diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-23 06:20:10 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-23 06:20:10 -0800 |
| commit | d19c4c39387919c8b14f35e06f746eeaba79ccb7 (patch) | |
| tree | 709eb7734d938622eb0c0a93aef01530be9b926f /old/64878-0.txt | |
| parent | dcfe73bc193a79e86afa630b243532c96c7b6480 (diff) | |
Diffstat (limited to 'old/64878-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/64878-0.txt | 2054 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 2054 deletions
diff --git a/old/64878-0.txt b/old/64878-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index ab8000c..0000000 --- a/old/64878-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,2054 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Truth about Church Extension, by Anonymous - - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - - - - -Title: The Truth about Church Extension - An exposure of certain fallacies and misstatements contained in the census reports - - -Author: Anonymous - - - -Release Date: March 20, 2021 [eBook #64878] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - - -***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRUTH ABOUT CHURCH EXTENSION*** - - -Transcribed from the 1857 William Skeffington edition by David Price. -Many thanks to the British Library for making their copy available. - - - - - - The Truth about Church Extension: - - - AN EXPOSURE - OF CERTAIN - FALLACIES AND MISSTATEMENTS - CONTAINED - IN THE CENSUS REPORTS - ON - RELIGIOUS WORSHIP AND EDUCATION. - - * * * * * - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - * * * * * - - LONDON: - WILLIAM SKEFFINGTON, 163, PICCADILLY. - - 1857. - - PRICE ONE SHILLING. - - - - -PREFACE. - - -The entire absence of criticism on the decennial tables contained in the -report of Mr. Horace Mann on the Census of Religious Worship has filled -the writer with equal surprise and concern. For a period of nearly three -years, hardly a week has passed without some injurious step on the part -of the Government, some disastrous admission on the part of a friend, -some daring rhodomontade on the part of a foe—all of which have owed -their origin more or less directly to the false and mistaken view of the -Church’s position engendered by the still more erroneous and misleading -statistics so widely disseminated by the Census report. Nor is there any -prospect that the evil will diminish—at least, until the next Census. On -the contrary, the idea that the Church has proved a failure seems to gain -strength, and the policy of friends and foes alike appears to shape -itself with special reference to that assumed fact. - -The writer does not wish to obtrude upon the public his own calculations -as if they were absolutely correct; but he is satisfied that the account -he has given of the _relative_ growth of Church and Dissent during the -past half century is, if anything, an understatement so far as the former -is concerned. Had Mr. Bright’s very remarkable return fallen sooner in -his way he would probably have much modified his estimate relating to -Dissent; but, as the case was already sufficiently strong for the main -object he had in view, namely, to demonstrate the monstrous fallacy of -the official report, he did not think it worth while to alter his -calculations. His own conviction, however, is that the gross number of -additional sittings supplied by Dissent is much more accurately -represented by the table given in page 24 than by that in page 20. - -The Census report on Education offers a tempting subject for remark; but -the writer has not thought it necessary to go further into the matter -than he has done in the note on page 27. For the reasons there stated, -it will appear that there are no grounds whatever for asserting that the -parents of this country neglect to provide their children with the means -of instruction any more than they neglect to provide them with food or -clothing. In every class which by any stretch of the term can be called -“respectable,” parents do supply their children with what they consider a -sufficient education; and their idea of what is sufficient is, after all, -not much lower, everything considered, than prevails amongst the middle -classes, who, in a country like this, must always fix the standard. The -result of the Census goes to show that the Legislature has adopted the -right course—that the way to obtain as large a number of attendants at -school as possible is to subsidise, not to supersede, private exertion; -and that it is even possible to fix the rate of subsidy too high; for all -experience proves that parents will not enforce regular attendance, -unless they feel that if their children stay away from school they will -not receive something for which they have paid. Whether the Government -ought to hold its hand until children of a certain class are brought to -the prison schoolmaster is quite another and a different question; for it -is clear that under any circumstances those unfortunates must be treated -in an exceptional manner. Even if we had a national system, children -belonging to “the dangerous classes” would not be admitted to the common -schools; for no respectable person, however humble, would allow his sons -or his daughters to associate with the offspring of habitual thieves or -beggars. - -It is proper to add, in order to account for certain local illustrations, -which it has been thought advisable to retain, that the substance of the -following pages first appeared in a somewhat different form in the -_Nottingham Journal_. - -_December_, 1856. - - - - -THE TRUTH, &c. - - -AMONG the many changes which the present age has witnessed, none are more -remarkable than those we have seen take place in the public mind with -regard to the Church of this country. - -Thirty or forty years ago, the popular estimate of what was called the -Established Religion was as low as can well be conceived. The laity, for -the most part, regarded Churchmanship as a mere empty tradition, or at -best as a political symbol, and an excuse for lusty choruses in praise of -“a jolly full bottle.” The Clergy, unless they were grievously maligned, -had but two objects in life—the acquirement of “fat livings,” and the -enjoyment of amusements not now considered clerical. Of course, there -never was a time when there were not hundreds of exemplary persons in -holy orders; but that the prevailing impression was wholly without -foundation it would take a bold man to affirm. The worldliness of the -Clergy of the eighteenth century has even left its mark on the language. -The word “curate” literally means a “curé”—a person charged with the cure -of souls, one that has the spiritual care of a parish. Such is its -meaning in the Prayer Book, and such was its signification down to the -last “Review”; but now it has come to mean only a hireling, or an -assistant. In like manner, “Parson” was the most honourable title a -parochial clergyman could possess; and that, no doubt, continued to be -the case so late as the time of George Herbert. The beneficed Clergy -under the Hanoverian dynasty, however, so conducted themselves, that the -term is now never used, except by those who wish to speak disrespectfully -of the profession, or of some individual belonging to it. - -It would be wrong, perhaps, to hold the Clergy entirely responsible for -the sad phase through which we have lately passed. That they were what -they were was “more their misfortune than their fault.” At the worst, -they were probably better than the rest of the community, and, save when -by a persecution to the death the Church is forced into a position of -direct antagonism to the world, it would be idle to expect it to be much -in advance of the age. The short reign of the Puritans so confounded -religion with cant that at the Restoration it had come to be thought a -sort of virtue to be ungodly. The Church set itself manfully to resist -the evil, and no doubt it would soon have been successful; but, -unfortunately, the Nonjuring difficulty supervened. Now, it is the -misery of a crisis of that description, that the community in which it -occurs suffers every way. The men whose labours it actually loses are -necessarily amongst the most conscientious, and, therefore, the most -valuable, of its ministers; and those who stay behind have their -usefulness impaired by the stigma which is cast upon their motives. For, -if there are two men under precisely the same obligations, and one of -them feels compelled for conscience’ sake to surrender all his worldly -prospects, people will never be persuaded that the other, who does not -follow the same example, has not sacrificed his convictions to his -material interests. We have seen many instances in our own time in which -this has occurred. Even at this moment many good Churchmen are -reproached with a love of filthy lucre because they do not follow a few -who once thought with them, but who have apostatized from the faith of -their fathers; whereas, if there be a man in the world to whom secession -under any pretext is impossible it is the consistent Anglican—the -distinguishing tenet of whose school is the spiritual equality of -bishops, and the consequent indefeasible authority of that episcopal line -which has from time immemorial been in possession of a given country. In -England, the existing Romanist succession was avowedly created by a Papal -bull in the year 1850; and it is, therefore, on the face of it, an -intrusion, and a usurpation of the rights which are inherent in the -representatives of St. Austin and St. Anselm. Yet, because a few -Anglicans have become Ultramontanists—a step which involved to them as -distinct a giving up of all their former principles as it would have been -for a Catholic to become a Socinian—the “High Church” clergy are reviled -for retaining their benefices, and declining to follow the footsteps of a -Faber and a Newman! In like manner, we may be sure that those Clergymen -who conscientiously felt that they might withdraw their allegiance from -King James, reaped a loss of influence for good, even among the partisans -of King William. Close upon the Nonjuring troubles followed the -scandalous attempt of the Hanoverian Government to undermine the faith of -the Church by means of improper episcopal appointments, its resistance by -the inferior clergy, and the consequent suppression of Convocation. The -mischief to which this most unconstitutional step has given rise can -hardly be overrated. We can scarcely conceive the confusion and -corruption which would creep into the body politic if Parliament were -forcibly silenced for a whole century; and there is no reason why the -English Church should prosper without representative institutions and -free speech any more than the English nation. Under any circumstances, -the Church, deprived of her parliament, must have greatly suffered; much -more so in the face of those vast changes which have come about in the -extent and distribution of the population. The machinery of the existing -Church Establishment was designed for a population of five or six million -souls. By 1821 the inhabitants of this country had increased to twelve -millions. A new population exceeding the old one had thus been -introduced, for which the Church as a body had no means of providing a -single additional bishop or a single new sitting. Had the increase been -evenly spread over the country the mischief would not have been so great; -but, unfortunately, the new population chose all kinds of out-of-the-way -places in which to settle. A rural parish suddenly found itself a -metropolis; and a district, once traversed only by the shepherd or the -ploughboy, became the teeming hive of manufacturing industry. In such a -state of things the parochial system—perfect as it is where the Church -has wholly subdued a country—miserably broke down. A signal failure was -in fact inevitable; for what were the solitary parish priests of -Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Bradford, St. Pancras, St. Marylebone, -Islington, or Lambeth, amongst so many! For all practical purposes it -may be asserted that at least half of the new population were as much -beyond the reach of the Church of England as if they had settled in the -woods of Canada or on the plains of Hindostan. Year after year the evil -went on increasing, until at last the number of Englishmen who did not -belong to the Established Church became so great that a Parliament of -Churchmen were obliged to surrender their exclusive right of legislation -and government. The prospects