'^I^ -4%i 
 
 t>^ 
 
 tp' ^ 
 
 1^^5^ 

 
 / 
 
 THE BEARING OF 
 
 KELIGIOFS EQUALITY 
 
 ON THB 
 
 EIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS 
 
 AKD 
 
 SPIRITUAL COMMUNITIES. 
 
 % Uttture 
 
 BY 
 
 EDWARD MIALL, M.P. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE MEMORIAL HALL, MANCHESTER, 
 
 January \Athy 1873, 
 
 dEntJer tfje aueipices o! tje Plancjester i^oncanformi'gt ^ggociation. 
 
 manchesteh \ 
 nonconformist association, 6, brown street. 
 
 LONDON : 
 HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 1873.
 
 THE BEARING OF RELIGIOUS EQUALITY 
 
 ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS AND 
 
 SPIRITUAL COMMUNITIES. 
 
 WHEN I gave my consent to open the present series of 
 lectures with one on the subject of "Religious Equality," 
 I did so with a simultaneous upcast to my mind of certain 
 apostolic words : " To write the same things to you, to me indeed 
 is not grievous, and for you it is safe." I was not guided to my 
 decision by a notion that I had anything fresh to say upon the 
 question, or that you had anything new to learn. The topic is in 
 its own nature so simple, so self-illuming, so directly answering to 
 the instinctive yearnings of the human conscience and heart, as to 
 furnish very little scope for remark. In this respect, it is like a 
 prismatic crystal — capable of showing a correct analysis of the 
 light which falls upon it, but yet singularly colourless and trans- 
 lucent in itself I don't need to detain you by any attempt to 
 extract from the phrase its logical meaning, or to dilate upon what, 
 in substance, is now almost everywhere and by everybody well 
 understood. " Religious equality," as a mere phrase, may not 
 express all that, in idea and in sentiment, we mean by it — but, 
 albeit priests may pass on the other side of the way without 
 recognising it, there is some ground for hoping, if not confidently 
 believing, that "they" of the commoner sort "who run, may read" 
 it, and the "wayfarers" of our electoral bodies, "though fools, will 
 not err therein." 
 
 The fact is, that religious equalitjf, as a sentiment, is to some, 
 extent, and, as a principle of action., is wholly, a thing of moderu 
 growth. Resembling in these resp'ects the Apostle Paul, it is like 
 one "born out of due time," but is nevertheless "not a whit behind.
 
 the chiefest" of political principles. It is one of those develop- 
 ments of Christian life which has been germinally imbedded in it 
 from the beginning, but which waited for a prepared condition of 
 society to make itself manifest. Personal liberty, social and inter- 
 national peace, and religious equality, are the three graces which, 
 born of a parentage that most of us acknowledge to be Divine, 
 have remained late on in the world's history before finding an ade- 
 quate opportunity for asserting themselves. The light of revelation, 
 as it pierced the mists of human error, disclosed, one by one, moral 
 principles of a somewhat more refined and reserved nature than 
 tlie moral and spiritual state of men could make full and profit- 
 able use of in earlier times. Christianity condemns civil establish- 
 ments of religion, after the same fashion, and by similar processes, 
 as those by which she condemns slavery and war — by quickening 
 and nourishing aspirations and habits which feel them to be 
 alien and antagonistic, and which must cast them out, or be ulti- 
 mately cast out by them. The Christian people of mediaeval times, 
 the Reformers of three centuries ago, the Puritans under the 
 disastrous reign of the Stuarts, were as ignorant of the claims, 
 and, consequently, as blind to the charms, of religious equality, 
 as they were callous to the sin of slavery — but it does not 
 necessarily follow that modern insensibility to either of these 
 principles is, or can be, as lightly tinged by blameworthiness 
 as was theirs. Liberationists — to use a convenient term for a 
 most inconvenient periphrasis, and which has the further recom- 
 mendation of being all but universally understood — are often 
 twitted with having got far m advance of what was professed by 
 their forefathers. Owen and Howe, Matthew Henry and Dodd- 
 ridge, Isaac Watts and John Wesley, are occasionally cited 
 by friends of the Church Establishment to bear witness that 
 they knew nothing of religious equality in their day; while 
 Presbyterians of the type of Baxter and Calamy, against whose 
 spiritual reputation not a whisper can now be breathed, regarded 
 it, if they ever thought of it at all, as a doctrine of the devil. 
 .But what does, this prove ? That the principle must be a false one? 
 l^ot at all — but that events had not yet put into their hands 
 'that key to the inner teaching of the gospel of the grace of God 
 which they have subsequently put into ours. Do the opponents 
 of religious equality object to this representation of the case? 
 
