For Doctrinal Christianity (part 1 of 2)

A Charge At The Primary Visitation In Wigan, October 20, 1881.

Delivered in the Parish Church of All Saints, Wigan.

My Reverend and Lay Brethren, I address you for the first time at a visitation in Wigan under a deep sense of responsibility. For the last three centuries the office of an English Bishop, from Archbishop Cranmer down to Archbishop Tait, and from Bishop Ridley down to Bishop Jackson, has always been one of peculiar difficulty and anxiety. I doubt whether it was ever more so than it is at the present day. Never were there so many knots to untie, and so many problems to solve! It is a day of bitter party spirit, and of scathing newspaper criticism. A Bishop lives under the fierce blaze of public opinion; and he has always the sorrowful feeling that, whatever he may say or do, somebody or other is sure to be displeased. However, I have a duty to do, and I must do it independently of human praise or blame, ‘as to the Lord and not to man. I claim no immunity from error, and I ask you to put the best construction on what I say. Above all, I ask you to join me in praying, that in this and all my public deliverances I may have meekness and wisdom, may combine decision and firmness with courtesy and toleration, and may be just and fair to all.

About the general statistics of our new Diocese, its acreage and population, its number of incumbents and curates, I shall not waste your time by saying anything. They are all points which you will find fully handled in my first Charge, delivered at Liverpool, and I, therefore, abstain from repetition. In my second Charge I purposely confine myself to the peculiar circumstances of the District in which we are assembled today, its wants, and the best way of meeting them. I also wish to speak of some matters of public interest, which, for want of time, I was compelled to pass over in my first Charge.

There is, however, one point of general Diocesan interest which I think it right to mention before I take up other subjects. The point to which I refer is the exceptionally small number of Rural Deaneries into which our new Diocese is at present divided. For a population exceeding one million, and for 200 incumbents and 140 curates, 340 clergy in all, there are at this moment only six Rural Deans. Some of you, perhaps, are not aware that this is a state of things in which we stand entirely alone. There is not a single diocese in England and Wales which is similarly situated. In Lichfield there are forty-eight Deaneries, in Norwich there are forty-one. In Rochester, a Diocese much like our own, there are nineteen. In St. Asaph, with fewer clergy and only 260,000 people, there are thirteen. Even in Chester, with little more than half our population and about the same number of clergy, there are nine. Of course the reason of this state of things is obvious. The West Derby Hundred has increased its inhabitants enormously during this century, and our ecclesiastical arrangements, which answered very well a hundred years ago, are quite insufficient now. But I am bound to say that I consider this small number of Rural Deaneries is a serious defect in our Diocesan organization which wants amending, and I propose to attempt the amendment at an early period. No one, perhaps, but a Bishop, can fully estimate the value of a Rural Dean, as a medium for obtaining information, and for conveying his wishes to the clergy. But a Rural Dean, it must be remembered, is an entirely unpaid officer, and it is not wise or fair to overweight him with incessant demands on his time. And when he has more than about twenty-five benefices in his Deanery, I think he has too much on his hands.

I propose, therefore, to have nine Rural Deaneries in our Diocese instead of six, and to effect the change by dividing each of the three largest Deaneries--North Liverpool, South Liverpool, and Prescot-- into two, leaving the other three--Winwick, Wigan, and Ormskirk-- almost unaltered. I say almost advisedly. I think it quite possible that in some few cases an addition to, or subtraction from, each of the three last-named Deaneries might be convenient, and when a rearrangement is being made for the whole Diocese, it would be wise to effect any changes that may seem desirable. Our position, in one respect, is very convenient for changes. Our existing Deaneries are not, as in many counties, conterminous with County Hundreds. We have only one Hundred for the whole Diocese, and the boundaries of Deaneries can easily be altered.

