'hm 
 
 ^fi--%»
 
 
 
 
 •wl^ ' ' 
 
 
 
 '■'^"«'4fe\f 
 
 
 ^'la^- '^ -^M^
 
 ARE THINGS SO DISCOUMGING. AFTER ALL ? 
 
 A CHAEGE 
 
 DELIVEUED TO THE 
 
 CLERGY AND CHURCHWARDENS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ARCHDEACONRY OF MIDDLESEX, 
 ^t t)t» SetonU Fisttation, 
 
 HELD AT 
 
 St. Paul's, Covent Garden, April 26th, 1877. 
 
 JAMES AUGUSTUS HESSEY, D.C.L., 
 
 ARCHDEACON OF MIDDLESEX, 
 And Preacher to the Hon. Society of Gray's Inn. 
 
 LONDON : 
 JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 
 
 1877.
 
 Where and in proportion as the service of the body is more careful, 
 and the exterior decency and solemnity of the public assembling more 
 Unimpeachable, these things themselves may contribute to form important 
 elements of that inward self-complacency which makes it so easy for us, 
 whenever we ourselves are judge and jury as well as " prisoner at the bar," 
 to obtain a verdict of acquittal. In other words, the very things which find 
 their warrant in their capacity and fitness to assist the work of Divine 
 worship, are particularly apt to be accepted by the individual himself as a 
 substitute for inward worship, on account of that very capacity and fitness, 
 of their inherent beauty and solemnity, of their peculiar and unworldly 
 type. So that Ritual, because it is full of uses, is also full of dangers. 
 Though men may increase responsibility by augmenting it, they do not 
 escape from danger by its diminution. Nothing can make Ritual safe except 
 the strict observance of its purpose, namely, that it shall supply wings to 
 the human soul, in its callow efforts at upward flight. And such being the 
 meaning of true Ritual, the just measure of it is to be found in the degree 
 in which it furnishes that assistance to the individual Christian. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, Contemporary Review, vol. xxiv. p. 67G.
 
 My Eeverend Brethren, ANb my Brethren Titfi 
 Churchwardens of the Archdeaconry of 
 Middlesex. 
 
 By the blessing of Almighty God, I am permitted again 
 to meet in Court and Synod, those wlio, on the occasion of 
 my primary visitation, greeted me witli such kind welcome^ 
 and from whom, through my two years of office, I have 
 experienced nothing bat the most gentle and respectful 
 consideration. Clergy and Laity alike have received me a^ 
 " the Bishop's Minister aild Commissary" indeed, (so Herbert 
 Thorn dike describes the Archdeacdn) , but also as a personal 
 friend, to whom, albeit in maliy instances by no means equal 
 to themselves, they may resort without scruple or reserve. 
 To some who are here, the Clergy and Churchwardens of the 
 important Deaneries of Barnes and Newington, I must, in a 
 certain sense, bid Farewell. Those Deaneries with their vast 
 populations of 27,831 arid 88,786 sOuls respectively, are to 
 pass to another Diocese. Both those who go arid those who 
 remain must regret this severance, for many i*easons. But it 
 Is a satisfaction to think that the Diocese 6f London has, 
 before surrendering these two districts, done much towards 
 remedying their spiritual destitution. The former used to 
 contain four Parish Churches, thdse of Barnes, Mortlake^ 
 Putney and Wimbledon. It now contains six Parish 
 Churches, five Chapels of Ease, and one Proprietary Chapel. 
 The latter was one Parish. It is now divided Into twelve 
 Parishes, one of which, St. Mary's, has a Chapel of Ease 
 besides its new and noble Parish Church. It Is als(j a matter 
 
 a2
 
 of deep thankfulness that the severance has been rendered 
 necessary because the Church has, though late, realized the 
 importance and the blessedness of making the Episcopate 
 a more living institution, by the assigning to her Bishops 
 more manageable charges than heretofore. Two new 
 Dioceses have been already formed, and six more I trust 
 are in the near distance. Perhaps at no distant date, the 
 Diocese of London itself may be further relieved^ by the 
 formation of the Diocese of St. Alban's, and the consequent 
 readjustment of the Diocese of Rochester. Let me earnestly 
 commend to your support the " Fmid for the Increase of 
 the Home Episcopate," the head quarters of which are at 
 7, Whitehall. 
 
 But I come at once to matters of common interest. 
 
 I pass over the many occasions on which my brethren 
 have invited me to occupy their Pulpits, so many, that I have 
 scarcely had one Sunday Evening free, or on Wednesday or 
 Friday Evenings in Lent or in Advent. And the fact that I 
 am continually applied to, in the most friendly and informal 
 manner for all sorts of assistance and advice, I will merely 
 say that what I anticipated for my second year from the 
 experience gained in my first year has been fully realized. 
 There are, however, one or two matters in which I have 
 found especial satisfaction. They have not, indeed, been 
 unmingled with work, but the work has been of a y^rj 
 agreeable character. Several of the younger Clergy have at 
 times consulted me as to practical points upon which they felt 
 a difficulty how to proceed, or have brought to me doubts and 
 questionings in reference to which they needed heart to heart 
 sympathy. And several of them have submitted to me some 
 of their Sermons for my perusal and correction. In many of 
 these cases the Bishop, no doubt, as the Spiritual Father of 
 the Diocese, would have been their natural and authontative 
 adviser. But the Bishop, though earnestly willing, is from 
 the multitude of his pressing duties, unable to enter upon 
 
 «*^ 

 
 them. In many others, the Incumbent, with whom the youn^>- 
 Clergyman is working. But the Incumbent also is sometimes 
 too busy, and is sometimes unwilling, or is supposed to be 
 unwilling, to take upon himself the office of an adviser or a 
 critic of Sermons or the like. Sometimes, again, from the 
 allotment of Services necessitated by a large Parish, the 
 Incumbent scarcely ever hears his Curate preach in the 
 Church, or address his people in the Mission Room, or 
 catechise In the School. The result occasionally Is that an 
 estrangement Is produced, and that those are at a distance 
 from each other, whom a little more advance on either side 
 would have made thoroughly one. And what Is also a 
 serious evil, the young Clergyman, whom a few hints as to 
 style, and the most approved methods of reaching the hearts 
 and understandings of his auditory might have matured Into 
 a winning and able Preacher, Is frequently, at the end of the 
 two years which he spends in his first curacy, less effective 
 than he was at setting out. There are, of course, a great 
 many exceptions to this state of things. Still I may, perhaps, 
 while on this subject, suggest to some of my elder brethren, 
 how valuable a help It would be to those of whose wants I am 
 speaking, if they would, every now and then, give their 
 younger brethren the benefit not merely of general approval 
 or disapproval, but of detailed criticism. In writing or In 
 conversation, of their Sermons. I am sure, unless nn^ long 
 experience of young men much deceives me, that they would 
 find grateful appreciation of their kindness, and careful 
 weighing of their suggestions. There would, no doubt, be 
 differences of opinion as to the soundness of the advice glven^ 
 though even these would be modestly and diffidently 
 expressed. But there could be no mistaking the loving look 
 and word and thought of him who helped his brother In what 
 he himself found hard at first, and In what he perhaps found 
 himself thrown, himianly speaking, upon his own resources. 
 Few of us can forget our own perplexity in our earlier efforts
 
 6 
 
 at Sermon writing. " Uade inciplam — quid dicam — quid 
 non dicam — quihiis argumentis^ quali hortatu utar — queni 
 ad jtnem^ quce loqui ausus faerim^ adducam — quid in medio 
 orationis^ quid in peroratione collocem^ prorsus nescio. si 
 quis scribendi auctor adsit ! ''"' axG words which express 
 concisely needs which we felt keenly long ago. Something, 
 I rejoice to say, is now being done in our Universities and 
 Theological Colleges, to meet these needs. And something 
 by that useful institution called the Church HomiJetical 
 Bociety. And thus, what was a great defect in the Clerical 
 Education of many of us, is in process of being remedied. 
 But there is ever room for continuance of education. I 
 will only add that I recommend nothing that I am not 
 ready to share in. I shall most gladly reduce what have 
 hitherto been efforts to help individuals to something like a 
 system, by formii^g a class Qf Deacons, and of Priests in 
 their first year, for such instruction as I am able to Impart 
 to them. Any such who desire to join will kindly let me 
 know. This will not, of course supersede my giving of 
 private counsel to others who may wish to resort to mc. 
 
 And now for a second matter. I have carried out the 
 intention, which I announced last year, of doincj my own 
 work with reference to Inductions. Only tAvo instances have 
 occurred since I came into oiRce in which a mandate has been 
 issued from my Registry, and these occurred before I was 
 aware of the practice which had grown up. Of the ten on 
 which I have acted, four have been private — one of them at 
 St. Geoi'ge's, Hanover Square, because the Bishop had 
 personally given a public Institution — three* from urgent 
 circumstances which rendered an Induction necessary at a 
 very short notice. The remaining sixf have been public, and 
 
 * St. Mary Abbott's, Kensington ; St. Paul's, Onslow Square ; St. Paul's, 
 Avenue Koad, Hampstead. 
 
 t St. George's, Bloomsbury ; Barnes ; St. James', Paddington ; Christ 
 Church, Koxeth, Harrow ; Shepperton ; St. Barnabas, Edgwa,re Road.
 
 have been very largely attended by the Parishioners. The 
 Office which I have used, though of course not thoroughly 
 authoritative, has been put together under the provisions of 
 the Act of Uniformity Amendment Act, and consists of part 
 of the Evening Service, with a Special Lesson and Special 
 Psalms, and some Collects taken from the Prayer Book, the 
 Ceremony as usual, and some Hymns and a short Addi'ess. 
 I am assured that the practice is appreciated, and it certainly 
 serves the purpose of solemnly introducing a new Pastor to 
 his flock, and of informing them of his history and labours 
 elsewhere. I may mention that I am not at all satisfied with 
 a form which has been drawn up by a Committee of the 
 Lower House of Convocation of Canterbury, but has not yet 
 been considered by the House. In the first place, it throws 
 together Institution and Induction, which are really two 
 distinct things — the former being the admission of a Priest to 
 a spiritual charge, the latter his investment with the tem- 
 poralities of his Living and the full possession of his Church. 
 In the second place, it is much too long and cumbrous, 
 especially when the two offices are combined ; and as to the 
 matter of it, it seems too much a repetition of Ordination. 
 In the third, it seems to make the presence of the Bishop 
 either always necessary, which is all but impossible in our 
 Diocese — or always to be dispensed with, by the mention of 
 his Commissary. In the fourth, the notice at its com- 
 mencement assumes that what is an abuse is the normal state 
 of things, namely, that the Bishop having instituted, gives 
 notice of the Institution to the Archdeacon, who thereupon 
 issues his mandate for Induction — ^and that thus, some time 
 must elapse between the two legal acts. As I have said, the 
 Archdeacon of Middlesex acts himself, and issues no mandate ; 
 and I may add, that so far from delay bemg caused, the 
 Bishop's Secretary gives the Bishop's mandate to the Clerk 
 at the time of Institution ; and, by arrangement, the 
 Induction can take place the same day. x\nd as to pecuniary
 
 interests being involved, I settled that last year by stating 
 that my Registrar would no longer receive a Fee for doing 
 what was superfluous, or myself for doing nothing. I confess 
 I prefer keeping the two offices distinct — as I understand 
 they are in the Diocese of Winchester. 
 
 It were very much to be wished that our Church had 
 sufficiently recovered her elasticity to be able to put forth 
 with full authority Services for the occasions already men- 
 tioned, and for many others. We sadly want Prayers, and 
 permission to use them, for Church of England Tem- 
 perance Societies. Some two or three Services have been 
 drawn up, and in especial one which is intended to be used 
 for Missions. But even this has as yet only passed the 
 Convocation of Canterbm^y, and waits for the assent of the 
 Convocation of York, (in which it will possibly receive 
 alterations,) and the authority of Parliament. It has, indeed, 
 been extensively used, but, as I venture to think that it needs 
 some alteration and improvement^ 1 trust that its contents 
 will be reconsidered before it is finally adopted. The Joint 
 Committee of the two Houses of Canterbury sent it forth with 
 considerable misgiving. They doubted, so they tell us, on 
 liturgical principles, how far the service for holydays of the 
 Church such as St. Andrew's Day should be displaced by the 
 new Service suggested ; and also, whether the Act of Uni- 
 formity Amendment Act would allow of such displacement. 
 And they have not yet accompanied their suggestions with 
 such prayers for families and private persons, as are obviously 
 desirable as an introduction to, or supplement of, a Public 
 Service. The matter being thus still open, I venture to 
 make just two remarks upon the Service. 
 
