■■rm-f 
 
 m:fs 
 
 
 
 
 ^■■r.,:
 
 I E> R.ARY 
 OF THE 
 U N IVLRSITY 
 or ILLINOIS
 
 THE PEW SYSTEM 
 
 IN 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 WHY DO NOT THE PEOPLE WORSHIP ? 
 
 AN ADDEESS 
 
 DELIVERED AT 
 
 SIGN COLLEGE, LONDON, 
 
 ON THURSDAY, 18th MARCH, 1869, 
 BY 
 
 HENRY CLAEK, ESQ. 
 
 OF LIYERPOOL. 
 
 WHY SHOULD WE GEUDGE THE HOUR AND HOUSE OP PRAYER 
 
 TO Christ's own blind and lame, 
 
 " WHO COME TO meet HIM THERE 
 
 ?" 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 THE LONDON FREE AND OPEN CHURCH ASSOCIATION, 
 
 25, NORFOLK STREET STREET, STRAND. W.C. 
 
 LONDON : 
 JAMES PARKER & CO., 377, . STRAND. 
 
 1869.
 
 "who maketh thee to differ from another, and what hast 
 
 THOU that thou DIDST NOT RECEIVE ? " 
 
 HOW MUCH LESS TO HIM THAT ACCBPTETH NOT THE PERSONS OF 
 
 PRINCES, NOR REGARDETH THE RICH MORE THAN THE POOR ? 
 
 FOR IHEY ARE ALL THE WORK OF HIS HANDS."
 
 THE PEW SYSTEM IN 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH 
 
 WHY DO NOT THE PEOPLE WORSHIP ? 
 
 <^ERE are the Churches, but where are the masses?" is a 
 thought and an enquiry unceasingly disturbing the minds of earnest 
 Churchmen. ''Why do not the people worship?" enquire many 
 who are in despair at the fact that they do not ; and who seem alike 
 blind and helpless both as to the causes and the remedies of the evil. 
 It is, indeed, an anomalous and saddening spectacle, that a great 
 Christian nation, sometimes claiming to be the religious salt of the 
 earth, should, in the 19th century, be so non-worshipping that Loed 
 Shaptesbijrt should be able to affirm that 98 out of every 100 
 working men we meet in the streets of the Metropolis, attend neither 
 Church nor Chapel on the Lord's Day. 
 
 This problem T am now attempting to solve, and, at the outset, 
 I fearlessly assert that the first condition necessary to make the 
 people in this or any other country a worshipping people, is to make 
 the places in which they should assemble for worship free and 
 unrestricted to al] comers. I do not say that this is the only condition : 
 far from it. But I do say, that until this condition is complied with, 
 until this Freedom is granted by those who now withhold it, until 
 this Freedom is enjoyed by tho?e from whom it is now withheld, 
 all efforts to render our people a God-fearing, God-worshipping 
 people are, and will be, practically futile. 
 
 In the first place. What is this Freedom of Worship ? By these 
 words I mean the same perfect Freedom to walk in and kneel down 
 in God's House, that every one has to walk on a id frequent the 
 Queen's Highway ; the consciousness, on the part of the poorest
 
 man, not only that he has the same right and facility to ase his 
 Father's House that his rich neighbour has, but that a hearty 
 welcome will greet him when he arrives there. 
 
 That this Freedom ought to exist, I shall endeavour to prove on 
 various grounds : 
 
 And First, on Religious and Christian grounds. 
 
 The voice of the Church should proclaim aloud the message 
 she has to deliver. Her orders are to preach the Gospel to every 
 creature. Certain buildings are set apart in which this Gospel shall 
 be preached, which buildings, if the command is to be obeyed, must be 
 accessible to every creature. Anything, therefore, which impedes 
 this free hearing of the sound of the Gospel is wrong, and defeats the 
 mission of the Church. 
 
 As a Divine Institution the Church is comprehensive [ and 
 universal, receiving all into her fold, irrespective of race or rank. A 
 great Catholic spirit prevailing in her, befittinoj a religion common to 
 the human race, all the members, being members of one body, have the 
 same love one for another. Therefore, to reject any, to pay court to 
 some and to despise others, is inadmissible in a true branch of the 
 Catholic Church. 
 
 Again Unity, is one of her leading characteristics. The 
 Prayer is that " they all maybe o?^6." However differing in tastes, habits, 
 manners, feelings, they have one thing in common. How can they 
 prove their oneness better than when united in one holy fellowship 
 in the act of worship? Where, but when assembled in God's 
 Temple ? Common worship is a most important and significant 
 expression of unity. Whatever our divisions, there is one place at 
 any rate of which the atmosphere should breathe of unity and peace. 
 
 True Religion, too, embraces self-denying Oharity, which " seeks 
 the lost, and loves th3 poor." True Religion implies at 
 least kindness and courtesy in her assemblies of worshippers, from 
 which no one is ever scared away. Tf one place in the building be 
 more eligible than another, the habitual absentee, or the poor, or the 
 
 UIUC
 
 5 
 
 blind, or the deaf, nay, the outcast, are taken by the hand and placed 
 there, and " the regular worshipper " is only too pleased to take 
 the lowest place. 
 
 Another important Christian grace is Ramility. When meeting 
 together, the attitude of the worshipper is that of the Publican, who 
 stood afar off ejaculating '' God be merciful to me a sinner ! " rather 
 than that of the Pharisee who loved the chief seats, and thanked God 
 he was not as other men werco '* Any place is good enough for me, 
 indeed I am not worthy to enter under Thy roof" should be the 
 prevailing thought. Exclusiveness, pride, isolation, and display, are 
 traits utterly unknown here. 
 
 And if any one feeling should be uppermost when entering God's 
 House, it is that there at least all men are equal The Almighty 
 is no respecter of persons. They who presently will lie side by 
 side in the grave, they who presently will stand side side by in the 
 judgment, need not hesitate, while on earth, to kneel side by 
 side in their Father s House. The perfect equality of rich and poor 
 in worship involves a great Scriptural truth, and conveys a wholesome 
 lesson. It is an educational means— teaching the rich man that his 
 riches will avail him nothing, and the poor man that he must look 
 beyond his poverty for his reward in the great Hereafter. 
 
 And, lastly, the 'building is a Roli/,^ consecrated, sacred 
 House. It is not ours to deal with, but His, the Lord of the universe. 
 This is none other than the House of God, this is the gate of Heaven. 
 
 " Put off thy shoes from off thy feet — 
 " The place where man his God shall meet, 
 " Be sure, is holy ground." 
 
 Therefore, to appropriate to oneself, or to traffic in such ground is 
 surely a grave error. 
 
 Thus, on religious and Christian grounds, in the interests of the 
 cultivation of Christian graces, perfect freedom should obtain in our 
 Churches. 
 