In carrying out the change I have referred to, I wish particularly to have the advice and aid of my Rural Deans, and I should feel obliged if they will bring the whole matter before their respective Ruridecanal Conferences at an early period. Any suggestions they can offer will receive careful consideration. But I feel strongly that the change is absolutely necessary, if our new Diocese is to be officered in proportion to other Dioceses in England and Wales. I trust you will believe that I have not the slightest wish to overload the Diocese with Episcopal officials. But I cannot think that two Archdeacons and nine Rural Deans will form an extravagantly large staff for an English Bishop in a Diocese of more than a million souls. As matters stand at present, if our organization is right, that of other dioceses is wrong; and, vice versa, if their organization is right, we need a change.

To all this let me add one more argument. I am very anxious to commence a system of meeting annually the clergy of each Rural Deanery, in a private, quiet, informal manner, for the purpose of spiritual communion, such as cannot be obtained in large, public, official gatherings, and for the promotion of brotherly feeling, mutual confidence, and better knowledge of one another. I know that such private Ruri-decanal gatherings have been found most useful and edifying by other Bishops, and I have no doubt they would do good here. I am sure we all need our spiritual life quickened by intercourse with other servants of our common Master, and perhaps if we saw each other oftener we should understand each other better. But such meetings must be small and quiet if they are to be edifying and refreshing, and I must frankly say that so long as our three largest Deaneries are undivided I should shrink from attempting them.

I turn from this point of Diocesan organization to one of far more serious importance. That point is the spiritual condition of the eastern part of our Diocese of Liverpool, and the best mode of meeting its very peculiar wants. It is a large and wide subject, and demands our best attention.

That the present provision of means of grace made by the Church of England in some parts of this District is totally insufficient, is such a patent fact that I shall not spend time in proving it. You have only to run your eye down the column in our Diocesan Calendar which shows the population of each benefice, and you will see enough, and more than enough, of painful evidence. In the Deanery of Wigan I find Haigh with 7,500 people, Ince with 15,000, Pemberton with 11,000, St. Catherine’s, Wigan, with 10,000, St. George’s with 11,000, St. Thomas’ with 9,000, and Upholland with 6,000. In the Deanery of Prescot I find Eccleston St. Thomas’ with 12,000 people, Fairfield, Liverpool, with 16,000, Farnworth with 11,000, St. Helen’s with 18,000, and Widnes with 13,000. In the Deanery of Winwick, I find two parishes in Warrington with 13,000 in one and 9,000 in the other. Even in the Deanery of Ormskirk, which is better off in the matter of churches, I find as many as seven benefices with more than 5,000 souls. In every one of these cases, let me add, I suspect my statement is below the returns of the recent census.

The state of things I have described is most painful and unsatisfactory. Common sense points out that it is physically impossible for the Incumbent of such large parishes as most of those I have named, to overtake the work committed to him, to meet the spiritual wants of his parishioners, and to do justice to himself and the Church of England. If he had the bodily strength of Samson, and the burning zeal of St. Paul, it would be impossible. The thing cannot be done. There are but twelve hours in each day, and one Sunday in each week, and if he taxes his energies to the uttermost he can only visit a certain number of hours, and preach a certain number of times. And then, after all, he must continually feel that a great deal of work is left undone. I can assure all my clergy who are placed in such positions as those I have described, that I feel the deepest sympathy with them, and am determined, by God’s help, to do all I can, so long as I am Bishop of Liverpool, to lighten their labour and strengthen their hands.

It must, besides, never be forgotten that in many of the large parishes in this district the clergyman’s difficulties are not to be measured by the number only of his parishioners. It is the peculiar occupation, and by consequence the peculiar character, of the people which creates most formidable obstacles in his way. The workers underground in coal pits, the labourers employed in the trying atmosphere of chemical and glass works and iron furnaces, by night and by day, need special treatment, and require to be approached in a special way. To suppose that it is enough to build a handsome church, and set up an elaborate liturgical service for these classes, is, in my judgment, a complete mistake. The first thing needed is not buildings, but living men--men ordained, if you can get them, men not ordained, if you can get no other agents; but, in any case, men who have the grace of God and the love of souls in their hearts, and will go in and out among the roughest classes in a friendly manner, and win their confidence.