 One great objection to it appears to me to be its almost 
 studied avoidance, (perhaps this was supposed to be necessary 
 by the terms under which the Committee was appointed,) of any 
 prayers except those already to be found in our Prayer Book. 
 Excellent as these are, and generally venerable for their
 
 9 
 
 antiquity, It cannot be denied that they were selected or 
 compiled at a time when our Church, occupied in settling 
 her internal matters, or in recovering from great shocks, 
 was but little alive to the duty of Missionary exertions. It 
 was scarcely till the beginning of the 18th Century that 
 anything like a Society for Evangelizing the Heathen, or 
 even for providing ministrations for her own people who 
 had emigrated to distant regions, existed. And the little 
 encouragement which the Society for the Propagation of 
 the Gospel experienced at first, shows how slowly the 
 spirit was roused of which the Prayer Book gave so little 
 indication even at the last review in 1662. We all of us 
 know the difficulties which were raised as to imparting 
 Episcopacy to America, how sadly late It was before Ave 
 allowed even a gleam of Christianity to be visible In India, 
 and how, from what was called policy, we permitted its millions 
 whom we might have influenced for good, to abide in their 
 ancestral superstitions. Now, however, we are wakened 
 from our lethargy. We are endeavouring by God's help, to 
 realize our responsibilities. But these are so many and so 
 various that we need to be reminded of them In terms less 
 general than those of the Collect for Good Friday, or than 
 those of the two or three Collects, and Litany Suffrages, 
 which the new Service presents. We need petitions, for 
 baptized children exposed to temptations among their heathen 
 associates — for catechumens of every class, those just awakened 
 to the imperfections of their old faith, and enquiring after a 
 Saviour ; those who are crying, " Lord I believe, help Thou 
 mine unbelief;" those who are in danger of returning to the 
 pollutions of the world ; those who are just ready for baptism, 
 but are, at the last, almost drawing back from It — for the 
 Candidates for Confirmation — for those who are preparing 
 for their first Communion. We need petitions, In which 
 shall be specifically mentioned teachers of every kind and 
 degree. Such petitions should be not merely for Bishops
 
 10 
 
 that they may be wise Governors, and gentle and conci- 
 liatory superintendents of their Clergy, and loving Fathers 
 and Pastors to and over all committed to them. Not 
 merely for Priests and Deacons, that they may both cordially 
 accept the godly admonitions of their Bishop, and diligently 
 exercise their own ministry, but for all teachers — all seekers 
 of the wandering. We should be brought to mention in the 
 presence of our Heavenly Father, the schoolmaster, — the 
 catechist, — the layman, who tries to be the priest in his own 
 household, in places where no authorized minister of Christ is 
 found — that they may have patience and grace to persevere, 
 and to save their own souls as well as those of others. And 
 our great Societies should not be forgotten — that in their 
 zeal those who conduct them may not be unmindful of 
 charity, and that those who are sent out by them may put out 
 of sight all bitterness and envying and strife, and look 
 with single eye to the vast and ever-growing work, which 
 their Master has set before them. Again, there are many 
 ill-informed and indeed heretical Churches, as the Nes- 
 torians, the Jacobites, and others, which are, though late, 
 discovering their errors, and yearning for instruction in 
 matters upon which they have had an imperfect belief for 
 centuries. For these, so it seems to me, we should be 
 reminded to oifer prayer. They are holding out their hands 
 to us, let us lift up holy hands for them. Nay more than 
 this, let us be taught to pray that every Christian, especially 
 €very Christian who is in the midst of those who know not 
 God, may consider himself a witness for God, a preacher of 
 Christ, and so, in the truest sense of the word, a Missionary. 
 Surely this is, indeed, necessary, if it be true, as is alleged, 
 that the evil lives of professing Christians have been a great 
 obstacle to the conversion of the heathen. 
 
 It may be embarrassing, perhaps, to express all these 
 wants in what is called strictly Liturgical language. But 
 an approximation to it, at least, may be found in the Prayers
 
 11 
 
 put forth by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 
 or the Church Missionary Society — and In the Instructions 
 given to their Missionaries by the former Society. There 
 can, however, be no doubt that, for touching the hearts, 
 and so making the words of petitioners more earnest and 
 more intelhgent, partlculanty is preferable to generalization.* 
 Therefore, the attempt at least should be made. 
 
 I tnist that it is neither disrespectful to the compilers of 
 the proposed Missionary Service, nor an ungracious requital 
 of their efforts, to mention thus publicly what has struck 
 many of us as a defect in a document in various points very 
 admirable — and with this apolog}', if indeed it be needed, I 
 venture to observe further upon what seems to me to be a 
 strange oversight, and one which may, if not corrected, 
 imply that the language of our ordinary English translations 
 of the Scriptures has been adopted without regard to the 
 original. I may describe it as follows — Two Suffrages occur 
 In the course of the Service, which I humbly think should be 
 omitted, because they are founded on a rendering of Psalm 
 IxvIIi. 12, which, so far from fairly representing the Hebrew, 
 does, by the use of the word " preachers," (In an obsolete 
 sense,) entirely misrepresent the general scope of the passage 
 in which the verse is found. And, In particular, if the verse 
 thus rendered is adopted in a Service apart from Its context, 
 such adoption would expose the Convocation of the Churcli, 
 of England to the charge of forgetting that the word trans- 
 lated preachers is feminine in the Hebrew, and cannot be 
 properly applied to men."]" 
 
 The Suffrages to which I allude are these — 
 
 " The Lord shall give the word. 
 
 * eV yap to'is wepi ras Trpd^eis Xoyoty ol ptv Ka66\s KfvoTfpol daiv ' oi 
 8f enl pepss oKridiviiTfpot, Arist: Eth. Nlc.II.,1, 1. 
 
 t I may mention that much of the criticism which follows was omitted 
 ill delivery, and that various other passages in the course of the Charge 
 were somewhat condensed.
 
 12 
 
 " Aiis. And great shall be the company of the preachers." 
 
 And now for the passage on which these are founded. In 
 the Prayer Book version we read, 
 
 " The Lord gave the word : Great was the company of 
 the preachers." 
 
 In the authorised Bible version, 
 
 " The Lord gave the word : Great was the company 
 (marg. : army) of those that published it." 
 
 The LXX.* has (Psalm Ixvii. 11,) o deo<i Kupto<; Baxrec 
 prj/xa TO?? €va<yy€Xi,^ofx,evot<i Svvdfiei iroWfj. 
 
 The Vulgate has, " Dominus dahit verhum evangellzan-' 
 tibus virtute multd.^^ 
 
 The Hebrew has, 
 
 ! IT «22 nnu?3nn -iDf^-in'. 'rT« Psalm Ixviil. 12. 
 
 The Lord giveth a word : The women who publish the 
 tidings are a great army. 
 
 Here are some observations upon it. 
 
 -iDi< is a poetical word, and according to the best 
 lexicographers has three meanings in Scripture. 
 
 No. 1. — As in Psalm xix. 3, 4 — Speech. " Day to day 
 pours forth speech^'' verse 3. " There is no speech^^'' verse 4. 
 
 No. 2. — As, (so I think,) in the present passage. Psalm 
 Ixviii. 12, " a voord icMch is a keynote or promise of victory.'''' 
 
 The Lord gives promise of victory and in Psalm Ixxvii. 9, 
 (8 in our version) " Has jpromise of victory failed for all 
 generations ? " 
 
 No. 3. — A tiling — something^ much as ij^ is occasionally 
 used. 
 
 No. 2 is obviously the sense of ton in Psalm Ixviii. 12. 
 
 The previous verses speak of God as going before the 
 people, and blessing, or about to bless, their warfare. The 
 victory is supposed to be gained so soon as God has given 
 promise of it, and a great army of persons instantly proclaims 
 
 * The paraphrase of the LXX. is the only possible justification of a 
 masculine application of the words.
 
 13 
 
 the victory as won. Verses 12, &c., exhibit the terms of 
 their publication of it, " Kings of armies did flee apace, and 
 she that tarried at home divided the spoil. Though ye have 
 lien among the pots, yet shall ye be as the wings of a dove 
 covered with silver, and her feathers with yellow gold. 
 Wlien the Almighty scattered kings in it, it was white as 
 snow in Salmon. The hill of God is as the hill of Bashan ; 
 an high hill, as the hill of Bashan." But who are the 
 persons composing the publishing army ? They are not men, 
 (i.e. not preachers in our modern sense, or even male heralds) 
 but women, for 
 
 Firstly. — The word niiii'inn is a plural feminine participle* 
 of the Piel form, from -lira he published., and there is nothing 
 whatever in the passage to suggest its application to men. 
 
 Secondly. — It was the ordinary custom with the Jews, and 
 indeed with the inhabitants of Palestine generally, that 
 women should announce or publish tidings of victory. 
 
 In proof of this latter assertion I quote : 
 
 1. — Exodus XV. 20, 21. "And Miriam, the prophetess, 
 the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand ; and all the 
 women went out after her with timbrels and dances. And 
 Miriam answered them, saying," &c. 
 
 2. — Judges V. 1. " Then sang Deborah and Barak the 
 son of Abinoam on that day, saying," &c. 
 
 3.— 1 Samuel xviii. 6, 7. " When David was returned 
 from the slaughter of the Philistines, the women came out of 
 all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King 
 
 * The employment of ri^rrj? which is also properly a feminine participle, 
 to denote for the time the oflSce of Solomon, at the commencement of 
 Ecclesiastes, is by no means a parallel case. For, according to Hebrew 
 usage, it is capable of being applied to denote men in ofl5ce. Accordingly, 
 though once feminine, in Ecclesiastes vii. 27, it is usually masculine, in 
 spite of its feminine termination. Gesenius observes that the proper names 
 of men in later Hebrew have occasionally a feminine termination, as e.g. 
 n")DD) nnDS. The designations of offices are frequently feminine in Hebrew, 
 e.g. nns nj3. Thus riVnp, proclaiming, or preachment, might be rendered 
 proclairaer, or preacher.
 
 14 
 
 yaul, with tabrets, and with joy, and with instruments of 
 music. And the women answered one another as they 
 played, and said, Saul hath," &c. 
 
 4. — 2 Samuel i. 20. " Lest the daughters of the Philistines 
 rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph." 
 
 In the name then of grammar, and of evidence of local 
 custom, both of which rule what should be the interpretation 
 of the passage before us, I urge that it is unscholar-like and 
 improper to wrest the words of which I am speaking from 
 their context, and to apply to them, thus wrested, a meaning 
 which does not properly attach to them. 
 
 It is quite a different thing, and indeed is perfectly 
 justifiable, to use the whole Psalm, either privately or publicly, 
 just as the Magnificat is used, in a spiritual sense. The word 
 jyreachers^ with its context in juxta-position, then explains 
 itself, and is no more liable to be mistaken than Wiclif 's 
 translation of kr]pv-^Oi]a€Tac in Luke xii. 3, by precJiid 
 Instead of by 'proclaimed!^ 
 
 I will only add, lastly, that if it be alleged that we have a 
 precedent in the libretto of Handel's " Messiah" j" for the appli- 
 cation of the passage in the manner I object to, an answer is 
 ready : The Church is no more answerable for that application 
 than for the phraseology of any of our popular hymnals. 
 
 I come now to other matters. 
 
 There were six points which I brought more or less fully 
 before you last year. 
 
 * Wiclif, 1380. "That that ye hav spokun in ere in the couchis schal be 
 ^rechid in roues." So Tyndale, 1534, " That which ye have spoken in the 
 feare, even in the secret places, shalbe preached even on the toppe of the 
 housses.'' So also Cranmer, 1539, Geneva, 1557, JRheims, 1582, bat in the 
 Authorized Version, 1611, proclaimed. 
 
 f Chorus. The Lord gave the word, great was the company of the 
 preachers. 
 
 Air. How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of 
 peace, and bring glad tidings of good things. 
 
 Chorus. Their sound is gone Out into all lands, and their words unto the 
 ends of the world.
 
 15 
 
 1. — The necessities of the Poorer Clergy. 
 
 2, — The assault which was being made upon the Church's 
 Law of Marriage. 
 
 3. — The demand which was being made that Services 
 other than those of the Church of England should be 
 permitted in our Church-yards. 
 
 4, — The difficulties which recent legislation has thrown 
 in the way of Church Schools, especially in that part of the 
 Archdeaconry which falls within the ]\letropolitan area, and 
 how they are to be met. 
 
 5. — The Ecclesiastical Offices and Fees Bill. 
 
 6. — The misunderstandings which then prevailed, and I 
 regret to say are still prevailing, in connection with the 
 Public Worship Regulation Act, and Courts both of first 
 instance and of ultimate appeal. 
 
 I must notice each of these. Some of them may be 
 dismissed very briefly — but others demand a more lengthened 
 consideration. 
 
