■■rm-f
m:fs
^■■r.,:
I E> R.ARY
OF THE
U N IVLRSITY
or ILLINOIS
THE PEW SYSTEM
IN
THE NATIONAL CHURCH.
WHY DO NOT THE PEOPLE WORSHIP ?
AN ADDEESS
DELIVERED AT
SIGN COLLEGE, LONDON,
ON THURSDAY, 18th MARCH, 1869,
BY
HENRY CLAEK, ESQ.
OF LIYERPOOL.
WHY SHOULD WE GEUDGE THE HOUR AND HOUSE OP PRAYER
TO Christ's own blind and lame,
" WHO COME TO meet HIM THERE
?"
PUBLISHED BY
THE LONDON FREE AND OPEN CHURCH ASSOCIATION,
25, NORFOLK STREET STREET, STRAND. W.C.
LONDON :
JAMES PARKER & CO., 377, . STRAND.
1869.
"who maketh thee to differ from another, and what hast
THOU that thou DIDST NOT RECEIVE ? "
HOW MUCH LESS TO HIM THAT ACCBPTETH NOT THE PERSONS OF
PRINCES, NOR REGARDETH THE RICH MORE THAN THE POOR ?
FOR IHEY ARE ALL THE WORK OF HIS HANDS."
THE PEW SYSTEM IN
THE NATIONAL CHURCH
WHY DO NOT THE PEOPLE WORSHIP ?
<^ERE are the Churches, but where are the masses?" is a
thought and an enquiry unceasingly disturbing the minds of earnest
Churchmen. ''Why do not the people worship?" enquire many
who are in despair at the fact that they do not ; and who seem alike
blind and helpless both as to the causes and the remedies of the evil.
It is, indeed, an anomalous and saddening spectacle, that a great
Christian nation, sometimes claiming to be the religious salt of the
earth, should, in the 19th century, be so non-worshipping that Loed
Shaptesbijrt should be able to affirm that 98 out of every 100
working men we meet in the streets of the Metropolis, attend neither
Church nor Chapel on the Lord's Day.
This problem T am now attempting to solve, and, at the outset,
I fearlessly assert that the first condition necessary to make the
people in this or any other country a worshipping people, is to make
the places in which they should assemble for worship free and
unrestricted to al] comers. I do not say that this is the only condition :
far from it. But I do say, that until this condition is complied with,
until this Freedom is granted by those who now withhold it, until
this Freedom is enjoyed by tho?e from whom it is now withheld,
all efforts to render our people a God-fearing, God-worshipping
people are, and will be, practically futile.
In the first place. What is this Freedom of Worship ? By these
words I mean the same perfect Freedom to walk in and kneel down
in God's House, that every one has to walk on a id frequent the
Queen's Highway ; the consciousness, on the part of the poorest
man, not only that he has the same right and facility to ase his
Father's House that his rich neighbour has, but that a hearty
welcome will greet him when he arrives there.
That this Freedom ought to exist, I shall endeavour to prove on
various grounds :
And First, on Religious and Christian grounds.
The voice of the Church should proclaim aloud the message
she has to deliver. Her orders are to preach the Gospel to every
creature. Certain buildings are set apart in which this Gospel shall
be preached, which buildings, if the command is to be obeyed, must be
accessible to every creature. Anything, therefore, which impedes
this free hearing of the sound of the Gospel is wrong, and defeats the
mission of the Church.
As a Divine Institution the Church is comprehensive [ and
universal, receiving all into her fold, irrespective of race or rank. A
great Catholic spirit prevailing in her, befittinoj a religion common to
the human race, all the members, being members of one body, have the
same love one for another. Therefore, to reject any, to pay court to
some and to despise others, is inadmissible in a true branch of the
Catholic Church.
Again Unity, is one of her leading characteristics. The
Prayer is that " they all maybe o?^6." However differing in tastes, habits,
manners, feelings, they have one thing in common. How can they
prove their oneness better than when united in one holy fellowship
in the act of worship? Where, but when assembled in God's
Temple ? Common worship is a most important and significant
expression of unity. Whatever our divisions, there is one place at
any rate of which the atmosphere should breathe of unity and peace.
True Religion, too, embraces self-denying Oharity, which " seeks
the lost, and loves th3 poor." True Religion implies at
least kindness and courtesy in her assemblies of worshippers, from
which no one is ever scared away. Tf one place in the building be
more eligible than another, the habitual absentee, or the poor, or the
UIUC
5
blind, or the deaf, nay, the outcast, are taken by the hand and placed
there, and " the regular worshipper " is only too pleased to take
the lowest place.
Another important Christian grace is Ramility. When meeting
together, the attitude of the worshipper is that of the Publican, who
stood afar off ejaculating '' God be merciful to me a sinner ! " rather
than that of the Pharisee who loved the chief seats, and thanked God
he was not as other men werco '* Any place is good enough for me,
indeed I am not worthy to enter under Thy roof" should be the
prevailing thought. Exclusiveness, pride, isolation, and display, are
traits utterly unknown here.
And if any one feeling should be uppermost when entering God's
House, it is that there at least all men are equal The Almighty
is no respecter of persons. They who presently will lie side by
side in the grave, they who presently will stand side side by in the
judgment, need not hesitate, while on earth, to kneel side by
side in their Father s House. The perfect equality of rich and poor
in worship involves a great Scriptural truth, and conveys a wholesome
lesson. It is an educational means— teaching the rich man that his
riches will avail him nothing, and the poor man that he must look
beyond his poverty for his reward in the great Hereafter.
And, lastly, the 'building is a Roli/,^ consecrated, sacred
House. It is not ours to deal with, but His, the Lord of the universe.
This is none other than the House of God, this is the gate of Heaven.
" Put off thy shoes from off thy feet —
" The place where man his God shall meet,
" Be sure, is holy ground."
Therefore, to appropriate to oneself, or to traffic in such ground is
surely a grave error.
Thus, on religious and Christian grounds, in the interests of the
cultivation of Christian graces, perfect freedom should obtain in our
Churches.
