to be found. Thus, working in season and out of season, in the true Pauline spirit of self-absorption in the work entrusted to him, the Church layman may find scope for the most superabundant energy and the most varied gifts. Thus, striving with the cordial sympathy, co-operation, and guidance of the parish priest, the approval of his bishop, and the testimony of a good conscience, the layman may labour according to his gifts and powers, and, as a result, the Church will daily grow stronger, the waste places will be reclaimed, the growing needs of the people will be supplied, and God, even our own God, will give us His blessing.

(a) DIVISION OF PARISHES.

The Rev. H. J. TEBBUTT, Vicar of Doncaster, and
Prebendary of Southwell.

How shall the Church deal with rapidly growing populations? Firstly, we have the subdivision of parishes for consideration.

To many persons one may seem to hold a brief for a lost cause, and to advocate an exploded method, in speaking of subdivision ;-the resources of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are becoming exhausted; the task of raising new endowments consequently appears more formidable than ever. Hence, men are tempted to fall back upon more economical schemes. Subdivision is discredited; the lay agent and the mission room, or the brotherhood (so powerfully advocated by Archdeacon Farrar), commend themselves to many minds as being more practicable, because more economical-and also possibly better qualified to deal with the masses than the old-fashioned system of creating new parishes.

I am not here, however, to debate the advisability of subdivision, but rather to suggest possibilities of effecting it. But I do the more cheerfully take up the cause of the old method, because I believe in it, and trust to show that the Church of England may do worse than to stick to her parochial system, and bestir herself to develop existing organizations. I.-Are the results of subdivision discouraging? It is commonly pleaded that population is increasing portentously-in London alone at the rate of forty thousand per annum; that the National Church has not kept pace with this increase, under present methods; and that, unless she adopts enlarged modes of work, she cannot hope to justify her claim to her position. No one can deny that, unhappily, a vast majority of the working classes are not to be found within the Church's walls. But neither are they to be found within the chapel. This widespread alienation is so, not because they are hostile to the Church in particular, nor because they are entirely outside her machinery, as is commonly alleged, but because of the general indifferentism of our generation to the faith of Jesus Christ.

It is fairly open to argument, whether, in point of fact, the masses are so utterly outside the influence of the Church as is asserted-e.g., it is not a fair statement of the whole case to point to a parish of ten thousand souls, it may be, under the charge, perhaps, of a vicar and curate, and to ask, of what value is such a weak, over-mastered staff? For even two devoted, single-hearted men—and, thank God, He has given the Church of England such men by the thousand-two such men

can be a power for Christ, and do a work for His Church, such as man cannot tabulate, and make their influence a felt reality in each of the two thousand homes they live for, although that influence cannot be demonstrated by visible numerical results. Moreover, in forming our estimate of the extent to which the masses are reached by Christian influences, we are bound to take into calculation the work of Nonconformists; and is it not too often the case that, even in large parishes, the chapel is in keen competition with the church, and that the Dissenting tract-distributor follows in the wake of the Church's districtvisitor? I have been told by an East End clergyman, that there is not an alley or lodging-house at the East End of London but is reached by some Christian influence.

Then, in asking ourselves how to deal with large populations, we should ask whether the parochial system is a failure after all? whether it has had fair play? whether it is justly chargeable with that widespread apathy towards Christianity which appears to defy the united efforts of all Christian workers? and whether it is not the case that, under the parochial system, Churchmen have outstripped Nonconformists in the development of religious machinery, and are, accordingly, more than holding their own in the noble endeavour to win the masses of England for Christ? In a word, have we not much reason to "thank God, and take courage"?

II. What are the especial advantages of subdivision? (1) Permanency in work. The "Incumbent" is less likely to remove than the curate, lay agent, or brotherhood. Parochial machinery is more steadfastly continuous when he who directs and inspires it is a fixture. How often it happens that, when a successful curate leaves a parish, his work falls to pieces, because it centred in the man and depended for its life upon his personality. (2) Enthusiasm is called out by an independent parochial position. Let a new district be thrown upon its own resources with an energetic vicar at its head, and Church life and Church work will spring into being, which would otherwise have lain dormant. The chapel-of-ease takes things easily so long as it can hang upon the mother-parish. But parochial independence creates self-dependence. It forces Churchpeople to bestir themselves; it arouses the spirit of self-sacrifice and of work. And is it not better that Churchpeople should be stirred up to work for their Church, as a common duty, than that they should be encouraged to leave the work to a few persons who profess a vocation for it; or that they should content themselves with an invertebrate dependence? Surely this is the law of Church life-“ God hath set the members, every one of them, in the body" to serve Him therein," and by love to serve one another." (3) And Freedom. When a large parish is worked from one centre, it is under a species of drill, which has undoubted advantages provided a strong man is at the head. This cannot always be secured. And even so, there is a dull, cast-iron uniformity about such methods. Curates work to order, after a school-boy fashion; and the whole parish is of one ecclesiastical pattern. Meanwhile, an undercurrent of restlessness flows on; for there is a constant tendency in the congregations of mission rooms to aim at independence. It is secretly felt that subordination swamps individuality.

