v^. *',-l "^tesM .^; ■4f «*? A 1i ^,.m. ^ti LI E) R.A RY OF THE U N I VLRSITY Of ILLINOIS ^z CO-ORGANISATION OF DIOCESAN AND CENTRAL Church Societies. Preface by THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER. PUBLISHED AT THE OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL CURATES SOCIETY, 7, Whitehall. PREFACE. In consequence of my remarks — which will be found on page 19 — at the Anniversary Meeting of the Additional Curates' Society, the following pages have been submitted to me with a view to my prefixing to them a few words of preface. They indicate a line of work — or rather a principle of working — which, I believe would be found most fruitful of results, and those, results of the highest and most beneficial order — a principle which, so far as I am aware, has not hitherto received sufficient attention among Churchmen. I refer to the principle of solidarity in Church work. What I have endeavoured to promote in Manchester as a principle of action between parishes is here advocated as a bond of co-operation between dioceses, and though perhaps the Diocese is more distinctly the ecclesiastical unit than the parish, and the principle, of course, must have its natural limits, I do not think the suggestions in this paper go beyond the bounds of sober reasonableness or prac- tical applicability. I earnestly commend the subject to the thouo-htful consideration of Churchmen. J. MANCHESTER. Bishops Court, Manchester, June 14, 1878. TflE Additional Curates SoctETY and Diocesan Action (An, Address giv6n at the Tturo Diocesan Conference, 1877^ hy Um Rev. Arthur J. Ingram, M.A., Secretary, A.C.S.) My Lord and Gentlemen,— My first duty is to express my gratitude to your Lordship for the honour you have done me in inviting me to be present at this Conference. It has been a great privilege and one that I shall ever gratefully remember. I must next state to the Conference that the Committee of the Additional Curates Society allowed me to accept the invi- tation, but gave me no instructions. Whatever I may there- fore say in speaking by your Lordship's wish, on the subject which rises out of Mr. Hullah's Rider : viz., the extension of the Society's work in Cornwall,— I must say on my own res- ponsibility, and not officially as from the Committee. In speaking then of the development of the Society's work I shall seek to enlist your sym_pathy in its extension in the direction of Diocesan action co-operating with Central action. Now in determining the question whether any co-operation should exist between Central and Diocesan Societies, I think we shall be all agreed that the answer to that question must entirely depend upon the nature and constitution of the Central Society. The Diocesan Society stands in its unassail- able position as an integral part of Church organization: Central Societies managed by self-constituted Committees or 4 Committees elected by Subscribers unhappily have no such position. They have arisen from time to time from the necessities of the Church in an age when Church organization was in an abnormal condition ; in a time when Convocation, the Provincial Synod, was silenced — and silenced as we may assume from the recent remarks of one in high authority, as much by the apathy and slumber of its members, as by the jealousy of the secular power. They have arisen therefore during this period of silence on the part of the body corporate of the Church — Convocation — with no authority or power other than that derived from the piety of those who founded them : they have been the creation of individual Christians not of the Church in her corporate capacity ; they have been Handmaids, more or less faithful, of the Church, not the duly appointed headquarters of the Provincial or National Church in action. Of these various Central Societies which have been thus founded, some have been constituted more in accordance with Church order than others. I do not desire to make a compa- rative list of merit in this particular, — that is beyond my object, — but I cannot hesitate to state, and that without fear of contradiction, that those Societies which have boldly, as a first principle, insisted on having as their ex officio and chief rulers, the whole bench of Bishops, with the Primates as their Presi- dents, come nearest to the idea of Societies constituted in accor- dance with Church order. — Unofficially such Societies have the quasi-sanction, at any rate, of the Upper House of Convo- cation. By the first Rider to the Resolution now before the Confer- ence, it is assumed that one of these Societies — the A.C.S. — should extend its work in this Diocese. The Additional Curates' Society has the advantage not only of that degree of Church order in its constitution which I have just pointed out as belonging to certain societies in the Church, but of all societies for Home Work it is specially the Society which works throughout in harmony with Church order; wherever it works its rules and bye-laws fully sustain the authority of the Bishop and the rights of the Incumbent. It cannot act without the free will application of the latter : it cannot act without the ifnprimo.tur of the former ; and as in this initiatory step it respects Church discipline, so also in all its subsequent dealings, — e.g. it in no way interferes with the right of the incumbent in the selection of a curate to be supported by its grant. The only condition it makes is that such curata shall be licensed by the Bishop before payment of the grant commences. I venture, therefore, to submit that in the present state of provincial or national Church organization, the Additional Curates' Society is a Society with which any Diocesan Society might work in active and hearty co-operation, and without any fear of those misunderstandings which would undoubtedly arise if any spirit of a " party character" coloured its constitu- tion or ruled its action. The question arises here — Is any co-operation needed ? Cannot a Diocesan Society supply all the needs of the Diocese ? If it cannot, we at once see the necessity of co-operation in order to obtain external aid. But let it be granted in any particular case that it can do so, I fail to see that even this evidence of wealth excuses such Diocese from co-operation with the central fund for the benefit of the poorer Dioceses. Our aim then should be — Co-operation with a provincial or national