1. " It is a characteristic of depraved Protestantism that it recognises far too little the Church
as the Temple of God, and the special abode of the Shekinah."— " ifmor Moralities of Life,"
Jy Bev. E. White.
6
And, accordingly, as an Historical fact, this Ffeedom has ever
been recognised. It has existed from the earliest ages in every
religion, whether true or false.
" Old heathendom's vast temples hold men of every fate ;
The steps of far Benares commingle small and great ;
The dome of St. Sophia confounds all human state.
The aisles of blessed Peter are open all the year ;
Throughout wide Christian Europe the Christian's right is clear
To use God's house in freedom, each man the other's peer ;
Save only in that England, where this disgrace I saw, —
England, where no man crouches in tyranny's base awe, —
England, where all are equal beneath the eye of law."
As regards the Christian religion for 1,300 years after our Lord's
coming there was no appropriation, still less were there pew-rents.
No such thing was permitted in the Jewish worship ; neither does the
Eastern Church permit these worldly distinctions. The only Churches
in which they are prevalent are the English, and the Roman in the
North Western part of Europe.i
The way the introduction of Pews into our Parish Churches has
been managed may be illustrated by a case in point, the facts of
which have been given to myself by an eye witness.
At the beginning of the present century the fine Parish Church of
Appleby, Atherstone, was, as all Churches had been, entirely open and
available to all worshippers. But it entered the mind of an elderly
lady that she would prefer to know where to sit. It was unpleasant
to think that any body should be placed beside her. She accordingly
begged to be allowed to put up a piece of boarding to screen herself
off from the rest of the world. No sooner did this appear, than
another wanted a partition to enable her to enjoy, as her own, some
particular spot. Then an old man thought he would like to have
some accomodation reserved for him. This closing in of the Church
for private purposes gave its interior such an irregular and patchy
1. Of the latter it has been remarked : " It is to be regretted that the custom should now have
become universal of enclosing within a railing the entire central space, which cannot, there-
fore, be entered without paying, and for which the price is raised on the chief festivals,"—
Paris Correspondent of The Guardian, March 31, 1869,
appearance that it was presently resolved to pew the whole building,
which was accordingly done, a large share of the expense being
defrayed by a family well known in the neighbourhood. The manner
of the removal of the ancient landmarks in this Parish Church —
landmarks which our fathers had set— has been testified by persons
who have lived in the present generation.
And so this pew system has grown and grown, until it has
become perfectly ingrained in our very Church life. We hug it to
our bosoms, little aware how this cherished thing is sucting the
Church's very life blood. Wherever the Anglican Communion penetrates
there this system is set up. The Eishop of Wisconsin recently referred
to an ancient Syrian Temple, which for century on century, whether
used by Idolaters, Mahommedans, or modern Christians had preserved
its ancient freedom to its worshippers, and let it pass, he added, into
whose hands it might, it would never lose this character, until it
should fall into the hands of the Episcopal Church.
Now, if we have any misgivings on this subject let us look to
the rock whence we are hewn. The Rev. Dr. Magee, now Eishop
Peterborough, asks if the primitive Church had any pew rents. Do
we read (he enquires) that Paul was appointed by the elders
to a fashionable Church at Ephesus ? Or, that James possessed
an eligible proprietary Chapel at Jerusalem ? We find that an
entirely opposite spirit prevailed, and, instead of being partitioned off
by themselves and shunned, the poor and outcast were especially
welcomed and valued. The story is told of St. Laurence, how, when
his judge demanded of him the treasures of the Church, he craved
respite for three days, to gather together the Church's riches, in
which space, against the time the governor should come to the doors
of the Temple in the hope to receive his prey, a miserable rank of
poor, lame, and impotent persons was provided, their names
delivered up to him, as a true inventory of the Church's goods, and some
few words used to signify how proud the Church was of these
treasures, Bespect of persons, honour to some, dishonour to
others, was as a practice unknown in the early Christian assemblies,
and God's poor were treated in the Church's earliest days as her most
8
valuable heritage. St. James' marked rebuke of the first symptoms
of this sin would appear to have effectually banished it in the first
ages of the Church.
Again, this freedom is in consonance with the teaching and
spirit of our Prayer Book. This Book is called the Book of Common
Prayer. There is the Priest, and there is the people. The former has a
message to deliver, the latter a message to receive, and both together
a worship to offer. They have a building in which to meet, a
Consecrated Meeting House. If on the one side you have several
thousand people, the inhabitants of the District ; and on the other
side, one man, the Priest of the District or Parish, it being desired
to bring the two together, there is only one way to do it. You must have
a building common to all, in which not a favored few, or a specified
congregation, but the people can come together to hear and pray with
the Minister. This building is the Parish Church. The Book of
Common Prayer is the Book used therein, the Book in whose words
we breathe to heaven in common the confession of our sins, our
wants, our hopes and thanksgivings. The Church then in her Prayer
Book recognises no distinctions between man and man. '' Our
mother the Church hath never a child to honor before the rest !"
And, Economically viewed, this Freedom is necessary. The
Church is usually a comparatively small building, the population
being usually a large one, and largely in excess of the number of the
Church's seats. The building, therefore, in order to be utilised to the
utmost, must be free, and its internal arrangements such that not a
seat be wasted. Pews involve a great waste of Church space. A
man takes a pew, which he likes to have to and for himself, so that
two or three sittings usually remain vacant.
Again, such are the circumstances of life that illness, the state
of the weather, absence from home, indisposition to attend an early
Service, reluctance to attend a late one, or a thousand accidents
render constant attendance impossible. Thus a pewed Church,
except under extraordinary circumstances, never can be full. Over
and over again have we accurately counted the attendance at the
9
Churches of popular preachers ia Liverpool, the result of which has
been to show that usually 50 per cent, of the seats are unoccupied.
And the waste of money is amazing. A multiplication of services
under a system of pews is impossible. In such a Church, costing it
may be thousands of pounds, it is useless for a clergyman to give
more services in the day than one devout man can endure.
