»%9 ^ 
 
 
 -4v 
 
 :) 
 
 » O 
 
 yr 
 
 
 L^"*. 
 
 iV 
 
 ^<W 
 
 
 K^ 
 
 ■^■^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m'^^ 

 
 L I B RA RY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N I VLR5ITY 
 
 or 1 LLI NOIS
 
 HOME REUNION SOCIETY. 
 
 A LECTURE 
 
 BY 
 
 EARL NELSON, 
 
 AND 
 
 ACCOUNTS OF TWO MEETINGS 
 
 ON 
 
 HOME REUNION 
 
 AT 
 
 SALISBURY. 
 
 W. WELLS GAKDNEK, 
 2, PATERNOSTER BUILDINGS, LONDON, E.G.; 
 AND AT THE OFFICE OF THE SOCIETY, 
 7, Whitehall, London, E.C. 
 
 1878. 
 
 ^^C.
 
 PREFACE TO OCCASIONAL PAPER, No. 4. 
 
 It has been considered useful as a guide to future action 
 to publish as an occasional paper, an account of the two 
 meetings at Salisbury, held in January and February, 1878, 
 with the lecture on Home Reunion, delivered by Lord 
 Nelson, on the previous eve of St. Thomas, from which the 
 subsequent Meetings originated. 
 
 Lord Nelson's papers are very little more than the natural 
 outcome of the Occasional Papers 1, 2)and 3. But his endea- 
 vour has been to present the Society's views in a spirit of 
 Christian love and of fairness towards the Nonconformists, 
 and it is evident that the endeavour has been so far success- 
 ful as to have elicited a hearty response in the same Chris- 
 tian spirit from the Nonconformists. From having been 
 for years estranged there is much ignorance of each other's 
 ways and manner of thought which such Conferences will 
 do much to take away ; and though addresses by Noncon- 
 formist Ministers are of much use for further discussion 
 by bringing out clearly their different standpoints and 
 lines of argument, it would be unreasonable to expect 
 from them more than qualified expressions of agreement 
 when defending the principles of the bodies to which they 
 belong. 
 
 The majority of the clergy, and the chief leaders of 
 Nonconformity may look askance at the movement, but 
 those who have joined together on either side from no 
 sinister motive, feel a blessing from this work of Christian 
 love, and know that however difficult it is to put forth any 
 cut and dried scheme of Reunion, there is a sympathy and 
 bond of union in the innermost heart of each, which under-
 
 iv. PREFACE. 
 
 lies the outward points of difference. Even great principles, 
 when viewed from different standpoints, are diversely 
 interpreted. When men come to understand one another 
 more, the reconciling of those apparently divergent prin- 
 ciples will be much easier than is at present supposed. 
 Nevertheless, it will be seen that while Churchmen have 
 realized the existence of a specific teaching of Divine 
 truths by the Nonconformist bodies, — a teaching which at 
 once accounts for the true signs of spiritual life long evident 
 among them — Nonconformists have learnt that Churchmen 
 are not so cold and formal and lifeless as they had supposed. 
 Both have learnt some lessons of forbearance and of 
 mutual respect. It is a great gain to know that those who 
 in times past have said very bitter things of one . another, 
 have resolved, both in attack and defence to preserve a 
 more Christian spirit. In such a cause all must work in 
 patience, and on no premature plans, but sowing in love 
 trust to God to give the increase. 
 
 Bolvitnr Amhulando. 
 
 QuinquagesiTYia, 1878. 
 
 O Lord, Who hast taught us, that all our doings without charity 
 are nothing worth. Send Thy Holy Ghost, and pour into our 
 hearts that most excellent gift of charity, the very bond of peace 
 and of all virtue, without which whosoever liveth is counted 
 dead before Thee. Grant this for Thine only Son Jesus Christ's 
 sake. Amen. - -Collect for Quinquagesima Sunday. 
 
 IIIUC
 
 LECTURE 
 
 ON 
 
 HOME REUNION, 
 
 BY 
 
 EARL NELSON, 
 
 Delivered at Salisbury on the Eve of St. Thomas' 
 
 Day. 1877. 
 
 The Church of England, in her corporate capacity, has never 
 forsaken her cathoHcity of doctrine, or her catholicity in practice, 
 though many of her clergy and laity have unhappily, in many 
 places and at many different times, grievously forgotten both. 
 As a true branch of the Church catholic she is modelled on the 
 original or gospel conception of what the Church should be ; and 
 while she insists on safeguards at the admission of her teachers, 
 she leaves her ordinary members the greatest legitimate freedom, 
 requiring of the children of believing parents (by their sureties), 
 or of adults, when admitted into the Church by baptism, a simple 
 belief in the doctrines contained in the Apostles' Creed, and a 
 simple promise, by God's help, to keep His will and command- 
 ments, and to fight under His banner unto their life's end. From 
 this we may safely enter into amicable relations with all who are 
 so qualified to come in, even though for a time they remain out- 
 side our communion. It is clear from holy scripture that our 
 blessed Lord intended His Church to be a duly organised society, 
 with special authority and with many special privileges ; but He 
 never intended her to be a select company, from whom the less 
 perfect were to be kept out, for He specially commissioned His 
 Church to gather in the weak and the young and the ignorant for 
 the purpose of edifying or building them up into the full know- 
 ledge of the doctrines of Christ. To this end it is essential that 
 the Church should maintain all catholic doctrine which circles 
 round, or rather radiates from, the one great central truth of 
 the Incarnation of our blessed Lord as perfect God and perfect 
 Man. This truth is preserved to us by the Church in her three 
 creeds, and in the two great sacraments ordained by Christ Him- 
 self, and has been preserved and handed down to us through the
 
 apostolic succession of bishops, priests, and deacons, which alone 
 secures to all her members the due administration of those gifts 
 of the Holy Ghost vouchsafed by our Lord to His Church. I 
 mention this thus early in my paper because I am convinced that 
 no improvement can ever take place in the relations between the 
 Church and nonconformity if there is any half-hearted keeping 
 back of her real claims. We believe her to be a reality with a 
 definite history, with definite principles, and with definite and 
 distinctive privileges. By placing these principles in the fore- 
 ground, much useless discussion will be saved over minor differ- 
 ences of ritual and practice, which, though they have obtained 
 fictitious importance from the strictness of our uniformity laws, 
 can in reality form no scriptural or Christian ground against the 
 desired reunion. It is also important that it should be made 
 quite clear that, though these points must be considered vital, 
 there is every reason to believe that much good may result from 
 an amicable discussion of them, conducted in a true spirit of love, 
 with proper preparation, and accompanied by earnest prayer for 
 Divine guidance. 
 
 It is not impossible that many misconstructions, occasioned by 
 the exaggerated form in which the accidents of the day present 
 many truths to our view may, by such discussion, be removed ; 
 that when viewed in their ancient simplicity, many truths now 
 misunderstood may be found consistent with the teaching of 
 scripture and the early Church. For instance, I am happy to 
 think that many Nonconformists rightly hold with the Church 
 the doctrine of the Incarnation of our blessed Lord. The fact 
 that many do extensively use Dr. Liddon's Bampton Lectures on 
 the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, clearly points that way. 
 Nevertheless, there is no doctrine on which greater misunder- 
 standings exist, even among Churchmen ; none, also, that by its 
 wonderful ramifications into all the fields of theology, if not of 
 natural science also, is more worthy of careful study ; but even 
 when such discussions fail of any direct result, no harm can ever 
 come of an earnest endeavour, guided in brotherly love, to under- 
 stand one another better, or to learn more of the revelations in 
 holy scripture of God's wonderful mercies to mankind. 
 
 Again, though it is impossible to exaggerate the sin of schism, 
 which, when rightly understood, is nothing less than the rending
 
 of Christ's body, the Church that He has willed to be one, we are 
 surely not justified in accusing hereditary nonconformity of the 
 original sin of schism, nor of casting the whole burden of such sin 
 upon the original seceders from the Church. History only too 
 clearly reveals that the cruel conduct of the Church towards the 
 original Nonconformists arose much more from political exigencies 
 than from any desire for the extension or for the purity of the 
 kingdom of Christ. 
 
 I would now ask you to consider the relations between the 
 Church and the nonconformists from three different points. 
 1. The common "ground to which we may both fairly appeal 
 in any amicable discussion. 2. The good things which Non- 
 conformity has done for the Church. 3. The good things 
 which the Church has done for nonconformity. And first, the 
 common ground. We have a common Bible to which, when 
 rightly interpreted, we both profess to appeal. I should, however, 
 be deceiving you if I led you to suppose that this by itself was a 
 great element of unity, because we are all so ajDt to pla<ie our own 
 private interpretation of it before the interpretation handed down 
 from the earliest ages of the Church, and of course one man's 
 unsupported private interpretation is sure to clash with another's. 
 We have a common origin in the Church before the division 
 between East and West. There were errors within the Church 
 then, as the parables of our Lord would lead us to expect, but out- 
 side of it there were only heretics with whom none of those who 
 hold the true doctrine of the Incarnation could have had any- 
 thing to do. We all showed this to be a common starting point 
 when as a united and reformed National Church we deliberately 
 appealed to an (Ecumenical Council (of the whole Church East and 
 W^est) so soon as it could be properly called together. And many 
 of the Nonconformists bodies, as they have dropped off" one by 
 one from the Church of their fathers, appealed, often it may be in 
 an exaggerated or mistaken way, to the practices and teaching of 
 the early Church as justifying the particular doctrine or practice 
 which they desired at that time to bring into greater prominence. 
 We may also consider as common ground the old historic National 
 Church before the Reformation, and before there were any direct 
 schisms. We may glory in her successful missions to the heathen 
 tribes of Germany and Scandinavia in her zeal in building up
 
 our Constitution, and in maintaining the liberties of our people ; 
 in her preservation of the Holy Scriptures and the encouragement 
 of learning through her monastic establishments and schools ; in 
 her continuous protests against the aggressions of the Papacy, 
 which, strong in the midst of many errors, surely paved the way 
 for our glorious Reformation. It is, I know, the fashion to ignore 
 all this, and to teach that nothing but evil was to be found in the 
 old National Church before it -was reformed, but a fair unbiassed 
 study of past history will not support that view. Neither can we 
 afford to dwarf our Church's history by ignoring altogether the 
 earlier part of it. We might just as well attempt to understand 
 a man's character by ignoring all the goodness and all the evils of 
 his youth, which combined have helped towards the formation and 
 full development of it. Then, too, we have a common sin to 
 lament over, for we have each in turn been the persecutor and the 
 persecuted. We found fault with the Papacy for bringing the 
 full virulence of persecution against the Protestants of the Con- 
 tinent, but we were neither of us loth to use the weapons our- 
 selves. The Church against the Nonconformists, as I have hinted 
 above, and subsequently Nonconformists against the Church, and 
 in those colonial possessions in which the Nonconformists had the 
 upper hand most cruelly against other Nonconformists who 
 differed from them. All this, by whatever side it was indulged 
 in, whether by the Church or by Eoman Catholic or Protestant 
 Nonconformists, was I venture to think, as far as it went and in 
 itself essentially anti-Christian, and utterly opposed to that law 
 of love which unhappily is not yet restored to its normal place 
 among those who profess themselves to be followers of the cruci- 
 fied One. And now, let us consider, secondly, some of the bene- 
 fits which Nonconformity has done for the Church. 
 
 First and foremost comes the universal protest of all noncon- 
 formity against Erastianism, which has helped the Church to a 
 more earnest endeavour to get rid of that system of the mixing 
 up of politics wiLli religion, which must ever be detrimental to a 
 true and free Christianity. And next I would mention the help 
 nonconformity has given in casting away, I hope for ever, the 
 persecuting spirit to which I lately referred. I am aware that 
 this was begun and carried out from no special hatred of the 
 spirit itself, but mainly in their own defence, and necessarily
 
 against the Church, who was keeping up penal laws against them. 
 Nevertheless, from whatever cause, it was finally accomplished. 
 The work began in William Ill.'s reign, and was consummated 
 by the Catholic Emancipation and the repeal of the Test and 
 Corporation Acts. These were looked upon at the time both by 
 Nonconformists and Churchmen as the greatest blows that could 
 be dealt against the National Church ; but over-ruled by God's 
 providence they have become the means of opening out the more 
 Catholic side of our Church, have relieved her from the oppro- 
 brium of political oppression, and have not only in theory, but in 
 very deed, given to the Church itself a freedom from undue State 
 control, which has manifested itself by the vast increase of 
 spiritual life since prevalent amongst us. Nonconformity, by the 
 introduction of a voluntary discipline and the organization of lay 
 ministrations, has materially helped us in restoring two chief 
 things which English Christianity lost at the time of the Eefor- 
 mation, the one by the substitution of temporal punishments for 
 ecclesiastical censures, the other by the fall of lay brotherhoods 
 through their own corruption and decay, and when the work 
 they had been given to do was accomplished. It is on this 
 ground that I should be the last to propose any scheme of 
 reunion that would in any way tend to interfere with the true 
 independence of the Nonconformist bodies as great lay brother- 
 hoods acting in unity with and under the distinct authority of 
 the Church. The Nonconformist bodies have done a great work 
 each in their turn (and this has not been confined to the more 
 orthodox among them) in pointing out deficiencies which had 
 arisen in doctrine or in practice during the different periods 
 of our post-reformation History. E.g., the Independents leaving 
 the Church on a protest for the rights of conscience against the 
 usurpation of the temporal power. The Papists witnessing on 
 the other hand, by their exaggerated demands for a complete 
 spiritual despotism against too lax a discipline and against dis- 
 obedience to constituted authorities. The Baptist, standing up 
 for the ancient forms in the administration of baptism against the 
 carelessness of the Church in her then mode of administering 
 the rite, and in the instruction of her baptised children. The 
 Quaker, on the other hand, witnessing against the growth of 
 formalism and against the then increasing disbelief in the free
 
 10 
 
 work of God the Holy Ghost in the hearts of men. Even the 
 Unitarian negatively witnessed to the Church's neglect of her 
 more intellectual and philosophic members, just as Wesleyanism 
 witnessed against her neglect of her poorer and less instructed 
 ones. We cannot deny also, that a great debt of gratitude 
 is due to those noble witnesses for Christ among the Non- 
 conformists who have helped to keep alive a true Christian zeal 
 when periods of deadness have come over the Church and Non- 
 conformity alike. These men have ever been foremost to help 
 the more earnest spirits in the Church against a cold Erastianism 
 — working with them for the abolition of slavery, for the ameli- 
 oration of our prisons and of our convict population, for the 
 improvement of the spiritual and social condition of our people, 
 and showing a spiritual life in missionary labours among the 
 heathen, which has greatly stimulated the zeal of the whole 
 Church of Christ. Thirdly, I have promised to bring before 
 you some of the advantages which our National Church has 
 brought to the Nonconformists themselves. By her catholicity of 
 doctrine and of practice, setting forth the whole doctrine of 
 Christ in her creeds and daily services and ever-recurring seasons 
 of fast and festival she has been the undoubted cause of pre- 
 serving the Protestantism of England from drifting into that 
 excess of false doctrine and infidelity which has made such 
 inroads upon the Protestantism of the Continent. In the words 
 of Canon Curteis, " She has attempted, by God's blessing, not 
 without manifest success, to infuse Christianity into the very 
 nerves and veins of an adult and fully organised nation, and to 
 consecrate — not curse or secularise — science, family life, and 
 political life." 
 
