0001

GREAT MEETING OF AMALGAMATED MINISTERS OF ALL PERSUASIONS.

(From a Special Edition of the Nonconformist.)

On Thursday last a Monster Conference was held in St. James's Hall, of Clergymen of the Church of England, and Ministers of other denominations, embracing delegates from 172 different sects of Nonconformists, exclusive of representatives of Deism, Atheism, Positivism, and “The Fallibility of the Bible Association.” Dr. Temple attended as a Deputation from “The Society for the Repeal and Nullification of all Oaths.” The object of the Meeting, as set forth in the advertisements, was “to express hatred of the Irish Church, and sympathy with unbelievers and heretics of all climes and classes.” Dr. Stanley, Dean of Westminster, was called to the Chair.

Mr. Spurgeon then rose to propose a preliminary motion, which he said was essential to the harmony of the meeting. The Resolution he wished to propose was “That it is antagonistic to the principles of Religious Equality that Ministers of any creed or sect should assume the title of Reverend.” He said there was no pride or nonsense about him: he was plain Mr. Spurgeon. The title of Reverend was a misnomer and a misdescription. Was there anything reverend about him? His beloved friend in the Chair was a “Liberal of the Liberals,” and he was quite sure he did not wish to retain the invidious appellation of “The Very Reverend the Dean of Westminster,” which was a standing reproach and symbol of ascendancy to the Dissenting body. Why should he be constantly reminded that he was not Dignitary of the Church? The idea was odious, and the inference intolerable.

Dr. Stanley interposed at this point, and said the broad and Comprehensive views of Mr. Spurgeon met with his entire approbation, and for his part he was quite willing to change his title—(loud ironical cheers),—and as an earnest of his sincerity in the cause of Religious Equality, he offered, amid enthusiastic cheers, to allow Mr. Spurgeon the use of Westminster Abbey whenever he chose to occupy his pulpit; and he, in his turn, would reciprocate the compliment by holding forth in Mr. Spurgeon's Tabernacle. (The liberality of these sentiments evoked the warmest acclamations.)

Dr. Temple was called upon to state his views upon the Irish Church. In inviting him to speak, Dr. Stanley said that from his long residence in Ireland, and thorough acquaintance with the country, Dr. Temple was eminently qualified to give them information, whilst his well-known freedom from every kind of religious prejudice or doctrinal prepossession rendered him remarkably worthy of their attention.

Dr. Temple rose amid tremendous cheers, and said—I think it right to say my friend Dr. Stanley has made a mistake. I was never in Ireland but once in my life, and then only for a short time. This shows conclusively how idle it is to sustain a cause by arguments founded on facts. The facts, as in this case, are disproved; what then becomes of the arguments? The man who believed anything was always liable to be deceived, and the truth was sure to prevail. This showed that the less we interfered with its progress the better. (Loud and prolonged cheering.)

