munificence of our forefathers. A twopenny income-tax would bring in four millions, and if exception be taken to this comparison on the ground that a great part of the four millions would be paid by those who are not of our communion, it must be remembered that a considerable part of the £3,300,000 is paid by those who do not pay income-tax at all, and a still larger part by the poorest section of those who do, the clergy. I should like to see a calculation made of the amount contributed by laymen with more, say, than £5,000 a year, to the maintenance of an institution, to which, whether they know it or no, they are largely indebted for the peaceable possession of their properties. The nation smokes away some eight millions per annum and drinks away one hundred and twenty-five millions, and the most opulent portion of it, with the assistance of bazaars and fancy fairs, and raffling and dress concerts and living waxworks and dramatic performances and Mr. Brandrum, contribute th of the national expenditure upon tobacco and alcohol to the Church of God, and is proud of the achievement! Does this show that the Church has much real power with the only class which the incomes of the bishops are supposed to qualify them to reach? The fact is, that if the finances of the Church are ever to be in a satisfactory condition, her ministers must adopt a wholly different tone, a tone far bolder and sterner in regard to the responsibilities of wealth than they have ever done, the tone of the New Testament, and not of a materialistic age; and it is a little difficult to adopt it in consequence of the stipends which some of their own order are receiving. Compliments to a millionaire who gives a thousand now and then, or for that matter five hundred thousand of his superfluity, is not what is required. "The vile person must no more be called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful," but the warning of Him who cannot lie, must be boldly proclaimed and emphasized: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of Heaven."

Some months ago I was astonished to find it implied in a Church Review that our Lord's words about money had little meaning now. The world has so greatly improved, it seems, under the influence of Christianity, that the temptations once incident to wealth have well-nigh disappeared. But the young man who suggested the declaration, "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of Heaven," was not a reprobate ; his assertion that he kept the commandments was uncontradicted, and he only left the Saviour because he could not bring himself to part with his property and give to the poor. There are many like him now; many whom Jesus loves, many whom we ought to love for their high qualities and gentle bearing and noble aspirations, who yet go away from the Deliverer of mankind sorrowful because they have great possessions.

To these, no doubt, the bishops set a good example. They give munificently. The late Archbishop of Canterbury was often, I believe, at a loss for money through his great generosity. But if bishops were more numerous and poorer, they could appeal personally and with more effect to the liberality of the laity, and would get much more from others for the Church than they can now give themselves. And let no one imagine that we should lose in the calibre of our rulers if the value of their sees was less. It has been my good fortune to serve under three able and excellent bishops. Does anyone suppose that any of them was tempted to take orders by the prizes of the Church, or that great theologian, the very prince of Biblical commentators, for whose recovery from dangerous illness we are now rejoicing, the Bishop of Durham, or that dear and honoured servant of God, whose unjust and bitter persecution we so indignantly condemn, the Bishop of Lincoln.

No doubt the claims on the bishops are numerous and their expenses heavy, and their palaces cannot be kept up for nothing. But if their dioceses were smaller, the

claims upon them would be less and their expenses lighter, whilst their palaces-when they are neither well-placed nor rich in historical associations-might advantageously be exchanged for smaller houses. Moreover, their very munificence shows that their present incomes could be lessened without injury to their work, and it stands confessed by Act of Parliament that neither these nor their residences are really necessary to it. For a bishop on resigning his see is allowed to retain one-third of his income and his palace, and I am not going to believe that the occupants of the bench would ever have consented to such an arrangement, if either the one or the other was wanted by their working successors.