 ,UIUC 
 
 % J
 
 Do they regard us as bound in reason to stand by the 
 premature judgments of the Nonconformists who have gone 
 before us ? Well, but how is it they do not call to mind the 
 canon of their Master : " With what measure ye mete, it shall 
 be meted to you again ?" Why, the predecessors of our modern 
 Establishmentarians are left quite as far behind by their successors 
 as the old Puritans and Nonconformists are by Liberationists. 
 They reviled, ejected, imprisoned, pilloried, and branded the very 
 men whom their ecclesiastical descendants held up before us as 
 bright exemplars of spiritual wisdom and virtue. We do not 
 accept as oracular every thought expressed by our Nonconformist 
 forefathers, especially on questions which liad scarcely been pro- 
 pounded in their day. The subject of religious equality, like that 
 of personal slavery, and that of war, has had more abundant light 
 cast upon it since the generations which the glow of their 
 spirituality adorned. But when we are taunted with our de- 
 generacy, on account of the more decided views we hold than 
 theirs on the question of Church Establishment, might not they 
 who taunt us do well to remember that they also have advanced 
 beyond the position stiffly maintained by Establishmentarians of 
 between two and three centuries back — and that to such of them 
 as now plead the authority of Owen, Baxter, Watts, and Wesley 
 in condemnation of the doctrine of religious equality, and in 
 disparagement of the spiritual character of those who profess it, 
 there is danger lest they mcur the woful heritage of them who 
 were charged with building the tombs of the prophets, and 
 garnishing the sepulchres of the righteous, and thereby witnessing 
 unto themselves that they are the children of them which killed 
 the prophets. 
 
 Religious equality is a claim and a right correlative with 
 religious obligation. It grows out of the relation in which 
 Christianity puts the spirit of man to the Father of Spirits. The 
 clerical gentleman, with an university stamp upon his name, who 
 goes about lecturing to the public, asking what is religious 
 equality, and, proving to his own satisfaction" that there can be no 
 such thing in this world, does not appear to have reflected that 
 individuality of religious duty carries with it, of necessity, indi- 
 viduality of religious rights. He evidently looks upon indepen- 
 dence in the expression of that duty per se — that is, upon the
 
 6 
 
 assertion, in every individual case of the right to think and j udge, 
 and feel and act in spiritual matters, free from every kind of 
 authoritative interference by other men — as a very trivial act — 
 inherently and irremediably vulgar — unsuited to any but small 
 minds — having in it nothing of the lofty, the generous, the 
 magnanimous, or the good. But, surely, it may be soberly 
 affirmed that the position of religious equality is one of the very 
 noblest, grandest, most significant, most illustrious which it is 
 possible for the human mind to take. It may, indeed, be taken 
 by thoughtlessness — it may be taken unworthily— hypocrites may 
 take it, and so may fools — nevertheless, it is a glorious elevation 
 on which for man to take his stand — and if, perchance, he knows 
 not where he is, so much the worse for him, but it remains 
 unaltered. 
 
 For, wherein consists the essence of the individual assertion of 
 religious equality? What is it, viewed in itself ? It is a formal, 
 practical, solemn renunciation of intellectual and moral servitude — 
 an act wherein one stands erect in the presence of opposing 
 authority and calmly declares " I am a man." It is conscience 
 asserting its native claim to independence^ and, whilst it reverently 
 bows down before the throne of the Supreme, and pays its homage 
 there, expressing its determination to acknowledge no usurper- 
 It is a stern protest against the pride and presumption which would 
 set up for themselves a dominion where none but God can rule — 
 a blow struck for the dignity of human nature — a maintenance of 
 the common rights made over to us as heirs of immortality. It 
 looks royal and ecclesiastical imperiousness in the face, and says 
 "This conscience is not for you — nor, at your demand, are its pre- 
 rogatives to be ceded, or its convictions tampered with. It sees in 
 you no essential superiority — it owes you no responsibility. Born 
 free, it will surrender its high birthright to no empty assumptions. 
 Go elsewhere with your ecclesiastical decrees and laws, your threats 
 and bribes — this mind is not for you, but for its convictions of 
 truth only." 
 
