ledgement to a certain extent of the principle,
that persons who are not Members of our Church
ought not to have power in its internal affairs.
The second plan is that which is advocated by
very many zealous Members of our Church, viz,
the restoration of the Convocation to its effici
ency ; but I must say I am not in favor of this
plan, because it would place the whole power
of legislating for the Church in the hands of the
Clergy, a thing which I consider by no means
desirable, and by no means agreeable to the
practice in the early days of Christianity ; for
in those days the Laity possessed considerable
power in matters relating to the Church ; and
they do not appear to have lost that power till

19
the Clergy were magnified in the eyes of the
people by the invention of the blasphemous
doctrine of transubstantiation.
Therefore I do not think it desirable that the
Convocation of Bishops and Clergy should be
revived, as the only legislative body in the
internal affairs of the Church, even if it could
be revived. But there is another difficulty in
this matter : I do not believe that the Convoca
tion could be restored to its ancient powers,
even if it were desirable that it should, for there
does not appear in the laity of our Church any
strong feeling in favor of that body ; in fact, I
consider that an attempt to revive the Convoca
tion might give matters a turn very injurious
to the Church ; for if the attempt should be
made, a question would immediately arise,
whether the whole power in Church matters
ought to be in the hands of the Clergy; or
whether the laity ought not to have a share in
such power ; and the discussions which would
arise on this point would set the Clergy and
Laity in opposition to one another ; and thus, it
is to be feared, the main question, whether
persons who are not Members of our Commu
nion ought to have any power in the internal
affairs of our Church, would be forgotten ; the
distinction in this dispute being between the
Clergy and Laity, not between Churchmen and
those who are not Churchmen, as it ought to

20
be. On these accounts I am not in favor of
an attempt to revive the Convocation as the
permanent legislative body of our Church,
But in order to preserve the purity of our
Church, and at the same time to give it energy
and efficiency, it appears to be desirable that
the management of its internal affairs should be
placed in the hands of a synod, composed partly
of Clergy and partly of Laity, but entirely
Members of our own communion.
Such a body appears essential to the welfare
of the Church, and such a synod I am anxious
to see established.
The grand point to be arrived at in the for
mation of such a synod is to give security for
the maintenance of the purity of the Church,
and provided that point is kept in view, I am
not very solicitous as to the mode in which this
body is constituted.
However, that you may better understand
my views upon this subject, I will place before
you an outline of what I conceive might possi
bly be a good constitution for such a synod,
Male communicants of our Church, above the
age of twenty-one, to form the constituency (if I
may so speak), of this synod,* In each of the
* Besides this qualification of being a communicant, some
other qualification might be required with respect to property
in order to give a vote.

21
large parishes these persons to meet together,
and to elect a person, whom, for want of a
better name, I will call a synodsman ; several
small parishes to be consolidated for the purpose
of making the same elections, and thus conso
lidated, to elect one synodsman. The synods-
men to meet at the same places where the
parochial Clergy now meet to elect proctors to
sit in convocation, and there to elect lay proc
tors, also to sit in the lower house of convocation.
Thus, according to this plan, the upper house
of convocation would remain as it is at present
constituted, and the lower house of convocation
(besides the Deans, Archdeacons, and Proctors
of the Chapters, and of the Parochial Clergy, of
whom it is now composed), would also contain
proctors of the Laity, equal in number to the
proctors of the parochial Clergy, Thus, one
synod or convocation to be formed for the
whole of England, and this synod, thus consti
tuted, to be the legislative body for the internal
affairs of the Church,*
* This is merely a rough plan, and only intended as such,
and would require some alteration in detail to carry it well
into execution; probably it would be best to divide each Diocese
into Archdeaconries or districts of a convenient size, and to
have two Clergymen and three Laymen returned for each
Archdeaconry or district, who together with the Deans,
Archdeacons aud Proctors of the Chapters, should make up
the lower house of Convocation ; thus making the number of
Clergy and Laity in the lower house nearly equal.