of the Church were at this time truly -deplorable. Its very existence as an establishment was doubtful. The -Whig Premier actually bade the bishops “set their house in order;” and -the experiment of confiscation was begun. Humanly speaking it was only -the difficulty of disposing of the plunder that saved the Church of these -realms. - -The hour of danger, however, was not of long duration. A new school of -theologians arose, who boldly asserted that the Church was not a creature -of the State, to be dealt with at the pleasure or convenience of -politicians, but a Divine institution, with laws, privileges, and a -polity of its own; and that the duty of extending its usefulness belonged -to individual exertions not less than to the Legislature. The effect of -this new teaching, as it then appeared, was electric. Churchmen no -longer sat with hands folded in blank despair, or amused themselves with -irrefutable demonstrations that Parliament ought to do something. They -set to work themselves. Sometimes it was the clergy who stimulated the -laity; sometimes it was the laity who applied a gentle compulsion to the -clergy. Churches, parsonages, and schools began to spring up in every -direction, with a rapidity that would have borne comparison with the -palmiest days of the mediæval builders. The ancient indigenous -architecture of the country, and its cognate arts, were in a manner -rediscovered, and were brought to a perfection scarcely less than that -attained by the greatest masters of antiquity. Indeed, the spread of -this new science of ecclesiology has been not the least marvel of the -present century. It has pervaded every part of the community; it has -slain outright the bastard classicalism of the Age of Pigtail; and it has -reproduced itself in the Puginism of the Romanists, and the Ruskinism of -Dissent. It has even crossed the Channel, and appeared in the very -centre of European taste—in Paris itself—the fount and origin of the -whole vast movement being the work of church-building and restoration in -this country, which has proved a school of art more effective, because on -an infinitely larger scale, than any which modern times have witnessed. - -All this has been, moreover, but the symbol of a greater and yet more -gratifying change—the gradual rehabilitation of the Church’s character. -Never since the Reformation did it occupy so high a position as that to -which it had attained two or three years ago. Old scandals, and old -epithets of abuse founded upon them, had alike disappeared. We read of -Parson Trulliber with much the same feeling of incredulous amazement as -we perused the accounts of Professor Owen’s extinct monsters; and we -should have looked upon the person who indulged in the sort of -Billingsgate which was common half a century ago as if another Rip Van -Winkle had stood before us. The ingenious calculations in which -demagogues of the last generation used to indulge, with regard to what -might be done with the ecclesiastical revenues, seemed like prospectuses -of the South Sea Company. The very Horsmans, like their Puritan -prototypes who made war on the King in the King’s name, had begun to -profess a desire only to increase the Church’s efficiency. The -Anti-State-Church Society itself, borne away by the spirit of the times, -adopted a clumsy euphemism for its old out-spoken title. It no longer -sought to destroy “the State Church”—its object was the “Liberation of -Religion from State Patronage and Control.” - -Once more, alas! the sky has changed. What the public now think of the -Church, it would be difficult exactly to say; but that a strong re-action -has set in, it would be vain to deny. There seems to be an impression -abroad that the Church has been taking credit for far more than she was -entitled to; that she has had a last trial allowed her, whether she would -regain her place as the Church of the people; that her day of grace has -passed, and that she has been found wanting. Political Dissent, which -had fallen into a state of such ludicrous obscurity, has suddenly -revived, and in a Parliament elected under Lord Derby has achieved what -it could never do even in the worst times which followed the passing of -the Reform Bill—it has effected a lodgment in the Universities. It has -several times carried resolutions adverse to Churchrates. The demands of -Mr. Pellatt are now granted almost as a matter of course; and not only -so, but the very Government goes out of its way to flatter the prejudices -of the Nonconformist. Thus, the Solicitor-General brings in a -Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill, which would saddle the country with an -enormous annual charge in the shape of compensations; the sole object -being to afford Dissenters the gratification of reading at the -commencement of their probates the words “Victoria, by the Grace of God, -Queen,” instead of “John Bird, by Divine Providence, Archbishop.” Some -of the concessions which have been made to “the rights of conscience” are -absolutely ludicrous. For example, young ladies and gentlemen of the -different denominations complain that ill-natured people call their -weddings “workhouse marriages.” A remedy is instantly found, at the risk -of establishing a Gretna Green in every Dissenting place of worship. In -a word, the Legislature seems to say to Dissent “Ask and have.” Very -different is the tone both of Parliament and of the Executive, towards -the Church. The prayer of the Convocation for permission to reform its -constitution is, notwithstanding the plighted faith of the Crown, -peremptorily refused. The Royal Letters on behalf of the Church -Societies are stopped; the bill drawn up by the bishops to enfranchise -the Colonial Church is rejected. It is perhaps hardly worth while to -speak of various shabby acts with regard to money votes, such as the -withdrawal of the grants to the Bishop of New Zealand and to the Scottish -Church; but the animus which dictated them is only too obvious. After -all, however, the saddest evidence that the public feeling has undergone -a great change is to be found in the Education Bill of Sir John -Pakington. Every one knows how fast the Church was becoming, in fact, -what she is in theory, the instructress of the people; and till lately no -Churchman could have been found to suggest any material alteration in a -system which was bringing forth such gratifying fruits. Suddenly, -however, Sir John is seized with a panic. The task appears in his eyes -to be utterly hopeless, and he brings in a bill which would have -destroyed the distinctive character of Church schools, and would have -deprived Churchmen of all share (save that of paying school taxes) in the -education of every district in which they could not command an absolute -majority! - -That the Church is inefficient, every one now seems to take for -granted—the only matter in dispute is, what has been the cause? Of -course the fault is always laid at the door of the Clergy; but it is -amusing to observe the perplexity which appears to be felt as to the -manner in which the indictment against them should be framed. Sometimes -the charge is that they cannot preach—just as if orators were a whit more -plentiful at the bar or in the senate, on the stage or in the Dissenting -pulpit. Sometimes we are told that the Clergy are not abler men because -they are not better paid. We have actually lived to see it stated by the -_Times_, that the Clergy of the Church of England—the men who a few short -years ago were reported to be rolling in wealth—are worse rewarded in -this life than persons belonging to any other profession whatever! - -The object of the present essay is to strike at the very first step in -the _sorites_—to show that the Church, since the great revival, so far -from having proved a failure, has proved herself more than equal to the -situation; and finally to point out how grievously both the public and -the Legislature have been deceived by the data which have been published -for their guidance. - -It need hardly be observed that the unfavourable impression to which -allusion has been made has been entirely created by Mr. Horace Mann’s -Report on the Census of Religious Worship. That report has been assailed -by the Bishop of Oxford, and other right reverend prelates; but their -strictures, it is respectfully submitted, do not go quite to the point. -It is not the account given of the present relative positions of Church -and Dissent which has done the mischief. Every one knew that the Church -was strongest in the country and Dissent in the towns; and seeing that -the rural and the urban population were about equal, the public could -scarcely be surprised to learn that the two bodies were also of nearly -equal strength. According to the census, the Church had in 1851, -5,317,915 sittings, and the Dissenters 4,894,648; but the Bishop of -Oxford has shown that there are good reasons for believing that the -Church sittings have been unfairly diminished, while those belonging to -Dissenters have been much exaggerated. On that point the writer will -only add that the number of sittings assigned to the Churches in the -tables relating to one large town, the only one he has had occasion to -verify, is not above three-fourths of the real amount. - -The total number of attendants at Church on the census morning was -2,541,244, against 2,106,238 in the meeting-houses. Now, without -pressing any objection that might be made to these figures on the score -of dishonesty in the returns, it must be obvious that they do not fairly -represent the average attendance. In the first place, such institutions -as the colleges at the Universities are not taken into account. In the -next place, no reference is made to such places as the workhouses, in -most of which service is performed by a chaplain, and from which the -dissenting inmates are allowed to attend the meeting-houses of their -respective communities. Thirdly, the weather on the census Sunday was -very inclement, and while the attendance generally would, no doubt, be -less than an average, the effect would, beyond all controversy, be much -more felt in Churches than in meeting-houses. The strength of the -Church, it has already been said, is in the country, and it is quite a -different thing in bad weather to walk a few hundred yards along a -well-paved street, and to trudge a mile down a muddy lane. Fourthly, the -attendants at all the morning masses in Roman Catholic chapels are -returned, whereas it is well known that devout persons of that persuasion -often “assist” at more than one mass on the same morning. Those persons -have thus been counted twice over. Lastly, the day on which the census -was taken was Mid-Lent Sunday, on which rustics in the northern counties -are accustomed to pay visits to their friends instead of attending Divine -service. That, in its degree, would also act unfavourably on the -church-going of the census Sunday. If, therefore, we said that on -ordinary occasions there were three quarters of a million more people at -church on Sunday mornings in 1851 than in all the dissenting places of -worship put together, we should probably not be overstating the case; and -there would certainly be nothing in a state of things like that to -account for any alteration in the public sentiment. - -When, however, we come to look at the statements made as to the relative -_progress_ of the two bodies during the last half century our wonder at -the change which has taken place in public opinion ceases. The following -results, compiled from Tables 5 and 13 of Mr. Mann’s Report, will exhibit -at a glance the amount of population and the number of sittings in 1801, -as well as the subsequent increase at each decennial period since then:— - - Population. Church Dissenting Total - Sittings. Sittings. Sittings. -1801 8,892,536 4,289,883 881,240 5,171,123 -The subsequent increase was as follows:— -1811 1,271,720 24,305 328,720 353,225 -1821 1,835,980 42,978 527,160 570,138 -1831 1,896,561 124,525 788,080 912,605 -1841 2,017,351 293,945 1,253,600 1,547,545 -1851 2,013,461 542,079 1,115,848 1,657,927 -Total 9,035,073 1,028,032 4,013,408 5,041,440 -Increase -Total 17,927,609 5,317,915 4,894,648 10,212,562 - -So that during the last ten years, while the Church was supposed to be -making unheard-of exertions, the amount of new accommodation she really -provided was not one-half of that supplied by the dissenting bodies! The -Wesleyan sects alone provided no less than 630,498 sittings, against the -542,079 found by the Church! The case may be made yet more clear