 It is also through the National Church that Nonconformity has 
 secured that link with the past to which I have before alluded : 
 preserving an uninterrupted line of Bishops from the Apostles' 
 time until now, enshrining in her Book of Common Prayer and 
 other translated portions of the old service books, the prayers and 
 hymns and worship of a long catena of saints. The Church has also 
 given to the whole nation a body of divinity in sermons and com- 
 mentaries on the Holy Scriptures, and treatises against heresies 
 and infidelity, partly original productions, partly by careful trans- 
 lations of the works of other ages of the Church, which have
 
 11 
 
 largely been made use of by the Nonconformists. The Church 
 of England has also kept alive, in spite of much practical narrow- 
 ness amongst her clergy and laity alike, a spirit of large hearted- 
 ness which has not only been a witness against schism, but a 
 wonderful check against that exclusive spirit whose root is selfish- 
 ness, and which is the natural out-come of all schism. She has 
 also been, and ever will be, the only effectual bulwark against the 
 aggressions of the Papacy, for it is only under her shelter that 
 the Nonconformists can hope to hold their own in such a warfare. 
 In concluding this part of my paper, it is only fair to state 
 my own belief that many benefits which the Church has rendered 
 to Nonconformity are to be traced among other causes to her 
 position as the Established Church. It is of some importance, 
 now that so many of the allowed evils of Establishment have been 
 removed, that the religious Nonconformists should prayerfully re- 
 consider the expediency of that crusade against Establishment in 
 which their more political brothers are tempting them to embark 
 with renewed energy. The undivided Church, in the strength of 
 her unity, fought on apostolic lines against all new doctrines, 
 heresies, and infidelities ; and the Church of England, before and 
 after the Reformation, until the first schisms began, fought in the 
 strength of her unity against Papal aggression and mediaeval 
 error. An increase of Christian zeal, witnessed by all divisions 
 of Christians, has naturally called forth fresh opposition from the 
 great enemy ; and old heresies and infidelities are again holding 
 up their heads against us, often under new names, presenting 
 again the same errors which the undivided Church protested 
 against, exposed and overcame. The sins of the nation also cry 
 out as a witness against the continued shortcomings of our 
 common Christianity. In how many places have not Noncon- 
 formists and Churchmen to point with sorrow, where hundreds are 
 to be found who never enter church or chapel. 
 
 Can any one reasonably doubt that our present disunion is a 
 mighty hindrance to the crusade against infidelities and sins which 
 our Lord and Master calls upon His Church to carry on. Is this 
 a time when those who profess to hold the same doctrine of the 
 Incarnation and the Atonement, who glory in the same Bible, and 
 share amongst them a good deal of national historic Christianity, 
 should be found arrayed in hostile camps, army against army.
 
 12 
 
 while the great enemy of souls can attack us in detail 1 If we are 
 really earnest in fulfilling our blessed Lord's prayer that those 
 who hereafter should believe in Him should be one (visibly one), 
 that the world may know that the Father hath sent Him, we 
 must first endeavour to see our different shortcomings with each 
 other's eyes, and thereby to realise more the hindrances in each 
 other's way. The Eeformation cost us many losses notwithstand- 
 ing the many advantages which it secured. It severed, though 
 from no fault of ours, our intercommunion with the Churches of 
 the Continent, thus giving an indirect encouragement to schism, 
 and it exaggerated for a time the political aspect of religion much 
 more than is a real consequent of establishment, as a careful study 
 of the history of our Anglo-Saxon Church would clearly reveal to 
 us. Our want of discipline, our want of lay organisation, our 
 pewed and shut-up churches, our too strict Uniformity laws, the 
 evils arising from the sale of next presentations, the bitterness of 
 our internal divisions, with other evils of the past which have 
 been happily removed, must all jar upon the minds of the religi- 
 ous and conscientious Nonconformist looking upon us from with- 
 out. Just as the political animosity of the Nonconformist and 
 the natural tendency of schism to subdivide itself, and drift away 
 from its original standing ground, and finally from the very faith 
 itself, jars against the feelings of the conscientious churchman. 
 All these evils to our common Christianity we should 
 endeavour to remove. Differences are both healthy and inevit- 
 able when there is zeal abroad. For when conducted within the 
 Church without rancour and bitterness this diverse action from 
 different schools saves one part of the truth from being ignored 
 by the exaggeration of the other parts of it ; the balance of the 
 whole truth held by the Church preventing the special promin- 
 ence giving to any particular truth leading into error or issuing in 
 some fresh schism. In the same way there is no doubt that the 
 stumbling blocks now placed in each other's way would be much 
 more speedily removed if we could act more together for the 
 removal of them. There are signs to which we cannot shut our 
 eyes even in the midst of bitter animosities within and without, 
 which show a growing desire for rest and union ; yea, the very 
 bitterness of the strife makes us crave for that rest and peace 
 which a return to the principles of true Christian love can alone
 
 13 
 
 secure to us ; while the very earnestness of the attack of the 
 great enemy of souls should make us all the more anxious to con- 
 centrate our efforts to build up our defences on sure foundations 
 lest our very faith in Christianity be undermined. It is from 
 such a feeling that certain churchmen have associated themselves 
 together to encourage a greater spirit of true Christian love in the 
 relations between the National Church and Nonconformists. 
 
 First, by joining together in earnest prayer that no fault of 
 ours may be allowed to hinder a return to that unity for which 
 our blessed Lord prayed, and continues to pray, in His never- 
 ceasing intercession for us at the throne of grace. Secondly, by 
 greater social intercourse and united action whenever we can 
 work together without any sacrifice of first principles ; by endea- 
 vouring to understand one another more, through meetings for 
 reunion, by pamphlets and lectures, and carefully arranged con- 
 ferences in which our important differences may be carefully 
 considered in a spirit of love and of prayer. It may be a long 
 time before any amount of discussion, or of historic search, or of 
 Bible reading, will secure that full and complete unity between 
 us which the acceptance of the vital truths of the Church Catholic 
 would alone give ; but this is no reason for our remaining in our 
 present hostility towards one another, which so effectually pre- 
 vents us from bringing our full light to shine for the building up 
 of the whole body of Christ. 
 
 It behoves us all to be very loving towards those who differ 
 from us, to be very careful lest in the heat of party strife (political 
 or religious), even for the gratification of our own lawful desires, 
 we needlessly put stumbling-blocks in our brother's way. If we 
 realised more how the least unkind word or action rankled in 
 man's heart, steeling it against all impressions for good, turning 
 everything in it to a spirit of opposition, we should all of us be 
 much more careful than we are of what we do or write or say. 
 
 It is our duty as Christians to carry out the work Christ has 
 given us to do in His own way. He knew what was in man, and 
 how wonderfully a word of sympathy and Christian love, offered 
 in humility, can touch a chord even in the roughest heart, and by 
 its utter unselfishness and unworldliness bring with it a power 
 which is Christ's alone. 
 
 The work we have undertaken is one which the world would
 
 14 
 
 consider to be impossible. Disestablishment has not helped 
 towards it, either in the United States or in our colonies ; but 
 faith can remove mountains, and if we earnestly believe in the 
 words and the example of Jesus — if we, with St. Thomas, learn 
 to confess Him to be our Lord and our God, our weak faith will 
 quickly be strengthened, and these hindrances which our world- 
 liness and selfishness and pride have cast in the way will dis- 
 appear, that the full power of Christianity may be manifested 
 to all. 
 
 The Eev. G. Short (Baptist minister), in moving a vote of 
 thanks, said that there might be things in the lecture with which 
 perhaps some of them would disagree; but he was sure he carried 
 with him the general sentiment of the audience when he said that 
 nothing could possibly be better than the excellent spirit and 
 manly frankness with which his lordship had set forth his views. 
 He would not abuse the kind invitation that had been given from 
 the chair by making remarks in which he should presume to differ 
 here and there from the views of the noble lord. Of course, his 
 lordship knew that, kind and catholic and Christian as he was 
 glad to confess his sentiments were throughout his address, there 
 was a per contra at least to some of the points he had set forth. 
 He should be very glad if that audience and some more of the 
 citizens would return the respectful courtesy that was intended 
 that evening by the many Nonconformists, who were present to 
 listen deferentially to his lordship, by attending to hear an equally 
 dispassionate statement from the other side of the question. For 
 his own part, he believed that much good was likely to accrue 
 from the treatment of the subject in the generous and manly way 
 in which it had been treated by his lordship. His lordship had 
 succcested conferences, he had even invited lectures, and, so far 
 from any injury accruing to the Church of England, he believed 
 that very great good, from many points of view, would be the 
 result. They wanted to have those things freely and openly 
 treated. It was quite true, as his lordship had hinted, that there 
 was a great yearning on the part of all Christians — not Christians 
 inside the Church alone, but outside also — for unity; and, although 
 he did not believe that they would quite see eye to eye on some 
 of the doctrines and ecclesiastical tenets to which his lordship had 
 referred, yet at the same time he knew, with regard to the section
 
 15 
 
 of nonconformity which he represented, that they did not wish to 
 keep apart from their fellow-Christians. They laid claim now to 
 some culture and intelligence, to say nothing of Christian feeling 
 and Christian love, and he could say that among them there was 
 a great desire for unity. 
 
 The Rev. W. Clarkson (Congregational minister), in proposing 
 a vote of thanks to the Chairman, said he thoroughly endorsed 
 every word that fell from Mr. Short as to the character of the 
 lecture they had had that evening. He believed that they all — 
 and he was sure the Nonconformists — hailed Earl Nelson's coming 
 among them with very great pleasure. They all knew that he was 
 a thoroughly earnest man — a man who was devoted to the cause 
 of Christianity, and one who took up a very different ecclesiastical 
 and theological standpoint from many of them, but he could say 
 for the Nonconformists whom he represented that they were always 
 glad to learn what was to be said by others who differed from 
 them. They had listened to the catholic, charitable, just, and 
 generous lecture of the noble Earl with very great picture. Not 
 a single word had fallen from his lips calculated in the slightest 
 degree to give pain to any who might differ from him in 
 some of his views, although there were several things said to 
 which he, for one, should feel obliged to take exception. Some 
 statements were made, for instance, the accuracy of which he, for 
 one, should certainly feel bound to dispute, and some inferences 
 were drawn which he should feel bound to question, yet nothing 
 was said that was not just and generous, and they were all very 
 glad indeed to attend that evening to hear the opinions of a lay- 
 man of the Church upon the interesting question on which he had 
 spoken. He thought it would be perfectly in harmony with the 
 spirit of Earl Nelson's remarks if on a future occasion some one 
 from among the Nonconformists came forward and took up the 
 question which the noble Earl had introduced, and gave the 
 opinions which were held by them, and they should all be very 
 well pleased if Earl Nelson would preside on the occasion. He 
 thought he could say that those who spoke from the Noncon- 
 formist point of view would abstain from saying a single word 
 that would be in any way painful to his lordship as Chairman,
 
 HOME REUNION MEETING 
 
 HELD AT THE 
 
 ASSEMBLY ROOM, SALISBURY, JANUARY 14, 1878, 
 EABL NELSON, in the Chaw. 
 
 REV. W. GLARKSON'S LECTURE 
 
 In eesponse to Earl Nelson's paper on December 20, 1877. 
 
 The large Assembly Room was filled almost to overflowing. 
 
 The proceedings having been opened with prayer by the Rev. 
 Canon Morrice, 
 
 The noble Chairman explained the reason why the meeting 
 had been called, viz., to hear a lecture in answer to the one lately 
 delivered by himself on " Home Reunion," on the 20th of 
 December. It was a subject very near to his own heart, because, 
 however far it might be from attainment, still he was perfectly 
 certain that a great deal of harm came to their common 
 Christianity from the divisions that existed between those calling 
 themselves Christians. And at a time when men were boldly 
 denying the Lord who bought them, he thought it was the 
 duty of those who loved our Blessed Lord to see what they 
 could do in a true Christian spirit to draw nearer one towards 
 another^ instead of only meeting together for the purpose of 
 devouring one another, and saying hard things of one another. 
 The object which he set himself to attain in his lecture was 
 to say all that he thought could fairly be said for those who 
 diff"ered from him, — and boldly to give vent to his own opinions 
 with an earnest desire to avoid giving offence to those who differed 
 from him. The Nonconformists present at the former meeting 
 recognised at once the spirit which had actuated him — and met 
 him in that same Christian spirit. He wished it to be clearly 
 understood by Churchmen and Nonconformists that neither 
 Mr. Clarkson nor himself had any sanguine expectations that 
 what they might do would result in any rapid reunion of the 
 Nonconformists with the Church. They were met together to 
 hear a paper in response to his own: and the object before them 
 in all these meetings was not as to who could say the most 
 bitter or the most telling things one of the other, but l)oldly
 
 18 
 
 to put forth the points in which they differed in the greatest 
 spirit of Christian love. There was no reason why there should 
 not be a series of such meetings, and so long as they were con- 
 duct M in a spirit of Christian love and from a sincere desire 
 to increase Christ's kingdom, he was perfectly certain that such 
 meetings would bring a blessing down upon them. 
 
 The Rev. W. Clarkson commenced his lecture by a brief 
 reference to the one recently delivered by the noble Chairman, and, 
 in passing, expressed his general apj^roval of the spirit of the 
 Home Reunion Society, of which the Bishop of Winchester was 
 President, and Earl Nelson the Chairman. The object of that 
 Society was " to present the Church of England in a conciliatory 
 attitude towards those who regarded themselves as outside 
 the pale, to lead towards the corporate reunion of all Christians" 
 holding certain doctrines. The acceptance of the Apostles' 
 Creed, and the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, and of Episcopacy 
 was fundamental, but, outside these lines, all reasonable liberty was 
 to be allowed. Inspired by an earnest wish to meet the prominent 
 if not powerful scepticism, and the wides23read and most lament- 
 able indifference of our times with a united front, the devout and 
 devoted men who had originated that Society were approaching 
 God in prayer, and were drawing towards their fellow-countrymen 
 in the spirit and with the language of conciliation, in the 
 hope of bringing about finally a solid and visible unity between 
 all orthodox Christian Englishmen. It would, he said, be an 
 ungracious and a guilty thing in the Nonconformists not to meet 
 such an overture in the spirit in which it was made. 
 