Here we have on extensive machinery constructed and put into
motion at vast public and private cost, and only performing a minimum
instead of a maximum o± its work. In any other institution, such
wasteful economy of means would not be tolerated for a day. Are we as
a nation to submit to that which as individuals we should condemn? Are
we to accept unmoved deficiencies like thesw in a great public and
national Institution ? Year after year rolls on^ one generation passeth
away, and another generation cometh, increased energies everywhere
are developed, ''Improvement," '' Por ward !" are our mottoes; but
our Churches for the most part remain the same dead, half empty,
practically unused buildings they were 50 years ago !*
And let me incidently ask why do we build, or contribute to the
building of Churches ? Surely not to convert them into private
Chapels for private use, and still less to obtain a something in return
— an equivalent, in the form of private rights in the building, say for
a life time ! Instead of making the gift an occasion to barter, it
should be humbly presented with the sole desire to promote God's
glory, and to benefit those who cannot build Churches for themselves.
IS'ever is money more misdirected than when making a limited number
of well-to-do Pewholders the recipients of our alms, and presenting
them gratis with a costly building with its reserved seats, their only
liability being a small annual charge sufficient to pay the minister,
and from which they can exempt themselves at any time by giving
a quarter's notice.
Again, Legalhj considered^. The law maintains *' The use of
the body of the Church is common to all parishioners."^ "All
the pews in the Parish Church are the common property of the parish,
1. See Appendix : Church attendance in Liverpool.
2. Ayliffe : Parergon, p. 484, Farliamentary JRememirancer, March 1860
10
and are for the use in common of the parishioners, who are all entitled
to be seated orderly and conveniently so as best to provide for the
accommodation of all. 2 " The title to the free use of their own property
by the Parishoners was recognised in 1857 by a Committee of the
House of Lords. 3
In order to preserve order, and to protect the rights of the
parishioners, certain officers being laymen are invested with authority
over the general arrangements of the Church. They act as officers
of the ordinary, and as officers of the parish, and one of their chief
duties is to secure to all the parishioners accommodation in their own
Church. In former times there were no seats whatever, and people
used to stand or kneel. If there was any covering on the floor, it
was that afforded by rushes. Eor convenience, seats have been
introduced of various kinds from time to time — but of whatever form or
material they may be, they should have but one design, one actual
use, viz., simply to assist every inhabitant of the parish in his
attendance upon Divine Service.
With respect to these seats, the warden's duty now is precisely
what it was before the Eeformation, when as it is well known there
were no pews and no assignment or appropriation whatever.
In many old Parish Churches, such as Manchester, Prestwich,
Deal, the warden's duty to ''seat the parishioners" has always been,
and still is, to let all worshippers come in at every service as early as
they think fit, and seat themselves in any seat then vacant. If,
however, a Tvarden determines upon carrying out what the law
permits him to do, viz. : to seat the parishioners himself, '' how is
the allotment to be made?" This question requires another to
precede it, viz. : *' who are entitled by law to the use of the seats ? "
The answer is, all the parishioners equally and without respect of
persons are so entitled. The wardens must then proceed to allot in
2. Fuller V. Lane. OliphanVs Laws of Peivs.
3. " Returning to the novinal state of things, where it remains unaffected by any special
privilege, we have seen that the body of evtry Parish Chvrch belongs of common right to all
the parishioners ; and this right cannot lawfully be defeated by any permanent appropriation
of particular places." Report of Committee of the House of Lords on the deficiency of the
Means of Spiritual Instruction.— 1858, page xviii.
11
sucli manner as to accommodate all the parishioners equally, and
without respect to persons. The only way to do this, or to approx-
imate to this in large parishes, is at each service to allot to those who
do attend, and in order of their arrival, and not to those who may
attend. And this allotment, we believe, is best carried out by allowing
parishioners to seat themselves in an orderly manner as they arrive.
JS'ot only by the law of the land, then, is the Parish Church free and
common to the use of all tho parishioners, but by the law of JEqmtt/
this position can also be maintained. To such Church a certain
territory is assigned, within which no other Church can be built,
except with the consent of the Tncumbent, a consent rarely granted
(particularly if the Church is dependent upon pew rents, in which case
competition is rather avoided than encouraged). If therefore the
building of new Churches within the district is thus rendered difficult,
if not impossible, the right of free entry into the Mother Church
ought surely to be permitted. To close the Mother Church to the
people, and at the same time to obstruct the provision of other
means of worship for them cannot be justified on any principle of
fair dealing.
And in a National Estallishment this Freedom of worship should
be extended to all. The Church, as national, i& under compact to
provide religious instruction for all the people of the land, all of
whom have a full and equal claim upon the services, whetlier private
or public, of the parish clergyman.
1^0 w, here are one or two considerations I would earnestly
impress upon all who value the retention of our Church as a
I^ational Establishment : If a Church is not doing national work,
as a teacher of the whole nation, and particularly of the poor, can
it be called the National Church? Does not the pew system
practically limit the exercise of the office of teacher to a small
minority, to whom the Ibuildings are assigned, leaving a very few
seats only to the great majority whose rights as Christian citizens are
equal ? If so, is such an Establishment any more doing national work
than Non-conformity ? and if not, can it claim the rights and
immunities of an EstabiishmLut '?
12
These are suggestive considerations, particularly to those who
desire that our Church shall continue to be recognised and distinguished
as the nations' s teacher. The Irish branch of the ChurtL is at this
moment being stripped of her dignities and possessions, because,
in Mr. Gladstone's own words: ''The Irish Church did not fulfil
the objects for which it was established. It was not the Church of
the nation. It was not the Church of the Poor, it had miserably
failed, and must continue to fail." The fact that she is not the
Church of the People is of course notorious. Dr. Templi, of Eugby,
remarks that on one occasion a deeply attached member of the Church
of England summed up to him the arguments against the Irish
Church in a single sentence, and it was at the door of a Church in
Ireland that the remark was made: — '^ I feel ashamed, he said, of
helonging to this Church .'" They attended the Services of the Church,
and saw inside the Church what they never wished to see again.