from -the following table, which exhibits the number of sittings provided at -each period for every thousand of the population:— - - Church. Dissent. Total. -1801 482 99 581 -1811 424 120 544 -1821 363 145 508 -1831 323 181 504 -1841 300 238 538 -1851 297 273 570 - -So that while the Church has lost 185 sittings, Dissent has gained 174. -In other words, the Church has experienced a total relative loss of 359 -sittings per thousand of the population during the last 50 years. Even -since 1831 her loss, as compared with Dissent, has not been less than 118 -per thousand! - -Comment on this would be superfluous. If such be really the state of the -case it would be idle to waste time in wrangling over inaccuracies in the -returns. If Dissent is gaining on the Church at the rate of 50,000, -sittings per year, whatever may be wrong in the present totals must soon -be corrected; and the Church must make up its mind, ere long, to sink -down into a minority. - -The only question is, does the Census Report state the truth? _It does -not_. On the contrary, it states the very reverse of the truth. It is -not merely inaccurate, but altogether false. Mr. Mann’s figures—although -they have hitherto been accepted on all sides as if they were “proofs of -Holy Writ”—rest upon no positive data whatever. So far, indeed, are they -from possessing any claim upon the confidence of the public, the smallest -effort of common sense, the most transient recollection of principles -laid down by the immortal Cocker, would have warned Mr. Mann that the -process he has adopted could not possibly lead to a correct result. - -It appears that as soon as the 30,610 districts into which the country -was divided for the purposes of the census had been marked out, the -enumerator in each was directed to return to the head office a list of -all the places of worship within his jurisdiction. The result was to -obtain information respecting 14,077 churches or chapels, and 20,390 -dissenting meetings. Circulars were then sent out to the clergy, the -ministers, or other official persons, requesting to know, amongst other -things, the number of attendants on Sunday, the 30th of March, 1851, the -number of sittings, and the date at which the building was erected, or -first appropriated to religious worship (if since 1801). The report adds -that—“When delivering the schedules to the proper parties, the -enumerators told them it was not compulsory upon them to reply to the -inquiries; but that their compliance with the invitation was entirely -left to their own sense of the importance and the value to the public of -the information sought.” As might have been expected there were very -many instances in which no returns were made. These instances were -“principally places of worship in connexion with the Church of -England,—several of the clergy having entertained some scruples about -complying with an invitation not proceeding from episcopal authority. In -all such cases, a second application was made direct from the -Census-office, and this generally was favoured by a courteous return of -the particulars desired. The few remaining cases were remitted to the -registrar, who either got the necessary information from the secular -officers of the church, or else supplied, from his own knowledge, or from -the most attainable and accurate sources, an estimate of the number of -sittings and of the usual congregation.” After all, the number of -sittings could not be obtained in 2,134 cases, the number of attendants -in 1,004, and the number either of sittings or attendants in 390. - -With regard to the tables more immediately under notice, namely those -which profess to show the comparative progress of Church and Dissent -during the last half-century, the mode of proceeding was as follows:—The -buildings were first of all arranged under six heads—those erected or -appropriated to religious purposes prior to 1801, and those erected or so -appropriated during five subsequent periods. Thus:— - -Built before Churches. Meeting Houses. Total. -1801 9,667 3,427 13,094 -1811 55 1,169 1,224 -1821 97 1,905 2,002 -1831 276 2,865 3,141 -1841 667 4,199 4,866 -1851 1,197 4,397 5,594 -Dates not assigned 2,118 2,428 4,546 - -Mr. Mann’s next step was to distribute the last line amongst the six -previous ones, “according to the proportion which the number actually -assigned to each of the intervals bears towards the total having dates -assigned at all.” Multiplying the results so arrived at by the present -average number of sittings in churches (377), and by that in Dissenting -meeting houses (240), Mr. Mann obtained two tables (5 and 13) of which -the following is a summary:— - - Churches. Sittings. Meeting Houses. Sittings. Total Total - Buildings. Sittings. -1801 11,379 4,289,883 3,701 881,240 15,080 5,171,123 -1811 11,444 4,314,388 5,046 1,209,960 16,490 5,524,348 -1821 11,558 4,357,366 7,238 1,737,120 18,796 6,094,486 -1831 11,883 4,481,891 10,530 2,525,200 22,413 7,207,091 -1841 12,668 4,775,836 15,319 3,778,800 28,017 8,554,636 -1851 14,077 5,317,915 20,390 4,894,648 34,467 10,212,563 - {11} - -It would be uncandid not to state that Mr. Mann admits this estimate to -be open to some objection. His words are:—“It is probable that an -inference as to the position of affairs in former times can be drawn from -the dates of existing buildings with more correctness in the ease of the -Church of England, as the edifices are more permanent and less likely to -change hands than are the buildings used by the dissenters. Still there -is a possibility that too great an amount of accommodation has been -ascribed to the earlier periods.” The tables are, therefore, to be taken -with a “certain degree of qualification from this cause.” With respect -to the Nonconformists, he observes in a note:—“In 1801, according to the -estimate from dates, * * * the Dissenters had only 3,701 buildings. -This, however, is scarcely probable, and seems to prove that many -Dissenters’ buildings, existing in former years, have since become -disused, or have been replaced by others. As so much depends upon the -extent to which this disuse and substitution have prevailed, these -calculations, in the absence of any facts upon those points, must -necessarily be open to some doubts.” Now, it may be taken for granted -that no one reading these very mild qualifications would suppose that -they were intended to cover any serious error. Everybody would conclude -that the mere fact of Mr. Mann’s tables appearing in a grave public -document was a guarantee that they were in the main correct. Indeed, the -suspicion that they were not perfectly trustworthy never seemed to have -entered into anyone’s head. The Society for the Liberation of Religion -lost no time in issuing a manifesto grounded upon them, and the -dissenting prints have dwelt on them with great emphasis. Thus the -_Patriot_, some time ago, declared, with a sort of oath, that “as surely -as the morrow’s sun would rise,” so surely would Dissent be in a majority -at the next census. On the faith of these tables, too, Mr. Hadfield -announced, at the close of last session, that a spirit was growing up -which would not much longer tolerate such an abomination as a religious -establishment; and Mr. Gurney, in his sermon at the consecration of the -Bishops of Gloucester and Christchurch, admitted that Dissent was gaining -ground. - -Proceeding, without further comment, to examine the Tables in detail, it -must be remarked that Mr. Mann’s formula for distributing the dateless -buildings is open to very strong objections. It is not, however, -necessary to enter upon those objections at this point, because the -operation of the rule with regard to the churches (which shall be dealt -with first) happens by accident to be very nearly right—the number -assigned to the year 1831 corresponding pretty closely with the number -arrived at by the census inquiries in that year. Mr. Mann’s next step, -however, is begging the question with a vengeance. The circumstance that -churches now-a-days contain on the average 377 sittings, affords not the -least ground for supposing that the average capacity of churches was 377, -fifty years ago. On the contrary, it is absolutely impossible, from the -nature of church extension in modern times, that the average should have -remained stationary. First of all, everybody knows that churches in -large towns are, generally speaking, much more spacious than those in the -rest of the country; and unless, therefore, the proportion of large town -and country churches has remained exactly the same, the general average -capacity of churches must have been disturbed. Mr. Mann’s Table 14 -deprives him of any excuse he might have had for overlooking this obvious -fact. From that table we learn that there were in 1851:— - - Churches. Sittings. -In large town districts 3,457 1,995,729 -In residue of the country 10,620 3,322,186 - 14,077 5,317,915 - -—exactly the same as in the general table given above. In 1801, however, -matters were different. There were then— - - Churches. Sittings. -In large town districts 2,163 1,248,702 -In residue of the country 9,216 2,882,983 - 11,379 4,131,685 - -The number of churches is the same as in the general table, but the -number of sittings is less by 158,198. The discrepancy, however, is soon -explained. The average capacity of the larger town churches is 577 -sittings, or 200 above the general average, while that of the country -churches is 312, or only 65 less; and, while as many as 1,294 new -buildings of the former class have been erected, the number of the latter -class has only been 1,404. On Mr. Mann’s own showing, therefore, his -principle is erroneous, and his Table 13 has cheated the Church of nearly -160,000 sittings. But this is by no means the whole of the injustice of -which he has been guilty. Not merely have there been more churches built -in large towns than is consistent with maintaining the old average on the -country at large, but the new structures both in town and country are of -far greater dimensions than those anciently erected. An Englishman is -not naturally fond of large communities of any kind. He has a passion -for privacy; and his pet phrases are “snug,” “nice little,” “not -numerous, but select.” This feeling breaks out in everything. Take the -matter of lodging. Abroad, many families club together, and occupy a -mansion. The plan has been tried in this country; but it meets with -little success. Most men would regard themselves as “flats” indeed, if -they put up with a floor when they could get a house; and working men -regard model lodging-houses as little better than barracks, or, as they -still term them, “bastiles.” So in ecclesiastical arrangements, John -Bull, looking upon the parish as but an extension of the family, cannot -have it too little for his taste. Abroad, the parish is regarded more in -the light of a city within a city; and hence parochial churches on the -continent were always less numerous and far larger than was anciently the -case in this country. Even when we had large churches they were not -fitted up for many worshippers—size being regarded more a matter of -dignity than of practical utility. London, before the Great Fire, with -its vast cathedral, and its hundred and ten parish churches; or Norwich, -with its spacious minster, and its forty churches, fairly represent the -true English idea. In modern times, however, we are forced to act -differently. The sudden increase of population, and the utter -unpreparedness of the Church to grapple with the difficulty, have -produced an emergency of which our forefathers had no experience. We -adopt the continental custom from sheer necessity, just as in London a -third of the population are obliged, though much against their will, to -live in lodgings. We build our churches large because that is the -cheapest mode of supplying our immediate wants. The two systems may be -well illustrated by contrasting Norwich, with its 41 churches and 17,000 -sittings, with Manchester, which has 32 churches and 44,000 sittings; or -by comparing the City with its 73 churches and 42,000 sittings with the -Tower Hamlets which have 65 churches and 68,000 sittings. The census -tables contain many materials for an inferential argument with regard to -the size of our new churches, but it is hardly necessary to pursue the -matter further, because we have ample direct evidence bearing upon the -point. The Metropolis Church Building Society has assisted in the -erection of 85 churches, which contain 106,000 sittings, or an average of -1,247 each. The