 The Reverend gentleman then continued : — That which wdll 
 naturally be expected of me this evening, as the spokesman of 
 the Nonconformists, is to deal frankly with the question, whether 
 we consider this a practicable scheme ; whether, in our desire for 
 unity, we are prepared to sink preferences and surrender insti- 
 tutions of our own ; what hope there is of realizing the aspi- 
 ration of the Society so far as we are concerned. Now, as your 
 lordship has stated, there is common ground between us, and 
 this common ground is no narrow strip but a good broad area 
 on which much may well stand. In the great matter of Christian 
 theology, we Nonconformists accept freely and fully not only 
 those central and cardinal doctrines of the " ever-blessed Trinity
 
 19 
 
 and the Incarnation and Atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ," 
 which the Reunion Society insists on as a sine qua non, but also 
 those of the inspiration of the Scriptures, of the presence and 
 action of the Holy Spirit in the Church, of the efficacy of 
 prayer as a power with God, of human accountability and 
 immortality. 
 
 You will permit me, my lord, to say that one sentence in 
 your lordship's lecture surprised me. As reported, and 
 correctly I believe, your lordship said, " I am happy to think 
 that many Nonconformists rightly hold with the Church the 
 doctrine of the Incarnation of our blessed Lord." What sur- 
 prises me is that your lordship should make a statement which 
 is so far short of the whole truth. You will be glad to hear, 
 my lord, that not only do many of us, but that, with 
 the exception of one (numerically) small section of Noncon- 
 formists, all of us hold that main doctrine. And not only do we 
 hold it as a part of our creed but with the closely related 
 doctrine of the proper Deity of Christ, it is to a very large 
 extent indeed the staple of our sermons, the substance of our 
 hymns, the foundation of our prayers. It is, to our thought and 
 feeling, the solid fact upon which the entire structure of our 
 faith stands. To say what I have now said is to anticipate 
 myself when I affirm that substantially we hold the three creeds 
 which are considered essential by the Reunion Society. To the 
 doctrines contained in the Apostles' creed, and in the Nicene 
 creed we give our assent, though many of us have a strong dislike 
 to the subscription of creeds which are human, and therefore 
 fallible expositions of Divine, and therefore, infallible truth. The 
 Athanasian creed I am bound to distinguish from the others. 
 To the use of its damnatory clauses we altogether object, as an 
 assumption of a prerogative which is not ours but God's. Many 
 of us would say that the creed itself is not either scriptural 
 or unscriptural but rather extra-scriptural ; that it is hopelessly 
 impossible, if it were desirable, to explain the relations of the 
 persons in the Trinity in the terms of human philosophy, and 
 certainly is nowhere required of us in Scripture ; that it is a vain 
 thing to " prepare a psychology of God's infinite Spirit in the 
 tiny moulds of our human understanding" (Bushnell),but we all 
 reject the error against which it was aimed, and ascribe true and
 
 20 
 
 proper Deity to the Saviour and to the Holy Spirit of God. 
 In fact we stand here on common ground. As your lordship stated, 
 we use our Bible in our own language ; moreover our hymn- 
 ologies include the same hymns : we have appropriated many of 
 yours ; you have appropriated many — probably more — of ours, 
 for any hymnology would be poor, which was not enriched by 
 the productions of Watts and Wesley, and Montgomery and 
 Doddridge. Moreover we read with profit and pleasure — we 
 ministers consult to our advantage, and give out from, for the 
 benefit of our people — the works of Episcopal divines. Hooker 
 and Butler, Paley and Pearson in Evidences; Alford and Ellicott, 
 Lightfoot and Webster in Exegesis; Trench' and Vaughan, and 
 Liddon and Mansell, and Mozley and Farrar are on our shelves, 
 and we continually lay them under tribute. They defend the 
 doctrines we wish to guard ; they expound the scriptures as 
 we desire to have them treated ; they advocate doctrines which 
 are dear to our hearts. Undoubtedly, my lord, there is much 
 ground — and that of most valuable order — which you and we 
 have in common. Let me go a step further in this direction. 
 There are some things in which we have of late been approaching 
 each other. Your lordship made some candid and liberal 
 admissions of benefit derived by the Church of England from 
 nonconformity. To those then mentioned I may add the minor 
 ones of the adoption of Sunday evening services, of Sunday 
 schools, of week-night services, of family prayers, of the revival 
 of the agapse or social Christian gatherings round the same 
 board, working societies, improvements in psalmody. But I wish 
 to say that if Episcopalians have wisely adopted some things 
 from us Nonconformists, we, on the other hand, have lately 
 " returned the compliment." It was natural that in a revulsion 
 from what seemed a condemnable system there should have been 
 a dislike to usages and hal)its which were associated with that 
 system though no essential part of it. For a very long time 
 there remained many, and I fear there still remain some. Noncon- 
 formists who objected or still object to all ways and methods 
 simply because they were connected with the Church of England. 
 But that folly is fast disappearing. Speaking for the vast 
 majority of us I do not fear to say that we appreciate and 
 are prepared to adopt anything which we believe really tends to
 
 21 
 
 devotion and Christian service, whether it be suggested from 
 within or be copied from without. I think, my lord, you w^ould 
 be surprised if you could learn in how many hundreds of Non- 
 conformist chapels last Sunday the Psalms of David were 
 chanted, the Te Deum sung, the Lord's Prayer repeated ; in how 
 many prayers passages from the liturgy were inwoven ; in how 
 many Nonconformist buildings that liturgy itself, slightly altered, 
 was used. Our people are, as I trust they ever will be, firmly 
 attached to extempore prayer, and it is one of the things of 
 which we are justly proud that there cannot occur an alarming 
 sickness in one of our royal palaces, the beginning of a famine in 
 India, or the first mutterings of a threatened war at home, but 
 from every Nonconformist pulpit in the land there rises, alike 
 unbidden and unrestrained, earnest supplication to God for the 
 interposition of His healing. His outstretched, or His shielding 
 hand ; but not the less for this can we appreciate those forms of 
 devotion which for so many ages have borne the prayers of the 
 people of God to His throne on high. We naturally, prefer the 
 method of worship which we received from our fathers, but we 
 can heartily enjoy the occasional use of the Morning or Evening 
 Prayer in an Episcopalian sanctuary, and when we find ourselves 
 on the Continent it is our common custom to resort to the 
 services open to us, provided by an Episcopalian Society. What 
 bigotry there was — and I am free to say there has been not a 
 little — is dwindling to a vanishing point. We have learnt from 
 the Episcopalian order of service to introduce a much larger 
 liturgical element into our worship by multiplying the number of 
 our hymns, — a very great gain in every respect. We have, many 
 of us, taken down some humanly-constructed fences our fathers 
 put up in the way of Church membership, and while holding 
 tenaciously to the doctrine that the Christian Church should be 
 composed only of spiritual men, we are recognizing the fact that 
 it ought to include all these — the weak and the immature as well 
 as the strong and the more perfect. We have thought it well to 
 build more ornate and elegant places of worship. There is a 
 movement also with us as with Episcopalians in favour of abolish- 
 ing pew-rents. The spirit, the animus, shall I say the demon of 
 denominationalism is disappearing. No one can ap})reciate more 
 highly or applaud more heartily such sweet singers as John
 
 22 
 
 Keble, such earnest workers as Charles Kingsley, such vigorous 
 leaders as the Bishop of Manchester, and, I will add, such 
 outspoken antagonists as Archdeacon Denison, than we can. 
 
 But, my lord, it is not for a moment to be imagined that 
 because we have parted with our prejudices we are in a mood to 
 abandon our principles. A man's principles are not the less but 
 the more dear to him when he holds them no longer blindly and 
 unreasonably but intelligently and discriminatingly. I am obliged 
 to break with the noble Chairman when he qualifies his remark 
 about the Bible constituting common ground by the observation 
 that we are too apt to put our own private interpretation before 
 that handed down from the early ages of the Church. We know 
 of no age of the Church which can relieve us of our duty before 
 God of examining His own word and judging thence what is His 
 mind and will. The Tractarians of forty years ago grounded 
 the movement which they created, and which has reached such 
 j^rominence to-day, on the duty of accepting the interpretation of 
 the Bible by the fathers of the first three or four centuries. But 
 these fathers, good and holy as they were, were uncritical in the 
 last degree, and, so far from shewing themselves specially fitted 
 for the work of interpreting Scripture, proved themselves remark- 
 ably ill-adapted for that work. It is not on the men who indulged 
 in such puerilities as considering the rods which Jacob put in the 
 troughs before Laban's sheep as a type of the Cross, or looking on 
 the five barley loaves in the miracle as representations of the five 
 senses, or (according to others), the five Books of Moses that we 
 shall rely as authorities on Biblical interpretation. We remember 
 that the stumbling-block which hindered the recognition and recep- 
 tion of our Lord Himself was none other than a blind trust reposed 
 in the fathers of the Jewish Church. We remember the Master's 
 injunction, " Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have 
 eternal life." We remember His challenge : " Why do ye not of 
 yourselves judge that which is right ?" We remember the praise 
 of the more noble Bereans, for that they searched the Scriptures 
 daily whether those things were so : we believe in the presence 
 of the Spirit of God, ready to illumine the mind of every devout 
 reader of that Word which He Himself inspired, and we do not 
 merely claim the right but we acknowledge the duty — a duty 
 which none may take out of our hands without presumption and
 
 23 
 
 which we may place in no other's charge without unfaithfulness, 
 of seeking from the very Word of God, from the very lips of Jesus 
 Christ, to know what is His will concerning us. And now, my 
 lord, I have to present what constitutes the most serious barriers 
 in the way of corporate Eeunion between the Church of England 
 and the Nonconformists — a barrier which, without a radical 
 change of view on one side or the other, must be insurmountable. 
 I am sure that I speak the sentiments of the Nonconformists 
 generally — ministerial and lay — when I say that we attach 
 supreme and indeed vital importance to those doctrines which are 
 popularly known as evangelical. With the views we hold of the 
 way of salvation in Jesus Christ, we could not possibly be mem- 
 bers of a Church which teaches every child as the first thing it 
 learns that in baptism it was made a " member of Christ, a child 
 of God, and an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven." With the 
 views we hold of the Christian ministry, we could not possibly 
 become members of a Church which authorizes any living man in 
 any office whatsoever, to say " believe in the Holy Ghost for the 
 office and work of a priest .... whose sins thou dost for- 
 give they are forgiven." With the views we hold on this sub- 
 ject we could not by formal membership sanction such a claim as 
 is contained in the solemn words (appointed to be used at the 
 visitation of the sick) " By His authority (Lord Jesus Christ) com- 
 mitted to me I absolve thee from all thy sins." With our con- 
 victions as they are, and are likely to be, we could not belong, 
 organically, to a Church where ministers are by the highest eccle- 
 siastical authority allowed to preach and publish the doctrine of 
 the lieal Presence of Jesus Christ in the bread and wine of the 
 Lord's Supper. And I am bound to say, my lord, that if these 
 grave and weighty difficulties were considered fatal by our fathers 
 there is all too abundant reason why they should be so considered 
 by us. For we quite understand the serious and widespread 
 movement which is denominated " Eitualism." We know that, 
 with perhaps a few exceptions which need not be noted, the men 
 who are leading that movement are not convulsing the Church and 
 agitating the country on some small matters of church furniture, 
 or ministerial costume, or devotional accessories. We know that 
 they are seriously, and earnestly, and successfully aiming at the 
 restoration in the Church of England of the Catholic faith : they
 
 24 
 
 do not conceal this : they avow it, and we have to consider that 
 by a veiy large and growing number of the clergy, the formu- 
 laries of the. Church are being strained to their utmost tension to 
 admit these sacramental doctrines and sacerdotal usages, which to 
 our minds are entirely at variance with the spirit of our Lord's 
 and of the Apostles' teaching. 
 
 There is one thing which above all others in the matter of 
 usage, is placing an absolutely impassable barrier between us. 
 We shrink with what to others may seem a needless alarm, but 
 with what we think the teaching of all history and the knowledge 
 of human nature justifies us in calling a well grounded and holy 
 horror from the revived habit of auricular confession. I should be 
 simply toying with my task, and trifling with you my lord, and 
 my audience, if I did not plainly say that with such doctrines in 
 the standards of the Church and such an immediate prospect before 
 us as that of the Anglo-Catholic party going the full length — and 
 perhaps further — allowed therein, and of that party waxing 
 stronger and stronger, it is vain to hope that without a very 
 decided and even radical change of conviction on our part on 
 subjects on which we now feel very strongly indeed, an organic 
 union is out of the question. 
 
 There is another matter of prime importance which needs 
 exposition and which I gladly avail myself of this opportunity 
 of clearing up. Your lordship was so frank as to speak in high 
 a})proval of the "protest against Erastianism which has helped the 
 Church to a more earnest endeavour to get rid of that system of 
 mixing up of poHtics with religion which must ever be detrimental 
 to a true and free Christianity." And, I learn, from one of the 
 papers your lordship was good enough to send me, that the action 
 of the Home Eeunion Society includes " the removal of all 
 defects and abuses in the practical working of the Church's system 
 which may justly give offence to Nonconformists." Yet another 
 remark in another paper issued by the Society, and a remark in 
 your lordship's lecture, falling in with a A^ery general impression, 
 oblige me to feel that in one respect our motives are misunder- 
 stood and we ourselves misjudged. I observe a distinction drawn 
 between the religious and the political Dissenter — to the disad- 
 vantage and disjiaragement of the latter. I venture to say, my 
 lord, that this is a real case of a distinction without a difference.
 