 For the ^irst — I have only to bring to your notice an 
 attempt by the Vicar of Kensington, the Rev. W. D. 
 Maclagan, to supplement the design of Dr. Richards' 
 benevolent institution. It is the wish of my friend to 
 establish a Fund for providing over-worked Clergymen, of 
 limited means, with an occasional holiday. There are 
 numerous cases in which a temporary relief from labour 
 might prevent that more serious break-down of strength 
 which compels resort to Dr. Richards' Fund, and in which 
 timely sympathy, combined with material assistance, cheers 
 and reinvigorates a man who feels physical and spiritual 
 powers failing him together. In such cases this new Fund^ 
 which my friend desires to administer on the recommendation 
 of the two Archdeacons of the Diocese, would step in. It 
 must be remembered, however, that it is a Fund formed 
 purely by Subscription, and that it will owe the extent of it^ 
 availableness to gifts which the Clergy of larger resources^
 
 16 
 
 and the Laity who can be influenced by them, put into 
 Mr. Maclagan's hands. Let me commend it to your support 
 in every way that you can afford. 
 
 As to the Second topic. The assault which was being made 
 last year upon the Law of Marriage as it has existed from 
 remote antiquity, and as it is recognized by our own Scriptural 
 Church, is, I regret to say, being prosecuted as vigorously as 
 ever. And not merely has the almost annual motion to 
 repeal the prohibition of the Marriage of a man with his 
 Deceased Wife's Sister been announced in the House of 
 Commons — but the masked-battery system of which I warned 
 you last year has been again adopted, and has achieved a 
 temporary success. Having, by the action of ballot for pre- 
 cedence, obtained an early day for discussion, Mr. Knatchbull- 
 Hugessen, has carried by a majority of 51, the second reading 
 of a Bill " to remove the disabilities in the Mother Country to 
 which the issue of marriages in the Colonies with a deceased 
 wife's sister are exposed." Let us consider for a moment what 
 is the grievance complained of, and what would be the tendency 
 of granting the relief demanded. Certain of our Colonies, I 
 believe six, have passed Bills legalizing such marriages, and 
 in four of them, certainly, the Crown, acting upon the 
 principle that such Bills are portions of Colonial domestic 
 policy, has assented to their becoming Law. The result is, that 
 such issue are legitimate for every civil purpose in matters 
 external to this country, and even here for every civil purpose 
 but one, inheritance of real property in cases of intestacy. 
 The maintenance of such exception is considered, and I think 
 justly, to be a matter of purely home policy, but it seems to 
 be a strange demand that because some of our Colonies have 
 chosen to outrun us, and contradict our legislation in a point 
 closely involved with our religious and social institutions, we 
 should be compelled to follow their lead. Scotland has never 
 complained because a similar privilege has been withheld in 
 England from children born in Scotland before wedlock, but
 
 17 
 
 legitimized there by a subsequent marriage. She has been 
 content that such children should be qualified to inherit 
 Scotch titles and Scotch estates, and has not desired tlie law 
 which disables them from inheriting English titles and 
 English estates to be altered. Besides, the cases of intestacy 
 are so rare, and so seldom involve real property, that the 
 grievance, if it be one, is almost infinitesimal. And, as was 
 acutely observed by the Attorney-General, the real question 
 is not whether the Colonists shall be permitted to legislate 
 for themselves. (This the Home Government has allowed them 
 to do). The real question is, Shall they be permitted to compel 
 the Mother Country to legislate in a particular way^o?- itself? 
 And there is a yet further question involved. Shall a con- 
 cession to them in this matter be allowed which by an almost 
 inevitable consequence will bring on another, which we have 
 effectually resisted for years ? 1 mean, the legitiniacy of the 
 issue of all such marriages, either contracted here, or con- 
 tracted by going abroad for the ceremony ? This is evidently 
 the intention, I will not say of all who have urged or supported 
 the Colonial demand, but of a Society which, as I asserted last 
 year, " never showed itself to the light except by the name of 
 a Secretary, and by a firm of Solicitors, and which is really a 
 disguise assumed by a few rich men, who have wilfully broken 
 the Statute with which they desire to do away?"* On every 
 ground then that I then urged, I entreat you, my brethren, 
 to resist the further progress of this ( olonlal Marriages Bill, 
 lest you find it hard to resist that other Bill which has been 
 announced, and which will assuredly follow upon ir. 
 
 On the general subject of the attack made upon our 
 Church-yards, I have little to add to what I said very fully 
 
 * I repeat this assertion most advisedly, though I am perfectly aware 
 that an attempt, not altogether an ingenuous one, was made to contradict it 
 last year, by pointing to the new Society for making the Colonial Law 
 binding in England, and to its Committee ; and practically assuming that 
 this was the same as the old Society represented solely by Mr. Stansbury 
 which had no visible Committee. 
 
 B
 
 18 
 
 last year. The Government lias introduced a Bill into the 
 House of Lords, which, though in its chief provisions it is an 
 administrative and sanitary measure, has an important bearing 
 upon the question of Burials so far as Churchmen are con- 
 cerned. Its direct object is to reform the law of Burials, 
 which, according to the reports of many eminent Judges, is 
 in a most unsatisfactory and tangled condition. Under it 
 Burial Boards will necessarily be established everywhere, 
 and will not only have authority to provide, but the 
 duty of providing, and imposing a rate to obtain and up- 
 hold, new burial grounds in localities where no sufficient 
 area, consecrated or unconsecrated, is already existing for 
 interment of the Parishioners. Tliere are various clauses in 
 the Bill enabling such Boards to acquire land for this pur- 
 pose by compulsion, for uniting small Parishes into districts, 
 and the like. Ho far the Church is scarcely concerned in the 
 matter, and has little room for complaint. Nor, so it seems 
 to me, has she any reason to complain of a clause which says 
 that if there are cases in which there is alleged want of room 
 in an existing Church-yard, and the relatives of a deceased 
 person object to the employment of the Service of the Church 
 of England, the body may be committed to the earth with a 
 silent burial. It is true that Convocation has not been 
 formally consulted on this point, but judging from the debates 
 which have already taken place there, I think it may be fairly 
 said that the Church does not disapprove of this concession. 
 The Non-conformists, of course, will not approve of the Bill. 
 But when it is considered that the grievance of which they 
 complain is practically non-existent in towns, and very light 
 in country places, and, if indeed it is not infinitesimal already, 
 likely to be speedily rendered so, I believe that the measure 
 will recommend itself to the mass of the thinking community 
 as fair and equitable. At any rate, it stands in marked con- 
 trast in this respect to the Bill of Mr. Osborne Morgan, 
 which should be strenuously resisted, if it is persevered in.
 
 19 
 
 Should, however, our worst fears be realized, and our Church- 
 yards invaded by strange ministrations, and performances 
 of a secular and even profane character, we shall yet have this 
 consolation. We shall have done our best to avert this. And, 
 though we may and must regret the scenes which are sure to 
 occur, we shall be spared the very serious desecration of our 
 Service which sometimes occurs at present, by its being 
 used over persons who during their lives have either objected 
 to it, or thought and even spoken scornfully of the " sure 
 and certain hope " which it expresses. Besides, we have 
 already, if the mind of the Church is at all reflected in the 
 discussions of Convocation, shown ourselves prepared to make 
 nearly all the concessions that can be made as to the form of 
 our Burial Service, consistently with a due regard to the feel- 
 ings of our own people, by the substitution of a shortened for 
 the full office prescribed In the Prayer-Book, on the request, 
 or with the consent of the kindred or friends of the deceased. 
 This license of substitution, by the words " with the con- 
 sent," spares the feelings of Churchmen, and especially of the 
 Clergyman, and by the words " at the request " meets the 
 objections of all but very unreasonable xSon-conformists. I 
 would still, however, put In a plea either that the full Burial 
 Service may be used lawfully over those In whose cases 
 Baptism lias been sought for, but, through' misadventure, has 
 not been obtained ; or that, at least, a Service should be 
 drawn up, under the Act of Unlfoniilty Amendment Act, to 
 be used. In the Church, after a silent burial, for the comfort 
 of mourners, by the Clergyman. A great deal Is to be said in 
 favour of either course. For the latter it may be urged, among 
 other considerations, that the Clergyman, who often feels deeply 
 for the distress of the mourners, as well as the mourners them- 
 selves, would be greatly relieved by it. For the former, that 
 there seems to be strong evidence that in the Ancient Church 
 intention of seeking Baptism was considered equivalent to its 
 reception. A case in point was that cited at the Conference 
 
 b2
 
 20 
 
 of the two Houses of Canterbury Convocation by the Bishop 
 of Lincohi, in the charitable words spoken by St. Ambrose. 
 Valentinian, who had intended to be baptised, had died before 
 his intention could be carried out. St. Ambrose says of him, 
 " Non hahet e^rgo gratiam quam desideravit ? Non habet quam 
 poposcit ? " And then he answers these questions in the 
 affirmative with a decided expression of confidence. " Cerfe-j 
 quia poposcitj habet.'''' We may add to this, that our own 
 Cyhurch admits to the other Sacrament not merely those who 
 have been confirmed, but those who are ready and desirous 
 to be confirmed. And a remarkable Rubric, in the Service 
 for the Communion of the Sick, ought by no means to be 
 overlooked. " If a man, either by reason of extremity of 
 sickness, or for want of warning in due time to the Curate, 
 or for lack of company to receive with him, or by any other 
 just impediment, do not receive the Sacrament of Christ's 
 Body and Blood, the Curate shall instruct him, that if he do 
 truly repent him of his sins, and stedfastly believe that Jesus 
 Christ hath suffered death upon the Cross for him, and shed 
 His blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the 
 benefits he hath thereby, and giving Him hearty thanks 
 therefore, he doth eat and drink the Body of our Saviour 
 Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he do not 
 receive the Sacrament with his mouth." 
 
 While I am on the subject of Burial Grounds I may 
 mention a fact which I believe is miknown to many of the 
 Clergy and Churchwardens, but which it is important that 
 they should know. It is this. When a Church-yard has 
 been closed by Order in Council the cost of keeping it in 
 proper condition can be defrayed out of the Poor Rate. In 
 some Parishes, funds applicable to Church purposes continue 
 to be expended on the Church-yard. This need not be [see 
 18 & 19 Victoria, c. 128, sect. 18), unless such funds are, by 
 some special Act or testamentary provision, chargeable for 
 this particular object. Of course the Act which I have
 
 21 
 
 quoted only applies to the decent maintenance of the Churcli- 
 yard, not to its ornamentation or adaptation to the pui'poses 
 of recreation. For these things private subscriptions would 
 be necessary to supplement what comes from the Poor Rate.* 
 It should be remembered also that a closed Church-yard can 
 only be used for the purposes of recreation on the obtaining 
 of a Faculty. 
 
 The Fotirtli matter which I mentioned refers to the 
 difficulties experienced by Church Schools, especially those of 
 this Archdeaconry which are within the Metropolitan area. 
 Some of these difficulties have been removed or modified by 
 the Elementary Education Amendment Act of 1876, which 
 was introduced into the House of Commons a day or two 
 after I last addressed you. But others still remain, and will 
 probably become more and more pressing, as time wears on. 
 Let us see what have been removed, what remain, and how 
 these which remain must be met, and, indeed, are, in the 
 Diocese of London, in process of being met. 
 
 The Act to which I have just adverted was not all that 
 the Church was entitled to expect at the hands of the 
 Government. Something like the Canadian System should 
 have been granted if such justice as the past history of 
 Voluntary Schools, and the continued efforts of their sup- 
 porters, demanded, were to receive a due acknoAvledgment. 
 This I urged strongly last year, and I observe that it is also 
 advocated in a vigorous pamphlet called " Wrongs and 
 
 * 18 & 19 Vict. cap. 128. Burials Act:— 
 
 XVIII. — In every case in which any Order in Council has been or shall 
 hereafter be issued for the discontinuance of Burials in any Church-yard or 
 Burial Ground, the Burial Board or Churchwardens, as the case may be, 
 shall maintain such Church-yard or Burial Ground of any Parish in decent 
 order, and also do the necessary repair of the Walls and other Fences 
 thereof, and the Costs and Expenses shall be repaid by the Overseers, upon 
 the Certificate of the Burial Board or Churchwardens, as the case may be, 
 out of the Rate made for the Relief of the Poor of the Parish or Place in 
 which such Church-yard or Burial Ground is situate, unless there shall be 
 some other Fund legally chargeable with such Costs and E.xpenses.
 
 22 
 
 Remedies, or the Wrongs of the Elemeataiy Education Act, 
 and how to Remedy them," bj Mr. Calvert, Q.C.* It is not, 
 I hope, utterly impossible that something may bye and bye 
 be done, in advance of what has been already gained, for 
 we must in candour confess that some important points have 
 been gained. We must feel thankful for the provisions now 
 made for the dissolution of School Boards in case they are 
 found ineffective or useless, for payment of Fees, for removal 
 of limits to grant, for special grants to small populations, 
 for permitting parents to choose the Public Elementary 
 School, and for compulsory attendance. At the same time 
 we cannot conceal from ourselves that we have still some 
 difficulties to encounter. 
 