fund for the purpose of inducing the richer Dioceses to help the poorer. The more we can make our Dioceses feel themselves to be the units of a provincial or national whole — either needing assistance from or bound to give assist- ance to each other the better. Until this principle is firmly grasped and acted upon, I, for one, fear we shall never obtain a sound and working " Church Finance Scheme. Some Dioceses will be starving ; others indolent in their riches. What is wanted is a Common Fund, to which all Dioceses should be united, and from which some in their poverty should receive block grants in addition to what they are able to raise themselves. I must not stay to dwell on the more united feeling in 6 spiritual life which would be the natural outcome of this more united system of necessary work amongst ourselves. Many thoughts of this nature will occur to everyone here. We all feel the need of a more vigorous corporate life. — The fact of this Conference proves that the feeling does exist here — and if so, then we shall not lightly throw aside any oppor- tunity which tends to strengthen that longing; but I must pass on at once to show what an experience of twenty years in the service of the Additional Curates' Society has taught me, viz ; — (a.) That a Central Society is the best agency for collecting money. (6.) That a Diocesan Committee is the best agency for spend, ing money. (c.) And that by the co-operation of the two, the Church's best interests are secured. The Society for which I have the privilege to work has had extended means during many years of observing the working of Diocesan Societies for the supply of Additional Curates, and the Committee have become convinced that the Church's best interests are not served by the creation of Diocesan Societies, pure and simple, for this purpose. We have seen the rise and the extinction in some cases of such Societies; in others their rise and temporary prosperity, and then a lingering existence in poverty^ and consequently in comparative inactivity. On the other hand, the Committee feel strongly that a Provincial or Central Society, pure and simple, with a Committee sitting in London lacks an element of power by not having a Diocesan representative to aid it in its dealings in matters relating to that particular Diocese. Hence they feel that the Church's best interests would be secured by the work- ing of the two systems in active harmony. Roughly it is this: — (1.) A great central Home Missionary Society is the best system for collecting funds. (2.) Committees of Diocesan Synods, presided over by their respective Bishops, present the best system for voting grants from those funds. I trust you will bear with me while I state a few reasons which lead me to these conclusions. A Central Society possesses the advantages of a fixed and properly conducted office, where accounts are systematically kept, where grants are punctually paid, and where corre- spondents can obtain immediate information. I am perfectly sure that financial success greatly depends upon what some would call "these trifling details." Then, again, a great Central Society has its staff" of organising Secretaries, systematically preaching and speaking, and personally canvassing in its behalf. They have the widest field from which to draw facts for their speeches, and illustrations for their country village lectures, and thus are enabled to interest all classes of society in the grand Home Missionary work of the Church for which they plead. I do not deny that a Diocesan Society might possess these advantages ; but I doubt whether it could afibrd them. The majority of our Diocesan Societies certainly reply in the negative. They have in each case, as a rule, but one Secretary. He, engaged in parochial or other work is frequently, if not always, unable to preach in its behalf: it depends therefore mainly for its life on the occasional " whips" by the Bishop of the Diocese ; and for want of the organising staff which the larger Society pos- sesses, the Bishop's Pastoral is not responded to as it otherwise would be. A striking illustration of my meaning occurred not many years ago : — In a certain Diocese, of which I need not give the name, the Bishop issued a Pastoral letter, for the Diocesan Society. — The result was disappointing. In the same Diocese, in a subsequent year, the Bishop issued a Pastoral letter in favour of the Additional Curates Society, but he placed it in the hands of our Organising Secretary, who, in sending it to the clergy, enclosed with it a note from himself offering his services as preacher.— Our receipts from that Diocese were more than doubled. On both occasions, there can be no doubt, the people were equally ready to respond to the Bishop's wishes ; but they understood his message best when it was brought home and explained to them by the living voice of a preacher conversant with the subject, and by under- 8 standing it their hearts were touched and their purses opened. I think my point may be again proved by the great success which has marked the progress of the Additional Curates Society since my predecessor — Mr. Cutts — introduced the pre- sent increased staff of organising Secretaries. It is mainly to his foresight that the Society's income has, during the last few years, increased at the rate of nearly £5,000 a year. I doubt if all the Diocesan Societies together can speak of so large an increase as this. Our total income is now over £70,000 a year. I have mentioned these facts to show that a great Central Society is, to my mind, the best agency for gathering funds. I believe a Diocesan Committee would be the best agency for distributing those funds. I venture to hope that you will support me in both propositions. With regard to the latter : we do the best we can in London in deciding the relative merits of the appli- cations which come to us from a distant Diocese like this ; but it is self-evident that, knowing little or nothing but what comes to us on paper, we are liable to make mistakes. A Diocesan Committee, with its local knowledge, would pro- bably avoid those mistakes. That is one reason in favour of grants being either voted or recommended by a Diocesan Com- mittee ; but there is another and, to my mind, a stronger one. In explaining it I shall adopt the weighty words of the pre- sent Bishop of Salisbury, and make them my appeal to you to adopt some