THE REVENUES
OF THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND
A.C.HEADLAM, M.A.,D.D.

Bought with the income
of the
Ann S. Farnam Fund

1

THE REVENUES^lDF THE CHURCH
OF ENGLAND

OTHER WORKS BY
The REV. A. C. HEADLAM, D.D.

HISTORY, AUTHORITY, AND
THEOLOGY. 6s. net.
THE MIRACLES OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT. 6s. net.
ST. PAUL AND CHRISTIANITY.
Ss. net.

THE REVENUES OF THE
CHURCH, OF ENGLAND
BEING TWO LECTURES DELIVERED AT THE
CHURCH OF ST. MARTIN'S -IN -THE -FIELDS
ON OCTOBER 10 AND 17, 1917

BY
THE REV. A, C. HEADLAM, D.D.
FROFBSSOR OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY, KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON

LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE , STREET, W.

CONTENTS

PAGE
INTRODUCTION - - - - - 1

I. ENDOWMENTS OF PAROCHIAL CLERGY - "9
II. MANAGEMENT OF PAROCHIAL PROPERTY - 22
III. BISHOPRICS - - - - - 27
IV. DEANS AND CHAPTERS - - - "43
V. THE TRAINING OF CLERGY - - - 48
VI. SOURCES OF REVENUE - - - "53
VII. PENSIONS - - - - - 63
VIII. CONCLUSIONS - - - - - 68
APPENDIX - - - - - 75

THE REVENUES OF THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND
It is the purpose of the two lectures I am to
deliver in this church to make some investi
gation into the financial condition of the
Church. I do not think that anyone who is
acquainted with the subject will doubt that
it is necessary. The number of livings which
do not provide a sufficient stipend for the
clergy is great, as is also the disproportion
of incomes. There are many parishes far
too large for any effective working, and there
are many others so small as not to furnish
an adequate sphere. The endowments of the
Church of England are considerable, but they
are unequally distributed, nor, I believe, are
they used at all to their full possibilities. The
work of the Church is seriously crippled, and
great and increasing discontent is caused
among clergy and laity alike. Only recently
a letter, for example, appeared in a local

2 THE REVENUES OF
paper expressing concern at the autocratic
and bureaucratic government of the English
Church. " We still have unconstitutional Bishops,
unconstitutional because they have no con
stitutionally elected assemblies of clergy and
laity taking their proper share in Church
work. . . . Unless Church administration is
decentralized, local self-government granted,
and a bold attempt taken soon to consolidate
our finances, not so much the voluntary
assessments as such bodies as the Ecclesiastical
Commission and Queen Anne's Bounty, tithes
and endowments generally, there will be
serious revolt. We are tired of ecclesiastical
officials who do nothing and say smooth
things." That letter is only taken at haphazard,
and is not selected for the excellence of its
style; but it represents what is being said
more or less strongly among many who are
concerned with the condition of the Church
of England. A preliminary necessary to any
such action is a survey of the whole field of
finance of the Church of England. It is that
that I now propose to undertake.
There are, however, certain antecedent
questions which I should like to consider.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 3
The first is, the limitations of finance. It
may be objected to this inquiry that the
spiritual efficiency of the Church is not really
dependent upon finance. It is the Spirit
that quickens. If the Church be in a proper
condition spiritually, then financial support
will follow. No financial efficiency will make
up for any spiritual defect. That is, I think,
broadly stated, perfectly true; and there is
a danger in the present time of undue atten
tion being given to material efficiency, and
of overrating the importance of an inquiry
such as the present. But all the same it
must be recognized that the Church no more
than any other society, religion no more than
any ether aspect of human activity, is exempt
from the necessity of adapting itself to the
conditions of the world, and of using as
instruments the necessary conditions of
human life. Not only is the labourer worthy
of his hire, but, undoubtedly, unless a man
is adequately trained- for his calling, is freed
in some way or other from anxiety as to his
material needs, and is able to live in the
manner suitable to his position, he will not
be able to do his work properly.
There is a second objection. A certain
number of people are prepared, even anxious.

4 ' THE REVENUES OF
for disendowment. They think that, if they
are prepared to accept that, they will get a
freedom which the Church does not possess,
and that its spiritual efficiency would be
promoted by making the support of the
clergy directly dependent on the voluntary
offerings of the faithful. I am quite con
vinced that this is a wrong point of view.
I believe that the freedom which is sought
would be found to be largely illusory. The
disestablished Churches of our Colonies have
j certainly no greater freedom in any real
^ense than has the Church of England. Still
less are they freed from the burden of finance.
There may be certain advantages incidental
to their position. But it is forgotten what
the Church of England aims at. It is not so
very difficult for any religious society to
provide adequately for those who are con
firmed adherents to it. But the experience
of the religious bodies of America, for example,
of the Nonconformists in this country, and
of the Church of England in the Colonies, is
undoubtedly that to provide complete and
adequate ministrations for everyone in the
country is not possible without endowments.
What does the Church of England aim at ?
Let us put aside all our little enthusiasms and

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 5
fanaticisms, which represent something ad
ventitious to its main purpose. Its aim is,
so far as possible, to teach everyone in this
country to live in the fear of God. It might
no doubt do it better than it does, but every
parish priest knows that his ministrations are
as much occupied with those who are not
regular adherents of the Church as with those
who are, and that the influence of the Church
of England extends far beyond the circle of
regular church-goers. It is just this wide
range of its duties and activities that makes
it impossible for it to do its work properly
if it be supported merely by the voluntary
contributions of those who regularly attend
its ministrations. My own experience as a
parish priest made me feel that Noncon
formity in our villages largely depends for
its existence and for the care of its people on
the clergy of the Church of England. It is
this wide national function that some people
are allowing themselves to lose sight of, which
both justifies and demands endowments and
represents the value of a National Church.
There is a third and inconsistent objection
sometimes urged to such an investigation
as the present. It is that any such in
quiry as this will draw too much public

6 THE REVENUES OF
attention to our endowments, will lead to
Parliamentary action, and will therefore run
a risk of causing excessive interference with
them. It is therefore better to keep quiet
and let things go on as they are. I cannot
conceive a more fatal or disastrous policy.
Nothing could better justify the attacks
sometimes made upon the Church of England
than such an argument. The Church must
recognize that it ought not to be entrusted
with the endowments that it possesses unless
it is prepared to use them in the best possible
manner. It must allow no timidity in its
administration; it must boldly claim the
right to have help for the work that it does,
and recognize the need of efficiency in this as
in every other department of our national
life. There have been, and there are, some
inquiries going on under this head. Amongst
the committees appointed in connection with
the National Mission was one which had to
consider the hindrances to the work of the
Church which arise from the distribution of
its endowments or other causes. That cer
tainly seems to me an unfortunate method
of approaching the subj ect. All such negative
inquiries draw attention to isolated points.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 7
What is required is a wide and thorough
survey of the whole field of Church finance,
the work that it has to do, the resources that
it possesses, and the best means of employing
those resources. It is that that I propose
to attempt in these lectures. It is impossible,
of course, within the time at my disposal to
do anything but examine it in a cursory way,
and I do not claim any infallibility for my
conclusions; but I should be glad if I were
able to stir up the Church to approach the
whole subject in a wider and more compre
hensive manner than it has done hitherto.
The principal needs of the Church of
England are included under the following
heads: I. The support and training of the clergy.
This includes the provision of parsonage
houses and a Pension Fund.
2. The building of churches, chapels,
mission-rooms, and parish halls.
3. Religious education.
4. Missionary work.
5. Philanthropic work of very varied kinds.
It is mainly with the first heading that
we are concerned, as it is to the support of
the living agents that the endowments of the

8 THE REVENUES OF
Church are and should be applied. If this is
properly provided, then the remainder of the
work of the Church can be done, and better
done, as it has been, by voluntary sub
scriptions. The method that I propose to pursue is to
examine the provision made for the support
of the parochial clergy, of the Bishops, and
of Deans and Chapters, and for the training
of the clergy; to consider what reforms are
required, what further needs there may be;
and then to turn to the general revenues of
the Church and consider what funds there
are available for providing more adequate
remuneration for the clergy and for extending
the work of the Church.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

I.— ENDOWMENTS OF PAROCHIAL
CLERGY
I BEGIN, then, with a survey of the resources
and needs of the parish clergy. Let us ask,
in the first place, what we desire. The
parish clergyman ought to be an educated
man of character and capacity. He is ex
pected and should be able to occupy a certain
position of influence in his parish. He should
normally be a married man with children,
and he should be able to bring up those
children so as to be useful and educated
members of the community. It is recognized
how great a debt the nation has owed to the
children of the parsonage, for they have been
brought up, for the most part, with traditions
of culture and refinement, without the dis
quieting accompaniment of wealth. The
parish clergyman does not require a large
income, but, on the other hand, poverty will
certainly hamper him in his work. He must
be given an adequate sphere for his ministra-

10- THE REVENUES OF
tions, or he will not be able to do his best.
He must not, on the other hand, be respon
sible for an excessive area or an excessive
population. He is expected to be acquainted
with and to minister to the whole of the
population, Nonconformistst-j^-s well as Church
people. The presence of Nonconformist
chapels in many parts of the country does
not reduce appreciably the work of the
clergy. To meet these requirements the following
conditions are, I think, necessary. First of
all, no living ought to be less -than £300 per
annum. Secondly, every living should have
an adequate parsonage. Thirdly, no parish,
unless its area is very large, ought to have a
population of less than 500; and, except in
districts where population is very much
scattered, the number of people in the parish
should not be under 1,000. Fourthly, except
in special circumstances and in specially
organized parishes, a population much over
10,000 is excessive.
Now, what are the facts ? I have managed
to work out some statistics for thirty-four
dioceses of England; in relation to the one
remaining I was unable to obtain the neces
sary data. The total population of these