Church Building Commissioners have aided 520 churches, -and have thus assisted in providing 565,780 sittings, which would give an -average of 1,088 each. Even Mr. Mann himself admits, with amusing -_naïveté_, that “for many reasons the churches in large towns are -constructed of considerable size, and rarely with accommodation for less -than 1,000 persons!” [Report page clxii.] Precisely the same reasoning -will apply to the Church extension of the rural districts; and the reader -who has duly weighed the facts just stated will be little disposed to -doubt that in both cases the average size of modern churches is at least -double that of the churches which were in existence prior to 1801. On -that hypothesis it would be found by an easy arithmetical problem that -the capacity of town churches, in 1801, was 420 sittings, and of country -ones, 276. The increase in the former class would thus have been -1,086,960 sittings, and in the latter 775,008—making together 1,861,968. -Probably it was much more; but at all events the calculation omits a very -important element, namely, the new sittings which have been obtained by -the enlargement or the re-arrangement of old fabrics. From the -statistics of above a score of Church Building Societies, it would appear -that for every additional structure at least two old ones are rebuilt or -enlarged. There must thus have been at least 5,000 of these cases; and -though there are no accessible data on which to calculate the amount of -new accommodation in this manner afforded, it must have been very -considerable. - -On the whole, therefore, we may safely adopt the statistics of the -Incorporated Society for Building and Enlarging Churches as our guide. -This society has laboured impartially for the advantage of town and -country; and up to the year 1851 it had assisted in erecting 884 new -churches, and in rebuilding or enlarging 2,174 old ones. The total -amount of new sittings it had thus been instrumental in providing was -835,000; so that each new church would _represent_ an increase of -accommodation to the extent of 944 sittings. As, however, the society -probably assisted the more urgent cases, it would perhaps be safer to -assume that each new church has only represented an increase of 850 new -sittings—in other words, that the new churches not assisted by the -society represent about 800 each. The result will then be as follows:— - - No. of Churches. Sittings. -1801 11,379 3,024,615 - Decennial increase: -1811 65 55,250 -1821 114 96,900 -1831 325 276,250 -1841 785 667,250 -1851 1,409 1,197,650 -Total Increase 2,698 2,293,300 -Total 14,077 5,317,915 - -Turning now to the Dissenting tables, we shall find that Mr. Mann’s -formula leads to still more absurd results than when it is applied to the -churches. It has, however, the curious felicity of operating in the two -cases in a manner diametrically opposite; for while it robs the Church of -more than half the new accommodation which she has provided, it -obligingly credits Dissent with about the same number of sittings, to -which it has not the ghost of a claim. - -It is the proper place to offer here a few remarks upon the mode which -has been adopted for distributing the dateless buildings amongst the six -periods. Every one is, of course, aware that in many cases “there is -much virtue” in an average. In such problems as determining the number -of letters which will be posted in a given year without being addressed, -it operates with almost infallible certainty. But it must be clear that -2,428 out of 20,390 places could not have been returned without dates by -mere accident. In a large proportion of cases the omission must have -been intentional; and it is obvious that those cases would include very -few new buildings. The enumerators, being all persons possessed of local -knowledge, could have had no difficulty in determining whether a building -had or had not been erected within the last ten, twenty, or thirty years. -It would only be in cases where the structure was of what is called in -ladies’ sometimes “a certain,” sometimes “an uncertain” age, that they -would be unable to ascertain when it was erected or appropriated to -public worship. The number of such instances would bear no relation -whatever to the number having dates assigned. The case is wholly beyond -the province of the Rule of Three; and to attempt to adjust the table by -means of proportion is, on the face of it, unfair. Out of the 2,118 -dateless churches, no fewer than 1,712 are relegated to the number of -those erected before 1801, whereas of the 2,428 dateless meeting-houses, -only 465 would be placed in the same category. In point of fact, -however, there are not so many; for Mr. Mann has hit on a plan, which is -a miracle of perverse ingenuity, in order to make the growth of Dissent -during the half century look larger than ever. Ninety-nine persons out -of a hundred would have applied the rule first to the churches, then to -the meeting-houses, and then they would have added the results together. -Mr. Mann has adopted precisely the opposite course. He has, first of -all, dealt with the total column, then with the Church, and he has lastly -subtracted the one set of results from the other. The consequence is he -has assigned no more than 274 of the dateless meeting-houses to the -period before 1801. The total number he has distributed amongst the -first three periods is only 737, whereas he has divided no fewer than -1,691 amongst the last three. It need scarcely be said that all the -probabilities would be all in favour of reversing the process. - -At the outset, therefore, Mr. Mann’s estimate comes before us under -circumstances of extreme suspicion; but, granting, for the sake of -argument, that his distribution of the existing meeting-houses were -correct, it must be obvious that any inference from dates would be -preposterous unless we could be certain that there were no buildings in -existence at the earlier periods, other than those included in the table. -It has been seen that Mr. Mann has not overlooked this circumstance. He -admits that the small number assigned to 1801 “seems to prove that many -dissenters’ buildings existing in former years have since become disused -or have been replaced by others;” but no one would suspect from this -statement the vast number of these disused buildings. Take, for example, -the case of Nottingham. From Mr. Wylie’s local history it would appear -that of the 29 meeting-houses returned to the Census Office, only six -dated back to the commencement of the present century. In other words, -dissent in Nottingham, on Mr. Mann’s hypothesis, all but quintupled -itself during the 50 years. In point of fact, however, there were, not -six, but thirteen or fourteen, dissenting congregations in 1801, and -probably several more whose “memorial has perished with them.” - -The absurdity of the Census estimate may be still further illustrated by -a reference once more to Tables 6 and 14. Those tables are to Mr. Mann’s -calculation not very different from the proof of an addition sum. If his -estimate were right they would agree with Tables 5 and 13; but instead of -doing so, they lead to the following astounding results:—In 1851, there -were in the - - Meeting Houses. Sittings. Average - Sittings. -Large town 6,129 2,131,515 347 each. -districts -Residue of country 14,261 2,763,133 193 „ - -This is, of course, quite correct. But now see what the tables say of -1801— - - Meeting Houses. Sittings. Average - Sittings. -Large town 1,337 258,220 193 each. -districts -Residue of country 2,634 781,218 330 „ - -The late Mr. Hume’s emphatic appreciation of a certain “modest assurance” -as a means towards getting through life will be remembered. How the -lamented sage would have envied the courage of Mr. Mann in putting his -name to a document embodying these statements! It is really much the -same as if the Astronomer Royal had presented to Parliament an elaborate -calculation, signed with his proper name, in which he proved the diameter -of the earth to be 25,000 miles, and its circumference 8,000! Seriously, -the very least one might have expected from a public servant performing -an important official duty would have been to abandon calculations which -he must have observed led to nonsensical consequences; and not to put -forth statements which, while they involved a gross libel upon the most -venerable institution in the country, were calculated to prove, as they -have proved, so fatally misleading. These very Tables 6 and 14 are of -great importance. We are constantly hearing that the great towns -monopolise the intelligence of the age, and that it is they which are to -govern the country. What then, has been the verdict of the great towns -on the question—Church _versus_ Dissent? According to these tables, the -Church, in the large towns, has provided only 747,027 sittings to meet an -increase in the population of 5,621,096 souls. Dissent, in the meantime, -has furnished 1,873,305, or more than twice as many. The Church’s -increase is not two-thirds the number of sittings she originally -possessed; the increase of Dissent is more than sevenfold! If these -figures were only correct, it would hardly be possible to conceive a more -complete condemnation of the Church’s system; if they are not—and there -is no reason to think that Dissent has materially altered its position in -the large towns since 1801—it is impossible to imagine a more scandalous -or a more gratuitous calumny. - -Mr. Mann’s formula proving utterly untrustworthy, the question arises, -are there any data on which a substantially correct notion of the number -of Dissenting sittings in 1801 may be arrived at? To the writer, it -appears that there are. Thus, from the statistics of the different -Wesleyan bodies appended to Mr. Mann’s report, it would appear that the -old and new Connections in 1801 had at least 100,000 members. It would -further appear, that for every member the Wesleyans have about four -sittings, so that in 1801 the Wesleyans must have had at least 400,000 -sittings. The next question is, what proportion did the Wesleyans bear -to the aggregate Nonconformity of 1801? At present, the Wesleyan sects -have about 11/24ths of the entire number of Dissenting sittings; but -their ratio of progress has confessedly been double that of their fellow -Nonconformists. Mr. Mann’s process of calculating from dates, -unsatisfactory as it is in other respects, may, perhaps, be allowed to -decide how much of the entire Dissenting accommodation of 1801 was -possessed by the Wesleyan bodies. According to table 17, the old and new -Connections had between them only 165,000 sittings, out of the 881,240. -It has been shown, however, that they had, in reality, not less than -400,000; and, raising the sittings belonging to the other sects in the -same proportion, we get a total of 2,136,339. This result receives -complete corroboration from Mr. Mann’s own returns. First of all, it is -clear that meeting-houses which have remained in existence half a century -must be buildings of some importance. Dissenting places of worship are -of two classes—those which have regular congregations and a regular -ministry attached to them, and those which are merely temporary preaching -stations. The number of these latter will surprise the reader. Mr. -Edward Baines, in his evidence before the Churchrates Committee, -estimated that no fewer than 7,360 of the 19,000 which he supposed -belonged to “the three denominations” were of this description. The -total number of mere preaching stations, however, may be easily -ascertained. It may be safely assumed that all places which have a -regular ministry are opened both on Sunday mornings and on Sunday -afternoons or evenings. The total number of this class in 1851 was only -10,583; so that each would _represent_ an average of 462 sittings. Now, -as the number of Dissenting places of worship which date back to 1801 -cannot be less, even if calculated on Mr. Mann’s principle, than 3900, -the number of sittings in that year must have been upwards of 1,800,000. -But it would be a great fallacy to suppose that even first-class -Dissenting congregations are exempt from the tendency to decay and -disappear. If Nottingham may be taken as a fair example, it would seem -that not two-thirds of the regularly organised congregations existing in -1801 survive to this day. The total number of sittings at the -commencement of the present century would thus be at least 2,700,000. - -The matter does not, however, rest even here. These estimates are