land-tax, too, may be extinguished, and few will regret its disappearance; and when chaos comes again the land will belong to the people, whatever that may mean-i..., it will belong to nobody at all. I was invited here to address this Congress on the historical aspects of the question of our English Church property. I do not think it is within my province to attempt any forecast of the future; that I leave to others. This only I would earnestly urge upon all who engage in the discussion of the question. This, viz., that they do not allow themselves to be betrayed into discussing the question upon a false issue. It is not enough to say that the foolish fable of Æthelwulf's first having bestowed tithes upon the Church of England is nonsense. Meet such a silly assertion by replying that the obligation to pay the tenth was acknowledged here centuries before Æthelwulf was born. It is not enough to say that the State did not make the Church what it is. History will abundantly support you in the assertion that the Church has made the State what it is. In the great Councils of the nation or of the petty kingdoms before there was a nation—a united nation-ecclesiastics always had a place, because the lay magnates could not do without their counsel and their moral support. From the ecclesiastical councils, on the other hand, the laity were excluded because the Church could do without them. History shows us plainly enough, and forcibly enough, that the Church could always do without the State; that the State could not do without the Church. England, our own England, which has grown into an Empire that is the astonishment of the world, would never have become what she is without the million blessings which the Church, through her ministry, has conferred upon her, and if that union between the civil and ecclesiastical powers should ever rudely be severed, as she has been, England never will be again.

(b) THE SOCIAL AND PHILANTHROPIC WORK OF THE NATIONAL

CHURCH.

The Rev. HARRY JONES, Rector of Great Barton, Prebendary of St. Paul's.

IN the very few words that I am asked to utter to-night, I shall speak of one of the most familiar subjects of the day; but it is not so familiar as it will be soon, for now the nation is shaking itself awake to realise the obstacles which it is going to put in the way of those who would strip her Church. I have to confine myself, however, to a certain line, and that is the philanthropic and social work of the Church. What is that work? Do I speak the whole truth when I say that it is seen, in the promotion of such acts as the improvement of the dwellings of the poor or the furtherance of another which she has deeply at heart-that of temperance? The Church has done, and is doing, and will do, a grand work on those lines. Is it on those grounds only that we can look with pleasure on the philanthropic work of the Church? We look at education. Think of what the Church has done there. I know that if there is such a one in this room as a Liberationist, he will reply to me, "What do you mean by talking about education? Are not the Nonconformists interested in educa tion?" He will say to me, "Good, sir, there has been an advance made all along the line." I reply, "Aye, but who led the line?" I grant that it is true that the Church has taken her place in the furtherance of these works, which are dear and growing dearer to the mind of this nation at large; but I ask," "Who led the line in the great work of education?" I say, again, What is the social and philanthropic work of the Church? Is it seen only in those points that I have just touched, such as have merely a public interest? No; the social and philanthropic work of the Church may be seen, though perhaps it is not seen half so much as it ought to be, in

