CHURCH POLICY.

[A speech delivered at Oxford at a meeting for the Augmentation of Small Benefices, the Bishop of Oxford in the chair. The date of this speech was November 25, 1864, just when Essays and Reviews' were at the height of their notoriety.]

Y LORD BISHOP, I can heartily second the motion that

only expresses a resolution which, in that part of the diocese with which I am more immediately connected, and which in a certain sense, I may say, I represent to-day, I have heretofore exerted myself to the utmost to uphold. I must say, however, that though some degree of sympathy has been formed-and among some individuals that sympathy has been expressed in a manner most energetic-the general result there has not been, in my opinion, adequate to the greatness of the cause and to the character of those institutions which have been established in this diocese.

My lord, it is perhaps a delicate subject to touch upon, but it is expedient that upon this matter we should have clear ideas. These institutions, as established in this diocese, and not so fully and completely, but in some degree, I believe, established in all the dioceses of England, sustain, or rather would sustain and complete, the parochial system of this country, and their object is to adapt the machinery of the Church to the ever fluctuating circumstances in the condition of the nation. There are two reasons why I think that these institutions have not yet received in the country that support which I sometimes flatter myself by foreseeing they will acquire.

In the first place, it must be remembered that these institutions are of a novel character. They have, comparatively speaking, only recently been established in the country.

In the next place-and that is a much more important circumstance, which we should clearly apprehend—these diocesan institutions have been established in England during a period in which the Church has been with reference to the State in a condition of transition. Some forty years ago, or less, a great change took place in the constitution of this country. It was, in fact, a revolution; but, like all revolutions in England, comparatively silent and perfectly tranquil. But when religious liberty was adopted as a principle in the political constitution of this country, an effect was produced immediately upon the position of the Church. That party who are opposed to the Church in this country-and we cannot flatter ourselves that there ever will be a period, in a country like England, when there will not be an anti-Church party-that party with much plausibility, for the purpose of advancing their views, called public attention to the anomaly which the Church in this country presented, the moment that the political constitution had adopted the principle of religious liberty. The Parliament of England had been a lay synod until that change, and they naturally said, if you have a Legislature in the hands of those not in communion with the Church, your boasted union between Church and State must expire, and the fall of the Church is at hand. Under these circumstances, if we had had only to meet the natural opponents of the Church I think the prospects of the Church would not have been so difficult. But unfortunately some of the best friends of the Church-men who, from their elevated character, sincere principle, learning and devotion, could not for a moment be looked upon with an eye other than friendly by the Church and Churchmen-became so alarmed by what they considered the logical consequences of that revolution, that they, although for perfectly distinct and contrary purposes, counselled the same policy as the anti-Church party: dissolution of the union between Church and State. The consequence of this state of affairs was a condition of great perplexity among Churchmen

much timidity, painfully apparent inconsistency of conduct, sometimes apathy, because they did not know to what objects they should devote their energies; sometimes, perhaps, a fantastic and unnatural action; but the practical result was that there was no longer cordial co-operation among all classes of Churchmen for those objects in which the interests of the Church were concerned, and all those diocesan societies, so admirably adapted to the wants of the age, and which would in practice as well as in theory have completed the parochial system, were launched at a time when cordial co-operation was, for the reasons I have alleged, impossible. That is one of the many causes why these institutions have not received that support which they might have counted upon. For during this period, especially during the last few years, while the principle of religious libertywhich I am sure no Churchman now wishes to disturb or distrust has been developed to its completeness, there was a paralysis on the united action of Churchmen.

This remarkable result, however, happened-which, indeed, in matters of this character and import, has happened before in this country-the question of Church and State has been so discussed by the nation generally; it has been so deliberated upon, so considered and pondered, that the country has arrived at a conclusion which may not be so logical as that of the antiChurch party or of our alarmed friends, but is a solution, like all solutions of great questions in England, essentially practical, for the country has come to a conviction that the union between Church and State is perfectly consistent with the existence and complete development of the principle of religious liberty. All the points which were argued during the period of transition have been considered and solved by the country. The country has felt that if you terminate the connection between Church and State, it is not probable, for example, that in this age and nation an imperium in imperio would be tolerated by the State. They saw that it was most improbable that if the alliance were terminated the Church would be allowed to remain in possession of her property and privileges. They knew very well that the Government of the country, seeing the importance of the religious principle as one of the chief elements for the

government of mankind, would not allow it to run waste and wild in society. They knew what had happened in other countries where the alliance between Church and State had been terminated, or where Churches had been confiscated and plundered-namely, the process by which what is called 'the ministers of all religions' are salaried by the State; and there was a general feeling that if that did occur, there would be something besides religious truth that would be endangered, and that political liberty might be imperilled. Thus after years of discussion the public voice arrived at a practical conclusion on this main question.

Then there was another point. It had been held that it was impossible that the Church could long maintain itself in this country in consequence of the spread of Dissent. But, during this period of transition, we fell upon a statistical age. Statistics were studied by the nation, and they discovered that there had not been a spread of Dissent, that, on the contrary, Dissent had diminished-I speak of true religious Dissentthat the descendants of the Puritan families, whom I shall always mention with that respect which their high qualities and historical character deserve, had almost all merged into the Church itself; that the tendency of the age was no longer favourable to hostile rivalry among religious bodies, but rather led to virtual, though not formal, co-operation between churches and consistories; and that, in short, there was no reason for supposing that the Church on the ground of Dissent could not be maintained in its original and constitutional position. Well, then, there was another very important point which occupied public attention, and that was the contrast placed so prominently by the anti-Church party before the country, between the state of the Church and the millions of the population who had escaped its influence, though not in communion with any other religious body. Well, but the result of deliberating over that startling state of affairs was that the country came to a conclusion exactly the reverse of that which the opponents of the Church wished to instil into the public mind. They knew the religious character of the people of England; they argued that if there are millions not

in communion with the National Church because they have never had the opportunity, it is a duty to provide competent machinery to deal with this population, and instruct them in those great truths which they have hitherto neglected. The progress of the Church of late years in great towns justifies this conclusion. Therefore, it has happened that the countryin a manner which may not be logical, but which is essentially practical-has solved the whole question. And while the antiChurch party and a considerable and most respectable section of Churchmen were prepared to dissolve the alliance between Church and State, the period of the transition passed, because the nation had arrived at the resolution that the union between Church and State should be upheld.

I take this to be the result that they arrived at after many years' discussion, as is customary in England when great principles of policy are at stake, and that, I believe, is the secret reason and the real cause of the change which took place in Parliament three years ago upon the subject of Church rates. The matter of Church rates is one, in itself, no doubt of main importance; but when we consider that in the Parliament which had abolished them by a large majority there was in the course of a few years a majority in their favour, the change can only be accounted for by the fact that the country had fixed upon the question of Church rates to prove their determination to support the union between Church and State, and their conviction that, practically, the alliance was consistent with the ful development of religious liberty. But the consequence of such a state of affairs is most significant. Thirty or forty years ago there was an alternative. It might have been open to the Church to abdicate its nationality, or to assert it, but there was never a middle course. The country has resolved that its nationality should not be abdicated, and the consequence is that the Church must assert its nationality.

I remember some three years ago, at a meeting of one of these diocesan societies which I attended-I am not sure whether it was not this identical society-I ventured to point out the measures by which I thought the nationality of the Church might be practically asserted; and though I will not