 1. " It is a characteristic of depraved Protestantism that it recognises far too little the Church 
 as the Temple of God, and the special abode of the Shekinah."— " ifmor Moralities of Life," 
 Jy Bev. E. White.
 
 6 
 
 And, accordingly, as an Historical fact, this Ffeedom has ever 
 been recognised. It has existed from the earliest ages in every 
 religion, whether true or false. 
 
 " Old heathendom's vast temples hold men of every fate ; 
 The steps of far Benares commingle small and great ; 
 The dome of St. Sophia confounds all human state. 
 
 The aisles of blessed Peter are open all the year ; 
 
 Throughout wide Christian Europe the Christian's right is clear 
 
 To use God's house in freedom, each man the other's peer ; 
 
 Save only in that England, where this disgrace I saw, — 
 England, where no man crouches in tyranny's base awe, — 
 England, where all are equal beneath the eye of law." 
 
 As regards the Christian religion for 1,300 years after our Lord's 
 coming there was no appropriation, still less were there pew-rents. 
 No such thing was permitted in the Jewish worship ; neither does the 
 Eastern Church permit these worldly distinctions. The only Churches 
 in which they are prevalent are the English, and the Roman in the 
 North Western part of Europe.i 
 
 The way the introduction of Pews into our Parish Churches has 
 been managed may be illustrated by a case in point, the facts of 
 which have been given to myself by an eye witness. 
 
 At the beginning of the present century the fine Parish Church of 
 Appleby, Atherstone, was, as all Churches had been, entirely open and 
 available to all worshippers. But it entered the mind of an elderly 
 lady that she would prefer to know where to sit. It was unpleasant 
 to think that any body should be placed beside her. She accordingly 
 begged to be allowed to put up a piece of boarding to screen herself 
 off from the rest of the world. No sooner did this appear, than 
 another wanted a partition to enable her to enjoy, as her own, some 
 particular spot. Then an old man thought he would like to have 
 some accomodation reserved for him. This closing in of the Church 
 for private purposes gave its interior such an irregular and patchy 
 
 1. Of the latter it has been remarked : " It is to be regretted that the custom should now have 
 become universal of enclosing within a railing the entire central space, which cannot, there- 
 fore, be entered without paying, and for which the price is raised on the chief festivals,"— 
 Paris Correspondent of The Guardian, March 31, 1869,
 
 appearance that it was presently resolved to pew the whole building, 
 which was accordingly done, a large share of the expense being 
 defrayed by a family well known in the neighbourhood. The manner 
 of the removal of the ancient landmarks in this Parish Church — 
 landmarks which our fathers had set— has been testified by persons 
 who have lived in the present generation. 
 
 And so this pew system has grown and grown, until it has 
 become perfectly ingrained in our very Church life. We hug it to 
 our bosoms, little aware how this cherished thing is sucting the 
 Church's very life blood. Wherever the Anglican Communion penetrates 
 there this system is set up. The Eishop of Wisconsin recently referred 
 to an ancient Syrian Temple, which for century on century, whether 
 used by Idolaters, Mahommedans, or modern Christians had preserved 
 its ancient freedom to its worshippers, and let it pass, he added, into 
 whose hands it might, it would never lose this character, until it 
 should fall into the hands of the Episcopal Church. 
 
 Now, if we have any misgivings on this subject let us look to 
 the rock whence we are hewn. The Rev. Dr. Magee, now Eishop 
 Peterborough, asks if the primitive Church had any pew rents. Do 
 we read (he enquires) that Paul was appointed by the elders 
 to a fashionable Church at Ephesus ? Or, that James possessed 
 an eligible proprietary Chapel at Jerusalem ? We find that an 
 entirely opposite spirit prevailed, and, instead of being partitioned off 
 by themselves and shunned, the poor and outcast were especially 
 welcomed and valued. The story is told of St. Laurence, how, when 
 his judge demanded of him the treasures of the Church, he craved 
 respite for three days, to gather together the Church's riches, in 
 which space, against the time the governor should come to the doors 
 of the Temple in the hope to receive his prey, a miserable rank of 
 poor, lame, and impotent persons was provided, their names 
 delivered up to him, as a true inventory of the Church's goods, and some 
 few words used to signify how proud the Church was of these 
 treasures, Bespect of persons, honour to some, dishonour to 
 others, was as a practice unknown in the early Christian assemblies, 
 and God's poor were treated in the Church's earliest days as her most
 
 8 
 
 valuable heritage. St. James' marked rebuke of the first symptoms 
 of this sin would appear to have effectually banished it in the first 
 ages of the Church. 
 
 Again, this freedom is in consonance with the teaching and 
 spirit of our Prayer Book. This Book is called the Book of Common 
 Prayer. There is the Priest, and there is the people. The former has a 
 message to deliver, the latter a message to receive, and both together 
 a worship to offer. They have a building in which to meet, a 
 Consecrated Meeting House. If on the one side you have several 
 thousand people, the inhabitants of the District ; and on the other 
 side, one man, the Priest of the District or Parish, it being desired 
 to bring the two together, there is only one way to do it. You must have 
 a building common to all, in which not a favored few, or a specified 
 congregation, but the people can come together to hear and pray with 
 the Minister. This building is the Parish Church. The Book of 
 Common Prayer is the Book used therein, the Book in whose words 
 we breathe to heaven in common the confession of our sins, our 
 wants, our hopes and thanksgivings. The Church then in her Prayer 
 Book recognises no distinctions between man and man. '' Our 
 mother the Church hath never a child to honor before the rest !" 
 
 And, Economically viewed, this Freedom is necessary. The 
 Church is usually a comparatively small building, the population 
 being usually a large one, and largely in excess of the number of the 
 Church's seats. The building, therefore, in order to be utilised to the 
 utmost, must be free, and its internal arrangements such that not a 
 seat be wasted. Pews involve a great waste of Church space. A 
 man takes a pew, which he likes to have to and for himself, so that 
 two or three sittings usually remain vacant. 
 
 Again, such are the circumstances of life that illness, the state 
 of the weather, absence from home, indisposition to attend an early 
 Service, reluctance to attend a late one, or a thousand accidents 
 render constant attendance impossible. Thus a pewed Church, 
 except under extraordinary circumstances, never can be full. Over 
 and over again have we accurately counted the attendance at the
 
 9 
 
 Churches of popular preachers ia Liverpool, the result of which has 
 been to show that usually 50 per cent, of the seats are unoccupied. 
 
 And the waste of money is amazing. A multiplication of services 
 under a system of pews is impossible. In such a Church, costing it 
 may be thousands of pounds, it is useless for a clergyman to give 
 more services in the day than one devout man can endure. 
 