 Firstlij. — The want of any clause rendering some religious 
 instruction imperative. 
 
 Secondly. — Even where some religious instruction is 
 imparted, the utter indefiniteness of it, and the consequent 
 necessity of efforts either to support Voluntary Day Schools, 
 or to carry on Sunday Schools with increased efficiency. 
 
 Thirdly. — The consequent hardship upon the Clergy, if 
 they would promote either of these objects, of obtaining, and 
 upon the Laity, of contributing, money which the multitude 
 may assert to be of the nature of a second taxation for 
 Education. The Laity feel, indeed, that whereas the greater 
 part of the children taught in Board Schools are children of 
 Church people, they have a claim to be taught as their 
 parents were, definitely. But they find that in these Schools, 
 to which they are compelled to contribute, they are taught 
 indefinitely, in order to satisfy the demands of a latitudinarian 
 but clamorous minority who have made themselves heard in 
 Parliament. This they think unfair. At the same time, 
 however, the pressure of the Education Rate is so gi'cat, that 
 they are tempted to give up their principles, in the hope that 
 
 * PiiblisheLl by Kidgway, 169, Piccadilly. Price Zd.
 
 23 
 
 their children will, somehow or other, get some rclig-ion, and 
 so to spare themselves what payment they can. 
 
 As to the first and second of the difficulties which I have 
 mentioned, namely that no clause exists in the Acts render- 
 ing some religious instruction imperative, and that what may 
 be given is at best very indefinite, I am not altogether sure that 
 the case is quite so bad as it might have been. Had some 
 religious instruction been mentioned, we may depend upon 
 it that the standard would have been of a very indefinite 
 character — and certainlv of a character short of what would 
 have satisfied the requirements of the Church. It could 
 scarcely have done more than enforce " the Creed, the 
 Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments." It would not 
 have contained " all other things which it is necessary for a 
 man to know for his soul's health." It would, therefore, 
 have igniored the Sacraments " as generally necessary to 
 salvation." Now this would have been a great snare. 
 People would have acquiesced carelessly or ignorantly in the 
 low standard, and have gradually adopted it as satisfactory. 
 Thus what is called the British School System, as opposed 
 to the System of the National Society, would have become 
 extensively prevalent. As it is, the very absence of any 
 religious standard whatever induces Churchmen to demand 
 something^ to criticise the something ichich may he given^ 
 and to supplement that something by the teaching of the 
 Church. 
 
 The third difficulty is the really pressing one. Is^, Within 
 the Metropolitan area, where Vokmtary Schools are face to 
 face with Board Schools, supplied with unlimited right to be 
 supported from the rates. 2nd^ Without the Metropolitan 
 area, where School Boards may be threatened, if the accom- 
 modation is insufficient, or the School-buildings are unsatis- 
 factory, or Parishioners are backward in subscribing. In 
 this latter case, it should be urged on the Parishioners, 
 that it has been very clearly shown, that the expense
 
 24 
 
 of a Voluntary School is much less than that which 
 would be created by a Board.* But besides being stimu- 
 lated by comparative and positive examples Parishioners 
 may be reminded that although a Board may under the Act 
 of 1876 be got rid of, it will be a more difficult process to 
 do this than to keep it out in the first instance. They 
 should, therefore, exert themselves to the very utmost. And, 
 I may add that it is to the interest of both Clergy and Laity 
 to promote the efficiency of such Ruri-decanal Church 
 Associations as already exist in some instances in Deaneries 
 external to the Metropolitan area, and which, among other 
 good offices, endeavour by timely help to avert the downfall 
 of Church Schools. 
 
 The former case, that of Voluntary Schools within the 
 Metropolitan area, is still beset Avith very formidable difficul- 
 ties. We ought, of course, as I have said, to look forward 
 to the establishment of something like the Canadian System, 
 and to petition vigorously for it. Meanwhile, however, the 
 existing schools must be supported — and a cry for aid in 
 supporting them has been heard from many quarters. What 
 is to be done? The Society for Promoting Christian 
 Knowledge has exhausted the money at its disposal for 
 building Day Schools, and is obliged to turn its attention 
 
 * I refer you to Canon Gregory's pamphlet on this subject for com- 
 parative details. But I may tell you of one instance of positive expense 
 which has occurred in one of our country Rural Deaneries — (happily it is 
 the only Parish in that Deanery which has so yielded). It may act as a 
 deterrent to those who are parsimoniously or indolently inclined to let their 
 Church institutions languish. Well — a School Board has been established in 
 the place to which I refer. The cost of ground and of school-buildings, 
 (exclusive of an Infant School which the Board has agreed to rent,) has 
 been upwards of £3,000. As the children only took possession at Christmas 
 last, it is impossible to say exactly at present what the annual cost will be, 
 but tliosc who are much interested in the subject compute that the rate 
 will not be less than Ik. 3d. in the pound.
 
 '25 
 
 to assisting Parishes to rent rooms for Sunday Schools,* or 
 to build Sunday Schools and Mission Houses. The ordinary 
 resources of the National Society are taxed to the uttermost, 
 not merely for London, but for the whole country. It is evident 
 that London must help itself — and this it may do in two 
 ways. Either by Euri-decanal Associations, or by an effort 
 to embrace the whole or the most necessitous parts of the 
 area. 
 
 One Rural Deanery, that of Paddington, has determined 
 that it will exhibit symptoms of corporate life, and nearly all 
 its Incumbents have met together and enrolled themselves as 
 members of a Church Education Union. The richer Parishes 
 have recognised the duty of assisting those that are poorer. 
 A fund of £5,000 is to be raised, and steps are to be imme- 
 diately taken to remedy a deficiency in two of its districts 
 especially — a deficiency so pressing, that, if it is not met, 
 Church education must there to a great extent succumb. The 
 prospectus which has been issued is so judicious, and the 
 grounds. Religious, Pastoral, and Economical, to be urged for 
 undertaking the movement, are so clearly and yet so tem- 
 perately set forth in it, that I have thought it worth while to 
 reprint part of it at the end of my Charge. It seems to offer 
 a noble example of abandonment of the selfish Congrega- 
 tionalism to which I remember our Bishop alluded some time 
 ago, as having grown up in London, certainly not in accordance 
 with the theory of the Church, and manifestly to its injury 
 as a grand united Institution. Let us hope that other Rural 
 Deaneries will follow this goodly precedent. I could mention 
 several in which it is more than desirable — even absolutely 
 necessary — that something like it should be done. A step 
 
 * It is satisfactory to find that the London School Board has determined 
 to reduce considerably the enormous rent, viz. from 2s. 6d. to Is. 4(1. per 
 lioad, which it has hitherto demanded for the use of Board Schools on 
 Sundays. Another favourable symptom is the dying out of the " National 
 Education League."
 
 26 
 
 in the direction of it is the establishment of a representa- 
 tive Conference of Clergy and Laity, such as has been 
 just set on foot in the Rural Deanery of Fulham. 
 These divisional gatherings must be fraught with many 
 advantages. They will inform adjacent, but at present 
 isolated or estranged, districts, of generally-felt but unex- 
 pressed wants, and excite a desire to meet them. And 
 they will bring Clergy and Laity together with common ends 
 in view. The Bishop has approved of the Rules for the 
 Conference of the Rural Deanery of Fulham, and the 
 document containing them I have also attached to the end 
 of my Charge. 
 
 These, however, are local efforts ; and whether successful 
 or no, by no means supersede the necessity of one of a more 
 comprehensive character, which I am about to describe to 
 you. I said just now that the ordinary resources of the 
 National Society are already so drawn upon that it is difficult 
 for it to enter upon remedying the great and special need 
 to which I have draAvn your attention. This is so. But still, 
 as usual, it has risen to the occasion. A scheme has been 
 set on foot for raising a Special Fund, to be called " The 
 Church of England School Relief Fund for the Metropolis." 
 Its area is to be conterminous with the London School 
 Board District, and its object will be to assist the Elementary 
 Church of England Schools within the Metropolis, where 
 such assistance may be necessary for their preservation. It 
 is hoped that a capital sum of £50,000 may be raised, and 
 that, besides, an annual income of £2,000 may be realised. 
 This is a bold design, but, as it is sanctioned by the Bishops 
 of London, Winchester and Rochester, and will be managed 
 by a Committee appointed jointly by them and by the National 
 Society, it appears before the Church with promise both of 
 Episcopal approval and of experienced working. I may add, 
 that, like the Bishop of London's Fund, it represents no 
 one party in the Church, acknowledges no theological bias. 
 
 I
 
 27 
 
 and will not interfere with the constitution or management of 
 any School which it assists. For these reasons alone it is to 
 be welcomed as a symptom of reunion — the more grateful in a 
 season of discord on certain other matters. I will say no more 
 about it here, for you will find the particulars of it set forth 
 in the Appendix to this Charge. I will but pray you to 
 commend it to your flocks, and to press upon them the 
 Bishops' earnest appeal with which it is accompanied. 
 
 I hardly know how to treat of the Ecclesiastical Offices 
 and Fees Bill, which has now been introduced into the House 
 of Commons. The original objection still attaches to it, that 
 its main design is to supplement a Fund to pay an Ecclesias- 
 tical Judge, rather than to remedy abuses. The abuses, 
 indeed, one is glad to have swept away, but it is rather hard 
 to have legislation which makes no distinction between use 
 and abuse. For Instance, it is scarcely fair that because in some 
 Archdeaconries legal advisers or other Officers are inefficient, 
 or are supposed to be so, the Archdeacon of Middlesex should 
 be deprived of his, who are efficient. There are other defects 
 in the Bill — its centralization, for instance, the cumbrous 
 Council to which it gives birth, and the like. Convocation, 
 too, has not been fomially consulted on the subject of the 
 Bill. It is true, indeed, that through the courtesy of the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, the draft of the Bill was infor- 
 mally submitted to the Lower House last year, and that a 
 Committee of the Lower House of Canterbury has drawn up 
 a report upon it, which has been placed in the hands of the 
 Committee of the House of Commons this Session. But one 
 would have thought that in so delicate a matter as the 
 regulation of Ecclesiastical Courts upon which, rightly or 
 wrongly, considerable dissatisfaction already exists, the most 
 conciliatory method of legislation would, for mere prudence 
 sake, have been pursued. It is not, indeed, yet too late for 
 the assent of Convocation to be applied for, as in the case of 
 the New Lcctionary Bill, which, It Is well known, was
 
 28 
 
 generally accepted, chiefly because such assent was asked for, 
 and given by however small a majority. 
 
 But I now come to another subject, on which, perilous 
 as it may seem to touch upon it, I think it would imply 
 moral cowardice and want of sympathy, and indeed be a 
 sort of dereliction of duty, not to offer a few remarks. 
 Trivial as the external points contended for evidently are, 
 when compared with the great and essential verities for 
 which, in this our day, we ought rather to be contending, 
 the question to which I allude is tearing the Church asunder. 
 I mean the question concerning vestments, positions, and 
 ceremonies. This, though • it has now been before us for 
 some years, has assumed larger proportions, and appeared 
 under a new aspect, since the passing of the " Public Wor- 
 ship Regulation Act" (37 & 38 Vict., c. 85). I observed of 
 that Act last year that I believed it " would effect very 
 little" — meaning by tliat phrase, very little good. I fear I 
 must now say of it that it is effecting a great deal of 
 mischief. 
 
 I shall endeavour to speak with the utmost candour and 
 forbearance, and with a prayer that both I who speak and 
 you who hear may " follow after the things which make for 
 peace, and things wherewith one may edify another"* rather 
 than what may tend to make wider breaches in our spiritual 
 edifice, the Church. Therefore I shall approach the question, 
 or rather the many questions involved in one great one, as a 
 sympathizer with whatever appears to be real and earnest in 
 the movement, as an unprejudiced student of our Church's 
 history, as an observer of events, as an enquirer after their 
 causes, and as a palliator, if it may be, of differences among 
 brethren, than as an Ecclesiastical officer, or a Theological 
 partisan. I will, then, put before you what, so far as I can 
 
 Kom. xiv. 19.
 