the daily, patient, inglorious unrecorded toil and love and kindliness which has been shed around by ten thousand parsons (I like the good old word "parsons") upon the homes of their humbler parishioners. If you want to find something about the social and philanthropic work of the Church there you may see it, but you will see only one phase of the work which the parson is there employed in carrying out. Only the other day, when you were so gratified, my lord, by the procession of sympathising Nonconformists who stood upon this platform, I heard a reference to what I may call the patient, continuous, inglorious, unrecorded work of the Church. I heard these words, and I put them down on my Congress paper at the time :-"In every city, every town, every village, is planted a centre of Christianity affecting all our national welfare, especially education to the lowest form in public elementary schools." Those were sentiments which I rejoiced to hear; but we have not yet by any means exhausted the answer to the question, What is the philanthropic and social work of the Church? What I have alluded to is such as might be carried on-I will not deny it-if the Church were what is called "disestablished and disendowed." But there are phases of the social and philanthropic work of the Church which would disappear when that operation was performed. I remind you not merely of the toiling and large-spirited attitude of many among our clergy, but I remind you of the unique position of the minister of the Established Church. As a minister of the Established Church he is a public servant and a parish officer; and I am sure that he discharges best his duty as a parson when he realises that important fact. But this unique position in the Church really involves this: it involves the connection of religion with the discharge of purely secular, lay, or ordinary commonplace duties; and I think that is a great position for a nation. It is a position which a nation ought to be slow to throw away or give up. What is religion for? Is it for the Sunday alone, and not for the week? Is it for the parson alone, and not for the layman? Is it for the fulfilment of religious duties alone, and not rather for the due and righteous discharge of those which we are pleased to call secular? In connection with this, remember, too, what more we have in the unique position of a parson. We have a religious officer, bound by the very nature of his office, and in discharge of very many of his duties, to know no distinction of creeds. I do not think that we realise what we have got in that fact. Remember what that is, when we recollect at the same time that the great plague spot of Christianity is the importing into common life of a miserable party spirit. But, my lord, the social and philanthropic work of the Church may be seen in other ways. It may be seen, I think, in the protest which it makes against and the barrier which it opposes to sectarianism and sacerdotalism. I myself rejoice in the connection between the layman and the clergyman. I believe in the wholesome curb of English law. But what would happen if you ran the shears round and cut off the fringe in which the lay element and the ecclesiastical element are wholesomely interwoven! What would happen when you run the shears round and cut off that fringe? You will then have gone far towards the formation of a brand new huge sect. You would have a body with a sharp and a clean edge. You would see the Churchman stiffen up. You would see that happy debatable land which now exists, disappear, and you would presently find that the genial wine of the National Church was changed into the vinegar of a party. And I believe, too-I must say it-that in the Establishment we have the greatest safeguard against the excess of sacerdotalism. If you run the shears round and cut off that fringe of which I have spoken, you leave behind it a huge, and in one sense irresponsible, body. What is it that might happen? "Might happen," I say. You might see common sense make way for sentimentality, and you might, in some cases, see sentimentality change into sacerdotalism, and if it resulted in your having more of that, I say more is the pity. Your Church

minister might be more of a priest and less of a man. What we want is Reform. Reform, then, fearlessly, heartily. The Church has borne much fruit. Let her be purged from many things with which she is now cumbered, and as she has borne fruit already she will bring forth more.

DISCUSSION.

J. DALE HART, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, New Inn, London.

I Do not propose to follow Mr. Moore through his interesting paper, partly because it is ill-gleaning after so excellent a reaper, and partly because in the handbooks which Mr. Moore, under the direction of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, has published, you would be able to read all that I can say to you, and a great deal more. I content myself with saying, that as far as I have been able to study this subject, I can confidently state that all that Mr. Moore has said is true, and that the books that he has published may safely be recommended to your perusal. To-night, I ask permission, as a layman, to urge upon all my fellow-laymen, and respectfully to urge upon the clergy, the very solemn questions connected with this history of Church property and the Church Establishment. Recently, by the courtesy of the Institution for Church Defence, I have seen something of the rural districts and of the Church in those districts, and I have been struck on all sides by the apathy of Churchmen, and their unwillingness to come forward and state their case. Perhaps it may not be altogether right in me to urge upon the clergy the propriety of mentioning in the course of their sermons such facts as those which we have heard from Mr. Moore and Dr. Jessopp; but whether it is possible for them to do so or not, I, for one, venture to think that the least compliment you can pay to them who have endowed the Church in the past, is to commemorate them as benefactors in the present; and there is no objection, I suppose, on such a feast as that of All Saints, which is close upon us, in commemorating (without any controversial matter) those who in the past have given endowments to the Church in which you minister. But, if the clergy will not take up this question in the pulpit--far be it from me to dictate to them-I humbly suggest to them the necessity of bringing it forward on the platform. In almost every village in England there have been actively at work agents of the Liberation Society. There are voices eager for the destruction of the Church; and, on the other hand, in the majority of villages there has been no answering protest from us. To-day, I have found that the voter in the rural districts looks with wonder and surprise at you if you tell him the most simple facts, such as those which we have heard to-night, and he cannot understand how they can possibly agree with what he has heard from other people. One man asked me at the end of a meeting which I attended, “Do you mean to say that if the Church is disendowed we shall have to pay tithe all the same?" And I said, "Most unquestionably you will. You will have to pay it to the State, though not to the Church.' He was so surprised at the reply, that he actually repeated the question, and I was only too pleased to repeat the answer. Even then he was not satisfied, and he asked the reporter to take notice of the question and the answer which I had given him, and I have no doubt that he went back to the Liberationists, who had taught him wrong, and asked them which of the two was right. But if this necessity of instructing the voters how they shall vote, and how they shall regard this question, does not weigh on you, at least, I ask you to remember the dangerous position in which the clergy of this country stand. None of the Liberationist schemes-and there have been more than one-suggests interfering with what are known as 'vested interests," and consequently there may come a time when men will say, "Loving hands reared this Church, and endowed her with gold and precious stones. You in the year 1885 were custodians of her honour and her property, and when the enemy clamoured at the gate you were silent, and did nothing to repulse them." Most earnestly, and at the same time most respectfully, allow me to urge you to consider whether some men, when they receive into their hands the compensation money, might not feel like an ancient historical character did, who cast his money down at the feet of those whom he had served, and said, “I have betrayed innocent blood." But if even that point of view does not affect you, allow me to submit one other point to you. Do you know what the scheme of these Liberationists