such scheme as that which I am bringing before you. "A Committee," said the Bishop of Salis- bury at the Brighton Congress, speaking of his own Dio- cesan Conference, " A Committee, which will, I hope, sit in " permanence, has been charged to examine closely and report " upon the spiritual provision of parishes in regard to the "number of the Clergy and Church accommodation. It " might, perhaps, be thought that our existing Societies for " additional Clergy and Churches might render such a Com- " mittee unnecessary ; but it is to be remembered that Societies 9 " of this kind only move when they are moved by the parishes. " Sleepy parishes do not move. We wish to find what parishes "ought to move, to set them moving, and so give the " Societies more to do." We cannot do that in London. It is often a great grief to us — it is not infrequently flung at us as a reproach. The parish, and indeed the Diocese, would resent such interference from without ; but a Diocesan Com- mittee, with the Bishop at its head, or the Bishop supported by the opinion of his Conference, would be a moral force which the unworked parish could hardly resist. I beg, then, my Lord, to recommend for the adoption of this Conference the following resolutions : — (1). That the existing organisation of the Additional Curates Society for the collection of funds in the Diocese be accepted by the Conference in preference to the creation of a new and independent Diocesan Fund. (2). That a Committee of this Conference be appointed to work in active co-operation with the Central Committee. (3). That such Committee draw up a scheme of co-operation to be submitted to the Central Com- mittee, and that such scheme, when agreed upon by both Committees, be submitted to the next Conference for confir- mation. (4). That the Society's District Organising Secretary be ex officio an Hon. Secretary of the Diocesan Committee. (5). That for the year now commencing the Committee of the Diocesan Conference have power to co-operate with the Central Society in whatever may be mutually agreed upon. I am sure if some such scheme be adopted the Com- mittee may assume that the Bishop of the Diocese will, as necessity arises, issue his pastoral letter in favour of the Fund. (Applause). In conclusion, I would say one word as to the present financial position of the Society in the Diocese. Including sums locally raised to meet the Society's grants, our grants amount to £995. Including those same sums in our receipts from the Diocese they amount to £732. The Diocese is therefore a gainer of £263 a year from our general fund. If the scheme I have sketched out be accepted this excess grant must inevitably be 10 increased; for I take it as a matter of course that the Exeter Diocesan Society's grants made in Cornwall will be added on to the list of the Additional Curates Society's grants. At the same time we shall use every effort to induce all parishes in the Diocese to support what will in future come before them not so much as the work of the Additional Curates Society, qua Society, as the work of their own Diocesan Fund." ADOPTION OF THE SCHEME BY THE DIOCESAN CONFERENCE. The Eesolutions, after a few words of hearty approval from the Bishop, were formally proposed by the Rev. Canon Cornish seconded by the Rev. Prebendary Hockin, and unanimously adopted. A Committee of the Conference was then appointed to carry the intention of the Resolutions into effect. ADOPTION OF THE SCHEME BY THE COMMITTEE OF THE ADDITIONAL CURATES SOCIETY, The principle of the scheme embodied in Mr. Ingram's paper, and the Resolutions adopted by the Truro Diocesan Conference, having been considered by the Committee of the Additional Curates Society, at their Meeting on the 13th of November, 1877 — a resolution was unanimously passed expressing their satisfaction with the successful result of their Secretary's mission, and appointing a sub-committee to arrange further working details with the Committee of the Conference. TRURO DIOCESAN CONFERENCE. 1878. Report of the Diocesan Additional Curates Society Committee, The Committee appointed by the Diocesan Conference of 1877 to draw up a scheme of co-operation with " The Society for Promoting the Employment of Additional Curates," to be submitted to the Central Committee — such scheme to be laid before the Diocesan Conference of 1878 — have to report that the following Bye-laws have been agreed upon between themselves and the Central Com- mittee, subject to ratification by the Diocesan Conference : — 1. That all Grants be subject to the Society's General Rules and Bye-laws. 2. That all applications for Grants shall be made to the Central Committee, through the Diocesan Committee, with the sanction of the Bishop, and shall annually, and, in cases of grave urgency, from time to time as they may arise, be sent with their opinion and remarks thereon, to the Central Com- mittee, who shall make all Grants at their discretion. 3. That it shall be the duty of the Diocesan Committee to obtain information as to any deficiencies which may exist in the amount of spiritual ministrations provided for the Diocese, and to report to the Diocesan Conference, and also to the Central Committee. 4. That all payments of Grants shall be made through the Diocesan Committee. 5. That a Representative of the Diocesan Conference, to be elected by the Conference shall be an ex-officio member of the Central Committee. It was agreed that the Rules of the Society should be so altered as to allow this Resolution to take effect. Your Committee believe that the foregoing Bye-laws will effectively carry out the principle affirmed by the Truro Diocesan Conference — that the existing organisation of the ACS. should be used for the Collection of Funds, and that the Diocese from which these Funds are drawn should exercise a reasonable direction in their distribution. Your Committee further confidently anticipate that the adoption of the scheme now laid before you will increase and maintain the interest of the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese by diffusing know- ledge of the calls upon the Church in Cornwall for additional spiritual ministrations, and her means of meeting these calls, as they may arise. Your Committee venture to express their hope that this scheme, if ratified, may result in the cause of the A.C.S. being advocated in the future, in one form or another, in