22
Now, as the very ground on which these
changes are recommended is that of giving se
curity for the maintenance of the true faith, it
will be of the utmost importance that care be
taken that the members of this synod be sound
in doctrine, and irreproachable in moral conduct
(as far as by human laws such objects can be
attained.) But in order that the lay proctors of the
synod be sound and conscientious members of
our Church, it will be necessary that the con
stituency by whom they are elected be so too.
The foundation of a good synod must be laid in
a good constituency ; care, therefore, must be
taken that the power of repelling unworthy
persons from the Holy Communion be duly
exercised. Unless this point be attended to, we
shall in vain attempt to create a synod which
will give security to the Church for the mainte
nance of the true faith.
This naturally leads us to the important
subject of Church discipline, I mean discipline
over Laymen : and as any efficient reform in
our Church must be based on an improvement
of our discipline, I will say a few words on this
point. We know that, in times of papal darkness
and superstition, the discipline of our Church
was perverted to the worst purposes, being
made subservient to the tyranny and avarice of
the Clergy ; hence the very name of Church

23
discipline has become an abomination in the
ears of many of our Lay brethren, being con
nected, in their minds, with all the corruptions
of the Church of Rome: and hence many of
the Clergy are unwilling to touch upon this
subject. But, nevertheless, it is a subject which
ought to be entered upon, and the objections
fairly met and discussed. Though the discipline
of the Church in former days was abused, yet
there is no reason why, in these days, it should
be rendered nearly useless. To allow this to
take place is not to act in accordance with the
principles of the Reformers of our Church —
their principle was not to destroy, and rebuild
on a new foundation, but in the strict sense of
the word to reform — to preserve what was good,
and amend what was amiss; restoring things (as
far as they were capable of being restored) to
the state in which they existed in the purest
state of Christianity; and this accordingly is the
course which should be followed at this time
with respect to Church discipline, Therefore,
to proceed to the consideration of this subject.
The opinions which at present prevail
with respect to the connexion which should
subsist between members of the same commu
nion are extremely vague and indefinite. The
most general notion seems to be (as far as we
can judge) that Christians are merely a number
of detached and independent individuals, each

24
bound to work out his own eternal salvation,
but little or not at all concerned in the spiritual
welfare of the members of his own church. But
this, however prevalent, is not the scriptural
view of the subject ; on the contrary, in Scrip
ture we are considered as tied together by the
strongest ties of attachment, as forming alto
gether one body, of which each member is
bound to labour for the benefit of the whole,
and the whole body to act (if I may so speak)
as spiritual guardian of all its members. Not
only is a man answerable for his own moral
and religious conduct, but also, to a certain
extent, for the moral and religious conduct of
all the members of his own communion, " If
one member suffer," says St, Paul, " all the
members suffer with it ; or one member be ho
noured, all the members rejoice with it,''
In this light the Church appears to be con-
sidered in Scripture, and with this view of
ecclesiastical matters. Church discipline is ne
cessarily connected. But on this subject we
are not left to act merely on general principles,
but have express and distinct commands in
Scripture to reject heretics and to cast out of
our communion persons of bad moral conduct,
(Matt, xviii, 15—18; 1 Cor. v ; Tit, iii, 10.)
Therefore, without entering further into this
question, I may say that we are bound by the
principles of the Christian religion, and the

25
authority of Scripture, to maintain discipline in
the Church.
The next point to be considered is, what is
absolutely essential to sound Church discipline?
Now, as far as I am able to judge, though I
do not speak confidently on this point, all that
is absolutely requisite for such discipline over
Laymen is this, that persons impugning the
fundamental doctrines of Christianity, or being
of bad moral conduct, be excluded from the
Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Discipline
to this extent is agreeable to the practice of
Christians in the earliest ages, and is in accord
ance with our present ecclesiastical laws, though
not effectually enforced ; and I should conceive
that no member of our Church could reasonably
object to this degree of discipline : therefore I
will say that to this extent Church discipline
ought to be carried.
Now, for this purpose, (as our present eccle
siastical courts are manifestly inefficient), it
will be necessary that courts should be estab
lished having jurisdiction in matters of discip
line ; and that such courts should have no
further power over the Lay members of our
communion than either to admonish them for
their bad conduct, or to exclude them from
the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, in case
where such exclusion should be requisite, (these

26
courts, of course, from their very constitution,
would have no power over Dissenters or persons
who do not communicate with our Church.)
By means of these courts, if properly con
structed, that degree of discipline which is
necessary to sound Church-government might
be enforced ; and, therefore, the first and most
essential of Church-reforms is the establish
ment of such courts.
But if the establishment of these courts be
necessary in the present state of ecclesiastical
affairs, it will become much more necessary in
event of the government of the Church being
placed in the hands of a synod composed partly
of Clergy and partly of Laymen. For, though
there is now no temptation to an unworthy
person to present himself at the Lord's Table,
yet if the privilege of voting for synodsmen
be given to communicants, some persons may
be induced to partake of the Lord's Supper
merely to acquire this privilege ; and therefore,
on this account, under the proposed form of
Church-government, a greater degree of vigi
lance in enforcing discipline will be required.
Also, as it is necessary that the constituency
of the synod should be sound in doctrine and
in practice, so it will be much more necessary
that the members of the synod itself be so too ;
therefore, perhaps it may be desirable, as an

