that as there is but one body, and one Spirit, and one hope of our calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all; so we may henceforth be all of one heart and one spirit, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify God through Jesus Christ our Lord.""

CHAPTER III.

OF THE BISHOP

THE CHARGE WELL RECEIVED AT FIRST-OBJECTIONS OF THE EVANGELICALS-REACTION AGAINST THE CHARGE-DIFFICULT POSITION EXCITEMENT CAUSED BY RITUAL CHANGESLETTER OF ARCHBISHOP HOWLEY-THE BISHOP GRADUALLY WITHDRAWS HIS RECOMMENDATIONS-FINAL ASPECT OF THE RITUAL QUESTION IN 1847-DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL-ATTACKS OF THE PRESS-DEATH OF HIS MOTHER-OFFICE OF RURAL DEANS.

No great excitement followed immediately upon the delivery of this Charge. On the contrary, it seemed at first to be accepted by both parties in the Church as a judicious and temperate expression of opinion on points which required delicate handling. Many of the clergy, both in London and in the rural parts of the diocese, at once announced their intention of complying with the Bishop's directions as to the observance of the Rubric, by preaching in their surplices, and reading the prayer for the Church Militant. The Record, indeed, found fault with the doctrinal parts of the Charge, especially on the subject of baptismal regeneration, which doctrine it maintained that "the Church had repudiated, or implicitly forbidden," as an "evil and unscriptural figment, continually deluding men to their eternal ruin." These criticisms were circulated by the editor through the entire diocese, but without producing much effect, even among his own partisans. One clergyman returned the

pamphlet to the publisher, remarking that he considered such an attempt to undermine the authority of the Bishop mean and ungentleman-like, as well as insulting to the clergy—an answer which the editor characterized as “an example of the spirit of the world as contradistinguished from the spirit of the Church-a spirit superficial, ill-instructed, and unsound, as opposed to the wisdom and truth of the Gospel." But while condemning the doctrines of its Diocesan, the Record found no great fault with his directions as to Rubrical observance ; and even six months after the publication of the Charge, it was of opinion that they might be complied with, as a matter of Church order, without any serious injury to the cause of Evangelical religion. Meanwhile, the Bishop himself had been for some weeks obliged, by serious illness, almost to lay aside business. He was seized, early in January, 1843, with an attack of spasms in the cæcum, which kept him in a very weak condition for about two months, and the effects of which upon his constitution probably lasted much longer. Soon after his recovery from this attack he took occasion, while making a circuit of confirmations, to remonstrate privately with those few clergy who had expressed reluctance to comply with his directions, and had reason to believe that his remonstrances would be effectual. On the whole, up to May, 1843, his Charge, though attacked by the public press, had been as well received by his clergy as he probably expected.

The following letters will illustrate the Bishop's own opinion on this point, and the view taken of his Charge by men of opposite religious schools :

[Written during his Visitation.]

"Oct. 20, 1842.

"My Charge appears to give pretty general satisfaction, but the Times, I see, is most disingenuous and unfair. [The Times had represented the Bishop as giving "his official judgment" in favour of the Oxford divines (who were now supported by this newspaper) "upon every fundamental point of doctrine, and upon the great majority of practical questions which have been lately brought into controversy;" and had said that the Bishop proceeded to enjoin the observance of the Rubric "with a degree of strictness which, if his Lordship be rightly represented, has, since the days of Laud never been attained or attempted;" adding that this strictness had always been a sign or accompaniment of the greatest strength, energy, and purity in the Church.]

"Oct. 23, 1842.

"I have been amused at your anxiety about the remarks upon my Charge; but it has been exceedingly well received, both by clergy and laity, and I have no doubt will produce a very beneficial effect. All the battling about it in the newspapers proves the importance attached to it, and will set people a-thinking upon the matters to which it refers."

"Oct. 25, 1842.

"My Charge appears to give great satisfaction both to clergy and laity throughout the diocese. Mr. Frere writes me word, that it gives 'universal satisfaction.' The clergy of Chelmsford and the neighbourhood have already acted upon it, and so, I find, have some of the London clergy. The great objectors to the practical

part will be the rectors of the great west-end parishes; but they will all be forced to conform by degrees. The Record and the Times are about equally dishonest on opposite sides. The former carefully keeps out of sight my real object, which is not to inquire whether the Church's doctrine be true, or her ritual proper; but what that doctrine and ritual really are. I have been most kindly and cordially received by the clergy everywhere."

From the Rev. J. W. Cunningham.

"HARROW, Nov. 23, 1842.

"....I trust your Lordship will allow me to express the deep regret which I feel at the unjust and ungenerous treatment which the Charge appears to me to have received in many of the comments of the Record newspaper. You would do the greatest injustice to very large numbers who agree with the Record in certain leading sentiments, if you should suspect them of not cordially condemning both many of the sentiments of the editor, and the spirit in which they are expressed. The editor, be he who he may, is a man not to be wrought upon by entreaty or remonstrance; and though many take in the paper, as a matter of convenience, almost every reader of my acquaintance is loud in his complaints, both of the temper and the logic of its leading articles.

In the next place, I am most anxious, for myself and for many others, to express the deepest gratitude, first, 'to Him to whom the honour is due, as to the Great Searcher and Counsellor,' and next, to your Lordship, for a large part of this most important document ; feeling, as I do, that every honest Tractarian must regard the charge as a death-blow to his own leading