X. 
 
 y 
 
 •■^m 
 
 ,__33^--
 
 L I E) RARY 
 
 OF THL 
 
 U N 1VER.S1TY 
 
 or 1 LLl NOIS
 
 / 
 
 TWO ADDRESSES 
 
 H)cUvc^c^ to tbc (ricro\> 
 
 OF THE 
 
 H)ioce0c of Burbain 
 
 DECEMBER, 1SS2, 
 
 J. B. LICtHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D., 
 
 BISHOP OK DURHAM 
 
 MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
 a. 
 
 * 9
 
 INDEX. 
 
 (Ieneral 
 
 T. The Diocese 
 
 (1) Territorial Rearrangements. 
 
 11 
 (ii 
 
 (iii 
 
 (2) D 
 (i 
 
 (iii 
 (iv 
 
 (vH 
 
 Division of the Diocese 
 
 New Archdeaconry 
 
 Iicarrangenient of Rural Deaneries 
 
 Subdivision of Parishes - - - 
 
 loremn Institutions and Associations. 
 
 Diocesan Conference - - . 
 
 Diocesan Societies - - - 
 
 Organization of Lay Help 
 
 Lay Headers 
 
 Ministration of Women 
 
 (J iris' Friendly Society and Young Men's Friendly 
 Society - . . . 
 
 Diocesan Preachers - - - 
 
 (3) Miscellaneous. 
 
 Ordinations - - - - 
 
 fleeting of Curates - - - 
 
 Confirmations - - - - 
 
 Church Building and Hestoration 
 
 Diocesan Calendar and Magazine 
 ^frospertive and Pros^ieefive. 
 
 Jhurcii. 
 Burial Laws Amendment Act - 
 Permanent Diaconate 
 
 Salvation Army - - - , 
 
 iievised New Testament - 
 Vestments 
 
 Church and State ... 
 
 Anxieties and Hopes 
 
 (i 
 
 (ii 
 
 (iii 
 (iv 
 
 (4) L 
 The ( 
 
 (1 
 
 (•-' 
 (3 
 (-1 
 (•■> 
 (^' 
 (' 
 
 XuTES 
 
 PAGE 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 L5 
 19 
 21 
 
 23 
 
 27 
 28 
 30 
 33 
 
 35 
 37 
 
 40 
 42 
 43 
 45 
 
 4G 
 47 
 
 55 
 01 
 
 67 
 77 
 82 
 86 
 89 
 95
 
 ,u»uc .
 
 The Jirst part of this Charge ivas delivered 
 in Durham Cathedral, he/ore the Clergy of the 
 Archdeaconry of Durhain, on Thursday, December 
 IMh; the second in the Chapel of Aucldand Castle, 
 before the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Auckland, 
 on Saturday, December 16th.
 
 A CHARGE. 
 
 Reverend Brethren, 
 
 THE SOLEMNITY of tlie occasion will Le felt Ly all 
 who are met together to-clay. Tins is far 
 more than an ordinary gathering of clergy, whether 
 for social interchange or for mutual consultation or 
 even for common worshij:). We have arrived at one 
 of those marked halting-places in our ministerial 
 journey, where, resting for a moment, we look behind 
 and before us ; and taught alike by the failures and 
 achievements of the past, we gird ourselves up for a 
 fresh start and a more enern;etic race in the future. 
 A visitation is a great audit time, when the Bishop 
 and Clergy alike render an account of their minis- 
 trations — the Clergy by their answers to the questions 
 of their diocesan — the Bishop by his charge summing- 
 up the work of the diocese during the few years past. 
 It is a foreshadowing and a forecast of the great and 
 final visitation, when the Master Himself returning 
 shall demand an account of His talents, when the 
 Chief Shepherd shall reappear and re(]uire His lluck 
 at our hands.
 
 4 A Charge. 
 
 On this my primary visitation my thoughts 
 naturally revert to the day when, full of misgivings, 
 I first came among you between three and four 
 years ago. The more than kindly welcome which 
 I received from clergy and laity alike reassured me. 
 The hopes with which your attitude then inspired 
 me have not been disappointed. I have not escaped, 
 and I do not desire to escape, criticism. I have 
 striven to administer this diocese with moderation 
 indeed, but without fear or favour of men ; and he 
 who sets this ideal before him, must expect to dis- 
 appoint many and perhaps to offend a few. To the 
 generous forbearance, the ready deference, the frank 
 counsel, and the hearty co-operation of all — of the 
 clergy more especially — I am indebted for any measure 
 of success which may have attended my adminis- 
 tration since my coming among you. To this same 
 cause I owe it, that I address you to-day with a 
 courage and a hopefulness which three years and a 
 half ago I should not have thought possible. 
 
 I. 
 
 1. TERRITORIAL REARRANGEMENTS. 
 
 (i) Division of the Diocese. 
 
 A great and momentous chang-e has overtaken the 
 diocese since the last visitation — a change more 
 considerable in itself and more important in its 
 prospective results than any since the establishment 
 of the see at Durham, if we except the abolition of
 
 A Cha7ye. 5 
 
 the Palatine jurisdiction in 1836. The See of 
 Durham has been shorn of two-thirds of its area 
 and one-third of its population. It has been severed 
 from the cradle of its race — the sacred island of 
 Lindisfarne. It has lost an appreciable part of its 
 income and its patronage. Nevertheless this change, 
 now that it is made, must be a subject of unalloyed 
 joy and thankfulness to all who have at heart the 
 well-being and efficiency of the Church of England. 
 When I was working for the division of the diocese, 
 I was met again and again with the objection — 
 frankly stated and, I doubt not, sincerely held — that 
 the dignity and prestige of the ancient See of Durham 
 would suffer irreparably by the change. My constant 
 reply has been that the dignity and jDrestige of the see 
 existed only for the sake of its efficiency, and that 
 the sacrifice must be made, if it were needed. But I 
 do not think that any real loss of dignity has been 
 incurred. I cannot imagine that the mother see will 
 suffer at all in influence or importance, because a 
 daughter, who is bone of her bone and flesh of her 
 flesh, has gone forth from her home to win the hearts 
 and stir the souls of men. She will be all the 
 stronger and all the prouder for such a motherhood 
 as this. Certainly I should be the least inclined of 
 all men, whether from my personal interests in the 
 see or from my historical sympathies with the past, 
 to consent calmly to any real diminution of the 
 glories of the ancient bishopric. But no local severance 
 can impair the historical connexion. Columba and
 
 6 A Charge. 
 
 Aidan are still onr spiritual forefathers ; Lindisfarne 
 and Hexham are still our ancestral homes, though 
 we have given them as a marriage portion to our 
 daughter. We cling as firmly, as eagerly, as reso- 
 lutely, as ever, to all that is noLle, all that is true, 
 all that is enduring, all that is Christlike, in the 
 Northumbrian Church in the phst. 
 
 I need not remind you that the creation of a see 
 for Northumberland, carved out of the Diocese of 
 Durham, is not a project of yesterday. It was 
 foreshadowed in the well-known Act of Henry viii, 
 which authorized the appointment of a suffragan 
 Bishop of Berwick to act as the Bishop of Durham's 
 lieutenant.^ It was carried out at least on paper by 
 an Act of the Legislature towards the close of the 
 next reign. This Act provided for the establishment 
 of a Bishopric of Newcastle, with the usual accom- 
 paniment of a Dean and Chapter. Happily it never 
 • took effect. No blessing could have been expected 
 to rest on a measure prompted by the most selfish 
 motives and carried out by the most unscrupulous 
 means. The aggrandizement of the most rapacious 
 and worldly of courtiers — John Dudley, Duke of 
 Northumberland — was the primary incentive to the 
 chang;e. The humiliation of the See of Durham was 
 a secondary but not unimportant object in the eyes 
 of its author. The deprivation and imprisonment of 
 the learned, gentle, moderate Tunstall — the most 
 blameless of prelates — was the immediate preliminary 
 to the step.^
 
 A Charge. 7 
 
 Thus tlie Act, though decked out with specious 
 phrases and high-sounding professions of concern for 
 the welfare of the diocese, was a mere measure of 
 spoliation, prompted by the greed and ambition of 
 one man. It was altogether of the earth earthy ; 
 and it deserved to perish. Perish it did speedily. 
 Its rescission w^s one* of the earliest measures of the 
 siijCceeding reign. From that time forward nothing 
 more is heard of the scheme till the j)resent gene- 
 ration. However beneficial in itself, it had been 
 hopelessly discredited by its origin and its motive. 
 The Bishops of Durham, burdened with the cares of 
 a secular princedom in addition to their spiritual 
 functions, continued to perform the duties of their 
 office unaided. Even the permissive Act of Henry 
 VIII, which granted a suffragan to the Bishoj^ of 
 Durham, was only once called into requisition, though 
 in mediaeval times the Bishop of Durham had not 
 unfrequently employed some Bishop in partihus as 
 suffragan. One Dr. Sparke, Master of Greatham 
 Hospital in Queen Elizabeth's time, was the first and 
 last Bishop of Berwick on record. 
 
 But the See of Durham, how^ever wide in area, was 
 not as yet very densely peopled. The whole popu- 
 lation of the diocese, comprising the two present 
 counties of Northumberland and Durham, with 
 a peninsula stretching into Cumberland and islets 
 dotted over the north of Yorkshire, was less at 
 the commencement of this century, than the 
 present population of any English diocese except
 
 8 A CJim^ge. 
 
 Hereford. But the century had hardly set in, 
 when the census rose by rapid bounds. The popu- 
 lation of the two counties is now four or five times as 
 great as it was in the opening years of the century. 
 This increase has been much more rapid in Durham 
 than in Northumberland. In 1801 Durham numbered 
 fewer inhabitants than Northumberland by twenty 
 thousand; in 1831 it had outstripped its neighbour 
 and counted some few thousands more; and in 1881 
 it reckoned double the population of Northumberland 
 though containing only half the acreage.^ No wonder 
 that with these rapidly gromng numbers earnest 
 and thoughtful men began to desire for the diocese 
 more eff'ective spiritual supervision. The Bishops of 
 Durham had been relieved from the cares of the 
 Palatinate not a moment too soon. But this relief 
 was more than counterbalanced by the ever increasing 
 pressure of work and the ever heightened ideal of 
 episcopal duty — an ideal springing from the general 
 revival of Church life, but owing not a little to the 
 devoted labours of men like Blomfield and Wilber- 
 force. 
 
 Accordingly in the year 1854 the Town Council of 
 Newcastle, by a unanimous vote, memorialized the 
 Home Secretary for the creation of a see in their 
 midst on the ground that owing to the increase of the 
 population ' the effective administration of the diocese 
 had become impossible ' ; and about the same time 
 the Cathedral Commissioners, who were then sitting, 
 received more than one memorial from the County of
 
 A Charge. 9 
 
 Northumberland to the same effect. In one of these 
 the memorialists put forward the plea that ' the diocese 
 contained an estimated population of 770,000.' This 
 estimate had nearly doubled before the see was 
 actually created. The Commissioners themselves, 
 reporting in the following year (1855), mention the 
 fact that ' local efforts of considerable importance 
 have already been made at Newcastle for the creation 
 of a new see there,' and they themselves include it 
 in their schedule. At the first Church Congress also, 
 held at Cambridge in 1861, in which the increase 
 of the episcopate was one of the subjects discussed, 
 Durham was placed in the forefront of the dioceses 
 which needed division.^ 
 
 For long years however local agitation slumbered. 
 Here and there a voice was raised, but no common 
 action was taken. Outside the diocese of Durham 
 however the movement did not rest. The creation of 
 the see of Ripon in 1836 could not be called an ex- 
 tension of the episcopate, for it was purchased by the 
 suppression of another bishopric. Yet the beneficent 
 effects of the division of an overgrown diocese and 
 the planting of a see in the heart of a populous 
 district were soon manifest in the fruits of Bishop 
 Longley's episcopate ; and this may be regarded 
 as the first step in the onward progress. The 
 lesson taught by the creation of Ripon in 1836 
 was further enforced by the creation of Manchester in 
 1847. This latter was the first real addition to the 
 English episcopate since Henry the viii's time,
 
 10 A Charge- 
 
 though, the population of England had increased five 
 or sixfold during the three centuries which had 
 elapsed meanwhile. So the cry for an increase of the 
 .episcopate rose ever louder and louder from the 
 Church. A Society for the extension of the Home 
 Episcopate was founded. The Premier w^as memorial- 
 ized. Comprehensive measures of extension were 
 again and again brought before Parliament. At 
 length it was seen to be more j)olitic to attack the 
 need in detail. Special wants must be supplied by 
 special measures. The result of this change of pro- 
 cedure was the immediate creation of two new sees. 
 St. Alban's was founded in 1875; Truro in the follow- 
 ing year. Each see created w^as a fresh indication of the 
 wisdom of these measures. Immediate and manifest 
 results followed in the quickening of Church life.-'' 
 
 At length Durham awoke again. In the year 
 1876 the late Bishop of Durham submitted to his 
 Puride canal Chapters the advisability of creating 
 a new see for Northumberland. Thoug;li there 
 was much difference of opinion as to the mode of 
 endowment, ' the judgment was almost unanimous 
 as to the advisableness of creating the see.' In the 
 following year (August 1877) Mr. T. Hedley — the 
 inheritor of a name famous in the annals of inventive 
 science — ^bequeathed his personal estate after certain 
 deductions and on certain conditions for the endow- 
 ment of such a bishopric. This munificent bequest 
 clinched the measure. In the following 5^ear (1878) 
 an Act passed the legislature for the creation of four
 
 A Charge. 11 
 
 new sees, Liverpool, Newcastle, Southwell, and 
 Wakefield. The Archbishop of Canterbury speaking 
 on the second reading of the Bill characterised the 
 measure as " one of the greatest reforms proposed for 
 the Church of Enfdand since the Eeformation," and 
 looked forward to it as a " means of greatly strength- 
 ening the Church."' My predecessor in this diocese 
 also strongly advocated the measure on that occasion. 
 This was, I believe, the last time that his voice was 
 heard in the House of Lords. In his last charge, 
 delivered a few months later, he commended the 
 foundation of the See of Newcastle to the diocese as a 
 measure much needed, giving his reasons for this 
 opinion, and referring to the decision of the Ruri- 
 decanal Chapters which I have already mentioned. 
 But he was not sanguine about the result. ' The 
 prospect,' he said, ' of the accomplishment of this 
 good work is, I fear, remote.'^ 
 
 The division of the diocese was thus bequeathed to 
 me as a legacy by my predecessor. As this topic 
 was prominent in his last public utterances to the 
 diocese, so also it had a conspicuous place in my first 
 words spoken among you. Preaching at my enthrone- 
 ment, I expressed the hope that ' the inauguration of a 
 new episcopate might be marked by the creation of a 
 new see ; that Northumberland which in centuries 
 long past gave to Durham her bishopric might receive 
 from Durham her due in return in these latest days ; 
 and that the New Cnstle on the Tyne might take its 
 place with the Old Castle on the Wear, as a spiritual
 
 12 A Charge. 
 
 fortress strong in the warfare of God.' But before this 
 I had taken one important step. Immediately after 
 my appointment I had sought an interview wdth the 
 Duke of Northumberland and received from him the 
 promise of the munificent gift (£10,000) which was 
 the foundation stone of the undertaking. Thus the 
 measure which, promoted three centuries and a half 
 earlier by the greed and ambition of one Duke of 
 Northumberland had proved abortive, was destined 
 in our days to be realized by the unselfish munifi- 
 cence of another. I pledged myself then and there, 
 that the success of the measure was assured by his 
 generosity ; and the other day, when he presided 
 at the reception of the Bishop of Newcastle, thereby 
 crowning the work which he himself had begun, I was 
 able to remind him of the pledge thus given and 
 redeemed. But the cloud still hung heavily over 
 these northern counties when I came among you. 
 It was a period of almost unparalleled commercial 
 and agricultural depression. The special industries 
 of the diocese had suff'ered perhaps more than any 
 others. By the termination of the strikes and the 
 resumption of work the worst anxiety had indeed 
 been removed ; but confidence was not restored. 
 Not only had great losses been incurred in the past ; 
 but a sense of instability, than which nothing is more 
 fatal to charitable benefactions on a large scale, had 
 been engendered. For the time therefore I held my 
 hand, warned on all sides that it would be fatal to 
 move at a moment so inopportune. Thus fifteen
 
 A Charge. 13 
 
 months elapsed since I entered my diocese, when the 
 first Diocesan Conference assembled towards the end 
 of September, 1880. Meanwhile a spur had been 
 applied to our tardiness. The See of Liverpool was 
 an accomplished fact. The people of Liverpool had 
 busied themselves wdth zeal, and the great wealth of 
 the place ensured them an early success. In my 
 opening address at the Conference I referred at length 
 to the foundation of the See of Newcastle as a 
 measure of immediate and pressing importance. The 
 division of the diocese was also one of the subjects on 
 the programme. Excellent papers w^ere read on it, 
 and an interesting discussion ensued. I stated on 
 this occasion that the first consecration in which I 
 had been called to take part was the consecration of a 
 Bishop for Liverpool, and that it was my earnest 
 prayer that the second might be the consecration of a 
 Bishop for Newcastle. I added also the hope that this 
 stirring of the question at the Diocesan Conference 
 would 'prove the beginning of the end.' 
 
 The prayer was granted ; the hope was fulfilled. 
 That day did prove ' the beginning of the end.' 
 The first printed circular was issued, if I recollect 
 rightly, soon after the Conference. Within fifteen 
 months from that date we were able to announce 
 publicly that the requisite endowment had been 
 obtained and that the establishment of the new see 
 was therefore an assured fact. For the first few 
 months I kept the matter in my own hands, until 
 I was able to announce that two-thirds of the sum
 
 14 . A Chai-ge. 
 
 required in addition to Mr. Hedley's legacy had been 
 secured. At length in December, 1880, a committee 
 was called together ; and a more general and active 
 canvass was commenced. To the executive com- 
 mittee, and more especially to its treasurers and 
 secretaries, I desire here to record my sincere thanks 
 for their energetic labours. To the clergy generally, 
 and more especially to the Rural Deans and Arch- 
 deacons, the speedy success of the measure is largely 
 indebted. The Archdeacons above all (one alas ! is 
 no longer with us to receive this expression of my 
 thanks) have laid me under the deepest obligation. 
 Speaking at Newcastle, early in June 1881, I had 
 expressed the hope that I might be able to announce 
 the completion of the fund at the Congress which 
 Avas fixed for the ensuing October. This hope 
 was not gratified. The Congress met, and I had 
 still to ask ' Usquequo Domine.' But a great 
 impulse was given to the work by this meeting. 
 A special Congress Fund was established at the 
 suggestion of the Bishop of Manchester and under 
 the direction of the then Archdeacon of Northum- 
 berland. We were now approaching the limit' at 
 which it might be possible by careful investment and 
 by guarantees to establish the bishopric shortly, 
 when the princely gift of Benwell Tower, as the 
 episcopal residence, dispensed with any anxiety about 
 guarantees, gave us a large margin, scattered all 
 misgivings, and rescued us from further delay. The 
 gift was made known privately by the donor in the
 
 A Charge. 1 5 
 
 middle of October 1881, tliougli not published till 
 later. Tlius less tliiin thirteen months from the time 
 when active steps were first taken had sufficed to 
 secure the foundation of the see. The signal munifi- 
 cence of Mr. Spencer was not the less welcome because 
 it came after the establishment of the see was assured. 
 From first to last the sum raised for the endowment, 
 including Mr. Hedley's benefaction, amounted to above 
 £70,000, besides the gift of the episcopal residence. 
 Unlike Liverpool, we received nothing from the 
 Additional Home Bishoprics Fund, wdiicli was already 
 more than exhausted by promises made elsewhere. 
 St. Alban's, Truro, Liverpool, Newcastle, have been 
 added to the list of English sees within a period of 
 five 3^ears. Southwell and Wakefield, we trust, will 
 not long be delayed. The endowments for these 
 new sees have been raised mainly by voluntary 
 contributions. This fact has had no parallel in the 
 history of the English Church for many centuries. 
 The number of additional bishoprics under Henry viii 
 was slightly greater, but they cost their founder 
 nothing. Yet this is only one out of many signal 
 fruits of the great awakening in the life of the Church 
 which we have been permitted to witness in our 
 generation. Have we not good cause to thank God 
 and take courao-e ?'' 
 
 O 
 
 (ii) The New Archdeaconry. 
 