 29 
 
 gather them, may be equitably supposed to be the feelings of 
 a large mimber of persons amongst us, who though they are 
 massed together as Ritualists, seem to be by no means 
 properly or exhaustively ranged under that title. I say this, 
 first, because they contain in their ranks some, whose eccen- 
 tricities and indiscretions the main body is not responsible 
 for, does not imitate, and cannot approve : Secondly, because, 
 in a wide sense of the term, every section of the Church, 
 High, Broad, and Evangelical alike, nay every sect of Non- 
 conformists at home, and Presbyterians in Scotland, has 
 become more or less liable to be so called. By this I mean 
 that, everywhere there has within our memory been exhibited 
 a general and unmistakeable tendency to accompany the 
 worship of Almighty God with such appliances of ornament, 
 of taste, of order, as were for centm'ies, perfectly exceptional. 
 I am not, at this moment, saying that this tendency is a good 
 one or a bad one, or whether in all or in the majority of cases 
 it has been developed charitably or judiciously. All I say is 
 that its existence and its extensive spread are incontrovertible 
 facts, and I infer from this, what I shall make further use of 
 bye and bye, that Ritualism is a thing which, as it admits of 
 degrees, can scarcely be condemned wholesale, lest in such 
 condemnation things be involved which few of us woidd in 
 our calm judgment disapprove : 
 
 " Full many a shaft at random sent, 
 Finds mark the archer never meant." 
 
 I should not at all wonder if every one of my brethren pre- 
 sent, clerical and lay, would be obliged to denominate himself 
 a comparative Ritualist, on mentally contrasting his own 
 well-appointed Church, and its frequent and devout Services, 
 with the picture drawn in the following words. They de- 
 scribe what Charles Kingsley found at Eversley, about 
 thirty-five years ago. " The Church was nearly empty 
 before the new curate came, in 1842. The farmer's sheep, 
 when pasture was scarce, were turned into the neglected
 
 30 
 
 Church-yard. Holy Communion was celebrated only three 
 times a year 5 the communicants were few ; the alms were 
 collected in an old wooden saucer. A cracked kitchen basin 
 inside the font held the water for Holy Baptism. At the 
 altar, which was covered by a moth-eaten cloth, stood one 
 old broken chair; and so averse were the parish authorities 
 to any change, that when the new rector made a proposal 
 for monthly communions, it was only accepted on his pro- 
 mising himself to supply the wine for the celebration, the 
 churchwardens refusing to provide except for the three 
 Great Festivals. This he continued to do till a few years 
 since, when Sir William Cope undertook the office of 
 rector's churchwarden, and at once put this matter on a 
 right footing."* 
 
 But, quitting this apparently verbal, though it is by no 
 means a purely verbal discussion, let us see under what 
 circumstances and under what pleas a great many Clergy, 
 some put them at 2,400, are said to profess themselves to be 
 at this moment profoundly dissatisfied. Why it is that some 
 of them, at any rate, openly declare themselves ready to be 
 suspended, or to be imprisoned, or to be deprived one by one, 
 rather than acknowledge the binding character of the decrees 
 of the Arches Court, as recently reconstituted, or of the 
 existing Superior Court, however constituted and empowered 
 by Parliament to revise, and reverse or confirm, the decrees 
 of that other Court? And, it should be added. Why do they 
 refuse to accept as obligatory any of the decisions upon 
 ritual matters which have emanated from the Judicial Com- 
 mittee of the Privy Council from 1857, or indeed upon any 
 matters from 1833 to 1877, and this, whether the mere text 
 of such decisions meet their personal approval or no ? It can 
 hardly be that the colour and shape of a garment, or the posi- 
 tion assumed by a Minister in officiating, or the substance and 
 
 * Life of Charles Khuisley, vol. i., pp. 123, 129.
 
 31 
 
 form of the bread — matters on which especially the rulings of 
 the Courts have been challenged — could simply and of them- 
 selves induce earnest men to court a kind of confessorship ; 
 or men whose office it is to inculcate obedience to law, to 
 incur the reproach of disobedience. There must be, on the 
 part of many, beneath the struggle for these indiiferent things, 
 certain principles — they may be right or wrong, they may be 
 right, though indiscreetly applied — for which they have 
 not been generally given credit. There may be on the part 
 of many more a sense of unequal treatment, either justly 
 entertained or unjustly, or a view of the relations of the 
 State towards the Church, correct perhaps in the main, but 
 exaggerated by feelings of irritation, for which, perhaps, due 
 allowance has not been made. And in explanation of what 
 is going on now, it may be that though this feeling has 
 existed all along, it would not have grown so absorbing had 
 prosecutions been let alone. And I will go further. I 
 believe that unless these men, I mean those of them who are 
 moderate, had not thought that they were contending for two 
 principles — 1. " That what is fairly within the Church's 
 rubrical allowance, and does not necessarily and of its very 
 nature inculcate something contrary to her teaching should 
 at least be tolerated ;" 2. " That the constitutional relations 
 of Church and State have not been duly observed in recent 
 legislation" — this result would have taken place. They 
 would long ago have thrown off and disclaimed those who, 
 agreeing with them in the formal contention for the foregoing 
 principles, have, with whatever animus, gone beyond them. 
 
 You will understand, my brethren, that I am not in any 
 way acting as an advocate. I am not conscious of any 
 tendency to ceremonial in religious offices. I am contented 
 with a plain Service, if it be not a cold one, supposing the 
 worshippers generally to be satisfied with it. 1 am pleased 
 by an ornate Service, if there is nothing unrubrical or super- 
 stitious in it, and the worshippers generally do not object.
 
 32 
 
 I certainly do not overvalue what is called symbolizing 
 doctrine by ceremonies. I cannot for one moment concede 
 that identity of dress or ceremonial is at all necessary or 
 conducive to preserving communion with other Chm'ches, 
 or to connecting our Church with Antiquity. And I was 
 never supposed to have any sympathy with Rome. My one 
 desire is to place the things of which, and the men of whom, 
 we are speaking, and the movement connected with them, 
 in a clear light. The things^ because in themselves they are 
 not worth contending about. The men^ because, in their 
 zeal for their brethren's souls, in their personal self-denial, 
 in their devotion to the wants of the poor, in their service 
 at the Sanctuary, in their burning eloquence, in their 
 enduring weariness, in their willingness to co-operate for 
 Christ's sake in Missions or other good Avorks, even with 
 those from whom they disagree, they are, many of them, 
 entitled to our very highest regard. The movement., because 
 it seems to be unhappily takmg a turn, which, as both history 
 and ordinary foresight indicate, may — though apparently for 
 the moment, and in a certain sense, a relief to conscience — 
 involve a violation of a higher obligation of conscience, and 
 be disastrous to the cause of religion m this land. 
 
 You w^ill understand, also, that I am not speaking or 
 about to speak, of strictly doctrinal matters. Even these 
 matters of which I am speaking I should not have touched 
 upon at all, but for the reasons given already, and for three 
 other reasons. First., because as Archdeacon, I might, though 
 I am not compelled to do so, have taken steps to set the 
 provisions of the Public Worship Regulation Act in motion. 
 Secondly., because I have not felt myself called upon to do so. 
 And, tliirdly^ because I think I shall do no harm by entering 
 upon them thus publicly and dispassionately. 
 
 The fairest way of performing my task will be to state 
 the case of those whom I described just now as being 
 ordinarily massed together under the title of Ritualists, as
 
 33 
 
 nearly as possible in the way in which it is stated by 
 themselves. 
 
 First. — The decisions of which they complain have, so 
 they allege, the following fanlts more or less involved in 
 them: — "They are founded on ex jyarte pleadings. They 
 strain Rubrics of ambiguous construction to one construc- 
 tion only. They are not free from inaccuracies of quotation, 
 and even mistakes as to historical facts. They pass over 
 many historical facts essential to the points before them. 
 They combine some of the historical facts adduced in a 
 manner calculated to mislead. They attribute co-ordinate 
 authority to documents of very different degrees of authority. 
 They allow documents of inferior authority to nullify those 
 which are of superior authority. They intei*pret what is 
 called contemporanea expositlo in a mistaken manner. They 
 are, viewed as separate decisions, inconsistent with them- 
 selves. They are, viewed as a body of judgments emanating 
 from the same Court, inconsistent with, and even contradictory 
 to, each other." 
 
 Well, granting, for argument's sake, that these allegations 
 are, in any degree, correct, the questions following may still 
 be asked, and may serve at least to show that the grievances 
 complained of are not unparalleled elsewhere. Are any 
 Courts of Law entirely exempt from error ? Are there not 
 discoverable In Law Reports contradictory decisions of co- 
 ordinate Courts, and contradictory over-rulings, by the same 
 higher Court, at different dates, of those of subordinate 
 Courts? Are there not degrees of authority recognised in 
 the decision of one judge who has been considered especially 
 eminent, compared with those of another, less apt to act on 
 first Impressions, less hasty, more adequately learned V * Are 
 
 * I mean, of course, more adequately learned in the branch of Law he 
 may be called upon for the time to administer. For instance, Lord 
 Brougham's decisions on questions of Equity are scarcely considered of 
 equal authority with those of various other judges. 
 
 C
 
 34 
 
 there not calls, and those not unattended to, heard now and 
 then, for reconstltutlon of Courts, or amendment of a Law, 
 because of its unsatisfactoriness ? And yet, is it not unfor- 
 tmiately the case, that meanwhile, and all along, cases of 
 hardship occur? If this be so, hard as may be the case of 
 Ecclesiastical men suffering from decisions from the action of 
 which what the late Sir J. T. Coleridge called " a grave 
 miscarriage of justice" has happened, tAvo remedies suggest 
 themselves. One, a human and constitutional remedy. A 
 demand for a rehearing. And if the rehearing, when granted, 
 does not produce a satisfactor}" result, a request to the Arch- 
 bishops and Bishops that they will devise some way in which 
 a determination maybe arrived at, what the Ritual observances 
 permitted by the Church really are, and under what provisos 
 such as shall be determined to be abstractedly lawful may be 
 exercised. And again, if any of those which are abstractedly 
 lawful appear to be inexpedient, hoAv they may be revised or 
 altered. The other ^ a divine and moral remedy ; or, at least, 
 a palliative — I mean long suffering, in fact, imitation of those 
 who with quite as much provocation as is endured now 
 "possessed their souls in patience?" Several examples 
 crowd upon me, even in these modern days, but I will only 
 mention two. One is that of Dr. Pusey, suspended from 
 his privileges as a member of the University of Oxford by 
 a Court resuscitated after a long period of torpor, Avhich 
 neither allowed the accused to appear nor told him the 
 specific charges on which he was condemned. He submitted 
 in patience. A second, that of Charles Kingsley, of which 
 we read in his "Life." After that strange occurrence in a 
 •London Church, when the Incumbent of it rose in the 
 Reading Desk, and denounced his sermon, the then Bishop 
 of London, hearing of what had taken place, wrote to 
 Mr. Kingsley, assuming the coiTectness of the denunciation, 
 and forbidding him to officiate in the diocese. The sermon 
 was soon published, and the Bishop, having read it and
 
 3o 
 
 seen Mr. Kingsley, withdrew the prohibition. But before 
 its withdrawal, a meeting of working men was held on 
 Kennington Common, and an expression made of their warm 
 allegiance and sympathy. A proposal was also made to 
 induce him to start a free Church independent of Episcopal 
 rule, with a promise of a large following, " But," remarks 
 his biographer, " it is needless to say that he did not entertain 
 this proposal for a moment." 
 
 Again, granting that decisions have been more than once 
 made upon ex parte pleadings, and that thus matters have 
 gone against those of whom we are speaking, the following 
 enquirv may be pertinently made. Has not this been to a 
 certain extent their own fault, and have they not been 
 unwise in forbearing to plead, and thus allowing their 
 accusers to have their own way ? Surely it would have been 
 possible for them to plead, under protest, and, having done 
 their best, in the existing state of things, to wait, in con- 
 sciousness of having done so, for better times. 
 
 Secondly. — It is said that the points upon which Clergy- 
 men have been condemned are matters, after all, of convention, 
 not moral delinquencies, the correction of which one would 
 naturally have thought would have been the chief anxiety 
 of those who care for the best interests of the Church. In 
 other words, that wdiile Clergpnen of scandalous lives, and 
 traffickers in holy things have been left unpunished, great 
 facility of procedure has been given by recent legislation for 
 the putting down of those who offend against a Piubric, or 
 go beyond a certain .standard of Ritual. 
 
 There is a great deal of tnith in this. But I would have 
 my brethren who are concerned in the matter seriously con- 
 sider how this has come to pass. It is the most difficult 
 thing in the world to get legal evidence of immorality in a 
 Clergyman. Every one in the Parish know^s of it, no one 
 will come forward with facts. As to simoniacal transactions, 
 so far from the Bishop of Peterborough's attempts to put 
 
 c2
 
 36 
 
 them down having been warmly supported by Chm'chmen, 
 they have been received with coldness, if not with positive 
 discouragement. And various reasons may be assigned why 
 legislation and legal action have concentrated themselves 
 against Ritualism. People are inclined to do what they can 
 do with ease. They dislike what they consider to be, in • a 
 certain sense, immoral. They consider that many of the 
 practices which they disapprove are indicative of what is an 
 immoral purpose, viz.^ continuance in the Church of England 
 while holding what is foreign to its spirit. They are 
 countenanced in this opinion by the language of some of 
 those who are addicted to such practices, when they assert 
 that they are symbolical of doctrines, and that if the symbols 
 are forbidden, doctrines must be seriously affected. The 
 symbols then, it is inferred, are, in the estimation of some, 
 not purely conventional matters. Hence what may almost 
 be called a furor against Ritualism, which they imagine can 
 easily be put down, and neglect at the same time to visit 
 transgi'essions against weightier matters of the law, which 
 they know it is hard to put down. I am not, you will 
 observe, justifying this. I lament it, and consider it most 
 deplorable. All I say is that hard as it is to bear, it is not 
 altogether inexplicable, and that it is a great pity that 
 extreme men should have so multiplied offences against 
 conventionalism, done things so doubtful, said things so 
 unguarded, as to give legislation and legal action an excuse 
 for going in a wi'ong direction. 
 
