Chapter 70: Spurgeon and the Irish Church
Chapter 70.
Spurgeon And The Irish Church
Mr. Gladstone's Resolutions—Meeting: at the Metropolitan Tabernacle—A Striking Scene—Great Speech by John Bright—Mr. Spurgeon's Letter.
As the year in which the question of the disestablishment of the Irish Church came finally before the public, 1868 was a time of considerable ecclesiastical excitement. The meetings for and against Mr. Gladstone's Resolutions, whether in London or the provinces, were of the most lively character—some were uproarious, a few may have been even riotous. To many the agitation seemed to savour of the beginning of the end of the Established Church as such in the British Isles; and while such a prospect was welcomed by a minority of Anglicans, as well as by the main body of Nonconformists, it signified to others the decline of Protestant ascendency in the British Empire. There was probably a class of seers who associated the controversy with the breaking up of old-world institutions, regarding it as the prelude to still greater convulsions and changes which were coming on. The theme could not be otherwise than of commanding interest, when the very foremost men of the age were the combatants. Spurgeon and John Bright, Gladstone and Earl Russell, were all on one side; and all of these spoke with the enthusiasm of men who felt sure that they were on the winning side. On April 19, Mr. Spurgeon preached at the Tabernacle from the words "He must reign," thus referring to the dominion of Christ as mentioned in 1Co 11:25. He enlarged at some length on the kingdom of the Saviour, which was to last for ever; and referred by the way to colossal empires which had passed away, their governments not having been based on truth. The preacher went on to say that it was undeniable that Napoleon had founded an empire, and founded it in a great degree upon justice, for he taught the lesson that old kings were not to expect to have their crowns upon their heads always; and he produced a code of laws which, for justice, had never been excelled. But after a while he failed; and it was said of him that at St. Helena he made use of this memorable remark: "My empire has passed away. I founded an empire on the sword, and it has failed; Jesus Christ has founded His empire on the law of love, and it will stand for ever and ever!" And so it would. Christ was the true Liberator of captive nations. No kingdom would ever rest until it rested upon Him, and nothing could possibly resist His onward triumphant march. The text was particularly comforting at the present time, when many were frightening themselves out of their wits by the bugbear that we were all going back to Roman Catholicism. He had not the slightest fear that any such result would ever come to pass, for Christ "must reign," and under the sway of His divine rule it was impossible, and would ever be impossible, for all the drivelling priests in the world to bring this country back again to the bondage of the Papacy. True it was that the Jesuits were creeping in, and equally true that a great many Protestants were alarmed at their approach; but the Gospel was not going to be trampled under foot by such means. Others, again, were alarmed lest the disestablishment of the Irish Church should be detrimental to Protestantism. But there was likewise no fear on that head; for the Church of Jesus Christ would do well enough in Ireland without the aid of bayonets or policemen. It was not by means of the sword that the Gospel was to be preached, neither was it in any human arm that the Church of Christ was to confide. Changes, instead of preventing, would only be found instrumental in accomplishing the great purposes of the head of the Church; and, instead of indulging in fears and forebodings relative to Protestantism and the Gospel, if we believed that "Christ must reign," we should rest secure, satisfied that His reign must last until He had put all enemies under his feet.
