circumstances of consolation and hope; because we live in an age when communities are governed by the influence of opinion, and when individuals are regulated in their conduct to a great degree by the influence of conscience. I cannot but believe that the estimable descendants of those original appropriators of Church property, when they learn--and in a country of free discussion like the present they must now all of them be well informed upon that subject-that men of the highest education, who, from a sense of duty and devotion, dedicate their lives to comforting the people, receive for their labours stipends which even menials would refuse-I cannot but believe the estimable descendants of those original appropriators, in the satiety of their splendour, must feel an impulse that will make them apply a portion of that property, ages ago thus unjustly obtained, to purposes of a character which society would recognise, and by its approbation reward. And I think, my lord, that what we have heard to-day, and what we know of the action of this Society, justifies that expectation. What the archdeacon has just mentioned in the instance of our highly esteemed neighbour, Lord Howe, is a most gratifying case; and I learn that shortly after the formation of this Society—it is but due to the Duke of Bedford to mention it--a communication was received from his Grace, couched in a spirit worthy of his high position, which showed that he completely recognised the justice of the principle I have indicated. His Grace feels it to be his duty, as it has been his performance, with respect to miserably paid livings on his own estate, possessing, as it is well known his family does, large ecclesiastical property, to raise all the low livings to an amount which is at least adequate to sustain a clergyman who is performing parochial duty. Well, then, I say we have a right to expect-and I am more sanguine than the archdeacon on that head-that a portion of the property which was alienated from the Church, under circumstances which could not prevail and be justified in the present age, will yet find its way to the increase of these livings.

But I should not be acting with candour to your lordship if I concealed my opinion that there is little hope of any large action on the part of the class to which I have referred in this

respect; or, indeed, I will say, that there is much hope of any great exertion being made by the laity and the Church generally, unless the Church itself takes a more definite and determined position than it has occupied during the last five-and-twenty years. During that period there has been a degree of perplexity and of hesitation-I will say even of inconsistency-in the relations between the Church and the nation, that has damped the ardour and depressed the energies of Churchmen. I think it is not difficult to indicate the probable cause of that conduct; and it is only by ascertaining it that we can perhaps supply the remedy which may remove those injurious consequences.

:

Society in this country is now established upon the principle of civil and religious liberty; and, in my opinion, it is impossible-and if possible, not desirable-to resist the complete development of that principle. At the same time, you have a Church established by law that is to say, a National Church; and there is an apparent inconsistency in the principle which you have adopted as the foundation of your social system and the existence of that Established Church; because the principle of civil and religious liberty has placed legislative power in the hands of great bodies of the people who are not in communion with that Church, and they have used that power during the last five-and-twenty years, with caution at first, with much deliberation at first, but, as time advanced, with more boldness and with more energy, till, within the last few years, they have made an avowed attack upon that Church, an attack which they have conducted with great ability and with great courage. That being the case, you have what has occurred during the last quarter of a century; you have an apparent want of sympathy between that which, by the Constitution, is the National Church and a great portion of the nation—a state of affairs which is to be highly deprecated.

Twenty years ago, when this inconvenience was first generally felt, ardent Churchmen, as sincere Churchmen as ever lived, thought they had found a solution for this difficulty by terminating the union between Church and State. They said, 'Terminate the union between Church and State, as the whole

of the nation is no longer in communion with the Church, and you will put an end to the dissatisfaction that partially, but to a considerable degree, prevails.' That, no doubt, is a very plausible suggestion, and one that has been accepted by ingenuous and able minds; but if it is examined into, it will be found one that may lead to results very different from those which are anticipated by the persons who are favourable to it, and results perhaps unsatisfactory and injurious to the country; because it cannot be supposed for a moment that in this age the civil power will tolerate an imperium in imperio, and allow a great corporation, in possession of vast property-for the property is considerable, though, if distributed, it may not offer adequate compensation to those who are labouring in its service to act in independence of the State. Therefore, there is no concealing it from ourselves that it would soon end in another spoliation, and the Church would be left without the endowment of the estates which it at present possesses. The principles of Divine truth, I admit, do not depend upon property; but the circulation of the principles of Divine truth, by human machinery, depends upon property for its organisation. And there is no doubt that, deprived of the means by which the Divine instruction which it affords to the people is secured, the Church would of course lose immensely in its efficiency.