27
additional security, to require every Lay mem
ber of the synod to subscribe certain articles
before he takes his seat.
Thus, having got a Synod or Convocation to
legislate for the Church, composed entirely of
members of our own communion, and at the
same time rendered more efficient by the ad
mission of the Proctors of the Laity, a foun
dation would be laid for reforming the Church
on sound principles ; and we may trust, through
the blessing of God, that a gradual improvement
would take place both in religion and morality
of the members of our Church.
One of the first and most important points to
which the Synod would find it necessary to di
rect its attention w^ould be the manner of ap
pointing Bishops ; the present mode of their
appointment, as I have already said, is not such
as to give security to the Church for the main
tenance of the true faith ; therefore it would be
the duty of the synod, as soon as possible, to
determine upon some way of filling up the Bi
shopricks, which would place the whole power
in the hands of members of our own communion;
and then to endeavour to get the consent of the
Crown to such a mode of appointment. In
deed, in this matter, the members of our com
munion have a claim upon the King and upon
Parliament ; for, when the Catholic Emancipa
tion bill was passed, adequate securities were

28
promised to our Church ; but as the securities
which have been granted are by no means ad
equate to the conservation of the Church from
the dangers which then arose, we may fairly
call upon them for further securities. Upon this
point it may also be observed, that by the Cor
poration Reform Bill, the Corporations are com
pelled to sell their Church patronage, on the
ground that now being composed partly of per
sons not members of our Church, they are un
fitted for the office of Church patrons : the Le
gislature therefore ought now, upon their own
principles, to allow the power of appointing to
the Bishopricks to be placed in the hands of
members of our own communion.
I have now given you my plan of a Convoca
tion or Synod ; I give you this plan, not because
I am attached to the particulars of it, but be
cause I thought some plan was necessary in
order to convey to you clearly my ideas upon
the subject: however, all that I am anxious for
is the principle, viz. — that the management of
the internal affairs of our Church should be
placed in the hands of a body composed entire
ly of members of our own communion ; and I
should be favourable to any reasonable plan
founded on that principle, though I certainly
should be most inclined to a plan which admit
ted the laity to a proper share in the power of
legislating for the Church.

29
But now you will perhaps ask, supposing
all this reasoning to be good, and that it is de
sirable that the government of the internal af
fairs of the Church be placed in the hands of a
body of men composed entirely of members of
our own communion, how is this to be done ?
In order to answer this question it will be
necessary to enquire what is the proper body to
carry such a plan into execution ? I answer,
the Convocation — the Convocation as it now ex
ists. All matters of importance relative to the
Church, particularly doctrinal matters, have
been approved of by the Convocation before
they have been confirmed by Parliament, The
Thirty-nine Articles and the Prayer Book
passed the Convocation before any enactments
were made by Parliament giving additional au
thority to them. And I conceive that all enact
ments; with relation to the doctrines of our
Church, ought to receive the sanction of the
Convocation before they are brought before
Parliament, And the changes which I have
contemplated do involve doctrinal questions ;
for the appointment of courts to determine who
are to be allowed to communicate with our
Church, and who are to be excluded, and the
enactment of Canons to guide the proceedings
of such courts, do involve doctrinal questions;
as persons who are unsound in the faith must
be excluded, as well as those whose moral con-

30
duct is contrary to Christianity, Also the sub
scription to be made by the lay members of the
Convocation would be of a doctrinal nature.
Therefore it appears to me that the Convocation
is the only body by which such a reform could
be carried into execution.
But there are other important reasons at the
present time why such a reform should be car
ried into execution by the Convocation, The
very principle from which I set out was, that
Parliament was not composed entirely of mem
bers of our own communion, and therefore could
not be safely trusted with the power of legisla
ting in the internal affairs of the Church, Con
sequently the Convocation is the only body
which can safely be entrusted, according to
sound principles of Church-government, with
the power of making such reforms.
Some persons would say that it would be best
that a Commission should be issued by the
King, and that the Commissioners appointed
should draw up some plan of reform upon the
principles above mentioned, and that their plan
should be submitted to the Convocation : I have
no objection to such a Commission, provided
what they propose is afterwards confirmed by
the Convocation.
But perhaps you will say that I here contra
dict myself; that in a former part of this letter
I disapproved of the Convocation, and that now