purely -conjectural; but since the writer first turned his attention to the -subject, a valuable piece of positive evidence has fallen in his way. It -is a Parliamentary return obtained by Mr. Bright last year, which -professes to show the number of places of worship licensed under the -Toleration Act. It is very imperfect in its earlier tables, but those -since 1800 seem to be tolerably complete. Comparing the number of places -licensed during each of the last five decennial periods with the number -of existing buildings returned to Mr. Mann as opened in each, we get the -following remarkable results:—{19} - -Ten years Places Still in Still in -ending licensed. existence. existence (per - cent.) -1810 5,460 1,169 21 -1820 10,161 1,905 18 -1830 10,585 2,865 27 -1840 7,422 4,199 56 -1850 5,810 4,397 75 - 39,438 14,535 - -This is a comparison which cannot fail to startle the editor of the -_Patriot_, and to shake the nerves of the Society for the Liberation of -Religion. It proves beyond the possibility of cavil that the enormous -and constantly increasing growth which Mr. Mann’s tables assign to modern -Dissent is “a mockery, a delusion, and a snare.” It shows, moreover -(which is the matter more immediately in hand), that barely two in seven -(21/75ths) of the Dissenting places of worship which were in existence in -1801, are still remaining. The number of such places was not 3,701, as -Mr. Mann states, but between 13,000 and 14,000; and the estimate of -sittings first made, after every conceivable allowance for increase of -average capacity, and other sources of error, is thus greatly under -rather than over the mark. The Dissenting increase may, therefore, be -safely taken at 2,758,309 sittings instead of 4,013,408; and if it be -distributed according to the proportion of places licensed, matters will -stand thus:— - -Ten years ending 1811 381,875 - ,, „ 1821 710,664 - ,, „ 1831 740,319 - ,, „ 1841 519,097 - ,, „ 1851 406,354 - -If it be objected that the average capacity of Dissenting buildings has -increased of late years, there are two answers—first, there is no -evidence of such increase to any material extent; and, secondly, that -there is an antagonistic influence at work, which would counterbalance -such increase if it existed. It must be clear that the number of -“causes” which annually collapse becomes greater in the same ratio as the -congregations themselves increase. Thus, almost the same number of -places were licensed in the ten years ending 1810 as in the same period -ending 1850; but the number of places discontinued out of 13,000 would -obviously be less than the number discontinued out of, say 18,500; so -that unless the new Dissenting meeting-houses are larger nowadays than -was formerly the case, the amount of sittings attributed to the latter -periods is too large, rather than too small. - -We have now materials for the reconstruction of our table:— - - Population. Church Dissenting Total - Sittings. Sittings. Sittings. -1801 8,892,536 3,024,615 2,136,339 5,160,954 -Subsequent decennial increase:— -1811 1,271,720 55,250 381,875 437,125 -1821 1,835,930 96,900 710,664 807,564 -1831 1,896,561 276,250 740,319 1,016,569 -1841 2,017,351 667,250 519,097 1,186,347 -1851 2,013,161 1,197,650 406,354 1,604,004 -Total 9,035,073 2,293,300 2,758,309 5,051,609 -Increase -Total 17,927,609 5,317,915 4,894,648 10,212,583 - -The number of sittings per thousand of the population was, at the -different periods, as follows:— - - ACCORDING TO THE ABOVE ACCORDING TO MR. MANN’S - TABLE. TABLE. - Church. Dissent. Church. Dissent. -1801 340 240 482 99 -1811 303 247 424 120 -1821 264 269 363 145 -1831 248 285 323 181 -1841 258 282 300 238 -1851 297 273 297 273 - -Thus it will be seen that every inference drawn from Mr. Mann’s tables -has proved false. - -Dissent has _not_, during the half century, supplied four times as much -new accommodation as the Church—if it has supplied any more at all, the -excess does not amount to a fourth. - -Dissent has _not_, during the last 20 years, supplied three times as much -accommodation as the Church—it has barely supplied half as much. - -Dissent is _not_ advancing at a pace twice as rapid as the Church; on the -contrary, the Church is advancing at nearly three times the speed of -Dissent. - -Dissent has _not_ improved its position, and the Church has not lost -position since 1831; on the contrary, the Church has gained, and Dissent -has lost, ground since that year. - -Finally, as churches, save only where there is an excess of accommodation -as compared with the population, are at least as well attended as -dissenting places of worship, the charge of comparative inefficiency -which has been so rashly brought against the clergy proves to be utterly -without foundation. - -Here, then, the present inquiry might be brought to a close; and yet it -would be palpably unfair to the Church to rest the case upon a mere -comparison of the additional sittings supplied by her rivals and by -herself. A new church, generally speaking, means a very different thing -from a new meeting-house. It means a substantially built and even -highly-decorative structure, the freehold of which is the property of the -community to which it belongs; it means decent and becoming furniture for -the performance of divine service; provision for a properly educated -minister in perpetuity; service performed at least twice every Sunday, or -even twice every day; a house for the resident minister; a day-school, or -rather a group of day-schools; and a host of other benevolent and -educational agencies. If the establishment of the day-school be taken as -a criterion how far the parochial machinery has been completed, the -following table from the report of the Educational Census will be -instructive:— - - DAY SCHOOLS SUPPORTED BY RELIGIOUS BODIES. - -Founded before Church Schools. Dissenting Schools. Total. -1801 709 57 766 -1811 350 60 410 -1821 756 123 879 -1831 897 124 1,021 -1841 2,002 415 2,417 -1855 3,448 1,156 4,604 -Not stated 409 89 498 - 8,571 2,024 10,595 - -What, on the other hand, is the status of a majority of the 20,390 -buildings returned to the Census office as “chapels” may be guessed from -the fact that the total number of professional dissenting ministers of -every description in 1851 was only 8,658. - -A very tangible mode of settling the question which body has done most to -evangelise the people would be to inquire how much each has spent? The -“Society for the Liberation of Religion,” in a tract they have put forth, -grounded on the Census report, states that the achievements of -voluntaryism during the half century have been “astonishing.” On the -authority of Mr. Edward Baines, they assume that of the 16,689 dissenting -chapels opened since 1801, “only” 10,000 are separate buildings, and that -the cost of each has been “but” £1,500—in other words, that dissenters -have spent £15,000,000 on their meeting-houses during the last fifty -years! That would, indeed, be an “astonishing” result, but it is not -half so surprising as the perfervid imagination which dictated the -calculation. In point of fact, it is equivalent to saying that the -dissenters have provided three millions of permanent sittings, at the -rate of five pounds per sitting. The real truth, however, is that they -have not supplied more than two millions and three quarters of new -sittings of any kind; and when it is considered in how many cases opening -a new meeting-house means hiring a room or building, in the popular -phrase, “on tick”; when it is further borne in mind that the average cost -of churches is not above £5 or £6 per sitting, it will be admitted that -five or six millions sterling would be a remarkably liberal sum to put -down for the amount really raised by dissenters for the purpose of -self-extension during the half century. On the other hand, the sum which -must have been spent on churches cannot have been less than ten or twelve -millions—of which one-half has been raised during the ten years 1841–51. -The expenditure on church extension at the present moment is at least -five times as great as that of all the dissenters put together. - -The votaries of _Iscariotism_, or the “cheap and nasty” in religion, will -perhaps turn this fact to account, and abuse Churchmen for lavishing such -large sums of money on a few buildings, while there is so much spiritual -destitution calling for relief. They will perhaps say, “Look what an -amount of spiritual agency the Dissenters bring to bear for half the sum -you expend; and, after all, the Dissenters ‘get more out of’ their -buildings than Churchmen.” At first sight, Mr. Mann’s tables appear to -justify this assertion; but here, as in every other respect, they only -mislead. According to Table 16 there were on the Census Sunday 190 -services in every 100 dissenting places of worship; whereas, there were -only 171 in the same number of churches. But if this table be any -criterion, it would appear that the machinery of Dissent is, by -comparison, more efficient in the rural districts than in the towns; for -while the Non-conformists opened their town buildings on the average 2.10 -times, and the Churchmen 2.06 times, they opened their country buildings -1.84 times and the Churchmen only 1.64 times. Yet it must be obvious -that the proportion of country congregations which possess a regular -ministry must be very small, the greater part of the 8,658 professional -Dissenting preachers being required for the towns. The fact is, the -majority of country meeting-houses are served by non-professional -persons. As soon as the morning service is over in the towns, a swarm of -“Spiritual Bashi-Bazooks,” issue forth, who, for the rest of the day, -play the more ambitious, if not more edifying, _rôle_ of preacher. The -sort of congregations to which they minister may be gathered from a -comparison of the number of meeting-houses and the number of sittings -open at the different periods of the day:— - - Meeting Houses (open). Sittings (open). -Morning 11,875 3,645,875 -Afternoon 11,338 2,506,116 -Evening 15,619 3,983,725 - -So that in the afternoon, with only 537 fewer places open, the number of -sittings was 1,139,759 fewer than in the morning. In the evening (when, -of course, all the more important buildings which were open in the -morning were again accessible to the public) the exertions of 3,744 -additional preachers, nearly a third more, only rendered available -337,850 additional sittings, or about one-eleventh more; and they -attracted only 97,668 additional hearers, an increase of less than one in -twenty-one! It may, perhaps, be allowable to doubt whether the labours -of non-resident, non-professional preachers can be attended with any -results worth speaking of; but, at all events, their irregular -ministrations can have no real bearing on the question whether the -regular meeting-houses are used more or less frequently than the -churches. Obviously, the fairest way would be to inquire which class of -buildings are opened the oftener throughout the whole week; and, in that -case, there is no doubt that the comparison would show greatly in favour -of the churches. If, however, we must confine ourselves to Sunday, the -proper question to ask would be—in how many cases there is a service -before, and another after, noon? The answer, according to Table 16, -would be as follows:— - - Churches. Meeting Houses. - (per cent.) (per cent.) -Town districts 85 75 -Rural ditto 62 43 -Whole country 66 51 - -If the investigation could be limited to the new accommodation, the -result would strikingly show that the extra outlay on the churches had in -no sense been thrown away. - -After all, the number of sittings a religious body can open in the -morning is the real test of its strength. Amongst persons of every -denomination there is a strong feeling that they ought to frequent their -own place of worship in the morning, but in the after part of the day -many persons do not consider themselves called upon to attend again, or -they feel themselves at liberty to visit other churches or meetings. In -short, to speak technically, the morning service is looked upon by -everybody as a service of “obligation,” while all the rest are regarded -as mere services of “devotion.” Now, of the 5,317,915 sittings belonging -to the Church, no fewer than 4,852,645 were actually available on the -Census morning. The remaining 465,270 were almost exclusively in the -country, where one clergyman has still often to serve more than one -parish or chapelry. Cases of this kind have of late years been much -diminished, owing to the operation of the Pluralities Act, and still more -in consequence of the increased zeal, both of the clergy and the laity. -The Bishop of Salisbury stated in his primary charge that the number of -churches in that diocese having two sermons on Sunday had increased -during the episcopate of Dr. Denison (16 years) from 143 to 426; and the -number having monthly communions from 35 to 181. The increase in the -number of church sittings during the past half century may be considered -as nett, for there can be no doubt that nearly all the new buildings have -the double service. At all events, if there are any that have not, they -are more than compensated for by those ancient churches where there was -formerly only one service on the Lord’s Day, but where there are now two. -On the other hand, the Dissenters are not able to open quite -three-fourths of their sittings on the Sunday morning; and as there is no -reason whatever for supposing that their new accommodation is exempt from -this deduction, we may subtract one-fourth from the gross number assigned -in the tables to each period. - -The following table, compiled on the assumption that 58 per cent. of the -population might attend divine worship on any Sunday morning, will show -at a glance the number of sittings really required at each decennial -period, and the real provision made to supply the deficiency:— - - Sittings Furnished By dissent. Total. - (open) by the - required. Church. -1801 5,157,671 2,559,345 1,577,143 4,136,488 -Increase decennially:— -1811 737,598 55,250 286,407 341,657 -1821 1,064,869 96,900 532,998 629,898 -1831 1,100,005 276,250 555,239 831,488 -1841 1,170,064 667,250 389,323 1,056,573 -1851 1,167,807 1,197,650 304,766 1,502,416 -Total 5,240,342 2,293,300 2,068,732 4,362,032 -increase -Total 10,398,013 4,852,645 3,645,875 8,498,520 - -Or, exhibiting the same results in a somewhat different form:— - - Sittings per Provided by By Dissent. Total. - 1,000 of Church. - population - required. -1801 580 287 177 464 -1811 580 257 183 441 -1821 580 225 199 424 -1831 580 214 212 426 -1841 580 229 209 438 -1851 580 270 203 473 - - Church loss since 1801, 17; Dissenting gain, 26: total Church loss, 43. - - Church gain since 1831, 56; Dissenting loss, 9; total Church gain, 65. - -This, then, is really the rate at which each body “is advancing in the -path of self extension;” and the best proof of its accuracy is, that it -exactly tallies with what one would have expected beforehand. Mr. Mann’s -tables, on the contrary, are absolutely incredible. We must never -forget, that during the Great Rebellion, Puritanism was actually the -dominant faction; and even at the Restoration it cannot be supposed that -the Dissenters were a small or an uninfluential class. In 1662 no fewer -than 2,000 ministers were ejected under the new Act of Uniformity; and as -at the last census there were only 6405 professional Protestant -Ministers, it will be seen that the ejected preachers alone formed a -larger body, in comparison with the existing population, than the -Protestant Dissenting Ministry does now. It cannot be doubted that every -one of those men had a greater or less following; and it must be -remembered that in the days of the Commonwealth there was always a rabble -of sects who might even then be called Dissenters. It is true that, -after the Restoration, Nonconformity was subjected to severe repressive -laws, but those laws were not enforced with unvarying rigour. In 1672 -there was the Indulgence, and in 1681 the House of Commons passed a -strong resolution against the prosecution of Protestant Dissenters. -Besides, after all, the Conventicle Acts only continued in force about 23 -years—not much longer, in fact, than Episcopacy had been proscribed by -law. The natural result which would follow the famous proclamation of -James II., and the subsequent passing of the Toleration Act, would be a -great and sudden revival of Dissent. How small was the church-feeling of -Parliament at the Revolution may be gathered from a curious fact -mentioned in Mr. Macaulay’s third volume. It was proposed that the -Commons should sit on Easter Monday. The Churchmen vigorously protested -against the innovation; but they did not dare to divide, and the House -did sit on the festival in question. Without at all straining the -inference to be drawn from this incident, it would be difficult, indeed, -to suppose that Churchmen had matters their own way. Even under the -penal laws, the Dissenters must have been a large body; for James the -Second’s scheme for forming a coalition of Roman Catholic and Protestant -Dissenters against the Establishment would have been stark folly unless -the two bodies, when combined, would have made up, at least, a powerful -minority. From the Revolution to 1801 the Dissenters had more than a -century to increase and multiply; and all the circumstances of the case -were in their favour. Worn out by the political struggles of a century -and a half, during which she had been made the tool of contending -factions; deprived of her Legislative powers; silenced and frowned upon -by the powers that were, the Church had sunk into that fatal lethargy -from which the present generation has only just seen her awake. During -that long and dreary period, all the prominent theologians, with a few -bright exceptions, were either Dissenters or inclined to Dissent. The -eighteenth century, too, was the golden age of popular Nonconformist -preachers. Not to mention a host of smaller names, Wesley and Whitfield -both rose, flourished, and died before its close. And yet, if we are to -believe Mr. Mann, the Dissenters in 1801 were a much smaller body, -compared with the whole population, than they were under the penal laws! -{25} On the other hand, all who remember the obloquy and contempt under -which the Church continued until the passing of the Reform Act, will -reject, without a moment’s hesitation, the notion that, in 1831, she -actually possessed more accommodation, in proportion to the population, -than at the present day. The change which has taken place in the popular -sentiment towards her has not been caused by any document like this -Census report, which suddenly appeared and disabused the public mind of -its preconceived ideas. It has, on the contrary, been brought about by -the silent influence of those spectacles of zeal and self-denying -liberality which have been witnessed in every corner of the land. The -Church has, in fact, lived down her traducers. A hundred proverbs bear -witness to the vast amount of good deeds which are required to remove an -evil reputation; and yet Mr. Mann calls upon us to believe that the -Establishment has achieved this, although, with all her numbers and all -her wealth, she has not, since 1831, done so much as the Wesleyan sects -alone, towards supplying the people with the means of religious -instruction and worship! One has no language to characterize such a -daring attempt on the public credulity. The most charitable hypothesis -will be to conclude that Mr. Mann, though an arithmetician by his office, -knows nothing about arithmetic; and so remit him to the consideration of -Mr. Roebuck and the Administrative Reform Society. {26} - -THE inquiry through which the reader has been invited to travel will -probably suggest several considerations; and first of all the importance -of putting a stop to the statistical nuisance which has of late years -flourished with so rank a growth. Surely it is time that members of both -Houses of Parliament, who resent so jealously any attempt on the part of -Government officials to exceed or fall short of the precise instructions -given them, in making returns, should raise their voices against the -system of publishing with official statistics the crude, and, as it has -been seen, the nonsensical but pernicious theorizings of the persons -entrusted with the task of compiling reports. Like Mr. Mantalini, the -majority of persons never trouble themselves to examine a numerical -process, but content themselves with simply asking what is the total; and -it therefore becomes the duty of Parliament to see that the unsuspecting -confidence of the public is not abused. The reader must not suppose that -the Report on Religious Worship is the only recent one which is open to -objection. The Census Report on Schools is just as full of fallacies; -and it has certainly been one of the strangest phenomena ever witnessed -in the history of public discussion, that the schemes of Lord John -Russell and Sir John Pakington, assailed as they were on every side, -should have escaped what would, after all, have been the most effective -blow that could have been aimed against them—the simple but conclusive -fact, so easily deducible from the premises of the Report on Schools, -that nearly as many children were under education as could be induced to -attend unless they were driven to the class of the teacher by the -policeman’s staff. {27} - -Again, the inquiry will probably satisfy the reader that the anti-Church -legislation of the day ought to proceed no further. It is easy to assign -the cause which in the first instance gave it birth. Most statesmen, it -may be presumed, will be ready to adopt, with regard to the multifarious -sects of modern Christianity, the last clause, at least, of Gibbon’s -famous dictum respecting the ancient religions of Pagan Rome—“to the -people equally true, to the philosopher equally false, to the magistrate -equally useful.” Persons who profess with sincerity almost any form of -Christian doctrine are comparatively easy to govern; they throw but a -light burden upon the poor-rate and they cost nothing at all in the shape -of police. A statesman, then, might dislike Dissent, but what was he to -say to a state of things like that revealed in the Census report? The -Church, according to Mr. Mann’s tables, could not, by dint of the utmost -exertions she is ever likely to put forth, find accommodation for half -the souls who are year by year added to the population. On the other -hand the Dissenters, who are far less wealthy, and have few endowments, -provide without difficulty and without fuss more than twice the amount of -new accommodation supplied by the Church. The irresistible inference in -the mind of a mere statesman would be that Dissent ought to be aided and -encouraged. But if it turns out that the facts are precisely the reverse -of what has been represented—if in reality Dissent is making no progress, -while the Church is providing new accommodation sufficient for the whole -of the new population—why should the Legislature go out of its path to -foster mere religious discord, and to impede the spread of what the -country has, after all, long since recognised as the “more excellent -way.” Why, for instance, should Churchrates be abolished? If they were -right in 1831, when there were more Dissenters and fewer Churchmen, why -are they wrong now? If Parliament has conferred upon parishes, _as a -boon_, the right to tax themselves (if a majority of the ratepayers think -fit) for the purpose of building and maintaining public baths, museums, -and libraries, why should parishes now be deprived of a right which they -possessed before there was a Chancellor of the Exchequer or a -budget—before the Norman set foot upon our shores, or there was a House -of Commons worthy of the name—the right to tax themselves in order to -maintain edifices which may be museums second in interest to none, and -which may have been centres of enlightenment long before the days of -Caxton and Guttenberg? - -There is another view of the case which ought not to be overlooked by -statesmen who regard a religious Establishment as a mere matter of -police. Granting that Dissent teaches men to be neither drunkards nor -thieves, is it calculated to make them as good citizens and as good -neighbours as the Church? The answer must surely be a negative. The -common consent of mankind has pronounced the famous descriptions of the -old Puritans in “Hudibras” to be almost as applicable to modern -Dissenters as to their ancient prototypes. Nor, indeed, would it be -easy, if they were not, to account for the popularity of Butler’s -oft-quoted lines; for even just satires, to say nothing of unjustifiable -lampoons, rarely survive the persons against whom they are directed. Of -course, men are often much better than the system to which they belong. -There are hundreds—nay, thousands—of Dissenters whose Dissent is a mere -accident of birth and education, and who are truly catholic at heart; but -of Dissent in