 This is the ultimate basis on which the doctrine of religious 
 equality rests — this individual independence of the soul in the 
 sphere of spiritual things. It is not the purpose of the Man- 
 chester Nonconformist Committee, which, to a limited extent, I 
 may be understood to represent on the present occasion, nor is it
 
 vfiy purpose, to treat of this doctrine in its non-political aspects. 
 I dare hardly venture — where my responsibility is divided with 
 others — upon uncovering all my thoughts in relation to the theo- 
 logical, the spiritual phases of the principle it is my present 
 business to expound. This much, perhaps, I may be allowed to 
 intimate — that, accepting as our standard the idea and appreciation 
 of religious equality which prevailed in apostolic times, first, as 
 it respects individual position in relation to the Church, and 
 secondly, as regards our social organisations of religious life, the 
 present condition of things is not very cheerful, save, perhaps, as 
 a common preliminary to something better . than itself. I hardly 
 know of anything more mournful in the present day than the 
 wide success of priestly pretensions — of the claim made by no 
 small portion of the clergy of the Church of England, and con- 
 ventionally, and perhaps not very seriously, admitted by the laity, 
 to an official superiority, wholly independent of individual 
 character or merit. I can imagine men selling their souls to what 
 is spiritually questionable, when lured thereto by intellectual pre- 
 eminence and dexterity, or by ancient traditional system. I can 
 witness the sight, lamentable as I confess it to be, without 
 regarding them with shame and humiliation. But the rapid 
 spread of, and wide adhesion to, the investiture of Christian truth 
 in fine clothes, in man-millinery, in sensuous representations, all 
 employed, be it remembered, to glorify the priesthood, is not by 
 any means a pleasing sign of the times. I will say no more about 
 this subject, strongly as I am tempted to do so — but I cannot thus 
 cursorily glance at it without letting it be known that among the 
 most powerful of inducements to pursue religious equality in its 
 political and popular sense is the fact that the influence, the legal 
 authority, the prestige, the honours, the pecuniary resources, and 
 the social patronage of the State, are almost ostentatiously made 
 available to the clergy of the Church which enjoys them, for 
 decoying the people of England back to that depository of 
 " ecclesiastical rubbish" which their forefathers sturdily quitted. 
 
 Religious equality, however, although founded in individual 
 religious obligation, represents, in modern times, mainly, though 
 not exclusively, the relation of separate religious communities to 
 the laws of the realm. The phrase means, and always has meant, 
 the relative position to itself in which the law of the land places
 
 8 
 
 the separate organisations of Christian life into which the people 
 of this country have chosen to distribute themselves, or with 
 which, it may be, they are wholly disinclined to become identified. 
 What is signified by it is the equality of all religious denomina- 
 tions in the presence of the law — not their equality in spiritual 
 merit — not, when compared one with another, the equal claim of 
 the creeds which they profess, or the equal purity of the doctrines 
 which they uphold, or the equal fitness and success of the discipline 
 which they enforce — but their equal right to be protected from 
 molestation in doing their work. Mark this ! because this is just 
 the phase of the question which the opponents of the principle are 
 strongly tempted to evade. There is no pretension to equality — 
 or, to speak more precisely, there is no claim to any legal 
 recognition of authority, or right, in regard to the truths, or the 
 regulations, or the customs, which any religious denomination may 
 assert for itself. Let them by all means enter the lists of mutual 
 rivalry, if they please, and tilt at each other for such prizes of 
 spiritual supremacy as they may be able to win. Religious 
 equality does not pretend to pronounce upon their respective 
 merits, or to judge between Episcopalians, Baptists, Independents, 
 Presbyterians, or Friends. It claims only that the conditions of 
 law under which they all enter the lists shall be the same — that 
 there shall be for all and for each " a clear stage, and no favour " 
 — and that what derives its force and its worth from the common 
 fund of a nation's sanction, influence, or resources, shall not be 
 applied, or, rather, misapplied, to sectional objects. 
 