 Only second in importance to the creation of a. 
 new see in the territorial re-arrangements of
 
 16 A Charge. 
 
 the diocese has been the creation of a new arch- 
 deaconry. Even, if the division of the diocese had 
 not been imminent, the division of the Archdeaconry 
 of Durham would have been a pressing need. The 
 County of Durham, with its exceptional adminis- 
 trative difficulties, with its ever increasing and ever 
 shifting population, and with the incessant parochial 
 developments and readjustments rendered necessary 
 thereby, had outgrown the powers of one Archdeacon 
 however energetic. But the time was fast approaching 
 when the county would become co-extensive with the 
 diocese, and it was a striking anomaly that a Bishop 
 of one of the chief English sees, still retaining an 
 exceptionally large population, should be dependent on 
 the co-operation of a single Archdeacon. It is true 
 that the Archdeaconry was in some degree relieved by 
 the Officialty. But the relief was more nominal than 
 real ; and, as a matter of fact, the Officialty had of 
 recent years been held with one or other arch- 
 deaconry, latterly with the Archdeaconry of Durham. 
 As the parishes included in the Officialty are scattered 
 up and down the Archdeaconry of Durham, this 
 arrangement was perhaps as convenient as the circum- 
 stances permitted. Moreover the Officialty was itself 
 an anomaly. It originated in a privilege granted in 
 Norman times to the Prior of Durham by the BishojDs 
 to exercise independent jurisdiction over the cures 
 supplied by the monastic house. To these parishes 
 the Prior was regarded as Archdeacon ; and after the 
 Reformation this jurisdiction devolved on the Dean
 
 A Charge. 17 
 
 as his representative. Though it might have been 
 exercised by him in person, he generally delegated 
 it to an Official, elected by the Dean and Chapter. 
 The anomaly was thus twofold. In the first place 
 the archidiaconal jurisdiction of the Official was not 
 marked by continuous geogra^^hical boundaries, like 
 an ordinary archdeaconry. His territory was spo- 
 radic. It was an archidiaconate within an archi- 
 diaconate. But secondly (and this was the greatest 
 anomaly) it was quite independent of the Bishop. 
 The Official was not only not appointed by the Bishop 
 but was independent of the Bishop. He was not the 
 Bishop's eye, but the Dean's eye. Thus the parishes 
 of the Officialty, so far as regards the episcopal 
 supervision exercised through the Archdeacon, were 
 peculiars. The anomaly was probably unimportant, 
 when it was first created ; but as the patronage of the 
 Dean and Chapter increased, it became more flagrant. 
 At the time of its abolition it included not less than 
 48 parishes, and this number would have grown from 
 time to time by the formation of new parishes. When 
 I applied to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the 
 creation of the new Archdeaconry of Auckland, they 
 at once laid their finger on this blot. At first I 
 pleaded for the retention of the Officialty. Though 
 the exemption (in one important respect) of a large 
 number of parishes from episcopal jurisdiction was an 
 irregularity indefensible in itself, yet it had been so 
 worked as to be unproductive of any real evil beyond 
 the inconvenience ; and I could not but respect the
 
 18 A Charge. 
 
 sentiments and attachments which had gathered about 
 an institution dating eight centuries back and con- 
 nected with the name of AV^illiam of Carileph. But 
 the Commissioners conceived their duty to be clear. 
 A main purpose of their existence was the abolition of 
 peculiars. By Act of Parliament they were charged 
 to see that every parish in its entirety was comprised 
 in one rural deanery, and every rural deanery in its 
 entirety in one archdeaconry. Thus the letter not less 
 than the spirit of the statute seemed to them to demand 
 the abolition of the Officialty, as a preliminary to the 
 creation of the Archdeaconry. Moreover they had a 
 strong precedent for this mode of dealing with the 
 matter. When the Archdeaconry of Lindisfarne was 
 carved out of the Archdeaconry of Northumberland 
 in 1842, the jurisdiction of the Officialty in the 
 County of Northumberland was abolished, and the 
 parishes comprised in it were assigned to the res- 
 pective archdeaconries in which they were situated. 
 This was an exactly analogous case, and the Officialty 
 was doomed. With the consent of the Dean and Chap- 
 ter therefore, and with the generous acquiescence of 
 the then Official, Archdeacon Prest, who expressed his 
 willingness to resign at any moment, the measure was 
 passed. By an Order in Council dated May 3, 1882, 
 the Officialty was abolished. By a second Order, 
 signed at the next Council, May 17, the Arch- 
 deaconry of Auckland was created. More important 
 administrative functions have always been assigned to 
 the Archdeacons in this diocese than in most others —
 
 A Charge. 19 
 
 with very real a(lvantage to tlie Churcli. From their 
 wise, energetic, and loyal co-operation I have received 
 the greatest assistance ; and I anticipate a substantial 
 gain to the diocese from the division of the Arch- 
 deaconry of Durham. The Officialty will doubtless 
 cease to be represented in Convocation ; but practically 
 the representation of the diocese as a whole will be 
 increased. Two Proctors of the new Archdeaconry will 
 be substituted for the two Proctors of tlie Officialty 
 at the next Convocation ; while the two Archdeacons 
 will replace the one member in whose person the 
 Archdeaconry of Durham and the Officialty were 
 united.^ 
 
 (iii) Re-arraiirjcment of Riiral Deaneries. 
 
 After the creation of the new Archdeaconry the 
 re-arrangement of the Pural Deaneries stands next in 
 order. As a matter of history however the reform 
 of the Eural Deaneries preceded the reform of the 
 Archdeaconries. The Deaneries, as I found them, 
 still remained as they had been arranged by Bishoj) 
 Longley a quarter of a century ago, when he revived 
 the office of Eural Dean. On what principle ]ic 
 went — whether he worked upon any ancient eccle- 
 siastical lines or whether he followed certain civil 
 divisions-^I do not know. But with the lapse of 
 time his arrangement had become inadequate and 
 inconvenient — inadequate, for seven Rural Deaneries 
 were quite insufficient for a county whose population 
 was fast mounting to 900,000 — inconvenient, for
 
 20 . A Charge. 
 
 parishes territorially and civilly associated together 
 were for ecclesiastical purposes severed by the existing 
 boundaries. The City of Durham for instance was 
 partly in West Chester, partly in South Easington ; 
 and so in like manner the borough of Sunderland was 
 bisected, Monkwearmouth falling to East Chester and 
 Bishopwearmouth to North Easington — the river 
 Wear having been taken in both these cases as the 
 frontier line. This inconvenience alone would have 
 prompted some change in the arrangement, even if 
 there had not been an immediate motive for action. 
 But I had decided on summoning a Diocesan Con- 
 ference ; and, as the representation in the Conference 
 was intended to be based on the ruridecanal divisions 
 of the diocese, the readjustment of the latter was a 
 necessary preliminary. Accordingly I obtained the 
 sanction of the Commissioners to a scheme which was 
 gazetted on July 9, 1880, and by which the County, 
 then co-extensive with the Archdeaconry of Durham, 
 was divided into eleven Rural Deaneries in place of 
 the previous seven. The Rural Deaneries are still 
 very large — at least in population, if not in acreage — 
 compared with the corresponding arrangements in 
 some other dioceses. Thus I find that in S. Alban's, 
 which has about the same population as the reduced 
 Diocese of Durham, there are 46 Deaneries ; and that 
 in Norwich, where the population is, roughly speaking, 
 two-thirds of our own, the Deaneries are 41 in number. 
 But the proportions vary widely in different dioceses ; 
 and I do not think too great subdivision in that
 
 A Charge. 21 
 
 respect advisable. The value of the Riiridecanal 
 Chapters and Conferences consists not a little in the 
 power of association and the sense of Church member- 
 ship which they foster ; and this advantage would be 
 seriously impaired if a Deanery comprised only very 
 near neighbours who were constantly meeting together 
 for other purposes. One or two of the Deaneries are 
 perhaps still inconveniently large, but these may 
 easily be divided, if necessary, at a later date.^ 
 
 (iv) Subdivision of Parishes. 
 
 I have spoken of territorial readjustments — diocesan, 
 archidiaconal, ruridecanal. One other branch of this 
 subject still remains — the parochial. The subdivision 
 of the large and populous parishes is a matter of 
 the highest moment for the spiritual welfare of the 
 diocese. My predecessor in his last charge, delivered 
 four years ago, expressed his opinion that ' the limit 
 to the formation of new districts had almost been 
 reached.' Commenting on these words at our 
 Diocesan Conference in 1880, I said that I did not 
 discern at the time any signs of flagging in this work 
 of parochial subdivision. Looking back from a higher 
 vantage ground now, and ranging over a wider space 
 of time, I see that there has been a sensible abate- 
 ment. During the four years since the last visitation 
 only 9 new ecclesiastical districts have been formed, 
 though 11 other districts already formed have been 
 created into parishes on the consecration of their 
 churches. A comparison with the statistics of
 
 oo 
 
 A Charge. 
 
 former years shows that the ahatement began in 
 1876. It is due partly to the fact that the 
 impulse given Ly the census of 1871 had spent 
 itself, partly to the circumstance that the years 
 of depression which ensued tended to paralyse a 
 movement which before all things required a con- 
 siderable expenditure of money, but still more perhaps 
 to the cause foreseen by Bishop Baring, that such a 
 movement must from its very nature exhaust itself in 
 time. This time however has not yet arrived. The 
 census of 1881, which exhibits an increase of 182,000 
 in the population of the County of Durham alone, 
 lias revealed great and startling; deficiencies in our 
 spiritual agencies. Before the statistics of this census 
 were known, I sent a circular to the Eural Deans, 
 recpiesting them to furnish me with information as to 
 the readjustment of parochial boundaries and the 
 creation of new parishes which they considered urgent 
 or desirable in their respective Deaneries. As 'the 
 result of this enquiry, combined with the statistics 
 of the census since made known, I find that at least 
 fifteen new parishes ought to be created in the present 
 Diocese of Durham alone, if the parochial system is to 
 be maintained on a reasonably efficient scale. I will 
 take two typical instances. The parish of S. Paul's, 
 ilendon, in the borough of Sunderland, was formed in 
 1854. It has already been once subdivided — the parish 
 of S. Barnabas having been formed in 1876. But not- 
 withstanding this relief its population now amounts to 
 18,000 or 19,000 ; and, though a town population is
 
 A Charge. -23 
 
 necessarily more or less compact, the very numbers 
 plead for immediate subdivision. The rural district 
 of Crook presents a different type of parish, but the 
 need of relief here is equally pressing. It was created 
 in 1845, and has since been reduced by the formation 
 of the daughter parish of Stanley which now contains 
 a population of more than 3,800. Nevertheless the 
 population of the parish thus reduced has mounted up 
 to 10,000 or 11,000, and these are not gathered into 
 one centre but scattered through several hamlets 
 lying at great distances from Crook itself. The 
 creation of these new parishes deserves immediate 
 attention. In many cases the initial steps have been 
 ak-eady taken, and in some the arrangements are 
 approaching completion. But it depends largely on 
 the generosity of the laity whether all these crying 
 wants of the diocese can be promptly supplied. ^^ 
 
 2. DIOCESAN INSTITUTIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS. 
 
 (i) Diocesan Conjerence. 
 
 The first Diocesan Conference was held in Septem- 
 ber, 1880. AVe met with some misgiving, for this 
 was a fresli experiment in the Diocese of Durham ; we 
 parted with feelings of deep thankfulness for the result. 
 All present must have been impressed by the character 
 of the papers and the tone of the discussions. It is a 
 great advantage for the clergy and laity of the diocese 
 to have periodically these opportunities of inter- 
 changino; tliouo;hts on the !]i;reat work which lies 
 before them, even if no immediate practical measures
 
 24 A Charge. 
 
 are carried out through the agency of these conferences. 
 In the present instance the direct result was the 
 appointment of some important committees, which 
 have already borne fruit. 
 
 The future conduct of the Diocesan Conferences is 
 still under consideration. The composition of the 
 body is open to revision, if revision is necessary. The 
 reduction of the diocese has made a larger representa- 
 tion possible, should it be thought desirable. Nor 
 again has it yet been decided how often the meetings 
 shall be held. The first Conference could only be 
 regarded as preliminary and tentative. The Newcastle 
 Congress in 1881, the Visitation in 1882, have inter- 
 posed and suspended our meetings hitherto. Now 
 that all obstacles are removed, it is time that rules 
 should be laid down fixing the intervals and the times 
 of meeting. Then again we ought to see our way 
 with regard to our modes of procedure. I believe that 
 we did wisely at our first Conference in confining 
 ourselves to discussion without voting on the questions 
 brought before us. But we shall have, soon or late, to 
 consider whether it is advisable or not to continue this 
 self-imposed restraint. These three seem to me to be 
 the main points to which the committee appointed at 
 our first Diocesan Conference will have to direct their 
 attention, and their recommendations will be awaited 
 with deep interest. ^^ 
 
 Before I pass away from this subject of our Diocesan 
 Conference, I must advert to one subject of great 
 importance and of no little perplexity. You are
 
 A Charge. 25 
 
 doubtless aware that a Central Council of Diocesan 
 Conferences has been formed, composed of six dele- 
 gates — three lay and three clerical — from each diocese 
 which is willing to send representatives. The main 
 object of this Association, as stated in its own words, 
 is to obtain the general opinion of the Church at large 
 on matters affecting its welfare, with a view to their 
 being brought prominently, if thought desirable, 
 before the Convocations and Parliament. It is stated 
 that as many as twenty-three Diocesan Conferences 
 have approved this Association, and appointed dele- 
 gates to it. When I was asked in like manner to 
 name members to represent our Conference I did 
 not see my way to complying with the invitation. 
 As the question had not been brought before my 
 Diocesan Conference, I could not assume that it would 
 take a favourable view of the measure. As a matter 
 of fact more than one Diocesan Conference has since 
 declined to recognize this Central Association. More- 
 over persons appointed by myself alone could not in 
 any true sense be called representatives of the Con- 
 ference. I should have had no choice therefore but 
 to defer action, even if I had seen my own way 
 clearly. But the whole matter seems to me to de- 
 serve more careful consideration. It is impossible not 
 to respect the main objects of the promoters. The 
 representation of lay opinion in the Church is a 
 problem which cries for solution, and this Central 
 Council is a rough attempt to solve it. But its con- 
 stitution seems to me to be open to some question.
 
 26 A Charge. 
 
 It is not ii purely lay body, and indeed there are good 
 reasons why clergy and laity should be combined for 
 purposes of deliberation. But where the clerical 
 element is given an equal representation with the lay, 
 it must at least seem strange that the episcopate should 
 be the only section of the Clergy which is wdioUy un- 
 represented. It is not enough to say that the Bishops 
 have opportunities of meeting and consulting together 
 elsewhere. The distinctive character of this As- 
 sociation is the opportunity of conferring with a 
 representative lay body ; and this opportunity the 
 Bishops have not. 
 
 But, besides this difficulty of its constitution, there 
 are others attending its action. The influence of such 
 a body will necessarily be very great, and will increase 
 in proportion as it becomes truly representative of 
 opinion — ^more especially lay opinion — in the Church. 
 But what will then be its relation to the two Convo- 
 cations ? What, if it should be found at cross 
 purposes with them ? I say nothing of any possible 
 conflict with the Bishops, who are the chief adminis- 
 trators of the Church, though here the danger is 
 perhaps equally great, because the voice of the 
 Bishops would perforce be silent in the deliberations 
 of the Council. 
 
 I do not wish to uro;e these considerations as final. 
 But they do seem to me to be momentous. At all 
 events I felt that entertainino- these difficulties I could 
 
 o 
 
 not commit the Diocese to a direct approval of the 
 measure without first consulting my Conference. It
 
 A Charge. 27 
 
 may appear advisable to risk some perils for the sake of 
 a confessedly good object ; but further deliberation 
 seemed advisable. ^"^ 
 
 (ii) Diocesan Societies. 
 
 The Diocesan Societies need not detain me long. 
 They continue to do excellent work, of which the 
 extent is only limited by their means. The division of 
 the diocese involves a reconsideration of their position, 
 and will probably, lead in most cases to a corresponding 
 separation. The Society of the Sons of the Clergy 
 calls for one special remark. No institution seems to 
 have more direct and urgent claims on the liberality 
 of laymen than this. Yet I find that the clergy are 
 by far the most numerous subscribers — frequently too, 
 clergy v;ith very slender incomes. In one Deanery 
 there is only one layman out of thirteen ; in another 
 twenty out of twenty-four subscribers are either 
 clergymen or members of their families. The society 
 receives very noble contributions from some few 
 laymen, but the number of lay subscribers cannot 
 amount to many more than one-third of the list. 
 This same remark applies with at least equal force to 
 another excellent institution — our Diocesan CJnircJi 
 Building Society. Here again I am startled to find 
 how large a proportion of the contributors are clergy- 
 men. I cannot believe that, if the matter were put 
 definitely before them, the laity w^ould allow this slur 
 on their generosity in t^vo important particulars to 
 remain.
 
 28 
 
 A Charge. 
 
 The Diocesan Board of Inspection continues to 
 do excellent work. The progress made since the 
 last visitation may be seen from a comparison of 
 the statistics in the latest reports available on the 
 two occasions : 
 
 
 Schools 
 Inspected. 
 
 Children 
 Examined. 
 
 Pupil Teachers 
 Examined. 
 
 1877 
 1881 
 
 469 
 494 
 
 45,831 
 
 56,788 
 
 587 
 658 
 
 In the present year it is estimated that 520 schools 
 will have been examined. Tlie quality of the work 
 done has also improved from time to time, as will 
 appear from the following table : 
 
 
 Excellent. 
 
 Go.-d. 
 
 Fair. 
 
 Moderate 
 
 Indifferent. 
 
 Bad. 
 
 1877 
 
 17 
 
 254 
 
 157 
 
 32 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 1881 
 
 35 
 
 284 
 
 156 
 
 17 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 The new experiment by which lectures prepared by 
 the Inspectors have been delivered to Pupil Teachers 
 at specified centres has, I trust, been found useful. 
 My thanks are especially due to those clergy who 
 at the cost of much time and trouble have assisted 
 in carrying this scheme out.^^ 
 
 (iii) Organization of Lay Help. 
 
 Not the least important work of the Diocesan 
 Conference was the appointment of a Committee to 
 consider the Organization of Lay Help. In two
 
 A Charge. 29 
 
 successive reports this committee placed its recom- 
 mendations before me {Diocesan Magazine, February 
 1881, p. 18; March 1881, p. 34). These recom- 
 mendations received my entire approval (Diocesan 
 Magazine, April 1881, p. 50). They have been 
 acted upon in some parishes, and I am able to say 
 thankfully that they have given a great impulse to the 
 sense of religious responsibility among the laity, and 
 have been attended by a perceptible quickening of 
 Church life. It is my earnest hope that the institution 
 will spread, till every parish in the diocese has its 
 organization. No diocese affords a better scope for 
 this movement ; none has more need of such aid to 
 supplement its clerical ministrations. 
 
 The organization for individual parishes has yet to 
 l^e followed up by a central organization for the whole 
 diocese. This step however cannot well be taken 
 until the local movements are farther advanced, and 
 I therefore venture earnestly to press the subject on 
 the attention of the clergy. By means of this central 
 body, in wdiich the parish organizations will be duly 
 represented, I hope that the earnest laity of the 
 diocese may be welded together into one whole, may 
 feel the strength and the inspiration of numbers, may 
 realize more fully the catholicity of their Church, and 
 may thus throw themselves with renewed vigour and 
 heightened courage into their work. I find that some 
 misapprehension has been entertained wdtli respect to 
 this central organization. It is not intended in any 
 way to supersede the Diocesan Conference ; and care
 
 30 A CJmrge. 
 
 will Ix' taken tliat the functions of the two shall not 
 clash. Its motive indeed will be quite different. It 
 will interest itself solely with questions that concern 
 workers as workers. It will promote the interchange 
 of ideas between the representatives of different 
 parishes on these questions. Thus it will give 
 coherence to the work. I look forward also to 
 general meetings from time to time when all the 
 lay-helpers in the diocese -^-ill be invited to some great 
 centre, such as Durham Cathedral, for devotional 
 purposes. An anniversary religious festival, such as I 
 contemplate, would be a great spur to the energies of 
 individual workers and would teach all alike the lesson 
 which we need to realize more fully— the unity of the 
 body of which we severally are members. 
 
 (iv) Lcuj Headers. 
 
 At the head of this organization of lay help stands 
 the office of the Lay Eeader. The inability of the clergy 
 to supply all the ministrations which are needed, is an 
 acknowledged fact. The neglect of past generations 
 has left us vast spiritual arrears to be overtaken. The 
 population is increasing far more rapidly than the 
 proportion of clergy. The difficulty, which is felt 
 throu2;hout the leno-th and breadth of the Eno-lish 
 Church, is nowhere greater than in this diocese. 
 There are very few parishes in Durham — they might 
 be almost counted on the fingers — where the clergy 
 however energetic are able to do all that ought to be 
 done. If the Church has not succeeded in evangelizing
 
 A Charge. 31 
 
 the nicasses, neither have the Nonconformists. What 
 then shall we do ? Shall we hang our hands in despair ? 
 Shall we be satisfied with going on as hitherto, picking 
 up one here and one there, gathering together a more 
 or less select congregation, forgetful meanwhile of the 
 Master's command, " Go out into the highways and 
 hedges, and compel them to come in." The Salvation 
 Army has taught us a higher lesson than this. What- \ 
 ever may be its faults, it has at least recalled us to this / 
 lost ideal of the work of the Church — the universal I 
 compulsion of the souls of men. 
 
 How shall we strive to realize this ideal ? No 
 accession to the ranks of the clergy, which can be 
 contemplated as within the range of probability, would 
 supply the need. But in the laity we have a re- 
 cruiting ground of evangelists which, potentially at 
 least, is inexhaustible. Shall we not avail ourselves of 
 these resources ? To enlist, to organize, to drill and 
 marshall these volunteers of Christ's army, is the great 
 work which lies before the Church of Enccland in our 
 generation. It is not difficult to see the sfreat inci- 
 dental gain in a movement in this direction on a large 
 scale. The mere spectacle of a large body of laymen 
 l)anded to2;ctlier for an evano;clistic work, and givino; 
 their services gratuitously, raised above any suspicion 
 of official prejudices or of personal interests — preacliing 
 Christ for Christ'.s sake — would have an incalculable 
 moral effect. We have not yet thrown our energies, 
 as a Church, into this organization. Even in the few 
 dioceses where it has l)ecn seriously taken up, it has
 
 32 A Charge. 
 
 not attracted attention at all in proportion to its 
 importance. In this diocese the movement is still 
 in its infancy. In January last I published my 
 intention of issuing; commissions to men recom- 
 mended by the incumbents under whom they were 
 prepared to work. The form of commission author- 
 izes these Lay Readers ' to teach in the schools, 
 to visit the sick, to read and explain the Scriptures, 
 to exhort and pray in private households, to hold 
 such services in unconsecrated buildings as the 
 bishop shall approve, and generally to render aid 
 to the incumbent in all ministrations which do not 
 require the services of a minister in Holy Orders' ; 
 provided that nothing be ' done in the parish except at 
 the request and with the consent of the said incumbent.' 
 It is not expected that any individual Lay Reader 
 shall perform all the functions here specified. This 
 will depend on his gifts and his opportunities. But I 
 was especially anxious to show a generous confidence 
 in these lay ministrations. In some dioceses the 
 preaching of the Lay Readers is confined to reading 
 sermons approved by the Bishop or the incumbent. 
 What may be the wisest course elsewhere I do not 
 venture to say ; but I felt — and I am sure the Clergy 
 will feel with me — that in this diocese such a re- 
 striction would have been fatal to the efficiency of the 
 scheme. The " liberty of prophesying " is nowhere 
 more freely asserted or more highly valued than in 
 these northern counties ; and this new office would 
 have been hopelessly crippled, if I had denied it this
 
 A Cliarge. 33 
 
 function which is so freely exercised on all sides. My 
 manifesto appeared eleven months ago. Commissions 
 have been issued by me to 30 persons, of whom 9 
 belons: to Northuml^erland and 21 still remain in 
 the Diocese of Durham. Thus the progress of the 
 measure has been somewhat slow. But this is not a 
 sul^ject of disappointment. Too great speed at first 
 would not have augured well for its ultimate success ; 
 and already I see signs of accelerated progress. I look 
 to the Clergy for their frank acceptance of the principle 
 involved in this measure, and I believe that I shall 
 not look in vain. The more we trust the laity, the 
 more they will trust us.^'* 
 
 (v) Ministration of Women. X. /^ 
 
 Another subject on which I feel strongly and 
 which I commend to your earnest attention is the 
 ministration of women. It has always been a matter 
 of deep regret to me that in the received English 
 Version of the Bible (which provisionally I will call 
 Authorised) the female diaconate has been obliterated. 
 As I read my New Testament, the female diaconate 
 is as definite an institution in the Apostolic Church 
 as the male diaconate. Phoebe is as much a deacon 
 as Stephen or Philip is a deacon. Yet in the former 
 of the two passages to which I have alluded (1 
 Tim. iii. 13), the deaconesses are transformed into 
 deacons' wives in defiance alike of the natural inter- 
 pretation of the words and of the suggestions of the 
 context ; while in the latter (Rom. xvi. 1) the colour-
 
 34 A CJimye. 
 
 less word " servant " is substituted for the more 
 precise term " deacon " or " minister." Until this 
 female ministry is restored, the Church of England 
 in this diocese will remain one-handed. 
 