But in the case of the Church of England, it is not merely the question of the loss of its property, but it is also a question of the peculiar character of that property. The property of the Church of England is territorial. It is so distributed throughout the country that it makes that Church, from the very nature of its tenure, a National Church; and the power of the Church of England does not depend merely on the amount of property it possesses, but, in a very great degree, on the character and kind of that property. Then, I say, the result would be that the Church, deprived of its status, would become merely an episcopal sect in this country; and, in time, it is not impossible it might become an insignificant one. But that is not the whole, or, perhaps, even the greatest evil that might arise from the dissolution of the connection between

Church and State, because in the present age the art of government becomes every day more difficult, and no Government will allow a principle so powerful as the religious principle to be divorced from the influences by which it regulates theaffairs of a country. What would happen? Why, it is very obvious what would happen. The State of England would take care, after the Church was spoiled, to enlist in its service what are called the ministers of all religions. The ministers of all religions would be salaried by the State, and the consequences of the dissolution of the alliance between Church and State would be one equally disastrous to the Churchman and to the Nonconformist. It would place the ministers of all spiritual influences under the control of the civil power, and it would in , reality effect a revolution in the national character. In my opinion, it would have even a most injurious effect upon the liberties of the country; and I cannot believe that after the thought and discussion that have been devoted to the subject for now the twenty years since it was first mooted by ardent and sincere men-I cannot believe there can be among those who have well considered it, any great difference of opinion, but that all men-I would say the Churchman, the Dissenter, the Philosopher-would shrink from a solution of the difficulty by such means.

Well, then, what would you do? I maintain that you have only one alternative; that if you do not favour a dissolution of the union of Church and State, you must assert the Nationality of the Church of England.

I know it will be said, 'Assert the Nationality of the Church in a nation where there are millions not in communion with the Church? These are words easy to use, but practically what would be the consequence of a mere phrase?' Well, I think that is a point worthy of some grave consideration; and in the first place it is expedient to ascertain, What is the character of those-I will acknowledge it-millions who are not in communion with the Church? They consist of two classes. They consist of those who dissent from the Church, and of those who are indifferent to the Church; but these classes are very unequally divided.

I

Now, the history of English Dissent will always be a memorable chapter in the history of the country. It displays many of those virtues-I would say most of those virtues-for which the English character is distinguished-earnestness, courage, devotion, conscience; but one thing is quite clear: that in the present day the causes which originally created Dissent no longer exist; while, which is of still more importance, there are now causes in existence opposed to the spread of Dissent. will not refer to the fact that many, I believe the great majority, of the families of the descendants of the original Puritans and Presbyterians have merged in the Church of England itself; but no man can any longer conceal from himself that the tendency of this age is not that all creeds and Churches and consistories should combine-I do not say that, mind-but do say that the tendency of the present age is, that all Churches, creeds, and consistories should cease hereafter from any internecine hostility. That is a tendency which it is impossible for them to resist and therefore, so far as the spread of dissent, of mere sincere religious dissent, is concerned, I hold that it is of a very limited character, and there is nothing in the existence of it which should prevent the Church of England from asserting her nationality. For observe, the same difficulties that are experienced by the Church are also experienced by the Dissenters, without the advantage which the Church possesses, in her discipline, learning, and tradition.

But I come now to the more important consideration; I come to the second division of the English population that is not in communion with the Church of England. And here I acknowledge that at first the difficulty seems great, because here you do count them by millions; but, in the first place, observe that these are not Dissenters from the Church; these are not millions who have quitted the Church. There are great masses of the population who have never yet entered into communion with the Church of England. The late Archbishop of Canterbury', a most amiable and pious man, and by no means deficient in observation of the times, passed many of his last

1 Archbishop Sumner, who died September 2, 1862, only about two months before the delivery of this speech.