For, after all, the clergyman of the worst and blackest parish in a district must never allow himself to despair. The darkest-looking and most uncouth collier, or miner, or iron worker, or labourer in chemical works, is a man just like ourselves by nature, and differing only in outward appearance, from the circumstances of his position. Like ourselves, he is open to kindness and sympathy. Like ourselves, he has a heart that can feel sorrow and trouble, and a body liable to sickness and disease and death. Like ourselves, he can often be got at through the simple avenue of attention to wife or children or parents or brothers or sisters or friends. I charge my reverend brethren to keep all this continually in mind. Colliers and iron workers and all their companions of like occupations are flesh and blood, and have souls, affections, and consciences like you and me. They are to be won for Christ, if we go to work in the right way, and have God’s blessing. The last day will show that collieries have not only sent up coals for our fires, but have also produced some bright jewels for our Redeemer’s crown.

Multiplication of right-minded living agents is the first and foremost remedy that I must always recommend to the incumbents of great colliery parishes. By constant importunate application to those valuable Institutions, the Pastoral Aid, the Additional Curates, and the Diocesan Church Aid Societies, try to get ordained helpers if you can, and lay-agents if you cannot. Encourage and invite every right-minded layman near you to come forward and give you his help. Never, never be afraid of enlisting the aid of the laity. Cast away for ever the old tradition that religious work is to be left to the clergy alone. Boldly make use of ‘lay’ talent, and you will never be without ‘lay’ talent to use. Trust the laity, and the laity will trust you. Stir up every Christian man and woman in your congregation, who has a few hours to spare in the week, to give you some voluntary aid. Break up your huge parish into well-organized territorial districts, and give to each helper his own special district. Urge your helpers to get together people wherever they can, in a shed, or a cottage, or a barn, and to give the simplest and most elementary Christian instruction, plain, kindly talk about Christ, simple extempore prayer, and hearty, lively singing. Do this, and persevere in doing it, and I am sure you will not labour in vain. Do this, and persevere in doing it, and, in process of time, the Mission-room, the Church and the regular parochial district will be the happy result, and, what is far better, a harvest of saved souls.

Everything, however, I hope I need not remind you, depends on the message which your living agents proclaim. They must know what they have got to do. If they only go about telling men not to get drunk, not to fight, not to gamble, not to swear, not to break the Sabbath, they may just as well stay at home. If they want to do good, they must tell men to believe as well as repent. They must tell the story of the cross of Christ. They must magnify that grand article of the Apostles’ creed, ‘I believe in the forgiveness of sins.’ They must make much of that doctrine which fits the empty heart of man just as the right key fits the lock, I mean the doctrine of free and full pardon of sin through faith in the vicarious death of Christ. This is the glorious doctrine that was the strength of the Apostles when they went forth to the Gentiles to preach a new religion. They began, a few poor fishermen, in a despised corner of the earth. But in a few years, without money to bribe adherents or arms to compel assent, they turned the world upside down. They changed the face of the Roman Empire. They emptied the heathen temples of their worshippers, and made the whole system of idolatry crumble away. And what was the weapon by which they did it all? It was free forgiveness through faith in Jesus Christ.

This is the doctrine which brought light into Europe 350 years ago, at the time of the blessed Reformation, and enabled one solitary monk, Martin Luther, to shake the whole Church of Rome. Through his preaching and writing the scales fell from men’s eyes, and the chains of their souls were loosed. And what was the lever that gave him his power? It was free forgiveness through faith in Jesus Christ. This is the doctrine that revived our own Church in the middle of last century, when Whitefield and the Wesleys, and Berridge and Venn, broke the wretched spirit of slumber which had come over the land, and roused men to think. The sermons of these good evangelists, no doubt, were often rough and unpolished. But the matter they contained was ‘life from the dead’ to myriads of souls. They began a mighty spiritual revolution, without the patronage of Church or State, and with little seeming likelihood of success. They began, few in number, with small encouragement from the rich and great. But they prospered, and produced results for which the ungrateful Church of England has never been sufficiently thankful to this hour. And why? Because they preached free forgiveness through faith in Jesus Christ.