 Feeling this strongly, I laid the sul)ject before 
 the meeting of Archdeacons and Rural Deans in 
 September, 1880. The result was the appointment 
 of a committee on " Woman's Work," which reported 
 early in the following year. This report recommended 
 the introduction of the ofEce of " deaconess " in the 
 Diocese in accordance with rules approved by the 
 two Archbishops and most of the Bishops some years 
 ago ; and it still further expressed the opinion that 
 " an Institution for the Trainins; of Deaconesses in 
 the Diocese of Durham is in every way desirable " 
 (Diocesan Magazine, March 1881, p. 35). 
 
 Our hands have been so full of late, that the 
 working out of this scheme has been delayed hitherto ; 
 but I trust that it will occupy the serious attention of 
 the Diocese forthwith, and that at the next visitation 
 satisfactory progress will be reported. In no direction 
 can the resources of the Church be developed with 
 the hope of more immediate and abundant fruit. We 
 may find some difficulty in defining the precise line 
 where S. Paul's prohibition (1 Cor. xiv. 34), as 
 interpreted in the light of other passages (l Cor. 
 xi. 5), fixes the limits of the woman's function as a 
 religious teacher ; but in the philanthropic and 
 charitable work of the Church, which is her proper 
 sphere, her capabilities are inexhaustible. To utilize
 
 A CJiarge. 35 
 
 this great resource, liitlierto undeveloped, to include 
 within the organization and to endow with the 
 l)lessing of th(^ C'hurch the latent potentialities of 
 self-denying sympathy and love with which woman is 
 so richly endowed — this will l)e a truly noble aim 
 to set before our eyes. No witness of men will plead 
 so eloquently for Christ as this silence of woman's 
 inobtrusive l)ut boundless charity.^^ 
 
 (vi) Girls' Friendly Society and Young Men's 
 Friendly Society. 
 
 Two organizations especially demand our attention, 
 as making provision for the care of the young of 
 either sex. The Girls Friendly Society was incorpo- 
 rated into our Diocesan Institutions in July, 1881. 
 But, though so recently endowed with a diocesan 
 organization, it has already taken firm root and is 
 throwing out numerous and vigorous l)ranches on all 
 sides. In one or two Eural Deaneries more especially 
 it has been worked with great activity and with very 
 gratifying results. I feel sure that its worth needs 
 only to l)e known in order to be appreciated ; and I 
 hope that liefore the next visitation branches will be 
 established throughout the diocese. The work of this 
 society is evangelical in the highest sense. But as it 
 undertakes not only to befriend and guide young 
 girls in their present locality, l)ut also to accompany 
 them in all their subsequent migrations with its 
 sympathy and counsels, its efticiency must depend in 
 no small degree on its universality. I trust therefore
 
 3r> A Charge. 
 
 before long to see .such a net-work of its associations 
 spread over tlie \Yliole of this diocese that, whither- 
 soever a girl may Ije removed, she may be sure of 
 finding in her new home the same sisterly s}Tiipath3^ 
 and guidance, on which she had learnt to depend in 
 her former al)ode. This ought not to be difficult. 
 There is, I am sure, in ever}^ neighbourhood no lack 
 of warm-hearted Christian women who will esteem it 
 a privilege to hold out a helping hand to their humble 
 sisters, and will find in this interchange of sympathy 
 their o^ti truest and best reward. It has been repre- 
 sented to me that in some neio-hbourhoods the Gii-ls 
 Friendly Society cannot be worked at once honestly 
 and efficiently. To meet such cases, which seem to 
 be exceptional, the Young Women's Help Society has 
 been established. In large and populous parishes 
 there may l;)e room for both ; but elsewhere probably 
 confusion and j^erj^lexity would arise from the attempt 
 to work both, and the choice will have to be made. 
 
 What the Girls' Friendly Society aims at doing for 
 the one sex, the Young Mens Friendly Society un- 
 dertakes to do for the other. This association was 
 founded later than the other, and has not yet made 
 such progress ; but it is hardly less needed. You 
 probably have in your own parishes some organization 
 or other for brinsfino- youths tooether, for bindino- 
 them to the Church and to one another, and for guid- 
 ing them at the most critical season of their life — 
 either Church Institutes or Mutual Improvement 
 Associations or Parish GiTilds or the like. But a
 
 .1 Chaiye. 37 
 
 Central Association like the Yoang Mens Friend! ij 
 Society is needed as a- bond of union bet\Yeen these 
 local associations, so that, as in the case of the girls, 
 a youth passing from one neighbourhood to another 
 may feel that a friendly eye follows him. The aftilia- 
 tion therefore of your parochial associations, Avhatever 
 name they may bear, with this parent society, is 
 an object Avliich I recommend to your attention. I 
 trust that before long we may have some more 
 complete diocesan organization for this society than 
 we have at present. 
 
 I have mentioned it as a chief aim of Ijoth these 
 societies that they strive to keep an eye on young 
 persons, so that once taken up they may never be 
 lost sight of. May I venture for a moment to dwell 
 on the importance of thus realizing the catholicity of 
 our Church in our dealings with young and t)ld 
 alike ? Early in the year I issued a form of Com- 
 mendatory Letter, which I hoped would be used by 
 the Clergy in cases of migration from their parishes, 
 whether to some other part of England or to the 
 Colonies. I am glad to find from the visitation re- 
 turns that there are very few of the C*lergy who d(j 
 not either use this form or adopt other measures 
 liavino- the same end in view.^^ 
 
 'o 
 
 (vii) Diocesan Preachers. 
 
 It has become somewhat the fashion in these da}'s 
 to speak disparagingly of the parochial system, as if
 
 38 A Charge. 
 
 it were a failure. I have no sympathy with this 
 huiguage. The parochial system is the great safe- 1 
 guard of any Church, without which it would he in 
 peril of degenerating into mere Congregationalism. 
 In rural districts it is probably as efficient as it ever 
 has been. In the more populous places on the other 
 hand, and especially in the densely crowded towns, it 
 is often sorely taxed ; but just here, where the strain 
 is greatest, the need for its maintenance is also the 
 most urgent. The lowest parts of our great towns 
 have little else but the parochial system to look to ; 
 and if their spiritual needs are not supplied thence, 
 they are in imminent peril of being altogether 
 neglected. The Nonconformist chapel is dependent 
 on the Nonconformist cong-reg-ation. As the district 
 sinks lower in the social scale, the members of the 
 Nonconformist congregation migrate to a better 
 neighbourhood, and the chapel is compelled to follow 
 their migration. If the Church of England is 
 wakeful and active in that neighbourhood, it will see 
 a necessity laid upon it by the opportunity, and will 
 step in and fill the vacancy thus created. In the 
 borough of Sunderland alone, since I came into the 
 diocese, not less than four Nonconformist chapels, thus 
 abandoned, have been purchased by the Church of 
 England, and utilized for her services in the poorer 
 parts of the town. 
 
 But a due appreciation of the parochial system is 
 one thing ; a blind idolatry of it is another. Plainly 
 it has not succeeded, and there is no ground for hope
 
 A Ckarye. 39 
 
 that it will succeed, if unaided, in evangelizing the 
 masses. The demand therefore is imperative that we 
 should consider how we can best supplement its 
 agency with a view to greater efficiency. And here 
 our eyes turn instinctively in one direction. The 
 prominent place which mission preaching has assumed 
 in the Church of England within a very few years is 
 not the least remarkable fruit of the great spiritual 
 revival. It becomes us therefore to enquire whether 
 by some definite diocesan organization we cannot help 
 this movement forward. The main lines of such an 
 organization A\dll probably have presented themselves, 
 as obvious, to most of you. At the head will be a 
 member of the Cathedral Chapter, a Canon Missioner 
 in effect, if not in name. If the idea which has 
 suggested itself to many should ever take effect, and 
 a Minor Canonry in the Cathedral should be assigned 
 to the endowment of a mission preachership, we should 
 thus have provision for a lieutenant acting with and 
 under the Canon Missioner, With this nucleus ready 
 to hand, the creation of an adequate staff of Diocesan 
 Preachers ought not to be a ftir distant event. The 
 organization of this stafi", the consideration of ways 
 and means, the regulation of the special missions, and 
 above all the provision for the spiritual sustenance of 
 the missionaries, would be the work of the Canon, who 
 himself also would undertake part of the preaching. 
 The staff might comprise, if it were thought fit, laity 
 as well as clergy, unpaid as well as i»aid agents, the 
 temporary aid of those engaged in parochial work as
 
 40 A Charge. 
 
 well as the continuous services of those specially and 
 solely devoted to this mission work. Care would be 
 taken not to repeat the mistake of the preaching 
 friars in the thiileenth and following centuries. No 
 body of men would be set up as rivals to the parochial 
 clergy. No parish would be invaded except at the 
 invitation or with the consent of the incumbent. 
 
 In this way the institution would be worked as a 
 spiritual refreshment both to clergy and to peoj)le. 
 The successful parochial organizer and visitor is not 
 always the best preacher. Even when the parish 
 clergyman has this gift, a new voice will often strike 
 a chord in hearts where the tones long familiar have 
 failed to awaken any response. Meanwhile to an 
 incumbent, working on from year's end to year's end 
 within the limits of his own district, it will be a relief 
 for the moment to become a hearer. He will resume 
 his work with new ideas, new aspirations, new im- 
 pulses, new encouragements, through the stimulus 
 thus given to the spiritual life of the parish. 
 
 3. MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 (i) Ordinations. 
 
 The statistics of the Ordinations will necessarily be 
 a subject of great interest to all here. It is well known 
 that — for reasons which I have explained elsewhere — 
 I restored the summer Ordination, which in this 
 diocese was customarily held at the end of June or the 
 beginning of July, to the proper Ember season. But 
 while doing this, I added another Ordination at
 
 A Charge. 4i 
 
 Sept(.'niber for cleucoiis only — partly for tlic general 
 convenience of the diocese, and partly also to meet 
 the cases of those Durham students who would not 
 have passed their University Examination Ijefore 
 Trinity Sunday, This change however was not 
 made during 1879, so that it has only been in opera- 
 tion for three out of the four years. 
 
 In his last charge (1878) Bishop Baring congratu- 
 lated the diocese on the gradual increase in the number 
 of deacons ordained for the diocese. In the previous 
 four years (1871-1874) the number had been 90, "a 
 larger number than any recorded in any former period 
 of the same length," but in the four years preceding 
 this last Visitation (1875-1878) it had risen to 119, 
 an average of nearly 30 each year. I am glad to be 
 able to announce a still further increase. The number 
 ordained during the last four years will be 134, an 
 average of between 33 and 34 each year. Of these 
 107 have been ordained during the last three years, 
 since the new system was introduced, giving an 
 average of nearly 36 each year. But the last two 
 Ordinations of the present year have taken place 
 since the reduction of the diocese. The gain is there- 
 fore greater than it seems, and the candidates to be 
 ordained this Advent by the Bishop of Newcastle, 
 ouoht to be added to the numbers 2;iven in order to 
 estimate the increase. Moreover there is other ground 
 for satisfaction. The proportion of deacons from the 
 older universities, Oxford and Cambridge, in the four 
 years preceding the last Visitation was as nearly as
 
 42 A Chary e. 
 
 possible oue-fifth of the whole number. During 
 the last four years G8 out of 134, and during the 
 last three years 60 out of 107, have been 
 Oxford or Caml^ridge men. This result has not 
 been purchased, I am glad to say, by a sacrifice of 
 members of Durham University, whether graduates 
 or licentiates, as the proportion of these has not 
 very materially altered. ^^ 
 
 (ii) Meeting of Curates. 
 
 The mention of the newly ordained leads me by a 
 natural transition to speak of another subject. It had 
 long been my desire to gather together from time to 
 time the younger clergy of the diocese for mutual 
 conference and common devotion. The reduction of 
 the diocese by the formation of the See of Newcastle 
 enabled me to realize this desiie. The clergy who had 
 been ordained by myself and are still holding curacies 
 in the reduced Diocese of Durham were invited to 
 Auckland for a portion of two days. Though the 
 arrano-ements were unavoidably made at a late date, 
 so that only short notice could be given, as many as 
 70 of the younger clergy accepted the invitation. A 
 Greek Testament reading, a celebration of the Holy 
 Communion, chapel services with addresses, a con- 
 ference on a subject of pastoral interest, formed the 
 programme of the proceedings. I have reason to 
 think that the opportunity was appreciated by those 
 present, and I look forward to a recurrence of such 
 meetinss.
 
 A Chary e. 43 
 
 (iii) Confirmations. 
 
 With the present year 1 inaugurated a, new selienie 
 for the distribution of the Confirmation eentres. It is 
 framed on the phin that every parish sliall have a 
 Confirmation in its proper centre once in two years, 
 while in the alternate year candidates can he taken to 
 a second centre which, though not so near, shall not 
 he inconveniently distant. In all the large towns 
 there is a Confirmation in one or other of the churches 
 every year. 
 
 I find that my intention has been misunderstood. 
 It has been supposed in some quarters that I wished 
 to discourage the presentation of candidates in the 
 alternate years at the second centres, and that I was 
 only providing for stray and exceptional cases. This 
 is the reverse of my motive. My ideal of the working 
 of a parish is a regular system of classes of instruction, 
 which shall lead up to the Confirmation class. Thus 
 the preparation for Confirmation would be going on 
 during some portion at least of every year ; and the 
 annual presentation of candidates would follow as a. 
 matter of course. It was mainly in order to make the 
 realization of this system possible, that the \)[-d\i of 
 double centres was devised. I i)ut this forward as the 
 ideal ; but I have no desire to press it on the in- 
 cumbents of parishes. It may be felt in many cases 
 that the clerical strength at their dis])Osal, being 
 limited, may be better employed in some other Avay. 
 To their discretion therefore I leave it.
 
 44 A Charge. 
 
 By this new aiTciugenient the number of centres and 
 the frequency of Confirmations in any given locality 
 has been largely increased. If it should he thought 
 advisable still further to increase the centres, I am 
 prepared to consider alterations in the scheme with 
 this view. But, independently of the Bishop's con- 
 venience, there are other considerations which suggest 
 a limit to the number of centres. A Confirmation in 
 every parish commends itself to some as the goal of 
 their aspii'ations. Even if this were possible, it does 
 not seem to me advisable. It mio;lit ensure a few 
 more candidates, though probably not many more. 
 It would have the further advantage that the friends 
 and relations of the persons confirmed could be able 
 to attend in larger numbers. But it would entail one 
 very real loss. The gathering together of candidates 
 from several parishes into one central church enlarges 
 and strengthens their conceptions of Church member- 
 ship ; and as such opportunities are very few, we 
 could not without regret forego the most important of 
 these. 
 
 The large increase in the number of persons con- 
 firmed is a matter for unfeigned thankfulness, 1 
 know no better standard by which the progress of the 
 work of the Church can be measured than this. In 
 the four years ending 1878 the number confirmed was 
 17,502; in the four years ending 1882 it has mounted 
 to 25,815, thus exhibiting an increase of more than 
 
 45 per cent. But the numbers are still far short of 
 the standard at which we should aim. The proportion
 
 A Charge. 45 
 
 of males to females is higher than in most dioceses, 
 being roughly as two to three.^^ 
 
 (iv) Church Building and Restoration. 
 
 The work of Clinreh Buihlino; has been Q-oins; on 
 vigorously in the diocese during the last four years, 
 notwithstanding the financial depression. During 
 this period eighteen churches have been consecrated. 
 The work of C'hurch Restoration also has gone for- 
 ward on a large scale. From the Visitation returns 
 I find that in the County of Durham alone seven 
 Churches have been restored or enlarged, or both, 
 at an expenditure ranging between £5,000 and 
 £3,000 upon each ; while on as many others sums 
 ranging between £2,000 and £1,000 have been ex- 
 pended. The total sum spent in this county on 
 Churches, Mission Chapels, Parsonage Houses, Sun- 
 dcay and Day Schools, etc., as these returns sliow, 
 amounts to not less than £155,000. 
 
 At an earlier point in this charge I spoke about the 
 impending formation of new parishes. But a new 
 parish requires a new church. On this account alone 
 therefore the necessity of very extensive building 
 operations confronts us. But we have still arrears to 
 make up. In Gateshead alone three churches at least 
 should be l)uilt without delay — to meet the wants of 
 existing parishes. Some special effort therefore must 
 be made to supplement local resources. Either a very 
 large addition must be made to the resources of our
 
 46 A Charge. 
 
 Diocesan Cliurcli Building Society, or a special fund 
 must be started to meet the special emergency. 
 
 Among the oljjects on which money had been 
 expended, I mentioned Mission Chapels. There are 
 already, so far as I can make out from the returns, 
 which probaljly are not complete in this respect, not 
 fewer than 118 Chapels of Ease or Mission Chapels or 
 other rooms (in addition to the Parish Churches), wdiere 
 Divine Service according to the rites of the Church of 
 England is regularly held, in the reduced diocese of 
 Durham. This gives an average of more than one to 
 every two parishes. From the general character of our 
 parishes, and the distribution of the poj)ulation, we 
 may expect that the number of these subsidiary places 
 of worship will considerably increase — this l)eing the 
 most efficient way of working a large and scattered 
 parish. It is therefore proposed to supplement our 
 Diocesan Church Building Fund by a separate Mission 
 Chapel Fund, and I heartily commend this object to 
 the liberality of Churchmen. ^^ 
 
 (v) Diocesan Calendar and Magazine. 
 
 The Diocesan Calendar has now been in existence 
 several years ; the Diocesan Magazine was started in 
 the beginning of 1881. I wish especially to call the 
 attention of the Clergy to the valuable services which 
 they may render to both these publications. The 
 editorship is a laborious, unremunerative, and thank- 
 less office. The editor therefore deserves the grati- 
 tude of us all. It rests with the clergy to lighten his
 
 A Charge. • 47 
 
 labours by supplying him with full and accurate infor- 
 mation. I hear some complaints that the Diocesan 
 Magazine is largely made up of information which has 
 appeared already in the daily newsj)apers. This repe- 
 tition is inevitable. I do not see how it can be other- 
 wise unless the Magazine is to forfeit its proper 
 character as a continuous record of work done in the 
 diocese. But it is not unreasonable to ask the local 
 clergy to transmit to the editor at an early date cor- 
 rected reports of events happening in their parishes, 
 so that he shall not be altogether dependent on 
 the daily Press. There is one other point also to 
 which I wish to advert in connexion with the 
 Magazine. I had hoped that within the limits of 
 the diocese it might take the place of a clerical agency. 
 If all incumbents who have curacies vacant would 
 notify the fact to the editor, this end would be in 
 some measure accomplished. Hitherto the notifi- 
 cations seem to have been somewhat irregularly mad(\ 
 
 4. RETROSPECTIVE AND PROSPECTIVE. 
 
 The retrospect of four years cannot fail under any 
 circumstances to suggest many sad and solemnizing 
 thoughts. The interval which has elapsed since the 
 last Visitation has been marked by exceptionally 
 heavy losses to this diocese. The last w^ords of his 
 Visitation charge had scarcely died away on your 
 ears, when your Diocesan announced his intention of 
 resigning the office which he had so long dis- 
 charged with unswerving assiduity and singleness of
 
 48 A CJiarge. 
 
 purpose — to recruit his health, as his friends hoped, 
 and to spend his last years peacefully in a quiet 
 home, relieved from the cares of a burdensome and 
 anxious office — to render up his spirit, as the event 
 proved, to God who gave it, and to enter at once 
 into the fruition of a deeper and more al)iding 
 peace. In the Cathedral Chapter too the losses of 
 these four years have been exceptionally great. The 
 stalls attached to the two Archdeaconries have been 
 vacated by death. By the death of the one Arch- 
 deacon we lost a cherished link with the past — the 
 courtly, kindly, stately gentleman — true type of 
 the nol)ler Churchmanship of his generation. After 
 a long career of active public service and diffusive 
 private benevolence, he was taken away — his full 
 term of years outlived and his allotted task accom- 
 plished. The other was carried off suddenly only the 
 other day in the prime of an energetic and vigorous 
 life. His calm judgment, his wide experience, his 
 placid temper, his moderating influence, his great 
 business capacities, were placed freely at the service 
 of all in this diocese. His departure has left a blank, 
 which will long be felt, in your counsels and in mine. 
 One other member too of the Capitular body, venerable 
 in years and character, if not venerable by title — John 
 Davie Eade — an earnest parochial minister and an 
 active diocesan administrator, has passed away amidst 
 the affectionate regrets of all. Among the parish 
 clergy also the obituary has been large — too large for 
 mention in detail. Some have faded slowly and
 
 A Charge. 49 
 
 silently away in extreme old age ; with others the 
 thread of life was suddenly snapped in the noonday of 
 their usefulness and their vigour. ^^ In the ranks of 
 laymen too, who have rendered conspicuous service to 
 the Church, we are conscious of some serious gaps. 
 Of all those whose loss we deplore it would be impos- 
 sible to make mention. But the signal munificence of 
 John and Edward Joicey — pai^ nohile fratrum — claims 
 the tribute of our grateful remembrance. Too soon 
 for us they have gone to their rest ; but generations 
 yet unborn will reap in temporal and spiritual blessings 
 the fruits of their large hearts and their open hands. 
 One other name too claims a special mention in this 
 County and Diocese. George second Earl of Durham 
 died in the prime of life. In his great influence and 
 wealth he recognized a responsible trust, a sacred 
 stewardship. The last time that I met him — a few 
 months before his death — was on the occasion of the 
 consecration of a church — the second which had been 
 built by his sole munificence. 
 