 It is said, thirdly^ that though this superabundant zeal 
 against conventional irregularities has been manifested, it 
 has been one-sided. That irregularities in excess have 
 been the objects of prosecution, while irregularities in 
 defect have been let alone. This may be admitted to be 
 true, and even the most uncandid must confess that it is to 
 the credit of the Ritualists that they have not been provoked 
 to legal reprisals by the aggressive measures of the Church
 
 37 
 
 Association. (Such reprisals might have been made, as 
 I shall show before I have done, under the Act). Again, 
 however, it is worth considering, whether, in some places, 
 there has not been so sudden a transition from what may be 
 called the minimum to the maximum of ceremony as to 
 alarm those who might have been conciliated by gradual 
 changes, nay, who have already acquiesced in gradual changes 
 elsewhere — whether allowance has been made for the dogged 
 attachment to slovenliness which had gro^vn up in country 
 districts — whether the feeling which is opposed to all that 
 appears to approximate to Rome, and which has been 
 strengthened by seeing persons drop off, one by one, to 
 Rome, fi'om the ranks of ultra-ceremonialists, has not been 
 sometimes needlessly irritated. If these things are at all as 
 I have stated, the inequality complained of, though it may 
 not indeed be justified, is in part accounted for. It is not so 
 strange and unexampled a phenomenon that in Revivals indis- 
 cretions should occur, and that, thereby, antipathies should 
 be roused into vigorous action, and that persons educated 
 under a different system should resent what is novel to them. 
 " The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth 
 are set on edge." And if it be that although there are some 
 things not provided for in the Rubric, but necessarily to be 
 supplied, things unprovided for have been introduced without 
 necessity^ no wonder that men's minds are alarmed. I allude 
 of course to such things as exaggerated genuflexions, carrying 
 banners with representations of the Blessed Virgin, the em- 
 ployment of incense of persons and things and even of 
 incense generally, the introduction of Stations, and the like. 
 Had those who contend only for what is necessarily to be 
 supplied in order to carry out the Rubric, and for such 
 variety as may fairly be allowed considering ambiguities in 
 the Rubric, and for what the Rubric, upon a dispassionate 
 appeal to history and the general ^^09 of the Church, 
 permits, if it does not enjoin, disclaimed those who go
 
 38 
 
 beyond this, no such great alarm would have arisen. Besides, 
 had an occasional excess in this or that point occurred, it 
 would have been overlooked, and no Eomeward design 
 would have been suspected in it. But there are those who 
 have introduced so many, that a startling approximation to 
 Rome is effected. The imprudent spendthrift, says Arch- 
 bishop Whately, finding he is able to afford this or that or 
 the third expense singly, forgets that all of them together 
 will ruin him. Imprudent Ritualists, though this or that 
 or the third ceremony might have excited no remark, rouse 
 a storm by the adoption of a great many. It is said, indeed, 
 that such persons are only irpoixayoi for a principle, and that 
 they cannot be thrown over without danger to the principle 
 itself. They might, perhaps, be more truly represented as 
 Free Lances, whose desultory operations may render it very 
 doubtful what are the designs of the body which allows them 
 to be considered part of it. But whether they be reprehen- 
 sible or no, it is certain that on the other side it is wrong that 
 the Services of Baptism or Marriage should be mutilated, 
 or Catechizing neglected, or parts of the Public Service 
 omitted, or Daily Prayers withheld in places where hundreds 
 might attend. These errors in defect should be coiTected, 
 and it is a great hardship that they should be unnoticed, as 
 they might be under the Act, while eri'ors in excess are put 
 down. And one can sympathize much with those who 
 believing, rightly or wrongly, that they are carrying out 
 the intentions of the Church, and who, not sparing their 
 personal exertions, find themselves censm-ed, while habitual 
 and known violators of such intentions are not censured. 
 With all this, however, granting that there is some hardship, 
 there is a consolation. As long ago as in St. Peter's day 
 inequality of treatment existed. AVe may depend upon it, 
 his exhortation to servants of men was suggested by his 
 thought of what became the ministers of Christ. " For this 
 is thankworthv, if a man for conscience towards God, endure
 
 39 
 
 grief, suflfer!iig ■wrongfully. For wlmt glory Is it, if whcu 
 ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? 
 But if when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, 
 this is acceptable with God?" (1 Pet. ii. 19, 20.) 
 
 It is said further, that the several enactments since 1833 
 by which the Jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the 
 Privy Council in Ecclesiastical matters has been established, 
 and developed, Avere passed without the consent of Convoca- 
 tion, which, though an inadequate representative of the 
 Church, is its only representative. And that thus, not to 
 quote Magna Charta, or the Royal Coronation Oath, the 
 theory and what was for centuries the practice of the 
 English Constitution have been set at nought. And moreover 
 that a recent enactment has made a Layman, in a manner 
 unknoA\ai before — that is, in no fair way representing the 
 Spiritualty, or appointed by the Spiritualty — the deposer 
 of Christian Ministers from their office, and has thus seriously 
 compromised the Church. 
 
 I cannot myself see that Lord Penzance, having been 
 appointed to his consolidated office by the Archbishops of 
 Canterbury and York, is more objectionable as a Layman, 
 than any Lay Dean of the Arches, or any Lay Official 
 Principal, or Auditor of the Chancery Court of York, simply 
 because his appointment was contemplated in an Act of 
 Parliament. He was nominated to the provincial Judgeship 
 by an instrument executed by the two Archbishops, with 
 the distinct intention on their part that he should succeed to 
 the two ancient offices, and with the knowledge that he 
 Avould so succeed under the Act. And as to the form of 
 the instrument, it cannot, I believe, be maintained that by 
 any Ecclesiastical law, a particular form of appointment is 
 necessary to confer jurisdiction. I am unable then to 
 consider this to be in itself so insupportable a grievance as 
 it appears to be to some of my brethren. But what is to be 
 said, as to those grand grievances, that a Supremo Court in
 
 40 
 
 Ecclesiastical matters has been established, and that now an 
 Inferior Court has been to a great extent, remodelled, without 
 the Church having been, in any constitutional way consulted ? 
 And further that the Chm'ch has not been allowed to interpret 
 her existing regulations for herself, or modify them according 
 to the exigencies of the times ? In reference to all this one 
 may freely admit that had it been possible to arrive at some 
 method by which the Church's mind could have been fully 
 ascertained on the subject, and satisfactory tribunals obtained, 
 the confusion which exists would not have set in. No such plea 
 as conscientious refusal to obey could have obtained audience. 
 And no such capricious following of their own will by 
 individual Clergymen as now often occurs would have 
 ensued, and exposed the Church to the reproach of having 
 no law at all. 
 
 As to the Church not having been consulted in a consti- 
 tutional way, it may be said, with some cogency, that it can 
 hardly be asserted that any one method has been invariably 
 pursued, even in so important a matter as the Revision of 
 the Prayer Book. A large number of Acts passed the 
 Legislature both before and after it admitted others than 
 Churchmen into its ranks, upon which Convocation was not 
 formally consulted. Before that date the acquiescence of 
 the Clergy was sometimes formally, sometimes informally, 
 obtained, sometimes taken for granted. It will be rejoined, 
 however, " This variation was then, to a great extent, 
 immaterial, because Parliament represented Church feeling. 
 Now things are different, the views of the Church should be 
 ascertained, therefore Convocation should be formally con- 
 sulted, or at least its general feeling elicited." This would 
 be a plea almost unanswerable if Convocation represented 
 the mind of both Clergy and Laity, who together constitute 
 the Church. At present, it does no more than inadequately 
 represent the Clergy. Important measures have required to 
 be enacted, and in the interval of a satisfactory method
 
 41 
 
 being arrived at of making Convocation what It should be, 
 Parliament has passed these measures alone. Hence things 
 are as they are, and hence the establishment of the tribunals 
 objected to. 
 
 All this is reasonably a matter of regret. But the 
 fact that such a method has not been yet arrived at 
 has induced some persons to consider the present state of 
 things to be almost hopeless. I do not agree with them in 
 this faithless despondency. My impression is, after all, that 
 the practical result of these grievances is, like that of the 
 others, sadly exaggerated. No doctrine of the Church has 
 been forbidden to be taught by the Courts of which complaint 
 is made. Nay, so far as one of its decisions goes, it Is by 
 the action of the Supreme Court that a very high view of the 
 doctrine of the Holy Eucharist has been pronounced to be 
 within the teaching of the Church. Now It Is generally 
 supposed that it is In order to the exhibition of that high 
 view that certain positions and vestments and ceremonies are 
 by many persons contended for. If so, it may be asked, 
 why contend for them, seeing that what they are said to 
 shadow forth Is conceded ? Besides, the Church is, In spite of 
 all alleged hindrances, doing a great and noble work. It would 
 be mournful Indeed If, although as we have seen already. Its 
 circumstances are not unparalleled In hardship, or to be 
 unexpected considering the temper of the times, or free from 
 the imputation of being partly brought about by the hastiness 
 or rashness of Individuals, the consciences of any should be 
 so moved as to Induce them to give up the idea of Union 
 of Church and State as untenable. Surely Conscience 
 implies obligations to patience, to long-suflfering, to dismissal 
 or regulation of irritated feeling, to consideration for all, to 
 forgetfulness of self, and, in dubious cases, to choice of what 
 on the whole Is the best and most righteous course. If this 
 is so, what sufficient justification can there be, in the presence 
 of God, for endeavouring to disestablish the Church, or for
 
 42 
 
 forming a fi'ee or non-juring Communion, or for joining the 
 Church of Rome ? For I understand that to one or other of 
 these courses the consciences of some are impelling them. 
 Let us calmly consider what each of these proposals by 
 necessary consequence involves. 
 
 To give up the Union of Church and State — What else 
 is it than at once to forego the worldly position of the Chm'ch, 
 which has enabled it to do so much good, and to lose in a 
 great measure its endowments, already sufficiently small ? 
 To forget, selfishly, that though in large towns large congi'e- 
 gations may still support their Clergymen, yet in the country 
 villages, a Clergyman, the centre of religious influence, 
 with difficulty maintained already, cannot be maintained 
 at all? To join a horde of Infidels and Secularists, 
 who detest or are indifferent to any religion, united with 
 Non-conformists, who, as a rule, are vexed at the Chm'ch's 
 worldly position more than they are displeased with her 
 doctrines "? To break up an Institution, Scriptural in its 
 teaching, venerable from its antiquity, influential from its 
 moral weight. Catholic from its tolerance, as was the Ancient 
 Church — to break up this, into two or three or even more 
 sects, bitter in their hostility each to the other ? For it cannot 
 be supposed, as the example of the Irish Church may show us, 
 that a Disestablished Church will be free from discords — or 
 with one voice maintain the Faith. What is it again, but 
 to throw up the work which has been going on for this forty 
 or fifty years for Education, for restoration of Cathedrals and 
 Parish Churches to their pristine glory and beauty, for the 
 providing Incomes for the poorer Clergy, for extension of the 
 Episcopate, for Foreign Missions and the like ? All these 
 things our Church has been assisted in doing by the fact of 
 its being Established. And it has, besides, been a public 
 and acknowledged witness for God — and a wonder to other 
 nations who have thrown off" such public witness. 
 
 To form a sort of non-juring Communion, possibly with
 
 43 
 
 some retired Colonial Bishops to head the schism, and impart 
 to it a colourable apostolicity * — What is this but to neglect 
 the warnings of history that such a schism either comes to 
 nought, and after splitting up into subordinate schisms, dies 
 out, or might have been avoided altogether, had patience 
 been summoned into exercise ? It is a curious and instructive 
 fact that the schism in the Established Kirk of Scotland, 
 which resulted in the setting up a Free Kirk, might have 
 been avoided had patience been resorted to. The very 
 grievance of which the Auchterarder case was a type is now 
 removed. Thus waiting would have rendered the schism 
 unnecessary. 
 