every parish in the Diocese where the ground is not occupied by some kindred Society. Your Committee view with special satisfaction the Bye-law (5) which gives to this Diocese a voice in the administration of the affairs of the Society at large, It would accordingly become the duty of this Conference, upon the acceptance of this scheme, to elect a Representative to serve on the Central Committee of the Society. H. H. DU BOULAY, 1 ^ . T. F. DALE, f ^^^' ^^^"' This Report was unanimously adopted by the Conference. ADDITIONAL CURATES SOCIETY, 7, Whitehall. At a Meeting of the Committee held on Tuesday, May 13, 1879, the following new Rule, which was adopted at the April Meeting was confirmed- The Rule to be known as Rule IX : — " That any duly constituted Diocesan Conference on adopting a scheme of co-organization with the Society, approved by the Committee, shall have the privilege of electing a Member of the Conference (such Member being also a Member of the Society) to serve on the Committee ; such Member to retire from the Committee at the end of not more than four years, but to be eligible for re-election by the Conference. " The Society's Rule II was then amended and adopted in the following form : — " That the business of the Society be conducted by a Commit- tee, consisting of the Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Trustees, and Treasurers, and twenty-four other Members, one-half Clergymen and the other Laymen, together with Diocesan Representatives, whose election is provided for by Rule IX. CHURCH ORGANIZATION: Central Action and Diocesan Action. ( Reprinted from the Literary Churchman of November 17, 1877.) Our national character is one which takes naturally to details, and is suspicious of committing itself to large principles and for far- reaching schemes. There is a sort of timorous jealousy about our national temper. The Englishman is, above all things, jealous of anything which compromises his independence. If his assent to a prin- ciple is asked, even if the principle be almost self-evident, he is sure to ask himself : — where will this lead me % what will it tie me up to % If I say yes to it, shall I not at some future day find that I have sac- rificed my freedom of action and rivetted some fetters round my feet, put my hands into some, till then unknown and undiscovered, manacles % So we say our national temper, bold as it is in action, is characterized by a curious sort of timorousness, a jealous suspici- ousness and a timidity in all matters beyond the range of instan- taneous procedure. No doubt there is to a certain extent a kind of safety in all this. It saves us from a conspicuous smash ; it saves us in unnumbered instances from the reproach of the unfinished tower in the Gospel Parable. But there is the other side to the question as well, and it tends also to a certain narrowness, not merely of views but of enterprise. Of all nations we are the most enterprising owing to our restless energy ; yet of all nations the magnitude of our results is most out of proportion to the breadth of our conception ; and it may sometimes be doubted whether a little more breadth of view at the starting might not have contributed somewhat to the felicity of the ultimate achievement. The history of the Church of England during the last forty years is not inconsistent with this national trait. That history presents a remarkable example of energy, expansion, and organisation. It is also an instance of all this revived energy beginning, not from a cen- tre or with large views, but sporadically, and with attention to details. The revived activity of the Church of England was born, 12 not in Diocesan centres or Cathedral Closes or in Episcopal Palaces, but it began in its parishes and in the resuscitated vitality of its parochial system. Speaking generally it was here that the work began. Not that we forget the Episcopate of Bishop Blomfield and his (exceptionally) large outlooks. Not that we forget the Diocesan energies of Bishop J. B. Sumner in Chester, of Bishop Longley in Eipon, or pre-eminently Bishop Wilberforce in Oxford. But after making all conceivable allowance for these cases, still so far as the country at large was concerned the revival of vital action was con- cerned mainly with the department of parochial work, parochial organization, parochical extension. Thus the movement has been an ascending one. Following next upon the parochial revival we have had that of the Diocese. As things now are, our Dioceses are not mere geographical expressions, but they are fast becoming, if they have not in all cases fully become, real organised realities with their individual entity, their corporate life, their vital organisation, just as much as a well-ordered and compact parish. The pheno- menon is a hopeful one. It attests the vitality of the movement from below, and it guarantees, so far as anything can guarantee it, that the movement which began at the extremities will not die out or perish. It is as when, after drowning the revived warmth of the limbs is followed by renewed action of the heart, without which the new warmth at the extremities could not be sustained, but would fall back into the chill of death. And this revival of the idea of Diocesan unity and Diocesan action is followed by exactly the same phenomena as in the case of the parishes. As overgrown parishes, once more brought into living action, soon found themselves too big to work, and got themselves divided, so now our Diocese. An inert and slumbering Diocese can go on slumbering just as comfortably whether it includes a couple of million souls or only a couple of hundred thousand. Not so one which is trying to work and act. Accordingly we are now in the stage of Diocesan expansion, and we most earnestly hope and trust that nothing may hinder that expan- sion running its full and necessary course. During the last month we have had the pleasure of seeing what we may call the Launch of a new Diocese in the assembling of the first Conference of the Diocese of Truro, and no one who has read the wise and compre- hensive address of its Bishop can help feeling the happiest hopes for its future. But it is not merely with the view of felicitating the new 13 Diocese and its new Bishop on their auspicious start that we advert to the occurrence. We have been not a little struck by a paper of unusual practical value read at the Conference