There was not a single poor person in the Church. There they were,
all as respectable as possible, but they could not help feeling that this
was not the kind of respectability that really belonged to Christianity,
and could not feel that this was a character which ought to attach
to a branch of the Church of Christ.
How far this lamented absence of the poor, and this very
respectable character of the congregation, is a charge attachable to
the Church of England others shall determine. But should it be so,
the fate of the Irish will assuredly be ere long the fate of the English
Establishment.
And here I would incidently remark how Dissent is encouraged,
nay (if any sense of religion at all exists) is actually forced upon the
people by the system of pews. The population of the parish is 5,000,
the Church seating 800 favored individuals. The latter being all
provided with pews of their own, what is to become of the remaining
4,200 parishioners ? A. few free peats may be offered to them, but
these they decline. The nearest Chapel is at once resorted to by the
excluded tradesman or artisan. They attach themseh^ea by degrees
L
13
to this Chapel, and with their families are lost to the Church. i
I have thus endeavoured on various grounds — Religious,
Christian, Historical, Economical, Legal, and N"ational, to prove that
this Preedom of "Worship ought to exist in our Churches.
The great obstacles to freedom are pews, which have been
defined by Dr. Hooz, in his Church Dictionary, as ''Enclosed seats
in Churches which enable people to attend Church and hear sermons
comfortably and luxuriously ; " and, by some one else to be
" Eeligion made easy to the minority, but impossible to the majority
of the community." iNTow if we track this modern encroachment to
its source we find its spring to be selfishness^ which when taking an
ecclesiastical form, has been described by Dr. Harris (the gifted author
of the Prize Essay *' Mammon"), to be " That modification of selfish
piejty which lives only to be personally comforted, and in all its reading
and hearing makes its own individual comfort not a means but an
end." Kow, when we consider the vital interests at stake, that this is an
aff'air which affects man's condition for eternity ; that when meeting
together in God'sHouse, in HisPresence, we should meet as Christians,
whose first and cardinal principle is that they should love one another,
and deny themselves for others' good ; in such a place, and under such
circumstances, deliberately to seize upon the best situations (or, what
is sometimes the case, upon all) for ourselves, and leave the worst
places, if any, as a miserable pittance for the poor, feeding them like
Lazarus with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table, is
conduct which will bear no other designation than selfish. It has been
well observed by the Eev. J". C. Eyle : " Let us beware of selfishness
in religion. We should labor to make all men see that we have found
the pearl of great price, and that we want them to find it as well as
ourselves, A man's religion may be well suspected when he is
content to go to heaven alone. The true Christian will have a
large heart, bat if a man is satisfied to burn his candle alone, he is
1. The Rev. W. A. Whitworth, of St. Luke's, Liverpool, publicly stated tMs very mouth,
that he suddenly missed from his Church a devout middle aged man, and fearful that he had
fallen away, he called upon him, and found that he had gone to Mr, Lockhart's
dissenting Chapel, because there, being free to all, he could get a good scat. Tbe fact was
that when attending the Church, he had asked the beadle to let him sit nearer the pulpit,
as he could not hear, but h© was told there was no place for him but the gallery, and so he
"vieijt to Mi'i LucKiiAui'g CUapch
14
in a very weak and sickly state of soul." Now, if this propensity of
our evil nature be really present in our assemblies for public worship,
if it bo the moving cause of the tenacity with which the greater
part of the Church seats are held by private individuals, I ask
whether any wide spread amount of good can be expected to flow
from such so called public worship) ? Can pure and undefiled
Christianity be propagated by such machinery throughout the world ?
If the source be impure, can the stream be pure ?
This division of the House of God into separate private com-
partments is justified on grounds such as these: — *' The regular
worshipper has a right to his own seat." But what is to prevent
his occupying, as often as he likes, if early enough, the same seat
in a free Church? Great sympathy is felt for the ''regular'*
worshippers, or the few folded sheep ; but, surely, equal solicitude
should be shown for the ^' irregular," or ihe many stray sheep — the
hundreds who are only casual attendants, and the thousands who
never enter the sacred precincts at all. A pew of one's own implies
an advantage to its owner, or it does not. If there be no advantage,
why insist upon it ? "Whilst if there be an advantage, such advantage
implies a corresponding disadvantage to some one else. In the
present instance, the advantage conferred is on the supposed religiously
minded man, whilst the disadvantage, or disability, falls on the
careless or the irreligious man. Now, conduct such as is here
involved, does not harmonise with the ordinary rules which govern
society. If, for example, from humane motives, we wish to extend
the benefits of medical care, we do not select the strong and the
healthy, but rather the weak and the diseased. The whole need not
a physician, but they that arc sick. And if, from religious motives,
we desire to convey the healing tidings of the Gospel, it is surely only
reasonable to go first to those, who, having never heard them, are
suffering from the disease of sin, than to those who are in possession
of those tidings already. Our Saviour came ''To call not the
righteous, but sinners to repentance."
But in this matter a duty devolves upon the " regular "
pew-holder, as well as upon the Church. If the former has the
15
knowledge of the next world's good, *' and seeth that his brother
hath need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how
dwelleth the love of God in him ?" With the advantage of a pew
of his own, instead of selfishly enjoying it all to himself, being a
Christian man, and ready to undergo personal sacrifice for the sake
of religion, would it not be more becoming of him to take his
''irregular" non-worshipping neighbour by the hand, giving him
the pew, he himself taking the lowest seat, feeling almost too
unworthy even to enter under God's roof ? Nor would such an act
of self-sacrifice fail of his reward, who, in converting tbe sinner
from the error of his way, '' saves a soul from death, and hides a
multitude of sins."
Another justification is, '' families are divided." We reply
that never was there sach division created in the great family of
man, never was the brotherhood more rentasunder, than by this unnatural
estrangement. But, if this question, involving such an awful issue,
is to be decided by reference to personal convenience, it is best
answered by a practical experience of free churches — an experience
of which those who urge this difficulty are usually deroid. If a
family arrive late, of course a little inconvenience will be the penalty,
but with the Church doors opened sufficiently early, why should not
all, on arrival, select and take their seats at leisure ? If the services
are still crowded, we are thankful they are so appreciated, and a
powerful reason is given for their multiplication. In several Eoman
Catholic Chapels in Liverpool, six services are held every Sunday
before noon, many being crowded. These buildings fill and empty
themselves several times during the day, and if this process is not
only possible, but successful, in their case, who can say that it should
not be so with us?