 Men come and men go ; but the stream of Church 
 life flows ceaselessly on, to lose itself at length in the 
 ocean of eternity. We count our losses irreparable, Init 
 God repairs them. Volunteers start up to fill the 
 vacant places. The line is unbroken still, and the 
 army marches forward to do battle with the enemies 
 of the Israel of God. 
 
 Two exceptional events have occurred since the last 
 Visitation, which I cannot pass over without notice. 
 The first is the Newcastle Church Congress; the second
 
 50 A Charge. 
 
 the Jubilee of Durham University. The meetings 
 of the Congress are still fresh in our memories 
 after the lapse of more than a twelvemonth. It has 
 not passed away, I am sure, Avithout Ijequeathing to us 
 a valuable inheritance in enlarged hopes, heightened 
 ideals, stronger and wider sympathies, a truer realiza- 
 tion of our duties and opportunities, and a fuller sense 
 of our privileges as members of the Church of Christ. 
 The Jubilee of our Northern University again is an 
 occurrence of no small significance. At once the seal 
 of past achievements and the pledge of future vitality, 
 it will have a deep interest for a diocese which draws 
 so large a proportion of its clergy from this recruiting 
 ground. 
 
 The last four years indeed have had their full tale 
 of calamities. Seaham and Trimdon, Tudhoe and 
 Stanley, are names which will suggest many sad 
 reminiscences. Catastrophes on this large scale 
 cannot fail to tell apprecial)ly upon the work of the 
 Church. The cloud of commercial depression more- 
 over has only gradually been dispelled. The succession 
 of disastrous harvests too has affected these parts, 
 though in the county of Durham at least the agri- 
 cultural interests at stake are not so considerable as in 
 many parts. With all these drawbacks it is a matter 
 for deep thankfulness that the work of the Church has 
 advanced steadily and appreciably. 
 
 We have indeed been confronted with statistics of 
 Church attendance at some of our populous centres 
 which tell no flattering tale. It were to be desired
 
 A Charge. 51 
 
 that a religious census, if taken at all, should be taken 
 by proper authorities. Private undertakings, however 
 honestly they may be conducted, must necessarily fail 
 in accuracy. They are instituted by particular persons 
 with special ends in view ; and such persons will 
 naturally have access to fuller information in some 
 quarters than in others. As regards Church atten- 
 dance, there is good reason to l^elieve that those 
 complementary services which now occupy so promi- 
 nent a place in the work of the C/hurch of England — 
 early communionS; mission-room services, children's 
 school-room services, and the like, and which if re- 
 corded would have swelled the numbers largely — have 
 been altogether, or almost altogether overlooked, even 
 where more important omissions have not been made. 
 In the most populous centre in which these statistics 
 have been taken, and probably elsewhere, there is 
 good reason to believe that the recent quickening 
 of Church life has very considerably increased the 
 aggregate attendance on Sundays. At all events, 
 wherever authoritative and trustworthy information 
 is attainable — as for instance in the registers of 
 marriages or funerals, or in the statistics of the army 
 or navy or of workhouses or of other public insti- 
 tutions, or in the contributions to philanthropic 
 purposes such as hospitals, or in the expenditure on 
 elementary schools — tlie position of the Church of 
 England in point of numl^ers and influence appears 
 striking^ at variance witli the results suggested by 
 these statistics. 2^
 
 52 A Charge. 
 
 But after every allowance made for errors, one 
 sad fact remains — a fact which all would do well 
 to ponder — that great masses of our people are 
 living practically without God in the world, un- 
 touched alike by the ministrations of the Church 
 clergy and of Nonconformist ministers. Well would 
 it be for England, well for the Church of Christ in 
 this land, if each religious body would do its own 
 work, earnestly, peacefully, devotedly — content to 
 spend on enlightening the souls and reclaiming the 
 lives of men the energy which too often is exhausted 
 in religious and political warfare. " All they that 
 take the sword shall perish with the sword " — the sword 
 whether of sectarian polemics or of political rancour. 
 There may be no slight provocation, when a weapon 
 is at hand, to use it ; but the Master's warning voice 
 to His disciples is still the same, " Put up thy sword 
 into the sheath." The polemical temper is its own 
 judge and its own executioner. Whensoever religion 
 degenerates into politics — whether in Church or sect, 
 whether in minister or conQjreo;ation — its fate is sealed. 
 The Spirit is grieved, is quenched ; and only the 
 lifeless body of religion remains. 
 
 From the retrospect we turn to the prospect. The 
 achievements in the past may be allowed to inspire the 
 hopes for the future. The four years just elapsed have 
 been largely occupied in organization and re-arrange- 
 ment. This work is not }'et completed. In a diocese 
 like Durham, where the population increases so rapidly, 
 anything like finality in the external arrangements is
 
 A Charge. 53 
 
 beyond hope. Ever fresh modifications and enlarge- 
 ments will be necessary to meet the growing and 
 changing wants. But the four years to come will 
 properly be spent much more in completing existing 
 arrangements, in working upon lines already laid 
 down, and in vivifying the external organizations 
 which have been created. The machinery of dio- 
 ceses, of archdeaconries and deaneries, of parishes, of 
 ministries and associations, is a dead, inert, unpro- 
 ductive thing if the motive power be wanting. And 
 this motive power can come only from one source. " It 
 is the Spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh" — the external 
 mechanism, the formal organization — " profiteth 
 nothing. The words that I speak to you — they are 
 Spirit, and they are life." If this voice of Christ be 
 silent in our hearts, then it is all lost labour that we 
 perfect our ecclesiastical machinery. This machinery 
 is a good conductor of spiritual energy, but the energy 
 itself it cannot create. The fiery baptism of the Spirit 
 may not be replaced by any visible or tangible in- 
 vention of man. 
 
 Our difticulties no doubt are great. The spiritual 
 arrears bequeathed by j)ast generations are enormous. 
 The special perplexities and aberrations of our own 
 age — intellectual and social — are not few. But I 
 should be faithless if I spoke any other language to- 
 day than the language of hope. Where so many 
 bright experiences have been vouchsafed in the past, 
 no place is left for despair as to the future. Have I 
 not seen, not once or twice only, a parish which had
 
 54' A Charye. 
 
 long lain a spiritual wilderness, a proverb and bye- 
 word to the foes of the Church, suddenly quickened 
 into fresh and vigorous life under a new incumbent 
 or curate in charge, attracting and inspiring fellow- 
 labourers by his zeal and self-denial ? Have I not 
 found men willing, at their Bishop's summons, to 
 forego an adequate and assured competency, and to 
 labour in some unpromising and arduous field on a 
 bare curate's stipend, with an uncertain future before 
 them, because they regarded the summons as a call 
 from God, thus shaming my own faint heart by the 
 strength of their faith ? Does not the history of the 
 Newcastle Bishopric Fund — the liberal donations of the 
 many, the princely munificence of the few — read a lesson 
 full of encouragement and hope ? Are not the Confir- 
 mation returns — manifesting: a laroje and sudden in- 
 crease in the numbers presented — a truly inspiring 
 fact ? Seeing all these things, can we do otherwise 
 than bow our heads in thanksgiving and cry from the 
 fulness of an overflowing heart, " Yea, the Lord hath 
 done great things for us already, whereof we re- 
 joice;" "Wilt not Thou, God, go forth with our 
 hosts?" ; " Through God will we do great acts ; for it 
 is He that shall tread down our enemies" — our enemies, 
 because His enemies.
 
 A C%aiye. 55 
 
 II. 
 
 The former part of my charge was occupied wholly 
 with matters relating to the diocese. I purpose now 
 to discuss questions which have a wider interest. In 
 some cases these afiect us directly in the same way as 
 they afiect the whole Church. In others we have no 
 immediate practical interest in them ; but yet we 
 cannot thrust them aside, The diocese is a part of 
 a larger body, and the suffering of any one member 
 must soon or late involve the suffering of all. To 
 this latter class of subjects belongs the dispute about 
 vestments. The ritual difficulty, I am thankful to 
 say, is unknown among us ; and I trust that it 
 will always so remain. But we cannot ignore it. 
 
 1. 
 
 The Burial Laws Amendment Act. 
 
 The most important recent Act of the Legislature 
 affecting the Church has been the Burials Act of 1880. 
 My vote was given in favour of the measure, and I 
 have seen no cause since to regret it. I could never 
 indeed acknowledge that it was required as a matter 
 of justice, but it seemed to me to Ije a wise and
 
 56 A Charge. 
 
 generous concession to a widespread sentiment which 
 deserved to be treated with all respect. Any wrangling 
 over the open grave is abhorrent to our feelings, and 
 it is vain at such times to exj^ect men to be ruled 
 solely and absolutely by considerations of strict justice. 
 No more disadvantageous ground could have been 
 chosen for fightino- the battle of the Church. It 
 would have been highly perilous to her health to 
 have kept open this running sore any longer. The 
 minor provisions of the Act indeed went beyond the 
 requirements of either justice or sentiment, and I voted 
 against some of these. But it was contended by the 
 promoters of the Bill that, while giving, it was well to 
 give ungrudgingly. To some of its opponents a 
 main ground of objection was the fear that the treat- 
 ment of the churchyards would form a precedent for 
 the treatment of the churches. If this had been so, 
 the Bill would have met with the most determined 
 opposition from a very large number of those who 
 supported it. But Ministers of the Crown and other 
 chief promoters of the measure, in both Houses, not 
 only disclaimed any such motive in their own minds, 
 but emphatically denied any analogy between the two 
 cases. 
 
 The passing of this Act, among other important 
 questions, involved an immediate decision on one 
 point. The Act threw open consecrated as well as 
 unconsecrated ground to other rites of Christian burial 
 besides those of the Church of England. It became 
 a question therefore whether henceforward cemeteries
 
 A Charge. 57 
 
 and additions to churchyards should continue to be 
 consecrated as hitherto or not. This appeared to me to 
 be a matter on which — though I had my own 
 opinion — I ought not to act without ascertaining the 
 general sentiment of those more directly affected. 
 The value of such consecration seemed to me to 
 depend on the extent to which it was upheld by the 
 sentiment of the clergy and laity of the Church of 
 England in the diocese. I therefore laid the matter 
 before the Archdeacons and Rural Deans at our 
 annual meeting at Auckland Castle. This was happily 
 an exceptionally full meeting, and I was glad to find 
 that without a single dissentient voice those present 
 pronounced in fcivour of the continuance of the ancient 
 practice. AVith much satisfaction I learnt afterwards 
 that this was also the opinion of the great body of 
 the English episcopate. For those indeed who were 
 unable to regard the Consecration Service otherwise 
 than as a dedication restricting; the g-round to the rites 
 of the Church of England, it was impossible to take 
 this view. In this case such a service could only be 
 a self-stultification. But this was not my own view ; 
 and I have therefore continued to consecrate when 
 invited by the proper authorities and assured of the 
 proper safeguards. The Act directly provides that 
 the rites shall be a ' Christian and orderly religious 
 service,' and expressly condemns the attempt at 
 funerals conducted under its provisions ' to bring into 
 contempt or obloquy the Christian religion, or the 
 belief or worship of any Church or denomination of
 
 58 A Charge, 
 
 Christians.' This guarantee seemed to justify the 
 dedication of ground which, though henceforth not 
 exclusively, yet principally would he devoted to the 
 burial rites of the Church of England, by a solemn 
 form of prayer. 
 
 But another question arises under the new Act. A 
 clergyman may be invited to perform a funeral in 
 unconsecrated ground. What is to be done under 
 these circumstances ? Is the grave to be specially 
 dedicated or not ? Looking at the Consecration 
 Service of a churchyard as a setting apart of the 
 ground and separating it from profane and unhallowed 
 uses for a special purpose, I do not (where this is 
 found impossible) see sufficient reason for the special 
 consecration of individual graves. In such cases I 
 should be content to regard the burial service itself 
 as an adequate dedication. For this reason I have 
 not authorized any form for the consecration of 
 graves. There can indeed be no objection in 
 principle to the use of any edifying form of prayer in 
 such cases, where a clergyman desires it. Only I 
 conceive that it cannot be made part of the Burial 
 Service itself, because neither under the Act itself nor 
 elsewhere is he authorized to use in funeral rites any 
 form of words but ' prayers taken from the Book of 
 Common Prayer and portions of Holy Scripture ', and 
 these only as ' prescribed or approved of by the 
 Ordinary.' I fear also that such a practice might be 
 misunderstood, and therefore I should not wish to 
 encouraoe it.
 
 A Charge. 59 
 
 It will be a matter of great interest to the clergy 
 to learn what has been the working of the Act in this 
 diocese. As the presbyterian element in our popu- 
 lation is disproportionately great owing to our 
 proximity to the Scottish border, as our mining and 
 industrial centres comprise a very large number of 
 Roman Catholics, and as Nonconformity of various 
 kinds is exceptionally active and powerful, it has 
 probably nowhere been put to so severe a test as in 
 this diocese. It is therefore with great satisfaction 
 that I give you the results, as they appear in the 
 Visitation returns. Full and correct returns have 
 been made of 111 Consecrated Churchyards. The 
 total number of funerals in these since the passing of 
 the Act amounts to 12,823. Of this number 521 
 only have been taken by others besides clergy of the 
 Church of England — making a proportion of about 4 
 per cent. The great majority of these however are 
 Roman Catholic funerals. In 1 2 only out of the 111 
 parishes is a separation made in the returns between 
 funerals taken by Roman Catholic priests and those 
 taken by Nonconformist ministers and others not 
 being clergy of our Church. The number of Roman 
 Catholic funerals in these parishes is 213 ; the number 
 of other dissenting funerals only 54 ; so that in the 
 ao-oreo-ate the Roman Catholic funerals amount to 
 nearly four fifths of the whole. It would not however 
 be safe to draw any general inference from this fiict, 
 as these were probably places which contain an 
 exceptionally large Roman Catholic population. Of
 
 60 A Charge. 
 
 the 111 consecrated churchyards of which I have 
 returns, I find that iu 47 there were no funerals 
 except according to the rites of the Church of 
 Enghand ; in 17 others there w^as only one ; and 
 in 7 others again there were only two. These 
 statistics teU their own tale. But different in- 
 ferences will be drawn from them respecting the Act 
 itself. To some they will appear to show that it was 
 unnecessary and therefore ought not to have been 
 passed ; to others that the objections against it have 
 proved groundless, and that it is justified by the event. 
 For myself I feel that a grievance — a sentimental 
 grievance if you will, but not the less real on that 
 account — has been removed by the Act; that the results 
 have shown how firm a hold the rites of the Church of 
 England have on the affections of the people at the 
 most solemn moments ; and that in all ways our 
 position is stronger for the concession. 
 
 But there is also another side to the Act. It not 
 only made concessions to the dissenters, but also 
 afforded relief to the clergy. The necessity of reading 
 the whole of the Burial Service over every one — even 
 the most profligate — with certain specified exceptions 
 was a grievous burden to the conscience ; the pro- 
 hibition against reading any part of it in these 
 exceptional cases was sometimes, as for instance over 
 unbaptized persons, a painful disability. An alterna- 
 tive service, framed in accordance with the provisions 
 of the Act, and approved by a large number of the 
 Bishops, has been provided. Giving a choice of
 
 A Charge. 61 
 
 psalms, lessons, and collects, it is sufficiently flexible 
 to meet all cases. I have autliorized its use for 
 my diocese {Diocesan Magazine, August 1881, p. 
 118 sq. ) ; and I find that it has been employed 
 in several instances. These have not been very 
 numerous, and it is not desirable that they should 
 be so ; but the advantage of having such an alterna- 
 tive service to fall back upon has obviously been felt 
 by the clergy in these cases. 
 
 The Act therefore has worked smoothly in this 
 diocese. The fears which many entertained have not 
 been justified. There has been no burial scandal 
 among us which can fairly be traced to the Act. But 
 while saying this I wish to give honour where honour 
 is due. This peaceful result is owing mainly to the 
 loyal acceptance by the parochial clergy of a measure 
 which was most distasteful to a large number of them, 
 and which might have led to serious consequences if 
 they had shown a different temper. But they have 
 postponed their own private feelings to the peace of 
 the Church, and they have had and will have their 
 
 reward. 2^ 
 
 2. 
 
 Permanent Diaconate. 
 A measure for supplying the existing defects of our 
 ministerial agency which attracts great and increasing- 
 favour is the establishment of a permanent diaconate. 
 I wish I could myself contemplate such a measure with 
 the unmixed satisfaction and the al)sence of misQ;ivino; 
 which its champions manifest. It is proposed that
 
 62 A Charge. 
 
 persons either possessing private means or engaged in 
 trade or business or exercising a profession should be 
 admitted to this order, without relinquishing their 
 secular avocations ; that they should, if necessary, 
 receive a small stipend to supplement their means 
 of livelihood gained in other ways, though some 
 might be prepared to give their services gratuitously ; 
 that they should enter upon the office without any 
 intention or prospect of being advanced to the higher 
 order of the priesthood ; and that (as a consequence) 
 the intellectual and educational standard of admission 
 to the diaconate should be lowered — the severer 
 examination, in which alone a knowledge of the 
 learned languages would be required, being reserved 
 for the candidates for Priests' orders. 
 
 Against this measure I have no objection to urge 
 on principle. I do not see how I can find fault with 
 the pursuit of secular avocations in the ministers of a 
 Church whose chief Apostle was a tent-maker. Prece- 
 dents too in later ages are sufficiently frequent to 
 justify this combination of the spiritual office with the 
 secular work. Nor again can I interpret the ' good 
 degree ' of 1 Tim. iii. 1 3 in any such way as to imply 
 that the promotion of deacons to the higher office 
 ought to be the rule in the Church of Christ. The laws 
 of our own branch of the Church do indeed present 
 some difficulties, but these might be overcome. The 
 Statute (1 and 2 Vict. c. 106, sect. 27), which forbids 
 spiritual persons holding office in the Church to 
 engage in business or trade, might perhaps be
 
 A Charge. 63 
 
 liberally interpreted so as to allow professional men, 
 still exercising their profession, to take Holy Orders ; 
 and it certainly does not exclude persons of means, 
 who do not earn their bread in any of these ways. 
 Neither again are the prohibitions in the Canons 
 a formidable obstacle. The 75th Canon only 
 forbids ' any base or servile labour ' ; and the 76tli 
 Canon merely orders that any person admitted priest 
 or deacon shall not ' afterwards use himself in the 
 course of his life as a layman ' — a vague expression 
 and capable of being so interpreted as to cover the 
 measure in question. A more stubborn ecclesiastical 
 barrier is the office for the Ordering of Deacons in the 
 Prayer Book, which both in the prayer for the newly 
 ordained and in the final rubric contemplates their 
 proceeding within a reasonably short interval to the 
 hioiher order. Yet even this mio;ht be taken to 
 express the normal practice, to which exceptions 
 might be freely made. 
 
 But, waiving these questions of ecclesiastical law, 
 of which the solution perhaps w^ould not be very 
 difficult, I foresee the jJossibility of grave adminis- 
 trative complications arising out of the creation of 
 such a diaconate. It is intended, I suppose, that the 
 orders of these deacons should be reo-arded as in- 
 delible. A deacon once created is a deacon for life 
 in the eye of the Church. He is permanently resident 
 in the parish where he is called to minister. Not 
 improbably he is tied to it by his business avocations. 
 Thus he establishes a position of influence by his
 
 64 A Charge. 
 
 personal relations and his continuous abode in the 
 parish. If he has ability and eloquence, his power 
 will be very considerable. He will gather about him 
 a large circle of friends and admirers. Moreover he 
 will receive a stipend which, though not very large, is 
 a consideration to him ; and he would feel asgrieved 
 if it ceased without his own free will. But the 
 incumbent changes from time to time ; and it is 
 not difficult to see that complications may arise from 
 this fact. The removal of a deacon from his minis- 
 trations may set a whole parish on fire. The case of 
 a curate presents no analogy, because he has not as a 
 rule any domestic ties in the place and he speedily 
 departs to some other sphere of labour without serious 
 inconvenience to himself. But a permanent deacon 
 would remain as a focus of disaffection, if the 
 elements of disaffection were there. The weight of 
 parochial influence in fact has been transferred from 
 the chief officer to his subordinate. The centre of 
 gravity has thereby been removed to a dangerous 
 position, and the parish is kept in a state of unstable 
 equilibrium. Meanwhile the deacon himself has a 
 rigrht to feel dissatisfied. He is invested with an 
 office which he cannot shake off; and yet he is not 
 allowed to perform the functions or to reap the 
 advantasjes of his office. 
 
 Incidentally also, there is another serious difficulty 
 which strikes forcibly, perhaps too forcibly, one who has 
 himself been an examining chaplain for seventeen years. 
 The promoters of this measure contemplate making
 
 A Charge. 65 
 
 the examination for Priests' Orders the really search- 
 ing intellectual test. But experience shows that it is 
 impossible to enforce a higher standard in this second 
 examination than in the earlier. The candidate for 
 Deacons' Orders during his preparation could at least 
 call his time his own ; l^ut the interval between the 
 first and the second ordination is engrossed with 
 parochial work. Hence, so far as my exj^erience goes, 
 it is the exception rather than the rule, wdien a man 
 passes a more satisfactory examination for Priests' 
 than for Deacons' Orders. In those parts of the ex- 
 amination in which his practical experience tells, he will 
 be found to have made an advance ; but where his 
 intellectual acquisitions are tested, his answers will 
 be less satisfactory than they were before. 
 