After leaving Exeter Hall on the evening of April 20, Mr. Spurgeon's lameness developed into a painful attack of rheumatic gout, and he appears to have been absent from his pulpit for one Sunday. So far as the pastor himself was concerned, this illness could hardly have come at a more inopportune time; for on Wednesday evening, April 22, there took place at the Metropolitan Tabernacle what was characterised as "one of the most remarkable meetings ever held within any building in this country." The demonstration was got up by the National Reform Union, and so far succeeded that, for nearly an hour before the time of commencing, the building was crowded in every part, the aisles being filled, while thousands were outside unable to gain admission. The audience consisted almost entirely of men, and seemed to represent all classes. On the preacher's platform were several members of Parliament. The chair was occupied by John Bright, who declared that he had never in the whole course of his life stood before such a throng. Of course, such a patriot received an ovation. Professor Fawcett, who was afterwards to become the first blind Postmaster-General, was led on to the platform, and he also was vigorously applauded. One who was present remarks that "It would be impossible to describe in words the enthusiasm of the meeting, while the sight of seven thousand persons waving their hats and handkerchiefs was one not soon to be forgotten." The object of the meeting was to hear a lecture by Mr. Mason Jones on the subject of the Irish Church; but of course the chief attraction of the evening was a speech by the chairman. Next to that, the interest of the audience was centred on the pastor's letter to John Bright, which was read by Mr. J. A. Spurgeon:—
"Dear Sir,—I have all along hoped to be at our meeting to-night, but a sharp attack of rheumatic gout in the leg has made me a prisoner since Monday. I am most sorry for this, because with my whole heart and soul I would advocate the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church, and should like to have said my little word.
"It is in no spirit of opposition to the Irish clergy that I would urge upon the House of Commons to carry out the proposed resolutions, for I believe them, as a body, to be among the best of the episcopal clergy, and to hold evangelical truths most earnestly. But because they are the best of the clergy they should be the first to be favoured with the great blessing of disestablishment. If they were all Baptists I should be none the less, but all the more, earnest that they should at once be delivered from their present invidious position, and placed where all churches of Christ should be—viz., on the footing of freedom from State patronage and control. They are at present supported by payments which are not theirs by the will of the Irish nation; payments which effectually bar the door of their entrance into the Irish heart; payments which I believe to be hateful to God and injurious to themselves: therefore, because they are men in their own persons excellent and respectable, let it be the ceaseless object of their friends to set them where they need not incur such reproach or commit such injustice. They will only be called to do what some of us have for years found a pleasure and advantage in doing—viz., to trust to the noble spirit of generosity which true religion is sure to evoke. They little know how grandly the giant of voluntaryism will draw the chariot when the pitiful State dwarf is dismissed.
"Our Lord's kingdom is not of this world. This truth is the corner-stone of our dissent, and we feel ourselves deeply interested in the present question, because the result of Mr. Gladstone's resolutions will be a step in the direction of freeing one of the churches from a worldly alliance which we hold to be in every case unscriptural and unhallowed. How a faith so spiritual as ours ever came to be the tool of the State—how the Church of God ever condescended to yield its liberties to earthly powers—is a mystery. To tear it from its too willing captivity is a task worthy of the Eternal Providence—a labour in which all good men should unite.
"The one point about which the dissenters of England have any fear, is one which I trust you will mention to-night. We fear lest any share of the Church property should be given to the Papists. To a man we should deprecate this. Bad as the present evil is, we would sooner let it alone than see Popery endowed with the national property. Not one single farthing ought any religious denomination receive, and the whole matter will be imperilled if those in power are not quite clear as to any douceurs to the Pope. We are not agitated by the dead horse of 'No Popery,' which knaves would raise that fools may be their instruments; but we are very determined that it never shall be said that, under guise of removing the grievances of Ireland, we made an exchange of endowed churches, and put down the Anglican to set up the Roman image.
"May you, dear sir, be sustained as the champion of the people, and as you have already lived to see many of the dreams of your youth to become realities, so may you survive to see the matters in question enrolled in history as triumphs of the right and the truth.—Yours, with profound respect, "C. H. Spurgeon."
"To John Bright, Esq., Chairman of Meeting.
Mr. Bright's speech was in his best style, and would have been still more effective if the audience had not yielded to the foolish custom of choking the great orator's utterances by their interrupting applause, almost before the words were well out of his mouth. The enthusiasm of the people perhaps reached its height when the erection of the Metropolitan Tabernacle itself was referred to as an illustration of the power of voluntaryism; and when it was emphatically declared that during the preceding three hundred years the Protestants of Ireland had probably not done so much for their religion as the members of that great building were doing week by week for the furtherance of the Gospel.