 Here we have on extensive machinery constructed and put into 
 motion at vast public and private cost, and only performing a minimum 
 instead of a maximum o± its work. In any other institution, such 
 wasteful economy of means would not be tolerated for a day. Are we as 
 a nation to submit to that which as individuals we should condemn? Are 
 we to accept unmoved deficiencies like thesw in a great public and 
 national Institution ? Year after year rolls on^ one generation passeth 
 away, and another generation cometh, increased energies everywhere 
 are developed, ''Improvement," '' Por ward !" are our mottoes; but 
 our Churches for the most part remain the same dead, half empty, 
 practically unused buildings they were 50 years ago !* 
 
 And let me incidently ask why do we build, or contribute to the 
 building of Churches ? Surely not to convert them into private 
 Chapels for private use, and still less to obtain a something in return 
 — an equivalent, in the form of private rights in the building, say for 
 a life time ! Instead of making the gift an occasion to barter, it 
 should be humbly presented with the sole desire to promote God's 
 glory, and to benefit those who cannot build Churches for themselves. 
 IS'ever is money more misdirected than when making a limited number 
 of well-to-do Pewholders the recipients of our alms, and presenting 
 them gratis with a costly building with its reserved seats, their only 
 liability being a small annual charge sufficient to pay the minister, 
 and from which they can exempt themselves at any time by giving 
 a quarter's notice. 
 
 Again, Legalhj considered^. The law maintains *' The use of 
 the body of the Church is common to all parishioners."^ "All 
 the pews in the Parish Church are the common property of the parish, 
 
 1. See Appendix : Church attendance in Liverpool. 
 
 2. Ayliffe : Parergon, p. 484, Farliamentary JRememirancer, March 1860
 
 10 
 
 and are for the use in common of the parishioners, who are all entitled 
 to be seated orderly and conveniently so as best to provide for the 
 accommodation of all. 2 " The title to the free use of their own property 
 by the Parishoners was recognised in 1857 by a Committee of the 
 House of Lords. 3 
 
 In order to preserve order, and to protect the rights of the 
 parishioners, certain officers being laymen are invested with authority 
 over the general arrangements of the Church. They act as officers 
 of the ordinary, and as officers of the parish, and one of their chief 
 duties is to secure to all the parishioners accommodation in their own 
 Church. In former times there were no seats whatever, and people 
 used to stand or kneel. If there was any covering on the floor, it 
 was that afforded by rushes. Eor convenience, seats have been 
 introduced of various kinds from time to time — but of whatever form or 
 material they may be, they should have but one design, one actual 
 use, viz., simply to assist every inhabitant of the parish in his 
 attendance upon Divine Service. 
 
 With respect to these seats, the warden's duty now is precisely 
 what it was before the Eeformation, when as it is well known there 
 were no pews and no assignment or appropriation whatever. 
 
 In many old Parish Churches, such as Manchester, Prestwich, 
 Deal, the warden's duty to ''seat the parishioners" has always been, 
 and still is, to let all worshippers come in at every service as early as 
 they think fit, and seat themselves in any seat then vacant. If, 
 however, a Tvarden determines upon carrying out what the law 
 permits him to do, viz. : to seat the parishioners himself, '' how is 
 the allotment to be made?" This question requires another to 
 precede it, viz. : *' who are entitled by law to the use of the seats ? " 
 The answer is, all the parishioners equally and without respect of 
 persons are so entitled. The wardens must then proceed to allot in 
 
 2. Fuller V. Lane. OliphanVs Laws of Peivs. 
 
 3. " Returning to the novinal state of things, where it remains unaffected by any special 
 privilege, we have seen that the body of evtry Parish Chvrch belongs of common right to all 
 the parishioners ; and this right cannot lawfully be defeated by any permanent appropriation 
 of particular places." Report of Committee of the House of Lords on the deficiency of the 
 Means of Spiritual Instruction.— 1858, page xviii.
 
 11 
 
 sucli manner as to accommodate all the parishioners equally, and 
 without respect to persons. The only way to do this, or to approx- 
 imate to this in large parishes, is at each service to allot to those who 
 do attend, and in order of their arrival, and not to those who may 
 attend. And this allotment, we believe, is best carried out by allowing 
 parishioners to seat themselves in an orderly manner as they arrive. 
 
 JS'ot only by the law of the land, then, is the Parish Church free and 
 common to the use of all tho parishioners, but by the law of JEqmtt/ 
 this position can also be maintained. To such Church a certain 
 territory is assigned, within which no other Church can be built, 
 except with the consent of the Tncumbent, a consent rarely granted 
 (particularly if the Church is dependent upon pew rents, in which case 
 competition is rather avoided than encouraged). If therefore the 
 building of new Churches within the district is thus rendered difficult, 
 if not impossible, the right of free entry into the Mother Church 
 ought surely to be permitted. To close the Mother Church to the 
 people, and at the same time to obstruct the provision of other 
 means of worship for them cannot be justified on any principle of 
 fair dealing. 
 
 And in a National Estallishment this Freedom of worship should 
 be extended to all. The Church, as national, i& under compact to 
 provide religious instruction for all the people of the land, all of 
 whom have a full and equal claim upon the services, whetlier private 
 or public, of the parish clergyman. 
 
 1^0 w, here are one or two considerations I would earnestly 
 impress upon all who value the retention of our Church as a 
 I^ational Establishment : If a Church is not doing national work, 
 as a teacher of the whole nation, and particularly of the poor, can 
 it be called the National Church? Does not the pew system 
 practically limit the exercise of the office of teacher to a small 
 minority, to whom the Ibuildings are assigned, leaving a very few 
 seats only to the great majority whose rights as Christian citizens are 
 equal ? If so, is such an Establishment any more doing national work 
 than Non-conformity ? and if not, can it claim the rights and 
 immunities of an EstabiishmLut '?
 
 12 
 
 These are suggestive considerations, particularly to those who 
 desire that our Church shall continue to be recognised and distinguished 
 as the nations' s teacher. The Irish branch of the ChurtL is at this 
 moment being stripped of her dignities and possessions, because, 
 in Mr. Gladstone's own words: ''The Irish Church did not fulfil 
 the objects for which it was established. It was not the Church of 
 the nation. It was not the Church of the Poor, it had miserably 
 failed, and must continue to fail." The fact that she is not the 
 Church of the People is of course notorious. Dr. Templi, of Eugby, 
 remarks that on one occasion a deeply attached member of the Church 
 of England summed up to him the arguments against the Irish 
 Church in a single sentence, and it was at the door of a Church in 
 Ireland that the remark was made: — '^ I feel ashamed, he said, of 
 helonging to this Church .'" They attended the Services of the Church, 
 and saw inside the Church what they never wished to see again. 
 There was not a single poor person in the Church. There they were, 
 all as respectable as possible, but they could not help feeling that this 
 was not the kind of respectability that really belonged to Christianity, 
 and could not feel that this was a character which ought to attach 
 to a branch of the Church of Christ. 
 