 But, it will be said, this scheme for a j^ermanent 
 diaconate is after all only a restoration of the normal 
 jDractice in the primitive Church ; and we cannot do 
 wrong if we follow this practice with an implicit faith 
 as to the results. My answer is this. If you would 
 remodel the Church organization after the primitive 
 t}^3e, you must do so in all respects. It will not 
 answer to take one piece out of a complex organiza- 
 tion, expecting that it will work in the same way, 
 though the mechanism connected with it is quite 
 different. If the diaconate in the primitive Church 
 was permanent and localized, so was the presbyterate. 
 If the primitive deacons maintained themselves by 
 plying their trade or their business, so did the 
 primitive priests. Moreover the presbyteral office
 
 66 , A Charge. 
 
 was commonly represented by a body of men (a pres- 
 bytery) not by a single individual, and thus it 
 commanded the influence of numliers. There was 
 therefore no danger of the result which I aj)23rehend 
 under present conditions — the transference of the 
 centre of gravity to a position imperilling the stability 
 of a church. 
 
 I bring forward these considerations, not Ijecause I 
 wish to regard them as conclusive, though to my own 
 mind they are very serious ; but because I desire to 
 direct attention to them. But there is yet another 
 question which we may pertinently ask. Even if the 
 legal difticulties were overcome, even if the practical 
 objections Avere overruled, would this creation of a 
 permanent diaconate do all or nearly all that we 
 want ? 
 
 I do not think it would. There would be a certain 
 relief as regards the actual ministrations within the 
 Church, but these are very far from constituting the 
 main part of an active incumbent's duties ; and, if the 
 relief were given in other directions, the j^ressure of 
 these would be less felt. But for mission services, 
 for cottage lectures, for teaching in the schools, for 
 visiting the sick, and a fortiori for other less spiiitual 
 functions than these, such as keeping accounts and 
 the like, lay agency would pr(^l)al)ly l^e found as 
 effective and would be far more largely available. 
 Tlie curate, though only in deacon's orders is much 
 more valuable now to the incumbent than the layman, 
 because spiritual ministrations are the main business
 
 A Cliarge. (^7 
 
 of his life. But as soon as they cease to be this — as 
 they would cease with these semi-secular deacons — it 
 is reduced to a questicui of degree. Meanwhile the 
 loss is serious. The most competent and conscientious 
 laymen would probably object to lieing invested witli 
 a ministerial office which, involving grave responsi- 
 bilities, would cling to them for life, no matter what 
 may be the change in their external circumstances. 
 Thus the field of choice would lie limited. Meanwhile, 
 if adopted as a substitute for the Lay Keadership of 
 which I spoke in a former part of my charge— and 
 this seems the view entertained by many of its sup- 
 porters — it would involve another serious loss. The 
 value of the Lay Eeader's ministrations will consist to 
 a large extent in the twofold fiict that they are 
 gratuitous and that they are not clerical. The one 
 advantage probably, the other certainly, would 1)e 
 forfeited hy the adoption of the Permanent Diaconnte 
 
 instead. 2^ 
 
 3. 
 
 The Salvation Army. 
 
 A new and complex problem has been offered to 
 the Church of Eng-land since the last Visitation. A 
 remarkable organization for evangelizing the masses has 
 sprung up suddenly into maturity and is invading all 
 our towns and many of our more popidous villages. It 
 has thrown out branches into our colonies, into our 
 Indian dependency, iuto America, even into the 
 nations of continental Europe. 
 
 The Salvation Army has now been in existence for
 
 68 A Charge. 
 
 seventeen years ; but its most rapid strides have been 
 made within the hxst four or five vears. Durinof this 
 time it seems to have advanced with ever accelerated 
 pace. It has occupied a prominent place in Episcopal 
 Charges, in Diocesan Conferences, in Church Con- 
 gresses, in platform speeches, in review articles, in 
 all those various instrumentalities through which the 
 Church makes her voice heard. A Bishop, addressing 
 his Clergy at such a moment, could not, even if he 
 had the wish, be silent about an organization which 
 seems to be fraught with such important issues 
 whether for good or for evil, and towards which the 
 attitude of the Church of England cannot be a matter 
 of indifference. 
 
 The leading characteristic of this organization is 
 from one point of view its great recommendation. It 
 emphatically disclaims the intention of setting up a 
 new sect. ' We are not and will not be made a 
 Church,' say the Orders and Regulations in explicit 
 terms (p. 4). It is intended, in the language of its 
 Greneral, to ' leave to the Churches all who wish mere 
 Church life' {Contemporary Review^ August 1882, 
 p. 181). Thus, as an organization, it stands outside 
 all the Churches, while any individual member may 
 belong to any community which he prefers. This 
 feature makes it easy to deal with, at least in theory. 
 What may be the practical difference, I shall consider 
 hereafter. But it has stood the Army in good stead ; 
 ' By these means,' writes its chief officer, ' we have 
 certainly attained already a most friendly footing in
 
 A Chary c. G9 
 
 relation to all Churches in many localities/ and he 
 expresses the hope that before long they will have 
 spread far and wide a spirit * of love and hearty 
 co-operation that will do much to lessen the dividing 
 walls of sectarianism' {ib. pp. 181, 182). 
 
 I wish before all things not to stint my praise, 
 where praise is due. The Salvation Army has many 
 valuable lessons to teach us, if only we will consent to 
 learn them. First and foremost I place the ideal of 
 evangelistic work, to which I have referred in a former 
 part of my charge. The high-handed faith which 
 refuses to believe that the Gospel was intended for 
 the few, the magnificent courage which attacks not 
 individuals or families, but whole towns and whole 
 neighbourhoods — this twofold protest, both doctrinal 
 and practical, against all narrowness ought surely to 
 command our warmest admiration. Again the stress 
 which is laid on the Fatherly Love of God, as the 
 central idea of the Incarnation and the Gospel message, 
 exalts and spiritualizes its dogmatic teaching. 80 
 too its persistent protest against antinomianism dis- 
 tinguishes it favourably from other forms of revivalism 
 to which it bears external resemblances. Whatever 
 may be its extravagances or its shortcomings, it aims 
 at a distinct moral reform in its converts. 
 
 Nor again can its successes be denied. The 
 character of the movement indeed seems to vary 
 much in difierent localities with the officers in com- 
 mand. Hence the very divergent opinions which 
 are formed by men equally unprejudiced. If I were
 
 70 A Chatye. 
 
 justified in estimating the movement as a whole from 
 the partial facts which have come within my own 
 cognizance, I should certainly place it higher than it 
 is placed by others whose larger experience I respect, 
 or than the extravagance of its own oro-ans would 
 suggest. But anyhow its efiects speak for themselves. 
 If it had done nothing else, it v/ould have achieved 
 a notable triumph in reclaiming so many thousands of 
 drunkards in the name of Christ. 
 
 The Salvationists claim our respect also from the 
 hostility which they have provoked. We cannot but 
 regard it as an honourable distinction that they have 
 been exposed to attacks from the lowest and most 
 degraded rabble of our towns. If this hostility has 
 been elicited in some measure by their flaunting 
 attitude, it has had its roots in the consciousness that 
 the strongholds of vice were endangered by their 
 assaults. 
 
 But if its achievements are notable^ so also have 
 been and are its faults. I do not class among these 
 the name which it has adopted. The title Salvation 
 Army, besides suggesting the peculiar character of the 
 organization, is a great moral parable to its members. 
 Nor again have we any right to complain of its craving 
 after notoriety. To get into the newspapers, to keep 
 themselves before the public, to cover the walls with 
 startling placards — this is the frankly avowed rule of 
 the Salvationists. But why should we complain of 
 this ? Men must be known first before they can be 
 heard. They must arrest first before they can convince.
 
 A Charye. 71 
 
 On this same ground also a certain amount of what 
 is called sensationalism may be pardoned. But the 
 exaltation of sensationalism into a system is perilous 
 in the extreme. Crescit indulgens sibi ; it begets a 
 craving which only increases by gratification. This is 
 manifest already in the progress of the Salvation 
 Army. In an organization framed to produce sub- 
 stantial and lasting results the sensational element 
 should gradually give way to calm and patient 
 methods of instruction. Of this I see as yet no signs 
 in the movements of the Salvation Army. In its later 
 public acts, as may be seen from its own organs, there 
 is not only no abatement, but there is a positive 
 increase in this respect. Sensationalism, and still 
 more sensationalism, is its daily food. But granting 
 for a moment that this amount of sensationalism is 
 necessary, care should at least be taken that its 
 character is in harmony with its aims. Nothing, I 
 venture to think, can excuse the irreverence of its 
 manifestations in this case. I would not wish to 
 exaggerate. I do not for a moment hold the leaders 
 responsible, except indirectly, for the excesses of 
 their followers. I cannot refuse to accept the testi- 
 mony of impartial witnesses, that at the meetings of 
 the Salvation Army the demonstrations which, read 
 calmly in the newspaper reports the next morning, 
 strike the ear as irreverent even to the verire of 
 blasphemy, arc often redeemed at the moment by the 
 obvious sincerity of the principal agents. But the 
 fact remains, that the most solemn events of Biblical
 
 7-2 A Charye. 
 
 history arc travestied and the Saviour's name is 
 profaned in parodies of common songs. Awe and 
 reverence are the soul of the religious life. He therefore, 
 who degrades the chief objects of religion by profane 
 associations, strikes however unintentionally at the 
 very root of religion. Nor again does it seem to me 
 that any justification is possible of the encouragement 
 given to children six or eight or ten years old to 
 advertise publicly their own conversion and as publicly 
 to proclaim the non-conversion of their parents. Yet 
 this is the staple of the news in the columns of the 
 Little Soldier. The dangerous unreality of all this — 
 not the less dangerous because it may be unconscious in 
 children of tender age — needs no comment. Yet these 
 painful exhibitions are not only permitted, but en- 
 couraged and stimulated to the greatest extent by 
 authority. 
 
 But the merits or defects, the successes or the 
 failures, of the movement are after all rather the con- 
 cern of the Salvationists than of ourselves. Our 
 practical interest in the subject is summed up in two 
 questions. What can we learn from their aims and 
 methods ? and, What should be our attitude as Church- 
 men towards them ? 
 
 The lessons which they can teach us are neither few 
 nor unimportant. I have already spoken of the 
 courageous attempt to grapple with vice and infidelity 
 in the masses — the magnificent hopefulness of the 
 movement. Then there is the boldness and uncon- 
 ventionality of the methods. The Church of England
 
 A Chaiye. 73 
 
 lias awoke or is fast awaking to the fact that however 
 great may be the value of its recognised instru- 
 mentalities in. training a body of believers, it must take 
 a fresh starting point and employ new agencies, if it is 
 ever to overtake the spiritual arrears and evangelize 
 the practical heathenism of the masses. The Salvation 
 Army has thrown out new ideas of method. These 
 will need careful sifting. Much will have to be 
 rejected as unlawful on principle; much will be put 
 aside as condemning itself by its results ; but surely 
 there is underlying all the extravagances and defects 
 a residuum of highly valuable and suggestive matter of 
 which we should do well to take account. What can 
 be learnt from its military character ? Stripped of its 
 absolutism, in which it glories but which must soon 
 or late prove its dissolution, does it not contain in 
 itself the seeds of a more perfect type of organization 
 than any with which we are familiar ? What again are 
 the lessons taught by its assiduous courting of notoriety, 
 by its practice of public witnessing, by its finding 
 immediate employment for its new converts ? I 
 strongly recommend those of my clergy, who have not 
 done so already, to make themselves acquainted with 
 the chief publications of the movement, not only the 
 Orders and Regulations and the Doctrines and 
 Discipline, but also those less directly authoritative, 
 but even more instructive works, such as Sahxttion 
 Soldiery, Aggressive Christianity, Heathen England, 
 and the like. I recommend this, not only because they 
 cannot otherwise obtain a full knowledge of the
 
 74 A Charge. 
 
 significance of the movement — alike in its strength 
 and in its weakness — but still more because (if I 
 mistake not) they will find in them many stimulating 
 and suggestive thoughts which will aid them in their 
 own parochial organizations and ministry. 
 
 But a second and still more difiicult question 
 remains to be answered ; What should be our 
 demeanour, as Churchmen, towards the Salvation 
 Army ? Some would recommend an attitude of strict 
 neutrality. Their counsel is summed up in the words 
 of Gamaliel, ' Refrain from these men, and let them 
 alone.' This letting alone no doubt is an easy solution, 
 but is it satisfactory ? The disposition of Gamaliel was 
 truer than the disposition of the Sadducaic chief-priests ; 
 but I do not see that it is commended in itself. It was 
 Gamaliel's business to try and find out whether this 
 counsel and this work was of men, or of God. The 
 attitude of the rulers of the Church of England 
 towards Wesley in the last century has been deeply 
 deplored in more recent times ; and there has naturally 
 been an anxiety not to repeat the mistake. Hence a 
 strong desire has been manifested on the part of many 
 in authority to maintain friendly relations with the 
 members of the Salvation Army. 
 
 I confess that my own sympathies have been 
 altoo^ether with this last view. It is urojed indeed 
 that this new form of revivalism differs in essential 
 points from the Wesleyan movement ; that Wesley 
 for instance professed a great reverence for the Sacra- 
 ments and other Church ordinances which are entirely
 
 A Chatyc. 75 
 
 ignored by the Salvationists ; that — to say nothing 
 else — Wesleyanism arose in the bosom of the Church 
 itself, whereas the Salvation Army is altogether an 
 external organization. This is true ; but I cannot rid 
 myself of the conviction that the same temjxir, which 
 turns its back on the Salvation Army without enquiry, 
 would also have had nothing to say to AVesley. The 
 unconventional methods and the undeniable extrava- 
 gances (for we must not forget the paroxysms which 
 followed on AVesley's preaching) are often the real 
 deterrents in the one case as in the other. For this 
 reason, whenever I have been consulted by the Clergy, 
 I have advised them to cultivate friendly relations 
 with the Salvationists so far as this could be done 
 without any unworthy compromise. Believing, as we 
 do, that our Lord became incarnate not only to save 
 individual souls but also to establish a visible kingdom 
 upon earth, holding likewise that Baptism and the 
 Holy Communion were especially ordained by Christ 
 Himself not only as special means of grace but also 
 as bonds of membership in His body, we cannot do 
 anything which tends to disparage either the Church 
 or the Sacraments. But without any unworthy con- 
 cession on these points, there were obviously ways 
 in which sympathy could be shown. Accordingly 
 special services have been held with my approval in 
 some churches for members of the Salvation Army ; 
 and in other ways co-operation has been found possible 
 in some localities. It seemed to me that no oppor- 
 tunity should be lost by the clergy of guiding a
 
 76 A Charge. 
 
 movement which, amidst many deplorahle extrava- 
 gances, contained so many elements of the highest 
 good. 
 
 Though I confess that I am less hopeful of the 
 movement than I was at first — for I seem to see its 
 errors and its extravagances developing more rapidly 
 than its excellences, as time goes on — I have no reason 
 to resfret the advice oiven. I do not see that we 
 render ourselves responsible for these excesses by such 
 sympathy and guidance as I have indicated. It would 
 rather have been a matter of reproach, if by our 
 coldness or inaction we lost our opportunity of 
 influencino; a movement which mio-ht have been made 
 subservient to the highest interests of the Church of 
 Christ. 
 
 But I see that such sympathy and co-operation is 
 becoming daily more difficult. In theory indeed 
 there is no barrier. The Salvation Army, as I said, 
 repudiates the idea of setting up a church or a sect. 
 Bat this repudiation is more theoretical than real. If 
 its leaders would only be content to hold firmly to 
 what seems to have been its first ideal, devoting 
 themselves to the work of arousing souls from sin and 
 drawing them towards Christ, but leaving them, when 
 thus awakened and converted, to seek elsewhere the 
 more continuous and fuller instruction which it has no 
 means of supplying, and the privileges of Church 
 membership and the benefits of the Sacraments which 
 it altogether ignores — it might still do a truly mag- 
 nificent., though incomplete, work. But it is fast
 
 receding from this position. It is setting up its 
 oro;anization as a substitute for a Church. It is 
 insisting upon this to the practical exclusion of Church 
 membership in its adherents. This is the consequence 
 of its militarism, which is at once its strength and its 
 weakness. Every other consideration is made to bend 
 before the exigencies of its organization. Thus, while 
 professedly initial, it is making itself practically final. 
 It is attempting to absorb all the religious life of its 
 members in itself. It is fast degenerating into a sect.^"* 
 
 4. 
 
 The Revised Neio Testament. 
 
 The year 1881 marks a signal epoch in the history 
 of the English Bible. From the first appearance of 
 Tyndall's New Testament in 1525 to the publication 
 of the so called Authorized Version in 1611, the 
 English Bible had undergone repeated revision. But 
 the Version of King^ James was destined to reign 
 without a rival for 270 years. It had indeed been 
 touched from time to time by private adventurers ; 
 but no serious and authoritative revision had been 
 attempted. Yet meanwhile Greek scholarship had 
 made great strides ; aids to exegesis had accumulated 
 on all hands ; materials for the text had increased 
 manifold, so that textual criticism, which can hardly 
 be said to have existed at all at the besjinninfj of this 
 period, had grown into a vigorous maturity. But all 
 faults had been condoned for the sake of its pure 
 English, its majestic rhythm, and its familiar cadences.
 
 78 A Charge. 
 
 Thus it held undisputed sway. A veneration has 
 been accorded to it hardly less than the idolatry of 
 the Massoretic text in the Hebrew or the Vulgate 
 translation in the Latin. 
 
 This had not been so from the beginning. When it 
 first appeared, it was assailed with a torrent of abuse. 
 An eminent Hebrew scholar declared that he would 
 sooner be ' torn in pieces than any such translation 
 by his consent should be urged upon the poor 
 Church of England.' Other assailants were still 
 more violent. Even the learned Selden could only 
 speak of it as ' being well enough so long as scholars 
 have to do with it, but when it comes among the 
 common people,' he added, ' what gear do they make 
 of it ! ' A generation after its appearance my name- 
 sake, the great Hebraist, preaching before the House of 
 Commons in 1645, still urged the desirableness of 
 a revision of the Scriptures. 
 
 The circumstances under which the Revised Version 
 was made are well known to all. A Committee ap- 
 pointed in the first instance by the Houses of the 
 Southern Convocation and enlarged by co-optation 
 sat for ten years and a half. It was composed of 
 members of various schools of opinion within the 
 Church of England, and of various Christian com- 
 munities mthout. An American Committee also was 
 formed, to which the work was transmitted from time 
 to time for their suggestions, which were carefully 
 considered. The version was revised and re-revised. 
 No labour was spared to secure a satisfactory result.
 
 A Charge. 79 
 
 The reception of the work is fresh in all our mem- 
 ories. The demand for it has been far beyond any 
 parallel in literary history. It has l)een sold in Eng- 
 land, if report be true, not by tens of thousands l)ut 
 l)y millions. It was reproduced whole, the day after 
 its pul)lication, in more than one American news- 
 paper. It is found in cheap editions at every bookstall. 
 It has heeii criticized far and wide, in magazine 
 articles, in newspaper correspondence, in separate 
 tracts and volumes, in sermons and charges. 
 
 Amidst all this criticism we are not surprised to find 
 a few uncompromising antagonists. Its paramount 
 claim to the respect of future generations will — I say 
 this advisedly — be the restitution of a more ancient 
 and purer text. Yet this is the very point which has 
 called forth the severest censure. The appearance of 
 the Revised Version was almost simultaneous with the 
 pulilication of a critical text of the New Testament 
 which has already vindicated its claim to the foremost 
 place not only in England but on the Continent also, 
 and will henceforward mark an era in textual criticism. 
 Through the kindness of the editors the revisers 
 had already had in their hands the sheets of this work 
 while the revision was going on. This has been made 
 the ground of accusation against the revisers' text. 
 The similarities have been carefully noted, the diver- 
 gences have been ignored. As regards the coincidences 
 themselves, adverse critics have overlooked the fact 
 that in all the most important points in which tlie 
 revisers have adopted the same reading with the two
 
 so A Charge. 
 
 editors, they are supported likewise by one or other, 
 sometimes by all, of the critical editions of the Greek 
 Testament in recent times. Accordingly it has been 
 represented that the revisers were led blindfold by the 
 two editors, who also themselves were members of the 
 body. A glance at the composition of the company 
 ought alone to have prevented this surmise. No 
 gathering of men was so likely, from the diversities of 
 their previous training and prepossessions, to exercise 
 independent and individual judgment on the questions 
 submitted to them. If therefore the requisite majority 
 of two-thirds was obtained in favour of any particular 
 reading, it can only have been because the arguments 
 commended themselves to the better judgment of the 
 company. In the earlier stages the debated readings 
 would naturally provoke more discussion, but gradually 
 the accumulation of separate examples would furnish 
 a storehouse of experience, and the inductions thus 
 gained would furnish principles for future guidance 
 which materially abridged the later debates. This 
 would be the natural course of procedure in such a 
 body ; and it is no breach of confidence to say that 
 such was the actual fact. But there was no sacrifice 
 of independent judgment; because, when the principles 
 were once seen and recognized by the great majority, 
 the application of those principles to individual texts 
 was easy. 
 
 The Bible Society has — I am informed — permitted 
 its translators to adopt the text of the Revised 
 Version where it commends itself to their judgment.
 
 A Ckanje. 81 
 
 111 this tliey have, I venture to think, exercised a wise 
 discretion. Indeed I do not see how they could, with a 
 proper sense of their responsibility to the heathen, have 
 refused to allow some latitude in the matter of the 
 text. It seems to be thought in some quarters that 
 there is danger only in departing from the received 
 readings. But is not the danger far greater in a 
 stubborn conservatism ? It is one thing to retain a 
 confessedly spurious passage such as the Three 
 Heavenly Witnesses in our existing English Version, 
 though this may be painful enough. But it is quite 
 another to introduce the words into a new foreign 
 translation, thus deliberately sowing the seed of future 
 misgivings and scepticisms, which may spring up a 
 rank harvest of trouble in the generations to come. 
 