by Mr. A. J. Ingram, the active and well-known Secretary to the Society for the Employ- ment of Additional Curates, and to which we would ask the atten- tion of our readers. Each several Diocesan Conference presents some feature of individuality, and that of Truro was marked by its Bishop having invited an extra-Diocesan speaker, Mr. Ingram, to read a paper on a matter at once of Diocesan and of general import. The step, we consider, to have been a very wise one, and that in more respects than one. It was a wise thing to ask a gentleman like Mr. Ingram, with special experience in a special department, to read a paper at all. But it was wiser still in this, that it showed a ten- dency to prevent the Diocesan Conference from becoming too exclu- sively, too narrowly Diocesan. There may be Diocesan, as well as a Parochial narrowness, and just as it was necessary that our Par- ochial resuscitation should be followed up by a correlative resuscita- tion of Diocesan Life, so too, our revived Diocesan vitality must postulate as its corelative, a revived — or rather shall we not say, to speak more truly — some neiv, but most real^ means of looking at our Church interests and Church enterprises from a point of view which shall regard our Dioceses not as independent units, but as portions of the larger whole of our entire English Church. Of course we shall be told that there are two such Bodies as the Convocation of Canterbury and York ; that there are Primates as well as Diocesan Bishops, and what not. True ; but though these Bodies and these Potentates exist, can they as yet be truly said to act in the sense of which we speak. What we really need may be described as a sort of Church Cabinet which may take cognisance of Church needs as a whole, may excogitate means for meeting them as a whole, may pre- pare measures for acceptance, with a view to the general well-being of the Church and country at large. In our last number we wrote strongly on the need which exists for forming some Lay Body to co-operate with Convocation. We are by no means bigoted to our own particular view as to the mode of effectuating out our desire ; but that, in some form or other, it must — and will ere long — ^be car- ried out we are certain. Well, we have little doubt but that one of the very first steps which wotdd be taken by such a Lay Body as we then suggested, acting with Convocation would be the formation of 14 some permanent central Committee, or Council, or Board, call it what you please, which should be a Standing Committee for pur- poses both of counsel and of action. Such a Committee would have for its first object to search out all the weak places of our work and organization throughout the whole country : it would take cognis- ance of the regions where, and the reasons why, the work of the Church is either feeble or comparatively (as in some districts) power- less, of the means if any for supplementing its wants, and if at pre- sent such means are non-existent, then to say so plainly, and to call for further help. One part of England does not know how another portion lives ; and the Dioceses of the South have — in their abund- ance of parishes and of clergy — little notion how sadly inadequate is the Church's staff of clergy and supply of parish churches and par- ochial endowments in the midland and the northern Dioceses. The Bishops of these Dioceses are too totally overworked in doing what must be done, to be themselves the agitators in rousing the Church as a whole to the duty of making some combined effort for Church extension in the great centres of population : and so the need goes generally unnoticed and disregarded. And yet it is a matter which concerns the Church as a whole quite as much as the regions where the need exists. Look at the facts brought out by Canon Ashwell in his speech on Church and Dissent at the Croydon Congress. What he said — freely rendered —practically comes to this : — " What is the use of talking about re-comprehension of Dissen- ters when our existing system is already taxed beyond its strength 1 Where is it that Dissenters abound 1 It is not where there are clergy and churches in a measure fairly adequate to the need, but in the northern and midland districts, where as yet the Church has not been able to expand her system in proportion to population. Expand your system until it is large enough to take in the Dissenters, and then see what will follow." And then Mr. Ashwell gave an illustration of what he meant, by contrasting the church and clergy supply in the case of the Diocese of Salisbury, and in the cases of the Dioceses of Durham, Chester, and Manchester, as follows : — " Take the case of the Diocese of Salisbury, with its 380,000 souls, its 480 parish churches, and its 680 clergy as a standard. Then look at Durham, with three times the population, its 350 parish churches, and 510 clergy: look at Chester, with four times the population, 416 churches, and 634 clergy : look at Manchester, with 15 five times the population. 450 parish churches, and 700 clergy. Look at all these millions of population, with this comparative handful of clergy — numbers which include all aged and infirm incumbents and curates, as well as the young and active — and say if the picture is not one in which the hungry sheep look up and are not fed, not because the clergy are inactive, hut because there are not clergy enough to do the work." The figures are only too eloquent. Not one of these huge Dioceses of Durham, Chester, and Manchester, with respectively three, four, and five times the population of the Salisbury Diocese, has as many parishes as the smaller diocese of Salisbury. Adding them all together, while their united population is twelve times as many, they have only 1,216 parishes against 480 of Sarum, while their clergy number only 1,844 against Salisbury's 680, — i.e., considerably less than three times the number. Strike off from these vast Dioceses all the large number of rural parishes of small population, in which the counties of Northumberland, Cheshire, and parts of Lancashire abound, and what a picture does not this present with respect to the supply of clergy and of churches for their densely-populated portions! And how, when we talk of the re-comprehension of Nonconformists, does not this tell us that our first duty is to expand our agencies wide enough to receive them when recovered. Then