The whole question of clerical resignations needs to be reconsidered. The terms on which parish priests are permitted to retire are, though not so grave a scandal, very often much more mischievous to the Church than those on which bishops can resign. It is simply monstrous that a clergyman, when disabled by old age or infirmity, should have, if beneficed, to choose between the workhouse and taking one-third of a small pittance provided by the piety and forethought of other generations to aid in securing the services of an active resident clergyman amongst the people of whom he has had spiritual charge; and, if unbeneficed, be shut up to Hobson's choice of the workhouse. An average of £5 a year from every parish in the land would more than suffice to provide liberal pensions for all the emeriti of the clergy, beneficed and unbeneficed, bishops, priests and deacons, in the country. The efforts of the Clergy Pension Society deserve the help of every Churchman, and the difficulties which beset them will vanish as men come to believe with a more living faith in the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The obstacles to all useful measures of Church Reform are of the earth, earthy. They come from our weighing the things of the sanctuary in the scales of the world. If we clearly apprehend the true notes of the Church, we shall shrink from no sacrifice to make her appear what she is, the pillar and the ground of the truth, the temple of the Holy Ghost, the body and the bride of Christ, whom persecution cannot daunt nor poverty disgrace, whose rulers are the successors of poor Apostles, whose riches are the souls of the redeemed, whose aristocracy are the saints of God, whose only fountain of honour is the Son of Man, and whose symbol of glory is the Cross.

DISCUSSION.

The Right Rev. The CHAIRMAN.

THE time left now is very short, and it is necessary that the meeting should terminate at the time announced. I regret we were unable to begin at the time announced. In the circumstances I will have to limit the speakers to five minutes each.

The Rev. J. COWDEN COLE, Vicar of Upton, Somerset.

THERE can be no doubt that the question which has been arranged for discussion here this afternoon is a very wide one, and that it covers the various topics which have been introduced by the last speaker. The fact of my being the holder of a small benefice is the apology which I venture to offer you this afternoon for endeavouring to speak for even five minutes. This question has been dealt with in what I might call a very prospective fashion. We have been told that we, as incumbents of the Church of England, have two duties to perform, viz., to make provision for the future by way of clergy pensions, and also to make provision for times of sickness. But I venture to submit to this meeting that there is a very much greater question underlying the subject of Church finance than any that has been touched upon this afternoon. I

propose now, even though I should be following the example of Prebendary Grier, to allude to that question in a much more distinct form than has been done by the previous speakers. There is hardly a beneficed clergyman in the Church of England to-day but experiences some pressure in financial matters in relation to his benefice; and I therefore venture to think that this aspect of the question of Church finance is one with which we are all intimately concerned. I believe large sums of money have been lost to the Church in the past by bad financing. Take, for instance, the effects of the varying value of money. About three hundred years ago my benefice had the sum of £6 13s. 4d. attached to it for the purpose of providing for the ministrations of a clergyman in that particular parish. That sum of £6 13s. 4d. is paid to me today; and you can of course see that a considerable sum of money has been annually lost to the benefice by the very simple circumstance of the value of money being different now from what it was three hundred years ago, when £6 13s. 4d. would be worth about £40, while to-day it is simply worth £6 13s. 4d., or perhaps a smaller sum, more or less. And, with regard to the Queen Anne's bounty and Mr. Goschen in his financial arrangements with Consols, these also represent varying items of Church income; and I, as a practical man, say that this question wants taking up in a practical manner. I do not know whether it is possible to have what I might call a Finance Minister for the Church. The farmers are very knowing people, and they have kept their grievances well to the front, and have now got for themselves a Board of Agriculture, and also a Minister of Agriculture. But, is it not an open and patent fact that Church funds, locked up in whatever mode they may be, are now virtually in a state of chaos? Benefices are all of varying values; one may be worth £1,000 a year, and another by its side worth only £100 a year. And there is this fact to be considered :, the position of a beneficed priest is the same in both cases, because he has to concern himself with the same work, the same duties are required of him in a benefice badly endowed as in a benefice which is well endowed. I venture to think that we want this question of Church finance looked more into than it has hitherto been. You may say, of course, we have already financial boards-the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Queen Anne's Bounty Board. That, no doubt, is very true; but anyone who has had dealings with these august bodies may possibly remember their proceedings with very mingled feelings. But I assert that the Ecclesiastical Cominissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty only deal with a very small portion of Church finance.