 25 
 
 If we are political — if we enter the field of ecclesiastical politics — 
 it is not though we are religious but because we are religious men. 
 We are not seeking spoils for ourselves; we are not looking for 
 funds for our denominational treasuries; we are not expecting that 
 any ecclesiastical changes will be of any benefit at all to our par- 
 ticular sects. Quite the contrary. We honestly believe that in 
 the changes which impend we shall most likely seriously 
 suffer so far as the present Nonconformist organizations are 
 concerned. We have no party interests whatever to serve. It 
 is because as Christian men we desire that the great Head of the 
 Church should be honoured instead of being dishonoured : because 
 as servants of Christ we feel strongly that His Church ought not 
 to be, as now, at the mercy of the parliamentary majorities ; because 
 as spiritual men our sense of what is right is keenly shocked by 
 the fact that the faith once delivered to the Saints is now largely 
 in the hands of a Legislature which is secular and not spiritual, — it 
 is therefore that we enter the political arena. I do not want, my 
 lord, to rake up this evening our well-known objections to the 
 appointment of the chief officers of the Church by the Prime 
 Minister for the time being, the gift of many livings in the hands 
 of the Lord Chancellor, the sale of livings, the dependence of 
 Convocation on the Houses of ParHament, &c.; but I do very much 
 wish to assure your lordship, and those with whom you are acting, 
 that these anomalies or incongruities are real and solid stumbling- 
 blocks to us as earnest and spiritual men ; that they are not mere 
 political enginery, but things which profoundly pff'end our feelings 
 and which are condemned by our judgment as Christian disciples 
 responsible to Christ for the constitution of His Church. We may 
 believe, we do believe, that the presence in the Church of England 
 of tens of thousands of spiritual men makes that Church a spiritual 
 institution ; but looking at it (as we are bound to do) as an organ- 
 ization, we are obliged to say that we consider it, in its dependency 
 on the State, and its absence of self-government and discipline, 
 very far indeed from resting on a scriptural foundation. We have 
 yet to learn (and I am much mistaken if you, my lord, and your 
 friends, have any desire to teach us this) that we exemplify our 
 religion by narrowing our activities to a lessening circle, and not, 
 rather, by carrying the Spirit of Christ and the endeavour to serve 
 Him into all the circles— domestic, social, and political — in which
 
 26 
 
 we move. We ask, then, both in the name of justice and the in- 
 terests of Christian charity, that we should be frankly believed 
 when we say that the present relations of the Church to the State 
 form a most serious offence to us as Christ-honouring, Bible-read- 
 ing men, that they oblige us as Christians to take lawful action to 
 remove that which we honestly think injurious alike to the State 
 and to the Church. I have no defence to make of any acrimonious 
 and unjust things which have been said on either side in the con- 
 troversy. Let them be unsparingly condemned. But let high- 
 minded spiritual men be credited with the pure motives and the 
 religious spirit by which they not only claim to be, but actually 
 are, inspired. I fear you will think, my lord, that with this two- 
 edged sword of theological and ecclesiastical objection I have been 
 cutting away the chances of reunion for which many are anxious. 
 Clearly enough, while we have some most precious things in 
 common, and while there have been some approximations to one 
 another, there remain such solid cliflferences between us, that until 
 you convince us or we convince you there cannot be the visible 
 corporate Reunion which you desire. But here, my lord, let 
 me ask why lay such stress on the Union being corporate and 
 visible ? As we read our New Testament we understand that the 
 word "Church " is used in two senses : in the smaller sense, of a 
 company of Christian people meeting in one place for worship 
 and edification ; and in the larger sense, of the whole body of 
 believers in Christ of all ages and lands in heaven and on earth. 
 To this great company we claim to belong, and rejoice to count 
 all spiritual men of all Churches members also. But we do not 
 see that there is anything in the Scriptures which indicates that 
 it is the will of the Lord that there should be one, and only one, 
 organization comprising all Christians on the earth or in the land. 
 Our Lord said that He had " other sheep which he must bring," 
 that " there might be one flock {iroinvi)) and one shepherd ;" but 
 He did not say anything about there being one fold. One flock 
 may be distributed in many folds. He prayed that all His dis- 
 ciples might be one. But what unity did He desire 1 " That 
 they may all be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me and I in Thee, 
 that they may be one in Us ... . that they may be one 
 even as We are one, I in them and Thou in Me, that they may 
 be made perfect in one." Is not this a spiritual and not a corpo-
 
 27 
 
 rate unity ? — a oneness like to that between the Divine Father 
 and the Divine Son, and the direct consequence of the indwelling 
 of the Saviour in His disciples 1 — a unity of spirit, of sympathy, 
 of character, of fellowship of heart, and not a mechanical and 
 corporate unity 1 What the Scriptures say thus to us in word, 
 they say in symbol : we take the seven-branched candlestick of 
 the Old Testament, all the branches welded on to the same stem, 
 to be a picture of the unity of the Jewish Church ; but the symbol 
 of unity in the Christian Church we see in the seven golden 
 candlesticks, not mechanically fastened to the same stem, but 
 standing each on its own basis — all united, however, together by 
 the presence of the Son of Man moving in the midst of them. 
 Moreover, we do not read in the Acts of the Apostles or in the 
 Epistles of any efforts made or any directions given, for after use, 
 to form the Churches of Galatia, or of Asia Minor, or Greece, or 
 Syria into any national or universal body. We do not read any 
 injunctions except to cultivate a peaceable, charitable spirit, and 
 the walking in love and unity, between the members of tiie parti- 
 cular Church to which a letter was being addressed. Much we 
 read about the unity of the spirit, nothing about oneness of organ- 
 isation. We therefore ask whether there is not another way, and 
 a possibly better way, in which the Saviour's prayer may be 
 fulfilled than by a corporate reunion of the different Christian 
 Churches'? We believe there is " a more excellent way." We 
 see no reason why all the Churches of Christ should not live and 
 labour side by side in the exercise and exhibition of a loving 
 spirit, having cordial fellowship with one another, exchanging 
 services with one another, co-operating together in all Christian 
 and philanthropic work in which they can unite. So the Non- 
 conformist Churches now do, with much benefit to themselves 
 and to those outside. They are most willing to include the Epis- 
 copalian Churches, when these are willing on their part to join 
 them, when they can do so on the same doctrinal basis, and will 
 do so on equal terms. Of course, while we hold our views (and 
 we think we hold them intelligently as well as firmly), we cannot 
 give priority to those who, in our judgment, are less scriptural 
 than we are ourselves. To do that would be to forfeit our self- 
 respect. But, just as between one another as Nonconformists, 
 we know nothing of proselytism, and esteem the members of
 
 28 
 
 another Church as highly as any of our own, preaching in one 
 another's pulpits, sitting down at the Lord's table in one another's 
 chapels, joining together in common evangelistic work, so 
 shall we be ready to join, in all these ways, with ministers and 
 members of the Episcopalian Church. 
 
 I fear, my lord, that this is impracticable whilst the present 
 relations between the Church and the State remain as they are. 
 Whilst there is one Church occupying a position of special 
 privilege, regarding itself as the authorised and chartered insti- 
 tution of the kind, it is morally impossible that there should 
 not be an amount of assumption of superiority on the part of its 
 members which is fatal to free and full fellowship on equal terms. 
 We argue thus, my lord ; we think the time has come when 
 there is no Church in the country which can rightly expect all 
 Englishmen to join its ranks, — those who profess some other 
 Christian body being regarded, and, I must add, being disregarded 
 as Dissenters. If there were any such Church, it must be a Church 
 with a claim either on the ground of antiquity and universality, 
 or of numbers. If of the former, that Church would assuredly be 
 the Church of Rome ; but in any comj^any of Christian English- 
 men that needs no discussion. If of numbers, we contend that there 
 is, now, no Church of such preponderating numbers as justifies 
 such a claim. The Church of England counts, as its adherents, 
 about one-half, more or less, of the worshipping part of the popu- 
 lation, about one-third, more or less, of the whole population. 
 But this half or third is again broken into three parts or parties 
 which differ from one another more seriously in doctrine, than 
 one at least of the three differs from those outside. We think, 
 therefore, that there is an injustice in the position of privilege and 
 honour occupied by the one, and of privation and disparagement 
 suffered by the others. This is not mere theory, my lord : Here 
 in England it is only too painfully clear that society is divided in 
 twain by this distinction. Every one knows that the word Dis- 
 senter carries with it a certain stigma and a certain disadvantage. 
 We are quite prepared to pay this price, as I hope any other price 
 that may be exacted, for the possession of our principles. But it 
 is a question whether it ought to be exacted, and it is a question 
 most pertinent this evening and worthy the attention of our noble 
 chairman and those with whom he is associated in the Home
 
 29 
 
 Reunion Society, whether they should not regard this as one most 
 serious hindrance in the way of arriving at their desired haven. 
 And what of other countries ? I do not like to place myself in 
 direct conflict with the noble lord, but in candour and I hope in 
 courtesy, I am compelled to do so here. His lecture contains the 
 remark that disestablishment has not helped the work of Union 
 either in the United States or in our Colonies. My belief is that 
 it will be found on full enquiry that where there is no dominant 
 Church the path to Christian Union is far less steep and stony 
 than in this country. There are statements made by high Church 
 authorities and high State authorities also, by Bishops and States- 
 men, which might easily be adduced showing that not only do the 
 Unestablished Episcopalian Churches in themselves flourish and 
 grow and rejoice in their freedom and self-government — a pros- 
 perity (let me say) which we Nonconformists are most sincerely 
 glad to know — but that in virtue of their disestablishment there is 
 a better and kindlier feeling between all the churches in the coun- 
 try. In South Austraha, Mr. Anthony Forster tells us, that since 
 the abolition of the State grant, jealousies and animosities have 
 entirely disappeared, and " the tone of Christian society has been 
 improved and elevated," while the Bishop of Adelaide mentions as 
 an instance of the removal of all sectarian feeling among the religious 
 denominations that he was invited by a number of ministers of all 
 sects to arrange with them for a day of prayer for the removal of the 
 lasting drought — that he felt proud to see' himself surrounded by 
 such men — that he thought it right that all party prejudice should 
 be cast aside, and that they should recognize all who bore the 
 stamp of Christ. The Bishop of Ontario says " I candidly confess 
 that I would not exchange the present condition of the Canadian 
 Church for her condition as an Endowed Establishment. " Better 
 a dinner of herbs (he adds) where love is, than a stalled ox and 
 hatred therewith." And Mr. Sullivan, the able and eloquent 
 Member of Parliament for Louth, in his " New Ireland" says, 
 " the Episcopal Protestant Church of Ireland has lost nothing and 
 has gained much, especially in its freedom of action by Disestab- 
 lishment. . . One of the best and brightest changes visible is the 
 almost total disappearance of sectarian animosities and the kindly 
 mingling of creeds and classes on the duties of every da}'- life. 
 Even in Ulster these incensate feuds are steadily giving way.
 
 30 
 
 Such passions do not suddenly subside. On the whole the pain- 
 fully sharp distinctions and classifications of old times have 
 softened down and the different social classes and denominations 
 no longer resemble so many warring tribes encamped upon the 
 land." This, I venture to think, is strong testimony, and I respect- 
 fully ask the attention of the noble chairman to it. I know, of 
 course tjiat, in Ireland feeling ran higher than it does here, but 
 that which is working such good in the way of reconciliation there 
 surely would do much to level what an impartial outsider of all 
 our churches calls "the wall of ecclesiastical privilege which 
 divides English citizens." 
 
 Allow me, my lord, to anticipate the answer which I know 
 would be made to this argument. Your lordship evidently 
 thinks, and the Home Eeunion Society thinks, that this would 
 be paying too great a price for unity. I find it stated in one of 
 their papers that " the eyes of many Protestant Nonconformists 
 are being opened to the importance of the Established Church as 
 a sure bulwark against the attacks of the Eoman Curia." 1 
 cannot imagine who are the Nonconformist authorities for this 
 statement. So far as I know the minds of my co-religionists, 
 our hopes and fears look in an exactly opposite direction. We 
 consider that the present action of the Established Church is the 
 one hope of Rome in this land. The young people of England 
 go regularly to the churches which are known to be national 
 and presumed to be Protestant, and there they become familiarised 
 with nearly all the distinctive doctrines and practices of the 
 Roman Church : thus they are led up to the border, and one step 
 takes them across. 
 
 Archbishop Manning says : " The clergy of the Established 
 Church have taken out of the hands of the Catholic clergy the 
 labour of contending for the doctrines of Transubstantiation and 
 the Invocation of Saints. The Catholics have been left the much 
 more happy and peaceful task of reaping the fields.'' The 
 Weekly Register says : '•' From every ritualistic congregation in 
 London there is a continual stream of converts drifting towards 
 us, and the number would be increased had we priests sufficient 
 to look after those who are hesitating." In our sober judgment 
 — but to our keen regret — that very thing, that very Establish- 
 ment, to which we as Englishmen involuntarily belong, is not
 
 31 
 
 only a formidable bar in the way of Christian union, but also 
 a strong lever in the hands of superstition. 
 
 To bring this lecture to a conclusion, and my arguments 
 to a point, I am persuaded that before any corporate Eeunion 
 can be effected between Church and Dissent there must be great 
 searchings of principles and great changes of view: you, my lord, 
 and your friends must convince us, or we must convince you in 
 the doctrines concerning human priesthood, and the sacraments ; 
 you must convince us, or we you in the matter of Church govern- 
 ment, and the relation of the Church of Christ to human law. 
 At present, union of societies would mean surrender of principles 
 on the one side or the other. We have, and can have, no thought 
 of compromising our most sacred convictions. Meantime it is 
 a great advantage — which both sides owe to you, my lord — that 
 for once, at least, our differences are stated face to face in 
 the calmness and courtesy of friendly feeling, rather than in the 
 fierce heats of agitation. I have stated truly and freely, I trust 
 without offence, what our divergencies are, how far we go 
 together, where we part, and how wide apart are fhe lines 
 along which we move. We may, from friendly intercourse, learn 
 to respect one another the more without respecting ourselves any 
 the less. We offer, if I may speak for my friends, the most 
 sincere respect for their zeal, for their liberality (witness the 
 restoration of our Cathedral here), for their devotedness to their 
 work, for their preparedness to suffer loss on behalf of the 
 freedom and self-government of the Church of Christ, to those 
 farthest removed from us in doctrine whose view of Christian 
 worship and Christian ministry is in sharpest conflict with our 
 own. We ask to be regarded, in return, as those who follow 
 the lead of their convictions, not blindly but intelligently, not in 
 a spirit of antagonism but in loyalty to our Common Lord. 
 The judgment of charity will in these as in most m .tters be 
 found to be the righteous judgment of equity and truth. We 
 may well agree to act together in those great moral and social 
 reformations which spring from a Christian source and are 
 Christian in spirit if not in form. We may be as men in Christ 
 Jesus, not tossed about with every wind of doctrine, steadfast 
 and true, and yet we may carry ourselves with that openness of 
 heart which becomes men walking in the twilight of time
 
 32 
 
 and not in the noontide brightness of Eternity, which becomes 
 those who are still students of the Great Teacher, and who 
 remember that 
 
 " God hath yet more light and truth 
 To break forth from His Word." 
 
 than that which we have yet acquired. And whether^ as with 
 you, my lord, we look forward hopefully to the time when all 
 separated bodies shall be united in one comprehensive Church, or 
 whether, as with us, we anticipate the hour when many Churches 
 shall still exist side by side, teaching substantially the same 
 Christian doctrine with various shades of view and forms of 
 government, honouring one another, loving one another, none 
 claiming priority over the other, but each serving the other ; 
 there being no strife between them, but a healthful and faithful 
 emulation to do the best work for the Master and mankind ; 
 all showing in their charity and their fellowship how honest 
 differences may dwell together in the spirit of Christian unity, we 
 both believe that the Son of Man is walking still in the midst 
 of the golden candlesticks, and that by His purifying and 
 renewing Spirit He will purge us of our errors, on which side 
 soever they shall be found by Him, and will nourish tlie life 
 which he sees in us both, and will, at length, establish His 
 Kingdom of Kighteousness on the earth while He guides all 
 His faithful followers of every name to their home in " the 
 all-reconciling world." 
 