is for the destruction of the Church, and with what language they seek to justify it? Do not imagine that if the Church falls now the historian of the future will write of her as one who cast off the trammels of the State, and, like some giant-child, grew for greater work. Do not think that the historian of the future will write of her as one who turned from the cramped systems of the State to the larger methods of Apostolic enterprise. If we allow judgment to go against her by default; if we are silent and stand by, and consent to her doom, what do you think the historian will say? Surely he will speak of her as an institution which had friends and money and influence, and then in the hour of her trial was found wanting. He will say that she had slept slothfully upon her watch, and that she had rioted and feasted until swift destruction came upon her. He will say that the Demos tried her at the bar of common sense, and turned her naked into outer darkness as having been an unprofitable and wicked servant. The Church of England has been intrusted to us as trustees. It is not ours to do what we like with it-to let it go or give it away. Let me remind you that it has come down to us as a magnificent inheritance, and that we are responsible for it to the past that gave it to us, and to the future that will claim it from us. Some of us may say, "I am willing as far as I am concerned to let this Church go. It will last my time," or we may give some other selfish reason like that; but remember that the generations now unborn may rise up in judgment against us, and say, "When you had this Church, and you were the custodians of it, how came it that this Church fell-fell by the new democracy when that new democracy did not hear or read from you any defence of the Church to which you belonged?" Remember, moreover, that the Church may not feel disendowment and the loss of her property so much in the large towns or in the large rural districts; but it is in the villages that she most would suffer. It is in those bye-ways and those corners of England where she has planted her churches; and where her ministers, men of education and position, form the nucleus of a civilisation which otherwise might not be ; it is there that the loss of the Church will most be felt. And I ask you to take care that from many a quiet village there does not go up the cry, "Give us back our churches. We have looked to you as the guardians of our property; we have relied upon you as the leaders of the people, and in the hour of our distress you deserted us, for you allowed this Church to be taken from us, and a thing worse than famine, worse than pestilence, worse than death, namely, spiritual destitution, has come upon us. No more among

us does the clergyman minister; no more are the Sacraments administered Sunday after Sunday. When the call came to you to be up and doing, you refused to obey, or you neglected to do so, and ours has been the loss." I ask you not only to support Church defence, as you have done by your presence here to-day-not only to support Church defence by your warm and generous applause of the previous speakers, but I ask you also to support it actively in your villages, in your towns, and in your parishes. Each one of us, be he priest or layman, is responsible for the safety of the Church in so far as it lies in us; and there is no one, however small, however young, however feeble, who has not his duties, and who cannot discharge them if he will. Take care, I beg you, that if ever the enemy should come, which God grant he may not-if there should ever come the enemy, who is now pushing his lines closer and closer to us, and if ever he should break down our gates and plant his standards within our holy places-take care that each one of us, as far as in us lies, is able in that hour to say, "I did my best to prevent it. I never committed this suicide of sloth."

The Rev. HENRY ROE, Rector of Poyntington, Somerset.