The Rev. WM. AMEERS WHITE, Vicar of Llantrissant,

Newport.

It is now forty years since I was ordained, and in the natural course of things I should now be retiring on a pension. My expectation of doing so is a small one, and has been gradually diminishing; and I cannot say that any of the speeches I have listened to to-day-although they express a good deal that I agree with-have in the slightest degree increased my hope. But that hope is now entirely defunct. It has received its death-blow, and came to an untimely end yesterday by the receipt of the scheme of the Clergy Pension Society for the diocese of Llandaff. I will not enter into details, but one of them is that a pension when granted may afterwards be withdrawn by the committee, either partly or entirely, so that a poor simple-minded clergyman may find himself in the position of the dog in the fable, who dropped his substance (if, at least, our livings can be termed substances) and had to be contented with the shadow. But I strongly object to the principle of the scheme, which appeals, as its chief source of revenue, to offertories and subscriptions. I do not think that offertories are a proper means for raising funds for clergy pensions. There is a story of Elwes the miser, that after listening to an eloquent discourse on charity, he said, "That sermon so strongly proves the necessity of almsgiving, that I am almost resolved to beg." Some such idea seems to have been in the minds of the promoters of many of these clergy pension and relief funds. But I quite agree with one of the previous speakers, that there is no need to appeal for any new funds. I consider that the problem may be solved quite easily without such appeals, and without adding another to the schemes of clerical mendicancy, which are already too numerous. The simplest solution of a problem is always the best. I have no personal interest in the question, because, as already stated, I have given up all expectation of a pension for myself, and I merely look at the question as an abstract problem. The solution of the problem is redistribution of Church funds already in existence.

The Rev. THEOPHILUS BENNETT, M.A., Rector of Newton Hall, Stocksfield-on-Tyne.

A WELSH paper-the Daily News-told us this morning that we learned our financing from the Nonconformists. I say we learned it, not from the Nonconformists, but from the Bible. We have Church financing in the Bible; it was from that source we learned our financing. We have, in the Old Testament, a holy man making this resolution :-"Of all Thou givest me, I will surely give the tenth unto Thee.' And he did not lose by so doing, for he set out a poor man, but returned with many flocks and herds, and bands of servants. Then we have the example in the New Testament of Zaccheus, who gave half his goods to the poor; and of the widow, who, in simple faith, put two mites into the treasury, which were all that she had. Í wish there were more of the poor widow sort, and then we should have less complaining about low finances in the Church. Thus we have learned our Church finance from the Bible, and not from the Nonconformists. Then again, I wish there were people who would work for God, and who would make a point of always giving a tenth to the Church. The poor disestablished and disendowed Church of Ireland had a weekly offertory. I was a minister of that Church, and I ask, should not we, the Church of England, always have a weekly offertory, and thus encourage giving to the Lord in our respective parishes? Then I must differ from the gentleman who preceded me in another respect. Although an old man, I am not, like him, without hope, and the speeches I have heard this afternoon from nearly everybody, especially from my friend from the North of England, Mr. Ede, gave me hope and encouragement. He told us about the fire insurance, and I am thankful to say that I have personally given in my adhesion, and I say to my brother clergymen go and do the same. Insure your vicarages, rectories, and your churches in the Church Fire Insurance Society; and thus you will support the Church to that extent at least. Then as to pensions, I would say again, Come and join. I have myself subscribed to the Clergy Pension Fund, and I hope every one of my brethren will do likewise. We do not get much encouragement from the powers that be. There were some hard things said about the bishops for which I was sorry, because they are not here to defend themselves, except one. There is one thing I was sorry for, and it was that the bishops encouraged the Church House at the expense of the clergy pensions; so the poor clergy have to say, "We asked bread, and they gave us a stone." What good is the Church House to the poor parsons? Clergy pensions would be a very good thing for the poor parsons, and would be a very good thing for many of their congregations too. Reluctant lags the veteran on the stage ;" and the poor clergyman has to reluctantly lag upon the stage, because he knows that if he goes down into retirement his income goes away from him. I have known people who have been forty-five years in a parish, and have grown old, and prided themselves on having remained there so long. What have they been doing? The people have been asleep, and they have been rocking them; and I should be very glad myself to see some system by which, when they get too old, they should be relieved of the cares of office.