 Religious equality, then — that is, the equal position and 
 status of all spiritual associations, so far as they are determinable 
 by civil law, and their equal treatment, whether in the way of 
 protection or of restraint by the legally expressed will of the 
 nation — carries with it, of course, as its inevitable practical 
 consequence, disestablishment and disendowment. We cannot 
 reach the one but through means of the other. The principle in its 
 positive and concrete form cannot be adequately embodied in the 
 laws of the realm, until it has been used in its negative form, in 
 detaching from special connection with the State any existing 
 religious institutions which may chance to stand towards it in a 
 relation of favouritism. It were to be wished that it were possible 
 in this case to build up without first pulling down. Unfortunately
 
 9 
 
 for the advocacy of so obviously an equitable, true, and noble 
 principle, an obligation is imposed upon us to clear the ground of 
 actual obstructions before proceeding to erect an edifice on its 
 foundations. It will be expected of us, therefore, that having 
 described what is comprehended within the phrase, religious 
 equality, we should go on to vindicate it as a reasonable claim. 
 
 Most persons cherish a lively interest in the religious body to 
 which they have attached themselves. That interest is a real 
 thing, a possession, a gratification which I have as much right to 
 indulge, and to claim the protection of law in indulging, as I have 
 to minister to my desire of property. There is something repre- 
 senting what belongs to me — ay, I may say, to the best part of 
 me — in the spiritual organisation which commands my confidence. 
 The approbation given by my conscience to the forms of religious 
 truth expressed by its standards — the intellectual pride I may have 
 in its history and its traditions — my sympathy with the spirit of 
 its teaching — my reliance upon the breadth, or, as the case may 
 be, upon the precision of its avowed objects — my hope of its 
 success, and my joy in the contemplation of it — these things are 
 as veritable realities to me as money, or houses, or lands, or what 
 not. I may even care for them a great deal more than for these 
 more material possessions, prize them more highly, and more closely 
 identify with them my well-being. Well, now, will anyone tell 
 me what good reason can be assigned for an equality of treatment 
 by the law of the land wherever the more tangible blessings are 
 concerned, which cannot also be as forcibly assigned for an equality 
 of treatment by law wherever my denominational sympathies are 
 involved ? Any show of favouritism which would be unjust in 
 the one case would be unjust also in the other, and oftentimes 
 more galling. Why should the law abandon me to a tyranny in 
 regard to this matter, from which it carefully shields me in regard to 
 that? Nay, let me withdraw the question, for it is calculated to 
 mislead. Why should the law of the land, instead of being a protect- 
 ing powertome in this regard, becomeanantagonisticandpersecuting 
 authority ? In every parish of the kingdom I meet with institu- 
 tional arrangements to obstruct the spread of my denominational 
 views, and to efface the spiritual impressions which I deem to be 
 most in accordance with the divine will. Well, what, you will ask, 
 have I to complain of ? Nothing whatever, I reply, so long as the
 
 10 
 
 institutional opposition to my views rests upon a basis of personal 
 conviction and voluntary effort, under the same legal protection. 
 But, in effect, law, instead of protecting my rights in these matters, 
 itself violates them, sets aside my claim to equality with others as 
 an immoderate and unjustifiable claim, and ostentatiously, and in 
 the name of God, helps my neighbour to put down my religious 
 ideas, if they can be put down, by being constitutionally and 
 legally discountenanced. 
 
 For example, I am (say) a Wesleyan Methodist, believing 
 heartily in the doctrines, strongly attached to the polity, and 
 submitting by preference to the discipline, set forth and organised 
 by John Wesley. I put in no claim to special legal facilities on 
 that account. I am content to stand upon the same footing as 
 the Independents or the Baptists, the Presbyterians or the 
 Quakers. They do not coincide with me. They are as much 
 attached to their theological and ecclesiastical convictions as I 
 can be to mine. I meet their competition at every turn, not a 
 very wise one (you may suggest) in any case. But what I do not 
 meet in the case of any of these denominations, and what I do 
 meet with in the case of Protestant Episcopalians, is a trained 
 minister in every parish, whose business ii is to prevent as far as 
 possible the reproduction in the minds of others of my spiritual 
 convictions, and the extension of the religious system to which I 
 am attached ; and who has been put where he is, and is sustained 
 in what he does, by that law which ought to be impartial 
 towards all its subjects. Well, this is what I call a violation of 
 religious equality. It is in itself a thing to be complained of It 
 may be excusable, but if so, we should like to hear the excuse. 
 As matters now stand, we who do not conform are doubly wronged. 
 The law, which ought to protect all, stands right across the path of 
 our spiritual ideas and purposes, while they whom it specially 
 patronises shower contempt upon us because we are left out in 
 the cold, and ask continually, as if they were truly ignorant of 
 the real pith of the inquiry, " What is religious equality ?" 
 