This is the doctrine which is the true strength of any Church on earth at this day. It is not orders, or endowments, or liturgies, or learning, or grand cathedrals, that will keep a Church alive. Let free forgiveness through Christ be faithfully proclaimed in her pulpits, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. Let it be buried, or kept back, and her candlestick shall soon be taken away. When the Saracens invaded the lands where Jerome and Athanasius, Cyprian and Augustine, once wrote and preached, they found Bishops and liturgies, I make no question. But I fear they found no preaching of free forgiveness of sins, and so they swept the Churches of those lands clean away. The Churches were a body without a vital principle, and therefore they fell. Let us never forget that the brightest days of a Church are those when Christ crucified is most exalted. The dens and caves of the earth, where the early Christians met to hear of the love of Jesus, were more full of glory and beauty in God’s sight than ever was St. Peter’s at Rome. The meanest barn at this day, where the true way of pardon is offered to sinners, is a far more honourable place than the Cathedral of Cologne or Milan. A Church is only useful so far as she exalts free forgiveness through Christ.

This is the doctrine which, of all others, is the mightiest engine for pulling down the kingdom of Satan. When the Kingswood colliers, near Bristol, first heard it from Whitefield’s lips, they wept till their black faces were seamed with white lines of tears. The Greenlanders were unmoved so long as the Moravians told them only of the creation and the fall of man; but when they heard of redeeming love, their frozen hearts melted like snow in spring. Preach salvation by the sacraments, exalt the Church above Christ, keep back the doctrine of the Atonement, and the devil cares little. His goods are at peace. But preach a full Christ and a free pardon, and justification by faith, and then Satan will have great wrath, for he knows he has but a short time. A famous divine of the last century said that he went on preaching morality, and nothing else, tilt he found there was not a moral man in his parish. But when he changed his plan, and began to preach the love of Christ to sinners, then there was a stirring of the dry bones, and a mighty turning to God.

My reverend brethren, I know that these are ancient things. But in days like these it is good to be reminded of them. I am thoroughly persuaded that we want no new doctrine in order to do good to souls. We want nothing but the old paths. Walk in them steadily. Make much of Christ. Pray continually for the quickening influences of the Holy Ghost. Settle it in your minds, that where He is, nothing is impossible. Work on steadily on these lines, and you may live to see miraculous changes. The Lord God of St. Paul, the God who raised up flourishing Churches in such dark places as Rome and Corinth and Ephesus, is not dead, but alive. The blackest spiritual wilderness in the colliery districts of Lancashire may yet become a garden of the Lord.

I must now turn from these matters of special Diocesan importance in order to make a few brief remarks on some subjects of more general public interest, which appear to demand the attention of all Churchmen. They are subjects, for the most part, which have come to the surface during the last three or four years. They are subjects which ought to be considered and understood by all public-spirited Churchmen who know the times, and look beyond their own doors. About these subjects you may reasonably expect your Bishop to give his opinion.

(1) I shall speak first about the Burials Act.

Footnote Act of 1880. It removed a grievance of the Nonconformists by permitting them to bury their dead in parish churchyards with religious forms selected by themselves, or without any at all.