What was the chief advertised attraction of this meeting—i.e., the lecture—does not appear to have taken so well with the people; but then any man who had to follow John Bright and a characteristic letter by Spurgeon manifestly claimed sympathy as one who did not occupy vantage-ground. We find it remarked: "Mr. Mason Jones gave an address on the present position of the movement; the first portion was received with considerable impatience and cries of 'question;' and the chairman having reminded the speaker of the question, he devoted the rest of the time to its consideration, and received at the close a hearty cheer." The lecturer proposed a resolution which Professor Fawcett seconded in very good style; but he spoke too long, and the impatience of the audience at last found expression in cries of "time," and he sat down. When the resolution was put to the meeting, Mr. Bright asked that its acceptance might be signified by the parliamentary method of all who agreed with it saying "Aye." The response was hearty and immediate, the only dissentient being a working tailor, who all through the proceedings maintained an heroic attitude of opposition. In the course of a brief speech, Mr. J. A. Spurgeon, speaking on account of himself, his brother, and the congregation, said some good things about Mr. Bright and the age of reform. He then referred to one or two things which had occurred in connection with the Metropolitan Tabernacle:—
"In regard to the Evangelical clergy, it is with pain and not with pleasure that I stand opposed to their position. As to any feeling of bigotry, I would say that in this building a clergyman has addressed a congregation, but so broad was the bosom of Mother Church that the clergyman's name had never been mentioned, in order that no disagreeable ecclesiastical proceedings might take place. As another illustration, I may mention that when the Pan-Anglican Synod was sitting, the Bishop of Ohio expressed a wish that he might speak in the Tabernacle, and I sent him word that we should be glad to see him or any other Church clergyman who might desire to come. If, then, any bigotry existed, it is not on our side, and if the battle of Popery has to be fought, it will lay with the brethren of the Church to come over to us and join us in fighting it." This action of Mr. Spurgeon on behalf of Mr. Gladstone and the disestablishment of the Irish Church had the effect of kindling much ill-feeling, similar to that which had characterised the Baptismal Regeneration controversy of four years previously. The Earl of Shaftesbury came in for some censure; for when the Metropolitan Tabernacle was to become the scene of a great anti-State Church demonstration it was held that the great philanthropist should not have stood on the same platform with Spurgeon at the young men's meeting at Exeter Hall. Being thus put on his defence, the Earl wrote a sententious letter to the leading organ of the Evangelical party:—
"Sir,—On Monday evening last I was on the same platform with the Rev. Mr. Spurgeon in Exeter Hall, "For this I have received a rebuke, and I shall, possibly, receive many more.
"May I, once for all, through your columns, give an answer retrospectively and prospectively to all such doubts and castigations?
"In the first place, I am a member of the Church of England, and by God's blessing I intend to continue so.
"Secondly, I shall do my best to maintain in full vigour the Established Church of this kingdom.
"Thirdly, although I do not concur in all Mr. Spurgeon's sentiments, nor always approve the language in which they are conveyed, I regard him as a man of great ability, of great earnestness, and doing a great work. And in these days of trouble, rebuke, and of blasphemy, I will, if requested, give the right of fellowship to him, and to every other who will preach Christ to the masses of our people.
"I am, Sir, your obedient servant, "April 27, 1868.