 But the argument, as thus put, does not represent the full 
 strength of the case. It leaves out of sight the rights of religious 
 communities, as such. Take, for instance, the Wesleyan bodies — 
 for I feel more freedom in claiming perfect justice for a denomi- 
 nation to which I do not belong, than for that to which I do
 
 11 
 
 belong. Well, the Wesleyan communities of various sections and 
 shades of organisation, represent altogether an immense sum total 
 of religious convictions — a vast force of religious activity — a 
 singular aptitude for laying hold of, and dragging under the 
 purifying and elevating power of Christian truth, those classes of 
 our countrymen who are most exposed to the baneful influences of 
 poverty, ignorance, and vice. The Bishop of your city — of whom 
 I may say, in passing, that I would be sorry to speak in any terms 
 but those of high respect — pleaded not long since for the continued 
 maintenance of the Church of England as an establishment, that 
 she is doing her work fairly welL Suppose she is — may not the 
 same thing be said of the Wesleyan bodies ? I refrain from 
 instituting any ill-natured comparisons. But I ask, on what 
 ground is it that public law and public resources should be set 
 apart for the encouragement and support of the one, and for the 
 depression and hindrance of the other? The spiritual work of 
 Wesleyans is not even recognised by the State. In multitudes of 
 parishes, particularly in rural districts, it is frowned upon, de- 
 nounced, and obstructed by the clerical representatives of State 
 religionism. That is to say, the State which comprehends every 
 member of the entire community furnishes, at the expense, moral 
 and material, of the whole nation, one section with. means and 
 authority to counteract as far as possible the religious work of 
 another section. This is not theory only. The wrong — if it be a 
 wrong — is real, practical, operative, common. We Dissenters meet 
 with it in almost every turn of effort we make for the evangelisa- 
 tion of the country. There is always and everywhere a higher 
 authority to overbear and neutralise, as far as in it lies, the 
 authority to which we make our appeal in our promulgation of 
 Christian truth. Certainly, it is a little more discreet than it used 
 to be, especially where it is under the watchful eye of public 
 opinion. But almost unconsciously to itself, it usually assumes 
 airs of superiority, regards us as interlopers in the vineyard of the 
 common Master, questions our warrant, and in many ways, and 
 with more or less determination, impairs our religious influence. 
 Perhaps, in any case, we are destined to encounter this kind of 
 disparagement. But surely it is not just that we should encounter 
 it at the hands of the State. 
 
 It is more than unjust. It is, in a high Christian sense, very
 
 12 
 
 impolitic. It diminislies to an incalculable extent the remedial 
 force wbicli spiritual philanthropy is bringing to bear against 
 irreligion and sin in this country. It tends to conceal, if not to 
 misrepresent, the disinterested motives which have ever been 
 found most successful in winning men's sympathies to the gospel 
 of the grace of God. It destroys that harmony which ought to be 
 pre-eminently conspicuous in the spirit and labours of those who 
 are professedly seeking to implant faith in, and love towards, the 
 same Lord. Denominational rivalries there would doubtless be 
 even if law did not interpose to exasperate them. But, at any 
 rate, they would be the growth only of human infirmity ; would 
 derive no sanction from the authority of the civil power; and 
 might be expected to languish, if not wholly to whither, under 
 the light and warmth of that true " law of liberty" which arbit- 
 rary restraints are so powerful to rob of its healing efficacy. 
 The violation of religious equality between separate spiritual 
 communities is a prolific source of divisions, carries them into 
 almost all the grades of social life, and, to that extent, weakness 
 among all denominations the regenerative energy of the truths 
 they proclaim. 
 