I need not remind you that it is now the law of the land, and, as such, ought to be willingly obeyed by all loyal clergymen. I shall never conceal my own opinion, that the alleged grievance under the old law was in most parts of England entirely imaginary. In the long course of a ministry of thirty-five years in country parishes, I never met with a single case of a Dissenter who wished a deceased relative to be interred by any one but the clergyman of the parish. But I will not dwell on this. The law has been altered by the almost universal demand of the laity, and it is childish and ungracious to waste time in useless complaints. I can only counsel all clergymen who have churchyards still used for interments, and are consequently affected by the Burials Act, to allow it to work as easily and pleasantly as possible, and to avoid all friction and collision on the occasion of funerals under the Act. I advise making no difficulties about the use of the parish bier and pall, or the tolling of the bell. Even in the case of Nonconformists dying outside the parish, if their friends wish them to be buried in the parish, I advise the clergyman who consents to allow such a burial (which he is not obliged to do, and should only do occasionally, and with the consent of his churchwardens), to permit such funeral to be conducted with any Christian rights and ceremonies which he would have been obliged to permit if the deceased had died within the parish. I advise this for the sake of peace and charity, though I doubt if it could be demanded as a legal right. The only point which I cannot advise my clergy to concede is the performance of any religious service by a Nonconformist, under the Act, within the walls of the parish church. This is a concession of principle which certainly was not contemplated in either House of Parliament. It would inevitably risk strife and confusion, and would justly give offence to many worshippers in the parish church. I fail entirely to see that the right granted by the Act to use the parish churchyard for the performance of a religious service at a funeral, carried with it the right to use the interior of the church.

For the case of persons who die unbaptized, and whose friends wish them to be buried with a religious service by the clergyman of the parish, I strongly advise my clergy to avail themselves of the provision made for such cases in the Act. I advise them to meet the natural feelings of the friends of the deceased by using a service suited to the occasion. The Prayer-book office, you are of course aware, cannot be legally used in such cases. There is, however, a very appropriate form in existence, which has been drawn up by three eminent prelates of our Church, which I shall be happy to sanction in my Diocese. Nevertheless, if any incumbent, at such funerals of unbaptized persons, likes to use a form of his own composition, I shall make no objection, though I recommend him to confine himself to collects taken from the Prayer-book and portions of Holy Scripture.

Before leaving the subject of burials I must seize the opportunity of raising a warning voice about a custom which I am informed is not uncommon in some parts of Lancashire. I refer to the custom of buying and selling what are called ‘breadths of ground,’ in the churchyard, for the future interment, near their relatives, of persons who are still alive. Now I am advised by good legal authorities, that all such sales of ‘breadths of ground’ are distinctly illegal, that no one can buy a grave for a person not yet dead without a ‘faculty’ from the Chancellor’s Court, and that no incumbent can make a sale of such a grave which would be in the least binding on his successor. I commend this point to the attention of all incumbents who have parish churchyards. I have reason to believe that this sale of ‘breadths’ is a fertile source of trouble and strife. Let it then be understood that the custom is illegal, and let me request that henceforth it may be discontinued. Decency and kind feeling point out that a clergyman should direct his sexton, as far as possible, to leave a space near the grave of the husband for the grave of the wife, and, speaking generally, to provide, if it can be so managed, for members of a family being buried near one another. But all buying and selling for future interment, without a ‘faculty,’ is an unlawful transaction.

(2) I wish to say something, in the next place, about the Revised Version of the New Testament, which has justly excited so much interest during the last few months. I regard the work of the Revisers with deep thankfulness, and I believe that all Englishspeaking Christians ought to feel extremely grateful to them. In saying this, I ask you not to misunderstand me. I am not able to swell the chorus of unmixed praise with which some have received the Revised Version. I cannot admit the correctness of all the new renderings of the Greek text. I think that, with an honest and conscientious desire to be strictly literal, the Revisers have sometimes made needless transpositions of words, and by so doing have not left the sense more plain. I think their English is occasionally more tame and prosaic than that of the Authorized Version, without being more faithful to the original Greek. I fail to see that in their praiseworthy effort to give the full force of the Greek article they have always been quite consistent. But, after all, this is only the opinion of one man, who may very possibly be mistaken. The things I have named are like spots in the face of the sun, and, if they are errors, they can be revised again. Taking it for all in all, the work is a great work, and deserves the thanks of all British Christians. It throws clearer light on many texts of Holy Scripture, and ought to be highly prized and diligently used by thousands.