The formation of a new parish gives free play to the energy and natural aspirations of incumbent and congregation; and the Church

of England, like England herself, has ever thriven most mightily, and done her best work for God in the bracing air of liberty-liberty of thought, and liberty of action. Permanence, enthusiasm, freedom; these are likely to be combined and to flourish under separate parochial being. I claim, at least, such advantages on the side of subdivision.

III. But, even assuming this much to be true, how is endowment to be raised? The Ecclesiastical Commissioners explain the necessity of the diminution of their grants in their forty-first report. In the course of twenty-five years they have "created charges upon their fund amounting to six hundred thousand pounds per annum for endowment; and hence they consider it not safe to place any additional charge upon the fund without first setting apart the capital value of the additional charge. One hundred and fifty thousand pounds of capital is all that is available for distribution during the current year."

It is clear that new endowments must in future be raised mainly by voluntary effort. Now, it is unfortunate that Churchmen, as a rule, are not very ready to subscribe for endowment; they prefer to give for that which is visible and tangible. It is much easier to raise funds to build a church than to find endowment for it when built. Hence, the provision of a maintenance for the incumbent is the crucial difficulty in face of subdivision. Nevertheless, we should not lose heart. Only let Churchmen be convinced that endowment is needed and will be rightly used, we may trust them to supply the need. During the last forty-eight years no less a sum than four millions eight hundred and thirty-eight thousand pounds—or five millions nearly-has been given in benefactions from private sources, to be met by grants from the commissioners. And what a record of self-sacrificing zeal is bound up with the endowment of the new bishoprics. Let Truro and Newcastle, Southwell and Wakefield, witness to what Churchmen can do when they are called upon. (1) We may proceed by Diocesan Sustentation Funds.

At Nottingham a "Spiritual Aid Fund" has been formed, under which independent conventional districts are created with a guaranteed stipend of two hundred pounds a year to the clergyman in charge. It is the rule that such stipends should proceed by a graduated diminishing scale, so as to draw out gradually increased support from the congregation concerned, until at last the fund can be relieved of the whole grant. Such a Sustentation Fund might be made to form a feature in every Diocesan Church Extension Scheme. This is my first suggestion.

(2) But, as a rule, endowment must be obtained from local resources. It is convenient to spread a local endowment fund over a term of years. Many a man can give ten pounds per annum for five years, who would be unable to give fifty pounds in a lump sum. I believe that sums thus raised can be offered yearly for duplication from Queen Anne's Bounty. (3) Then, greater liberty is needed with regard to the investment of endowment. The Church is fettered by excessive caution in this matter. It may, however, be well to mention the fact that the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty have large liberty as regards accepting investments for endowments. We need the trained financial intelligence of our laity to be brought to bear on this question in earnest. Were that to be done, much more might be effected with the Church's revenues; whereas, ordinarily, the clergy are left to deal with finance, a task for which they

are commonly thought to be peculiarly unfitted, which certainly can never be congenial to them, which is quite outside their true function, and which the brotherly kindness of the laity should never permit them to be burdened with. The Church of Ireland offers a fine example of consecrated financial ability. Her revenues have been splendidly nursed; and in illustration of what has been urged, I may mention that in 1880 the Irish Church held three millions debenture stock, bearing interest at £4 8s. 6d. per cent.

(4) One more suggestion. It lies at the root of the whole question. We need to teach our people more plainly the great duty and sure blessedness of giving systematically to God a true proportion of their means; and to teach this lesson, after Pauline example, as one peculiarly applying to working people. "These hands have ministered," so could the apostolic tentmaker witness. It is a lesson for low and high, for poor and rich. Do we teach it? If not, need we wonder if large-hearted sacrifice be rather the exception than the rule? Has not the Church yet much to learn from Nonconformist almsgiving, and from the financial methods of other religious bodies?

