On November 23rd, 1856, he was consecrated with Cotterill (a senior wrangler, appointed to Grahamstown) in the Chapel Royal, Whitehall, by Archbishop Sumner, assisted by Bishops Gilbert, Jackson, and Villiers, his old friend and colleague Cotton (afterwards Bishop of Calcutta) preaching the sermon.

It

The troubles about unauthorised changes in ritual, which lasted throughout his life, began at once. The St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, case (Westerton v. Liddell) he inherited from Bishop Blomfield. Judgment was delivered by Lord Kingsdown, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop of London concurring. forbade a stone altar, an altar cross, cross, and certain embroidered altar linen; and allowed coloured frontals, a credence table, and crosses as architectural ornaments. The Bishop preserved friendly relations with and preached in his church. ence with Mr. Stuart, of St. lene, Munster Square, who refused to desist from lighting candles on the holy table, in spite of the clear declaration of the law, indicates the Bishop's wise and fatherly tone, and personal courtesy and kindness. From Mr. Poole, a curate of St. Paul's, Knights

Mr. Liddell, A correspondMary Magda

bridge, he felt compelled to withdraw his icence, for adopting a Romeward view and practice of confession. His view on the subject he gave in his first charge: "If any clergyman so preaches to his people as to lead them to suppose that the authorised way of a sinner's reconciliation with God is through confession to a priest, and by receiving priestly absolution; if he leads them to believe . . . that our Church has hitherto been much to blame for not leading her people more habitually to private auricular confession; if he thus stirs up the imagination of ardent and confiding spirits to have recourse to him as a mediator between their souls and God; and when they come to seek his aid, receives them with all the elaborate preparation which is so likely unduly to excite their feelings, and for which there is no authority in the Church's rules of worship-taking them into the vestry of his church, securing the door, putting on the sacred vestments, causing them to kneel before the cross, to address him as their ghostly father, asking a string of questions as to sins of deed, word, and thought, and imposing penance before he confers absolution: the man who thus acts, or-even if some of those

particular circumstances are wanting-of whose general practice this is no exaggerated picture, is, in my judgment, unfaithful to the whole spirit of the Church of which he is a minister.

The story of the riots at St. George's-inthe-East against the changes introduced by Mr. Bryan King illustrates the Bishop's charity and patience. Finally, Mr. King retired abroad, the Bishop undertook at his own cost to provide for the charge of the parish, and harmony returned. The Bishop received an address signed by two thousand one hundred and seventy-six of the parishioners, including churchwardens, overseers, guardians, vestrymen, and every resident lawyer and doctor but one. They desired to convey "our deep sense of the obligation we are under for the restoration of peace to this long-distracted parish through your lordship's instrumentality."

In all evangelistic work he took a prominent lead. Within a few days of his consecration. he presided at a great meeting at Islington for building twelve new churches. He encouraged the Young Men's Christian Association, preached constantly in the open air, sanctioned mission. services on Sunday in Exeter Hall and the

theatres, prevailed on the Deans of St. Paul's and Westminster to hold popular services in the Cathedral and the Abbey on Sunday evenings, and fostered every religious effort for the conversion of souls. His first charge took nearly five hours in delivery, was listened to with unbroken attention by over a thousand clergy, and received the notices and comments of the Press for several weeks.

In 1860 appeared Essays and Reviews. Dr. Temple's paper on the Education of the World was one of much truth and beauty, but he became necessarily mixed up with the other writers, some of of whom startled the whole Church by their heterodoxy. The storm raged with great vehemence; and next year the Bishops put out an address in which they said: "We cannot understand how these opinions can be held consistently with an honest subscription to the formularies of our Church, with many of the fundamental doctrines of which they appear to us essentially at variance." Dr. Temple and Jowett had previously visited Tait at Fulham, and had gathered from him that he saw little to dislike in their essays. They would not, however, dissociate themselves from the other writers;

and it was the partnership with unsound views that Tait viewed with distrust. When the wholesale condemnation of the book appeared, with Tait's name appended, and without any discrimination between the articles such as he had made in private, Dr. Temple was exceedingly hurt, and a long correspondence ensued. Dr. Temple protested against such a condemnation by the united Bench without any hearing from the men condemned. Subsequently, in a debate in Convocation, Tait defended Temple's essay: "It is totally different in character from other passages which occur in this volume." The two men were placed by circumstances in a position of great difficulty, the one by his chivalrous refusal to throw over the essayists in whose company he had appeared, the other by his desire to act with the united episcopate in allaying public agitation. In the end, when Dr. Temple became Bishop of Exeter, he dissociated himself from opinions with which he was not in agreement. Two of the essayists, Williams and Wilson, were subsequently prosecuted, and acquitted by the Privy Council, Tait concurring that the charges were "not proved." The excitement was intense addresses were presented to the Arch