But the main reason for thankfulness about the Revised Version, which I commend to the attention of my clergy, is the glorious testimony which it bears to the soundness of the whole doctrinal system of Christianity. After ten years of patient and diligent investigation, after careful examination of versions and manuscripts not known 250 years ago, after the united labour of the ablest committee of Biblical scholars that could be got together, after all this, the Revised Version comes forth from the crucible without the loss of a single doctrine of our most holy faith; let me rather say with every doctrine more fully established than ever. Who does not know that many of the enemies of Christianity in this land have made the alleged defects of our Authorized Version the chief ground of their attacks on the Gospel? ‘Give us a new translation,’ they have often cried, ‘and you will see what will become of your favourite dogmas.’ The Revised Version supplies a crushing answer to all these assailants. The New Testament has been translated once more by men whose competency none can dispute. And what is the result? Not a single stone in the fabric of Christian truth has been disturbed! The Trinity, the proper Deity of Christ, the personality of the Holy Ghost, and the atonement, remain just where they were, and are even more clearly brought out than before. For all this, I ask you to join me in thanking, blessing, and praising God. We may boldly say, ‘Thy Word is truth.’ ‘Thy Word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.’ (John 17:17; Psalms 119:140)

I cannot pass away from this subject without expressing a hope that none of my clergy will use the Revised Version, instead of the Authorized, in reading the lessons in Church until the practice is formally sanctioned by law. At present, however some may dispute it, the weight of evidence and opinion is most decidedly against it. Let there be no division among us on the subject. Let us not have the Diocese split into two parties--the readers of the new version and the readers of the old. ‘He that believeth shall not make haste.’ Let us be content at present to use the old version, which, with all its defects, has done such good service for 250 years, until further order is taken by authority. Give the results of the revision, if you please, in your pulpits, by way of commentary. But in the reading desk I strongly advise you to use the Authorized Version. (3) The third subject about which I propose to say a few words is the Royal Commission about the Ecclesiastical Courts, which has been appointed this year. This Commission, you are all aware, was asked for by the Heads of our Church, in order to meet the loudly expressed dissatisfaction of some persons with the existing Courts of First Instance and Final Appeal. It was thought only fair and reasonable to make a searching inquiry into the constitution and procedure of these Courts, to investigate the working of the Clergy Discipline (1840) and Public Worship (1874) Acts, and to suggest any reforms or amendments which might remove the dissatisfaction to which I have referred. The whole question is notoriously a vexed and difficult one. In every age of the Church the best mode of dealing with clerical offenders, whether in doctrinal or moral matters, has always proved a hard knot, which has baffled the cleverest fingers. Nevertheless, for the sake of peace, and in the hope of throwing oil on troubled waters, it has been thought desirable to make one more attempt. I trust this attempt will succeed. Nobody, I presume, of any school of thought, would pretend to say that our Ecclesiastical Courts, in their present state, are perfect, and incapable of improvement. What the Report of the Commission will be, of course we do not know at present. We can only wait and hope and pray that the spirit of wisdom and moderation may be given to all the Commissioners. One thing, however, I venture to say. I trust that the punishment for persistent ‘contempt of court,’ in future ecclesiastical suits, may not be imprisonment. A surer way of enlisting public sympathy on behalf of a defeated ecclesiastical litigant, however mistaken he may be, than to shut him up in prison, could not possibly be devised.