I STAND here, my friends, to plead for the Church of the poor. You may go into the places of worship belonging to our dissenting brethren, as we call them, and what shall you find there? Not the poor, but those who are able to pay for their seats and for their ministers, and in every way, therefore, are able to provide the means for their religious worship. What do we find in our churches, and especially in our village churches? We find the poor, and the poor can claim every ministration of the Church as a right, and they can claim that we shall visit them at their homes, whether in sickness or in sorrow. They can claim all these things as a right. I want to maintain them in that right. Disestablish and disendow the Church, and then what will be the position of our pious poor? They will have to come and ask for those things as a favour. Will they not lament the day when they lose their rights?

Suppose the Church were disestablished and disendowed, who would be the better off? Would the dissenters be any better off? They tell us themselves that they would not be. Will philanthropy gain by it? How is it that we are able to support our hospitals, our penitentiaries, and our homes as we have done hitherto? Simply because our forefathers endowed our Church, and we are set free, therefore, to spend our money on those other good objects. Get rid of the endowments of the Church, and what money will be left? Why every farthing that our churchpeople will be able to spare will have to go in Church sustenance. Hospitals will begin to languish, and all other good works of that kind will languish too; and dire will be that day for philanthropy as well as for other social objects. And now let us go a step farther. Will the public purse gain? I know some people think it will gain a little. They fancy they can say to the poor, "We will give you free education, and pay for it out of the tithes." Do not forget that free education would mean universal school boards and the giving up of all religious teaching, at any rate as far as our Church is concerned. Let there be free education established; let the Church be disendowed if you like; and let all the money be collected together out of the Church property, and used for other purposes, and what will it do? It will pay about a million, or a million and a half towards an extraordinary expense of nearly eight millions. It is a ridiculous sop to offer the poor towards the pilfering away of their Church. How are we to deal with the case? It is all very well to say that it is a very bad case, and that it is a very difficult one to manage. One of the papers

said that Nehemiah recommended his men to have a sword in one hand and a trowel in the other. I should recommend you to go a little farther. He also managed—or somebody did for him, and that is just the same-that each man should begin the work near his own house. I need not point the application. Let not the laymen leave it entirely to the clergymen. The clergy will be looked upon as interested people who are trying to save their pockets. Let every Church layman say to himself, "I have got a work to do. I have to begin to repair the breach in my own parish. I have to tell my people what a Church for the poor really is, and I will begin." Let us correct all the misrepresentations. We are told again and again that we clergy-the bishops and all of us-are paid by rates and taxes. Well, I think that we have learnt something better to-night; and if we will only take the trouble to read Mr. Moore's book, we shall learn a great deal more. Read that book, and read it with the one single intention of finding out what really is the truth about the estab lishment of our Church of England, and then you will be ready to go and begin to repair the breach; and I do not think the Church will go yet.

LORD HENRY SCOTT.

I SHOULD like to follow up what fell from the last layman. I believe, and I think I may state it without offence, that his political opinions and mine do not agree, and, therefore, it gives me most superlative pleasure to follow him in the line of argument that he has addressed to you. Would that in the work of the Church Defence Institution we had more members of his particular political views, and that is one of the things which I, as a very old member of the Church Defence Institution, have very long lamented. It has been one of the very greatest difficulties and discouragements that we have felt, that somehow or other (I am sure it is not our own fault) the ques tion of Church defence has become unfortunately to a great extent a political one. It is impossible for us to deny it. The facts are patent to us every day. When you have 400 candidates at this present election, standing distinctly as advocates of disestablishment, it is time that we should know what would be the result if these 400 candidates were to be returned at the next General Election. I am not going to pursue any political argument, but I wish to make a warm and hearty appeal to all those who are Liberals and Churchmen that they will join hand in hand at this present moment, in the great crisis that attends us at this particular juncture of affairs. If they will do so we need not fear that any motion for the disestablishment of the Church would be carried in the coming Parliament. But I would ask you now to follow me to another point, and that is the point which was particularly raised by the last two speakers. I gathered that to be whether we, both laity and clerics, have fulfilled our trust in doing all in our power in stemming the tide of the disestablishment movement. I have been immensely interested to-night to hear those historical facts which are of enormous value to us; and we cannot thank too much those