31
I approve of it. I did indeed say that I dis
approved of it as the permanent legislative body
of the Church ; because I thought the Laity
ought to be admitted into a share of the govern
ment of the Church, But still it appears that the
Laity can only be admitted into a share in the
legislative power in our own Church, by the act
of the Convocation ; as, according to all sound
principles of Church government. Parliament
ought not to interfere in such matters, except
to confirm what has before passed the Con
vocation. Now you will ask, how are we to get the
Convocation assembled together for such a pur
pose? The answer is, by petitioning the King and
both Houses of Parliament, — If you really feel
convinced in your own mind that it is essential
to the welfare of the Church that the government
of its internal affairs be placed in the hands of
Members of our own communion, do your
utmost to get petitions, praying for that object.
The Clergy should first exert themselves —
let each Clergyman endeavour to get a petition
from the Clergy of the Archdeaconry or district
in which he resides ; — after that, let every man,
whether Layman or Clergyman, who is sincere
in the cause, strive to get petitions from all
the Members of our Church in his neighbour
hood : thus the attention of Churchmen will
gradually be drawn to the subject ; and thus we

32
may hope, by"^ the assistance of God, some
measure of this kind, tending to the benefit of
the Church, will be carried into execution.
But though these are my views on this sub
ject, yet there are some persons who feel greatly
alarmed at the idea of petitioning for placing
the government of the internal affairs of our
Church in the hands of a body consisting en
tirely of Members of our own communion ; they
say that petitioning for this would, in fact, be
petitioning for the separation of Church and
State, the very thing wished for by the enemies
of our Establishment.
Now I am ready to admit that the enemies of
our Church do petition for a separation of
Church and State, but 1 say they mean a very
different thing from what 1 do. All I wish for
is, that that complete union of Church and State
by which the Church has become merged in the
State, and unable in any way to act for itself,
be so far relaxed as to give proper security for
the preservation of the purity of the Church.
But the enemies of our Establishment, when
they petition for the separation of Church and
State, mean in reality the confiscation of the
property of the Clergy : for they feign that the
property of the Clergy is the property of the
State ; and then by proposing a separation of
Church and State, they intend to take away
this property from the Church : therefore they

33
consider the union of Church and State in a
very different sense from that in which I am
considering it. However, it will perhaps be
said the prevailing opinion is that Church pro
perty is the property of the State ; and conse
quently any degree of separation of Church and
State must involve the loss of the Church pro
perty : to this I say that the notion that the
property of the Clergy is the property of the
State, has neither law nor history to support it.
By common law, the tithes are never considered
to have been the property of the State, but to
have been given to each parish by the owners
of the land, so as to be a property vested in the
hands of the Incumbent, Patron, and Ordinary,
who before the disabling statutes had full
power over this property ; and the disabling
statutes have not affected the right to the pro
perty, but have only tended to preserve the
property itself from spoliation : therefore the
law gives no ground for the notion that the pro
perty of the Clergy is the property of the State.
But it will be said that Parliament will not take
a legal view of the question ; but that, if any
attempt should be made to place the government
of the Church into the hands of Members of its
own communion, they would, acting according
to the prevailing notions on the subject, pro
ceed to take away the property of the Church :
to this I answer, that the only question for us

34
to consider is this : Is it our duty to endeavour
to get the government of the internal affairs of
the Church placed in the hands of Members of
our own communion ? or is it not? If it is, we
must do our duty and trust to Providence for
the result. But even considering the matter
in a secular point of view ; in what does the
main strength of the Church consist ? In the
attachment of the people to it. Then, will the
people became more attached to the Church
when they see zeal manifested for the preserva
tion of its purity, or when they behold nothing
but indolence and negligence with respect to
that important point? We can have no doubt but
that the conscientious Members of our Church
will become more attached to it, when they see
all means that are lawful and honest taken to
maintain sound doctrine and good morals :
therefore even in this point of view the danger
does not appear so great as some persons would
make it. But, as I said before, the real ques
tion is, what is our duty? if we conscientiously
believe it to be our duty to endeavour to place
the government of the Church in the hands of
Members of its own communion, we must do
so without regard to its consequences.
Before I conclude, I will make one observa
tion with respect to the preservation of our
Church Establishment, (which indeed is appli
cable to the State also,) That whatever be our