comes the question, whose business is all this? Surely it is idle to answer, that it is a matter which concerns the Diocese alone. It is a matter in which the country as a whole, in which the Church as a whole, is interested, and surely it is one which, if made as generally known as it should be, would lead to some general and not merely local efforts to amend it. It is facts such as these which make the intelligent Churchman long for some central administrative or collective Body, which should be charged with informing the Chnrch as a whole of how things stand in the places with which, as a rule the educated and the cultivated are least acquainted, and so bringing home to their hearts and consciences the enormous call there is in our own country at once for missionary enterprise, and for church expansion. But we have wandered somewhat afield from Mr. Ingram's paper although we have been only working upon the lines which he indicated. His recommendations have indeed suggested what we have been writing, although in the first instance they were limited to proposals respecting the Additional Curates' Society and the new 16 Truro Diocese. Those recommendations went to tlie point that the new Diocese, instead of forming an Additional Curates' Society of its own, should rather support the Central Institution to the utmost of its power, and then make application as a Diocese for such a block sum as the Conference of the Diocese, after full inquiry, considered to be requisite. Thus the Conference, as representing the Diocese, would be charged with two duties: —1. The ascertainment of the Diocesan need ; 2. The administration and distribution of the Society's block grant, while the Society should undertake the duty of gathering in the money by means of its Preachers, Organising Secretaries, Lecturers, &c., &c. In this way it seems to us that the harmony of Central and Local effort would be perfect while each is undertaking what it is best qualified to execute. Mr. Ingram said well that a Committee of the Diocesan Conference would be far better able to say how much help towards an additional curate a particular parish ought to have than the London Committee could, and that it would be a very good thing for the London Committee to be relieved of the duty of apportioning the several grants. Then, on the other hand, the London Society, with its large amount of stored up information, its selected staff of Organising Secretaries, Speakers, Lecturers, and so on, must be far better able to organise and carry on meetings, provide efficient preachers and speakers than any local society could possibly be. Mr. Ingram, therefore, proposes that the London Society should be the great money-gathering agent, the Diocesan Conferences the money-spending agencies, and it is greatly to our satisfaction that we observe the acceptance of his scheme at Truro. More at present we cannot add, but we must in parting say that we hope his paper may be printed separately, and copies of it studied by the Standing Committees of the various Diocesan Conferences. EXTRACTS Central and Diocesan Co-organisation.— i^^om^/ie^.C^S', Report for 1877. — "From the earliest days of the Society's existence the Committee, have, as a reference to former reports will show, endea- voured to develop the resources of the Society through the organi- zation of the Church, viz. by Parochial, Ruri-decanal, and Diocesan Associations. In its second year, in addition to a large number of the smaller Associations, the Society established Associations for the dioceses of Worcester, Bath and Wells, Salisbury, Exeter, and Durham. As time went on, some of these, and other subsequently founded Diocesan Associations, gradually changed their characteristic feature of being purely Associations for raising funds, and formed themselves into separate Diocesan Societies constituted for the same objects and working upon the same principles as those of the Parent Society, viz. the recognition of the rule that the assistance granted shall be determined solely by the excessive population or by the large area of the parish, and the inability of the Incumbent to provide Assistant Curates from the Endowment while the Curate to be appointed under the grant should be nominated exclusively by the Incumbent and licensed by the Diocesan. In most cases the Diocesan Society thus formed has kept up an official connection with the Parent Society by contributing to it a third and fourth part of its own Annual Income; but its grants have been made independently and without reference to the Central Committee. This theory of Church organization on a Diocesan basis commends itself at once to the sympathies of Churchmen ; and it seems probable a ^priori, that appeals to Englishmen on behalf of their own locality will enlist a keener interest than appeals for a general Church Society ; but it has been found by experience that this Diocesan action has not fully answered the expectations of its originators. It has therefore for some years past been seen by the Additional Curates Society, that the next great step in its own successful career 18 was the establishment of right relations between the Central and the Diocesan Organizations which should — (1.) In any given Diocese combine the powerful steady working machinery of the Central Society with the Diocesan interests and sympathies in the collection of funds. (2.) Combine the intimate local knowledge of the needs of the Diocese with the central freedom from local entanglements in making grants ; and (3.) Bring the surplus resources of the wealthier Dioceses to the help of the poorer. The Committee are glad to report that an arrangement on these general conditions has happily been made with the new Diocese of Truro, ^ the following resolutions having been unanimously adopted by the Diocesan Conference held last autumn : — (1.) That the existing organization of the Additional Curates Society for the collection of funds in the Diocese be accepted by the Conference in preference to the creation of a new and indepen- dent Diocesan Fund. (2.) That a Committee of this Conference be appointed to work in active co-operation with the Central Committee. (3.) That such Committee draw up a scheme of co-operation to be submitted to the Central Committee, and that such scheme, when agreed upon by both Committees, be submitted to the next Conference for confirmation. (4.) That the Society's District Organizing Secretary be ex officio an Hon. Secretary of the Diocesan Committee. (5.) That for the year now commencing the Committee of the Diocesan Conference have power to co-operate with the Central Society in whatever way may be mutually agreed upon. The Committee await with great interest the working of this scheme. This new method of combining central with local advantages will doubtless before long be followed by a resumption, into the hands of the authorized organs of central Church counsel and action, of the functions heretofore exercised by the great Church Societies, e.g.