 ' The noble Chairman admitted that Mr. Clarkson had 
 thoroughly followed out the different points that were more 
 or less opened out in his own lecture ; and knowing the strong 
 views which the Reverend gentleman entertained upon some of 
 them, he was bound to admit that he had restrained himself very 
 greatly indeed, in a desire to state those views clearly in a spirit 
 of Christian love. As to an answer to the lecture on behalf 
 of the Church, he should prefer that to be given in a separate 
 address, and after mature and careful consideration. There were 
 one or two points, however, which might be touched upon at 
 once. He was perfectly aware that there were many essential 
 differences between Churchmen and Nonconformists, but as he 
 pointed out the other day, those differences could be discussed in
 
 33 
 
 a spirit of Christian love, without any compromise of opinion on 
 one side or the other. If clearly understood, some, at least, 
 of those differences would be found to be more apparent than 
 real ; and his desire was that they should be considered in con- 
 ference, after due preparation and prayer. 
 
 He was most thankful to hear Mr. Clarkson's decided statement 
 that the great mass of the Nonconformists held the great creeds 
 of the Church which Churchmen regarded as so essential He 
 would not just then be led into any lengthened discussion 
 respecting the Athanasian Creed, but he begged to remind the 
 rev. gentleman that at a time when the Church had no dissent in 
 it, the Eeformers actually increased the number of recitations of 
 that creed, for the purpose of putting down heresies which the 
 Nonconformists of the present day objected to quite as much 
 as the Eeformed Church of England did then. In regard 
 to the question of antiquity, he thought Mr. Clarkson had 
 made a mistake in claiming it for the Church of Eome. The 
 Eoman Church in this country had, it was true, a succession of 
 bishops, but he believed that, if critically tested, it^would be 
 found to be a Spanish succession. It was certainly not the old 
 Church of England succession, the bishops of which by ordination 
 inherited the succession of the ancient bishops of the Church of 
 England long before the time of the Eeformation. That ought to 
 satisfy Nonconformists that the Church of England had a claim 
 to antiquity, even if it had not the claim of numbers to put for- 
 ward. He merely mentioned these things in passing, and not 
 with the view of raising any present discussion upon them. He 
 had learnt much from the statements of Mr. Clarkson, and, like 
 him, did not expect to see anything like a speedy reunion. 
 One step towards that invisible unity which Mr. Clarkson 
 had stated his desire to encourage might be effected by a 
 discouragement of the use of unkind words or exaggerated state- 
 ments respecting one another, in whatever direction their 
 influence might extend. If they considered themselves fol- 
 lowers of Christ, they were bound to walk in love one with 
 another. They should do everything in their power to increase 
 the spirit of Christian love, and to discourage and put down 
 anything like a spirit of political animosity. When he used
 
 34 
 
 the term "political dissenters," the other day, as opposed to 
 religious dissenters, he did not mean that he expected to find 
 such amongst the Nonconformist ministers, but that there were 
 men who might be tempted to use a party cry for the sake of 
 raising a semi-religious one. He did not for a moment intend to 
 refer to those religious men who conscientiously* considered that 
 a Church establishment was a wrong thing ; but he thought he 
 could prove to them in conference that even that was not so 
 wrong a thing as it was supposed to be, and that it was altogether 
 free from those exaggerated evils by which it was supposed to be 
 accompanied. At the same time he felt very strongly that it was 
 not a Christian thing to care too much about political position, 
 either in defence or in attack. 
 
 The Rev. Canon MoRRlCE, in proposing a vote of thanks to the 
 lecturer, said he did not agree with everything that had been 
 advanced, but he was convinced that reunion was much nearer 
 than he thought it was when he came into the room. 
 
 The Rev. G. Short, in seconding the vote, claimed the same 
 liberty as the Rev. Canon Morrice in not agreeing with the 
 whole of his friend Mr. Clarkson's statement ; but at the same 
 time he thought they must all admit that the lecture was an 
 extremely able one, and that by his control of language the 
 lecturer had shown the possession of great catholicity and 
 eminent Christian love. Earl Nelson had evidently shewn a 
 similar spirit, not only in his lecture but also in the correspondence 
 which had since taken place between the noble Earl, Mr. Clark- 
 son, and himself. The continued manifestation of such a spirit 
 could not but achieve great results, and, if the noble Earl's numer- 
 ous occupations would admit of it, he assured him that it would 
 afford the Nonconformists of Salisbury much pleasure to listen 
 to his own reply to the lecture which they had just heard, 
 at a Home Reunion Meeting to be subsequently held. 
 
 Mr. New, speaking from the body of the room, supported the 
 motion, and said such meetings could not but increase kindliness 
 of feeling between the Church of England and the various Non- 
 conformist bodies. 
 
 The Rev. W. Clarkson, in acknowledging the vote, suggested 
 that, in any future discussion, one or two points only should be
 
 35 
 
 taken, instead of covering the whole ground, which was too vast 
 to be dealt with in one evening. 
 
 Mr. S. R. Atkins proposed, and the Rev. F. Raikes seconded, 
 a cordial vote of thanks to Earl Nelson for presiding ; and the 
 noble Earl havii^ briefly acknowledged the compliment, the pro- 
 ceedings were brought to a close.
 
 HOME REUNION MEETING 
 
 HELD AT THE 
 
 ASSEMBLY ROOMS, SALISBURY, FEB. 25, 1878, 
 S. R. ATKINS, Esq., (Nonconformist) IN THE CHAIR. 
 
 A PAPER BY 
 
 EARL NELSON: 
 
 ON 
 
 "I7i6 Teaching of Holy Scripture on the Unity of the Church of Christ,'' 
 In answer to the Rev. R. W. Clarkson. 
 
 ALSO 
 
 An Address by Rev. G. Short, in answer to Lord Nelson. 
 
 The large Assembly Room was again filled to overflowing. 
 
 The Rev. Canon Morrice having opened the Meeting with 
 prayer : — 
 
 The Chairman said the duties which he had been asked to 
 fulfil that night were not at all onerous. If they had been so he 
 should have been far more reluctant in accepting them. If light 
 they were to him extremely agreeable. He felt that they, the 
 citizens of Salisbury and the neighbourhood who took an interest 
 in Christian work, were deeply indebted to Lord Nelson for 
 the initiation of the movement, one of the results of which 
 was the meeting that night — for, to bring men together 
 holding different religious convictions, and to get them to state 
 and to examine and to discuss those differences, as men, as gentle- 
 men, as Christian men, was an immense gain. And he ventured 
 to think that if no further result than this was secured by the 
 movement it perfectly justified the existence of the movement 
 itself. For if they could get these differences discussed in the 
 spirit he had indicated, the result was that they were gra- 
 dually dispelling ignorance, relieving prejudice, and thus assist- 
 ing to create a healthy public sentiment. In regard to that 
 association, — the Home Reunion Society — which Lord Nelson 
 and a number of other distinguished men, cleric and lay,
 
 38 
 
 were attached to and were promoting, he had to ask himself what 
 was its purport, what its scope 1 As he had gathered from the 
 noble Earl's former admirable lecture, (which, if it had been more 
 duly advertised and more fully known, would have filled that 
 room rather than the small one), the great object of that Home 
 Eeunion was to re-unite in this their home, their fatherland, the 
 dissevered portions of the Christian Church holding the great 
 cardinal doctrines of the Church such as the doctrine of the Trinity, 
 the Incarnation, and the Atonement. He had to put to himself a 
 question which he should not answer, — indeed, it would not be 
 his province to attempt to answer it. It was this. Was reunion 
 practicable ; was it desirable 1 He had no doubt that before they 
 left that room they would have had many important contributions 
 of thought and opinion on both sides of the question, helping 
 them to form an opinion of their own upon the matter. But if he 
 felt it was not his province to express an opinion; he could yet 
 express with all his heart, the most sincere and hearty approval 
 of the means used in order to secure that end. He had gathered 
 from the address that the means were more prayer, the delivery 
 of lectures on the history of the Church and the doctrines of the 
 Church, greater intercourse, both private and public, between 
 Churchmen and Nonconformists, and finally the holding of such 
 conferences as they had that night. With all his heart he said 
 Amen to each one of these propositions. The history of the 
 movement, so far as it had gone in Salisbury was this : they had 
 had an admirable lecture from the noble earl setting forth in the 
 most graceful terms his own opinion as a churchman. They had 
 next an able and exhaustive manifesto on the opinion of the 
 Nonconformists by Mr. Clarkson ; and that evening they had 
 arrived at the third meeting in which Earl Nelson was about to 
 give an address, and Mr. Short would follow. 
 
 Earl Nelson then proceeded to deliver the following address 
 which was listened to with marked attention : — 
 
 Mr. Clarkson, in his able paper of the 14th of January, has 
 put forth two, as he believes, impassible barriers to that corporate 
 union of all true Christians which certainly existed for the first 
 twelve centuries after Christ, which, I maintain, was specially 
 prayed for by our Blessed Lord, which I therefore consider every 
 Christian should strive after, and which, if striven after in a
 
 39 
 
 true spirit of Christian love, of humble faith and of prayer, 
 will, as I believe, most assuredly be attained. His first barrier 
 is the fact of the Church being established ; his second, the 
 existence of High Church or Sacramental Doctrine within the 
 Established Church. As to the first, I propose later on a Home 
 Reunion meeting, at which the whole question of the relations 
 between Church and State should be calmly considered in a 
 spirit of Christian love ; but I am not careful to hurry on such 
 a discussion of the merits of so-called establishment or dis- 
 establishment, because it never can be considered a vital question 
 between fellow Christians, from the simple fact that, although 
 the corporate union of all Christians has existed for many 
 centuries side by side with a union between Church and State, 
 the temporal position and temporal wealth of a Church are, after 
 all, accidents, not essentials, and may at one time of the Church's 
 history be proved to be very pernicious, at another time very 
 beneficial for the true spiritual interests of the Church on earth. 
 I allow that there have been great evils from this union which 
 Nonconformist action in time past has greatly helped us to remove. 
 But it is quite open to us to maintain that that, which under 
 certain circumstances has worked many evils, is, under amended 
 relationship, capable of much good ; and we may further attempt 
 to show that some evils which still undoubtedly remain, may 
 be far easier to remove by the co-operation of those who are now 
 Nonconformists, acting within rather than outside the pale of the 
 one National Church. On the other hand it is perfectly open to 
 the Nonconformists to argue that the evils will always pre- 
 ponderate, and that it is better to remove them at once by 
 severing the connection between Church and State altogether. 
 And in answer to Mr. Clarkson's earnest appeal that we should 
 do justice to the religious conscientiousness of Nonconformists in 
 this matter, I at once state that those with whom I have 
 no sympathy are politicians, who evidently care little for religion, 
 who take up the question of establishment or disestablishment 
 as a mere party cry likely to revive eff"ete party organizations. 
 But, however much I may diff'er from him, I must ever respect 
 and honour that man who, from purely conscientious motives, 
 from an earnest desire for Christ's honour and glory, and without 
 any secondary thought of personal aggrandisement or of party
 
 40 
 
 triumph, fights for the freedom of religion from all semblance of 
 State control. However, whether in attack or in defence, we, as 
 true Christian men, must be careful, in dealing with this as with 
 other questions, not to exaggerate evils, not to mistake historical 
 facts, and not to draw too hasty conclusions from an existing 
 state of things, when the true action and consequences of them 
 cannot be fully understood by those that are not directly living 
 under the influences of them, Mr. Clarkson, looking upon these 
 evils from without, appears to me quite unintentionally to have 
 greatly exaggerated them. 
 
 He says, " The Church is now at the mercy of parliamentary 
 majorities ;" " The faith once delivered to the saints is now 
 largely in the hands of the Legislature," and he points to the 
 depressing influence from State appointed Bishops and political 
 church patronage, as rendering us unscriptural in our organiza- 
 tion. But on the other hand, he gives noble testimony " to the 
 existence of tens of thousands of spiritual men in the Church of 
 England," and ofl'ers "the most sincere respect for their zeal, 
 their liberality, for their devotedness to the work, for their 
 preparedness to sufl'er loss on behalf of the freedom and self- 
 government of the Church of Christ," to many members of this 
 state-ridden Church who otherwise differ widely from his views. 
 These admissions go far to throw doubt on the correctness of his 
 view of the present relations between Church and State and of 
 the evils consequent thereupon. Surely those tens of thousands 
 of earnest spiritual men would not rest quietly under State 
 shackles if they were so real in their effects as to make her a 
 mere " dependency of the State and very far indeed from resting 
 on a scriptural foundation." The renewed life, the improved 
 services, the increasing liberality of churchmen, the good works, 
 which we are assured the Nonconformists are so glad to repro- 
 duce, and the successful growth of High Church principles (cer- 
 tainly not patronized by the State), are all clear evidences that 
 the evils of establishment cannot really be at the present time 
 so overwhelming or so destructive of all spiritual life as they 
 appear to be to Mr. Clarkson, viewing them from without. It is 
 also possible that in any discussion on this subject at a sub- 
 sequent meeting, many Nonconformists will see, not only that 
 the evils of the connection between Church and State have been
 
 41 
 
 greatly exaggerated, but that there are many advantages to them 
 as well as to us, which can only be cast away at our joint peril 
 and loss. I will only hint at one — the whole foundation of the 
 Protestant succession, which is based on the existence of an 
 Established Church to which our Sovereign must belong, might 
 be undermined by disestablishment. Again, in reference to the 
 second great barrier — the increase within the Church of sacra- 
 mental or High Church teaching — I would remark, first, that if 
 this teaching has increased notwithstanding and in direct oppo- 
 sition to State influences, it would be magnified rather than 
 lessened by disestablishment. 
 
 Secondly, that here again there must surely be much uninten- 
 tional exaggeration, partly in Mr. Clarkson's own views, partly in 
 his own quotations from Roman Catholic publications. To the 
 Nonconformist I would commend the well-known proverb — 
 " Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes." It is at least suspicious to 
 find the Romanists so earnest against the Ritualists, and militates 
 greatly against the idea that they really do find them §uch helps 
 to them as they profess. Abbe Martin, in the Nineteenth Century 
 review, though he tries to show they are such helps, is obliged to 
 allow that his brother Romanists do not think so. Inquiries 
 among the High Church clergy would show that as a rule (at all 
 events) the facts are by no means as alleged, and the exceptions 
 are most rare. 
 