To all who are anxiously awaiting the report of the Royal Commission, let me recommend the importance of cultivating patience and moderate expectations. We must not indulge extravagant hopes. We must not expect the Commissioners to do impossibilities, and to inaugurate an era of halcyon days and perfect peace. If any one supposes that they will reverse the recent decisions on ritual, or that they will draw up a new and unmistakable Ornaments Rubric, or that they will hand over all spiritual questions to spiritual courts, in which laymen shall have no voice, or that they will allow every Bishop to settle disputed matters in his own Diocesan Court without power of appeal to a higher tribunal, or that they will not allow the laity to institute suits against criminals or heretical clergymen, or that they will suggest giving power to Convocation to alter our formularies or decide ecclesiastical questions without the license of the Crown or the sanction of Parliament, or that they will recommend a Court of Final Appeal in spiritual questions in which Bishops and divines alone shall sit and the laity shall have no place at all, or that they will advise allowing all clergymen to do just what they please in Divine service, and even to re-introduce the Romish Mass--if any man in his senses, I say, expects any of these things from the Royal Commissioners, I venture to predict that he will find himself entirely mistaken. The Commission will not exceed its powers. Of three things I am perfectly certain. As long as the Church of England is the Established Church of this realm, the Crown will never give up its supremacy in matters ecclesiastical as well as civil, the Church will never be allowed to act independently of Parliament, and the laity of the Church will never allow the clergy alone to decide ecclesiastical disputes, or to alter the Church’s formularies, or to change the Church’s laws.

(4) The fourth public subject about which I wish to say a few words is the Church Defence Institute, to which the Archbishop of Canterbury has thought it necessary to call attention in a recent letter. The mere fact that the Primate has written this letter is enough to show the importance of the subject, and I need make no apology for taking it up. The Church Defence Institute has been called into existence in order to counteract the unhappy efforts which are being made by the Liberation Society to destroy the connection of Church and State in this country, and to disestablish and disendow the Church of England. The Archbishop recommends us to recognize the importance of the Church Defence Society, and give it our support.

It is matter for deep regret that the necessity for a Church Defence Society should have arisen. If ever there was a time in England when all Protestant Christians ought to be united and avoid quarrels, in the face of aggressive infidelity and active Popery, that time is the present. It is quite certain that disestablishment would do no good to Nonconformists, if the Liberationists could obtain it. They have liberty now to do anything they please. It is equally certain that although disestablishment and disendowment would greatly weaken our Church, and almost destroy it in rural districts, it would hardly touch its power and influence in the towns. It is equally certain that disestablishment would make a breach between Episcopalians and their Nonconformist spoilers which would never be healed. Above all, it is certain that Churchmen would not forsake the Church because she was disestablished, and become Independents, Baptists, Presbyterians, or Methodists. That grand old Communion which, compared with any other single communion in the land, is by far the largest and most influential, would still retain her old influence, and the much-coveted equality, of which we hear so much, would be found, after disestablishment, just as far off as ever.

To my own mind the attack of the Liberation Society on the Church of England is one of the most painful features of our time. To cultivate the most friendly relations with all Protestant Nonconformists, and to co-operate with them whenever we can, are, in my eyes, plain and positive duties. I cannot yet believe that the violent language of extreme Liberationists expresses the sentiments of more than a minority of the Nonconformist body. Men often make up by noise what they lack in numbers. I cling to the belief that the vast majority of the Methodists, and a very large proportion of the Independents and Baptists, have no desire to disestablish and disendow the Church of England, and would rather walk in the steps of John Wesley, Adam Clarke, Doddridge, Fuller, Robert Hall, and John Cumming, and leave the Church alone.