 The other point, on which adverse criticism has 
 fastened, is the English of the Revised Version. 
 On this question the verdict of the present genera- 
 tion cannot be unprejudiced. The ear, which 
 has been accustomed to one rhythm in a well- 
 known-passage, will not tolerate another, though it 
 may be as good or better. And as with rhythm, so 
 with diction. The familiar word or expression has, 
 from long habit, attained a sanctity which bars the 
 way to any rival. Time only can arbitrate fairly. 
 
 But an important question arises with respect to 
 the use of the Revised Version. It is well known 
 that the highest legal authority in this land has given 
 his opinion that the so-called Authorized Version 
 alone can lawfully be used in the Churcli. There is
 
 82 A Chdiyc. 
 
 indued no direct evidence — beyond the words on the 
 title-page — that it ever was authorized ; but the 
 council books and registers of this period were des- 
 troyed, as the Lord Chancellor has pointed out, by 
 fire ; and moreover its substitution for a previous 
 version in the Gospels and Epistles in the Prayer 
 Book at the last revision might be thought to convey 
 indirectly an authorization. 
 
 Nevertheless the point seems to me far from clear. 
 It may be a question whether the words on the title- 
 page ' Appointed to be read in Churches ' are intended 
 to be permissive or compulsory. It is certain that 
 even in the King's Chapel long after its appearance 
 preachers took their texts from the older version. 2^ 
 But still, regarding the matter as uncertain, I 
 would not on the ground of a doubtful legality 
 encourage my clergy to use the Revised Version in 
 their churches ; and obviously much inconvenience and 
 possibly some scandal might arise from the separate 
 action of individuals where the voice of authority is 
 
 silent. 
 
 5. 
 
 Vest7nents. 
 
 The peace of the Church has been troubled during 
 the few years past by a question which it is difficult 
 to regard as important in itself but which neverthe- 
 less raises momentous side issues and has threatened 
 from time to time to lead to fatal results. For this 
 reason it will be worth while to ask for a moment 
 what is really involved in the dispute about vest-
 
 A Chanje. 83 
 
 iiieiits. History corrects many errors jiiid dispels 
 many illusions. It tells us that in themselves 
 vestments are absolutely unimportant. The chasuble 
 in its origin had no ecclesiastical meaning. A 
 common out-door garment of the ancients, the casula 
 had not and could not have any sacerdotal or 
 sacrificJal bearing. The learned professions are pro- 
 verbially conservative in matters of dress ; and the 
 chasuble, with other garments now regarded as 
 ecclesiastical, was retained by the clergy long after 
 its general disuse. It was not till the eighth century, 
 when symbolical interpretation in all forms was rife, 
 that analogies were sought out in the clerical dress to 
 the sacrificial robes of the Jewish priests. This being 
 so, it is deeply to be regretted that in recent con- 
 troversy the opponents, not less than the champions, 
 of vestments should have encouraged the view that 
 this sacrificial character w^as inherent in them. In 
 the interests of peace it is well to minimise their 
 significance. We cannot say how much perplexity 
 for the future may not be created by thus investing 
 them with a fictitious importance. It would be a 
 real gain if we could be led to see that in themselves 
 they are not worth contending for or against. 
 
 But from another point of view they have a real 
 significance. The wearing of vestments at the cele- 
 bration of the Holy Communion is at least the use of 
 a distinctive dress. But this need not trouble any 
 one. Whatever may be our view respecting the Holy 
 Comniunion, all (liurclinien alike reaard it as the
 
 84 A Charge. 
 
 liigliest ottict' of Christian worship ; and so regarding 
 it, they can hardly see any impropriety, though they 
 may see much inexpediency, in marking it by a 
 distinctive dress. This principle is conceded in the 
 very judgment which pronounces the use of the 
 chasuble illeoal, for it rests on the validitv of the 
 Advertisements of Queen Elizabeth, which enjoin the 
 use of the cope in certain cases. If a distinctive dress 
 be objectionable, the objection holds as much against 
 the cope as against the chasuble. 
 
 But are the vestments lawful after all i The 
 decision of the highest legal court has said distinctly 
 no ; the judgment of many, based on the i^riina facie 
 interpretation of the ornaments rubric, declares as 
 emphatically yes. The questions which the dispute 
 raises are manifold. Were the Advertisements of 
 Queen Elizabeth ever issued by proper authority or 
 not ? If authoritative, were they intended to super- 
 sede the then existing law regarding vestments, or 
 only to supplement it ? Does the present ornaments 
 rubric, as modified at the last revision of the Prayer 
 Book, enjoin their use, or does it leave the matter 
 optional ? Above all ought the Advertisements, 
 supposing them to be authoritative, to be read into 
 this rubric, which was later in time, or ought they 
 not ? It is evident that the answers to these 
 questions must depend largely on historical facts. 2« 
 In this region of history new discoveries may at any 
 moment materially alter the aspect of the question. 
 Meanwhile is it any real strain on the conscience of a
 
 A Charge. 85 
 
 flcrgyniaii to submit to tlie judgment of the highest 
 
 legal authorities, even though he may not admit their 
 
 validity as an ecclesiastical court, and may even think 
 
 them mistaken ? 
 
 6. 
 
 Church cmd State. 
 
 It would be vain to deny that the relations 
 between the Church and the State have become 
 seriously entangled of late and still cause great 
 anxiety. Only time and forbearance can untie the 
 knot, which a headstrong impatience would cut at 
 once. From <nther extreme point of view the per- 
 plexity vanishes. An Erastian conception, the 
 absolute identity of the two, solves all difficulties ; 
 but this we repudiate as sapping the very foundations 
 of the Church. If the Church is not a spiritual corpo- 
 ration, a kingdom of Christ on earth, it is nothing at 
 all. On the other hand the absolute independence of 
 the two is simplicity itself in theory, but in practice 
 it is a mere idle vision. The ' libera chiesa in lihero 
 stato ' — the dream of Cavour — sounds well enough as 
 an epigram ; but it never has been and never can be 
 realised in fact. So long as Church and State occupy 
 the same ground, interest the same men, influence the 
 same consciences, contact and conflict are inevitable. 
 The Church w\is not free in the age of the perse- 
 cutions under the Koman Emperors. The Church is 
 not free in Italy in our own generation. The English 
 Nonconformists discover from time to time that they 
 too are entangled with the State. The law courts
 
 8G A Chiinic 
 
 step in, and decide questions which, though nominally 
 only affecting property, really touch far more im- 
 portant interests. The Anglican Church in South 
 Africa has found recently to her cost that she also is 
 most seriously affected l)y the interposition of the 
 State. 
 
 The more I read history, the more difficult I find 
 it to trace definite and immutable principles, which 
 shall under all circumstances regulate the relations 
 between the Church and the State. I am speaking 
 more especially now of the point which at the present 
 moment causes the greatest anxiety — the judicial 
 proceedings affecting the clergy ; but it applies 
 equally to other matters, such as the appointment of 
 her chief officers. Principles, which at one time the 
 clergy of the Church maintained with as much 
 tenacity as if they were fundamental articles of the 
 faith, have long since been abandoned with universal 
 consent. No one would now fight for the immunity 
 of the clergy from the jurisdiction of the criminal 
 courts of the realm. It is shocking to the moral 
 sense of this age that a clerk convicted of a grave 
 crime should only be degraded, where a layman 
 would be hanged. These lessons of the past we 
 should do well to take to heart, as a caution for the 
 future. 
 
 I am especially anxious to obtain a hearing for 
 these lessons of history ; because it seems to me that 
 the most fatal consequences might ensue, if tlie 
 conception of a hard and fast line between the rights
 
 A C/nnyc. 87 
 
 of the (.'liLiirli and >Statc were maintaiiiecl, and the 
 clergy were to consider themselves exempted from all 
 oblioations the moment this line was transoressed. 
 So far as I can see, utter and irreparable confusion 
 would be the result, if this idea were })ushed to its 
 logical conclusion. What is to come of our parochial 
 arrangements ? How aoain would it affect the exer- 
 cise of episcopal authority ? Were the clergy of 
 Cornwall justified in withdrawing their allegiance 
 from the Bishop of Exeter to the Bishop of Truro, or 
 the clergy of South Lancashire from the Bishop of 
 Chester to the Bishops of Manchester and of Liver- 
 pool ? The whole fabric of our institutions may be 
 imperilled, if we yield no ecclesiastical obedience, 
 unless the claim to this obedience can be traced 
 to a distinctly ecclesiastical source. 
 
 I am driven therefore to the conclusion that, viewed 
 from the sidc^ of the Church, the relations between 
 Church and State, so far at least as regards existing 
 complications, resolve themselves ultimately into a 
 question of expediency. But while using this term 
 expediency I deprecate its being understood in any 
 low selfish sense, as applying to material interests. 
 I refer solely to the spiritual interests of whicli the 
 Church is the guardian. The question that she has 
 to ask herself is whether her union with the State 
 enables her to fulfil l)ett(^r the high spiritual functions 
 which devolve ui)on her. But when we ask the 
 question, no narrow interpretation can be given to her 
 spiritual functions. If she had no other aspiration
 
 88 A Chdnjr. 
 
 than to gather together compact congregations with 
 definite and well ordered services of one particular 
 type, and to leave the masses of the population to 
 themselves, then there is much to he said for a 
 severance of the union. If any Churchman were 
 content to take this view, I could imagine him not 
 only awaiting disestablishment patiently, but even 
 heartily welcoming it. He might thus be able better 
 to carry out his own ideas unfettered and undis- 
 turbed. Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. But 
 if it be the true spiritual function of the Church — the 
 ideal after which she aspires — to carry the Gospel 
 into the highways and hedges and so to leaven the 
 people of England throughout, then she will cling 
 tenaciously to the advantages and the opportunities 
 she enjoys by her union with the State. Nothing 
 but the imperious mandate of conscience would 
 justify her in voluntarily relinquishing the vantage 
 ground on which God has placed her. 
 
 For the reasons which I have explained I cannot 
 consider the questions relating to the authority and 
 constitution of ecclesiastical courts which at the 
 present moment are agitating the minds of men, as 
 belonging to the essence of things. Nevertheless it 
 is much to be regretted that in recent legislation so 
 little regard has been paid to the technical principles 
 which heretofore had been accepted with reference 
 to ecclesiastical courts. These principles are at all 
 events the result of long experience ; they have 
 established a firm hold on the minds of the clergy.
 
 A Charge. 89 
 
 It is before all things necessary for good government 
 that those who are subject to any jurisdiction should 
 acknowledge its validity ; and this is especially the 
 case in ecclesiastical matters, where the conscience 
 is more or less touched. Any sudden break with 
 the past is especially to be deprecated here. The 
 Ecclesiastical Courts Commission now sitting will, it 
 is hoped, lead to the reconstitution of our courts on a 
 basis which will command the confidence of all who 
 are directly concerned. 
 
 7. 
 Anxieties and Hopes. 
 
 The last two years have been a period of especial 
 anxiety. The spectacle of an earnest and devoted 
 clergyman, detained in gaol many weary months for 
 conscience sake, has been felt on all hands to be a 
 gross anachronism. Whatever men may have thought 
 of the offence, there has been no diff'erence of opinion 
 as to the punishment. Yet for a time there seemed 
 no hope of a solution. Mr. Green's opportune action 
 has cut the knot which was past imtying. All 
 honour to him for this seasonable act which must 
 have cost much sacrifice of personal feeling, prol)ably 
 also some resistance to party pressure. But it was a 
 cheap price to pay for the peace of the Church. 
 Those, who had no sympathy with Mr. Green's cause 
 in the first instance, will be the most ready to do 
 justice to his last step. The message of peace from 
 the Primate's death-bed has removed another cause of
 
 90 A C/nnye. 
 
 auxiety. The ecclesiastical atinospliere is clearer tliaii 
 it lias been for some time past. But what is to come 
 next ? 
 
 No more prosecutions, I trust. The English 
 Church is weary of them ; the English peo^^le have 
 had enough of them. If there is only reasonable 
 patience and forbearance on both sides — a willingness 
 to sacrifice something of self or of party for Christ 
 and Christ's Church — I do not fear a renewal of them. 
 On the other hand it is not fair to seek to extort from 
 the Bishops a promise that under no possible circum- 
 stances they w^ill consent to a prosecution. They 
 cannot honourably give such a promise. But mean- 
 while they will be the least desirous of all men to 
 promote legal proceedings. Not a few cases have 
 been stopped hitherto by the veto which they possess ; 
 and doubtless this power will be exercised more and 
 more in the same direction, if the occasion should 
 arise. 
 
 The Public Worship Regulation Act made the 
 prosecution for ecclesiastical ofiences easy. But the 
 facilities thus afforded were dangerous, unless some 
 power of regulating matters relating to j^ublic worship 
 was created at the same time. It is deeply to be 
 regretted that the Bishop of London's Bill did not 
 become law. It would have materially eased, if not 
 altogether removed, the strain. Many accompani- 
 ments of divine w^orship are not defined by rubric ; 
 some of them lie beyond the possibility of definition. 
 The principle laid down, that what is not enjoined is
 
 A Charge. 91 
 
 forbidden, cannot be strictly carried out. It would 
 paralyse public worship. We all infringe this 
 principle at some point ; we cannot help infringing 
 it. It would not be desirable at any time that 
 absolutely rigid lines should be laid down. But 
 sucli inflexibility is especially inopportune in an 
 age when the development of spiritual life of 
 the Church seeks new outlets in devotional worship. 
 The Public Worship Eegulation Act tends to pro- 
 mote rigidity. This tendency can only be counter- 
 acted by the creation of some authority which, 
 being set in motion easily, shall have power to 
 modify, to relax, to reconstruct rulnics, and generally 
 to regulate the conditions of Divine Worship within 
 prescribed limits. 
 
 But it may be some time before this end is attained. 
 Meanwhile let us exercise all patience. It is a matter 
 of common complaint that the Church is trammelled 
 and fettered l)y her connexion with the State. 
 Doubtless she cannot expect the advantages of this 
 connexion without paying the price of it. But i 
 practically no Church is so free as our own. The / 
 evidence of this freedom is twofold. There is first of ' 
 all her comprehensiveness, and there is secondly her 
 activity. 
 
 Her comprehensiveness is the great l)oast of the 
 Church of England. If we have been tem])ted to 
 forget or despise this our heritage, deatli has ]-ecalled 
 us to a better mind. The graves of Arthur Penrhyn 
 Stanley and Edward Bouverie Pusey are hardly yet
 
 92 A Chni'fir. 
 
 closed. We liiive iiiouriied over the one auJ the 
 other with equal sincerity. Each has taught us 
 valuable lessons. The Church would have been 
 seriously impoverished by the exclusion of either. 
 May this comprehensiveness always be ours. At the 
 present moment at least there seems little fear of our 
 losing it ; for from the force of circumstances it is 
 most jealously guarded by those whose temj)er of 
 mind and cast of opinion would least predispose them 
 in this way. 
 
 But a still stronger evidence, than the comprehension 
 of various men, is the manifestation of varied activity. 
 Liberty means the capacity of movement and of 
 action. If this is the truest test of freedom, then no 
 Church is or has been more free than our own. No 
 doubt this very energy tends in its restlessness to 
 make any restraint feel galling. But it is often good 
 for the moral health of an institution, as it is good 
 for the moral health of an individual, that it should 
 submit to restraints and limitations. They are its 
 proper discipline. 
 
 Never since the earliest days of Christianity, has 
 any Church exhibited greater signs of active, healthy, 
 vigorous life. It is the manifoldness of the develop- 
 ments, which arrests and compels our attention. 
 Public worship, devotional literature, h}Tnnology, 
 architecture and music, charitable and educational 
 institutions, parochial organizations, mission preaching, 
 Bible classes, guilds, sisterhoods — in whatever di- 
 rection we look it is the same.
 
 A Chaiye. 93 
 
 Aud uo Church since the begimiiug has seemed so 
 manifestly pointed out by the finger of Ahnighty 
 God to fulfil a great part in His providential designs 
 as the Church of England in our day. She has not 
 broken with any social or intellectual aspirations of 
 her own age ; and yet she has surrendered no sacred 
 principles or traditions of the past. She stands 
 midway between the irregular forces of Protestant 
 Nonconformity and the rigid militarism of Eome. 
 She is showing daily more and more aptitude for 
 dealing with the masses at home, though she has still 
 very much to learn. She is occupying year by year 
 a more prominent position among the Churches 
 abroad. The See of Canterbury in strong and 
 vigorous hands has been something more than the 
 Primacy of All England. It has proved the Patri- 
 archate, not indeed in name, but in effect, of a vast 
 aggregate of Anglican communities scattered over the 
 continent and islands throughout the world. The 
 sense of her Catholicity has been restored to the 
 Church of England through the spread of the English 
 race. 
 
 Her mission is unique ; her capabilities and 
 opportunities are magnificent. Shall we spoil this 
 potentiality, shall we stultify this career, shall we mar 
 this destiny by impatience, by self-will, by party 
 spirit, by misguided and headstrong zeal, by harsh 
 words embittering strife, l)y any narrowness of 
 temper or of aim or of view ? A grave responsibility 
 — no graver can well be conceived — rests upon us all.
 
 94 A Chaiyc. 
 
 Never were our hopes brighter ; never were our 
 anxieties keener ; never was there greater need of 
 that divine charity which beareth all things, believeth 
 all things. Happy they who so feel, and so act ; for 
 theirs is the crown of crowns.
 
 NOTES. 
 
 Note 1, p. 6. 
 
 The Act regulating the appointment of Suffragans is 26 Henry 
 VIII c. 14 (a.d. 1534). Berwick is one of twenty-six places 
 named to give titles to these Suffragans. The Act however does 
 not require that the Suffragan shall take his title from a town lying 
 within the same diocese in which he is to exercise episcopal functions. 
 It is enough that the see ' be within the province whereof the 
 bishop that doth name him is ' (see Phillimore, Ecclesiadical Law 
 I. p. 97). Soon after the passing of this Act Bishop Tonstall 
 procured the appointment of Thomas Sparke as Bishop of Berwick 
 (a.d. 1537). A full account of this person is given in Raine's 
 North Durham p. 127 sq. He had been educated at Durham 
 College, Oxford, and was Prior of Holy Island at the time of the 
 dissolution (a.d. 1536). He was also one of the first Prebendaries 
 of Durham Cathedi"al. He died Master of Greatham Hospital (a d. 
 1571) and was buried there. His will, dated a.d. 1563, is extant. 
 
 At an earlier date we read from time to time of Suffragans acting 
 under the Bishops of Durham. Thus Thomas, Bishop of Dromore, 
 acted in this capacity under Bishop Neville (a.d. 1440), and a 
 certain Prior of Brenkburn under Bishop Dudley (a.d. 1478-9) : see 
 Raine's Auckland Castle pp. 49, 50, 55. The Act of Henry viii 
 did not create but regulate the ofl&ce. 
 
 Note 2, p. 6. 
 
 This Act is printed in full by Sir T. D. Hardy in his Preface to 
 Registrum Palatinuvi Dunelmense I. p. Ixxxv sq,, published in the 
 Master of the Rolls series. It begins thus : 
 
 "Exhibita est Regie magestati in Parliamento predicto Billa 
 quedam formam actus in se continens ; 
 Where the Byshoppryke of Durham ys at this p'utc time voyde of
 
 96 Notes. 
 
 a Byshoppe, so as the gifte thereof remainethe iu the Kinge 
 Maiestie most good and gracyous pleasure to bee dysposed and 
 bestowed as to his princely wisedome shall seame beaste and most 
 convenient. And forasmuche as the cyrcuite and compace of 
 thordynarye jurisdiction of the sayd Byshopryk ys lardge and 
 greate and extendethe into many shieres and counties, and thone 
 of them being so farre dystante from thother, so as the chardge 
 thereof may not conveniently bee supplyed, and well and suf- 
 ficiently dischardged by one Ordynarye or one Byshoppe. And 
 foreasmuch as the Kinge ma'''^ of his most godly dysposition ys 
 desirous to have Goddes most holy and sacredd Woorde in thos 
 partyes adioyning to the borders of Scotlande being now wylde 
 and barbarous for lacke of good doctrine and godly educac'on in 
 good I'res and learning plentifully taught, preached, and set foorthe 
 amongest his loving subiectes ther as thanckes be unto God the 
 same ys well exersysed and put in vse in divers other p'ties of this 
 Realme, doeth therefore mynde and ys fully determyned to have 
 twoo seuerall ordynarye Seas of Bishoppes to be erected and estab- 
 lyshed within the lymytes, boundes, and jurisdicc'ons of the said 
 Bishopprick of Durham, whereof thone shalbee called the sea of 
 the Bishoprick of Durham, and thother the sea of the Byshoprick of 
 Newcastell vpon Tyne, and tappoiut twoo apte, meete, and godly 
 learned men in Goddes holy Woorde to be Bishoppes of the same 
 seuerall dyoces and to endowethem seuerally withe manours, landes, 
 tenementes, and other hereditaments with suche good and honour- 
 able lyberties and priuelege as shalbe mete and convenient for any of 
 the Kinge subiectes to haue oor enioye ; that is to say, the sayd 
 Bishopricke of Durham withe manours, landes, tenementes, and other 
 heredytamentes of the clere yerely valours of ttvoo thowsande 
 marckes. And the said Bishoprike of Newcastell withe manours, 
 landes, tenementes, and other hereditamentes of the clere yerelye 
 value of one thowsande marckes. And also to make the sayd town of 
 Newcastell vpon Tyne one cytye, whiche shalbe called the Cytye of 
 Newcastell vpon Tyne. And to prouide and appoint ther one 
 churche which shalbee called the Cathedrall Churche of Newcastell 
 vpon Tyne and the Sea of the Bishoprike thereof. And also to 
 erecte and make one deanrye and chapter ther and to endov/e the 
 same withe convenient possessions and hereditamentes for the mayn- 
 tenance thereof. And to make statutes and ordenances for the 
 better ordering of the sayd deanrye and chapter, whiche good and
 
 Xofcs. [)7 
 
 godly iiitente and purpose can not conveniently bee fully finished 
 and p'fected but by tlieyde and auctoritee of p'leament. Be it 
 therfore inacted by thauctorite of this p'leament that the said 
 Bishoprike of Durham, to gyther withall thordynarye jurisdic'ons 
 thereunto belonging and apperteining shalbe adiudged from hens- 
 forthe clerely dissolved extinguished and determined. And that 
 the King, our Souereyne Lorde, shall from hensfoorthe haue, holde, 
 possede and enioye, to hiiu, his heires aud successoures for euer, all 
 
 and singler honnoures, castelles, manoures, lordeshippes, etc 
 
 which dothe apperteine or belong to the sayd Bishoprike of Durham, 
 in as large and ample mauer aud fourme as the late Bishoppe of the 
 sayd Bishoprike, or any of his predecessoures Bishoppes ther had 
 helde or occupied or of right ought to haue hadd holden or occupyed 
 in the right of the sayd Bishoprike, etc." 
 