 I ought to know something of the teaching of that great party 
 in the Church to which I belong, and I fearlessly state that, 
 though, with John Wesley, they hold a real presence in the 
 sacraments, they do not accept the doctrine of consubstantiation 
 with the Lutherans, or of transubstantiation with the Romanists. 
 Upon these matters I would say to the Nonconformists, as the 
 Home Reunion Society (composed as it is of High Church, Broad 
 Church, Low Church, and Ritualists) says, " Let us meet together 
 in a spirit of love, as they met at Bonn under the presidency of 
 Dr. Dollinger — Old Catholick, Orthodox Greek Church, Anglicans 
 of all kinds, Lutherans, with representatives from English Non- 
 conformity, all seeking after unity — and you will find when you 
 do come together, not to magnify differences, but to seek for 
 points of agreement, that much of the teaching now giving offence 
 because so entirely misunderstood, will be accepted by all. I
 
 42 
 
 quite agree with Mr. Clarkson's suggestion that the time has 
 come when we should go into more distinctive discussions, and I 
 am willing to enter upon the special subject proposed for to-night, 
 and to maintain, I hope successfully, that external unity is the 
 scriptural idea of the Church, so soon as I have made good the 
 ground already gained towards greater and more cordial union. 
 
 And first, let me remove some manifest misunderstandings, the 
 clear explanation of which will at once tend to bring us more 
 nearly together. 
 
 In reference to extempore prayer, I say advisedly that the 
 Church has no right to restrict the liberty of her members by 
 denying them the privilege of extempore prayer. I should like 
 to see in every parish services conducted in the church and in the 
 chapel, under the sanction of the Bishop, and with carefully- 
 drawn safeguards to meet every want and lawful desire of pro- 
 fessing Christians ; and, over and above the regularly-authorised 
 services, short services with hymns and sermons, and Bible read- 
 ings with extempore prayer, are already becoming more frequent 
 in the churches and school-rooms of many of our parishes. 
 
 Again, Mr. Clarkson asks, " Are we (the Nonconformists) pre- 
 pared, in our desire for unity, to sink preferences and to surrender 
 institutions of our own T I desire distinctly to state that in the 
 contemplated reunion with Nonconformists who hold the teaching 
 embodied in the three Creeds, that if they only saw their way to 
 accept the corporate unity of the Church, under the headship of 
 an apostolic bishop, I, for one, should never ask them to sink 
 preferences or to surrender institutions, but to continue them as 
 duly-organised brotherhoods in communion with the Church of 
 Christ. 
 
 As to the Creeds. I have only to remark that we who believe 
 in the Church as a visible reality cannot consider them as of mere 
 human invention. So far as they embody the teaching, deduced 
 from the holy scriptures, of the duly-summoned Councils of the 
 Universal Church, we accept them as proceeding from the direct 
 guidance of God the Holy Ghost. 
 
 I was unfeignedly pleased with the avowal, at once so clearly 
 and boldly made by Mr. Clarkson, that in the teaching of the 
 divinity and incarnation of our blessed Lord — and, indeed, of all 
 the doctrines contained in and taught by the three Creeds — we,
 
 43 
 
 with the great majority of the larger Nonconformist bodies, " do 
 stand on common ground." This admission immediately brings 
 us together again on a point upon which there would appear to 
 have been some difference. The Creeds are direction posts 
 to guide us from error, and the daily repetition of such formulas 
 have often been found among us of the greatest benefit to indi- 
 viduals, to families, and to congregations. When comparing 
 scripture, and searching God's holy word, as it is at once the duty 
 and privilege of Christians to do, there can be little danger of 
 going astray under the safeguards of such teaching. And though 
 the Tractarians did good work in drawing attention to the works 
 of the early fathers of the Church, and translating them into 
 English (as members of the Evangelical school have subsequently 
 done), we never meant to press their casual interpretation of 
 different passages, however beautiful some of them may be ; but 
 only directed attention to the benefits of their general and united 
 testimony as to the belief and practice of the early Church. 
 
 And now, having thus cleared the way, I venture in all humility 
 and love to put forth my views of the teaching of Holy Scriptures 
 as to the corporate unity of the Church of Christ. To true history 
 and to the critical interpretation of the sacred text we must 
 appeal, putting aside the popular fallacies which have for some 
 years overclouded the one, and all the fanciful interpretations 
 which have so frequently obscured the other. The contrast 
 between our views is thus put by Mr. Clarkson : "A unity of 
 spirit, of sympathy, of character, of fellowship of heart, and not a 
 mechanical and corporate unity." A short comment upon this 
 view will make more clear our position, for these supposed con- 
 trasts are not so directly opj)osed as might be imagined. No 
 doubt there must be unity of spirit, " for there is one spirit " — of 
 sympathy, " for there was one heart of the multitude of those 
 that believed, nor did anyone say that anything of his possessions 
 was his own " — of character, " for there is one faith and one hope 
 of your calling " — of fellowship, " for there is one baptism and 
 one God and Father of all Who is in you all " — of heart, "for the 
 God of patience and consolation grant you to be like-minded 
 according to Christ Jesus, that ye may with one mind glorify God." 
 (Rom. XV. 5.; Eph. iv. 4.) But there is also "one body" as well 
 as " one spirit," an " outward unity" as well as an " inward one,"
 
 44 
 
 a "corporate unity" as well as a oneness of "heart and soul." 
 "By one spirit are we all baptised into one body." The inward 
 part of the sacrament uniting us to the inward and spiritual unity, 
 the outward and visible part uniting us to the same one body in 
 its outward and visible unity. Baptism is externally a visible act 
 of admission, but a visible admission into an invisible body is 
 unmeaning. The Nonconformists acknowledge baptism to be an 
 outward admission into a visible society or corporate body, so that 
 if there is but "one baptism" and "one body," there can be but one 
 such visible society into which baptism admits. But let us now 
 consider those portions of scripture upon which Mr. Clarkson 
 relied as teaching a spiritual and invisible as opposed to a corpo- 
 rate and visible unity. And first. It is perfectly true that the 
 authorised translation is not exact, insomuch as the Greek tto/juvj? 
 has been translated as "fold" instead of flock. I confess that to 
 me this seems to be a distinction without a diff'erence. " And 
 other sheep I have (i.e., the Gentiles) which are not of this 
 (Jewish) fold ; these also I must bring, and they shall hear My 
 voice, and there shall be one flock, one Shepherd." Now, if, as Mr. 
 Clarkson proposes, this really points to the possibility of tho same 
 flock in different folds, we should have found this to have actually 
 been the case with regard to the Jewish and Gentile Churches 
 to which our Blessed Lord is here particularly referring. And yet 
 this is the very thing that St. Paul is resisting in all his Epistles. 
 The desire being clearly to have no distinction between Jew and 
 Greek, but to have not only one flock, but one fold, in every place 
 under Jesus, the head, the door, the shepherd of the sheep. 
 
 Again, our Blessed Lord does not say another flock I have which 
 are in another fold, but " other sheep " " which are not [as yet] 
 of this fold," of which fold "I am the Door" — one door, there- 
 fore, one fold. They were not a " flock," but merely " sheep," a 
 difiused, disintegrated, not corporate number. They were not 
 actually but potentially and positively His sheep, for they shall 
 hear My voice, as yet they had not heard it, and His sheep know 
 His voice. At present they were as "sheep having no shepherd." 
 " These also," he said, " I must bring." Bring 1 Whither ? 
 Surely to the fold where the folded sheep were already within 
 the door ; and these shall become [yevriaerai) one flock by the 
 union of the scattered sheep with the folded sheep, one shepherd, 
 one door, one fold.
 
 45 
 
 The unity of the fold is assumed by the unity of the flock inti- 
 mated by the unity of the door. The true rendering "one flock," is 
 indirectly even more cogent for the unity of the fold than the Eng- 
 lish version " one fold," which might be thought to imj)ly that the 
 one fold might hold more flocks than one. Mr. Clarkson's view of 
 one flock in many folds seems to me to be contrary to the idea of 
 the whole passage. St. John xvii. But Mr. Clarkson next refers to 
 our Blessed Lord's Prayer. That all that believe in Him " may be 
 one, even as He and the Father are one," and would seem to 
 argue that as God is a spirit, and this unity is especially spiritual, 
 and not visible, we are to take such spiritual invisible unity as 
 that for which our Lord prayed. "Neither pray I for these 
 alone, but for those that shall believe on Me through their word, 
 that they all may be one." These are the same as are called 
 above the other sheep not of the Jewish fold ; but there is no 
 word of separate folds here, they are the natural converts and 
 firstfruits of the Christian Church resulting from that preaching 
 of the Gospel by the Apostles to every creature " in obedience to 
 the commands of the One Shepherd," " Baptizing them into the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ;" and 
 if there is any meaning in words, the unity prayed for must be a 
 " visible unity." I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be 
 made perfect in one, that the world may know that Thou hast 
 sent Me." The world might know that they were one by a 
 unity of spirit, of sympathy, of character, of fellowship, of heart, 
 as well as by an outward corporate unity. But history, too, 
 surely shows that so soon as the outward corporate unity ceased 
 the unity of sympathy and heart ceased also. 
 
 Mr. Clarkson complained of the fanciful interpretation of the 
 fathers as alien to the critical acumen of the present day, never- 
 theless it is a tempting thing to indulge in, and Mr. Clarkson's 
 deduction from the vision of the seven candle-sticks is, I venture 
 to think, rather too fanciful to form a solid Scripture proof in 
 favour of a spiritual union as opposed to that corporate visible 
 union of the Church of Christ, which I maintain has been clearly 
 revealed to us in Holy Scripture. In speaking of the symbolical 
 teaching of Holy Scripture, he says, "We take the seven-branched 
 candlestick of the Old Testament, all welded together on one stem, 
 to be a picture of the unity of the Jewish Church, but the symbol
 
 46 
 
 of the unity of the Christian Church we see in the seven candle- 
 sticks not mechanically united in one stem, but standing each on 
 its own basis, all united together, however, by the presence of the 
 Son of Man moving in the midst of them." Surely when a symbol 
 is directly interpreted by Holy Scripture itself, we are not justified 
 in interj)reting it in any other way ; and we are here distinctly 
 told that the seven candlesticks are the seven Churches of Asia 
 known to exist, and to whom the seven epistles were directly 
 addressed by name, and the seven stars are the angels or bishops 
 of the seven Churches." Those surely pointed more to the exist- 
 ence of a visible Church than to a so-called spiritual or non-corpo- 
 rate one maintained as an alternative proposition. Besides, I 
 should consider that the Jewish Church was a direct symbol of 
 the Christian Church, and that the symbol of the candlesticks is 
 the same in both cases. And, lastly, Mr. Clarkson relies on the 
 statement that we do not read in the Acts of the Apostles or in 
 the Epistles of any efforts made, or any directions given, for after- 
 use to form the Churches of Galatia or of Asia Minor, or of Greece 
 or Syria into any national or universal body." 
 
 We have evidence in our mission Churches now of the growth 
 of a Christian Church in the early stages of its work. These are 
 but scattered missions here and there, all teaching the same 
 creeds and organizations ; then a diocese is formed, then a pro- 
 vince or national Church, the natural outcome of their first inde- 
 pendent unity. But what analogy do the different churches of 
 Ephesus or Corinth, or Rome or Colosse show to the Noncon- 
 formist churches of the present day, even if they were not at that 
 early stage of their existence formally organised in one corporate 
 union, they were entirely one in each place. When St. Paul 
 wrote to Ephesus, where Timothy was the first angel or bishop, 
 there was only one Church there. No other body of Christians 
 out of communion with the Bishop would ever have been recog- 
 nised by St. Paul. And when at Corinth some dissensions began 
 to arise, St. Paul immediately put them down with no sparing 
 hand, rebuking them for saying '• I am of Paul or I of Cephas, 
 &c.," and threatening to exercise his authority as apostle over 
 those who depraved, if not repudiated it, and on that very 
 account. But I cannot allow that the Acts of the Apostles and 
 Epistles are so barren as Mr. Clarkson would suppose, of witnesses
 
 47 
 
 to an organised corporate unity. It would be curious if it was so, 
 for we are met here by the great historic fact so little realised by 
 many of us " that His Church was the one visible legacy which 
 the Lord Jesus Christ left to the world." It is a common error 
 to set the Holy Scriptures in opposition to the Church of Christ 
 as a visible organization ; but, as a fact, the earliest book of the 
 New Testament can hardly have been written until some 30, and 
 the latest until some 70 years after the Ascension, while the 
 whole canon of Scripture was not collected together and generally 
 received for at least 100 years after the Ascension. Hence it 
 arises that during the first great century of suffering and of 
 triumph the faithful were held together by that one visible Church 
 in which, according to our Saviour's promise, the Holy Spirit 
 dwelt. From this visible Body the same everywhere, some in 
 times of persecution fell away. To this visible Body were added 
 daily fresh converts. Through this visible organization, by means 
 of an Apostolic ministry carrying on the oral tradition from the 
 Apostles, the blessed promise of the free forgiveness of sins to all 
 true penitents, was preserved and made known to all.* And by 
 this visible Church, under the direct guidance of God the Holy 
 Ghost, all the Holy Scriptures were at last gathered together, 
 verified and authenticated, and given to the world, thus showing 
 the Church to be the witness and keeper of Holy Writ. It would 
 indeed, be curious if the Holy Scrij^tures were really silent about 
 the formation of that visible Church, by the testimony of which 
 their authenticity can alone be fully established. Our Blessed 
 Lord had led us to expect this by His frequent mention of the 
 Church under the term of " the Kingdom of Heaven ;" he had 
 pointed to it as a visible body not only when He told them that 
 they were to be " the light of the world as a city set on a hill 
 which cannot be hid ;" but when he said " if any man neglect to 
 hear the Church let him be unto to thee as a heathen man or 
 a publican." When He promised that " the gates of hell should 
 not prevail against it," when He appointed baptism as the out- 
 ward sign of admission to the one body. And thus we find in the 
 Acts the unity of the Church from the very first was very simple 
 but very real. " Those who were saved from the corruptions of 
 outer heathenism, and who were to be guided by faith unto Sal- 
 vation, the Lord added daily to the Church, added them by the
 
 48 
 
 public profession of their faith, and by the solemn baptism of 
 water." They continued steadfastly " in the teaching or doc- 
 trine of the apostles." " The one faith once delivered unto 
 the saints;" "and in the fellowship," which we hold to be main- 
 tained by the apostolic succession ; " and in the breaking of 
 the bread," the celebration of the holy Eucharist; "and in the 
 prayers," either the hours of prayer in the temple, or an early 
 Christian liturgy duly appointed. The use of the definite 
 article in all these cases pointing to the distinctive and sj^ecific 
 signs of an outward unity of faith and practice in all essential 
 things. 
 
 Then we see the Church at Jerusalem until the destruction of 
 the city accepted as the common centre and honorary head. The 
 alms of all the diflerent Churches were sent there ; St. Paul and 
 others report all their work there ; the first council is held there 
 under St. James's presidency; when orders were given for regu- 
 lating the infant Church, the order of deacons was appointed. 
 The churches were so intimately connected that St. Paul fre- 
 quently proposes an interchange of his letters. There is clear 
 proof in the pastoral epistles of the appointment of bishops, of an 
 order of widows or sisters for the whole Church. 
 