The extent to which buildings can be utilised for public worship,
may be learnt from an actual count of the number who attended the
services in the Roman Catholic Chapels on a particular Sunday in
1855. — See Appendix.
Again, '* Eut you would not have me seated side by side with a
dirty person !" In the first place, we would remind the objector that
16
uncleanly people certainly do not form a large proportion of an average
congregation, that in a free Church it is not necessary to place
oneself in contact with such people, and that even the much-loved
pew, with its carpets, cushions, and linings, is not always free from
annoyances. But if the great principle of equality in God's House
he incontrovertible, no purely personal feelings can he allowed to
violate them. And let us observe the pure selfishness of this objection.
Not a whisper is raised against free seats in a pewed Church, not a
protest is heard against the dirt, which, from time to time, may be
found therein, not a word of sympathy is expressed for the cleanly
poor, who use these seats, and have the same shrinking from impurity
that their betters may have; but, whilst protesting against the
infliction of "the dirty worshipper" upon himself personally, the
pew-holder unhesitatingly imposes this character upon the respectable
poor in their free seats. Again, — is the modern Christian's course
through this world tobe one of unbroken luxuriance and self-indulgence ?
"We recur, from time to time, with feelings of admiration, to the perse-
cutions of the early Church, to the martyrdoms of theEeformation, nay,
even to the self-denial of missionaries of our own day, holy men and women
who have dedicated themselves to God, and is the Christian pewholder
of the 19th century to be the only person who refuses to make any
sacrifice for the good of others, even in the interests of religion, to the
refusing to forego private seats in a Church, for fear of encountering
a little annoyance ? Eut instead of losing, it might be found that he
was a gainer by the surrender of the long cherished pew. It might break
down the high partition wall between himself and the poor, arousing
his better sympathies, and urging him to active efi'orts to promote
cleanliness and other virtues in the houses and in the persons of his
humbler neighbours. *' The great want of the age is more sympathy
between classes," said the late Judge Talfourd a little before his
death ; and this sympathy, we submit, may be quickened into life by
establishing perfect equality in public worship.
The catalogue of evils chargeable to this pew system is heavy
and long. Eut I will take one case, that of The Young. I put it one
day to an eminent clergyman what became of his Sunday School
boys, the rows of whom lined the aisles of his Church at the Sunday
17
morning seryice, after they had left the Sunday School: "If
not in Chnrch, why were they not in Church?" ''Indeed, sir,"
was the reply, '' that is an awful question ! " And an awful thought
it is that Christ's little ones are thus cast out from the fold just at
the moment in life when they most need oversight and direction,
and that a barrier is then set up against them. *' Where is the flock
that was given thee — that beautiful flock ? " is a question that some^
day must be answered. It is very evident that the present system is
a failure as regards school children, who disappear from attendance
at Church simultaneously with their leaving the School.
On a recent occasion when distributing prizes at a Lancashire Sunday
School, under the auspices of the Countess of Ellesmere, the super-
intendent stated that he had put down the names of 100 scholars
who had attended his school, to try and find out what had become
of them : of 23 he could learn nothing, and of the remaining 77
how many regularly attended a place of worship ? Only 2 — 29 of
the others were confirmed drunkards, and the rest were careless and
lukewarm Christians — if Christians at all ! Are we really using our
faculties aright in this matter? Do we look on unmoved by the
spectacle that the young, upon whom we have lavished our affections,
and bestowed pains untold, and on whom good impressions have
been created, thus abandon religious ordinances? Can we behold this
declension without putting out a hand to retain them ? When leaving
the smaller fold, the Sunday School, can we not admit them into
the larger fold, their own Church, and manifest to them that the
Christian brotherhood is a reality, and that its rights and privileges
are equally accorded to the youngest as well as the oldest ?
And not only is it thus demonstrated that the pew system forbids
the attendance of the people at Church, but the working classes
themselves, when appealed to, justify their absence on this ground. i
1, At tbe conference on " the Working Classes and Public Vf orsnip," at the London Coffee House
January, 21st, 1867. Present, among others, the Dean of Westminster, Kevds. Dr. Miller,
W. W. Champneys, J. E. Kempe, K. Maguire, The Hon. A. Kinnaird, M. P., Thos. Hughes,
Esq., M. P., the foUoiying evidence was given :—
Mr. Paterson, (Cabinet-maker).—" Christianity came into the world, and they were told
that it was gladly received by the common people. The common people were very much
the same now as they were then. If the people had not changed, there must be something,
either in religion itself, or the way in which it was presented to them, that had changed, to
give rise to the present extraordinary position of affairs, in which a religion which was
18
And what a disadvantage this close and congregational system
is to the Clergy themselves ! A Clergyman of Chester the other day
puhlicly declared, that while he would desire with all his heart to be
the Minister of his parish, the system under which he sincerely
groaned, made him as it were the Minister of a section of the people.
He therefore felt, if he might state his private opinion, in an
unimportant position, where he ought to occupy one of greater
importance. The Kector of Nantwich found that when he went
among his people, they said ha mocked them in asking them to go to
a Church where they could not get a seat. And what a degrading
reflection on the high and ministerial calling, was the experience of
a Clergyman at Tunstall, who when he visited his people, and asked
them to come to Church, overheard the observation: ''0! all he
wants me to come for is that I may take a sitting ! " The pew system,
then, is not only derogatory to the Clergyman's personal character,
but is injurious also to his spiritual office.