The Irish Church was a gross injustice to the Roman Catholics, who had to pay for what they thought was irreligion. (A voice, “They don't pay at all.”) Then that only showed that the question of justice was apart from all pecuniary considerations. (Loud cheers.) Was it not perfectly plain that it was the interest of Protestants to support any scheme which the Romish Priests thought would tend to their disadvantage? Was it not the highest form of virtue to sacrifice for others anything, be it Church or Creed, which we most prize. (Loud Cheers.) It was a serious question in his mind if any one had a right to be a Protestant in Ireland at all. (Loud and prolonged cheers.) His declaring himself such was an insult to the Roman Catholic population; and was Protestantism so weak and frail and helpless a thing that it would suffer by being proscribed in Ireland? He felt sure it would be all the better for it. He felt convinced that the way to make the Church of Ireland respected by its opponents was to destroy it. (Tremendous cheers.) He ventured to say that when it was completely robbed, those who wished it harm would feel that any further assaults upon it were unnecessary, and that their work was accomplished. (Vehement cheers.) In this way peace would be restored, and the hateful spirit of bigotry would be crushed for ever. (Loud cheers.) Then, as to the Coronation Oath, what man of comprehensive views or enlightened understanding attached any importance to it? It was clear to him that when the Queen swore she would maintain “the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel,” she had no right to do so, and that an oath to make such an invidious distinction between what was good and what was bad could not be binding upon her. Take a case—suppose T. was to swear to G. that he would not accept a Deanery or a Bishopric, would he be bound by such an oath as that? Clearly not; for T. was doing an injustice to himself as well as to the Church, by depriving it of his services. (Loud cheers.) Again, suppose a statesman were to say he would sooner promote a moderate Dean than a superior Schoolmaster, would anyone think him bound by such an oath as that? Didn't they all know very well, didn't they see every day, that subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles was one thing, and belief in them another and a totally distinct and different thing? There was nothing so grievous to those who really loved justice as to see any attempt on the part of a nation to discourage heresy or unbelief. The Church which required its Ministers or members to do this was doomed. (Cheers.) Let them show that they estimated truth at its right value by countenancing error in every form. If Protestantism in Ireland should suffer from disestablishment and disendowment, it would prove it had no right there, and if it prospered under the operation, then some other steps would have to be taken to reconcile the Roman Catholics to its success.

The Rev. Mr. Blakiston said he only knew one duty as a clergyman, and that was, to preach the Gospel according to Gladstone. Were not the Liberal cause and Christianity synonymous terms? Was it not a matter of notoriety that every follower of Mr. Disraeli was an enemy to Religion?

0002

He hoped to see the day when the Church would dispense with all dogmas and all doctrines, as unworthy of an age of progress. He thought Inspectors of National Schools performed a great work in the country, and he would like to see the income of the Bishops reduced, and the proceeds applied to an adequate remuneration of that deserving body. (Hear, hear, hear.)

Dr. Alford, Dean of Canterbury, then rose to ask a question of the Chairman. He wished to know whether, in voting for Mr. Mill and Captain Grosvenor for Westminster, Dr. Stanley intended it to be understood that he had changed those opinions with regard to the Irish Church, which he had expressed in that very Hall a few months ago?

Dr. Stanley, in reply, said he thought all personalities should be avoided. There was nothing he valued more than elasticity of conscience and freedom of action, by which a man was at liberty to think one way and to vote another. If he supported Mr. Smith, he should be blindly voting in accordance with his avowed sentiments on the Irish Church. If, on the other hand, he supported the Liberal candidates, he was taking an independent course, and proving his toleration of opinions with which he had no sympathy. That was his idea of Liberalism. (Loud cheers, and cries of “Oh, oh!”) If Dr. Alford was the only Dean who declared himself a follower of Mr. Gladstone's, the result would be that that statesman's choice of men for promotion would be unwisely limited. (Loud cries of “No, no,” from Archdeacon Sandford.) He would be no party to placing Mr. Gladstone in such a dilemma. (Loud cries of “Oh, oh!” again from Archdeacon Sandford.)

The Rev. John Congreve said the sale of livings in the Church of England was a scandal and an abuse. Men of eminent talent and long meritorious service in the Church were compelled to purchase livings for themselves,—to be their own patrons in fact. (Laughter and cheers.) Was not that a crying abuse? He thought congregations should pay their Ministers well. (“Hear, hear” from Mr. Spurgeon.) Nothing pleased him more than that; it showed a true Liberal spirit in a practical form.

At this conjuncture the Chairman was informed that Mr. Bradlaugh, Mr. Finlen, and several Masters from Rugby School wished to be admitted. Upon this being done, Mr. Bradlaugh said he did not come there to talk about anything so antiquated as subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles. What he wanted was subscription to the expenses of the Northampton election. (Loud laughter and cheers.)

Mr. Finlen said the number of children who were neglected by their parents even to starvation was a gross abuse.

The Masters from Rugby School said with one voice “all they wished to say was ditto to Dr. Temple.”

The Conference then broke up.