 There are many other passages clearly bearing upon a cor- 
 porate visible unity, a body that could be separated from. 
 (Eph. V, 24.) And to go to symbol, what say we of the "Bride 
 of Christ," of the Holy City four square, with its twelve 
 foundations with the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb, 
 with its twelve gates open for all, day and night descend- 
 ing out of heaven from God. The outward unity of the New 
 Testament Church may be shown further from its conformity 
 to the conditions of unity in any body corporate. E.g., that 
 society is one which has one origin, one governing body, one form 
 of admission, one fundamental code of principles ; common rites 
 specially ordained by its founder ; one charter, one object, and in 
 which the members in right of their membership enjoy common 
 privileges ; to all which conditions the Apostolic Church accu- 
 rately conformed. " The one governing body being indubitably 
 the Apostles themselves." " One Lord" for its founder, " one 
 faith" for its fundamental code, " one baptism" for its form of 
 admission. The Holy Eucharist and public assemblies for its
 
 49 
 
 common rites ; confirmation also and orders ; the apostolic com- 
 mission for its charter ; " The edifying of the Body of Christ" 
 for its one object ; and the participation in all church privileges, 
 the common right of every member of the brotherhood in every 
 place. If this does not constitute a visible external unity I don't 
 see what can. Of course the external unity of the Apostolic 
 Church rests immediately on the external unity of the Apostolic 
 College, as several and joint holders of the Apostolic commission 
 and authority, a principle the full bearing and scope of which 
 many of us have failed to comprehend. There also is a danger of 
 confounding the distinct idea of identity and unity ; not seeing 
 that corporate unity is quite consistent with a great degree of 
 independent action in non-essentials and for the framing of bye- 
 laws and the upgrowth of local customs not incompatible with the 
 fundamentals of the whole society. I have been careful to make 
 as clear to you as I can my view of Scripture teaching as to the 
 visible unity of the Body of Christ, because I feel that the claim 
 for spiritual unity as opposed to corporate reunion i^ the very 
 source and origin of that exclusiveness from which Mr. Clarkson 
 prays to be delivered, for a man differing from his teachers forms 
 a fresh sect still more exclusive than the one he has belonged to 
 before, and consols himself that he can still worship God accord- 
 ing to his own lights without breaking that spiritual unity 
 because he has only started a new candlestick for himself. And 
 if Mr. Clarkson's interpretation of that symbol were the correct 
 one, how very ill would it accord with the true history of the 
 Christian Church — since that symbol was given — for 1200 years 
 the unity was complete as if the symbol had been an one-stem- 
 med candlestick : in our own country it was complete for 1500 
 years. And notwithstanding the present drawings together among 
 many of the Nonconformist bodies, we cannot get away from the 
 historical fact that none of them are more than 300 years old ; 
 that for years each new sect as it arose protested bitterly not only 
 against the Church, but against the sects that preceded it. The 
 narrowness and exclusiveness of all bodies who have separated 
 from the Church (now numbering one hundred and fifty-four 
 different religious bodies which have certified their places of meet- 
 ing to the Eegistrar-General) has hitherto been proverbial in 
 history, and none can rejoice more than I myself to hear from
 
 50 
 
 Mr. Clarkson the assurance tliat this bigotry and exckisiveness 
 which he has called "the spirit, the animus — may I say the demon 
 of denominationalism— is disappearing." But the logical sequence 
 of the disappearance of this demon of denominationalism must be 
 a return to the corporate unity of the Church, not viewed as a 
 distinct and opposing sect, but as the true Scriptural body of 
 Christ, which has no exclusiveness, but belongs equally to all, 
 and within which in the visible unity of one fold under one 
 Shepherd all the Christians of this nation were once safely 
 gathered together. 
 
 The Eev. G. Short then delivered the following address : — 
 Through the courtesy of the noble Lord I have been favoured 
 with an outline of the address which he has just delivered, and 
 though that outline was verbal merely and given some time before 
 my reply to it was even sketched, it may account for a certain 
 resemblance in the line of remark pursued on this occasion. Before 
 I further go, allow me again to say how much I appreciate the 
 Christian spirit and kindness with which the noble Lord has 
 entered on this controversy. " Controversy" it can scarcely be 
 called, for generally speaking the word " altercation" would more 
 fitly express the changes which have been rung on this subject of 
 church and dissent, in which each party has tried to say the most 
 vicious things possible to say of the other, clear judgment has 
 been diminished by partisanship, things imputed to one another 
 which respectively would be repudiated with indignation, and the 
 whole affair has ended with the disputants more cordially hating 
 than before. Only in the Church Quarterly Revieiv for January, 
 in an article to which my attention was called by the noble Earl, 
 an instance occurs. The Baptists are confounded with the ana- 
 baptists of Germany, from whom we are said to take our rise and 
 who " almost immediately were guilty of the most frightful crimes 
 against religion and morals." And in the same article, while all 
 other Christians are ignored, we are favoured with the following 
 choice bit from which we may draw our own inferences : " there 
 is an invisible Church, true enough, but it consists of the angels 
 and of Christians who now rest in Christ, and is part of that one 
 Church which is visible here on earth. But we are told of no 
 way to enter the invisible Church, save through the gates of the
 
 51 
 
 Visible Church." Now, I have no doubt the noble Earl could cull 
 quite as interesting pieces of misrepresentation from the Rock 
 newspaper, for unfortunately it is no difficult thing for any party 
 to be a good hater. But how unlovely is all this ! How infinitely 
 damaging to the common cause we profess to further, and infinitely 
 opposed to the Spirit of Him Who told His disciples not to forbid 
 another because he followed not with them. This is it, as Dean 
 Stanley said in an address delivered lately at Westminster Abbey, 
 this is " the off'ence given in the eyes of the heathen nations by 
 the difterences of Christianity ; not the fact of those differences, 
 but the fierce rivalries, the unhallowed jealousies, the overleaping 
 ambitions with which different phases or forms of Christianity have 
 attacked and endeavoured to absorb each other in the race of 
 proselytism." 
 
 It is, as he says, " these inhuman passions," '' these vices of 
 Christian society," which alienate unsophisticated consciences, 
 give the enemy a handle, and teach the enemy to blaspheme. 
 Now, if there is one thing more than another calculated ^o disarm 
 and to diminish these accusers, it is the way in which the noble 
 earl has met us ; without compromise of his own individual 
 opinions or requiring such compromise from us ; without the air 
 of patronage, a thing to which we as Dissenters are peculiarly 
 sensitive, and which is more odious even than persecution. But 
 as a man and a Christian, with his own decided convictions, deal- 
 ing with men and Christians possessed of equally decided convic- 
 tions, yet trying to get near one another. While, however, I thus 
 thankfully acknowledge the Christian spirit and courtesy of Earl 
 Nelson, I am not able to acquiesce in the verdict he gives on the 
 teaching of Holy Scripture concerning the Unity of the Church of 
 Christ. I cannot think that all true members of the Church of 
 Christ, all those who will at last be included in the ranks of the 
 saved, or who on earth become bond fide children of God, members 
 of Christ, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven, will be, or were 
 intended to be, included in one organic visible community. I 
 cannot so think, for the following reasons : First, because of the 
 simplicity and spirituality of New Testament Churches. They 
 are, as Christian societies, separate from the surrounding world ; 
 composed of men who though in the world were not of the world; 
 whose only basis of union was their faith, love, holiness, all
 
 52 
 
 springing from their attachment to Christ, and simple repose 
 on the merits of His work. They met and appointed their own 
 officers, they recognised the right and the duty of the Church to 
 regulate its own affairs according to the will of Christ, and inde- 
 pendently of all external " interference : no waiting for a conge 
 d'elire from the head of the State before they could choose their 
 presiding elder, and no fear of the Lords of the Privy Council 
 before they could determine an act of discipline. 
 
 Then their worship was simple. As Pliny says, they met and 
 *' they sang hymns to Christ as God " they prayed, they spake 
 according to the oracles of God, they administered the ordinances. 
 They worshipped God in spirit and in truth, having little regard 
 to the sacredness of time or place, and asking nothing from the 
 great of this world excepting liberty to worship God as their 
 consciences might dictate. Their only object was to make men 
 holy and happy, and this they conceived they could no better do 
 than by going everywhere preaching the word, so that by the 
 simple evidence of truth applied by the Holy Spmt, men and 
 women might be brought to Christ." 
 
 ** Oil ! how unlike the complex works of man. 
 This simple, easy, unencumber'd plan ! " 
 
 Next, I do not find a single trace of a visible unity in the Cluirch 
 of Christ ever since the days of the Apostles. There may have 
 been some small pretence for such an assertion before they quitted 
 the precincts of Jerusalem : previous to the persecution arising 
 which scattered them abroad, we indeed read of " the Church 
 which was at Jerusalem." But afterwards the language holds, 
 " the Churches throughout all Juda3a, Galilee, and Samaria." 
 
 Not even in apostolic times were they confederated into one 
 visible organic body ; but the Church which was at Jerusalem is 
 spoken of in the same manner as the Churches of Asia Minor, 
 Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, &c., independently and 
 co-ordinately. Never once is there mention of a great compre- 
 hensive inclusive society, which was local and visible, and to 
 which the others belonged as part-components. 
 
 The writer in the Church Quarterly speaks of " a visible Church 
 with known officers and definite laws, revealed to the Jewish 
 nation through the agency of Moses ; " and from that he argues
 
 53 
 
 to the visibility of the Christian Church. But of that we read 
 long ago, '' Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to 
 vanish away." Since then God has made a new covenant with 
 the house of Israel, concerning which He says, " I will put my 
 laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts ; " that is to 
 say, I will deal with them spiritually. Besides, was it not of that 
 very Church Jesus said, " Other sheep I have which are not of 
 this fold (that is, of this Jewish fold), them also I must bring, and 
 there shall be one flock (not as our version has it ; it is altogether 
 a difl'erent word from that translated fold) and one shepherd 1 " 
 That is, as Dean Alford puts it, " there shall not be one fold, but 
 one flock — no one exclusive enclosure of an outward Church, but 
 one flock, all knowing the one shepherd, and known of Him." 
 What a beautiful idea ! all following one Saviour, obedient to one 
 voice, and comprehended in one great and distinguished com- 
 munity, such as the Roman Church never was, the Greek Church 
 never was, nor any other visible Church on earth ! 
 
 I am sure the noble earl, whose catholicity throughout this 
 controversy has been so marked, will not say the Church of 
 England was or is co-extensive with that flock, especially now 
 when he acknowledges one-half of the people of England does not 
 rank beneath its banner. 
 
 Thirdly, it seems to me that the passages in Holy Scripture 
 usually quoted to substantiate a formal and external union of the 
 Church point to a very diff'erent conclusion. Take the passage 
 which has more than once been referred to on these occasions, 
 John xvii. 21, "That they all may be one as Thou, Father, art in 
 Me and I in Thee, that they may be also one in Us : that the world 
 may believe that Thou hast sent Me." The unity here prayed for 
 by our adorable Lord surely cannot be formal and external, and 
 in that sense visible as it is implied. " No man hath seen God at 
 any time." How, then, can the prayer that the union which is 
 desired among Christians after the type of the union existing 
 between the Divine Father and Son be called visible union '? 
 Visible in the sense of perceptible, such as the world can recognise, 
 say Messrs. Webster and Wilkinson (themselves clergymen of the 
 Church of England), it will be ; " but not a formal, nominal, 
 external unity, for that will not prove the Divine origin of Chris- 
 tianity. Tiie proof lies in the universal consent of all who truly
 
 54 
 
 exemplify the spirit and precept of our religion, to honour, trust, 
 and love Jesus Christ, and acknowledge Him as the sole Author 
 and giver of salvation." " Formal difference," they add, " among 
 Christian communions only render this spiritual unity more mani- 
 fest." Take the other scripture associated with it, Matt. v. 16 : 
 " Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good 
 works, and glorify your Father Which is in heaven." It may be 
 questioned whether that refers to individual believers or to the 
 totality, the Church. Suppose it does to the latter, does not the 
 very text itself prove that the mode in which the Church is to 
 demonstrate its existence, is not by visibility, but by efficiency 1 
 How is it to make its light resplendent 1 By its works. Not its 
 corporate assembly, its imposing ritual, its solemn ceremonial, but 
 by its works — such works as will glorify its Father Who is in 
 heaven. Unless it be said that nothing is operative but that 
 which is visible ; unless it be denied that there is no such thing 
 as gravitation, cohesion, force, the soul, even God Himself, because 
 we don't see them, I can't perceive how this text aids "the visible" 
 theory. Take that other text, the great "crux" and "rock" of 
 critics, Matt. xvi. 18 : "I say also unto thee that thou art Peter, 
 and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell 
 shall not prevail against it." It has been argued, if not by the 
 noble earl, by some of those to whom he has directed my atten- 
 tion, that the reference must be to the visible church, or else the 
 gates of hell have certainly prevailed against the Church of Christ. 
 Why 1 I cannot understand, unless Christianity be a mere vox et 
 prceterea nihil, a voice and nothing more ; with no more effects 
 than its visible assemblies, and no more veritable disciples than, 
 those who are enrolled episcopalians. I should rather say, if the 
 Church here spoken of was meant to be the "visible" one, a clear 
 case midit be made out that hitherto it had not succeeded. See ! 
 it might be said "how far the gates of hell have prevailed hitherto; 
 not a Church on earth, Eoman or Greek, or any other, can be 
 called universal ; and as to the Church of England, it embraces 
 avowedly but one-half the people of the land, and that half torn 
 with innumerable contentions." No ! ladies and gentlemen, the 
 language of the Saviour, no doubt, points to a far-off and glorious 
 consummation, but the gates of hell have not yet prevailed, and 
 never shall. With its banner streaming against the wind, and its
 
 55 
 
 ramparts still uncarried by the hostile of this world or the world 
 beneath, the true Church of Christ has not yet surrendered, nor 
 ever will. But we see not at present " all things put under 
 Christ." 
 
 Take a whole series of scriptures. We — I mean nonconformists 
 to the worship and polity of the Church of England — are generally 
 supposed to be guilty of the sin of schism ; and it is no uncommon 
 thing for gentlemen recently admitted to orders, who cannot know 
 a tithe of the reasons which we have had for taking up a conscien- 
 tious, painful position, to go about denouncing us as "schismatics," 
 outside the pale of the Catholic Church, unrecognised by respect- 
 able society, ignorant ourselves, and misleading others. Nor can 
 we say that this unseemly and unmerited conduct is always con- 
 fined to the young and inexperienced of the profession. 
 