the abstract, no one who has either studied its history or -is acquainted with its practical working will deny the applicability to -it not only of Butler’s portraiture, but of another yet more famous -description, qualified in the latter case, however, with the insertion or -omission throughout of the important word—“not.” Dissent suffers not -long, and is not kind—Dissent is envious—behaves itself unseemly—vaunts -itself, and is puffed up—seeks every tittle of its “rights”—is easily -provoked—thinks evil—gloats over every slip on the part of its -opponents—attributes what is good in them to a wrong motive—will bear -nothing of which it can rid itself by agitation or clamour—will put a -good construction upon nothing when an evil one is possible—hopes -nothing—endures nothing. If this were not so, how would it be possible -to account for its inveterate propensity to internal schism? The -scriptural account of the Kingdom of Heaven is that it should grow as -from a seed; but Dissent is propagated chiefly by _cuttings_. It is not -yet two hundred years since the Kirk was established in Scotland, and yet -there are no fewer than six sorts of Presbyterians. The case of -Wesleyanism is still worse. Within sixty years after the death of its -founder it had split into seven antagonistic sects. Whitfield himself -quarrelled with Wesley, and his followers have, since his death, -separated into two bodies. There are four sorts of Baptists. Of the -Independents, Mr. Mann speaks with refreshing innocence as forming “a -compact and undivided body.” It would be nearer the truth to say that -they consist of nearly as many sects as there are meeting-houses. Nearly -every congregation is of volcanic origin, and every one contains within -it elements which might at any moment explode and shatter the whole -concern. - -That the writer may not be thought to be unsupported by facts, he will -here summarize the history of Anabaptistic and Congregational Dissent in -the first town to the annals of which he has ready access—Nottingham, his -authority being Mr. Wylie’s local history, published in 1853. -Nottingham, however, is a remarkably good example for the purpose. It -has a manufacturing population of 57,000, having doubled itself since -1801. It is almost at the head of those places in which Dissent is most -rampant, and the Church most depressed. It possessed, according to Mr. -Mann’s table K, 35.2 Dissenting sittings to every hundred inhabitants, -the only other places equal or superior to it in that respect being -Merthyr Tydvil (52.4), Sunderland (35.2), Rochdale (36.5), and Swansea -(42.8). It boasts of 74.1 per cent. of the whole religious accommodation -within its boundaries, the only places having more being Merthyr (89.7), -and Rochdale (78.7). - - About the middle of the last century, then, the Presbyterian - congregation on the High Pavement adopted Socinian tenets; and many - families thereupon left it and joined a small congregation of - Calvinistic Independents in Castle-gate. Their meeting-house was - immediately enlarged, and it has ever since been considered the - leading Dissenting place of worship. In 1761, a second secession - from High Pavement, this time of Sabellians, built themselves a new - meeting-house in Halifax-place. In 1801, they erected themselves a - new building in St. Mary’s-gate, which has long since been closed. - In 1798, a third swarm, again Calvinistic Independents, left High - Pavement, and settled in the Halifax-place meeting-house, vacated by - their Sabellian predecessors. In 1819, they built themselves a new - meeting-house, called “Zion Chapel,” in Fletcher-gate, the old one - being now a school. In 1822, a secession from Castle-gate built a - new meeting-house in St. James’s-street; and six years later a - secession from St. James’s-street built a meeting-house in - Friar-lane. In 1804, a secession from Zion Chapel erected “Hephzibah - Chapel,” which being in debt, was sold to the Universalists in 1808, - and was soon afterwards converted into a National School. In 1828, - another secession from “Zion Chapel” erected a meeting called - “Bethesda Chapel.” - - The General Baptists at first met in a disused Wesleyan - meeting-house, called “The Tabernacle,” which has long since been - pulled down. In 1799 they built themselves a place in Stoney-street. - In 1817 a quarrel arose between Mr. Smith, the senior pastor, and his - junior, of whose pulpit talents he was said to be jealous. The - congregation dismissed them both, and appointed a Mr. George. On - Sunday, the 3rd of August, in the same year, there was a personal - conflict after the Donnybrook manner, between the partisans of Smith - and George. The friends of Smith being beaten drew off, and built - themselves a meeting-house in Broad-street. In 1850 there was - another secession from Stoney-street, who built themselves a - meeting-house on the Mansfield-road. - - The Particular Baptists originally occupied an ancient meeting-house - in Park-street: but in 1815 they built themselves a larger place in - George-street. In 1847 there was a secession of extra-Particulars. - These met first in a room in Clinton-street, then in an old building - which had been disused by the Quakers, and finally, in a splendid - gothic edifice, which they built for themselves on Derby-road. The - old meeting-house in Park-street fell into the hands of a - congregation of the Scotch variety of the sect, whose peace has only - been disturbed by the Bethesdians, who joined them in 1828, until - they decided upon setting up for themselves. - -Thus it will be seen that of the nine new congregations enumerated above, -not one was originated without a quarrel—a quarrel, too, of the worst -kind, a personal one. Nobody can study the history of religious polemics -without perceiving that the root of all that bitterness which has made -the _odium theologicum_ a proverb, is to be found in the tendency there -is in men to transfer the indignation they might reasonably feel against -error, from the error itself to those who hold it. If people would only -consent to forget history and would conduct the argument upon purely -abstract principles, even the Roman controversy might be made instructive -and edifying; but somehow, before long, the debate wanders away from the -truth or falsehood of the creed under discussion to that most irrelevant -of all issues, the virtues or failings of those by whom it is professed. -What shall we say, then, of a system which gives rise to controversies -which, from their commencement to their close, are purely personal? Lest -it should be supposed that the case of Nottingham is an isolated -instance, here is an extract on which the writer stumbled the other day -in a tract written in praise of Congregationalism, and stated on the -title page to be “commended by J. Bennett, D.D.” It appears to be quoted -from a work called “The Library of Ecclesiastical Knowledge,” and the -scene of the incident is stated to be “one of the principal cities of the -United States:”— - - A Baptist congregation, originally small, had increased so rapidly - that an enlargement of the chapel became necessary. It was - immediately effected. The congregation still continued to increase, - and a second time it became necessary to enlarge. Everything still - going on prosperously, a third enlargement, some time after, was - proposed. The noble-minded pastor, however, thinking that he had - already as much on his hands as any mere mortal could conscientiously - discharge, with a generous contempt for his own interests, opposed - this step, and suggested that they should exert themselves to raise a - new interest, entirely independent of the old one. The people - entered cheerfully into his design; nay, they made a nobler sacrifice - than that of their money. For as soon as the new building was - finished, one of the deacons, with a few of the most respectable - members of the old church, voluntarily separated from it, and - proceeded to form the infant _colony_ that had branched off from the - mother church. What is still more delightful, the two churches - formed a common fund for the erection of a third chapel. This was - soon accomplished. In a short time a large and flourishing church - was the result; and, at the time our informant related this fact, all - three churches were actually subscribing towards a fourth chapel. - This is noble conduct. Who can tell how soon cities and towns might - be evangelised, if this principle were sternly (!) acted upon? A - somewhat similar fact has, we understand, been recently witnessed in - a city of our own country, where some congregational churches have - imitated their Baptist brethren of America. When will all ministers - “go and do likewise?” - -This is truly edifying and amusing. First of all, mark the _habitat_ of -this Nonconformist phœnix, a congregation which has actually given birth -to another without a preliminary quarrel. We must actually cross the -Atlantic, and seek the phenomenon in the land where the penny-a-liner -places his sea-serpents, and his other choicer wonders. To increase -without envy, hatred, and uncharitableness is, it seems, to a Dissenter, -something inexpressibly “noble”—and brotherly love is something that must -be “sternly” acted upon! We may be quite certain that it is something -the congregational sects very rarely see, or it would not throw them into -such lamentable, and yet, in some sense, ludicrous contortions of -surprise. - -Perhaps some Dissenter will be whispering, after the manner of Mr. -Roebuck, the three words, Gorham, Liddell, Denison; but the _tu quoque_ -wholly fails. In the first place, it is the surprising peculiarity of -the present Church controversies that the noisiest, if not the -weightiest, disputants are not Churchmen at all. In the next place, -those who are Churchmen, and enter with any bitterness into the strife, -are remarkable neither for their number nor their influence. The great -party in the Church of England is, after all, the middle party; and -however fierce the cannonade which the extreme left, and its allies -outside the pale, may direct against the extreme right, their missiles -fly harmlessly over the vast body which lies between. The truth is, the -recent outburst of controversy, so far as the Church herself is -responsible for it, is nothing but the natural recoil of that -conservative sentiment which must always be a powerful feeling in a -religious community, from doctrines and usages which had become -unfamiliar. As the unfamiliarity passes away, the controversy will also -gradually cease. Already the doctrines and usages in question have been -unconsciously adopted by many of those who fancy themselves most opposed -to them; and, indeed, if our doughtiest combatants would only take pains -to understand what it is their antagonists really hold, they would often -find that they are fighting against mere shadows. The recent suits in -the ecclesiastical courts cannot but open the eyes of Churchmen to the -extreme tenuity of the points in dispute. Take the S. Barnabas case. -Everybody will remember the language which was applied to the “practices” -revived by Mr. Bennett. “Popish,” “histrionic,” “mummery,” were the -mildest terms in the repertory of that gentleman’s assailants. Those -“practices” remain to this day—if anything, they have been elaborated -rather than subjected to any mitigating process. Messrs. Westerton and -Beal bring the matter before the proper tribunal; but what are the only -issues they can find to raise? Such notable questions as whether the -cross, which glitters on the crown, the orb, and sceptre of the -Sovereign, which glows on the national banner, which crowns almost every -church gable in the land, with which every Churchman is marked at his -baptism, which the very Socinians place upon their buildings, is, -forsooth, a lawful ornament?—whether a table ceases to be a table by -being made of stone?—whether the altar which has never been moved these -two hundred years, and which nobody wants to move, must nevertheless be -movable?