 Note 3^ p. 8, 
 
 The po])ulations of the two counties respectively at different 
 epochs are as follow : 
 
 A.D. 
 
 Durham. 
 
 Northumberland. 
 
 1801 
 
 149,384 
 
 168,078 
 
 1821 
 
 193,511 
 
 212,589 
 
 1831 
 
 239,256 
 
 236,959 
 
 1841 
 
 307,963 
 
 266,020 
 
 1851 
 
 390.997 
 
 303,568 
 
 1861 
 
 508,666 
 
 343,025 
 
 1871 
 
 685,045 
 
 386,959 
 
 1881 
 
 867,586 
 
 434,024 
 
 The population of the Diocese of Durham according to the census 
 of 1881 was as follows : — 
 
 County of Durham 
 County of Northumberland 
 Alston and Chapelrics - 
 
 - 867,586 
 
 - 434,024 
 
 4,621 
 
 Total 1,306.231 
 
 Alston with its Chapelrics forms part of the new Diocese of 
 Newcastle. 
 G
 
 98 Notes. 
 
 Note 4, p. 9. 
 
 The resolution of the Town Council of Newciistle mentioned in 
 this paragraph is dated June 14, 1854, It was proposed by Sir 
 John Fife, and carried unanimously. These are the terms : 
 
 " That the Council adopt a memorial to the Ecclesiastical Com- 
 missioners and to the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
 showing that the Diocese of Durham is too extensive for its proper 
 administration, and to institute a Diocese of Northumberland, to 
 purchase the Vicarage of Newcastle-on-Tyue from the Bishop of 
 Carlisle, and to make St. Nicholas' Church in Newcastle-on-Tyne 
 the Cathedral, and to raise Newcastle into the dignity of a Metro- 
 politan City." 
 
 The following is an extract from the Memorial to the Cathedral 
 Commissioners (Thijxl and Final Report, May 25, 1855, p. xli) : 
 
 " The Diocese of Durham contains at the present time an esti- 
 mated population of nearly 770,000, and it extends from north to 
 south a distance of more than one hundred miles, with an area equal 
 to one-eighteenth part of the whole of England. 
 
 " The progressive increase in the population has of late years been 
 unusually great and rapid : the increase in the counties of Durham 
 and Northumberland alone, since the year 1831, amounting to 
 nearly 300,000 inhabitants. 
 
 " Owing to the opening out of fresh mines, and the activity of 
 commercial enterprise, new andj^large masses of the working classes 
 are constantly springing up, both in the mining and manufacturing 
 districts, and at all the seaports within the said Diocese. New- 
 castle-upon-Tyne has more than trebled its inhabitants in forty years, 
 but has only one district church more at present than it had 30U 
 years ago : and at least 6,000 children of the labouring classes are 
 without school accommodation in the borough. The results are 
 what might naturally be expected — a fearful increase of crime, 
 juvenile profligacy of a most degraded character, with defective in- 
 formation on religious subjects, and much indifference to the claims 
 and duties of Christianity. 
 
 k^^ " From the above premises it is respectfully submitted that the 
 Diocese of Durham, as at present constituted^ with its overgrown 
 and increasing population full of energy and enterprise, is too cum- 
 bersome for the physical powers of one Bishop where an active 'per- 
 sonal superintendence is so much required : it seems not unreason- 
 able to hope that provision be made at the next voidance of the see of
 
 Durham for the creation of Northuinberhancl into a separate Bishop- 
 rick, which shall include the county of Northumberland, with the 
 boroughs of the counties of Newcastle-on-Tyne and Berwick -on- 
 Tweed, with such parts of the county of Durham as are situated in 
 the county of Northumberland." 
 
 "The extraordinary increase of our population is in a great 
 measure attributable to the development of the mineral resources of 
 the Bishop and Chapter of Durham." 
 
 Note 5, p. 10. 
 
 Those who are interested in the history of the subject will find 
 useful information in a pamphlet by Canon Hume of Liverpool, 
 entitled Groivth of the Episcopate in Enfjland und Wales during 
 Seventeen Centimes, 1880, and in The Increase of the Episcopate, 
 ivith particular reference to the Division, of the Diocese rf Durham, 
 1880, by Derwent. 
 
 Note C, p. 11. 
 
 Extract from Bisliop Baring's Charge, delivered September, 
 1878: 
 
 "A Bill for the increase of the Episcopate, which will materially 
 affect the welfare of the Diocese, inasmuch as it contemplates the 
 formation of a new See for Northumberland, has received the 
 sanction of the Legislature, and I avail myself of this opportunity of 
 stating the reasons which induce me to think that a division of 
 
 Diocese is much needed The exj^edieucy of the subdivision of 
 
 this Diocese is based not upon any general theory as to the necessity 
 t)f an increase in the E|)iscopate, but upon the unusual extent of its 
 territory, and the unparalleled increase in its population. It ex- 
 tends from north to south a distance of more than one hundred 
 miles, with an area equal to one-eighteenth part of the whole of 
 England. There are only three dioceses with a larger area, and only 
 five with a larger population : and two of these will be divided under 
 the arrangements of this new Act 
 
 " But if the need of more Episcopal supervision was thus acknow- 
 ledged more than twenty years ago (1855), it is more apparent in 
 the present day, when not merely has the population continued to 
 increase at a still more rapid rate, so that the census of 1871 ex- 
 hibited an increase in ten years of more than 220,000 souls, but 
 when, through the growing zeal and liberality of laity and clergy,
 
 100 Notes. 
 
 the number of benefices since the year 1857 has risen from 260 to 
 372, and the number of clergy from 353 to 531. When therefore in 
 the autumn of 1876 I referred the question of tbe expediency of the 
 formation of a see for Northumberland, whilst there was much differ- 
 ence of opinion expressed as to the sources from whence the endow- 
 ment shoukl be obtained and the amount of that endowment, the 
 judgment was almost unanimous as to the desirableness of tlie 
 creation of a new See. It was not to be expected that in arriving at 
 this conclusit)!! many of the clergy of Northumberland should not 
 feel much regret at the prospect of a separation from the ancient See 
 and Cathedral of Durham, with which they had been associated so 
 many years, but they were found willing to sacrifice their personal 
 feelings and predilections in order to forward an object which 
 seemed so manifestly calculated to advance the best interests of our 
 northern Church. The prospect of the accomplishment of this good 
 work is I fear remote." 
 
 Note 7, p. 15. 
 
 The following is a brief statement of the sums contributed to the 
 Newcastle Bishopric Endowment : 
 
 Mr. Hedley's Legacy - - - - 16,200 
 Subscriptions- 
 General Fund - 48,975 10 6 
 Special Congress Fund 3,308 19 2 
 
 52,284 9 8 
 
 Church Collections . - - - 1,871 2 11 
 Benwell Tower, estimated at - - 12,500 
 
 Total £82,855 12 7 
 
 Mr. W. Hedley, the brother of the testator, had a life interest in 
 the property left for the endowment of the Newcastle Bishopric. 
 He kindly consented to relinquish this in order to facilitate the 
 immediate creation of the See, and the sum mentioned, £16,200, 
 represents the balance paid over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners 
 after compensation for the relinquishment. This sum was paid by 
 the executors on August 11, 1879, and invested by the Commis- 
 sioners, so as to produce an income of £605 14s. 2d. per annum. 
 
 In some cases it is difficult to say whether a contribution ought 
 to be set down to the Genei-al Fund or to the Special Congress Fund ;
 
 Notes. 101 
 
 but no sum is here set down to the Congress Fund which was not 
 promised during or in consequence of the Congress, 
 
 The amount of tlie General Fund, as here given, does not include 
 a contribution of £2,000 promised by the kite Col, Joicey, but not 
 paid owing to his lamented death. 
 
 It will be interesting to learn how much of the total was 
 contributed in large sums. The large contributions are as 
 follows : 
 
 £10,000 - - . 2 
 
 £3,000 - - - 1 
 
 £2,000 - . . 1 
 
 £1,000 ... 5 
 
 £600 ... 2 
 
 £500 ... (J 
 
 £300 ... 1 
 
 £250 ... 6 
 
 £200 - . - 9 
 
 £150 ... 3 
 
 £105 ... 8 
 
 £100 - - . 47 
 
 The whole expenses of collection, which have fallen on the Fund, 
 have been less than £290. 
 
 The Bishoprics Act, 1878, contains a provision that if a fitting 
 Episcopal residence is provided to the satisfaction of the Com- 
 missioners theannual value shall be reckoned as £500 towards the 
 minimum endowment of the See. I have therefore set down the 
 value of Benwell Tower as representing a capital sum of £12,500, 
 interest being reckoned at £4 per cent. Benwell Tower has never 
 been valued. 
 
 The sums collected (wiih the exception of a small balance still 
 to be handed over) have, after paynient of expenses, been invested, 
 and the interest forms the income of the new See. In addition to 
 this source of income the Bishopric of Newcastle is endowed with 
 £1,000 per annum withdrawn from the income of the Bishop of 
 Durham from the moment of the creation of the new See. 
 
 Note 8, p. 11). 
 
 Extracts relating to the origin of tJie Ollicialty, from ' llisturUie 
 Dunelmev.ua scriptores tres,' Surtees Society, vol. 9. 
 Bulla Gn'(/orii Faj)a' vii, u)iive)\salibns de posscsaioiuOas cl hher- 
 tattbus coucessis eccleslae DiuieliaensL A.D. 1083. Appendix ix, p. vii.
 
 102 Notes. 
 
 Item, secundum Lindisfaruensis abbatis antiquam dignitatem, 
 praedicto Priori dexteram Episcopi, et primiim locum et honorem 
 post episcopum, et in ecclesia Duuelmensi sedem abbatis in choro, 
 et omnia officia et jura Abbatis super monachos et eorum possesiones, 
 nomine Prioris, indulgemus ; et super ecclesias et clericos ecclesiis 
 deservienteSj quas in Episcopatu Dunelmensi cujuscunque largicione 
 canon ice adipisci valebit, Archidiaconatus officium ejus discrecioni 
 delegamus ; quatenus omnia ad idem monasterium pertinentia ejus 
 regimini et disposicioni, adhibito dumtaxat Capituli sui consilio, 
 subjecta, in commune commodum extendantur. p. viii. 
 
 Carta re^is Williclmi gui confirmat Uhertates nobis concessas causa 
 
 archidiaconatus. Appendix p. xvi. 
 ... et, secundum antiquam Lindisfaruensis ecclesiae dignitatem, 
 Priori dexteram Episcopi sui, et primum locum et honorem in 
 omnibus post episcopum, et in ecclesia Dunelmensi spdem abbatis 
 in clioro sinistro, et omnia officia et jura Abbatis super monaclios 
 et illorum possessiones, nomine Prioris concessi ; ac super ecclesias 
 eorum, et clericos ecclesiis deservientes, quas per episcopatum 
 Dunelmensem cujuscunque largicione adipisci potuerint, archi- 
 diaconatus officium eis confirmavi. 
 
 Carta W. regis privii de confirmacioue libertatum quas W. episcopus 
 dedit moiiachis et de confirmacione archidiaconatus. Appendix p xvii. 
 
 Sed et archidiaconatum Priori Turgoto et successoribus ejus sicut 
 nunc habet, concedo, secundum concessionem W. eorundem episcopi. 
 
 Carta WiUielmi episcoin jjrinii de i^^'ivilegio spiritual itatis et liber- 
 
 tatibus temporcditatis a WiUielmo pjrimo rege Anglia', et a Gregorio 
 
 Papa septimo confirmatis. Appendix p. xxiv. 
 
 Et sit Archidiaconus omnium ecclcsiarum suarum in episcopatu 
 Dunelmensi, ut nullns super eum de ecclesiis vel clericis suis se iu- 
 
 tromittat Volumus etiam, ut nobis absentibus, praedictus Prior in 
 
 synodo de querelis et aliis Christianitatis officiis, quae ipse et Archi- 
 diaconi per se facere possint, vices nostras agat. Curiam vero suam, 
 quara dominus mens Ptex Willielmus dedit et concessit eidem Priori 
 et Conventui, ita libere et honorilice in omnibus, sicut habemus 
 nostram, eis concedimus et confirniamus. p. xxv, 
 
 Robertus de Graystanes p. 46. Cap. viii. M'ota pro jure Archi- 
 
 diacoiuiius.
 
 Notes. 
 
 103 
 
 Anno domini etc, mcclxxi^ in capella sua de Aukeland, coram 
 domino episcopo, recognovit magister Robertus de S, Agata archi- 
 diaconns Dunelmensis Priorem Dunelmensem fuisse arcliidiaconum 
 in ecclesiis sibi appropriatis infra aquas ; et archidiaconos, praede- 
 cessores suos, nomine Prioris et non nomine proprio, jurisdictionem 
 in illis ecclesiis exercuisse, et propter lioc Priori pensionem annuam 
 exsolvisse. 
 
 The Official exercised Archidiaconal control over 39 parishes and 
 74 clergy (39 incumbents, 35 curates) at tlie time when the 
 Officialty was abolished. 
 
 Note 9, p. 21. 
 
 The old Deaneries were 
 
 Chester (East) 
 Chester (West) 
 Darlington (North) 
 Darlington (South) 
 The new Deaneries are : 
 
 1. Jarrow 
 
 2. Chester-le-Street 
 
 3. Eyton 
 
 4. Durham 
 
 5. Houghton-le-Spring 
 G. Wearmouth 
 
 7. Easin^ton 
 
 Easington (North) 
 Easington (South) 
 Stockton. 
 
 1^ 8. 
 
 I c 2 10. 
 
 1 o 5 
 
 I'' 
 
 Auckland 
 Stanhope 
 Darlington 
 Stockton. 
 
 (15 O 
 
 Note 10, p. 23. 
 
 New Parishes formed since Bishop Baring's Visitation, 1878 : 
 
 DURHAM. 
 
 S. Stephen, Sunderland 
 
 S. Peter, Stockton 
 
 S. Paul, West Pelton 
 
 S. John, Stillington 
 
 S. Simon, South Shields 
 
 S. ]\Iark, Eldon 
 
 S. George, Fatfield 
 
 S. Michael and All Angels^ Westoe 
 
 S. Nicholas, Hcdworth 
 
 S. Edmund, Beaipark 
 
 (a) 
 
 1. 
 
 (a) 
 
 2. 
 
 (a) 
 
 3. 
 
 (a) 
 
 4. 
 
 (a) 
 
 5. 
 
 (a) 
 
 G. 
 
 (a) 
 
 7. 
 
 (a) 
 
 8. 
 
 (a) 
 
 9. 
 
 
 10.
 
 104 Notes. 
 
 11. S. Cuthbert, Monkwearinouth. 
 
 12. S. Peter, Jarrow 
 
 13. S, John, jNIonk Hesledeu. 
 
 NORTH ^JMBERLA^'D. 
 
 (a) 1. S. Cuthberf,, Xewcastle-on-Tyne 
 
 (a) 2. S. Matthew, Newcastle-ou-Tyne 
 
 3. S. Cathbert. Haydon Bridge 
 
 4. S. Oswald-in-Lee with St. Mary, Bingfiekl 
 
 5. S. Mary Magdalene, Prudhoe. 
 
 The districts marked (a) were constituted previously to 1878, but 
 they only became new Parishes after 1S7S, on the consecration of 
 their respective churches. 
 
 The following new districts have been formed in addition to the 
 above, but tlieir churches not being consecrated, they have not be- 
 come new Parishes : 
 
 DURHAM. 
 
 Waterhouses 
 
 S, Oswald, Hebburn. 
 
 NORTHUMBERLAND. 
 
 S. George, CuUercoats. 
 
 Churches consecrated since the last Visitation : 
 
 1879. S. Stephen, Sunderland 
 Bearpark 
 
 Fatfield 
 Eldon 
 
 1880. S. Matthew, Newcastle 
 South Hylton 
 Stillington 
 
 S. Simon, South Shields 
 
 West Pelton 
 
 S. Cuthbert, Monkwearmouth 
 
 Mickley (Prudhoe) 
 
 S. Philip, Bishop Auckland 
 
 Duddo 
 
 1881. S. Cuthbert, Newcastle 
 S. Peter, Jarrow 
 
 S. Peter, Stockton 
 
 1882. Hedworth 
 
 S. Michael, Westoe 
 
 S. John, Monk Hesleden.
 
 Note6. 105 
 
 Note 11, p. 24. 
 
 The three questions rekitiag to tlie Diocesan Conference have 
 since been settled as follows : 
 
 (1) A larger representation both of clergy and of laity. 
 
 (2) The Conference to be held in alternate years. 
 
 (3) Questions to be discussed but not voted upon. 
 
 Note 12, p. 27. 
 
 At the Proceedings at the. Meeting of the Central Council of Dio- 
 cesan Conferences, March 13, 1883, it was reported that 
 
 " Twenty-four Diocesan Conferences send Lay and Clerical 
 representatives to the Central Council. For the present Salisbury 
 and Liverpool decline to join, and the subject has not yet been 
 brought before Exeter, York, or Durham." 
 
 Note 13, p. 28. 
 
 Arrangements have since been made for the separate organization, 
 in the two Dioceses, of all the Diocesan Societies, except the 
 Diocesan Board of Inspection, which will be a matter for future 
 consideration. The Diocesan Branch of the Church of England 
 Tem2jerance !Societg for Durham has been reorganized, and is thus 
 entering (it is hoped) upon a fresh and still more vigorous career of 
 usefulness (see Diocesan Magazine, March 1883, p. 39). 
 
 Note 14, p. 33. 
 
 Since the charge was delivered, commissions have been issued to 
 several additional lay-readers. The movement however is still in 
 its infancy, and I must look to the practical experience and 
 thoughtful consideration of the })arochial clergy to advise and assist 
 me in the development of this movement, which I am more and 
 more persuaded is the great problem laid before the Church of our 
 day. Thirty-one of these lay readers were publicly admitted at the 
 service in Durham Cathedral on Friday, June 22nd. 
 
 Note 15, p. 35. 
 
 I am not yet able to report substantial progress in this matter. 
 
 Note 1G, p. 37. 
 
 The great gathering of these and other Church Societies in 
 Durham Cathedral on Friday, -June 22 (see Diocesan Magazine 
 p. lOU) is a fact to be remembered with deep thankfulness.
 
 lOG 
 
 Notes. 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 W 
 
 m 
 
 o 
 
 I— t 
 
 w 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 W 
 
 H 
 
 C 
 
 ;?; 
 
 M 
 
 Q 
 
 CO 
 |21 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 <J 
 
 p 
 
 ft 
 O 
 
 00 
 CO 
 
 > 
 
 
 Total. 
 
 
 00 O O -^ O (M CO (M 
 I— 1 i-^ CO -<*l 
 
 I— I 
 
 1—1 
 
 00 
 00 
 
 I— 1 
 
 ft 
 
 < 
 
 1— r 
 
 I— 1 CO 1— 1 (M »0 ; I— 1 1 
 
 CO 
 
 (M (M 1— 1 • O -CO ■ 
 1— I 
 
 00 
 
 I-H 
 
 ft 
 < 
 
 I-H c<i 1 I-H 1 : <^ : 
 
 00 
 CM 
 
 1—1 • (M i-H -rt< • (M 1— 1 
 
 1 — 1 
 
 00 
 
 > 
 
 ft 
 
 1 CO 1 (M O j lO i-i 
 
 CO 
 
 <M T— : CO CO iM --< • 
 1 — 1 
 
 00 
 
 I-H 
 
 > 
 ft 
 <1 
 
 ; T— ( I— 1 I— 1 CO ; 1— 1 ; 
 
 c<> 
 
 f-H '^l 1— 1 — ^ CO : ^ : 
 
 
 
 Oxford 
 
 Cambridge - . . . 
 Dublin - - - - 
 Durham, B.A. - - . . 
 Do. L.Th. - - - - 
 Other Universities 
 Theological Colleges 
 Literates - - . . . 

 
 Notes. 
 
 107 
 
 H 
 m 
 
 Q 
 pa 
 
 o 
 
 « 
 Ph 
 
 ^ CO 
 
 HH 1 1 
 
 « ^-- 
 u 
 
 
 02 
 
 t4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■< 
 
 
 ira 
 
 CO 
 
 1— 1 
 
 00 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 -H 
 
 "^ 
 
 -+ 
 
 H 
 
 
 Cl 
 
 -* 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 (M 
 
 
 00 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I-H 1 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >■' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 r-H 
 
 
 
 
 
 I— 1 
 
 
 
 882. 
 