The practical evils of the Pew System are confessedly many and
great. Eut still, say many, they are a necessity. In the absence of
an endowment, it is urged, you cannot otherwise provide for the
Clergyman's stipend than by the Pew Eents. N^ow, what is this Pew
Rent ? It is a tax, and the effect of all taxes is to limit the use of the
thing taxed. And, as the worst kind of tax is that which touches
life or its necessaries, so the imposition of a tax on religion, which
formerly received by the common people, aud neglected by the richer classes, was now
neglected by the former, and accepted by the latter. If a working man went to worship God
he had to sit by the door in a draught, or in the free seats, labelled as ' a working man,' and
he felt he was an alien and an outsider, and that he has not paid for his place. He did not
wish to deny, for a moment, that men ought to support public worship, but he did not think
it ought to be put in that way— so much Theology served over the counter for so much seat-
rent."
Mr. Wynne, (Plasterer.)— "The distinction of classes was another great bar. If a working man
was invited, he felt there was an intolerable gulf between the classes, and that it was a mere
matter of condescension to recognise him as one of God's people outside the church."
Mr. Bebington, (Bookseller's Porter. )—<' But, notwithstanding all these obstacles, there
was a large number who might go to church if they would. Why did they not? Because
whenever they attempted to go, they were made to feel more like intruders than welcome
guests. He had known working men suffer the greatest possible distress and destitution
rather than apply to the parish ; and if they would suffer that, was it to be supposed that they
would go to a church or chapel to be thus degraded! No; indeed they would not."
Mr. Salmon, (ex-Scavenger.)— "Break down the pew doors, and, his word for it, when
that system was abolished, they would have a large number of the working classes present,
and their church finance would be increased."
deals \?itli an eternal existence, and with the necessary pi eparation for
it, is so dreadful, that one does not like to contemplate it as
possible. How long is this buying and selling, and making
merchandise of ground solemnly consecrated to God and to religion,
this traffic in Christian ordinances and ministrations, to defile the
worship of God ? Can we offer a deeper insult to the great Master
of the Temple, than to say to our fellow sinner at the Temple
door, as they say to the play- goer at the theatre : " Thou shalt
not enter here, if thou hast not the fee !" Can any practice more
effectually keep buck the ignorant or the unawakened ; or the
poor, those who have no money to pay, or if they had, no inclination
to pay it ?
Eut this Pew Kent — ^like the Pew, an innovation, a corruption,
almost as gross as that of the Eomish sale of indulgences— is
demoralising to the worshipper, who naturally argues : '' You have
made your contract with me, I have accepted your terms, and paid
the price. I have purchased, and you have sold, for a given period
the right of use of so many square yards of God's House, and now
I am relieved from all further claims !" Can any thing be more
repressive to the spirit of sacrifice of self, or of substance, than a
bargain like this ? Is any thing more calculated to deaden spiritual
aspirations than a process like this ? Is this the way in which the
Church proposes to convert the world ?
And, not only do the spiritual interests of the pew-holder
suffer, but the Church herself is harmed thereby.
And in a two-fold manner.
What is the cause of this deadness of Church life and feeling—
of the impossibility of interesting people in Church affairs ? Why
the lack of earnestness and of spiritual life among pastors and
people, exhibited in empty Churches, exemplified in a recent letter
to the Times, showing that of 35 London Churches, all in one line
or direction, the united congregations of 10 Churches did not exceed
100 persons, and only 1 out of the 35 contained upwards of 100
persons. Why is dissent flourishing, stalking through the length and
breadth of the land with a consciousness of power that ere long may
extinguish the Church in England (as the light of that in Ireland is
flickering out), contemplating the Establishment as an effete bodj^,
and smiling almost in derision at her powerless efforts to recover her
lost hold of the people? "As Archdeacon Denisoi^ said: '* We have the
Churches, but the Masses, where are they ?" And why have we lost
them ? My explanation is that in Church worship, we have adopted
the congregational instead of the parochial method, the private
instead of the public, the sectional instead of the national, respectability
instead of universality. "We have preferred selfishness to consideration
for others, the display of Mammon to devotion to the Church, the
imposed tax to the cheerful offering. In a word the pew systemhas well
nigh strangled, not only the Establishment, but Religion itself.
And, secondly, we complain of financial poverty. But why
wonder there is poverty of purse, when there is such poverty of soul ?
The one is the natural result of the other. Archbishop Tait has
stated in a charge, that of the 885 Licensed Clergy in the Diocese
of London, the average professional income was not more than £140
per annum. "Now, if we examine into the circumstances of our Church
Finance, there is no cause of surprise at the miserable pay our Clergy
receive. They will not give up the Pew System, which limits
contributions to a comparatively small number of persons, who pay
a fixed rent for their pews, a sum very small often in proportion to
their means. Under this system, elasticity is discouraged, the support
rendered by the people is compressed within the narrowest limits, and
the expression of personal attachment to the minister, or of zeal for
the glory of God and souls of men, is suppressed. ITo wonder, then,
that Pew rents have proved a signal failure in providing an adequate
income for the clergymen. The few exceptions prove the rule, and,
indeed, it is surprising that educated men can be found to occupy
positions in which they are dependent upon them. The fact is, our
clergy are worse paid, not merely than all other professions, but
even than most trades, and that an educated gentleman, if a clergyman,
will very likely receive for his servics an income relatively smaller
than that of his neighbour's butler, and less than that of his own
Schoolmaster, proving incontestibly, that, under our present system,
the proper provision for the clergy is based upon principles altogether
unsound and faulty. " Madame," said Archbishop Whitgift to Queen
Elizabtth, " Eeligion is the foundation and cement of human
society, and when they that serve at God's Altar shall be exposed
to poverty, religion shall be exposed to scorn and become
contemptible."
£ut we dorCt complain of an evil without offering a remedy — a
remedy which all Scripture, reason, common sense, history, past and
present experience recommends, and has proved a success.
The Wlehly Offertory is the ancient mode of receiving contributions
into the Treasury of the Church. TTot content only with the
expression of confession, with prayer and praise, God requires a
material gift — something more than words — an actual offering to
be laid upon His Altar, as an essential part of worship, and indeed a
central act of worship. The presentation of an offering in worship
was not limited to the Jews, but passed on from the Jewish Church to
to the Christian Church.