"Shaftesbusy." When Lord Shaftesbury had such rebukes administered to him, it was to be expected that Mr. Spurgeon would be visited with still harsher censure. The bitterest memories of the comparatively recent dispute about the meaning of phrases in the Prayer Book were revived; and the pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle was again reminded how much had been given by Evangelical Churchpeople to the building-fund of his great chapel. According to the leading Low Church organ, Spurgeon had actually fallen, and great was his fall:—
"It has been painful enough to see his Tabernacle profaned for the purpose of 'hindering the truth' by attacks on our Evangelical clergy, but it is now to be lent as a place of political agitation, where he may revile at pleasure the compact ratified by two Parliaments at the Union of 1801. Thus he may stir up the passions of the multitude; but it will be against one of the bulwarks of Protestantism in a country where Popery is more rampant than in any other country in Europe, Spain itself hardly excepted. We think that Mr. Spurgeon, in his fall, descends to a lower depth than the ex-Premier, inasmuch as an evangelist of Christ's everlasting Gospel he is bound to discharge his hallowed mission under higher sanctions than the man of more worldly ambition, whose aim it appears to be to court popularity at any cost of official dignity or personal consistency."
While this din of battle was heard all around, Mr. Spurgeon's health was improving, and on Thursday, April 30, he had sufficiently recovered to attend at the second day's meeting of the Baptist Union' at Walworth Road Chapel. There was a discussion during the morning on the augmentation of ministers' incomes, and into this Mr. Spurgeon entered with great heartiness. He remarked that any plan was better than doing nothing. As pastors they might not be able to give up their principles for the sake of bread; but unless they gave their ministers bread they would not be able to hold their principles. It was then pointed out that there were only ten churches which were doing anything for the poorer brethren, and those were in London in association with the Baptist Fund., There was some uncertainty about new societies; at all events, the old ones should not be forgotten, and if new agencies were started they ought to work parallel with the old ones. The Church at the Tabernacle had given as much as £240 in one year to the Baptist Fund, and he hoped others would do more, for their fund ought to be ten times as strong as it was. It was thus hoped that all would take the matter into consideration and determine to do what they ought. Mr. Spurgeon then concluded: "There are some in London whose poverty is as great as that of ministers in agricultural districts and who cannot be assisted by the fund; it does not help any brother in London, although his poverty is aggravated by the fact that he has to live in sight of people of expensive habits. I hope something will be done, and at once; for while the grass grows the steed starves."
Meanwhile the great battle of the Irish Church was going on, and the combatants on either side showed more signs of temper than was always consistent with Christian charity. Some thought it showed some want of good taste when Mr. Spurgeon issued his tract, "A Fable for the Times." There was an engraving of a pig and a clergyman feeding out of one trough. The latter was dressed in full canonicals, while the sow had painted on her side a pope's mitre and the keys. This was to show that the Protestant and the Romish Churches in the Emerald Isle were feeding at the same table. Archdeacon Phillpotts had some of the popular preacher's smart sayings in his mind when he asked, "Did Mr. Spurgeon forget that there were few besides himself who had the talent to appear at once in the double character of apostle and buffoon?" The Rock compared this same "buffoon" to a skittle-sharper; and while efforts were also made to prove that the members of the Metropolitan Tabernacle were disagreed on the great question of the day, if not actually opposed to their pastor, the charge of ingratitude for the help accorded by Anglicans in paying for the Tabernacle was reiterated. It turned out, however, that the Church friend who had given most largely to the great enterprise had been, after all, more of a Nonconformist than a Churchman. Still more baseless was the notion that there was anything like disaffection towards their leader among friends at the Tabernacle. If anyone acquainted with the facts had been asked to point out one congregation which was more united than others, and more devotedly loyal to the pastor, the Metropolitan Tabernacle would at once have been named. What Spurgeon desired was that the Irish Church should have more freedom, as he understood the term, and so become more of a missionary organisation in a Romish country. The pastor's admiration for Mr. Gladstone was such that he accorded the distinguished statesman his full sympathy. The newspaper attacks on the political leader were taken notice of; but it was not supposed that they would ever end in his discomfiture. It was rather thought that Sir Henry Wotton had Tory journalists in his eye when he said: "An ambassador is a man of virtue who lies abroad for the benefit of his country; and a news-writer is a man without virtue, who lies at home for his own profit."
Usually it was not Mr. Spurgeon's custom to reply to attacks and misrepresentations; but as the utterances of the leading Evangelical organ were being widely circulated by other newspapers, he thought it worth while to pen the following letter:—
"To the Editor of 'The Record.'