There is a splendid reserve of Christian liberality yet available within the Church of England. Let us not doubt that, with the blessing of God, great things are possible by its means. What the Free Church of Scotland could do for two hundred ministers, what the non-established Churches of the Colonies and of America could do to meet their needs, what Nonconformist zeal has done right nobly all around us in the land, this can Churchmen likewise do. This, we are sure, they will do when once the call comes to their hearts. Be it our task to bring the Church's ministrations within the reach of our people; to give each house, at least, its own pastor, who may live amongst and live for his flock; in a word, be it ours to make the parish priest, in fact, that which the Church theoretically holds him to be; and never will the support of English Churchmen be found lacking to a faithful, laborious Clergy. ploweth should plow in hope."

"He that

ADDRESS.

(c) COMMUNITY LIFE FOR THE CLERGY.

The Rev. PETER GOLDSMITH MEDD, Rector of North Cerney, and Honorary Canon of S. Albans.

THIS is a subdivision of the wider subject of "The Church's mode of dealing with rapidly growing populations." It excludes, therefore, the consideration of country work. It is also confined to the question of Community Life for the Clergy only.

It is now universally acknowledged that the ordinary parochial system, valuable and precious as it is for the regular pastoral care of average parishes and settled congregations, is, even at its best, weak on its missionary side. In the rapidly growing populations, of which we have now anxious and painful experience, it is confessed to be inadequate; at least as administered on the old familiar lines. I need only refer, if authority beyond the personal knowledge and observation of anyone of us be needed, to the report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords of 1858, on the deficiency of the means of Divine worship in populous districts; the report of the Joint Committee of the Convocation of Canterbury of 1885, on the spiritual needs of the masses of the people; and to the report of a similar committee of the present year.

The parochial system needs, on the missionary side, supplementing. Observe, I say, not supplanting, but supplementing. The responsibility for this work is by no means limited, in its tremendous urgency, to the local ecclesiastical authorities, parochial or diocesan, but really touches the conscience of the whole Church and nation. And to meet it our parochial system must, by some general concerted action, be greatly reinforced and expanded.

But it must be reinforced by something thoroughly consistent and harmonious with itself; loyal, I would even say subordinate to it; something which shall strengthen, not weaken, nor supersede it; which shall regard the parish church as its mother, its centre, and its goal. Any fresh departure must simply aim at lifting up the souls it may gather in from the hitherto unreached masses out of the condition in which they are the subjects of elementary evangelistic labour, to the higher condition of folded sheep under the regular pastoral ministrations of the Church; and, further, of being themselves, in manifold ways, the happy and much-needed ministrants of blessing to those who may still be in the unreached condition in which themselves once were. In any new agencies or methods which the Church and her rulers may, under a very pressing sense of solemn responsibility, brooking no more delay, be guided to adopt, there must be—we are quite sure there will be—no antagonism, no rivalry with longtried methods, nor even any very sharply marked distinctions; but rather a perfectly harmonious and continuous, though a very considerable extension and development, and that both of agencies and methods.

As for the subdivision of parishes, that has gone far enough; perhaps, too far. Rather we have come to feel we want stronger centres and stronger staffs, and greater unity of aim and of co-operation. Mission rooms we want in plenty, with suitable services, simple and elastic. Lay co-operation, in any amount that is to hand, provided only the laymen be of the right sort, actuated by the right motives, lovers, before all things, of Christ, His people, and His Church. All this really goes without saying. We have been saying now already a great deal too long. The time has come for really extensive and energetic, yes-don't let us be afraid—enthusiastic action.

Most of all, we want more clergy. The Church is undermanned. How strange that once, in 1535, our English Litany contained the needful prayer, “That Thou vouchsafe to send us plenty of faithful workmen into Thy harvest?" and so provision was made for the Church's fulfilment of our Lord's express command, "Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest that He will send forth labourers into His harvest." How or why that petition dropped out we cannot now say. We need it sadly now. It is useless to talk of multiplied and extended agencies if the right men are not forthcoming, whether for lay or clerical work. They are our first need. We must make it our business, as a Church, constantly, earnestly, urgently, to ask God for them. We want no medieval revivalists, no mere imitators of the outward features of the systems of bygone ages, whatever good such systems may have done in their day, in times and under conditions which they suited, being their natural growth. We must do, not what the best men, the most devoted saints, the wisest and most farseeing originators did, in their day, but rather what they, with their faith, their zeal, their self-sacrifice, their love of God and man, would do were they living now, in our time, facing our problems. Their faith, their zeal, their love, their patient wisdom, we need it all. S. Benedict, S. Columba, S. Aidan, S. Bernard, S. Francis, S. Philip Neri, S. Vincent de Paul, Bernard Gilpin, Whitfield, John Wesley, Charles Lowder we need them all; and all the gifts of all. May God in His mercy grant them to our prayers, for His glory's sake, for His Church's sake, for our nation, for our empire.