Our duty in this respect has been lost sight of, the sense of
responsibility for wealth is deadened in the minds of men. The
clergy have not taught it. If they do urge it, it is done almost
apologetically. There is no doctrine, no practice, which needs more
urging and reviving than that of the Offertory. At present it is a
lost act of worh
Moreover, the blessedness of giving must not be left out of
consideration. This blessedness can be enjoyed by, and ought to be
permitted to the poor as well as the rich. Why should the poor be
shut out from it ? Did not our Lord declare it was more blessed to
give than receive ? He thought it no pity that the needy widow
should give away her living and her mites. Giving will not make
the poor, poorer ; on the contrary, it will enrich them.
The Revenue derivable from this source may scarcely have a
limit, and on this principle, that the Church is supported by all for
all, not by the rich for the poor, not by the poor for the i ich, but by
the people for the people. The Offertory invites all to give, and the
opportunity of giving on every Lord's Day gradually leads to a fixed
settled habit on the part of the Congregation. Every age, every grade
of society, every member of a family, every stranger, some give more,
some give less, but all are taught to cast their money into the
Treasury of God. Why cannot the Church follow the example of
the State, and see that every one should contribute something to her
exchequer ? A revenue derived from a number of small sums,
received weekly, from a large number of people, vastly exceeds the
amounts of large payments, made by a few persons at distant dates.
The aggregate amount of silver and pence obtained in this way is
marvellous, and is almost unintelligble to those who haye not made
acquaintance with the Church's great engine of Finance — The "Weekly
Offertory.
I have now availed myself of the opportunity thus kindly
afforded me of bringing before so influential an assembly a subject
most dear to ray heart, viz. : that of Freedom of Worship, I have
endeavoured, to the best of my humble powers, to show that this
Freedom of "Worship is based on religious grounds, and that it presents
a field for the cultivation of the Christian graces. I have further
endeavoured to prove that this freedom ought to exist in our
Churches from the teaching of the Prayer Book, and on historical,
economical, legal, and national grounds. I have sought to show the
injurious effects of its converse, the Pew System, particularly to the
young and to the clergy. I have endeavoured to demonstrate that
the Pew Kent is a tax on religion, is demoralising to the Pew-holder,
represses Church life and Church ardour, produces not only poverty of
soul, but poverty of purse, and must lead to the destruction of
the Church. The remedy for the Pew Eent has been shown to be
the Weekly Offertory, a system based on the soundest financial
principles, a cause of blessedness to the worshipper, and a grand
source of revenue to the Church.
I submit that at least I have made out a case that should
excite thought among those who have never thought seriously on the
subject before, and that to those who may unthinkingly
have adopted the Pew-Ren t plan, a new view may have been
23
presented, exhibiting its nnsound principles and fatal consequences.
If such should be the case, and I pray God it may be so, I shall be most
tbankful. I am addressing a body of Clergy second to none in their
influence. The cause I advocate is essential to the safety, nay existence,
of the Church. Her adoption of it may still preserve her recognition
by the nation. Do let us take the subject deeply to heart. Do
let each one of us make it his first and foremost special duty and
work to render our dear mother Church of England what she once
w&Sj and what I trust in future she will ever be — The Church of the
People, and especially the Church of the Poor.
APPENDIX.
The Attendance at the Chapels of Eoman Catholics in Liverfool,
AS Enumerated by N. Caine, Esq.
[_See Liverpool Mercury, September 26th, 1855.]
Numbers as aciually counted.
, ^ ^
Seat First Second Third Fourth lifth Sixth Tot. morn.
Boom. Service. Service. Service. Service. Service. Service, and even.
St. Nicholas 1,050 436 541 518 1,723 737 ... 3,955
St, Patrick 2,000 1,357 1,791 970 2,330 1,184 ... 7,632
St. Francis Xavier ... 1,600 455 522 1,302 510 2,789
St. Marj 2,000 1,000 1,073 846 1,035 1,345 538 5,837
St. Alban 800 805 886 188 1,879
St. Joseph 1,800 441 572 438 1,039 1,236 ... 3,726
Holy Cross 700 355 576 758 163 1,852
tt. Anthony 2,000 1,262 1,270 1,224 1,087 1,594 706 7,143
St. Peter ,.. 1,200 406 492 556 1,195 994 ... 3,643
St. Vincent de Paul... 550 386 373 484 238 1,481
St. Anne 800 377 478 426 213 1,494
St. Agustine 700 472 594 916 326 2,308
Oratory, Hope Street. 400 311 319 373 1,003
Total 15,600 8,063 9,487 8,999 9,859 7,090 1,244 44,742
Mr. Caine summarises his returns as follows : —
The Church of England has 55 places of worship, with seat-room for 62,209
persons. Now the actual attendance (adults and children), is only 24,857; so that
there is an unoccupied space in the Chui-ch of England in Liverpool, lor 37,352
persons; or, in other words, there are equal to 37 unoccupied Established Churches,
capable of holding 1,000 persons each. In fact if we take the persons (adults and
children) attending the Churches of England, morning, afternoon, and evening, the
united number attending all the services only reaches 44,792 : so that if all the
persons who go to Church, morning, afternoon, and evening, were to attend at one
time, thei-e would still be seat-room for 17,417 persons, there being then unoccupied
space equal to 17 Churches, capable of holding 1,000 each.
The Presbyterians have 9 Chapel;?, with seat-room for 8,680. The attendance in
the morning is 3,7G2, so that their Churches are not half filled, leaving unoccupied
space equal to to nearly 5 Churches, capable of holding 1,000 persons each.
The Unitarians have 4 Chapels, with seat-room for 1,9C0. The attendance in
the morning is 920, or rather less than one-half. The number attending the whole
of their services is only 1,638,
The Baptists have 11 Chapels, accommodating 7>100 persons. The attendance
is 2,404, or nearly one-third the number for which seat-room is provided. The
attendance at all the services is 5,960.
The Independents have 11 Chapels, capable of holding 8,lo0. The attendance
is 3,406, or scarcely one-half for which there is accommodation. The attendance at
the whole of the services is 7,282,
The various sects of M ethodists have 34 places of worship, with seat-room for
24,364. The attendance is only 7,870, so that there are equal to \^ empty Methodist
Chapels, capable of holding 1,000 each. At the whole of the services the attendance
only reaches 16,494.