35
principles in defending any thing which now
exists in the Church, we must, if we are sin
cere, carry those principles through ; not merely
use them when we are defending what is already
established, but also, where it is necessary,
bring them forward as arguments for salutary
changes. Thus for example; those who object
to allow Dissenters to graduate at our Univer
sities, on the ground that all persons in authority
in those establishments ought to be Members
of our Church, otherwise all security will be
lost that the young men educated there will be
brought up sound in the faith: those who object
to the admission of Dissenters into the Univer
sities on these grounds, ought also, on the same
grounds, to object to allowing Dissenters any
power in the internal affairs of our Church.
Also, those who object to the admission of
Dissenters into the Universities, on the more
extensive grounds that religion ought to form
the basis of education, should act thoroughly
upon this principle, and endeavour to promote
religious education in all places. In short,
whatever be our principles, we should act uni
formly and consistently upon those principles,
not merely as conservatives, but also as advo
cates for reasonable changes, otherwise we
shall not get much credit for sincerity; and
even the principles we maintain, however good
in themselves, will fall into disrepute if only

36
brought forward as arguments to oppose
change. Therefore, if we wish to keep what
we have, we must support such changes as are
agreeable to the principles we hold,
I might here point out in detail some of the
many advantages which would arise from the
existence of a permanent legislative body in
the Church, but this is a subject so extensive
in its ramifications that I shall not venture
upon it,*
However, there is one evil in the present
state of things, which I cannot altogether pass
over in silence ; it is the evil which arises from
the circumstance that the most zealous Mem
bers of our Church have no confidence in
Parliament as a legislative body in ecclesiasti
cal matters. The consequence is, that they are
afraid of bringing forward many measures of
improvement which they otherwise would in
troduce, therefore nothing is done till we are
violently pressed by our enemies; and it is only
in a time of agitation and alarm that any con
siderable reform is proposed, that is to say, at
the worst possible time. The synod would be
a remedy for this evil,
I have now placed before you a view of the
evils which I consider to have arisen to the
Church from the admission of Dissenters and
* Upon this point see Kempthorne on the Convocation,

37
Roman Catholics into Parliament, and into the
King's Ministry ; and also have explained the
nature of the remedies which appear necessary
in order to counteract these evils. In what I
have said, I have laid my foundation on the
basis that every Church ought to be governed
in its internal affairs by Members of its own
communion ; on this basis all my reasoning
stands ; and if this basis be a sound one, as I
believe it is, then it clearly follows that some
change is necessary to give security to the
Church, I wish therefore to draw the attention
of the members of our own Church, and particu
larly of the Clergy, to this point ; and I should
be glad to see the question fairly and dispas
sionately discussed. I am aware indeed, that
danger attends all sudden and violent changes ;
I am anxious as much as possible to avoid such
changes ; it would give me great satisfaction in
this instance to believe that no change is
necessary ; but I cannot believe it. I hope
therefore that all true Churchmen will give this
question a fair consideration ; and if upon re
flection you are convinced that a change is
necessary with respect to the government of
the Church, on the principles which I have just
been advocating, I entreat that you will all, to
the utmost of your power, by all means that
are lawful and worthy of a Christian, endeavour
to promote such a change.

38
With respect to myself, I have one great
satisfaction in publishing this address — I have
for a long time been anxious to make some
public protest against the principle that persons
not Members of our Church should have power
in its internal affairs ; I would gladly have
made such a declaration by joining in a petition
for placing the government of the Church
in the hands of its own Members ; but as yet I
have not had an opportunity of so doing, I feel
therefore that I am discharging a duty in thus
publicly declaring my opinions.
And now I beg to put you all in mind, who
are zealous for the welfare of our Church, that
our strength is of God,— that it is He that
maketh our labour to prosper, and without His
blessing we can do nothing. — Let us then act
as servants of Christ. — Let us put our trust in
Him. — Let us humbly pray to Him that He will
bring to nought the machinations of our enemies.
— that He will not " remove'' our " candlestick
out of his place," but will grant that true reli
gion may flourish in this our land. — Such is the
earnest prayer of
Your humble and faithful Servant,
Gravely, Cambridgeshire, ^^HN WARREN.
January l\th, 1837.

(3^ As a proof that the author of the above " Address" is
not singular in his views with respect to Church-government,
it may be mentioned that a pamphlet appeared about a year
ago by the " Rev. D. Nihill," on " The Revival of Ecclesi
astical Assemblies," in which Mr. Nihill recommends that
the management of Ecclesiastical affairs should be placed in
the hands of a Synod, composed partly of Clergy and partly
of Laity, In the persons, however, who are to form this
Synod, he does not altogether agree with the author of the
Address.

HUNTTNODON ; PRINTED BV R. EDIS,

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRAHY

3 9002 03720 0368

IT