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND ii
dioceses comes to 33,226,189, the number of
livings is 12,990, and the total net income of
these is £3,714,928. This means that the
average net value of the livings is £285, the
average population is 2,557, and the support
of the clergy works out at 2S. 3d. per head of the
population. I think that it is interesting and
instructive to note that the total value of
the endowments which support the parochial
clergy averages less than half a crown a year
for each person.
Now we come to some rather serious figures.
There are 3,275 livings with an income of
less than £200 a year, and it would cost
£182,518 to raise them to £200. There are
5,860 with an income less than £250, and it
would take £420,016 to raise them to £250;
and there are 8,029 under £300, and it would
take £781,658 to raise them to £300. That
is, we have fixed £300 as our minimum, and
we find that to attain that we have to obtain
an additional income of £781,658. That, you
will recognize, is a very formidable under
taking. But now we have certain other facts which
will reduce the seriousness of our enterprise.
There are 1,877 parishes with a population
of less than 200, and we may recognize at

12 THE REVENUES OF
once that by far the greater number of these,
if not all, should cease to exist as separate
parishes. A population of 200 cannot give
employment to a clergyman.
Then, further, there are altogether 4,802
parishes with populations of less than 500.
In some districts where the villages are
remote and the parishes large, it will be
necessary that these should remain separate;
but in many cases it will be quite possible to
combine them with one another or to group
them round some centre.
I think a study of these figures will make
it clear that any general attempt to improve
the incomes of the clergy must begin by a
somewhat drastic but well-considered scheme
for amalgamation^
One or two instances in detail will show
what is possible to be done. The following
is a letter which appeared in the Yorkshire
Post of January 30, 1917, from a well-known
clergyman, the Rev. H. D. A. Major:
" Is there a further way ?" he writes (of
dealing with clerical poverty). " Yes, cer
tainly — several. I deal with one here. Com
bine many of the smaller parishes both in
country and town, pool their incomes, and

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 13
then provide an adequate income and pension
for the incumbents of the new parishes.
" I give an example from my locality.
The figures are taken from the Ripon Diocesan
Calendar of 1913, before the present inflation
of tithe. The six parishes named form a
compact group.

Population.

Value in £

Copgrove

.. 68

123

Burton Leonard

.. 388

264

Brearton

.. 186

200

Roecliffe

.. 217

96

Staveley

.. 251

307

South Stainley

. . 190

206

Total

. . i,.300

1,196

"If these six parishes were divided into
three, we should get an average income of
£398 13s. 4d., and an average population of
433. It is perfectly clear, to those who know
the locality, that three active, earnest, capable
clergymen could manage the work, and that
the endowments would provide them with
adequate incomes and pensions. Such a
scheme of redivision and redistribution, and
as the area is enlarged the difficulties are
reduced, is the only real remedy."
Or take other instances known to myself.
In the immediate neighbourhood of my own

14 THE REVENUES OF
residence in the country are the following
two parishes: Brignall, with a population of
133 and a net income of £250; Rokeby, with
a population of 179 and a net income of £97.
The churches of the two parishes are within
half a mile of one another. It is obvious
that a combination of these two parishes
would give aja incOine of over £300 a year,
and~ it cannot be claimed that a population
of 312 is excessive. The second instance is
given by the next two parishes, Wycliffe,
with a ^population of 250 and an income of
£309; Hutton, with a population of 196 and
a gross income of £148. Here again we get
a case where a combination of the two livings
would give fairly adequate work for one
man, and a proportionate income.
It must be remembered that many of the
parishes with small incomes, especially those
in towns, have large populations, and it is
difficult to know how large a sum will be
required in addition to what is gained by
amalgamation. We may begin by assuming
that the 1,877 livings with a population under
200^ should cease to exist. There may indeed
be a certain number of places where they
are too remote and this is not possible, but
they will not be numerous. We will reduce

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 15
the number, however, to 1,500. Now, each
of these would, if combined with another
small living, theoretically reduce the amount
we require by £300. The parish would not
need increasing by the amount of its defici
ency, and it would increase the value of
another living by the actual amount of its
income; the total of these sums must come
to £300. So that the amount we require
would be- reduced by £450,000. Unfortu
nately, we cannot work out our problem
quite so symmetrically, for in many cases the
parish will be combined with one the income
of which was over £300,' or it might increase
another to an amount over that limit. We
..will put the amount that we gain at £300,000,
and it will leave us with £475,000 still re
quired. But we have 3,925 livings with a
population of under 500, and probably many
of these also might be amalgamated. In
each case we theoretically reduce the amount
that we require by £300. If there were only
1,000 of these, and the actual gain in each case
was £200, we should then have reduced the
amount necessary to raise all livings to £300
to about £175,000. I am inclined to think
that an income of from £150,000 to £200,000
is what we should require.

i6 THE REVENUES OF
It must be noted, also, that in many cases
we shall have raised the combined livings to
£400, and I am inclined to think that by a
judicious but systematic amalgamation of
livings in most rural districts the greater
number of their parishes might be raised to
that sum, and that it would be in moorland
and mountainous districts, and those thickly
populated, that actual augmentation would
be required.
Now, I am well aware that there are diffi
culties, and serious difficulties, to be faced in
attempting anything of this sort. There is,
first of all, the danger of arousing local
feeling. I can illustrate that from the case
of the two livings, Brignall and Rokeby, just
mentioned. An attempt was made a short
time ago to unite these. The result was
violent opposition, a continued correspon
dence in the local Press, and a demand from
some people that they should not be deprived
of the spiritual advantages which they had
enjoyed for so long a time. This agitation,
however, when inquired into, was not so
serious as it might appear. The leader of the
opposition was a man who had not attended
services in church for many years, and who
only appeared to value the neglected minis-

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 17
trations when they were going to be taken
from him. There is no doubt that such
opposition would be met with in many places.
I do not believe it would be at all a deep-
seated one; and if it were recognized that
what was being done in any particular parish
was being done throughout the whole of the
country, it would soon cease. Of course, the
conditions of amalgamation will insure that
suitable services are held in both churches.
A second difficulty is that of patronage.
It is recognized by law and custom in this
country that patronage is a property as well
as a duty, and it would be very unwise if the
Church were to approach this question with
out recognizing this fact. What the Church
has to do is, not to join itself with those who
are always prepared to deal unjustly with
individual property, but to emphasize the
fact that property means duties as well as
privileges. And here, againr if a national and well-
considered measure were being carried out,
the difficulty would be very much less.
There is, of course, a considerable amount of
patronage in the hands of the Bishops and
other officials and of public bodies. Here it
would not be necessary for any compensation

i8 THE REVENUES OF
to be given. In many cases the result of a
redistribution such as is proposed would be
to add considerably to the value of one living
in the hands of a private individual if he
were deprived of the patronage of another.
It would be possible in some cases, when two
livings were combined, to give the patronage
alternately to different persons ; and if a great
measure of financial reconstruction was being
undertaken in the Church of England, an
appeal might be made to many patrons to
give up their patronage where necessary as a
^ift to the Church. After all this was done,
there would be certain cases in which legal
compensation would have to be paid; but,
as I hope to show later, if a national measure
were undertaken there would be funds avail
able for the purpose. Of course, the diffi
culty might be met by attempting at the
same time a measure for the reform of
patronage; but I very much doubt whether
that would be wise at the present time.
The third difficulty is the expense. I quote
a note from the quarterly paper of the ChUrch
Reform League. The Archdeacon of Win
chester recently stated the case of two
parishes almost knocking their heads together.
Everyone, incumbents and parishioners,

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 19
desired amalgamation, which, however, he
had been told, would require the sanction of
Parliament, and the approach to Parliament
alone would cost £400.. That again shows
how necessary it is to undertake this, not in .
isolated cases, but in one universal measure.
The passing and administration of a public
Act for the whole Church would, of course,
cost far less money than to deal with each
case in isolation.
What, therefore, I believe to be the first
measure of reform in Church finance would
be an Act of Parliament appointing a Com
mission, or entrusting to some existing autho
rity the duty of making a careful survey of
the whole country, diocese by diocese, in
co-operation with the local authorities, and
of devising a scheme showing what were the
parishes which should be united, where
readjustment of the boundary would be
desirable, and, on the other hand, what
parishes should be divided, with full powers
of carrying it out.
There are different methods of amalgama
tion suitable in different circvimstances. In
some cases it would be best that two adjacent
parishes should be combined, one clergyman
serving the two churches. A second case

20 THE REVENUES OF
would be one where three parishes were com
bined and part of the endowment was set
apart for a curate. The parson and the
curate would then administer the thr^e
parishes. The great advantage of this is
that, probably, most people work better if
they have a colleague with whom they share
their responsibility, and are not entirely
isolated. Moreover, it gives a certain amount
of variety to country administration. The
third case would be where a number of small
parishes were grouped round a larger centre,
and worked by a parson with the assistance
of two or three curates.
It is impossible to say what would be the
result of such an inquiry. The conditions of
different parts of the country vary consider
ably. In some dioceses, such as Durham or
Wakefield, there are only, perhaps, three or
four livings which should be amalgamated; in
others, such particularly as some of the eastern
counties, a great deal might have to be done.
In some districts the parishes are large, and
a large amount of division would be necessary,
and for those, of course, extra funds would
be required. What I wish to emphasize at
this moment is that some such scheme of
adapting the Church to the present distribu-

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 21
tion of population must be an essential
beginning of every scheme of financial reform.
If it is not done, the attempt to raise the
value of small livings is just like filling up a
Slough of Despond.
I will give now a few statistics as to the
large parishes. There are in these thirty-
four dioceses which we have been studying
687 livings with a population of over 10,000,
of which 197 are over 15,000, and 56 over
20,000. We clearly want here a good many
new livings. All those above 20,000, or
almost all — for there are some worked with
a large central church and many mission-
rooms — will need division (some of them into
three parishes), most of those over 15,000,
and a considerable number of those over
10,000. I think that we probably want from
300 to 500 new parishes.
To sum up the result of our investigations
so far. In order to deal properly with the
question of clerical poverty, and to fit the
Church to the conditions of the present day,
we shall require a sum of from £150,000 to
£200,000 a year for the augmentation of
small livings, and a sum sufficient to endow
from 300 to 500 new parishes.*
* On the statistics quoted in this section, see the
Appendix.

22 THE REVENUES OF

II.— MANAGEMENT OF PAROCHIAL
PROPERTY
It will be convenient at this point to touch
upon a subject closely connected with it.
There is not, I believe, at the present time
adequate or efficient control over the Church
property in the country. It is still treated
too much as if it were the private property of
the parson and the patron, and not property
held for a public purpose. In some cases it
is neglected and mismanaged. There are
instances, which probably many of us are
acquainted with, where it has been allowed
to go to waste, where whole fields have been
lost. Sometimes glebe land is sold unwisely.
In some places it might be developed advan
tageously for building land if capital were
available. It seems to me that one of the financial
reforms of the Church which is needed is a
method of effective control and management
of the Church property within the diocese.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 23
I would suggest that what is required is the
creation of a Diocesan Council or Finance
Commission with statutory powers, in which
should be concentrated the business work of
the diocese. I do not propose at the present
moment to go into the constitution of such
a council. The Bishop would, of course, be
ex-officio chairman; but he would have the
assistance of one or more vice-chairmen, who
would be selected from the leading laity of
the Church. If the Bishop were interested
in business, he would occupy his position as
chairman, but it ought to be possible for him
to delegate such work, in which case one of
the vice-chairmen would be acting chairman.
In any case, the council would free the Bishop
from much financial matter, and leave him
more time for his spiritual work. On the other
hand, as his signature would in all cases be
necessary for all official deeds, he would be
able to keep sufficient control over everything
that was done.
It would be the business of this council to
organize a Diocesan Office, and it would
appoint in this connection a Surveyor, to
whom would be entrusted the management of
the Church property in the diocese. His
relation to the parochial property would be
3

24 THE REVENUES OF
that he would act as agent for the parson.
I do not propose or desire to interfere with
the parson's freehold more than can be
avoided, but he would be obliged to employ
the Diocesan Officer as his agent, and the
Diocesan Finance Board would control and
superintend, its management. This Diocesan
Agent would collect all the endowment of the
parish^-that is, the whole income apart from
Easter offerings, pew-rents, or voluntary
gifts; he would, like any other agent, pay all
necessary outgoings, rates, taxes, quit-rents,
insurance, etc. He would make any pay
ments which had to be made to the Pension
Fund or the Diocesan Fund. He would pay
the balance over to the incumbent, and it
would be possible, with a little management,
to insure that a fixed payment should be
made each quarter. The accounts of each
parish would be published every year in an
annual report or in the Diocesan Calendars.
I do not propose now to discuss the work
of such a council in detail, but I would point
out that it would supply the best method of
dealing with many of the problems which
surround our parochial system.
I. There is first the inequality of livings.
I am not personally in favour of a too drastic

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 25
policy of equalization. I should rather deal
with it by making every living pay a gradu
ated tax to a central Diocesan Fund. At
present many an incumbent has to pay 5 per
cent, for the collection of his income, and
from time to time considerable fees to the
Diocesan Surveyor. I should propose that
there should be a general assessment towards
a Diocesan Fund of 3 per cent, for livings up
to £300 a year in value, and then increasing
to 10 per cent, for livings of £1,000. Those
larger than that would be dealt with under
special schemes. The Diocesan Fund would
pay all expenses of management, and the
balance would be used (with moneys from
other sources) for the Church work of the
diocese. 2. This council would provide the organiza
tion necessary for dealing with the vexed
question of dilapidations.
3. It would insure a proper and adequate
inventory and terrier being kept of all Church
property of whatever sort in the parishes.
4. It would hold in trust all investments
belonging to the different parishes, and all
trust funds so held by the Ecclesiastical Com
missioners and Queen Anne's Bounty would
be transferred to it.

26 THE REVENUES OF
5. It would exercise within the limits of the
diocese those powers at present, held by the
Ecclesiastical Commissionersand QueenAnne's
Bounty for the sale and purchase of Church
property, for the division and amalgamation
of livings and the alteration of boundaries.
Its importance would be great at the present
time, as it is probable that there will be a
considerably increased desire to sell glebe
land and to redeem tithe.
The scheme would be one, therefore, of
efficient management, of public control, of
decentralization, and of placing the super
vision of the Church property in each diocese
in the hands of the clergy and laity of the
diocese directly interested in it.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 27

III.— BISHOPRICS
The provision of bishoprics presents twa
problems: first, the number that are required;
secondly, the income that a Bishop should
have, with, as a subordinate question, the
character of episcopal residences. ~
I have no doubt that we require a con
siderable number more bishoprics in the
Church of England. The reasons of this are,
broadly speaking, as follows:
First, it is desirable, so far as possible, to
follow the ancient custom of the Catholic
Church, by which the ecclesiastical divisions
corresponded to the secular divisions. The
whole organization of the country has been
built up on the county and the county borough
as a unit, and in most cases it is desirable that
each county should have its Bishop — there
are some few exceptions — and that the larger
cities or borough should each have a Bishop
of its own.
The second reason is that, for the efficient

28 THE REVENUES OF
representation of the clergy and laity in a
Synod, a diocese of excessive size is unfor
tunate. It is, of course, impossible that, in
the Diocese of London, for example, there
could be any Synod which adequately repre
sented the clergy; for the Synod should
certainly contain every priest working in the
diocese, and an equal number of laity. That
would be quite possible at the present time
in some of the smaller dioceses, and it ought
to be the aim that we put before us in con
sidering the organization of the Church.
A third reason is that it is obvious to
everyone that the amount of work at the
present day thrown upon the Bishops is
excessive, and has seriously diminished their
spiritual efficiency. May I take one example
which is well known, and which I think I
may speak of publicly ? There is no one
whose services to the Church have been
greater than those of Dr. Robertson, until
recently Bishop of Exeter. His character
and capacity made him carry more weight
than almost any other Bishop in the councils
of the Church. He gave himself up un
grudgingly to his work. He was hampered
by one of the most difficult dioceses in the
country. It combined a large rural area

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 29
with the naval towns of Plymouth and Devon-
port, and there he found great want of
episcopal supervision and very inadequate
provision for the spiritual wants of the com
munity. He had to carry on the administra
tion of this wide area, and at the same time
organize a fund for dividing the parishes of
the large towns. And the result was that
long before his time his health broke down,
and the Church was deprived of his services.
It is obvious that Plymouth and the adjacent
districts should be made an independent
diocese, and the Diocese of Exeter relieved of
that very heavy work.
But we may speak much more gener^ly.
At the present time the Bishops of most
dioceses are overwhelmed with diocesan work.
And that ought not to be the case. A Bishop
should be a leader of the Church. In order
to fulfil his functions properly, he needs
much time for reading and thought. He has
to help the clergy in all the difficult problems
of the day. He is a public man, expected
both locally and in the councils of the nation
to take part in the general direction of the
affairs of the country, and we desire that he
should fulfil these functions. At present
it is impossible for him to do all this

30 THE REVENUES OF
work adequately. Probably the tendency of
the times has led to an excessive development
of smaller diocesan work, and there has
grown up a certain fussiness in these matters.
Many of the Bishops seem to try to com
bine with the functions of the commander of
a division the work of a private soldier.
What we require is that a Bishop's diocese
should be of such a size that he can give up
one-third of his working time to the affairs
of the diocese, a second third to the affairs
of the whole Church and Nation, and the
remainder to reading and study. If he were
able to do that, his work would be far more
effective. I cannot go into details, but I believe that
a careful survey of England, apart from
Wales, would show that about twenty new
bishoprics should be founded.
And now we come to the still more vexed
question of emoluments. What ought to be
the emolument of a Bishop ? And what
ought to be the character and position of
his residence ? There is a great movement
in the Church at the present time against
what has been called " the fatal opulence
of Bishops," demanding that a Bishop
should no longer live in a palace, but in a

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 31
much smaller house. I believe that the
whole of this movement is, broadly speaking,
ill-considered and wrong. The emoluments
of a Bishop are looked on from an entirely
erroneous point of view, and it is not realized
that a Bishop does not receive more than is
necessary to enable him to do his work
properly, and that for the most part he
receives it in the best way.
Let me take one or two general considera
tions. It is said that the large endowment
of Bishops is un-Apostolic — that the Apostles
were poor men, and that the Bishops ought
to be poor men. Now, I can quite conceive
a conception of the Church in which real
poverty was made the basis of its organiza
tion. I do not think it would be successful,
but it is a consistent position. Let every
Bishop and clergyman in the Church be
dependent on the good-will and the alms of
the faithful; let him live in simplicity and
poverty, and attempt to do his work in that
way. I doubt whether that was ever the
position of the clergy, except at quite an
early time. Very soon they began to have
incomes adequate to the work that they had
to do. It is obvious, also, that a Bishop
could not do his work at the present time

32 THE REVENUES OF
unless he was in a position very different to
that. But more than that : our reformers are not
aii;ning at poverty; they are aiming at some
thing which, if we compare the income with
that of the Apostolic time, is un-Apostohc.
It is said that a Bishop ought to have £i,ooo
a year: that is enough. But £i,ooo a year
is not Apostolic at all. It would only mean
that a Bishop would still be, with reference
to the great majority of the people, a rich
man, but a rich man who had not enough to
do any of the work that was imposed upon
him. It is urged, again, that the emoluments of
the Archbishops and Bishops are undemo
cratic. Now, if democracy means that the
State will try to secure that everyone has
a fair chance in life, I am heartily with its
aims. We hope that, with the experience
the war has given us, we may be able to
insure in the future that every man who will
work properly will get adequate wages, and
that for every boy of ability there will be a
possibility of attaining any position in the
State for which he is fitted. We are very
democratic already. We have a Chief of the
General Staff who is a man of the people;

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 33
we have a Prime Minister who would be
proud to describe himself as a man of the
people; and we wish the Church to be so
organized as to make it possible for us to
have an Archbishop of Canterbury who could
make the same boast. But it is quite another
thing to say that democracy must mean
equality. It never can do so if we care for
the well-being of the State. It must be
recognized that ability, capacity, intellectual
effort, industry, will bring a min adequate
and substantial rewards, otherwise there will
not be the necessary incentive to work. If
democracy means opportunities for all, well
and good; if democracy means any fancied
scheme of equality, it will destroy the well-
being of the nation.
So in the Church. We hope that every
position, from that of Archbishop of Canter
bury downwards, will be open to any person
of ability, whatever his origin. We should
like to see the ranks of the clergy recruited
from all that is best, spiritual and intellectual,
in every class of the nation. We want no
class distinctions. But we want to make the
position of a Bishop or an Archbishop worthy
of the Church and adequate for the work
which he has to do.

34 THE REVENUES OF
No doubt it is true that at the present
time the income of the Archbishop of Canter
bury is one of the favourite texts of the
Secularist lecturer. The Secularist would
object just as much if he had £i,ooo a year
as if he had £10,000. And does anyone
seriously believe that any considerable body
of people are set against the Church of
England by questions of this sort ? I believe
that this attack on the incomes of the higher
ranks of the clergy does not come from the
laity, but is mainly the — no doubt well
meant, but ill-considered — criticism of some
of the clergy.
I noticed the other day a remark of Mr.
Mansbridge at the annual meeting of the
Church Reform League which seemed to me
profoundly true. He said: "There is no
feeling of bitterness amongst working people
against riches, but there is a feeling of bitter
ness against poverty; and they feel for the
clergyman — though there is no class so
successful at concealing poverty as the clergy
— because they know that a living of £70
or £60 a year means in practice nothing a
year. It fills them with just as much disgust
as the condition of the underpaid labourer."
That, I believe, touches the right point. It

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 35
is not the large incomes of the Bishops, but
the small incomes of the clergy, that need
reform. Our would-be reformers have, in
fact, touched on just the wrong point. *One
of the merits of the Church of England is
that it pays its Bishops properly, and the
result is that it gets ample return for its
money. The reform that we have to make
is not the reduction of the income of the
Bishops, but an increase of that of the clergy.
The question, then, is this: that the income
of a Bishop must be dependent, not on any
of these really irrelevant matters, but that it
should be such as will enable him adequately
to perform his work. He must have the
proper personal emolument of a man of his
position. A clerk to a County Council will
often get £2,000 a year, and his work requires
far less real ability than that of a Bishop.
A Bishop is generally an elderly man, who is
called upon at an advanced age to accept an
office which involves great strain. He has
to travel much, and he ought to be able to
do that as comfortably and as easily as
possible. He has to keep up a considerable
staff, and it is far better that that should be
a personal staff rather than that the Church
should build up too much of a bureaucracy.

36 THE REVENUES OF
He is expected to be a man of hospitality —
that is one of the Scriptiiral requirements of
the episcopal office — and I am quite certain
that by a wise hospitality extended to all
classes and sections of society in his diocese
a Bishop will do much good. Now, when
all that is considered, I venture to think that
it will not be found that the emoluments of
many Bishops at the present time are in any
way excessive.
But now another question has arisen. An
attack is made upon the episcopal residences.
A Bishop ought not to reside in a palace, it
is said. Now, I venture to think that here
again the point of view is entirely wrong.
We do not give a Bishop a palace to live in
for his own personal advantage; we give
it him and call it a palace as representa
tive of a society. The very fact that you
call his house a palace is a sign that he
holds it as an official residence attached to
his office, and not to his person; and I think
it is a great mistake that in the newer dioceses
the word " palace " has been dropped. It is
historically associated with the residence of
a Bishop, and it makes it clear that the
residence is an official one and not a private
one. If he is to fulfil his duties of hospitality,

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 37
he must have a suitable house. In the case
of several of the bishoprics, the size of the
episcopal dwelling and the cost of keeping it
up depend upon the fact that the residence
is one which has been connected with the see
for a very long time — in some cases for a
jthousand years. It contains the memorials
•and the work of Bishops from generation to
generation. The Bishops' houses are some
of the most interesting in the country, and I
believe that it is just these episcopal palaces,
against which most of the criticism is offered,
that are the most valuable to a thinking
person as an asset in the Church's life. Our
spiritual and intellectual life does not depend
on purely material considerations, and the
few hundreds or thousands extra which are
demanded by preserving, for their present
uses, Lambeth, or Fulham, or Farnham,
or Bishop Auckland, or Bishopthorpe, or the
other great episcopal residences, are well
spent. It would not be at all the same thing
if they were turned into institutions. Insti
tutions are hateful things. There is no
personal feeling surrounding them. We do
not want them as houses for retreats. A
Bishop will do far more good by a sober and
dignified and generous hospitality than all

38 THE REVENUES OF
the retreats in the world. He will be foUow
ing much more the methods of our Lord and
being brought into closer contact with the
ordinary life of the people.
We respect, no doubt, the motive which
has led the Bishop of London to put into the
hands of laymen the question whether he is
to continue to reside in London House and
Fulham Palace. Of course, during a period
of stress like that of the present war, we all
desire to live as quietly- as possible, and
hospitality ' on any large scale must cease.
But these conditions will come to an end.
Let us say quite frankly to the Bishop :
" We respect your motives. But give up this
fear of the amenities of life which are en
trusted to you. London House and Fulham
are assets of the Church of England. You
can use them, and do use them, in a way
which gives something of the advantages of
life to a very large number of persons. Do
not be frightened of your position. Do not
fear ill-considered criticism. Live the criti
cism down, and use your income and your
houses for the good of the diocese as a whole."
It may be noted with interest that, when
the question was raised by the Bishop of
Worcester of giving up Hartlebury Castle,

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 39
the proposal was unanimously rejected by
clergy and laity alike.
Just one more point. There is a great
desire expressed by many persons that
Bishops should in aU cases live in their
cathedral cities. That is probably most
desirable in the case of those dioceses where
the bishopric is concentrated in a single big
city, because in that way the Bishop will be
brought into close contact with a great part
of his diocese. But it is not the case in
those dioceses where there is a small cathedral
town and a large diocese. There, except for
some few administrative advantages, it is
probably better that the Bishop should be
away from the cathedral. He wants to be
in contact with the diocese as a whole rather
than with the somewhat over-ecclesiastical
atmosphere of the cathedral city.
It would, of course, be desirable, as part
of a financial reform, that the emoluments of
each archbishopric and bishopric should be
considered in face of the requirements of their
position, and that the question of an episcopal
residence in relation to historical tradition
and present-day usefulness should be care
fully reconsidered as part of a general scheme.
But I do not believe, if the survey were made
4

40 THE REVENUES OF
in a wise manner, that it would be found that
>any great saving to the Church would be
gained by reducing the emoluments of
Bishops; if anything, they should be increased.
It has been decided that, in the case of
new dioceses, a beginning may be made with
an income of £2,500. That may possibly be
looked upon as adequate if it is not intended
that it should be a final sum. And if, as has
been proposed, there should be twenty new
bishoprics in the Church of England, we shall
need therefor a sum of £50,000 a year for
their endowment.
There is just one more point to notjce in
this connection. In old days Bishops, or the
majority of them, had their London houses.
They took their position as members of the
governing class of the country, and, some
times publicly, more often privately, influx
enced political affairs largely. Now the
ordinary Bishop confines his interests almost
entirely to diocesan matters. He rushes up
to London for Bishops' meetings, or for
Convocation, or for an occasional meeting,
and rushes down again. He neither takes
nor desires to take any part in the general
formation of public opinion in the capital of
the country. We believe that, whatever

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 41
criticism may have to be directed against the
older scheme, this is a serious mistake. The
government of this country largely takes
place through the influence on public opinion
of a governing class, some of whom are, and
some of whom are not, in Parliament. It
would be much better if it were recognized
that each Bishop should spend some time —
say two months — each year in London, not
merely attending meetings where he sees only
other Bishops, but mixing, so far as oppor
tunity occurs — and everyone, almost, has^
circles in which he would be at home — with
men of varied occupations and interests. He
would learn much; he might influence much.
It would make, too, the government of the
Church much easier. Instead of everything
being conducted in short periods, with a
heavy pressure of work, the sittings of Con
vocation and of the representative councils
might extend over a longer period, and more
tifflrbe given to committees. The diocesan
government of the Church would be benefited
by this. It is not so much by the multiplica
tion of diocesan activity as by better mental
equipment, a wiser policy, and better direc
tion, that -the Church could do more good;
and the Bishop who came back to his diocese

42 THE REVENUES OF
with his mind expanded_^by contact with
men of many other interests, and by having
been compelled to turn his attention to the
big problems of Church and State, would be
a far more useful person in his owfJ district.
There he is in contact, or should be, with all
classes of society; he represents them in
central councils, and brings back td them
what he has learnt.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 43

IV.— DEANS AND CHAPTERS
We come now to Deans and Chapters.
There is a movement at present for doing
away with Deans, and making the Bishops
Deans of their cathedrals. The object is to
get a little more money for making new
bishoprics. I am bound to say that this
seems to me an ill-considered policy. Our
cathedrals are — and might be still more than
they are — great centres of religious life.
They are an heritage from the past, of greater
value than many people recognize, and they
demand an adequate and suitable body to
serve them. Above all, there should be
someone It the head who is responsible for
the services and life of the cathedral, who
may not have very heavy work, but is always
present. That is exactly what a Bishop
Cannot be. A Bishop already has far too
much to do. He does very little in the way
of keeping still. He is all about his diocese.
He talks a great deal; he gives many people

44 THE REVENUES OF
the impression that he has ceased to have
time to read or to think. That he should be
expected to look after the services and the
care of his cathedral would be equally bad
for himself and for the cathedral.
Further than that, one of the great advan
tages of deaneries has always been that they
might be places occupied by those who, by
intellectual and literary distinction, have
much weight in the thought of the day. It
is true that some appointments recently have
made us think that the same commonplace
characteristics of activity are looked upon as
the proper qualification for a deanery as well
as for a bishopric; but it may be hoped that
in the future it may be recognized, as in the
past, that deaneries may be rightly filled by
men whose contribution to the work of the
Church has been that of intellectual thought
rather than of popular preaching. I need
not say that the proposal that Bishops should
appropriate deaneries as residences is an
equally unfortunate one.
It is not necessary, in the case of the newer
dioceses, that a Dean and Chapter should be
provided at once. The cathedral church will
be a parish church with a Rector responsible
for it, and all that is immediately necessary

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 45
is to increase somewhat the means at his
disposal for organizing its services. The
building up of a cathedral establishment may
be the work of time.
As regards the older cathedrals the fol
lowing reforms are necessary: ,^
I. There should be for Deans and Canons,
as for all other clergy, a retiring age and
proper pensions provided. In many of our
cathedrals the greater number of members
of the Chapter are so old that they are quite
unfit for the work they should do, while the
abler men who ought to take their places
cannot be appointed until they themselves
are too old for the work.
2. Pluralism should be done away with as
regards Canons as much as any others of the
clergy. They should all be compelled to
reside. That will necessitate the provision of
a suitable number of houses in those cathe
drals where there is only one residence. The
common residential home, in which four
Canons in succession encamp for three
months, is an inefficient and uncomfortable
arrangement. These two reforms will do most of what is
required. If right men of a suitable age are
appointed to such posts, they will find their

46 THE REVENUES OF
work and do it. How far special work shoulc
be assigned to each Canon is a furthei
question. The endowment of professorships
at Oxford or Durham is, of course, a mosi
suitable use of the money, and the system
might be extended. On the other hand, the
endowment of a professorship at Oxford by
a canonry at Rochester seems to me a very
doubtful policy.
There should, of course, as part of any
general scheme, be a careful survey of the
funds of all cathedrals, and of the emoluments
of officials, to see whether they are adequate
for the work required. But I do not believe
that here, any more than in the case of the
Bishops, could any saving be wisely effected.
On the other hand, there are at the present
time some Chapters in which neither the
Deans nor Canons enjoy their full stipends.
While in the case of some cathedrals the
estates are held by the Ecclesiastical Com
missioners, and the incomes paid in full, in
others the estates or part of the estates are
in the hands of the Chapters, and some oi
these are reduced very much in value. A
Canon of a cathedral cannot under the
conditions of the present day do his work

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 47
his position. The resources of the Chapters
must be reviewed and the deficiency supplied.
I do not believe the total amount required
will be large.
The result of our survey is that for the
older cathedrals the following are required :
I. A capital sum to provide residential
houses in certain cathedrals.
2. An increase of income in certain Chapters
which have suffered from the depreciation in
value of their estates.
3. Provision for certain offices which are
at present endowed by canonries in distant
cathedrals. One thing more let me say. All Deans and
Chapters should be compelled to pu^sh
detailed accounts. Every other public body
is now expected to do so, and I do not see
any reason why they should be exempt.

48 THE REVENUES OF

v.— THE TRAINING OF THE CLERGY
We now come to another branch of our
inquiry — the training of the clergy and the
best means of securing a high standard of
intellectual life in the Church^. This is also
one of the most important sides of our inquiry.
I believe that one of the chief causes of
weakness in the Church of England at the
present time lies in the fact that, while the
intellectual standard and education of the
great body of the people in the country has
become steadily higher, that of the clergy
has certainly not improved, even if it has
not deteriorated. This has, I believe, largely
arisen through the fatal policy of preferring
edification to sound learning, a policy which
seems at first to bring good results, but will
ultimately lead to great weakness.
The provision made at present for training
for Orders is as follows:
I. There are the two theological Faculties
of Oxford and Cambridge, both well en-

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 49
dowed, but not used as much as they might
be for training for Orders.
2. The University of Durham has a theo
logical Faculty not well endowed.
3. At King's College, London, there is a
theological Faculty until recently with no
endowment, and now with one small and
uncertain. 4. There are a large number of theological
colleges, small, unendowed, often attached to
one particular school of thought, with quite
inadequate staffs, and unable to create either
a high theological standard or an intellectual
atmosphere. Contrast with this what has been accom
plished in recent years in the secular educa
tion of the country. You have in many of
our large towns new Universities or University
colleges, with large schools of arts and science,
in comparison with theological colleges well
endowed, exercising a strong if indirect
influence on the thought of the country.
There is nothing to correct or supplement this.
I do not mean that the influence of arts, of
science, and of economics, and all the other
subjects taught, is wrong. For the most part
it is right. I would go farther and say that
it is religious. But it is one-sided. The mind

50 THE REVENUES OF
of the nation, as of individuals, gets absorbed
in one domain of thought if others are not
adequately represented. We need a proper
and harmonious development in intellectual
life. And, because the influence of intellectual
movements is subtle, do not think they do
not count. They count enormously. Because
research is carried on by specialists whose
minds are far removed from ordinary life, and
their researches expressed in language we
cannot understand, do not think its effects
do not spread. They spread very far. If
you ask me why people do not care for
Church services as they used to do, and why
they criticize so much what is said about
religion, it is because they are carried away
by an intellectual atmosphere that they do
not altogether understand, and doubt whether
what is said is true. The thought of the
country tends in other directions. Chris
tianity is largely presented in a manner alien
to present-day ideals. A great many of the
clergy are inadequately trained for present
ing it.
Do not think that this only affects the
educated. There are no people more respon
sive to intellectual tendencies (which they do

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 51
not in the least comprehend) than the great
body of working men. They are no doubt
inarticulate, they cannot express their objec
tions accurately, but they feel the tendencies
of the day. Most people cannot attend to
many things at once; and the drift of the
thought of the day is not directly or obviously
religious. Now, we want to remedy this, not in an
unhealthy but in a healthy manner. There
should be adequate intellectual attention to
theology and the subjects connected with it.
To secure that, what is required is that there
should be in each University a body of
teachers of theology as of other subjects of
learning. The organization of the Theological
Faculty (when one is founded) will be inter
denominational, as in London — that is, every
denomination will be represented upon it that
provides teachers. What it is necessary for
the Church of England to do is to endow
properly equipped theological colleges in con
nection with each of the new Universities,
so that there may be a body of teachers of
weight and learning engaged in training the
future clergy and others in all the subjects
that directly concern our religion, and pre
senting the traditional teaching of the Church

52 THE REVENUES OF
in the language of the day. Now, to do that
requires very considerable funds. A Pro
fessor ought to have an income of from £600
to £1,000 a year, if he is to take his proper
place in the University. We need not now
go into details of organization. But I should
estimate that altogether we should require
about £50,000 a year for this purpose.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 53

VL— SOURCES OF REVENUE
We have now finished our survey of the
requirements of the Church of England at
the present time. They are — first, a sum of
£50,000 a year for the creation of the new
bishoprics; secondly, a sum of £50,000 a year
for the proper endowment of Theological
Faculties in connection with the newer Uni
versities; thirdly, some addition to the de
pleted incomes of certain cathedral establish
ments, and^ capital sum, not very large,
for building Canon's houses; fourthly, a large
sum of money for the endowment of poorer
livings; and, fifthly, a large sum of money
for the division of large parishes. How is
this money to be provided ?
At present the provision of funds for these
purposes comes, first, from the revenues in
the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commis
sioners; secondly, to a smaller extent, from
Queen Anne's Bounty; thirdly, from the
voluntary contributions of the Church, which

54

THE REVENUES OF

are at the present time being organized and
regulated. I propose first of all to discuss the Eccle
siastical Commissioners. If anyone will
examine the accounts of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners fer the last few years, which
show abundant evidence of careful and con
scientious management, he will see that they
have at their disposal a balance, after they
have paid all permanent charges on their
assets, of the amount of between £600,000
and £700,000 a year.* How is this used ?
A sum of £400,000 has been given for several
years past in grants, but it must be quite
* The following are the actual balances :

Year.

Net Rental

Dividends.

Total.

Expenditure.

Balance.

1909-10 . .

1,432,120

435,642

1,867,762

1,259,840

607,922

I910-II ..

1,406,288

458,239

1,864,527

1,302,261

562,266

19II-I2 ..

1,438,228

487,772

1,926,000

1,316,079

610,921

1912-13 ..

1,436,568

517,838

1,954,406

1,335.509

618,997

1913-14 ..

1,504,815

549,492

2,054,307

1,358,738

695,569

I914-15 ..

1,481,441

567,381,

2,048,822

1,383,623

665,199

1915-16 ..

1,478,865

631,249

2,110,114

1,453,649

656,465

I desire to express my thanks for the great courtesy
with which the Secretary of the Ecclesiastical Com
missioners gave me all the information that I required.
The criticisms offered are not on the management of
the Commissioners, but on the pohcy, which is largely
controlled by Act of Parhament. That is a question
for the Church as a whole, and for the nation.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 55
understood what is done with this money.
The amount granted is invested, and the
interest on that used for the augmentation
of livings, the provision of new livings, and
the payment of curates. Of the remaining
sum of money, amounting to somewhere
about £300,000, £80,000 are set aside each
year and invested, to form a reserve fund as
a protection against the gradual depreciation
in value of the mining royalties which form
a l^rge proportion of the revenues of the
Commissioners. Another large sum is in
vested to meet depreciation of securities.
That amount was in the past year over
£500,000, so that practically a sum of
£1,000,000 was invested last year.
Now, I venture to think that this is some
what too cautious finance. It is quite right
that there should be a considerable amount
invested each year, and that the income
should not be divided too closely; but I
believe that the amount is excessive. What
is really happening is that the Commissioners
are like a business firm which invests its
money in first-class securities instead of
investing it in the extension of the business;
and what I believe ought to be done is that
the sum of £400,000, instead of being re-
5

56 THE REVENUES OF
invested and the income used for Church
purposes, should be used at once for the
necessary work of the Church. That would
mean this: That the Church could do imme
diately what otherwise it will take thirty or
forty years to do; and surely the concerns of
this generation are the first claim upon us.
I do not know any place in which the Divine
commands, " Sufficient unto the day is the
evil thereof," " Take no excessive thought
for the morrow," apply better than this. By
using that £400,000 as income, and taking the
other measures that I have proposed, the
Church might be made fairly efficient, so far
as the financial state of it is concerned, for
its work at the present time. By postponing
this expenditure in the way that is done at
present, the Church will always be behind
hand, and will never be made efficient for its
needs. The arguments suggested against this are
the following:
First, it is stated that at one time the
affairs of the Commission, owing to deprecia
tion of property, got into a dangerous con
dition, and there was a chance of its not
being able to meet all its applications. A
careful survey which I have made of the

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 57
income of the Commission for the past fifty
years will show that, if in some departments
there may be a falling off, it will be generally
compensated for by a rise in other directions.
But more than that, there will still be what
I cannot but think will be an ample margin
against any ordinary losses. It is proposed
that, out of the balance of £700,000, £300,000
should still be left over for reinvestment.
Even if there were a considerable drop, which
is not likely, in the income in any year, there
would be all that margin to draw upon.
Then, secondly, it is stated that this money
can by Act of Parliament only be used for the
benefit of livings. That is quite true. But
it is obvious that any scheme for the read
justment of finances in the Church will
require an appeal to Parliament, and it seems
to me most important that some of this
money should' be used for immediate needs
in other directions. Nor is there any reason,
if we consider the source of this money, why
this should not be done. The money of the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners comes for the
most part, not from parochial sources, but
from episcopal and capitular estates — a very
large proportion from the estates of the
bishopric of Durham, and of the Dean and

58 THE REVENUES OF
Chapter of St. Paul's. There is no reason,
therefore, why a portion of this money should
not be used for new bishoprics and other
similar purposes, if it be for the well-being of
the Church.
What, then, I should propose is: That this
sum of £400,000 a year should be used for
the reconstruction of Church finance; that,
of this, £50,000 should be used as soon as
possible for the endowment of teaching
bodies, the character of which has already
been outlined; that £50,000 should be used
for new bishoprics; a small capital sum will
be required for the cathedral bodies and some
increase of their incomes; of the remainder,
considerable capital sums for the first year
or so will be required for the expenses of
carrying out the new rearrangement of livings.
It will be necessary in any scheme to com
pensate patrons; it may be very few. It
will be necessary to provide a sum towards
assisting in more serious dilapidations and in
building rectory houses before the new scheme
of finance comes in. But after that is done
I should propose that approximately £150,000
a year should be used for augmenting small
livings, and that £150,000 should be used for
dividing large ones.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 59
I believe that this would mean wise finance;
but I do not think this appropriation of the
available sums from the Ecclesiastical Com
missioners would be legitimate unless it was
done as part of a general scheme for re
organizing the whole finance of the Church,
and in conjunction with the creation of a
Sustentation Fund properly organized. The
former of these two conditions has already
been considered. I turn for two or three
minutes to the latter.
It has always been the custom in the past
to make the creation of new dioceses depend
entirely on the provision of voluntary sub
scriptions. There are, of course, advantages
in that, but there are great disadvantages.
It means that no scheme of general reorganiza
tion can be taken in hand. New dioceses are
founded at haphazard. They depend upon
the energy of a diocesan Bishop or the
generosity of one or two large donors, or
some such cause; while, on the other hand,
an obstructive Bishop can prevent his diocese
from being divided. What we want is to
make the Church efficient for working at
once — to adapt it, as it has not yet been
adapted, to the increase of population during
the last hundred years. Therefore it seems

6o THE REVENUES OF
to me that it would be very much better that
the diocese should be created at once, and
that it should be left to make provision, so
far as it feels inclined, for an episcopal
residence, for the development of the new
cathedral, and, in the future, perhaps, for
an increased income for the Bishop. But it
is obvious that the local Churchmen will
receive from the corporate revenues of the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners very great
benefits. It is, again, a custom of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners, to provide funds for increasing
a living, to meet local benefactions. If a
parish raises £i,ooo to increase the value of
the living, they immediately apply for a grant
of £i,OQo; and the two sums are invested,
and an increased income of about £60 a year
is assured. This, again, is a slow and un
certain process. It is not the method that
can be pursued if we are going to readjust
the Church's finance as a whole. But the
general principle that underUes this poUcy is a
wise one ; and if the large expenditure of money
proposed does take place in the work of the
Church, it ought to be met by the voluntary
offerings of Churchpeople, but on a systematic
and an organized scale. There ought, there-

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 6i
fore, to be a proper Sustentation Fund
founded. The way for this has been pre-,
pared by the finance schemes which have
been organized now in almost every diocese.
The total sum of money collected under these
schemes is about £300,000 a year. Many of
the purposes for which it is collected will, of
course, be fulfilled to a considerable extent —
for the present at any rate — by the scheme
of finance proposed. But the money ought
to be collected in the same systematic way.
I propose that there should be a Sustentation
Fund founded which should amount to about
£400,000 a year. When it is remembered
that the voluntary contributions in the
Church of England at present are £6,000,000
a year, and that a considerable amount of
this will not be required in the same way
that it has been in the past for the work for
which it was collected, that does not seem
an excessive sum.
Of this £400,000, £300,000 should go to
the diocesan finance bodies, £100,000 to the
central funds of the Church, managed at
present by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
That would give a further guarantee of
£100,000 for the grants which the Commis
sioners are making, and would enable them

62 THE REVENUES OF
to invest a sum of about £400,000 a year. In
the course of ten years this regular invest
ment would increase their income by another
£200,000. To carry out fully all that is
proposed in this scheme would probably take
about ten years. At the end of this ten
years there would be another £200,000' a year
available for the future extension and for the
work of the Church. I venture to think that
a scheme on lines such as I have suggested
will enable us to do our work, so far as finances
go, efficiently in the future.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 63

VII.— PENSIONS
There can be no doubt that a proper
Pension Scheme is a matter of supreme
importance for the Church. And this for
two reasons. The first is the harmful charac
ter of the present method. As is well known,
if a clergyman now desires to retire, he can
ask for, and will probably receive, under
certain circumstances, o e- third of the value
of the living as a pension. A Bishop or
Dean can, I believe, demand this. The result
on the work of the Church is, of course, most
unfortunate. Just at the moment when a
new clergyman comes into his living and has
very heavy expenses, he has to pay one-third
of the value of the living to his predecessor.
I experienced something of this myself when
I first became incumbent of a living, and
found myself asked to pay a half-year's
stipend of £60 to my predecessor before
having received any money at all from the
benefice. The demand for the payment to

64 THE REVENUES OF
your predecessor comes on a fixed day, and
it is supposed to be paid at once. Very little
income from a living comes in for the first
year. In addition there are all the heavy
expenses incident to a new incumbent. More
over — and this applies probably most of all
to bishoprics — a certain amount of the pro
ceeds of the income is taken up by necessary
expenses. A Bishop, for example, has to
keep up his palace, to provide a chaplain
and others necessary to help him to carry on
the work; he is expected to give his sub
scriptions; he has all the expenses. This
really will take up nearly two-thirds of the
income; and the one-third which is left for
him to live on is taken away. A retiring
Bishop, who has no expenses of any sort, has
a clear income of some £1,200 a year. The
man who is doing the work has all the charges,
with a very much diminished income. The
system seems to me to be really indefensible.
But it is certainly necessary to have a
Retiring Fund if the work of the Church is
to be efficiently carried on. There can be
no doubt that many offices which ought to
be used for the benefit of the Church have
for long periods ceased to confer any advan
tage upon it. At Oxford, for example, we

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 65
bave had Divinity Professors of eighty or
ninety years of age, who were entirely useless.
In many dioceses Canons, who caight to
supplement the work of the parochial clergy
in various directions, are men so old that
they can barely perform even their routine
duties. And the same is the case often with
the parochial clergy. No doubt in many
ways the clerical office can be performed
fairly efficiently by men till they have reached
a considerable age. But, speaking generally,
there can be no doubt that the work of the
Church is hampered because its more im
portant positions are held by men after the
period of the vigour of life is past. The old
men remain hanging on, and the young men
do not get their opportunity till their capacity
for using it is gone. «
Our aim, ihen, in having a Retiring Fund
is the efficiency of the Church, and it should
be accompanied with a rule of compulsory
retirement for all, including Bishops and Arch
bishops. I believe that the simplest method
would be a universal contribution from every
officer of the Church of 5 per cent, of his income,
which would produce about £300,000 a year.
It is, of course, important that this rule
should be introduced at the same time as

66 THE REVENUES OF
the financial reconstruction ; for it will
mean that this permanent charge upon the
livings will come at a time when a very large
number of them are being increased in value.
For a few years there may be a certain amount
of friction, but it will not take long for this
system to be accepted. Such a charge would,'
I believe, contribute a Pension Fund so large
that an adequate retiring pension after the
age of seventy could be given to every servant
of the Church. But, as there would be some
difficulty and unfairness if a compulsory
retiring age were introduced too drastically,
I should do it very gradually. I should make
it at once eighty. No one who is over eighty
can make any claim or can desire to hold
Church preferment. In five years' time I
should make it seventy-eight, in another five
seventy-six, and so on until I had reduced it
to seventy. I do not think that we are
concerned, as a corporate body, with the
widows and orphans of the clergy or the
education of the sons of the clergy. The best
way of meeting such difficulties is to use all
money that is available for increasing the
clerical stipends, and leaving the clergy to
make their own provision, like every other
member of the community. The hard cases

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 67.
may be left to private charity, What is
necessary is a Pension Fund which can be
worked to promote the efficiency of the
Church.*
* The income of the clergy may be taken as follows :

I.

Net value of benefices . .

. . 4,200,000

2.

Stipends of curates

. . 1,100,000

3-

Bishoprics

100,000

4-

Cathedral estabhshments

400,000

5-

Proposed increase

400,000

£6,200,000
The interest of 5 per cent, on £6,000,000 comes to
£300,000 a year. At first it would only Se necessary
to provide pensions for — (i) All those clergy who were
xompelled to retire at eighty. (2) Those who retire
voluntarily at an earlier age. So for a time a consider
able sum would accumulate.
The above figures must be only approximate. I take
(i) and (2) from the " Church of England Year Book " ;
(4) is based on a statement contained in the " Church
Reform Quarterly."

68 THE REVENUES OF

VIII.— CONCLUSIONS
It may be asked how a scheme such as this
may be carried out. I do not think it
possible, under any circumstances, that it
should be done without a Parliamentary
inquiry and a series of Acts of Parliament.
There are some people who would suggest
that we should wait until the Church attains
the measure of self-government which has
been suggested by the Archbishops' Com
mittee. I have some doubt whether such
a scheme of self-government will be granted.
I very much doubt whether the majority of
members of the Church of England desire it.
But I am quite certain that such a compre
hensive scheme for dealing with large endow
ments and personal property would not in
any case be possible except by a direct appeal
to Parliament. Nor need we have any scruple
about making such an appeal. It is not a
question which concerns the spiritual func
tions of the Church. It is the endowments;

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 69
and in that, surely, the laity, and even the
nation as a whole, may be. considered to have
a concern. For the nation may be looked
on as trustees of property held for the good
of the Church.
I would suggest that the Church by its
representative bodies should draw up a
scheme, and should then boldly go to Parlia
ment and ask for a Parliamentary inquiry.
We may say: " You recognize that the old
rivalries and jealousies and controversies
ought to pass away. What we are asking is
that the Church, a national institution,
should be made as efficient as possible.
Nothing that we demand will inflict any
injury on those who are not members of the
Church. We hope that the increased effi
ciency which "may thus be given may be part
of a number of different causes which will
lead to a wide scheihe of Christian reunion.
We hope that it may be possible for Non
conformists once more to share in the inherited
ecclesiastical benefits of the country. We are
not asking Parliament for small or partisan
measures ; w^ are asking it to make adequate
provision for the religious instruction of the
whole body of the nation out of endowments
given to the nation fpr that purpose."

70 THE REVENUES OF
Let me sum up the reforms proposed. I
would suggest —
I. That there should be a complete survey
of the dioceses of England, and a scheme for
the construction of new bishoprics on the
basis of conforming the dioceses as much as
possible to the important civil divisions, and
of reducing the excessive size of dioceses. I
believe that to carry this out will require the
construction of some twenty new dioceses,
and suggest that the sum of £50,000 a year
should be provided for this purpose from the
revenues of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
2. One of the most urgent demands of the
Church is more provision for the higher
intellectual life. I believe that in connection
with all the newer Universities there should be
formed Church of England theological colleges
adequately endowed, the teachers of which
may take their place side by side with any
Nonconformist teachers in forming Faculties
of Theology in those Universities. For this
purpose I believe we ought to set aside a sum
of £50,000 a year drawn from the same source.
Nothing, I believe, would do more for the
well-being of the Church of England in this
country than such a policy.
3. A survey should be made of the existing

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 71
cathedral establishments, and any readjust
ment and alteration which is necessary to
make them more efficient for their work
should be made. I do not believe that, if
this is wisely done, it will mean any saving
to the Church; on the other hand, I do not
believe that any very large sum would have
to be spent on making them more efficient.
As regards the new dioceses, the building of
cathedrals and the formation of Chapters may
be left for the present.
I have put these first because we ought at
once to start on what is requisite for the
proper training of the clergy, and because the
provision of reasonable-sized dioceses must
be the first requisite for a proper reconstruc
tion of parish life.
4. I should then propose that a proper
financial body with statutory powers should
be created in each diocese, representative of
the clergy and laity, which would supervise
the management of all the diocesan funds.
5. We are now in a position for that careful
survey of the parishes of the country with
a view to combining those that are too small
and to dividing those that are too large, and
to readjusting the boundaries of the existing
population. We have maintained that this
6

72 THE REVENUES OF
should be done on a uniform basis throughout
the country; that it should be part of one
comprehensive scheme; that it should be
done wisely and thoroughly. When this is
accomplished we are in a position to employ
a sum of about £300,000 a year to increase
the value of the livings that are too small,
and to provide clergy for the larger ones.
6. Coincidently with this there should be
organized a proper Sustentation Fund for the
Church as a whole, which may help to build
up capital for future needs, and a Pension
Fund, which will enable the Church to make
adequate provision for the clergy when they
have ceased to be able to do their work
effectively. I may mention two points I have not
touched upon in this proposal for financial
readjustment. Except as regards the parson
age house, which is part of the endowment of
the living agents, I do not propose that any
of the endowments of the Church should be
used for Church buildings. It seems to me
that that can be quite safely left to private
enterprise and to the work of the Diocesan
Finance Councils. There has really never
been much difficulty in obtaining money for
Church buildings, and it is far easier to get

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 73
voluntary subscriptions for churches than for
the endowment of the /clergy. People are far
more ready to respond to a special appeal
than to keep up endowments.
The second is that I do not propose that
much provision should be made for curates.
It seems to me that that, again, we may leave
to private enterprise and to diocesan organiza
tion. It is most important to secure the
adequate remuneration of the incumbents of
parishes. It is really much better to pay
the Vicar £500 a year, and to leave to him
the duty of providing in the best way he can,
and with the assistance of his parishioners,
for curates, than to divide the money into
two portions and set aside a certain amount
for a curate.
This scheme is not put forward in any
dogmatic spirit. I have only attempted to
do what, as far as I know, has not yet been
attempted; to try to consider what the
work of the Church of England is, and what
its resources are; and to see how those
resources can be best used for the financial
efficiency of the Church. I am quite aware
of the difficulties and limitations of the
scheme. Many points may be doubtful. But
what I do urge is that those who are in

74 CHURCH OF ENGLAND REVENUES
authority in the Church should approach this
question in a wide and comprehensive spirit;
that they should try and work out a scheme
for making the Church from this point of view
efficient for the work it has to do; that they
should show enterprise and broad-mindedness
in doing it, and then determination in getting
such a scheme carried. There is no doubt
that there is a growing feeling that the
leaders of the Church have not the courage
or the will to carry out a strong and wide
scheme in many directions. There is a good
deal of impatience, sometimes reasonable,
sometimes unreasonable. But I certainly
believe that we want in the future, not only
the wisdom, which sometimes seems paralyz
ing, but the will and determination to carry
things through.

APPENDIX
STATISTICS OF THE DIOCESES

STATISTICS OF THE DIOCESES
The following table is based on the returns given in the
Diocesan Calendars; it can make no claim to minute
accuracy for the foUowing reasons :
I. The calculation of the net value of a benefice is a
matter of the greatest uncertainty, and the returns
rarely correspond. In the case of one hving, for
example, I found its net income stated at £300 in one
authority, £180 in another.
2. On other points the information given is not
always quite certain. The number of benefices in a
diocese is given differently in different sources of
information. 3. In the case of two dioceses (London and Liver
pool) the gross income and not the net is given.
4. In the case of Wakefield I have used the Calendar
for 1916, as that for 1917 is not pubhshed.
5. The statistics of the diocese of Norwich are pre-
.sented in the Diocesan Calendar in such a way as to
make it impossible to use them for this table.
But for the purposes of the present investigation the
table is probably quite sufficiently accurate, and affords
a convenient guide to the needs of the Church. I have
to thank my wife and sister, Mr. H. Brown, Miss Dorothy
Brown, and the Rev. E. E. Gleaves, for much valuable
assistance in compihng it.

77

08
VO

„. „. HI O O
y P7' H rt- H-
" £» o 13- ja-

^*

wwonoo

tr.
c: .

p.:

c:

!i e- 0) S 5^ b o s>
?1 P ?^ o
30. a-

^

M **,* Co 10 to 00-Pw O*
O^OCf^>vCCl.l ooO*^
yi w p vp Oi O ¦+>. ^a-
O ¦4*. O^ to Cw Oi 0\ 00
CO-P- CJi O Oi O O -*>'
OJ OOiOj tO^Ol>^

4>- Oi H ,00O\
^ Oi \o^ \o
00<1 to p M
MM b 00 M
ot *vi a> to to

M M C*> H

vOOi OxOiO M tOvOvO OiOi OitOOMO>IOv)iH 00<-n
IP J-" O M OOO OOUi "^ Ui M tji \0 00 OOLn 00 O H 4h, N
lO O 0^^*i to O 0\ Oo-^ b i^ M Cn N "to OiCn O OO'^J oa
Si tr* "^ S. "^ *^ ^ ^*^ CO M Oi C04i- 00 to Ln 11 to I-HO
00.^ O 00\O tOCwUi to M O CTitO MO OiWOi^^tji-^

OJ)-(t04i.t>il-i4i.^ OO OOCm OOh OivO O
VO NM 00l0\O tOOi

Oj to Co ON 0\
M O 00 O-^.
Co O O O to

Mg\tOOi4!fcCoOJCnCoCo 104>- M M MOiCn lOCri-^Co
ooo to"^ ooooM to w\o Ooo^vo Oocn oj vo o^vO yD O
M VI .^ 00 O^C« OOtO OCo4^vO>0 OnwcoCoCo to 00\O

<X> Ui OnCo w Ui to m
O 00 to 00 p p^ to Co
O 4^ Co W 4^ 00 "o^*^
VO 00 00 00-»^ .^ 4x M
Cn 004*- »0 00 10 M -vj

Ot 0^ to M HI
VO VO CJi Oi M
^ M H Ol -vj

S? 2 9? S^ !? '^P^ cw 00 O OOCo M U» 4»- M Oi 00 Ovco M
:!^ i^ ^ P ^ ^> i^ rf*' t^ i^ f^ 004^ CO p\vo OOCn OO Ov^
w M vO op O 4i. OoOi h4 Cn ¦^ Oi vb i) 4^ b\Cn M 00 m "b\***^
i-l VO 00 Cv-^ (Ji OOlji -^JCo ¦^.j.Oj VO ¦^¦"J 0» Oi a»Ui Ov N

to Co M to Co Co M to
CM to ov oocn Oi o\ 00
to M U) OJ 4^ 0\'sj HI

tOOJ M to 10
OCO Oi Ht to

tOOjCO tOhitOtOIOIOtOtOtOtO toco to I0OJ4*. to to
Q hA 10 Cn nne_n in «n tB f.i ry ij C\tOCnCjiC«tK

Ni-o^*)NN»NNh3lOigtOlOlOtOCO|OIOCo4».tOtO
S ^ ^ ^J^ *^ *i^ oocn VO vOOiCo O 10 e\MCnOiC«i
VO » O .OOCO -^ \0 -sj HI OO-OOtJi O 0^"-a 4^. M -fi- -F>. ICO M
* «¦

w 4>. M 10 ¦;-J Cn
OOtOCo^.) H to 0000
CoOJ OOM 0\O^IOCO
VO'-JCn^^tCniO lOOi

M ^tO Co Ht M Co V* J^
Cn •<» b i. b
vO OOvO O -vI
w VO to HI a>

- - - , ^ ^ j-" V^ M HI N ON » Oi ON to to
^^ ^ ^ S?^,° I:* 'fi c^ w oo4>. Cj Ci 00 M "to 4>. H M
*?y* — S CrvO«Co-P>' O^vO 00 OOCO Lo -^ -Nj 4=^ HiOj 00-(!>.
'-g i>n 0\C*i VO VO CO H O »Oc*»vo OnNCoCo 0C*> OO O (O

tOMCOtOHIHIO^OV HI
ONCn O M O U> 0\ 00

Co to HI CM^
4>.Co O O 00

MHIHIOlt0*J4k.COCnCOMN(L>iMOCn|0MHIHIt0m •H M HI MM _
00t04k OOOmOi O OMvO O Ovw OHico4k4^vO-(^ P*

'T3

Number of
Livings.

Total
Value.

Average Value.

Average
Population.

Cost per
Unit of
Population.

OO

>

STATISTICS OF THE DIOCESES 79

d
» 0
3)W

¦2^0

0
to ¦m
60«

aa .

SSd

Parishes with Population —

*¦-«

IJ8

8

^S3

-¦3 8 °

U
5"
OS"
n
£
£
J
69
3.954
139
9.017
200
18,014
142
60
15
4
—
127
6,064
237
14.991
328
26,580
200
48
27
12
4
20
1,032*
72
3.970*
141
9,448*
43
29
no
26
6
9
395
37
1,732
94
5.590
19
4
27
12
4
122
6,778
258
17.561
353
33.609
174
58
19
5
3
198
12,585
3°9
25,818
385
43,466
318
144
2
—
26
1.449
52
3.677
85
7,204
10
2
31
14
7
34
1.543
71
4.103
102
8,622
59
22
11
1
—
52
2,307
172
" 9.525
228
19,590
128
31
6
—
—
"3
3'f38
208
14,442
290
27,376
172
41
43
20
11
39
1,828
"3
5.676
166
12,982
44
3
17
6
—
144
8,346
211
17.650
270
30,026
126
44
6
3
—
99
6,791
151
13,612
200
22,873
157
41
—
—
182
9,855
303
22,651
381
39,960
254
88
6
1
—
126
7,833
199
16,126
244
27,821
169
50
1
—
—
170
10,215
252
21,371
299
35.221
259
105
—
—
—
138
9,731
253
20,270
347
37.527
142
35
27
1
I
,194
10,965
313
23,910
412
41.794
367
161
8
1
—
5
284*
14
743*
47
2,381*
2
—
32
9
2
49
1.339
120
5,910
250
14.133
27
5
73
15
—
29
1,152
68
3,915
lOI
8,290
35
12
19
9
3
217
11,863
369
26,852
468
48,674
463
217
5
2
I
187
11,475
306
25,301
374
42,189
330
154
II
I
I
78
3,744
157
10.319
232
20,540
94
22
30
7
2
S5
975
61
3.213
97
7,191
34
8
9
—
88
3,337
165
io,oi6
218
21,437
33
III
5
1
—
117
5,738
198
13.971
257
23,602
226
114



200
12,364
294
25,084
375
42,108
286
113
2
—
—
23
875
54
2,929
83
6,718
28
11
29
9
2
23
1,095
63
3,592
120
8,279
9
2
70
26
8
149
8,201
258
19,054
359
35,760
172
50
29
7
—
83
3.942
127
3,942
157
16,538
101
34
1
—
9
567
36
1,715
96
5,242
7
I
9
I
—
131
8,258
220
17,358
270
29,873
172
57
7
4
I
3.275
182,518
5,860
420,016
8,029
781,658
4,802
1.877
687
197
56
PRINTED BV
BILLING AND SONS, LTD.,
GUILDFORD, ENGLAND.

OTHER WORKS BY THE
REV. A. G. HEADLAM, D.D.

HISTORY, AUTHORITY, AND
THEOLOGY. 6s net
I. THE SOURCES AND AUTHORITY OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY. II.
THE NEW THEOLOGY. III. THE ATHANASIAN CREED. IV. THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND THE EASTERN CHURCHES. V. THE
TEACHING OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH. VI. METHODS OF THE EARLY
CHURCH. VII. THE CHURCH OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.
" There is a calm frankness, an obviously deep sincerity, and a
width of view about the writer's method which is eminently re
assuring. His wide and deep learning gives a sound foundation,
and on that foundation he builds with a combination of enthusiasm
and common sense which is too rare among the theologians of
to-day." — The Guardian.
THE MIRACLES OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT. 6s.net.
I. THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM, II. MIRACLES AND THE ORDER
OF NATURE. III. MIRACLES AND GOD. IV. THE RESULTS OF
CRITICISM. V. THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES. VI. THE RESUR
RECTION. Vn. THE VIRGIN BIRTH. VIII. EXPLANATIONS OF MIRACLES.
IX. THE NATURE OP MIRACLES.
" It is timely, forceful, true to revelation, thoroughly informed,
full of trenchant criticism of rationalism, rightly impatient of any
thing purely abstract, and wholly loyal to the great supernatural
verities of Christianity. It is a book to read, study, use, and lend."
— The Retard.
ST. PAUL AND CHRISTIANITY. 5s.net.
" This manual is written with lucidity, common sense, and
learning which one is accustomed to find in Dr. Headlam's theo
logical work. It makes no great demand on the reader's knowledge,
and those who have made no special study of the subject will be
able to understand the discussion and enjoy it. It treats of ques
tions of human interest, and not of the dry bones of theology. ' ' —
The Guardian.
JOHN MURRAY, Albemarle St., London, W. i

A CHAIN OF PRAYER ACROSS
THE AGES. 40 Centuries of Prayer 2000 b.c. —
A.D. 1915.
Compiled and Arranged for Daily Use by SELINA
FITZHERBERT FOX, M.D., B.S. With Index
of Subjects and Authors. 2s. 6d. net.
THE ADVENTURE OF DEATH
By ROBERT W. MACKENNA, M.A., M.D. Mr.
A. C. Benson in The Church Family Newspaper : " I
have been reading a thoughtful and sympathetic book
. . . which will, I am sure, interest many readers,
and do something more than interest them. . . .
There is something unaffected and serene about the
book which moves one, not with a sorrowful excite
ment, but a sense of wonder and reverence, because
the conclusion of the whole is that most people enter
the shadow of death without concern or fear, and die
as gently as a tired child falls to sleep."
Second Impression. 3s. 6d. net.
OUR ENGLISH BIBLE
By H. W. HAMILTON HOARE, late of Balliol
College. The story of the origin and growth of our
English translations of the Bible, illustrated with
specimen pages from old Bibles. is. 6d. net.
J. R. ILLINGWORTH, M.A., D.D.,
THE LIFE AND WORK OF
As portrayed by his Letters and Illustrated by Photo
graphs. Edited by his WIFE, with a Preface by the
Bishop of Oxford, and a Chapter by the Rev.
Wilfrid Richmond. ios: 6d. net.
THE FAITH OF THE PROPHETS
By Miss C. A. E. MOBERLY. Essays on certain
aspects of the Prophetical literature of the Old
Testament, intended to show the unanimity of view
about subjects which interest the modern mind.
 3s. 6d. net.
LONDON: JOHN MURRAY

YALE

2612

QQ3

*•! ' I'' K v.4r*

,il:,;-.-'