It is said that the existence of parties in the Church also proves its incompetence.  On that matter, too, I entertain a contrary opinion.  Parties have always existed in the Church; and some have appealed to them as arguments in favor of its divine institution, because, in the services and doctrines of the Church have been found representatives of every mood in the human mind.  Those who are influenced by ceremonies find consolation in forms which secure to them the beauty of holiness.  Those who are not satisfied except with enthusiasm find in its ministrations the exaltation they require, while others who believe that the “anchor of faith” can never be safely moored except in the dry sands of reason find a religion within the pale of the Church which can boast of its irrefragable logic and its irresistible evidence.

Gentlemen, I am inclined sometimes to believe that those who advocate the abolition of the union between Church and State have not carefully considered the consequences of such a course.  The Church is a powerful corporation of many millions of her Majesty’s subjects, with a consummate organization and wealth which in its aggregate is vast.  Restricted and controlled by the State, so powerful a corporation may be only fruitful of public advantage, but it becomes a great question what might be the consequences of the severance of the controlling tie between these two bodies.  The State would be enfeebled, but the Church would probably be strengthened.  Whether that is a result to be desired is a grave question for all men.  For my own part, I am bound to say that I doubt whether it would be favorable to the cause of civil and religious liberty.  I know that there is a common idea that if the union between Church and State was severed, the wealth of the Church would revert to the State; but it would be well to remember that the great proportion of ecclesiastical property is the property of individuals.  Take, for example, the fact that the great mass of Church patronage is patronage in the hands of private persons.  That you could not touch without compensation to the patrons.  You have established that principle in your late Irish Bill, where there was very little patronage.  And in the present state of the public mind on the subject, there is very little doubt that there would be scarcely a patron in England—­irrespective of other aid the Church would receive—­who would not dedicate his compensation to the spiritual wants of his neighbors.

It was computed some years ago that the property of the Church in this manner, if the union was terminated, would not be less than between 80,000,000 and 90,000,000 pounds, and since that period the amount of private property dedicated to the purposes of the Church has very largely increased.  I therefore trust that when the occasion offers for the country to speak out it will speak out in an unmistakable manner on this subject; and recognizing the inestimable services