The Roman Catholics have 13 places of worship, with seat room for 15,600.
The attendance at the morning services, which are continued for several hours to
accommodate different congregations, is 37,366; the evening service, 7,406; the total
attendance throughoxxt the day being 44,742.
THE FINANCIAL AND NUMERICAL RESULTS OF
FREE AND OPEN CHURCHES.
In reply to the inquiry frequently made for practical proof :
1. — That unappropriated Churches can be rendered self-supporting by-
means of the Weekly Offertory, and —
2. — That Churches once rented or appropriated, but now free and
unappropriated, pi'oduce as large, or a larger revenue under the new system^
when compared with the former, the Chester Diocesan Open Church
Association have collected valuable and instructive infoi^mation, which has just
been published in the form of a tract. From this are extracted a few out of
many instances, cited therein.
Benefice.
FINANCIAL EESULTS.
Under Pew Eents or
Appropriation.
From Offertory when
Free & Unappriated.
Bradfoed, St. Jude
Buxton, St. John £350
I Under Pew Rent £175 j
( „ Appropriation 215 j
.£400
KiEKLEY. Suffolk 1861..
1866... 595.
1867... 708.
1868... 820.
21 ...When free, 1st year 102.
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
97.
148.
164.
197.
239.
150.
London, St. Mary, Plaistow 90
„ St. Peter, Windmill Street ... 40 rose immediately to 200.
Nottingham, St. Mary, 600 800.
Sheffield, St. Jude 30 252.
Wrexham, Parish Church Small 250.
York, All Saints 74 273.
NUMERICAL RESULTS.
PAv>T,iofi,^r, Church Attendance
Population. j^Qojjj_ before change. After chano-e.
Bradford, St. Jude Mixed, chiefly 750 "^ Doubled, often
mill hands. ^ densely packed
J m even.
Gainsborough, Springthorpe 300 130 20 110.
J Aunow, St. Paul 20,000 600 150 400 to 500
London, /St.Pete>',Windmill-st. 5,200 760 250 350.
„ St.PhiUp,Clevkenwell 10,000 } (^^ound floor { ^^^^^ ^^'
C11 ■^r -ni • J. o CAA KAA / Moru. 100 Mom. 200.
„ St. Mary, Plaistow 2,500 500 ^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ 3^^^
T-T- j Morn. 50 Morn. 400.
^^^^^^^^ — lEven. 90 Even. 800.
Nottingham, S't. Manj 6,000 1,200 Doubled.
Sheffield, St. Jude 950 50 { ^°™' ^l^'
Wellington 8,000 1,200 Small 1,000.
Westbouene, Sussex Partial Crowded,
Communicants 700. Ditto 1866 1,200
„ 1867 1,800
„ 1868 1,800
York All Saints 1,417 492 3 or 4 times larger.
GENERAL EXPERIENCE OF
FREE & UNAPPROPRIATED CHURCHES.
(Extracted from the Tract referred to in the previous page.)
BiHKENHEAD. Ncw Ferry, St Mark. — A public meeting was
held here on November 20th, 1866, the Eector in the chair, to
consider the propriety of appropriating the seats of the Church. The
meeting was largely attended by the parishioners and the congregation ;
and, with one single dissentient, the conclusion unanimously arrived
at was, that as the free system had, since the opening of the Church
many months ago, worked so exceedingly well and so entirely to the
satisfaction of all parties, no change at all should be made. In such
Churches as this, one just excuse is taken from the people, viz., that
there is no seat for them.
Birmingham. St. Matthias. — By all means let bags be used.
The conscience of the worshipper is appealed to. He is delivered
from the temptaton to a feeling of shame if the offering is small, and
ostentation if the offering be large.
Calne, Wilts.— The system of non-appropriation is one which,
once tried, would never, I think, be abandoned.
Chesteb. The Cathedral. — The Eree Evening Services : Dense
congregations, including an immense number of the poor, now
assemble every Sunday in the nave of the Cathedral.
Liverpool. St James the Less. — The success of the offertory,
especially in poor districts, depends on frequent collections of small
sums. Our daily evensong collection adds considerably to our total.
IS'antwich. — Since this Church has been thrown open, the
attendance of the middle classes has greatly increased, while that
of the working-classes has increased tenfold at least. And I am bold
to say, that the various classes of people in this parish are begin-
ning to understand each other better, and to entertain proper
sympathy towards each other. The introduction of the weekly
offertory last year, it was feared, by some, would reduce the atten-
dance, but it has not affected it in the least.
Paddington. St. Mary Magdalene. By all means make the
people your confidants, in sums received and mode of expenditure, by
balance-sheets. Always let them know to what they are giving,
and rigidly spend the money for objects to which it was meant to be
devoted.
Plaistow. St. Mary. — The people have been educated to the
offertory by our Mission Church, so that after a time there was a
pressure upon me, rather than from me. By our children's service we
train our children to give.
Eeddiich. Headless Cross. — Place the subject of the offertory
plainly before the people. Let them understand that the offertory
is an important part of public worship. Then commence with it ;
even if not generally acceptable, it will soon become so.
Stepney. St. LuMs Mission Chapel. — As a means of educa-
tion, present the offertory. Above all, let the clergyman put into it
his own quota of liberality.
Wareington. — Our church is well filled with poor people al the
evening services. "We have had to put benches down the aisle, and
last Sunday evening more than forty people could not get seats. This
sort of thing we never saw under the old system, and I am proud
to see the people assert their rights, and seat themselves where they
like.
YoKK. The Cathedral. — The service in the nave attracts im-
mense congregations. Its charm is its perfect freedom. The seats
are open, and the vergers are conspicuous by their absence. The
dissenting tradesman may be found in great force. Most inspiring
is the spectacle of 2,000 or 3,000 people thus joining in the worship
of God.
Twist & Co., Printers, 5, Dale Street, Liverpool.
1i
;!»>
^-
^- >^'
. ^;''^y^l