 To join the Church of Rome — What Is this, but to forget 
 those solemn words of Keble, written by him, when persons 
 were lamenting the Gorham decision. He says, " Most of us 
 must be aware that a certain number of persons, seeing and 
 keenly feeling such evils as I have mentioned, have become 
 Impatient — have said to themselves, ' How can this be a part 
 of the true Church which permits such things to be done ? ' 
 (as If a Church could not sin without ceasing to be a 
 Church,) and so they have put aside all their doubts, and 
 betaken themselves to the Church of Rome, with all its 
 errors, denying (which is saddest of all,) the Grace which 
 has fed them all their life long unto that day." f 
 
 You will gather from what I have said, that I think that 
 a great deal more must be borne, and a great deal more 
 patience must be exercised before conscience can legitimately 
 say, " Under no circumstances can this state of things be 
 endured," or legitimately embrace any one of the alternatives 
 suggested. It seems to me that patience will do much, and 
 
 * Much in the way that Bishop Beckles has been engaged by the few 
 congregations of persons calling themselves English Episcopalians, to come 
 occasionally to Scotland. It is satisfactory to see that the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury has disclaimed any countenance, directly or indirectly, of this 
 arrangement. 
 
 t Occasional Papers^ p. 242.
 
 44 
 
 I have great confidence that the English spirit of fairness 
 and toleration will, If no precipitate measures are adopted, 
 eventually lead up to some remedy. 
 
 Happily, all men are not constituted alike. Many, 
 whose consciences do not Impel them to any one of these 
 extreme alternatives, and who do not care to imitate 
 their more advanced brethren in any great eccentricity of 
 ritual, while they assert that grievances exist, desire that a 
 remedy for them should be found If possible. These 
 are those more moderate men of whom I spoke earlier. 
 They feel that it Is an unhealthy and dangerous state of 
 things, and one likely to confuse conscience altogether, that 
 there should be earnest men pleading conscience for diso- 
 bedience certainly, and possibly for rupture with the State, or 
 schism, or apostasy. And they fear, not unnaturally, that 
 the very spectacle of extreme men suiFering hardships, for 
 conscience sake, may eventually produce an impression, 
 either that all the Church cares for is Ritual, or that extreme 
 Ritualism is, after all, true religion. It was not without 
 a serious object in view that I argued that Ritualism, besides 
 being a thing conventional in itself, was a thing which 
 differed in degrees. I said that, being such, it could scarcely 
 be condemned wholesale. In the same way it should hardly 
 be persisted In wholesale. And yet, rather than abandon, at 
 the request of their Bishops, the smallest portion of ritual 
 which their leaders have not thought it necessary to adopt, 
 there are those who say, " I will have all or nothing. I will 
 shut up my Church from Sunday to Sunday. I will render 
 my Sunday Services as drily and baldly as possible, rather 
 than make the slightest concession. My conscience impels 
 me to this course." And others, on a similar plea, have 
 endured suspension, or placed themselves under penalty for 
 contempt. These are exciting instances. 
 
 Well, what Is to be done? The question Is, perhaps, a 
 difficult one, but cases of conscience are so much to be
 
 45 
 
 sympathised with, that it is one's duty to try if possible to 
 meet them. 
 
 Certain things may, I think, be taken for granted. 
 
 First^ that, in Legislation, our Statesmen have not 
 intended to make aggressions upon the Church, but have 
 acted in ignorance or forgetfiilness of the State's theoretical 
 relations to the Church. 
 
 Secondly^ that this is no wonder, for that until quite of late 
 years. Churchmen themselves were not generally alive to an 
 assertion of those theoretical relations. 
 
 Thirdly^ that even now, the generality of Churchmen 
 do not understand them ; and that, of those who do, many 
 have been roused to the study of them by circumstances 
 occurring in their day. 
 
 Hence, fourthly^ that both Statesmen and many Church- 
 men suppose that the contest is merely whether such and 
 such rites, dresses and ceremonies shall be adopted or no, not 
 whether the laws constituting Courts to judge upon such 
 questions shall be passed, or officers to cany out the decrees 
 of such Courts shall be appointed, with or without the voice 
 of the Church. 
 
 Hence, fifthly^ that they consider that all those who 
 decline the jurisdiction of such Courts are acting from mere 
 contumacy or caprice. 
 
 Hence, sixthly^ that, proceeding upon the representation 
 of persons who have been alarmed at what appear to be 
 Romeward tendencies, they have passed a law, which, among 
 other things, aflfords facilities for putting such tendencies 
 down. 
 
 Seventhly y that, if told that Convocation is the repre- 
 sentative of the Church, they reply, in its present condition, 
 it is a very inadequate representative. 
 
 But, eighthly y that Statesmen have shown that they do not 
 altogether distrust Convocation, even in its uureformed 
 condition. They consulted it in reference to the Act of
 
 46 
 
 Uniformity Amendment Act, and have advised the Crown to 
 permit it to deliberate on a measure for amending the 
 Rubrics. When Keble wrote the words which I quoted just 
 now Convocation was a shadow of a shade, and its very 
 summons to assembly was made a matter of derision. " We 
 wonder," said men of the world, "that the Clergy do not 
 tire of so unmeaning a ceremony." Now, at any rate, it is 
 allowed to deliberate, and its influential position is being 
 gradually comprehended. 
 
 Ninthly^ that not merely Statesmen, but our Ecclesiastical 
 rulers themselves, are scarcely aware how -widely there has 
 spread among the Clergy a feeling of dissatisfaction with the 
 present state of affairs — a dissatisfaction with themselves and 
 others who disobey or appear to disobey what is laid down 
 as law — a dissatisfaction with others who are ready to break 
 up an Institution which they justly hold so dear. 
 
 If these thino-s be so, I think that it is necessarv that all 
 who desire the Union of Church and State to be preserved 
 should convey to the Bishops, their Spiritual Fathers in 
 Christ, an expression of the perplexity with which they 
 regard the existing crisis.* 
 
 And that such expression should run somewhat as 
 follows : — 
 
 That without determining whether the jurisdiction of 
 which some of their brethren complain is purely Secular or 
 no, they desire that the nature, the title, and the exercise 
 of that jurisdiction should be inquired into. 
 
 That they feel that some grievance must exist, else 
 persons, whom for many reasons they respect, would scarcely 
 
 * I may mention that this Charge was, in most part, written before the 
 Memorial of the Dean of St. Paul's and others to the Archbishops and Bishops 
 was brought to my notice. 1 declined to sign it in the following words : — " It 
 contains a great deal that I agree with, and have, indeed, endeavoured to 
 express in the draft of a Charge which I am to deliver (D.V.) on April 26th. 
 But as I approach some things from a different point of view, I should feel 
 hampered by adopting, meanwhile, the words of the Memorial." 
 
 \
 
 47 
 
 complain of such jurisdiction, and especially of the working 
 of a recent Act called the Public Worship Regulation Act. 
 
 That they are not conscious of any desire to follow their 
 own wills in Ritual matters, but merely wish to know for certain 
 within what limits they and others who go beyond them in 
 claiming liberty as to the method of celebrating Divine 
 Service may enjoy liberty. 
 
 That it appears to them that, in such matters, as distinct 
 from merely financial and political matters, Convocation 
 should be consulted. 
 
 That if Convocation, in its present state, does not express 
 the voice of the Church, they would be glad to have it 
 reformed, m order that it may adequately do so. 
 
 That, when it is so refoinned, they hope it may be per- 
 mitted, in concert with Parliament, to detemiine how Divine 
 Service is to be conducted. 
 
 That if this is granted, and the Church's voice is heard, 
 they are persuaded that on the one hand very few ques- 
 tions concerning Rubrics and Ceremonies, &c., connected 
 therewith will occur, and that on the few points that may arise 
 ready obedience will be paid to the godly admonitions of the 
 Bishops. 
 
 Such, it seems to me. Brethren, or something like this, 
 might be a legitimate representation to the Spiritual Fathers 
 of the Church. 
 
 It Is, you will observe, a perfectly constitutional mode of 
 approaching the subject, for It Is a petition, founded on facts 
 which, to the minds of the petitioners, require some elucida- 
 tion, for the quieting of consciences. 
 
 And, as the enquiry for which It asks, and the measures 
 which may have to be taken in consequence, must necessarily 
 occupy some time, It is a mode free from all Imputation of 
 want of patience. 
 
 There might be appended to the representation a request 
 that the Bishops will both take it into their personal con-
 
 48 
 
 slderation, and take counsel with tlie Secular power, in such 
 points as may concern it. 
 
 One would think that all, without distinction of Theo- 
 logical party, might join in it, if it were submitted to them in 
 all its bearings. For, as I read it, the Public Worship 
 Regulation Act, though it has hitherto been put in operation 
 only against one party, might be used against those who are 
 in defect as well as those who are in excess. Any Incumbent 
 might be presented, who "has within the preceding twelve 
 months failed to observe, or cause to be obsei*ved, the direc- 
 tions contained in the Book of Common Prayer, relating 
 to the perfonnance, in such Church or burial ground, (as 
 he is concerned with,) of the services, rites and ceremonies 
 ordered by the said book, or has made, or permitted to 
 be made any unlawfiil addition to, alteration of, or omission 
 from, such services, rites, and ceremonies."* 
 
 One would think that a sense of common danger would 
 unite all in a common effort for defence, as even the jarring 
 factions of the Jews united every now and then, how 
 generally estranged soever, during the siege of Jerusalem. 
 
 One would think also that a sense of God's previous 
 protection of the Church would prevent men from despairing 
 of its fortunes now. 
 
 But whether these thoughts and hopes are well-grounded 
 or no, I humbly commend them to the consideration of my 
 brethren the Clergy In their Ruri-decanal Chapters — and to 
 my brethren both of Clergy and Laity in such Ruri-decanal 
 Church Associations or Synods as exist. We can do nothing 
 without the Laity ; for them the Clergy exist, and without 
 them there is no Church. 
 
 It is all Important, especially if the mind of the Church 
 
 * This would include omission to use the Athanasian Creed, or the Prayer 
 for the Church Militant. And I apprehend that it would apply even to the 
 omission to have Daily Service, unless the Minister can show that he is 
 " reasonably hindered."
 
 49 
 
 is to be ascertained, that the Laity shoukl be consulted. And 
 lieuce the great utility of what I believe already exist in 
 sixteen Dioceses, regular Diocesan Conferences, in which 
 representatives of Clergy and Laity meet under the Presidency 
 of the Bishop. 
 
 We do not possess such an an-angement in the Diocese 
 of London. It may be that there would be considerable 
 difficulty in working it. But I do not think there can be 
 any harm in mentioning to my brethren what have struck 
 me as at least some of its advantages. These are the 
 opportunities it gives : — 
 
 1. Of discussing, under duly constituted authority, all 
 important questions touching the well-being of the Diocese, 
 and the greater efficiency of the Church's Ministrations in 
 it, by Clergy and Laity who have the known confidence of 
 their brethren. 
 
 2. Of gathering up and eliciting the opinions and wishes 
 of the Rural Deaneries in Chapter or Meeting. 
 
 3. Of enabling the Bishop to learn, constitutionally, the 
 general wishes of the Diocese and to direct Spiritual energies 
 into useful channels. 
 
 ■4. Of removing all ground of complaint that the Bishop 
 does not consult the Clergy and Laity. 
 
 5. Of educating the Clergy and Laity to respect one 
 another's opinions and to think more alike.* 
 
 * It is a grand mistake, both in charity ami in policy, of the opposing 
 parties in the Church, I do not say of their leaders, but of persons who 
 noisily represent them, to reproach those v/ho do not exactly come up to 
 or who go beyond their own standard of observances. To take an instance 
 or two. To preach in a surplice, to have a choir at all, to have a surpliced 
 choir, to use the P^astward position, to wear distinctive vestments at the 
 celebration of the Eucharist. To have only Sunday prayers, to have only 
 Sunda)-- and Holy Day prayers, to have monthly or weekly Comnuinions 
 and no more, to have Communions every day, and many Communions on tlio 
 same day, on special occasions. These, according as the ascending or the 
 descending scale is adopted, are spoken of, irrespectively of the peculiar 
 features of the place, or the wants and wishes of the Congregations, as 
 
 D
 
 50 
 
 6. Of forming, especially, a body of thoiiglitful Churcli 
 educated Laymen, on whom in each Deanery, the Bishop may 
 the more confidently rely, and who may speak with wisdom 
 and authority on Church matters when they come before 
 Parliament. 
 
 7. Of suggesting and carrying out more expeditiously and 
 efficiently any well-considered plans. 
 
 8. Of educing and strengthening and encouraging the 
 great mass of moderate yet earnest Church feeling and 
 opinion. At present, for lack of anthorizcd gatherings, these 
 are unable as they might to control those extreme views in 
 one direction or another, which, acting apart, so mnch 
 distract us. 
 
 9. Of satisfying, to some extent at least, the cry and 
 claim of many Laymen to have their due share in Church 
 Government. 
 