 But what right have we to be called '^schismatics?" If we are 
 so, call a spade a spade, and by all means let us have our proper 
 name ; if not, let it be laid aside for ever. For myself, sir, I have 
 no doubt that there are " schismatical" Dissenters, and I equally 
 have no doubt that there are schismatical Church people. The 
 word " schism," of which the terms schismatic and schismatical 
 are derivatives, is a Greek word, and occurs ten times in the New 
 Testament, either in the singular or in the plural form, and either 
 in a literal or a figurative sense. It would be needless criticism 
 for me to go over them to-night. The verb or the participle 
 occurs eight times describing the rent vail, rent rocks, rent heavens, 
 &c. In the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians are several passages to 
 which more particularly I invite attention. In I. Cor. i. 10 we 
 read, "I beseech you, brethren, that there be no divisions (or 
 * schisms') among you." In xi. 18, ''When you come together 
 into the church I hear that there be divisions (or schisms) among 
 you," And in xii. 25, "That there should be no schism among 
 you." 
 
 N ow, as has been remarked, " it is there, if anywhere, "the sin 
 of schism" must be found." What is it 1 Let us look at the con- 
 text. "God hath tempered the body together, having given 
 more abundant honour to that part which lacked, that there 
 should be no schism in the body ; but that the members should 
 have the same care one for another, and whether one member 
 suffer all the members suffer with it, or one member be honoured
 
 56 
 
 all the members rejoice with it." Here, then, the corporeal 
 system is contemplated as a whole composed of parts: these 
 parts differ among themselves just as hands and legs differ ; but 
 they are so united and mixed up with each other that they con- 
 stitute but one body. They feel as one, and have a mutual care 
 and sympathy for each other ; the want of which care and sym- 
 pathy, or violation of which care and sympathy, that is schism. 
 Mark you, not the fracture of an arm or the amputation of a leg, 
 or a limb broken off, but the want of united, active, and recipro- 
 cal sympathy among the members themselves. Such as we conceive 
 exists between Canon Ryle {e.g.) and Archdeacon Denison, or 
 between Mr. Tooth and his Grace of York. 
 
 So, in the other instances, the schisms of which the Apostle 
 complains are violations of love. " It hath been declared to me 
 of you my brethren that there are contentions among you." And 
 again, before he mentions altercations and riotous proceedings, he 
 says, " I hear that there be schisms among you ;" not outside you, 
 among those heathenish Gentiles or narrow minded Jews, but 
 among you in your Church congresses or your more hallowed 
 meetings. Beart burnings, strifes, acrimonious disputes, factions 
 and party feeling, these are the divisions of which the Apostle 
 complains, and these are the things whether existing in a dissenting 
 or any other community, which came under his scathing lash. Not 
 dissent as such, except it has the venom of the schismatical spirit 
 which we admit ma?/ exist among us, but not necessarily. There may 
 bo as much within an establishment as ever there can be outside. 
 
 In connexion with these passages may be quoted several parallel 
 ones such as Romans xii. 5, " So we being many are one body in 
 Christ and every one members one of another." I. Cor. xii. 12, 13; 
 " For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all 
 the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also 
 is Christ. For by one spirit we are all baptized into one body, 
 whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free. 
 &c. Passages, as Canon Westcott beautifully shows in his 
 sermons preached in Peterborough Cathedral, revealing the 
 intense individuality and infinite variety of the Christian life, as 
 well as the way in which " one common spirit combines all the 
 parts into a harmonious whole." He speaks of this individuality 
 of gift and character as the great spring of all that is most
 
 57 
 
 energetic in personal influence, , a thing which no true patriot or 
 great statesman would think of obliterating from a national 
 character, and which no wise Christian man could think of 
 repressing in the Church of Christ. Into all that we can fully 
 enter, as well as into the lessons which are taught us of manifold 
 subordination to the purposes of Christ. Ai^e we a temple 1 we 
 are composed of stones of different shapes and colours. Are we 
 a vine ? earth, air, and water are fashioned into leaf and fruit. 
 Are we a body 1 a royal will directs and disciplines and uses the 
 functions of every member. No doubt there are diversities 
 of gifts but one Spirit. Then, however, come in our High 
 Church friends and insist that all these different elements of 
 cliaracter, endowment, and circumstance should be rigidly com- 
 bined in one outward visible body. As if there could not be 
 that realization, without that externality, one body. Let us see 
 how that agrees with the invisibility of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 He is everywhere spoken of as the Head of the Church, the Head 
 of the body, the Church. He is " the Head over all things to the 
 Church, which is the Head; even Christ." Now, more thatl eighteen 
 hundred years ago " the heavens received Him out of our sight," 
 and there He has remained, and as the Scriptures say, " must 
 remain till the time of restitution of all things." Whom has He 
 appointed in His stead ? No pope, no vicar, no Cardinal Apos- 
 tolic, no patriarch, no Archbishop or even temporal Head ! No 
 one but the Holy Spirit Who is only visible by His works. Hardly 
 likely, therefore, that "the body" should be a visible one, and the 
 Head invisible. If so, it is a body without a head. 
 
 Another passage of Scripture cited by the noble Earl is that of 
 Ephesians iv. 11, "And He gave some Apostles, some prophets, some 
 Evangelists, &c., for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the 
 ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Till we all come in 
 the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto 
 the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." Well ! the 
 remarks made on diversity in unity, a characteristic of all God's 
 works, will apply to that. There are diversities of operations 
 answering to the diversities of gifts. Whether they are so corre- 
 lated, as the noble Earl would represent, may be questioned. 
 Whether Bishops of the Church of England can claim Apostolic 
 status and authority may be doubted. Certainly the claim for
 
 absolution of sins on the ground alleged in John xx. 23, will not 
 bear investigation. That promise, whatever it involves, was 
 given to others besides the Apostles, as the chapter proves. 
 Besides, the dogma of apostolic succession, as Archbishop Whately 
 proves, is one that cannot be sustained. I need hardly say that 
 Nonconformists fail to find in Holy Scripture any proof of the 
 three-fold order, bishops, priests, and deacons. The Apostle 
 speaks of bishops and deacons only, and in the Acts xx. 28, 
 addresses those as bishops, whom previously He called " elders." 
 And now what is the upshot of all this 1 I hope, ladies and 
 gentlemen, a clearer understanding on both sides. I hope a 
 mutual resolve not to say as hard things of each other as it is 
 possible for our vocabulary to supply, and our imagination to 
 suggest. I hope no longer that any of us will consciously 
 impute to another calling himself Christian, what that other 
 indignantly repudiates. I hope, general recognition of those 
 whose actions and professions alike proclaim that they are 
 Christian. And the cultivation of the spirit of love — the spirit of 
 unity in the bond of peace. So that if still we be separate and 
 distinct, yet all resting on one foundation and following one Lord, 
 we shall be in the possession of a family likeness to our Great and 
 Glorious Head, 
 
 ** Distinct as the billow 
 But one as the sea." 
 
 The Reverend W. Clarkson then moved that the thanks of the 
 meeting be given to Earl Nelson and Mr. Short for the excellent 
 papers which they had read to them that evening. He need hardly 
 say that it was a matter of simple gratitude on his part in moving 
 a vote of thanks ^to his friend Mr. Short for the way in which 
 he had just sustained the position which he (Mr. Clarkson) had 
 tried to establish a month ago. Mr. Short's paper, he was sure 
 they had all thoroughly enjoyed, and, whether they agreed with 
 it or not, thought it was one of very great fairness and ability. 
 He might also say that he none the less cheerfully moved that 
 their best thanks be given to the noble Earl, though he had 
 spent considerable time in endeavouring to demolish the building 
 which he (Mr. Clarkson) tried a month ago to put up. How 
 much nearer the ground his little fabric was now than it was at
 
 59 
 
 the commencement of the lecture he would leave them to say; but 
 he did think that if the building had been brought down a storey 
 or two, under Mr. Short's hands it had been very well re -con- 
 structed. The fact was, no one was so simple as to think that, as 
 a consequence of these meetings, there would be any great change 
 in opinion on these matters. There was one thing to his mind, 
 which was of infinitely greater importance in the eyes of their 
 Master than identity of opinion on religious subjects ; and that 
 was that they should do justice to one another, however much 
 they might disagree. As a consequence of their meeting there, 
 they would, however, understand more of each other than they 
 did before, and they would do a larger measure of justice one to 
 another than they were disposed to do before. Another result 
 was that they were able to see how intelligent and earnest people 
 might read, in a very different sense indeed, the same passages of 
 Holy Scripture. When the noble Earl was reading his paper, he 
 was occasionally struck with surprise that he should take those 
 passages of Scripture in the sense he did ; and they were bound 
 to conclude that it was quite as likely for one who ha'S investi- 
 gated those subjects to come to his conclusions concerning them, 
 as it was that he should come to his ; and he hopsd that Earl 
 Nelson would treasure the same feelings towards him as he did 
 towards the noble Earl. He had nothing to complain of with 
 regard to the treatment of his paper, for from the beginning 
 to end there was not the slightest misrepresentation, because not 
 the slightest misapprehension, of the arguments which he brought 
 forward a month ago. He thanked the noble Earl for the 
 admission he had made respecting those who did not shrink for a 
 moment from avowing themselves to be politico-religious Dis- 
 senters ; that he had made the distinction between those who 
 opposed the Establishment on political grounds, and those who 
 opposed it on religious as well as political grounds. He hoped 
 they would now hear no more about the distinctions between 
 political and religious dissenters in this neighbourhood at least. 
 He objected to the statement with regard to the number 
 of spiritual minded men and women in the Church of 
 England, that his admissions were inconsistent with his argu- 
 ments, that the Establishment was prejudicial to the Church of 
 Christ. It seemed to him he could say exactly the same thing
 
 60 
 
 if he were speaking of the Church of Eoine ; he most willingly 
 admitted there were thousands upon thousands of earnest spiri- 
 tual men in connection with the Church of Rome ; but the fact 
 that there wore so many spiritual members in connection with the 
 Romish Church was no proof that its teaching was not contrary 
 to Holy Scripture. Therefore, he did not see how his admission 
 was in the least degree inconsistent with the argument which he 
 previously brought forward. So far as he could see, exactly as 
 the Church of England was becoming more spiritual, more active, 
 more vital through all its members, just so it began to sigh for 
 freedom, and for the disconnection of the Church from the State. 
 He combated, on the part of the various Wesleyan bodies, the 
 representation made by the noble Earl with regard to the Wes- 
 leyan doctrine of the presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, 
 which was very different from the teaching of the Wesleyans at 
 the present time. In reference to the difference between the 
 doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation, he said it 
 would take a very clever man to distinguish the latter from the 
 doctrine which was taught by the Anglo-Catholic party, which 
 was so near the doctrine held by the Church of Rome at the 
 present time, that there would have to be a most serious modi- 
 fication in the views taught on this subject, or there would have 
 to be a great change in their views before they could join hands. 
 He concluded by thanking the noble Earl for the part taken by 
 him in the matter. 
 
 The Rev. Canon Morrice seconded the proposition, which was 
 put to the meeting and carried unanimously. 
 
 Earl Nelson, in reply, said he was much obliged for the vote 
 of thanks. Of course Mr. Short would speak for himself He 
 would not occupy much of their time after the very long lecture 
 which they had so kindly listened to. In reference to Mr. Short's 
 remarks, there was one point which he must make good ; and 
 that was : that although they (the Church of England) claimed 
 to be a true branch of the Church of Christ they did not in the 
 least mean to say that there was no Salvation outside. But there 
 was one remark of Mr. Short's about our Blessed Lord being in 
 heaven, and not being able to be the Head of the visible body on 
 earth (a body without a head as it had been termed) which had 
 given him some feelings of pain. Christ had said He would
 
 61 
 
 be with His Church by the Holy Ghost. They knew that in 
 the mysterious unity of the Three Persons in the Trinity were 
 things they could not enter into. He was sure Mr. Short did 
 not mean anything irreverent by it. Surely it would be quite 
 possible for our Blessed Lord to be in Heaven, and yet to be 
 the real Head of the visible Body on earth. The noble Earl 
 expressed a hope that they would meet again to talk about the 
 Three Orders, Apostolic Succession, and other matters, and he 
 had purposely omitted all reference to it to-night. If we 
 allowed that the Nonconformists were sincere in their opinions, 
 it must be allowed that Churchmen were equally sincere in their 
 opinions, and equally believed they were based upon Scripture teach- 
 ing. Surely there was sound Scripture proof that our Lord did 
 really leave His Apostles as several and joint holders of the Apos- 
 tolic Commission and authority to govern His Church on earth. 
 L Cor., 12. quoted by Mr. Short surely went far to prove the 
 necessity of a greater Unity than Churchmen and Nonconformists 
 had hitherto exhibited to the world. They had wanted very much 
 indeed that perfect sympathy and love for one another, which 
 were there named as distinctive marks of the different parts of 
 that one Body. It was his earnest prayer that if the meeting did 
 nothing more, they might as fellow-Christians be able to work more 
 than they had ever done before to attain to so true a spirit of 
 Christian love. 
 
 The Rev. G. Short also acknowledged the vote of thanks. He 
 thanked the noble Earl for his initiation in this matter. With 
 reference to the question of the visible Body without a head, he 
 must be considered to have said what he meant, and to have 
 meant what he said. The invisibility of Christ had always seemed 
 to him to be a very strong argument against the visibility of the 
 body. After dwelling upon his lordship's remarks as to the word 
 schism, he concluded by stating that one reason why he prized 
 those meetings was that it was calculated to suppress that schis- 
 matical spirit, whether in Church or Dissent. 
 
 Earl Nelson then proposed a vote of thanks to the Chairman. 
 
 The Eev. G. Short seconded the resolution, which was carried 
 unanimously. 
 
 The proceedings then concluded with prayer. 
 
 T.O.
 
 N.B. ON THE WORD ScHiSM. — Is it not true that 'scliism" 
 and " separation " connote rather different ideas. The former, 
 want of love and sympathy and unity within the body; the latter, 
 departure from it 1 
 
 Holy Scripture never speaks of schism from the Church, there 
 " are schisms among you " but you are the Church; (aweyxonh'ojv 
 
 vfiaiv Iv Ty tKK\r]<n(^, clkovoj (Tx'ic^ixaTa iv vjmv VTrap^w;) and the SClllSms 
 
 are " in you." 
 
 N.B. ON THE Invisible Head. — We willingly add the follow- 
 ing from Mr. Short — 
 
 ' ' I most thoroughly believe in the present Government of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, although invisible ; and would reverently attri- 
 bute to Him every display of goodness not only recorded in the 
 Acts of the Apostles, but possessed by the Church at this day. 
 My only question was concerning, not the fact of this present 
 operation, but the congruity of the figure which represents the 
 Head as invisible and the body, which is the Churchy as visible. "
 
 # « 
 
 /' 
 
 ® •'€'»• 
 
 
 ^?.'^- 
 
 
 Dk. 
 
 #.i 
 
 O^'Y