 Now I know what will be said in justification of the present 
 imequal bearing of the State towards different religious bodies. 
 " We must have some national recognition of God and Christianity 
 (unless we can be content to bear the curse of being a Godless 
 people), and disestablishment implies that there shall be none." 
 But is it to be understood that a national recognition of God 
 necessarily carries with it the legal patronage and endowment 
 of one out of many forms of Christian organisation ? When 
 the Founder of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth rebuked 
 His disciples for disputing which of them should be greatest — ot> 
 in other words, which of them should have a right to infringe 
 upon the law of religious equality, what was it He said ? " Ye 
 know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles 
 exercise lordship over them, and their great ones exercise authority 
 upon them. But so it shall not be among you. But whosoever 
 will be great among you shall be your minister ; and whosoever of 
 you will be the chiefest shall be the servant of all." Think 
 now, of taking such words as these, which set forth one of the 
 great principles of Christ's kingdom, and, in the face of them.
 
 13 
 
 insisting upon offering national homage to the Supreme by 
 exalting one section of his followers above all others, and patron- 
 ising, petting, and endowing its ministers as the only authorised 
 ministers of the Son of God. We ought to have a national 
 recognition of God and Christianity, but we cannot have it by 
 trampling contemptuously or heedlessly upon Divine authority. 
 Let the rulers of this land, in deference to the God of Peace, do all 
 that in them lies to promote peace on earth ; let them strive to 
 their utmost to minister justice to their subjects ; let them frame 
 their laws upon an unselfish and impartial basis, aiming thereby 
 to discourage immorality, to suppress vice, and to strike terror only 
 into evil doers ; let them seek to render unto all men their due, 
 and to extend equally to all men the protective power of the State; 
 and in this way, by practical obedience to the principles and spirit 
 of the Gospel, they will do far more to please and honour God 
 than they can do by placing the bishops of one particular church 
 in the House of Lords, by giving legal recognition and pre-eminence 
 to the clergy of that church, or by appropriating resources belong- 
 ing to the whole nation to the special ecclesiastical advantage of 
 less than half its people. 
 
 The second plea of justification for a violation by law of 
 religious equality is that the poor require spiritual provision to 
 be made for them at the threshold of their own homes, " without 
 money and without price." To this it may be replied, that a 
 religion which costs people nothing is not often, as a matter of 
 fact, the most highly appreciated. It is not a cheap gospel 
 that will save people ; or, perhaps I might more correctly say, 
 cheapness is not the element of gospel administration best fitted 
 to secure its acceptance. Life, warmth, disinterested affection, 
 aelf-sacrifice, gentleness — these go much further to commend the 
 grace of God to the poor than any costly provision of means at 
 other people's expense, or any legal authority or social pre-eminence 
 enjoyed by the clergy. But how has the existing system affected 
 the poor in regard to their spiritual interests ? Are they, as a 
 class, won to religion by the agency of the State Church ? Have 
 they not everywhere, in town and in country, become very largely 
 alienated, not merely from the Church "as by law established," 
 but from all religious organisations ? It would be a mistake to 
 do injustice, and to override equity, even for the purpose of saving
 
 14 
 
 the souls of the poor — for God's laws cannot be transgressed with 
 impunity. But, in truth, it is found to be a mistake that does not 
 pay — a pretence that is not made good — an assumed responsibility 
 that cannot be discharged. The poor must be won by some other 
 means than by an ostentatious disregard of religious equality, even 
 for their sakes. We commend to notice the declaration of God by 
 His prophet — " He hath showed thee, O man, what is good ; and 
 what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly, and to love 
 mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God ?" 
 