 It will be for you, my Brethren, to judge whether such 
 an institution would be useful in this Diocese, and, if you 
 think that it would, to ask our Bishop, in his wisdom, to 
 establish it. 
 
 Meanwhile, whatever be the result of the present struggles 
 and misunderstandings, let us go on manfully, because faith- 
 fully, with our work, or rather God's work, trusting in the 
 Spirit of Christ, which will never desert us if we do so. 
 Great labours may be in store for the Church and for the 
 individual Members of it, but great comforts are in store 
 also, if not in earth, yet in heaven, when the storms of life 
 shall be over. Until that time we may well aflford to possess 
 
 circumstances which call either for lamentation or for supercilious pity. This 
 mistake, I think, would occur less frequently, if persons of different views 
 were brought into friendly contact. Those asperities Avould he smoothed 
 away which gave occasion to the following remark by Mr. Gladstone: — 
 " There is a definition of Ritualism purely subjective, but in practice more 
 widely prevalent than any other. According to this definition. Ritualism is 
 to each maai that which, in matter of Ritual, each man dislikes, and holds to 
 be in excess." — Contemporary Beview, vol. xxiv. p. 664.
 
 51 
 
 our souls in patience. For what says a poet* of our own 
 day — a poet, tender and true, whose words have already 
 cheered by their hearty and vigorous tones many a faint- 
 hearted Christian soldier ? 
 
 'Mid toil and tribulation 
 
 And tumult of her war, 
 She waits the consummation 
 
 Of peace for evermore ; 
 Till with the vision glorious 
 
 Her longing eyes are blest, 
 And the Great Church victorious 
 
 Shall be the Church at rest. 
 
 ARE THINGS SO DISCOURAGING, AFTER ALL? 
 
 * The Rev. S. J. Stone, of St. Paul's, Haggerston.
 
 ( 52 ) 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 {Page 25.) 
 
 CHURCH EDUCATION UNION FOR PADDINGTON. 
 
 President. 
 The Right Rev. The LORD BISHOP op LONDON. 
 
 Vice-Presidents. 
 The Ven. The ARCHDEACON op MIDDLESEX. 
 A. J. B. BERESFORD HOPE, Esq., M.P. 
 F. S. POWELL, Esq. 
 W. H. SMITH, Esq., M.P. 
 
 Treasurer {pro. tern.) 
 JOHN KNOWLES, Esq., 19, Porchester Square. 
 
 Son. Secretaries. 
 
 Rev. W. H. O'BRYEN HODGE, St. Peter's Vicarage, Elgin Road, 
 Harrow Road. 
 
 W. SANDBY, Esq., 23, Delamere Terrace. 
 
 TO THE FRIENDS OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND EDUCATION. 
 
 A deep conviction of the importance of preserving and giving increased 
 efficiency to Church of England Schools, induces us to beg your careful 
 attention to the following statement : — 
 
 At a recent meeting of the Clergy of the Rural Deanery of Paddington, 
 the present condition and future prospects of the Schools in its various 
 Parishes -were fully and carefully considered. 
 
 It was clearly ascertained tliat, in by far the greater part of Paddington, 
 ample school accommodation for the children of the poor is now provided, 
 and a need for additional room is felt almost entirely in those few parts 
 where, owing to recent building or an altered character in the locality, large 
 masses of people have been brought together within the last few years. 
 
 Even in these comparatively destitute localities large Schools have been 
 built : indeed, no Paddington Parish is without them, and a slight addition 
 to existing buildings is in many instances all that is required to meet the 
 deficiency referred to. 
 
 But a grave difiiculty has arisen in relation to the prospects of Voluntary 
 Schools. It cannot be concealed that the policy of the London School 
 Board, as represented by the sentiments of the majority of the Members 
 returned at the recent Election, is to look with increasing disfavour upon
 
 53 
 
 Voluntary Schools ; and, as far as possible, to get the whole Elementary 
 Education of the poorer classes into the hands of the Board. We express 
 no opinion upon this policy ; but ask to be permitted to say a word in 
 favour of maintaining, as a permanent institution, a class of Schools which 
 are allowed, on all hands, to have done more than any other towards 
 securing a sound and efficient education for the children of our Metropolitan 
 poor. 
 
 We contend for the preservation and extended efficiency of these 
 Schools on three grounds, — Religious, Pastoral, and Economical. 
 
 On Religious grounds, we plead strongly with all Churchmen for the 
 preservation of Church of England Schools. We have no security for 
 Religious teaching of any kind in Board Schools. We cannot tell how 
 soon the merely Secular system, which has been openly inaugurated in 
 Birmingham and elsewhere, may be repeated in London, eveiy vestige or 
 pretence of revealed truth being eliminated from the instruction, and the 
 effort too successfully made to " eradicate from the minds of children the 
 superstition learned at their mother's knee." 
 
 On Pastoral grounds, we shall hope to carry the suffrages of all 
 Chui'chmen with us in wishing to keep our Church Schools from passing into 
 strange hands. These Schools are a necessary complement of our Church 
 system. As the creation of parochial liberality and local and congregational 
 sympathies, they form a permanent bond of kindly feeling between the 
 richer and poorer members of our Communion. They constitute the seed- 
 plot and chief tributaries from which we supply and keep up our invaluable 
 Sunday Schools ; whilst by constant visitation of the Schools in the week, 
 the Clergy obtain an access to the hearts and homes of the children's 
 parents, which they could in vain hope to obtain in any other way. 
 
 On Economical grounds, we urge our present appeal. We have no 
 sympathy with a narrow parsimony in this matter of educating the poor. 
 If by statistics and Inspectors' Reports it could be shown that the 
 Education at our Church Schools is inferior to that given at the Board 
 Schools, we should never ask you to uphold them because they are cheap. 
 But in respect of efficiency, we know we can fearlessly challenge 
 comparison with Board Schools ; and therefore if, to the other advantages 
 we have specified from a Church point of view, we can add this also, that 
 by strengthening and upholding our existing Schools, we shall considerably 
 lighten the burdens upon the rate-payers, we trust we shall have made out 
 a case in favour of this appeal, and that the verdict of Paddington will be, 
 that its Church Schools shall never pass out of Church hands. 
 
 But in order to secure this most desuable object, some of our Schools 
 require immediate and considerable help — help without which it is inevitable 
 that they must succumb to the pressure which will be put upon them 
 under the Elementary Education Act, and be entirely lost to the Church. 
 
 The present deficiency is almost confined to two neighbourhoods, viz. : 
 the densely populated Parish of St. Mary, Paddington Green, and the new 
 parts recently built near the Lock Hospital, Harrow Road. 
 
 \^The Paper then goes into details and concludes tlius.'\ 
 
 Suoh are the more pressing needs for which the present appeal is made
 
 54 
 
 to the Churchmen of Paddington, and which, it will be observed, is not so 
 much for the building of new Scho^ds, as for the maintenance of our present 
 Schools in all their usefulness and efficiency. This result, it is obvious, 
 can be secured only by a large and liberal effort on the part of the richer 
 portions of the parish to provide for the necessities of the poorer. The fact 
 must be put forth plainly, that the parishes where help is most needed can 
 do little beyond supporting the Schools when built ; but this, there is every 
 reason to believe, they will be able to do. 
 
 We require about £5,000. No excessive sum for so wealthy a parish. 
 Considerable assistance may with confidence be hoped for from Church 
 Societies ; but success will really depend on the response to this appeal. 
 
 Contributions or promises to assist may be sent to the Treasurer, or to 
 any of the undersigned. A Committee of Clergy and Laity will be 
 constituted as soon as possible. Sums also, of any amount, may be paid 
 to the account of the Paddington Church Education Union, at the London 
 and County Bank, Westbourne Grove. 
 
 W. Abbott, Vicar of Paddington. 
 
 J. W. Buckley, Vicar of St. Mary's. 
 
 Flavel Cook, Minister of the 
 Lock Chapel. 
 
 H.V. H. CowELL, Vicar of St. Paul's. 
 
 W. H. O'Bryen Hodge, Vicar of 
 St. Peter's. 
 
 James Hunter, Vicar of St. 
 Matthew's. 
 
 J. Maconechy, Vicar of All Saints'. 
 
 D. MooKE, Vicar of Holy Trinity. 
 
 T. Nolan, Vicar of St. Saviour's. 
 
 A. G. Pemberton, Vicar of St. 
 John's, Kensal Green. 
 
 G. F. Prescott, Vicar of St. 
 
 Michael's. 
 R. C. KiRKPATRiCK, Vicar of St. 
 
 Augustine's, Kilburn. 
 
 R. J. Knowles, Vicar of St. Luke's. 
 
 Richard T. West, Vicar of St. 
 
 Mary Magdalene. 
 Richard Wood, Vicar of Christ 
 
 Church, Lancaster Gate. 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 {Page 26.) 
 
 THE RURAL DEANERY OF FULHAM. 
 
 RULES FOR CONFERENCE MEETINGS. 
 Approved by the Bishop of London. 
 
 1. The Conference shall consist of the Clergy and three Lay Repre- 
 sentatives from each Ecclesiastical District. 
 
 2. The Lay Representatives, being communicants of full age, shall be 
 elected at a Meeting of the Congregation which they represent, called by 
 notice for that purpose. 
 
 3. The Lay Members shall be elected for three years, one to retire each 
 year iu each District. The Election shall be annually in January.
 
 DO 
 
 4. The Conference sliall meet twice a year (in February and October) at 
 half-past 7 in the evening, at such place as the Rural Dean shall from time 
 to time appoint. 
 
 5. The Eural Dean shall be ex-officio Chairman. 
 
 6. The subjects of discussion shall be arranged by a Sub-Committee of 
 five, appointed annually at the February Meeting, and shall be such as are 
 of general Church interest, questions of doctrine excepted. 
 
 7. Any Member wishing to introduce a subject must give notice thereof 
 to the Eural Dean, to be by him submitted to the Sub-Committee. 
 
 8. Seven days' notice shall be given to every Member of the Conference 
 of the date and place of meeting, and the subjects to be discussed thereat, 
 
 9. The discussions shall be introduced either by way of Paper or by 
 Resolution, and shall be conducted according to the rules of debate. 
 
 10. The discussion in Conference shall be in common ; and ordinarily 
 the vote shall be taken from the whole body, J^ay and Clerical Members 
 together ; but on the demand of two-thirds of either Order who are present, 
 the two Orders (Lay and Clerical) shall vote separately ; and in such cases 
 nothing shall be considered carried except by a majority of both Orders. 
 
 11. — No alteration or addition to the Rules shall be made, Avithout due 
 notice given at the preceding- Meeting, and unless carried by a majority of 
 two-thirds of the Members present ; and no alteration in the constitution of 
 the Conference, as defined in Rules 1, 2, 3, and 10, shall be made without 
 the concurrence of the Bishop. 
 
 APPENDIX III, 
 
 {Page 27.) 
 
 DRAFT SCHEME. 
 
 I.— That the Fund to be raised shall be called "TXe Church of England 
 School Belief Fund for the Metropolis.'' 
 
 II. — That the Fund shall be in connection with the National Society. 
 
 III. — That its object shall be to assist the Elementary Schools of the 
 Church of England within the Metropolis, where such assistance may be 
 necessaiy for their preservation. 
 
 IV.—That the area to be covered by the operations of the Fund shall be 
 conterminous with the London School Board District. 
 
 v.— That the Fund shall be administered by a Committee, consisting of 
 the Bishops, ex officio, who have jurisdiction within the Metropolitan area, 
 the Treasurer of the Fund, and of twelve other persons, of whom four shall 
 be nominated by each of the said Bishops, and four by the Committee of the 
 National Society ; three to form a quorum.
 
 5(j 
 
 VI. — That for the purpose of raising money the Committee he authorised 
 to avail itself of the organisation and officers of the National Society, on a 
 plan to be approved by the Committees of the Fund and of the National 
 Society. 
 
 VII. — That in voting a grant for the relief of any School, the following 
 conditions shall be observed: — 
 
 1 . The circumstances of the case shall be personally investigated 
 
 either by a Member of the Committee or by some person 
 delegated by the Committee, who shall make a report in 
 writing. 
 
 2. The general arrangements and the management of the School 
 
 must be satisfactory to the Committee. 
 
 3. Such a guarantee as shall be deemed suiEcient by the Committee 
 
 must be obtained from the Managers for the continued main- 
 tenance of the School in connection with the Church of 
 England. 
 
 VIII. That relief may be afforded in any of the following ways : — 
 
 1. By a donation to place the School on a more efficient footing. 
 
 2. By a contribution towards maintenance in exceptionally poor 
 
 districts, or under exceptional circumstances. 
 
 3. By a temporary loan in anticipation of the Government grant, 
 
 security being obtained for its repayment. 
 
 WllNTfiD BY THOMAS BCOTT, WARWICK COORT, ItOf.nOKSf-
 
 
 w;^::^' 
 

 
 f»*«5.