^ by the appointment of Committees of Convocation for Literature, Education, Missions, Church Building, increase of Bishops and Clergy, and Education of Candidates for Ordination. Such Com- * Since this Eeport was written the Committee have learnt that a similar scheme has been adopted by the Salisbury Diocesan Synod. 19 mittees may very possibly adopt the existing machinery of the Church Societies, but they would give a new authority to their proceedings and probably an impetus to their successful working. What will then remain to be done will be a careful examination into the religious wants of the country, and the way to meet them, such as a Committee of Convocation lately undertook at the instance of Additional Curates Society into such needs as came within its own sphere of action. A general appeal to the nation to complete in every respect a proper provision for the spiritual wants of the whole people would crown the work of administrative ecclesiastical reform." Solidarity; or the Richer Parishes should help the Poorer — From the Bishop of Manchester's speech at the Addi- tional Curates Society's Meeting, June \, 1878. — ''I have more than once pointed out to my people that if it were not that Dioceses in the South of England had sent into the Society's coffers larger funds than they drew out of them, it would be quite impossible for the Society to make the very liberal and generous grants they have for many years past made to us in the North. In the Diocese of Manchester, the Society sent us last year about £1,400 more than we returned in Subscriptions and Donations and Offertories. I hope that the time may come when our remittances shall be at least equal to our receipts. Of course it may be said, " Well if that were the case what would be the good of sending our money to the Central Society at all 1" Why should not each Diocese work its own con- cern with its own funds, and spare the necessity and cost of having a Central organization in London for the purpose of distributing funds V From one point of view, but a narrow one, that proposi- tion might be agreeable. But its obvious tendency would be to disintegrate the Church, to break up those organizations which represent it in its larger aspects, and to substitute a purely dio- cesan and local for a broader and more national character ; and I should be sorry to see it carried much further than it is already car- ried in our supplemental diocesan Societies. A great principle with which I have long been trying to indoctrinate the minds of my peo- ple in Lancashire, and particularly in the city of Manchester, where the circumstances of the case make it specially valuable as well as specially applicable, is the principle which, for want of a better 20 name, I call the principle of "solidarity." I want the riclier parishes to recognise that they are one in brotherhood with the poorer parishes, and that it is not enough, nor an adequate discharge of Christian duty to provide sufficiently for their own needs — which, when there are many wealthy people clustered together, can be done and is done at a small individual cost to each — but that they must look further a-field, across their own border, and, if possible, take under the shelter of their benevolence and sympathy some poor populous parish in the heart of the city, in which the spiritual and temporal work of the Church, without such help from the outside, cannot be effectively maintained. And I am glad to be able to say that in several instances I have met with a favourable and liberal response to such an appeal. But of course this implies that the rich parish will move towards the support of its poorer neighbour a& a whole, and this from a variety of causes, cannot always be done: and it is here that the existence of a central organization, such as the Additional Curates Society, which will receive and distribute wisely and economically any funds that may be entrusted to it, is of unspeakable value. I do not say that our present system is the best conceivable system, for it rather lacks the power of drawing out per- sonal sympathy, which so much enhances the value of any money- gift bestowed on Christian or benevolent objects ; but it is an effective system, and perhaps the best, under all our present conditions of working, that we are likely to devise. But I should not like to have missed this opportunity of indicating what seems to me to be a bet- ter and a higher method still, though, from the obvious nature of the case, a method not universally applicable, and still having abundant scope for the exercise of liberality through organizations such as that which we are met to support to-day." The Richer Dioceses should help the Poorer.— From The Quarterly Review, July, 1874, p. 280. — " In the pleas- ant Southern Dioceses, with which our educated gentry are best acquainted, there is no lack of Clergy. In nine of the Southern Dioceses, viz.: Canterbury, Chichester, Eochester, Win- chester, Salisbury, Bath and Wells, Gloucester and Bristol, Oxford and Exeter, we have under six millions and a half of population to a little over seven thousand Clergy. In six of the Northern Dioceses, 21 viz.: Durham, Chester, Lichfield, Manchester, York and Eipon, there are considerably over eight millions of population to about four thousand three hundred Clergy. One clergyman to every 917 in the former ; one to every 1900 in the latter case. " A narrow parochialism is still the vice of the Church of England. The revival of Diocesan activity has somewhat mended it ; but we want more than that ; we need the strengthening in every depart- ment of our central action." On the same Subject. — From Canon AshwelVs Speech on Church Finance, at the Croydon Congress. — Eejjort j9. 435 : — "What we now want in the region of Church Finance and Church organization is such a comprehensive survey of the Church's work— both what is done and what is left undone — and such a comprehensive view of the Church's means for doing that work as shall embrace not this or that Diocese only as taken by itself, but England as a whole. One great advance which has marked the pre- sent day is, that we are beginning to rise above the mere parochial view of things. We are beginning to think of the Diocese as well as the Parish, of the Parish as part of the Diocese. But we must not stop there. We must remember that each Diocese is but a part of the whole Church of England, and we must think of the needs of the whole — Since "if one member suffer all the Members suffer with it." Country Parishes should help the Towns.— i^^ow the Report of the Committee of the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury on Deficiencies of spiritual ministration. Feb., 1876, p. 9: — " To obtain at all an accurate idea of the number of Clergymen employed to evangelise the people, we must divide the parishes into town and country, and see what is done for each of these great divi- sions. Separating the parishes then into those which contain more and those which contain less than 2,000 people, we find that in the towns dwell about 15,500,000 of our people, and in villages about 7,500,000; and that whilst there are 10,500 country parishes each with its own Incumbent, and not unfrequently assistant Curate there are only about 3,000 town parishes ; so that whilst in the former each parish has upon an average 760 persons, in the latter the average number of parishioners is 5,000. When we look at the provision made for the support of the Clergy, the case is 22 not improved. For of the endowments of the Church the rural ln= cumbents possess about £2,700,000, whilst to those in towns there is assigned only £750,000 ; or, if we divide these sums equally, each Country Incumbent [having the charge on an average of only 760 people] would have £257 a year, and each Town Incumbent [with the responsibilities and expenses involved in caring for, on an average 5,000 people,] only £250." The true oflEice of Church Societies and their True Rela- tion to the Church. — From a Sermon jpreached in Ely Cathedral, on behalf of the Additional Curates Society, on January 27, 1878, hy the Rev. John Oakley, M.A., Vicar of S. Saviour's, Hoxton. — " What is the true office of Church Societies, and their true rela- tion to the Church ^ They were originally a makeshift and an expedient, and such they still remain. The great Societies remain the monument, and in varying degrees the living witness and expression of the first attempt to combine organised voluntary effort for the extension or efficiency of the Church, with the established position of the Church of England, and to avoid recourse to Acts of Parliament for her bene- fit, and at the same time to own and act upon the duty of each generation to itself and to its neighbours and to its posterity. But they are also the evidence of a great weakness and defect. The need of them arises out of the defective, too often the totally absent, organization of our dioceses. It has to be owned, and I do so freely that the best diocesan organization must leave room for such central societies, at all events for the raising and administrating of a central fund. But it is equally clear that for its effective distribution, the aid of local knowledge and organization is necessary, and the prob- lem of the future is to combine the two, The risk hitherto has been lest societies should obliterate this conviction. The true unit of Church organization is the Diocese, and there may have been perhaps still may be, some risk of late that in re-affirming this fact, the place of the Societies should be ignored. Let our first answer then to the question before us be — the character of these Societies is that of voluntary organizations of the living energy of the Church, in particular directions, by furnishing it with a central fund, and a central council for that particular object. And their true relation to the Church of England is that of 23 stimulating and keeping alive the energy and action of the Dioceses in the same direction. And our answer will involve the further important inference necessary to complete it. In proportion as this office of the Society is realised, will the sense of its subordinate, and subsidiary character, in relation to the whole Church and its natural organisation grow. The readiness even to efface and suppress itself, where possible and desirable will be seen. The tendency to create a central Bureau with absolute though vague authority of its own will be held in check, and will approach the vanishing point. And this is what we do see in this Society. The complaint has never been heard of its assumption of authority that belongs to others ; the influence naturally acquired has been used in the most practical and public-spirited way. The rare virtue of unselfishness, the almost impossible virtue for a cor- poration of modesty, seems to have been nearly attained by this Society. We find a perfect readiness to retire into the back-ground as the proper organisation of the proper agencies acquires life, and takes a really working shape." The preacher then summarised the scheme adopted by the Diocese of Truro and proceeded : " And if to this be added the suggestion that every Diocese should seat a member of its Synod, probably one of those who represent it in Convocation, at the general Committee of the Central Society, it is clear that much has been done to combine the maximum of effi- ciency and public profit, with the minimum of inconvenience and officialism in the working of the Society ; and to obviate the risk of that unauthorised bureaucratic dictation and unworthy jealousy which have wrought so much confusion in some directions, and still threaten it in others; and which have tended to create in the Church of England a Society-ridden system, the paradise of Committees and Secretaries, the despair of reasonable and practical Churchmen. I have shown reason enough, as I believe, for my claim for the Additional Curates Society to be par-excellence the Church Society for promoting the Church's Work at Home." j^ - 'mf^ - 1, ivf, , r'':M.ty% ■ m-^fi ■' hk- V-' ^r "'^^k/ .{ \ -\ ■rs-:J^-\ < \ -f^'"-'^ V , ri- ••■ ■ -^r ■'• .^i^v- " i^ *^«. %