"Sir,—I have no complaints to make of your criticisms upon my language and conduct, both are doubtless more or less faulty; you have a right to criticise them, and I have pleasure in enduring your censures. Even when your remarks are most severe I do not feel aggrieved, for I am severe also. In the present conflict you conceive yourself to have great principles to defend, and you are bound to cut right and left at those who assail them. I also am conscientious in pushing forward principles which are dear to me, and I cheerfully accept the consequences of my advocacy. But I write you to-day because I cannot suppose that you would wilfully misrepresent any man, and because I would give you an opportunity to abstain in future from unfounded reflections upon me. I have spoken so severely about what I consider to be the anomalous position of the Evangelical party, and have so little guarded my expressions, that you have many fair points of attack and need not fight unfairly, which will be more to your discredit than to my injury, and, worse still, will lead the public to think that religions controversialists will condescend to mean things in order to overthrow an opponent—an impression which will be greatly injurious to our common evangelism.
"I allude to your scarcely dignified mention of the aid afforded by Churchmen in the erection of the Tabernacle. Now it may be, and I trust was, the fact that many Episcopalians gave small sums at collections towards that object, and to such I am still indebted; but, so far as our accounts show, there were no donations of any mentionable amount from any persons known to us as Episcopalians, with but one, or perhaps two exceptions, and those happen to be persons whose views upon the Irish Church are quite as much in harmony with ours as with yours. I am not ungrateful for the very minute aid which was thus accorded, but it is made to figure so largely in your journal and other kindred papers that I thought you must be labouring under some misapprehension. I should scarcely imagine that any man out of Hanwell would assert that I accepted the donations referred to with an implied contract that I was henceforth bound to the expression of opinions favourable to the Establishment. No sort of condition was appended to or implied in these kind but comparatively trifling gifts, or they would have been indignantly refused. I do not believe that any gentleman in the whole Episcopal body would be so little-minded as to offer a voluntary contribution to a member of another church and then twit him upon the reception of it. We Nonconformists, who have so few amongst us of the great and noble, and may not, perhaps, presume to claim any great refinement of manners, would hardly like so greatly to demean ourselves, and therefore I suspect that this view of the subject has escaped you, and that upon second thoughts you will withdraw the allusion which you may have been led to make in a moment of natural irritation. A great question deserves to be handled a little more magnanimously by the organ of a great party.
"I must further trouble you for another moment. It has been insinuated, more or less plainly, that I had sinister motives in deprecating an attack upon the State Church in connection with the Bicentenary Celebration. Those who choose to think so after the following explanation may enjoy the pleasures of malignity undisturbed by me. I held, and still do hold, that the main body of the expelled Nonconformist divines were State Churchmen in their opinions, and would have remained perfectly content in the national Establishment if it had been moulded in their will. I did not, therefore, see how their expulsion could bear upon our views as anti-State Churchmen; and as I thought the public would believe that we were claiming these divines as on our side, I did not think it a fair mode of warfare. Happily those good men were driven out of the Establishment, as I heartily pray that all our Evangelical clergy may be if they will not secede voluntarily; but the expelled Puritans were not ecclesiastically dissenters of the modern school, nor does the weight of their testimony tell for the principles of the Liberation Society. I wish it did. This it was which held me back; and, I may add, there did not seem to me to be so much need at that time as there is now for the discussion of the position of the Evangelicals. Pardon me for observing that every year appears to some of us to add to the culpability of those who remain in fellowship with undisguised Romanists, and calls us more and more loudly to bear testimony against what seems to us an unhallowed union.