JONAS WATSON, Esq., The Lodge, Llandaff.

THE special interest of congregations in the question of clergy pensions consists in the fact that all legislation for the removal of incompetent incumbents is blocked by the prevalent sentiment of sympathy with the deposed clergyman, and the natural unwillingness of the public to deal harshly or unjustly towards one who, having perhaps spent the best years of his life in the duties of his office, finds himself incapacitated, by age or infirmity, from carrying on the ministrations of his parish in an efficient manner, and yet has no sufficient means of support for himself and his family if he resigns his benefice. This obstacle wrecked the Clergy Discipline Bill. It was felt that before any such drastic measure could be passed, some means of providing retiring pensions for the clergy must be discovered. Special advantages must be offered to clergymen, over and above those which are offered by insurance offices, to insure their lives, or to secure a retiring annuity by fixed annual payments. This has been done to a great extent by the Clergy Pensions Institution, which augments such annuities as the offices offer, by means of the benefactions of liberal Churchmen in both Provinces, and by the surplus profits of the Ecclesiastical Buildings Fire Insurance Society, which are applied to the benefit of the respective dioceses in which the business is done. It is thus important that Diocesan Clergy Pensions Societies,

such as we are now establishing here, should become affiliated as committees or otherwise to this Central Clergy Pensions Institution, so as to secure a share of these large gifts. Though some of the clergy object to such eleemosynary aid, it is a movement which Churchmen, both lay and clerical, should not allow to be obstructed by their sensitiveness. It is important that churchwardens and incumbents should know the advantages of insuring their churches and schoolrooms in the office I have named. When it was promoted some two years ago, Mr. Spottiswoode mentioned the project in the House of Laymen, who were so impressed by the practical character of the enterprise, and the benefits that might accrue to the Church from it, that a number of us at once applied for shares, and I was allotted five hundred. It is now doing a very large business; we have been paid our maximum dividend of five per cent., and a very substantial surplus has already been carried to the reserve fund. By helping to extend its business, incumbents will assist in establishing a Clergy Pensions Fund that will in time prove of immense benefit to the Church.

PARK HALL.

TUESDAY EVENING, OCTOBER IST, 1889.

The Right Rev, the PRESIDENT in the Chair.

CHURCH AND STATE.

(a) INCIDENTS OF ESTABLISHMENT IN 1689 AND 1889. (6) ESTABLISHMENT IN ITS RELATION TO—(1) RELIGIOUS EQUALITY ; (2) SPIRITUAL INDEPENDENCE.

PAPERS.

The Very Rev. JOHN OAKLEY, D.D., Dean of Manchester. THE Constitutional history of the Church of England in twenty minutes is a large order. My endeavour will be to present briefly and faithfully the incidents and aspects of the situation of the Church of England in 1689 and 1889, which illustrate the great issue raised by the word "Establishment," and which will best bring up points for practical consideration both in this meeting and outside it afterwards.

A word or two of preface. Shooting Niagara on the raft called disestablishment has a fascination for many minds. Let us own that it is not without attractions. At some moments they amount to a temptation to many men who can think as well as feel, which it needs a strong effort, partly moral, partly intellectual, to resist. Regard the Church from one side only, and the question hardly admits of two opinions. See only the Divine society, founded for those ends only of human life which admit of being distinguished, though never exhaustively, as spiritual; and at once the offer of release from some civil and political dictation and restraint and some temporal obligations-which would. undeniably give fuller freedom of extension or re-adjustment, greater vigour and directness of action, more elasticity and promptness of adaptation for those distinctively spiritual ends-presents an inducement almost overpowering. Nothing is gained by ignoring this plain