 How far this lamented absence of the poor, and this very 
 respectable character of the congregation, is a charge attachable to 
 the Church of England others shall determine. But should it be so, 
 the fate of the Irish will assuredly be ere long the fate of the English 
 Establishment. 
 
 And here I would incidently remark how Dissent is encouraged, 
 nay (if any sense of religion at all exists) is actually forced upon the 
 people by the system of pews. The population of the parish is 5,000, 
 the Church seating 800 favored individuals. The latter being all 
 provided with pews of their own, what is to become of the remaining 
 4,200 parishioners ? A. few free peats may be offered to them, but 
 these they decline. The nearest Chapel is at once resorted to by the 
 excluded tradesman or artisan. They attach themseh^ea by degrees
 
 L 
 
 13 
 
 to this Chapel, and with their families are lost to the Church. i 
 
 I have thus endeavoured on various grounds — Religious, 
 Christian, Historical, Economical, Legal, and N"ational, to prove that 
 this Preedom of "Worship ought to exist in our Churches. 
 
 The great obstacles to freedom are pews, which have been 
 defined by Dr. Hooz, in his Church Dictionary, as ''Enclosed seats 
 in Churches which enable people to attend Church and hear sermons 
 comfortably and luxuriously ; " and, by some one else to be 
 " Eeligion made easy to the minority, but impossible to the majority 
 of the community." iNTow if we track this modern encroachment to 
 its source we find its spring to be selfishness^ which when taking an 
 ecclesiastical form, has been described by Dr. Harris (the gifted author 
 of the Prize Essay *' Mammon"), to be " That modification of selfish 
 piejty which lives only to be personally comforted, and in all its reading 
 and hearing makes its own individual comfort not a means but an 
 end." Kow, when we consider the vital interests at stake, that this is an 
 aff'air which affects man's condition for eternity ; that when meeting 
 together in God'sHouse, in HisPresence, we should meet as Christians, 
 whose first and cardinal principle is that they should love one another, 
 and deny themselves for others' good ; in such a place, and under such 
 circumstances, deliberately to seize upon the best situations (or, what 
 is sometimes the case, upon all) for ourselves, and leave the worst 
 places, if any, as a miserable pittance for the poor, feeding them like 
 Lazarus with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table, is 
 conduct which will bear no other designation than selfish. It has been 
 well observed by the Eev. J". C. Eyle : " Let us beware of selfishness 
 in religion. We should labor to make all men see that we have found 
 the pearl of great price, and that we want them to find it as well as 
 ourselves, A man's religion may be well suspected when he is 
 content to go to heaven alone. The true Christian will have a 
 large heart, bat if a man is satisfied to burn his candle alone, he is 
 
 1. The Rev. W. A. Whitworth, of St. Luke's, Liverpool, publicly stated tMs very mouth, 
 that he suddenly missed from his Church a devout middle aged man, and fearful that he had 
 fallen away, he called upon him, and found that he had gone to Mr, Lockhart's 
 dissenting Chapel, because there, being free to all, he could get a good scat. Tbe fact was 
 that when attending the Church, he had asked the beadle to let him sit nearer the pulpit, 
 as he could not hear, but h© was told there was no place for him but the gallery, and so he 
 "vieijt to Mi'i LucKiiAui'g CUapch
 
 14 
 
 in a very weak and sickly state of soul." Now, if this propensity of 
 our evil nature be really present in our assemblies for public worship, 
 if it bo the moving cause of the tenacity with which the greater 
 part of the Church seats are held by private individuals, I ask 
 whether any wide spread amount of good can be expected to flow 
 from such so called public worship) ? Can pure and undefiled 
 Christianity be propagated by such machinery throughout the world ? 
 If the source be impure, can the stream be pure ? 
 
 This division of the House of God into separate private com- 
 partments is justified on grounds such as these: — *' The regular 
 worshipper has a right to his own seat." But what is to prevent 
 his occupying, as often as he likes, if early enough, the same seat 
 in a free Church? Great sympathy is felt for the ''regular'* 
 worshippers, or the few folded sheep ; but, surely, equal solicitude 
 should be shown for the ^' irregular," or ihe many stray sheep — the 
 hundreds who are only casual attendants, and the thousands who 
 never enter the sacred precincts at all. A pew of one's own implies 
 an advantage to its owner, or it does not. If there be no advantage, 
 why insist upon it ? "Whilst if there be an advantage, such advantage 
 implies a corresponding disadvantage to some one else. In the 
 present instance, the advantage conferred is on the supposed religiously 
 minded man, whilst the disadvantage, or disability, falls on the 
 careless or the irreligious man. Now, conduct such as is here 
 involved, does not harmonise with the ordinary rules which govern 
 society. If, for example, from humane motives, we wish to extend 
 the benefits of medical care, we do not select the strong and the 
 healthy, but rather the weak and the diseased. The whole need not 
 a physician, but they that arc sick. And if, from religious motives, 
 we desire to convey the healing tidings of the Gospel, it is surely only 
 reasonable to go first to those, who, having never heard them, are 
 suffering from the disease of sin, than to those who are in possession 
 of those tidings already. Our Saviour came ''To call not the 
 righteous, but sinners to repentance." 
 
 But in this matter a duty devolves upon the " regular " 
 pew-holder, as well as upon the Church. If the former has the
 
 15 
 
 knowledge of the next world's good, *' and seeth that his brother 
 hath need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how 
 dwelleth the love of God in him ?" With the advantage of a pew 
 of his own, instead of selfishly enjoying it all to himself, being a 
 Christian man, and ready to undergo personal sacrifice for the sake 
 of religion, would it not be more becoming of him to take his 
 ''irregular" non-worshipping neighbour by the hand, giving him 
 the pew, he himself taking the lowest seat, feeling almost too 
 unworthy even to enter under God's roof ? Nor would such an act 
 of self-sacrifice fail of his reward, who, in converting tbe sinner 
 from the error of his way, '' saves a soul from death, and hides a 
 multitude of sins." 
 
 Another justification is, '' families are divided." We reply 
 that never was there sach division created in the great family of 
 man, never was the brotherhood more rentasunder, than by this unnatural 
 estrangement. But, if this question, involving such an awful issue, 
 is to be decided by reference to personal convenience, it is best 
 answered by a practical experience of free churches — an experience 
 of which those who urge this difficulty are usually deroid. If a 
 family arrive late, of course a little inconvenience will be the penalty, 
 but with the Church doors opened sufficiently early, why should not 
 all, on arrival, select and take their seats at leisure ? If the services 
 are still crowded, we are thankful they are so appreciated, and a 
 powerful reason is given for their multiplication. In several Eoman 
 Catholic Chapels in Liverpool, six services are held every Sunday 
 before noon, many being crowded. These buildings fill and empty 
 themselves several times during the day, and if this process is not 
 only possible, but successful, in their case, who can say that it should 
 not be so with us? 
 