"One word more. The letter of Lord Shaftesbury is more calculated to soften asperities than your indulgences in them. If it be a great stretch of charity for Evangelical clergymen to appear with me on a platform where we meet on the common ground of service to philanthropy, the Gospel, and the Redeemer's cause, how much more charity, with my view of their position, must I require to be found in such a connection? After all that has been said severely, and perhaps angrily, on either side, Evangelical Christians may well co-operate in holy service, since with all our conflicting views we alike love the Gospel and hate Popery, and hope to meet in the same heaven.
"I cannot expect you to insert this; but if you will oblige me by so doing, I shall—though determinately opposed to your views in many respects—remain, yours respectfully, "C. H. Spurgeon."
"Clapham, May 4, 1868. On Tuesday, May 5, Mr. Spurgeon attended the Triennial Conference of the Liberation Society at the Cannon Street Hotel, and so continued to give offence to the section of which the Evangelical Church newspaper was the ablest representative. While inserting his letter, The Record reminded the great preacher that in early days, when others of his own denomination had looked coldly upon him, he had been spoken well of in its columns. Then a venerable clergyman had for long supplied Spurgeon with a text with which to begin each year. It was still believed, moreover, that the contributions of Church people had greatly helped to swell the large collections at the Tabernacle. In those days it was customary to speak of Spurgeon as the modern Whitefield, and the great meeting-house at Newington was looked upon as a place erected somewhat after the pattern of the eighteenth-century Evangelist's Tabernacle at Moorfields. Hence, the people who belonged to the same church as Whitefield professed to be greatly aggrieved when the Metropolitan Tabernacle was "used as an arena in which, at a time of great public agitation, Mr. Bright or other political demagogues should harangue an assembly of excited politicians."
Notwithstanding such opinions, and much beside which was even less complimentary, Mr. Spurgeon was the observed of all observers among the five hundred representatives from all parts of. the country who assembled in conference at the opening of May. He was at this time in hearty accord with the aims of the Liberation Society. That Society was founded in 1844 as the British Anti-State Church Association, but in 1853 it was re-named the Society for the Liberation of Religion from State Patronage and Control. In the Report presented to the meeting the Irish Church was of course the main topic; and in seconding the resolution, which Mr. Duncan M'Laren, M.P., had moved—expressive of satisfaction at the attitude of Parliament and admiration for Mr. Gladstone—Spurgeon stirred the enthusiasm of all present.
He remarked that he felt like one who had come on the field late in the day; still, their battle of Waterloo was drawing to a close, and even those who came in at the end, like Blucher, might after all render some help and wear some of the laurels. Then came a retrospect:—
"Some gentlemen present, who have been members of the Society from its commencement, must lately have felt that they had realised the words of the Lord which He sent by His prophet: 'I will work a work in your day which ye would not believe even if a man were to say it unto you.' When they woke up one fine morning and found that Mr. Gladstone had moved his resolutions, they must have looked to their almanacks to see whether they had not been, like the famous Ephesian sleepers, sleeping for fifty years at the least; and when they really found that they had been awake, their first spontaneous impression must have been to cast themselves on their knees before the Eternal Providence, and thank Him for what had been done."
Apart from such things, or the resolutions, the Society had great power in the land. The pastor continued:—
"It was said of Richard Cœur de Lion that his exploits became so famous that the Saracen mothers threatened their naughty children that they would give them over to him. So, I have frequently seen in the Ritualist prints the threat to the Evangelical infants, that if they do not behave themselves they will certainly be handed over to that dreadful Liberation Society, whose teeth are iron, and whose stomach is as an iron cauldron, and to be handed over to whose tender mercies is analogous to being received into the infernal regions themselves. The success which the Society has achieved is due to the purity of its principles and the wonderful skill with which it has been conducted. You may congratulate yourselves on the position you have attained; but I think it is very probable that there may be considerable delay before the matter now in hand is actually carried out. You do not disguise, whatever others may do, the object you have in view, which is the disestablishment of all churches; and I thank God that the conductors of that Society have never been reticent about what they intend to do. Having avowed their intentions, they can go on in the straightforward course of honesty; and they may depend upon it that, in the long run, that man will succeed who scorns policy and follows principle."