 < 
 
 xn. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 lO 
 
 
 
 
 
 12^* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 &H 
 
 '^ 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 -* 
 
 5D 
 
 
 1 — 1 
 
 (M 
 
 
 1 — 1 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 <1 
 
 Xfl 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 1 — 1 
 
 1 — 1 
 
 
 1-H 
 
 \ — 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 Y, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ph 
 
 I— 1 
 
 CD 
 
 I— > 
 
 1— 1 
 
 <M 
 
 (M 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 (M 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 (M 
 
 
 I— 1 
 
 <M 
 
 
 o 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 <1 
 
 Ph' 
 U2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 1—1 
 
 UO 
 
 I— 1 
 
 
 
 1 — 1 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 C<) 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 r-H 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 CI 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 C5 
 
 <1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 I— 1 
 
 ^" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 T-H 
 
 CO 
 
 
 I— 1 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 05 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 ' 
 
 ' 
 
 ■ 
 
 ' 
 
 W 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O) 
 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 , 
 
 , 
 
 , 
 
 , 
 
 o 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -u 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 H 
 
 t/3 
 
 0) 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 cn 
 
 ^ 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 S-i 
 
 X 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 :3 
 
 6 
 Q 
 
 bi 
 
 'o 
 
 q3 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 w 
 
 « 
 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 v-1 

 
 108 
 
 Notes. 
 
 Note 18, p. 45. 
 
 The statistics of the confirmations during the last three periods 
 of four years — from Visitation to Visitation — are as follows : 
 
 Years. 
 
 Females. 
 
 Males. 
 
 Total. 
 
 1871—1874 
 1875—1878 
 1879—1882 
 
 9,471 
 10,454 
 15,404 
 
 6,222 
 
 7,048 
 
 10,411 
 
 15,693 
 17,502 
 25,815 
 
 Note 19, p. 46. 
 
 The following parishes return amounts for variousjchurch works 
 during the four years, above £2,000. 
 
 Auckland, S. Andrew 
 
 £7,S0O 
 
 West Pelton - 
 
 £9,225 
 
 Aycliffe - 
 
 - 3,. 500 
 
 Ryton 
 
 - 2,038 
 
 Bearpark - 
 
 - 4,600 
 
 Sliildon - 
 
 - 3,350 
 
 Croxdale - - - 
 
 - 2,320 
 
 Silksworth 
 
 - 2,270 
 
 Durham, S. Margaret's 
 
 - 3,000 
 
 S. Shields, 8. Hilda's 
 
 - 4,500 
 
 Fatfield - 
 
 - 7,77.5 
 
 ,, H. Trinity 
 
 - 4, .341 
 
 Hebburn, S. Oswald's 
 
 - 2,080 
 
 ,, 8. Simon's 
 
 - 3,500 
 
 Jarrow, S. Peter's - 
 
 - 5,900 
 
 , , South Westoe 
 
 - 3,460 
 
 Jarrow Gi'ange 
 
 - 6,500 
 
 Stillington 
 
 - 2.500 
 
 Middleton-in-Teesdale 
 
 - 5,000 
 
 Stockton, S. Peter's 
 
 - 6,000 
 
 Monk Hesleden, S. John 
 
 •s 2,200 
 
 Sunderland, H. Trinity 
 
 - 2,321 
 
 By an error, a large sum is reckoned twice in the total given in 
 the text, £155,000. The correct total is about £145,000. This 
 however does not represent the whole sum spent. It is derived 
 from the returns of 130 parishes alone. 
 
 Note 20, p. 49. 
 
 The following is a table of the incumbencies vacated either by 
 resignation (R) or by death (D) during the four years which elapsed 
 between the two last Visitations (a.d. 1879 — 1882). During the 
 last year (1882) no account is taken of Northumberland, as the 
 diocese of Newcastle was founded in the earlier half of the year. 
 Cases of exchange are included under R. Where no outgoing in- 
 cumbent is named, the incumbency was created for the first time.
 
 Xotcs. 
 
 109 
 
 K 
 
 O 
 
 00 
 
 1— 1 
 
 C. i\ll Saints'j Monkwearmouth 
 C. of Boston 
 V. of Playford 
 C. of Tynemouth 
 Darlington 
 C. of Washington 
 C. Ven, Bede, Monkwearmouth 
 (\ of S. Oswald's, Durham 
 V. of S. Anthony, Byker 
 C. of Holy Trinity, Tynemouth 
 M. of All Saints's, Strichen, 
 Aberdeenshire 
 
 o 
 
 GO 
 GO 
 I— 1 
 
 R. of Hawthorn 
 
 R. of Topcroft 
 
 C. of Aycliffe 
 
 C. of Gateshead Fell 
 
 V. of S. Saviour's, Everton 
 
 O 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 in. 
 
 
 W. Mirrielees 
 
 C. Baldwin 
 
 C. J. A. Eade 
 
 E. F. Chapman . . . 
 
 J. S. Pickles 
 
 M. Graham ... . 
 W. W. Morrison . 
 T. Cooper ... . 
 J. M. Lister ... 
 
 J.King 
 
 M. M. Simpson 
 C. H. Barton ... 
 A. K. B. Granville. 
 E. Shortt ... . 
 J. Sunter 
 C. Robertson ... 
 
 d 
 o <; 
 
 > 
 
 pp^p^ p:?-^ Qp:?P^ 
 
 Qpcip:^Pq 
 
 Previous 
 Incumbent. 
 
 T. Grossman 
 
 J. Macartie 
 
 W, Hayton 
 
 B. J. Holmes 
 
 T. Thackeray 
 
 E. N. Mangin 
 
 E. Shortt 
 
 C.T.Darnell 
 
 C. Carr 
 
 J. G. 'Rime 
 
 J. D. Eade 
 
 M. Graham 
 
 S. Green 
 
 
 Belmont V 
 
 Greatham V 
 
 New Shildon V 
 
 Alleidieads V 
 
 Berwick, S. IMaiy's, V .. 
 
 Usworth R 
 
 Waterhouses V 
 
 Bearjiark V 
 
 Woodhorn V 
 
 S. Anthony, Byker, V. . . 
 Belford V 
 
 Whitworth V 
 
 Berwick-on-Tweed V... 
 
 Ayclitfe V 
 
 Belmont V 
 
 WoolerV
 
 110 
 
 Notes. 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 Zj 
 
 o to -t^ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 Si 
 
 Q.5 ^ 
 
 >* 
 
 
 — 
 
 ■5 « § r- °^ C ^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 oil 
 
 1 «3^6l ill "2. =.^=«^:| 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O eg 
 
 cOrtO coo ccococo 
 
 
 
 
 >p4Sd ddo o>o:^dd> 
 
 
 
 
 6 ' ' 
 
 '^0 . . . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o ^o^t:! ^"o^ , 
 
 li 
 iA 
 
 
 ^ O 
 
 S-i O O r-N ^ n S-< o i^ ni ^ -^«- ^ — ' 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 ^^ 
 
 h-i ^" cc k' K ^ ^" i-s" c4 ^. ^ >-i ^ f4 ?4 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 O -5j 
 
 1 — 1 
 
 
 
 
 QP^ 
 
 p^q^P^?^ fip^ 0-;;:5P^-;:^ 
 
 w ^ 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 ss 
 
 
 CO 03 
 
 1 
 
 : : : : : ^ , : : : : : 
 
 • S 3 '• ^ ' ' ' r^ ' : 
 
 2 y 
 
 1— 1 
 
 
 
 '? '^ o *3 S o ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 : ; ; ; ; ::>.:;:;;:: | 
 
 
 
 
 ^ . .&o ^ ^ 
 
 
 
 
 : : : : :^ : :J : : : : : :| | 
 
 f^ 
 
 
 
 . . ^«=>.^...>.g 
 
 1?; 
 
 
 ll 
 
 :p^ : : |t^ :^,.^ : : : : s :^ 
 
 if?iiiaiiiiiiii|i
 
 Notes. 
 
 Ill 
 
 
 5« 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 o 
 
 "co 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cS 
 
 
 
 
 ;:; 
 
 
 CZ3 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 ^ m 
 
 '73 O 
 
 02 
 
 
 
 3 ce 
 
 
 ■*i 
 
 S F^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO r^ 
 6 O 
 
 ^ EH 
 
 ^co" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 § ui 
 
 
 -t-* 
 
 5; += 
 S ^ 
 
 
 of Durham 
 Balderstone 
 Smallbridge 
 tS. Andrew A 
 Gateshead 
 
 iriG Lecturer 
 
 Newcastle 
 f Hexham 
 f Hurworth 
 f Jarrow 
 of S. Steph 
 
 o 
 
 
 J^ +J 
 
 
 i^ t^-, ~ 
 
 =<-! «+-! <i-i «+-! a 
 
 =M t4_| 
 
 
 .2^ 
 
 
 o o a 
 
 o o o o § 
 
 o o o 
 
 O O 
 
 
 
 . O 
 
 . . . . > 
 
 
 
 
 QO 
 
 
 o;>p 
 
 ;>>ophH 
 
 o^od 
 
 >d 
 
 
 
 
 . 'oj 
 
 -r-l 
 
 : : 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 •S to 
 
 : : ^ : o 
 
 : S : ^ 
 
 -r; 03 S oj 
 
 o ; 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 1= 
 
 
 
 
 
 Opcjpqp^ 
 
 
 m 
 
 o^' 
 
 
 PE^f4 
 
 fc^ « d £ ^^ 
 
 ^' !^' ^' !2; 
 
 
 
 p4^" 
 
 1 — 1 
 
 GO 
 
 ^>'w 
 
 F^ p4 w p4 P= 
 
 (^ d ^" Eh' 
 
 p4d 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 o <i 
 
 
 I— 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 P« 
 
 
 P^QP^ 
 
 p^Qp^p:?}::^ 
 
 n Q 
 
 fifl 
 
 W ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' To 
 
 Tj 
 
 : : : 
 
 : : 
 
 tj 
 
 
 
 : '^ : 
 
 (— < • * TTh " 
 
 G 
 
 
 Previous 
 ncumben: 
 
 4^ 
 
 
 O o rt 
 
 o 'a ? i3 
 
 ^ f§ ^ a: - 
 
 . CO 
 
 O ci 
 
 . ^ to 
 
 ■73 
 
 I— ( 
 
 «;^ 
 
 
 cf ^^" 
 
 ^<^-s^f^ 
 
 pq Q 
 
 <id 
 
 
 ^ 02 
 
 
 p4p4p4 
 
 p^y-i^^ H 
 
 •: P^' ^' 
 
 pi^ 
 
 
 
 > : : 
 
 
 E> 1 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 __«! 
 
 
 tzT 
 
 
 
 
 
 '^ 1 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 S • 
 
 
 "rt : _co : 
 
 '. '■ 
 
 f4 
 a 
 
 pq 
 
 =2 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 5>i ' 
 
 > 1 
 S x° 
 
 CO '^ 
 
 WPP 
 
 
 ;g6 
 
 
 1^1 
 
 ^ -^ J. ^ <u 
 
 3 33 ^ 3
 
 112 
 
 Notes. 
 
 o 
 
 1 — 1 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 I-H 
 
 C. of Benfieldside 
 
 M. of Blyth Chapel 
 
 V. of Romford 
 
 V. of S. Peter's, North Shields 
 
 C. of S. Hilda's, South Shields 
 
 C. of Chester-le-Street 
 
 Ch. to Seamen's Missions 
 
 C. of S. Nicholas', Newcastle 
 
 Precentor of Cape Town 
 
 C. of Hart 
 
 00 
 CO 
 
 I-H 
 
 C. of Grindon 
 
 Ch. of Newcastle Infirmary 
 
 C. of S. Edmund's, Northampton 
 
 V. of Calder Vale 
 
 V. of Souih Shields 
 
 C. of Shiklon 
 
 R. of Luddenham 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 o 
 
 p 
 m 
 
 J. S. Beckwith 
 
 C. J. Naters 
 
 G. F. Price 
 
 H. Hicks 
 
 H. W. Stewart 
 W.S. Guest Williams 
 C. M. Woosnam ... 
 H. R. Stogden 
 F.W. Bindley ... 
 T. A. Thorne 
 
 H. A. V. Boddy ... 
 
 R. Brent 
 
 C R. J. Loxley ... 
 
 J. Gomall 
 
 T.H.Chester 
 
 E. A. Langstone 
 
 F. C. Jagg 
 
 d 
 
 o <i; 
 
 
 Qap^QQQP^ 
 
 Previous 
 Incumbent. 
 
 C. Thompson 
 
 E. Greenhow 
 
 W. M. Hitchcock ... 
 T. Featherstono ... 
 W. Bennett 
 
 F. W. Bewsher ... 
 
 H. S. Hicks 
 
 S. A. Herbert 
 
 J. A. Chai'lton 
 
 J. Stewart 
 
 W. Cassidi 
 
 E. McGowan 
 
 E. Liddell 
 
 B. Hurst 
 
 E. Brest 
 
 W. Hedley 
 
 W.S.Meade 
 
 o 
 
 PP 
 
 Walker V 
 
 Gosforth, North, V .. 
 Whitburn R 
 
 TynemOUth, S. Saviour's, V 
 
 Gateshead, li. Trinity, V 
 
 Birtley V 
 
 N. Shields, S. Peters, V 
 Gateshead, S. James', R 
 
 GosforthR 
 
 Hart V 
 
 Grindon V 
 
 Holm side V 
 
 Jarrow R 
 
 CollierleyV 
 
 Ryton It 
 
 Hebburn V 
 
 Frosterley V
 
 Notes. 113 
 
 Note 21, p. 51. 
 
 As a successful resistance has hitherto been offered to including 
 religious statistics in the decennial Census, the relative strength 
 of the Church of England and Nonconformity can only be estimated 
 in irregular ways. 
 
 In the British Contrlhnlionn to Foreign jlfissions, published 
 annually by the Rev. W. A. Scott Robertson, I find the following 
 Statistics for 1882 : 
 
 Church of England Societies - - - . ^500,.S06 
 Joint Societies of Churchmen and Xoncon- 
 
 formists ------ 154,81.3 
 
 English and Welsh Nonconformist Societies - 348,175 
 Scotch and Irish Presbyterian Societies - - 176,3G2 
 Roman Catholic Societies - - - - 11,519 
 
 Total British Contributions for 1882 - 1,191,175 
 
 ^24,496 19 
 
 1 
 
 2,099 15 
 
 4 
 
 1,162 19 
 
 3 
 
 984 13 
 
 1 
 
 983 19 
 
 
 
 A somewhat similar test is found in the Collections on Hospital 
 Sunday in the Metropolis. In 1882 (See Xation(d Church p. 29, 
 1883) the sums collected at the various places of worship in London 
 amounted to £31,944 18s. 8d, of which more than three-fourths 
 were contributed by the Church of England. The five highest 
 amounts were as follows : 
 
 Church of England - - - 
 Congregation alists - . - 
 Baptists - - _ . - 
 Wesley an s - - - - - 
 Jews ------ 
 
 The proportions of contributions in the previous year (1881) were as 
 nearly as possible the same. 
 
 Interesting statistics of a different kind, bearing on the subject, 
 will be found in Three Essays (A Census of Religions, Denomina- 
 tionnl Worship, The National Church) by the lU. Hon. J. (i. 
 Hubbard (Longmans, 1882). These Essays should be read by 
 every one interested in the subject. I quote from p. 17 sq. : 
 
 'We turn for our denominational statistics to the year 1870. 
 Owing to the subsequent fusion of denominations in School Boards, 
 that is the latest date at which would be found official returns of 
 H
 
 lU Notes. 
 
 tlie religious classification of the children attending primary Schools. 
 Ill the year 1870, according to the Education Department, there 
 Avere under inspection in the primary Schools 1,434,765 children, 
 of whom 72' 6 per 100 were in Church Schools.' 
 
 'Of 190,054 Marriages in 1878, 72-6 per 100 were of the 
 Church.' 
 
 'Of 32,361 Seamen and Mariners employed in 1875, the per- 
 centage of Churchmen was 75"5. 
 
 'The army of 183,024 men, having in 1870 as many as 24'0 per 
 100 Iioman Catholics, still showed a proportion of Churchmen 
 equal to 62 '5 per cent.' 
 
 'Of 101,458 adult inmates of workhouses in 1875, the proportion 
 of Church people was 79 per cent.' 
 
 'Of 22,677 prisoners in gaol in 1867, the proportion returned as 
 Churchmen was 75 per 100.' 
 
 ' The number of Nonconformist Chapels supplied to Dr. Mann 
 contrasts strangely with the number of * ^Ministers ' recorded in the 
 enumerated Professions of the Official Census of 1851. In that 
 Rejjort the Clergy of the Church are stated at 17,320, and the 
 Ministers of all other denominations at 8,658 [while the number of 
 Churches is 14,077 and the number of Nonconformist Chapels 
 20,390].' 
 
 ' One expects to find some proportion between the number of the 
 shepherds and the number of the folds into which they gather their 
 sheep ; but while the Clergy considerably exceeded in number the 
 Churches in which they officiated, Nonconformist Ministers of all 
 sects do not in number equal one-half of the buildings which are 
 said to have been provided for them and are appealed to as an 
 evidence of progress.' 
 
 The discrepancy is explained by the fact that among registered 
 Nonconformist places of worship are included Music-halls, Assembly 
 Ilooms, rooms in hotels, even private dwelling-houses, where 
 worship is conducted. Illustrations are given by Mr. Hubbard 
 (p. 15, sq.) and more fully in The Englixhman' s Brief on behalf of 
 hiit Nntional Church (Appendix C) p. 188 sq., a work published by 
 the S.P.C.K., and Avell worthy of attention. 
 
 Again ; the statistics of Schools, before and after the passing of 
 the Education Act in 1870, are highly instructive :
 
 Note.^. 115 
 
 Vohmtary Expenditure u)i Church Schools and Training CoUtyts. 
 
 Schools : 
 
 Building 
 
 Maintenance- 
 Training Colleges 
 
 Building 
 
 Maintenance 
 
 FiiOMlBll 
 TO 1870. 
 
 £ 
 
 6,270,577 
 8,500,000 
 
 194,085 
 185,276 
 
 15,149,938 
 
 Since 
 1870. 
 
 5,333,595 
 0,642,866 
 
 77,100 
 176,631 
 
 12,230,192 
 
 Total. 
 
 £ 
 11,604,172 
 15,142,800 
 
 271,1*85 
 361,907 
 
 27,380,130 
 
 The amount of accommodation and average attendance in Church 
 and other Schools during the last three years also deserves 
 attention : 
 
 Accununodatlu/i. 
 
 Day Schools, Year ended 
 August 31. 
 
 1880. 1881. 
 
 1882. 
 
 Church - - - - 
 
 British, <tc. - 
 
 Wesleyan 
 
 Bom an Catholic 
 
 Board - . - - 
 
 2,327,379 2,351,235 
 386,034 1 38 4,905 
 196,566 197,871 
 248,140 261,354 
 
 1,082,634 1 1,194,268 
 
 2,385,374 
 384,060 
 200,909 
 269,231 
 
 1,298,746 
 
 
 4,240,753 
 
 4,389,633 
 
 4,538,320 
 
 Average Attendance. 
 
 Day Schools, Year ended 
 August 31. 
 
 1880. 
 
 1881. 
 
 1882. 
 
 Church - - - - 
 
 British, &.c. 
 
 Wesleyan 
 
 lloman Catholic 
 
 Board - . - . 
 
 1,471,615 
 243,012 
 121,408 
 145,629 
 769,252 
 
 1,490,429 
 243,747 
 120,300 
 152,042 
 850,351 
 
 1,538,408 
 245,493 
 125,109 
 160,910 
 945,231 
 
 
 2,750,916 
 
 2,863,535 
 
 3,015,151
 
 116 Notes. 
 
 These School statistics are taken from the Report of the National 
 Education Society (1883), When it is remembered that Churchmen, 
 besides maintaining their own Schools, are charged with rates for 
 the support of the Board Schools, these statistics will be seen to be 
 highly significant. 
 
 ^OTE 22, p. Gl. 
 
 My remarks on the working of the Burials Act have called forth 
 comments from Archdeacon Harrison in Note A to his Charge 
 delivered to the Clergy of the ArcMeaconry of Maidstone, May 1882 
 (Rivingtons, 1883), to which I would wish to direct attention. His 
 extracts from the evidence given before the Select Committee of the 
 House of Commons well deserve study. 
 
 Note 23, p. 67. 
 
 Since this charge was delivered, the question of the permanent 
 diaconate has been widely discussed. The measure seems to be 
 regarded with growing favour ; but I cannot say that my misgivings 
 are overcome. If adopted, I trust it will be worked with caution. 
 
 Note 21, p. 77. 
 
 The publications which refiect the subsequent career and aims of 
 the Salvation Army are lite Salvation War 1882, under the 
 Generalship of William Booth, and The Salvation Army in relation to 
 the Church and State by Mrs. Booth. In his latter work the writer 
 continues to express the same friendly feelings towards 'the Churches' 
 (see especially p. 41). Yet, as a matter of fact, where attempts 
 have been made on the part of clergy of the Church of England to 
 provide instruction and opportunities of worship to members of the 
 Salvation Army, they have been frustrated by the rigid exigencies 
 of the ' Army ' discipline. The Army has practically become a sect, 
 though its leaders may still in theory disclaim his position. Mean 
 while its appeal to sensation has not abated. 
 
 Note 25, p. 82. 
 
 On the subject of the authorization of King James's Version see 
 a valuable paper by the Rev. R. T. Davidson (now Dean of Windsor) 
 in Macmillan's Magazine, October 1881. 
 
 Note 26, p. 84. 
 
 An important recent contribution to the Vestments Controvei'sy is 
 2%e Church and the Ornaments Rubric by E. B. Wheatley Balmc,
 
 Notes. 117 
 
 M.A. Even those, who are not iible to accept all the author's 
 results, will (I venture to think) feel that the subject is discussed 
 with singular clearness and point. 
 
 Note 27, p. 89. 
 
 In the Charge, as delivered, I had spoken of Mr. Green's 
 ' resignation.' Finding that inferences were drawn from the use of 
 the word which I had not intended, I have altered the expression 
 for publication. 
 
 The piLhlication of this charge has been long post- 
 poned in the hope that 1 niight he able to supplement 
 it ivith copious notes, discussing at length the questions 
 touched upon in. the second part. But the exigencies 
 of other more imi^ortant ivork have interposed from 
 time to time, and prevented the recdization of this hope. 
 Without any f mother delay therefore it is published in 
 the form in tuhich it was delivered with the exception 
 of a verbal alteration here and there. 
 
 W. I. Cummins " ICagle " Priming Works, Bishop Auckland.
 
 I «.iM«i: ^mm .,dii^ .asM.