 The extent to which buildings can be utilised for public worship, 
 may be learnt from an actual count of the number who attended the 
 services in the Roman Catholic Chapels on a particular Sunday in 
 1855. — See Appendix. 
 
 Again, '* Eut you would not have me seated side by side with a 
 dirty person !" In the first place, we would remind the objector that
 
 16 
 
 uncleanly people certainly do not form a large proportion of an average 
 congregation, that in a free Church it is not necessary to place 
 oneself in contact with such people, and that even the much-loved 
 pew, with its carpets, cushions, and linings, is not always free from 
 annoyances. But if the great principle of equality in God's House 
 he incontrovertible, no purely personal feelings can he allowed to 
 violate them. And let us observe the pure selfishness of this objection. 
 Not a whisper is raised against free seats in a pewed Church, not a 
 protest is heard against the dirt, which, from time to time, may be 
 found therein, not a word of sympathy is expressed for the cleanly 
 poor, who use these seats, and have the same shrinking from impurity 
 that their betters may have; but, whilst protesting against the 
 infliction of "the dirty worshipper" upon himself personally, the 
 pew-holder unhesitatingly imposes this character upon the respectable 
 poor in their free seats. Again, — is the modern Christian's course 
 through this world tobe one of unbroken luxuriance and self-indulgence ? 
 "We recur, from time to time, with feelings of admiration, to the perse- 
 cutions of the early Church, to the martyrdoms of theEeformation, nay, 
 even to the self-denial of missionaries of our own day, holy men and women 
 who have dedicated themselves to God, and is the Christian pewholder 
 of the 19th century to be the only person who refuses to make any 
 sacrifice for the good of others, even in the interests of religion, to the 
 refusing to forego private seats in a Church, for fear of encountering 
 a little annoyance ? Eut instead of losing, it might be found that he 
 was a gainer by the surrender of the long cherished pew. It might break 
 down the high partition wall between himself and the poor, arousing 
 his better sympathies, and urging him to active efi'orts to promote 
 cleanliness and other virtues in the houses and in the persons of his 
 humbler neighbours. *' The great want of the age is more sympathy 
 between classes," said the late Judge Talfourd a little before his 
 death ; and this sympathy, we submit, may be quickened into life by 
 establishing perfect equality in public worship. 
 
 The catalogue of evils chargeable to this pew system is heavy 
 and long. Eut I will take one case, that of The Young. I put it one 
 day to an eminent clergyman what became of his Sunday School 
 boys, the rows of whom lined the aisles of his Church at the Sunday
 
 17 
 
 morning seryice, after they had left the Sunday School: "If 
 not in Chnrch, why were they not in Church?" ''Indeed, sir," 
 was the reply, '' that is an awful question ! " And an awful thought 
 it is that Christ's little ones are thus cast out from the fold just at 
 the moment in life when they most need oversight and direction, 
 and that a barrier is then set up against them. *' Where is the flock 
 that was given thee — that beautiful flock ? " is a question that some^ 
 day must be answered. It is very evident that the present system is 
 a failure as regards school children, who disappear from attendance 
 at Church simultaneously with their leaving the School. 
 On a recent occasion when distributing prizes at a Lancashire Sunday 
 School, under the auspices of the Countess of Ellesmere, the super- 
 intendent stated that he had put down the names of 100 scholars 
 who had attended his school, to try and find out what had become 
 of them : of 23 he could learn nothing, and of the remaining 77 
 how many regularly attended a place of worship ? Only 2 — 29 of 
 the others were confirmed drunkards, and the rest were careless and 
 lukewarm Christians — if Christians at all ! Are we really using our 
 faculties aright in this matter? Do we look on unmoved by the 
 spectacle that the young, upon whom we have lavished our affections, 
 and bestowed pains untold, and on whom good impressions have 
 been created, thus abandon religious ordinances? Can we behold this 
 declension without putting out a hand to retain them ? When leaving 
 the smaller fold, the Sunday School, can we not admit them into 
 the larger fold, their own Church, and manifest to them that the 
 Christian brotherhood is a reality, and that its rights and privileges 
 are equally accorded to the youngest as well as the oldest ? 
 
 And not only is it thus demonstrated that the pew system forbids 
 the attendance of the people at Church, but the working classes 
 themselves, when appealed to, justify their absence on this ground. i 
 
 1, At tbe conference on " the Working Classes and Public Vf orsnip," at the London Coffee House 
 January, 21st, 1867. Present, among others, the Dean of Westminster, Kevds. Dr. Miller, 
 W. W. Champneys, J. E. Kempe, K. Maguire, The Hon. A. Kinnaird, M. P., Thos. Hughes, 
 Esq., M. P., the foUoiying evidence was given :— 
 
 Mr. Paterson, (Cabinet-maker).—" Christianity came into the world, and they were told 
 that it was gladly received by the common people. The common people were very much 
 the same now as they were then. If the people had not changed, there must be something, 
 either in religion itself, or the way in which it was presented to them, that had changed, to 
 give rise to the present extraordinary position of affairs, in which a religion which was
 
 18 
 
 And what a disadvantage this close and congregational system 
 is to the Clergy themselves ! A Clergyman of Chester the other day 
 puhlicly declared, that while he would desire with all his heart to be 
 the Minister of his parish, the system under which he sincerely 
 groaned, made him as it were the Minister of a section of the people. 
 He therefore felt, if he might state his private opinion, in an 
 unimportant position, where he ought to occupy one of greater 
 importance. The Kector of Nantwich found that when he went 
 among his people, they said ha mocked them in asking them to go to 
 a Church where they could not get a seat. And what a degrading 
 reflection on the high and ministerial calling, was the experience of 
 a Clergyman at Tunstall, who when he visited his people, and asked 
 them to come to Church, overheard the observation: ''0! all he 
 wants me to come for is that I may take a sitting ! " The pew system, 
 then, is not only derogatory to the Clergyman's personal character, 
 but is injurious also to his spiritual office. 
 
 The practical evils of the Pew System are confessedly many and 
 great. Eut still, say many, they are a necessity. In the absence of 
 an endowment, it is urged, you cannot otherwise provide for the 
 Clergyman's stipend than by the Pew Eents. N^ow, what is this Pew 
 Rent ? It is a tax, and the effect of all taxes is to limit the use of the 
 thing taxed. And, as the worst kind of tax is that which touches 
 life or its necessaries, so the imposition of a tax on religion, which 
 
 formerly received by the common people, aud neglected by the richer classes, was now 
 neglected by the former, and accepted by the latter. If a working man went to worship God 
 he had to sit by the door in a draught, or in the free seats, labelled as ' a working man,' and 
 he felt he was an alien and an outsider, and that he has not paid for his place. He did not 
 wish to deny, for a moment, that men ought to support public worship, but he did not think 
 it ought to be put in that way— so much Theology served over the counter for so much seat- 
 rent." 
 
 Mr. Wynne, (Plasterer.)— "The distinction of classes was another great bar. If a working man 
 was invited, he felt there was an intolerable gulf between the classes, and that it was a mere 
 matter of condescension to recognise him as one of God's people outside the church." 
 
 Mr. Bebington, (Bookseller's Porter. )—<' But, notwithstanding all these obstacles, there 
 was a large number who might go to church if they would. Why did they not? Because 
 whenever they attempted to go, they were made to feel more like intruders than welcome 
 guests. He had known working men suffer the greatest possible distress and destitution 
 rather than apply to the parish ; and if they would suffer that, was it to be supposed that they 
 would go to a church or chapel to be thus degraded! No; indeed they would not." 
 
 Mr. Salmon, (ex-Scavenger.)— "Break down the pew doors, and, his word for it, when 
 that system was abolished, they would have a large number of the working classes present, 
 and their church finance would be increased."
 
 deals \?itli an eternal existence, and with the necessary pi eparation for 
 it, is so dreadful, that one does not like to contemplate it as 
 possible. How long is this buying and selling, and making 
 merchandise of ground solemnly consecrated to God and to religion, 
 this traffic in Christian ordinances and ministrations, to defile the 
 worship of God ? Can we offer a deeper insult to the great Master 
 of the Temple, than to say to our fellow sinner at the Temple 
 door, as they say to the play- goer at the theatre : " Thou shalt 
 not enter here, if thou hast not the fee !" Can any practice more 
 effectually keep buck the ignorant or the unawakened ; or the 
 poor, those who have no money to pay, or if they had, no inclination 
 to pay it ? 
 
 Eut this Pew Kent — ^like the Pew, an innovation, a corruption, 
 almost as gross as that of the Eomish sale of indulgences— is 
 demoralising to the worshipper, who naturally argues : '' You have 
 made your contract with me, I have accepted your terms, and paid 
 the price. I have purchased, and you have sold, for a given period 
 the right of use of so many square yards of God's House, and now 
 I am relieved from all further claims !" Can any thing be more 
 repressive to the spirit of sacrifice of self, or of substance, than a 
 bargain like this ? Is any thing more calculated to deaden spiritual 
 aspirations than a process like this ? Is this the way in which the 
 Church proposes to convert the world ? 
 
 And, not only do the spiritual interests of the pew-holder 
 suffer, but the Church herself is harmed thereby. 
 
 And in a two-fold manner. 
 
 What is the cause of this deadness of Church life and feeling— 
 of the impossibility of interesting people in Church affairs ? Why 
 the lack of earnestness and of spiritual life among pastors and 
 people, exhibited in empty Churches, exemplified in a recent letter 
 to the Times, showing that of 35 London Churches, all in one line 
 or direction, the united congregations of 10 Churches did not exceed 
 100 persons, and only 1 out of the 35 contained upwards of 100 
 persons. Why is dissent flourishing, stalking through the length and
 
 breadth of the land with a consciousness of power that ere long may 
 extinguish the Church in England (as the light of that in Ireland is 
 flickering out), contemplating the Establishment as an effete bodj^, 
 and smiling almost in derision at her powerless efforts to recover her 
 lost hold of the people? "As Archdeacon Denisoi^ said: '* We have the 
 Churches, but the Masses, where are they ?" And why have we lost 
 them ? My explanation is that in Church worship, we have adopted 
 the congregational instead of the parochial method, the private 
 instead of the public, the sectional instead of the national, respectability 
 instead of universality. "We have preferred selfishness to consideration 
 for others, the display of Mammon to devotion to the Church, the 
 imposed tax to the cheerful offering. In a word the pew systemhas well 
 nigh strangled, not only the Establishment, but Religion itself. 
 
 And, secondly, we complain of financial poverty. But why 
 wonder there is poverty of purse, when there is such poverty of soul ? 
 The one is the natural result of the other. Archbishop Tait has 
 stated in a charge, that of the 885 Licensed Clergy in the Diocese 
 of London, the average professional income was not more than £140 
 per annum. "Now, if we examine into the circumstances of our Church 
 Finance, there is no cause of surprise at the miserable pay our Clergy 
 receive. They will not give up the Pew System, which limits 
 contributions to a comparatively small number of persons, who pay 
 a fixed rent for their pews, a sum very small often in proportion to 
 their means. Under this system, elasticity is discouraged, the support 
 rendered by the people is compressed within the narrowest limits, and 
 the expression of personal attachment to the minister, or of zeal for 
 the glory of God and souls of men, is suppressed. ITo wonder, then, 
 that Pew rents have proved a signal failure in providing an adequate 
 income for the clergymen. The few exceptions prove the rule, and, 
 indeed, it is surprising that educated men can be found to occupy 
 positions in which they are dependent upon them. The fact is, our 
 clergy are worse paid, not merely than all other professions, but 
 even than most trades, and that an educated gentleman, if a clergyman, 
 will very likely receive for his servics an income relatively smaller 
 than that of his neighbour's butler, and less than that of his own 
 Schoolmaster, proving incontestibly, that, under our present system,
 
 the proper provision for the clergy is based upon principles altogether 
 unsound and faulty. " Madame," said Archbishop Whitgift to Queen 
 Elizabtth, " Eeligion is the foundation and cement of human 
 society, and when they that serve at God's Altar shall be exposed 
 to poverty, religion shall be exposed to scorn and become 
 contemptible." 
 
 £ut we dorCt complain of an evil without offering a remedy — a 
 remedy which all Scripture, reason, common sense, history, past and 
 present experience recommends, and has proved a success. 
 
 The Wlehly Offertory is the ancient mode of receiving contributions 
 into the Treasury of the Church. TTot content only with the 
 expression of confession, with prayer and praise, God requires a 
 material gift — something more than words — an actual offering to 
 be laid upon His Altar, as an essential part of worship, and indeed a 
 central act of worship. The presentation of an offering in worship 
 was not limited to the Jews, but passed on from the Jewish Church to 
 to the Christian Church. 
 
 Our duty in this respect has been lost sight of, the sense of 
 responsibility for wealth is deadened in the minds of men. The 
 clergy have not taught it. If they do urge it, it is done almost 
 apologetically. There is no doctrine, no practice, which needs more 
 urging and reviving than that of the Offertory. At present it is a 
 lost act of worh 
 
 Moreover, the blessedness of giving must not be left out of 
 consideration. This blessedness can be enjoyed by, and ought to be 
 permitted to the poor as well as the rich. Why should the poor be 
 shut out from it ? Did not our Lord declare it was more blessed to 
 give than receive ? He thought it no pity that the needy widow 
 should give away her living and her mites. Giving will not make 
 the poor, poorer ; on the contrary, it will enrich them. 
 
 The Revenue derivable from this source may scarcely have a 
 limit, and on this principle, that the Church is supported by all for 
 all, not by the rich for the poor, not by the poor for the i ich, but by 
 the people for the people. The Offertory invites all to give, and the
 
 opportunity of giving on every Lord's Day gradually leads to a fixed 
 settled habit on the part of the Congregation. Every age, every grade 
 of society, every member of a family, every stranger, some give more, 
 some give less, but all are taught to cast their money into the 
 Treasury of God. Why cannot the Church follow the example of 
 the State, and see that every one should contribute something to her 
 exchequer ? A revenue derived from a number of small sums, 
 received weekly, from a large number of people, vastly exceeds the 
 amounts of large payments, made by a few persons at distant dates. 
 The aggregate amount of silver and pence obtained in this way is 
 marvellous, and is almost unintelligble to those who haye not made 
 acquaintance with the Church's great engine of Finance — The "Weekly 
 Offertory. 
 
 I have now availed myself of the opportunity thus kindly 
 afforded me of bringing before so influential an assembly a subject 
 most dear to ray heart, viz. : that of Freedom of Worship, I have 
 endeavoured, to the best of my humble powers, to show that this 
 Freedom of "Worship is based on religious grounds, and that it presents 
 a field for the cultivation of the Christian graces. I have further 
 endeavoured to prove that this freedom ought to exist in our 
 Churches from the teaching of the Prayer Book, and on historical, 
 economical, legal, and national grounds. I have sought to show the 
 injurious effects of its converse, the Pew System, particularly to the 
 young and to the clergy. I have endeavoured to demonstrate that 
 the Pew Kent is a tax on religion, is demoralising to the Pew-holder, 
 represses Church life and Church ardour, produces not only poverty of 
 soul, but poverty of purse, and must lead to the destruction of 
 the Church. The remedy for the Pew Eent has been shown to be 
 the Weekly Offertory, a system based on the soundest financial 
 principles, a cause of blessedness to the worshipper, and a grand 
 source of revenue to the Church. 
 
 I submit that at least I have made out a case that should 
 excite thought among those who have never thought seriously on the 
 subject before, and that to those who may unthinkingly 
 have adopted the Pew-Ren t plan, a new view may have been
 
 23 
 
 presented, exhibiting its nnsound principles and fatal consequences. 
 If such should be the case, and I pray God it may be so, I shall be most 
 tbankful. I am addressing a body of Clergy second to none in their 
 influence. The cause I advocate is essential to the safety, nay existence, 
 of the Church. Her adoption of it may still preserve her recognition 
 by the nation. Do let us take the subject deeply to heart. Do 
 let each one of us make it his first and foremost special duty and 
 work to render our dear mother Church of England what she once 
 w&Sj and what I trust in future she will ever be — The Church of the 
 People, and especially the Church of the Poor. 

 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 The Attendance at the Chapels of Eoman Catholics in Liverfool, 
 AS Enumerated by N. Caine, Esq. 
 
 [_See Liverpool Mercury, September 26th, 1855.] 
 
 Numbers as aciually counted. 
 
 , ^ ^ 
 
 Seat First Second Third Fourth lifth Sixth Tot. morn. 
 
 Boom. Service. Service. Service. Service. Service. Service, and even. 
 
 St. Nicholas 1,050 436 541 518 1,723 737 ... 3,955 
 
 St, Patrick 2,000 1,357 1,791 970 2,330 1,184 ... 7,632 
 
 St. Francis Xavier ... 1,600 455 522 1,302 510 2,789 
 
 St. Marj 2,000 1,000 1,073 846 1,035 1,345 538 5,837 
 
 St. Alban 800 805 886 188 1,879 
 
 St. Joseph 1,800 441 572 438 1,039 1,236 ... 3,726 
 
 Holy Cross 700 355 576 758 163 1,852 
 
 tt. Anthony 2,000 1,262 1,270 1,224 1,087 1,594 706 7,143 
 
 St. Peter ,.. 1,200 406 492 556 1,195 994 ... 3,643 
 
 St. Vincent de Paul... 550 386 373 484 238 1,481 
 
 St. Anne 800 377 478 426 213 1,494 
 
 St. Agustine 700 472 594 916 326 2,308 
 
 Oratory, Hope Street. 400 311 319 373 1,003 
 
 Total 15,600 8,063 9,487 8,999 9,859 7,090 1,244 44,742 
 
 Mr. Caine summarises his returns as follows : — 
 The Church of England has 55 places of worship, with seat-room for 62,209 
 persons. Now the actual attendance (adults and children), is only 24,857; so that 
 there is an unoccupied space in the Chui-ch of England in Liverpool, lor 37,352 
 persons; or, in other words, there are equal to 37 unoccupied Established Churches, 
 capable of holding 1,000 persons each. In fact if we take the persons (adults and 
 children) attending the Churches of England, morning, afternoon, and evening, the 
 united number attending all the services only reaches 44,792 : so that if all the 
 persons who go to Church, morning, afternoon, and evening, were to attend at one 
 time, thei-e would still be seat-room for 17,417 persons, there being then unoccupied 
 space equal to 17 Churches, capable of holding 1,000 each. 
 
 The Presbyterians have 9 Chapel;?, with seat-room for 8,680. The attendance in 
 the morning is 3,7G2, so that their Churches are not half filled, leaving unoccupied 
 space equal to to nearly 5 Churches, capable of holding 1,000 persons each. 
 
 The Unitarians have 4 Chapels, with seat-room for 1,9C0. The attendance in 
 the morning is 920, or rather less than one-half. The number attending the whole 
 of their services is only 1,638, 
 
 The Baptists have 11 Chapels, accommodating 7>100 persons. The attendance 
 is 2,404, or nearly one-third the number for which seat-room is provided. The 
 attendance at all the services is 5,960. 
 
 The Independents have 11 Chapels, capable of holding 8,lo0. The attendance 
 is 3,406, or scarcely one-half for which there is accommodation. The attendance at 
 the whole of the services is 7,282, 
 
 The various sects of M ethodists have 34 places of worship, with seat-room for 
 24,364. The attendance is only 7,870, so that there are equal to \^ empty Methodist 
 Chapels, capable of holding 1,000 each. At the whole of the services the attendance 
 only reaches 16,494. 
 
 The Roman Catholics have 13 places of worship, with seat room for 15,600. 
 The attendance at the morning services, which are continued for several hours to 
 accommodate different congregations, is 37,366; the evening service, 7,406; the total 
 attendance throughoxxt the day being 44,742.
 
 THE FINANCIAL AND NUMERICAL RESULTS OF 
 FREE AND OPEN CHURCHES. 
 
 In reply to the inquiry frequently made for practical proof : 
 1. — That unappropriated Churches can be rendered self-supporting by- 
 means of the Weekly Offertory, and — 
 
 2. — That Churches once rented or appropriated, but now free and 
 unappropriated, pi'oduce as large, or a larger revenue under the new system^ 
 when compared with the former, the Chester Diocesan Open Church 
 Association have collected valuable and instructive infoi^mation, which has just 
 been published in the form of a tract. From this are extracted a few out of 
 many instances, cited therein. 
 
 Benefice. 
 
 FINANCIAL EESULTS. 
 
 Under Pew Eents or 
 Appropriation. 
 
 From Offertory when 
 Free & Unappriated. 
 
 Bradfoed, St. Jude 
 
 Buxton, St. John £350 
 
 I Under Pew Rent £175 j 
 
 ( „ Appropriation 215 j 
 
 .£400 
 
 KiEKLEY. Suffolk 1861.. 
 
 1866... 595. 
 
 1867... 708. 
 
 1868... 820. 
 
 21 ...When free, 1st year 102. 
 
 2nd 
 3rd 
 
 4th 
 5th 
 6th 
 
 97. 
 148. 
 164. 
 197. 
 239. 
 150. 
 
 London, St. Mary, Plaistow 90 
 
 „ St. Peter, Windmill Street ... 40 rose immediately to 200. 
 
 Nottingham, St. Mary, 600 800. 
 
 Sheffield, St. Jude 30 252. 
 
 Wrexham, Parish Church Small 250. 
 
 York, All Saints 74 273. 
 
 NUMERICAL RESULTS. 
 
 PAv>T,iofi,^r, Church Attendance 
 
 Population. j^Qojjj_ before change. After chano-e. 
 
 Bradford, St. Jude Mixed, chiefly 750 "^ Doubled, often 
 
 mill hands. ^ densely packed 
 
 J m even. 
 
 Gainsborough, Springthorpe 300 130 20 110. 
 
 J Aunow, St. Paul 20,000 600 150 400 to 500 
 
 London, /St.Pete>',Windmill-st. 5,200 760 250 350. 
 
 „ St.PhiUp,Clevkenwell 10,000 } (^^ound floor { ^^^^^ ^^' 
 
 C11 ■^r -ni • J. o CAA KAA / Moru. 100 Mom. 200. 
 
 „ St. Mary, Plaistow 2,500 500 ^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ 3^^^ 
 
 T-T- j Morn. 50 Morn. 400. 
 
 ^^^^^^^^ — lEven. 90 Even. 800. 
 
 Nottingham, S't. Manj 6,000 1,200 Doubled. 
 
 Sheffield, St. Jude 950 50 { ^°™' ^l^' 
 
 Wellington 8,000 1,200 Small 1,000. 
 
 Westbouene, Sussex Partial Crowded, 
 
 Communicants 700. Ditto 1866 1,200 
 „ 1867 1,800 
 „ 1868 1,800 
 
 York All Saints 1,417 492 3 or 4 times larger.
 
 GENERAL EXPERIENCE OF 
 
 FREE & UNAPPROPRIATED CHURCHES. 
 
 (Extracted from the Tract referred to in the previous page.) 
 
 BiHKENHEAD. Ncw Ferry, St Mark. — A public meeting was 
 held here on November 20th, 1866, the Eector in the chair, to 
 consider the propriety of appropriating the seats of the Church. The 
 meeting was largely attended by the parishioners and the congregation ; 
 and, with one single dissentient, the conclusion unanimously arrived 
 at was, that as the free system had, since the opening of the Church 
 many months ago, worked so exceedingly well and so entirely to the 
 satisfaction of all parties, no change at all should be made. In such 
 Churches as this, one just excuse is taken from the people, viz., that 
 there is no seat for them. 
 
 Birmingham. St. Matthias. — By all means let bags be used. 
 The conscience of the worshipper is appealed to. He is delivered 
 from the temptaton to a feeling of shame if the offering is small, and 
 ostentation if the offering be large. 
 
 Calne, Wilts.— The system of non-appropriation is one which, 
 once tried, would never, I think, be abandoned. 
 
 Chesteb. The Cathedral. — The Eree Evening Services : Dense 
 congregations, including an immense number of the poor, now 
 assemble every Sunday in the nave of the Cathedral. 
 
 Liverpool. St James the Less. — The success of the offertory, 
 especially in poor districts, depends on frequent collections of small 
 sums. Our daily evensong collection adds considerably to our total. 
 
 IS'antwich. — Since this Church has been thrown open, the 
 attendance of the middle classes has greatly increased, while that 
 of the working-classes has increased tenfold at least. And I am bold 
 to say, that the various classes of people in this parish are begin- 
 ning to understand each other better, and to entertain proper 
 sympathy towards each other. The introduction of the weekly 
 offertory last year, it was feared, by some, would reduce the atten- 
 dance, but it has not affected it in the least.
 
 Paddington. St. Mary Magdalene. By all means make the 
 people your confidants, in sums received and mode of expenditure, by 
 balance-sheets. Always let them know to what they are giving, 
 and rigidly spend the money for objects to which it was meant to be 
 devoted. 
 
 Plaistow. St. Mary. — The people have been educated to the 
 offertory by our Mission Church, so that after a time there was a 
 pressure upon me, rather than from me. By our children's service we 
 train our children to give. 
 
 Eeddiich. Headless Cross. — Place the subject of the offertory 
 plainly before the people. Let them understand that the offertory 
 is an important part of public worship. Then commence with it ; 
 even if not generally acceptable, it will soon become so. 
 
 Stepney. St. LuMs Mission Chapel. — As a means of educa- 
 tion, present the offertory. Above all, let the clergyman put into it 
 his own quota of liberality. 
 
 Wareington. — Our church is well filled with poor people al the 
 evening services. "We have had to put benches down the aisle, and 
 last Sunday evening more than forty people could not get seats. This 
 sort of thing we never saw under the old system, and I am proud 
 to see the people assert their rights, and seat themselves where they 
 like. 
 
 YoKK. The Cathedral. — The service in the nave attracts im- 
 mense congregations. Its charm is its perfect freedom. The seats 
 are open, and the vergers are conspicuous by their absence. The 
 dissenting tradesman may be found in great force. Most inspiring 
 is the spectacle of 2,000 or 3,000 people thus joining in the worship 
 of God. 
 
 
 Twist & Co., Printers, 5, Dale Street, Liverpool.
 
 1i 
 
 ;!»> 
 
 ^- 
 
 
 
 ^- >^' 
 
 . ^;''^y^l