—whether the altar vestments and the “fair linen cloths” used -during Communion time, may have fringes, or must be plain-hemmed? Even -if Dr. Lushington’s judgment should eventually be confirmed, if in this -age of schools of design, Mr. Westerton’s crusade against art should -prove successful, the alterations that would be made at S. Barnabas would -be discernible by none out the keenest eyes—so little can there be found -in matters ritual to fight about. Even in the Denison case the points of -difference are almost as infinitesimal. It is true that under the -revived act of Elizabeth—compared with which the laws of Draco seem a -mild and considerate code—the Archdeacon has been sentenced to lose his -preferments; but his doctrine on the Real Presence has, in sober fact, -never been so much as challenged. His opponents, passing over all that -was material in his propositions, have only attacked a _quasi_ corollary -which he has added to his main position, but which is, in reality, a -complete _non-sequitur_. Whether Dr. Lushington is right or wrong, it is -clear that a person holding the dogma of transubstantiation itself might, -with perfect logical consistency, accept the ruling of the Court. - -The differences between the highest and the lowest schools being so -impalpable, it would seem absurd to suppose that the present -controversies can have a much longer continuance. But whether that be so -or not, there is a very important distinction (and one that is well worth -the notice of statesmen) between the extension of the Church and the -spread of Dissent. Church extension, as far as it goes, tends to compose -differences. The consecration of a new church is almost invariably -regarded as an occasion when party differences should be laid aside—the -opening of a new meeting-house is too commonly the crowning act of an -irreparable schism. - -Another lesson which the report of Mr. Mann ought to teach Churchmen is -the necessity there is for insisting upon the next religious census being -made a complete and accurate one. The next religious census ought to -include all such institutions as colleges, workhouses, hospitals, and the -like—it ought to be enforced by the same penalties as the civil census; -and it ought to be understood that all the returns would be printed in a -blue book. With these precautions the Church need not fear the result. -Even if the census of 1861 should prove no more trustworthy than that of -1851, it will remove a great deal of the misconceptions to which the -latter has given rise. As far as one may judge, the work of church -extension is progressing just as rapidly now as it was ten years ago; the -number of the clergy is just as rapidly augmenting; {33} and as all -additional clergymen have now to be supported on the voluntary principle, -we may presume that they follow the ordinary laws of supply and demand. -We may, therefore, confidently expect that the number of church sittings -open on the census morning in 1861 will not be fewer than six millions; -and if there be an average attendance (which there was not on the last -occasion) the number of persons present will be about three millions and -a half. That the Dissenters will be able to open any more sittings than -in 1851, is doubtful; for it must be remembered that since 1841 the -Church has been annually absorbing a population equal to the entire -yearly increase. But allowing them the same increase as has been -assigned to them for the decade 1841–51, they will not be able to open -more than four million sittings, and they will not have more than two -millions and a half of attendants. This estimate is formed on the -supposition that the next census will be made on the voluntary principle -like the last. If a more complete and accurate account is taken, the -result may be very different. It is quite within the bounds of -possibility that the number of church attendants may turn out to be near -four millions, while that of the Dissenters may not much exceed two. - -Looking at all the facts of the case, there is every reason why the -Church should take courage. Never since the Reformation has she had so -much real power for good—never has she been so free from abuses. Each -year sees thousands returning to the fold from which they or their -parents had strayed; each year sees her enemies more and more “dwindle, -peak, and pine.” Everything, too, points to a daily acceleration of the -process. At the very time that Convocation is resuming its functions, -the Non-conformist Union is compelled by internal dissentions to abandon -their yearly meeting. What Mr. Miall calls “the dissidence of -dissent”—that is to say, all in it that is pre-eminently narrow-minded, -ignorant, and infected with bigotry—is concentrating itself, and is thus -getting free the more respectable elements of modern non-conformity. -Meanwhile the better class of Dissenters are doing all in their power to -cut the ground from under their own feet. They are building -“steeple-houses,” inventing liturgies, and adopting even choral services; -in other words they are expressing in the most emphatic manner their -opinion that the whole theory of dissent is wrong. For a short time a -Brummagem ecclesiology may satisfy them; but in the end they will no -doubt rank themselves amongst the best sons of the Church. The truth is, -there is no other religious community at the present day which can bid so -high for the reverent attachment of Englishmen. Whatever the claims of -Rome—her antiquity, her catholicity, her apostolicity—they are equally -the Church of England’s. Her succession of bishops is the same, her -regard for the primitive church greater, her conception of Christendom -far more grand. The glories of the ancient rituals belong equally to the -Book of Common Prayer. It contains nothing material which was not in -them, there was nothing material in them (save only certain invocations -and legends of the saints) which is not in it. The Prayer Book is, in -fact, nothing but a translation (magnificently done) of the older -offices, a little compressed and simplified. The structure is the -same—the mode of using it the same; and if it has lost somewhat of the -multiplied ceremonies which were anciently observed, it has gained far -more in the majesty and breadth which it has acquired from its thoroughly -congregational character. Besides, it is throughout a reality, whereas -the office books of the Latin Communion have, to some extent at least, -become a sham. Thus the Breviary has long since been practically -abolished as a public form of prayer, and even as a manual of private -devotions for the clergy, that which forms its staple, the Book of -Psalms, has been virtually reduced to a fourth its bulk. In nearly a -thousand churches belonging to the Anglican communion the whole Psalter -is publicly recited every month, and in twenty times that number it is -said through twice every year. - -If Protestant Dissenters boast of their enlightenment or of their -reverence for Scripture, the Church may meet them on that ground likewise -with the utmost confidence. The Prayer-book scarcely recognises a person -to be a Churchman if he cannot read; and she directs some forty psalms -and some thirty chapters of the Bible to be gone through every week. In -a word, approach the Church of England from the most opposite points, and -she will be found to possess exactly that attribute which a person might -think is most admirable. The man who reverences antiquity—who has a -taste for art—who has a passion for ritual—who would have everything -“understanded of the people,”—he who insists upon ranks and orders—and he -who stands up for popular rights, will equally find in the Church of this -country the very quality which he deems important. Never was there any -institution so “many-sided;” never one that became with so much success -“all things to all men.” How she could ever have lost her hold on the -affections of Englishmen is indeed wonderful; but, in truth, until -lately, she has never had a chance of making herself understood. _Now_, -for the first time, her theory is beginning to be appreciated; and the -success which has attended her, wonderful as it has been, is probably but -the foretaste of a future more brilliant than anything of which we can -now form an idea. - - - - -FOOTNOTES. - - -{11} The above tables, it is right to say, have been obtained by -subtracting Mr. Mann’s tables relating to the Church from the tables -relating to places of worship in the aggregate. - -{19} It is right to say that the decennial periods do not exactly agree. -In Mr. Mann’s tables they are from 1801–11, &c.; in Mr. Bright’s return, -from 1800–10, &c. It is not, however, apprehended that this circumstance -would materially affect the calculation. - -{25} Neale estimates the Nonconformists, in the time of Charles II., at -a hundred and fifty thousand families, or three quarters of a million -persons; in other words, at about a sixth of the population. If the -Dissenters had in 1801 only 881,240 sittings, their number of morning -attendants would be considerably less than 400,000; and, allowing each -attendant to represent three persons, that would give a Dissenting -population of about 1,100,000. - -{26} The faculty of reasoning correctly in figures is not so ordinary an -accomplishment as might have been supposed. Even so intelligent a writer -as Mr. Henry Mayhew prints, at page 391 of his “Great World of London,” a -table, of which the following is a specimen:— - - 1842. Can neither Can read - read nor only (percent) - write (percent). -Convicted at assizes 39.79 27.21 -and sessions -Convicted—summarily 39.90 21.65 - Average 39.84 24.43 - -—the average being found by adding together the two lines and dividing -the sum by two. It need hardly, however, be pointed out that the result -so arrived at could not be true unless the number of persons in each -class was exactly the same. A man who had invested in the Great Western -Railway £900 which yielded him two per cent., and £100 in the South -Western which paid him six, might say, on Mr. Mayhew’s principle, that he -had invested £1000 at 4 per cent; but he would soon find out that he -would have to receive only £24 for his yearly dividend instead of -£40—£2.8 percent. instead of £4. - -{27} Mr. Mann calculates that without in the least interfering with -juvenile labour, and without questioning the discretion of parents who -kept children between the ages of 3 and 5 and 12 and 15 at home, there -ought to have been more than three million children at school in 1851. -It would be easy to show that this estimate is based upon nothing better -than a series of blunders and bad guesses, but there is a much shorter -mode of dealing with it. The children of the middle and upper classes do -not remain under professional instructors at home or at school for a -longer average period than six years. Now, the total number of children -in 1851 between the ages of 4 and 10 was 2,484,866, or 13.8 per cent. of -the entire population. The number actually on the school books was -2,200,000, or 12.2 per cent. So that either all the children in the -country were at school, but the average time was one-eighth too short; or -the average time was of the right length, but the number of scholars was -one-eighth too few. The truth, of course, lay somewhere between these -two alternatives. Since 1851 considerable progress has no doubt been -made; but it unfortunately turns out that the effect of improved -machinery is not to improve the general education, but merely to shorten -the time allotted to schooling. It is found that if by better modes of -tuition a child can be made sooner to acquire what its parents think -sufficient for it to know, it is only so much the sooner taken away. It -would therefore be vain to expect that the school per centage will ever -be much higher than it was in 1851—at least, until the middle classes -raise their own standard. Of the children on the schoolbooks in 1851, -the per centage of actual daily attendants was 83—91 for the private, and -79 for the public scholar. In America, where the schools are wholly -free, the per centage was still less. In Massachusetts, for example, it -was only 75. In other words, the attendance in England and Wales in 1851 -was 1,826,000 daily. If the 2,200,000 had all been private scholars, it -would have been 2,002,000. On the other hand if there had been 2,400,000 -free scholars, it would only have been 1,800,000. These figures will -speak for themselves. - -{33} The number of additional clergy ordained every year is stated to be -300. The number required to maintain the proportion of clergy to -population which existed in 1851 would be under 200. - - - - -***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRUTH ABOUT CHURCH EXTENSION*** - - -******* This file should be named 64878-0.txt or 64878-0.zip ******* - - -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: -http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/4/8/7/64878 - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |