The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-01-01 00:00:00

DEAN STANLEY ON DISESTABLISH-

MENT.
The Dean of Westminster, in a letter to the Non-
conformist, explains his reasons for thinking the Dis-
establishment policy to be a policy injurious to the best
interests of freedom, of charity, and of progress. He
quite admits that its object is not to destroy Episcopacy.
It would, no doubt, leave an institution bearing the name,
probably with its sacerdotal and exclusive pretensions
enormously developed, with its Bishops perhaps in-
definitely multiplied, and its separation from Noncon-
formists certainly intensified. This would, for a time
at least, be suffered to exist. But what it proposes to
destroy is a system in the judgment of many far more
beneficial than mere Episcopacy, and far less liable to
superstitious abuse—the system which is called
emyvc—ealaolin its sources, its tendencies, and its
"Erastianridalbs
ulprmoc
hue
mnr tev;n
oattnehedat at
nb
yi
ts t
bRt oe e
most
soaoryms ,t
eptrhbzil
ohs
syyospttebhmi
the
historicalma
ovot c
Ie
ed
statesmen of the last two centuries—the system of
giving the nation a share in the government of the=
Church, and subjecting the fancies of the clergy to
the control of the most intelligent portion of the laity—
the system of securing to at least one institution in the
country a liberty "which admits of almost every,
school of theology within its pale," and which en-
courages as much intercourse with Nonconformists as the
nation, represented in Parliament, desires. To insist
on destroying this system merely because it happens
not to commend itself to the consciences of those who
are perfectly free not to avail themselves of it, and
who, in fact, indignantly refuse to accept it for them-
selves, would be quite as injurious to those who are
conscientiously attached to such a system, and quite as
inconsistent with Liberal principles, as was the at-
tempt of the Church of 1662 to suppress Presby-
terianism or Congregationalism, or of the Presby-
terians or Congregationalists of 1649 to destroy
Episcopacy. And it may perhaps illustrate the
effect of such a policy to take the instance of
Westminster Abbey, which also applies to all
the cathedrals of England. On the principle
that "the State is to have no power " inside the
Church," and that no "legal dominancy, no "dis-
tinctive State privilege," is to be tolerated anywhere,
this and all like buildings would be disposed of by
sale or auction to any that would purchase them
for their own purposes. Any other mode of dealing
with them, any legislative appropriation of them
atonoatnhyer
fpourm of public
establishment direct dired "intervention urples' would be only
of the State inside the Church," and a direct violation
of what is called "religious equality." There is very
little doubt which is the portion of the community
that would in this case become "the residuary legatee
of the Church of England." It would be either the
Roman Church, which, with a singular abstinence
from, contributions to_natiPnal or 4fr,,s4Ar,t,g,

of beneficence, hoards its resources for aggressive
occasions of this kind, or it might be the small but
wealthy section of the High Church Episcopalians.
In either ease it is certain that neither would a Robert
Moffat be allowed to lecture, nor an Isaac Watts to
have a monument, nor a David Livingstone to have. a
grave within the walls of Westminster Abbey, or in
any English cathedral. And if the government of the
Chureh were to be transferred from the Parliament
and the courts of law, and the appointment of its chief
officers to be transferred from the Crown, as repre-
sented in the Prime Minister, to Convocation, or any
like body (as it must be unless the State create a new
form of Church government by legislative enactment—
which again would be the:very principle of "Establish-
ment" held up to scorn and detestation), it is
certain that neither the present Dean obWestminster,
nor those like-minded with him, would either obtain
or retain, or desire, the places which they now occupy.
"Whether," c,oneltides the Dean, "their extermina-
tion. by this process would be beneficisl or not to the
country at large, it is not for me to argue. But I make
bold to say that it would not be in the interests of
liberty, nor of conciliation towards Nonconformists.
No one more frequently than those for whom I speak
has urged the peculiar services rendered to religion
by our Dissenting brethren; no one more seriously
protests against the insolent or exclusive attitude
of isolation adopted by many Churchmen;
but what we deprecate, and shall resist, as alike
illiberal and impolitic, is the present combination of
extreme Nonconformists and extreme High Churchmen
to deprive us of this freedom, either in England or
Scotland. What we lament is the refusal to join in
any projects for the reform and enlargement of the
Church, merely on the ground that it would interfere
with the plan common both to Liberationists and
Ritualists, of turning the Church of England into a
sect of narrow Episcopalians, and the Church of Scot-
land into a sect of narrow Presbyterians."