Mr. Spurgeon went on to say that if he were a member of the Established Church he would recommend the members of that church to close the question as soon as possible. The proposals of Mr. Gladstone were quite generous enough. He then condemned the action of the Irish Church in the past in strong terms. He was against all Church Establishments; but while leniency was now counselled, the day of compromise might soon be past. He wished he could be eloquent once in his life. If they differed from such a man as Mr. Gladstone they still respected him, because they believed him to be honest and straightforward, and above all mere tricks of policy. In response to an invitation the audience gave three cheers for the statesman, and Mr. Spurgeon proceeded to pass a glowing eulogy on Mr. Gladstone:—
"The point upon which Mr. Gladstone is so constantly attacked only provokes our laughter. It was said, 'Oh, but he has such an irritable temper.' That Mr. Gladstone has a temper is a mercy for us all. A man who has no principles, but can veer round with every wind, might well put on a placid smile and never have a temper; but a man of principle must be angry against everything that is shifty and tricky. I have heard of people who are as easy as old shoes, and such people are generally worth about as much. We have heard enough of coming into the House of Commons with a sprig in one's mouth, and of gentlemen asserting that they do not feel a weight of responsibility when they really ought to feel it, considering that they have the affairs of a nation upon them. I consider that Mr, Gladstone does regulate his temper exceedingly well, considering the wonderful irritation he has to endure; and the possession of such a temper, so far from being wrong, is perhaps one of the qualifications for the position he now occupies. I take Mr. Gladstone, for all in all, as being one of the noble Englishmen alive, and hope that God will long support him. The fight which we have before us will be a long one, for the intense stupidity of a certain party in the nation will require a long time to be dealt with; but I hope the day will come when everything like Episcopal, or even Protestant, ascendancy will be cast to the winds, and the whole work of the Society will fee done in the name of God and of truth."
It was pointed out that the one cry of the next election would have to be "Religious Equality," and he even asked teetotal enthusiasts to postpone their measures till the great question of the Irish Church was settled, feeling sure that lesser matters could then be successfully brought forward. Even as regarded Sunday closing, Mr. Spurgeon's advice was, "Emancipate a people who could keep the Sunday," before the question was fully entered upon. All ministers present were urged to indoctrinate their people with right principles, and to teach them that it was their duty to record their votes in the coming election in the name of Christ and His truth. In conclusion, the value of the voluntary principle was pointed out, while a better day for the Church and the country was foreseen:—
"Specially is it the duty of all to vindicate the voluntary principle which you profess. Voluntaryism may not have done all it can or should do; but one of the reasons for this is that the people who practise it are burdened with the incubus of having to support the ministers of the State Church. One of my two deacons has told me this morning that he has to pay £180 a year in tithes of two parishes, and that there is a poor man in his employment, who is a Primitive Methodist, who is acknowledged by Church people themselves to do more good than the two clergymen whom the master helps to support. I hope that you will keep the voluntary principle going with greater earnestness than ever you have done before. I believe there is a bright and glorious future now dawning, and I hope you will live to meet and sing Hallelujahs of praise to God, when there shall be not only a free Church in a free State, but a Church that is really a Church, because it owns Christ for its head, follows Christ's teachings, carries those teachings out in Christ's spirit, and scorns to tamper with the kings and princes of the world." For many reasons this was considered to be a red-letter day; and the victory as regarded the Irish Church Establishment was not many months distant. Nonconformists and Anglicans seemed to be fairly matched against each other in this warfare; but when the noise of controversy rose highest, then did it become most painfully apparent that another war relating to practice and theological belief was raging inside the Church itself. A new penny weekly evangelical organ had just been commenced, and a High Church contemporary referred to "the nauseous petroleum that flows from The Rock." In accepting the compliment the new journal quietly remarked, "It is the light which our petroleum sheds, we fear, which hurts the blinking eyes of these Church owls."