 I have now done. I have looked at the question, as you will have 
 observed, chiefly in its religious aspect. I reserve its political 
 bearing for another place at another time. I think I cannot be 
 far wrong in taking it for granted that Nonconformists care more 
 for religious equality, for the effect which its adoption by the 
 Legislature would have upon the progress and development of 
 Christian life in this country, than for the political justice which 
 the act would do themselves. They do not by any means under- 
 value the latter object, but it is with a view to the former that 
 their main interest in it is called forth. Hence it is that I cherish 
 the hope that the question of the Church Establishment will be 
 settled in a religious spirit, not by the prevalence of mere numbers, 
 still less by political passion, but calmly, considerately, and on a 
 basis of principle which both sides will mutually recognise. That 
 it will be settled before the end of another decade is, I think, very 
 likely. Indeed, many shrewd politicians predict that the existing 
 system will not endure so long, so furiously do warring sections 
 rage within its confines. But whether this be so or not, I, for one, 
 confidently believe that the friends of religious equality will see 
 their work surely and fully accomplished. It may not be done by 
 the Nonconformist bodies alone — I hope it will not — but it will be 
 done nevertheless, and done, I trust, by the union of large num- 
 bers within the Church of England with the religious communities 
 outside of it, for the purpose of rescuing Christian ministrations 
 from political strife, and trusting them to those inspirations of the 
 Divine Spirit which, according to the Apostle, " are mighty to the 
 pulling down of strongholds." 
 
 A. IRELAND AND CO., PRINTERS, MANCHESTER.
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE NONCONFORMIST ASSOCIATION, 
 
 6, BROWN STREET, MANCHESTER. 
 
 Religious Equality in its connection with National and Eeligious 
 Life. By Alexander Maclaren, B.A. (Price One Penny.) 
 
 The Politics of Nonconformity. By E. W. Dale, M.A. (Price 
 Twopence.) 
 
 Church Property : whose is it ? By Marmaduke Miller. (Price 
 Twopence.) 
 
 Religious EquaHty in the Light of History. By J. Baldwin 
 Brown, B.A. (Price One Penny.) 
 
 Religious Equality and Christian Unity. By John Edmond, D.D. 
 (Price One Penny.) 
 
 [The above Jive Lectures may also be had bound together 
 in wrapper^ One Shilling.'] 
 
 Report of the General Conference of Nonconformists, held in 
 Manchester, January 23, 24, and 25, 1872. (Prioe Half-a- 
 Crown. ) 
 
 The Political Relations of the Nonconformists to the Liberal 
 Party. By Henry Richard, M.P. (Price One Penny.) 
 
 What Nonconformists Want. A HandbiU. (Price One Shil- 
 ling per 100.) 
 
 An Appeal to Justice. A Letter addressed to the Editor of 
 *' The Sword and Trowel," and read by the Rev. C. H. 
 Spurgeon, in the Free Trade Hall, Manchester. (Price 
 Is. 6d. per 100.) 
 
 The Government and the Irish University Question. A Paper 
 read at a Nonconformist Conference, held in London, 
 December 12, 1872. (Price Is. 6d. per 100.) 
 
 SOLD BY ALL BOOKSELLERS.
 
 In addition to the Lecture on Religious Equality, 
 BY Edward Miall, Esq., M.P., 
 
 THREE 
 
 IjECTXJKEIS 
 
 Will be delivered, under the auspices of the Manchester N'onconformiat 
 
 Association, in the 
 
 FREE TRADE HALL, 
 
 NAMELY :— 
 
 Tuesday, January 21st. 
 
 EEV. J. GUINNESS EOGEES, B.A. 
 
 Subject : — *' Tlie Bennett Judgment, and recent Episcopal 
 Charges." 
 
 Chairman: JOSEPH THOMPSON, Esq. 
 
 Tuesday, January 28th. 
 
 NEVILLE GOODMAN, ESQ., M.A. 
 
 Subject: — *' The Established Church a Hindrance to 
 
 Progressive Thought." 
 
 Chairman : HUGH MASON, Esq., J.^. 
 
 Tuesday, February 4th. 
 
 HENRY EICHARD, ESQ., M.P. 
 
 Subject : — " The Influence of the Established Church on 
 the Progress of Liberty and Liberal Legislation." 
 
 Chairman: JACOB BBIGHT, Esq., M.P. 
 
 The Lectures wiU be published immediately after dehvery, 
 
 K'onconformist Association, 6, Brown-atreed 
 January 20th, 1873,
 
 ■I
 
 4^fv%*"-^^^ 
 
 f^^ 
 
 m kM 
 
 f ' 
 
 ',V -••'-*•-- „ 
 
 X. -^- 
 
 
 
 ■-'■if ^ 
 
 ^fe 
 
 S' 
 
 --c^i 
 
 •- i^