However, if the Liberationists will not let us alone, and continue their efforts to disestablish and disendow the Church of England, it is our bounden duty to take the advice of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to defend ourselves. We must not sit still and allow our parishes to be flooded with unscrupulous statements and grossly incorrect representations, without circulating cheap literature, adapted to the purpose, in reply. With such literature, in the shape of short tracts and leaflets, the Church Defence Institute is ready to supply us. There is no safety in apathy. If others combine, we must combine. If others agitate, we must boldly resist the agitation. If others assert falsehood, we must assert truth. For in matters like these, we must remember, ignorance is the greatest ally the enemies of our Church possess. To dispel ignorance, and quietly replace it by truth, should be our great aim. Few persons, perhaps, who have not had occasion to look into the subject, can have the slightest conception of the ideas current among some classes about the Church, her revenues, and her clergy. Things are continually said about these subjects which are utterly untrue. For instance, it is utterly untrue that disestablishment would enable the State to save twenty-six millions of annual taxes. The whole endowments of the Church are not six millions a year! It is utterly untrue that the Bishops are rolling in wealth, and the clergy are overpaid. The Bishops have so many demands on their purses that they can hardly make both ends meet, and the clergy, if incomes were equally divided, would hardly have three hundred a year apiece! It is utterly untrue that the clergy are paid by the State, or that the people are taxed to pay the clergy: the State never gave the Church any tithes or lands at all! It is utterly untrue that the Bishops and clergy are ‘State-made parsons,’ seeing that the State cannot ordain any minister, and the Crown can only nominate as Bishops men who are already ordained. It is utterly untrue that the Church prayers are ‘State-made prayers,’ seeing that the Prayer-book was compiled by our Protestant Reformers. It is utterly untrue that the Prayer-book is a mere Popish book; considering that the greater part of it is pure Scripture. All these things are ridiculous untruths, which it is a shame for any man to circulate, and a discredit to any man to believe. I ask Englishmen, when they hear statements such as these, to exercise their own good sense, and to put the simple question, ‘Is this really true?’ A cause which can only be built on a foundation of gross misstatements must be in a very unsatisfactory condition.

(5) The fifth and last public subject on which I wish to say a few words is the unsatisfactory financial position of our great Religious Societies. By Religious Societies I mean those well-known voluntary Institutions which have been established to enable Christians to promote the spread of the Gospel at home and abroad. The support given to these Societies throughout the whole Church of England appears to me far below what it ought to be. The total amount of money given annually to them is less than would be required to build a single ironclad like the Inflexible. And yet the support we give to agencies for promoting the spread of Christ’s Gospel is a fair test of the value we set on it, and the gratitude we feel for it! Surely there is cause here for humiliation, and room for much amendment. In our own Diocese, I am obliged to say, the state of things in this matter seems far from being right and healthy. There appear to be not a few parishes in which our great Societies receive no support at all. The following statistics are painful, and demand serious consideration. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel has annual sermons in 93 Churches out of 200, and receives altogether £2,100. The Church Missionary Society has sermons in 77 Churches out of 200, and receives £4,220. The Church Pastoral Aid Society has sermons in 43 Churches out of 200, and receives £1,190. The Additional Curates’ Society has sermons in 54 Churches out of 200, and receives £1,500. I lay these painful figures before you with one brief comment. I think you will all agree with me that they are not satisfactory. They are not worthy of Lancashire. They are not creditable to the Church of England in the West Derby Hundred. I commend the above subject to the attention of the clergy of the Diocese. I am quite aware that we occupy a very exceptional position, compared to other Dioceses, and that without endowments, rates, or old charities, many of our congregations find it extremely difficult to meet the cost of organist, choir, schools, lighting, warming, the pay of officials, and other expenses of public worship: I only say that it appears to me the plain Scriptural duty of every individual Christian, and of every congregation, to do something to promote the spread of the Gospel at home and abroad. It is far from my intention to prescribe to the clergy what Societies and charities they ought to bring before their parishioners. In these matters I request every clergyman to use his liberty, and act according to his own predilections. But if I am spared to hold another Visitation three years hence, I trust I shall not find a single Church in the Diocese in which there is not one Sunday given annually for collections for Missions abroad, another for Missions at home, and a third for our admirable Diocesan Institutions. There are fifty-two Sundays in every year, and I venture to think that three Sundays out of fifty-two are not too much to ask for the cause of Religious Societies. I trust the suggestion may not be forgotten. On all the five subjects which I have just mentioned I might easily say much more, if time would allow me. I have purposely touched them very briefly, and must leave them as seeds of thought for the private consideration of all whom I address. I now pass away from them in order to conclude my Charge with some remarks on what I believe is one of the greatest dangers by which Christianity is assailed in our day. The danger to which I refer is the widespread decay of distinct doctrinal religion.