After having been defeated for several years the Bill passed into law in 1880, the Archbishop having secured that no services should be allowed which were not of a Christian character. It is clear from what is said in the Life that there must have been considerable correspondence between the Archbishop and those responsible for the Bill. It would have been interesting to see the letters which passed on the occasion, at the same length, and showing the manner in which the conclusion was at length reached, as we have those relating to other subjects.

The question which most deeply interested Archbishop Tait, and in which he was most completely foiled, was the use of the Athanasian Creed. In the Ritual Commission a variety of proposals had been made for getting rid of the use of this creed, Dean Stanley having ever been foremost in supporting whatever would tend that way. One proposal had been to banish the creed to the end of the Prayer Book, where it might peacefully repose by the side of the Articles, and never be used in church; another proposal was to limit its use to Trinity Sunday; another, to make its use optional; another, the excision of the damnatory clauses; another, a new translation of it. But though a majority of the commissioners expressed their dislike to the present rubric, which enjoins the use of the creed, they could never unite upon a change, so as to secure a majority. Archbishop Tait was amongst those who were eager for a change, and he greatly preferred that which removed the creed altogether from the public services of the Church. Mooting the question created a violent excitement throughout the Church. Dr. Liddon wrote to the Archbishop to say

'As I gather from a letter signed "Anglicanus" in to-day's Times that the attacks recently made on the Athanasian Creed are likely to be renewed at no distant date, it is not, I trust, obtrusive or other than right in me to state formally to your Grace that if this most precious creed is either mutilated by the excision of the (so termed) damnatory clauses or degraded by an alteration of the rubric which precedes it from its present position in the Book of Common Prayer, I shall feel bound in conscience to resign my preferments and to retire from the ministry of the Church of England.'

In the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury there was no less determined opposition to any of the changes desired by those who disliked the creed; the only concession to which that House could be brought to agree was the admission of an explanatory clause, setting forth the manner in 1 Life, ii. 137.

which the clause objected to was to be understood. The idea of such an explanatory rubric having been received with scant favour was practically abandoned, and the Archbishop summoned a large committee to meet at Lambeth, by which a declaration was drawn up, and there the matter has rested ever since, and we trust will continue to rest.

So much has been said of the Archbishop's greatness as a statesman-even the epitaph upon his tomb making mention of it-that it seems necessary to bring into prominence whatever bears upon the subject, as in our opinion the claim has been made without sufficient justification. Of his efforts to legislate with regard to ritualism we have already spoken at length, and also of the part he took with respect. to legislation for the University of Oxford. He also was anxious to place the cathedral chapters on a new footing, and took active measures for that purpose. In his diary on May 18, 1879, he writes

'Lord Beaconsfield's announcement, on my request that he would appoint a Royal Commission to enquire into cathedrals, is an important event. It is now some twenty-five years since I wrote my article on Cathedral Reform, and perhaps I shall live to see my plans carried out. This Cathedral movement has excited a desire in me for some further work before I die.' '

And then in 1882 his biographers write

'The second thing that stands out in the memory of his biographer as characteristic of that last summer is his untiring labour upon the question of Cathedral reform. Although he did not live to see the outcome of the Commission over which he was presiding, he was already assured of its ultimate success.'

72

Some years before the earlier of these dates the Archbishop had invited the dean and one member of each cathedral church to meet him at Lambeth, to discuss the question of changes in cathedral statutes. There were two points on which the Archbishop especially dwelt. The one was to give the bishop of the diocese more direct influence in the cathedral; the other was to invest the dean with more administrative power. To neither of his proposals could he gain assent from the large representative body that he had assembled. Much as they differed amongst themselves, the deans and canons realized that the reform needed was a better selection of men for posts in cathedrals; and that whilst changes were desirable in cathedral statutes, such changes would be of little value unless the right men were selected to administer them. The 1 Life, ii. 518. 2 Ibid. ii. 588.

Cathedral Commission, of which mention has just been made, invented elaborate new statutes for every cathedral, for none of which authority has been obtained from Parliament. The Bishop of Carlisle, who introduced a Bill in the House of Lords to enable the several Chapters to adopt the proposed new statutes, was successfully opposed in Parliament by representatives of the cathedral Chapters, and his Bill failed to pass into law. A committee of the Lower House of Canterbury examined his Bill, and made representations of a very different character, which the Bishop of Carlisle so far accepted as to make them the basis of the last Bill he introduced on the subject, in which the only requirement with respect to the proposals of the Cathedral Commission was that they should be read over before any Chapter proceeded to suggest amendments to its statutes. This Bill has, however, hitherto failed to obtain Parliamentary sanction.

The only other point affecting legislation to which we need refer is the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Courts. It was a wise and judicious step to secure the appointment of this Commission, but as the Archbishop did not live to see the completion of its labours, and as we know little of the part he took in its deliberations, it is unnecessary to say more about it.

We turn with pleasure to the practical work he did in his diocese. Here he laboured to the best of his knowledge and ability to be the friend and father of his clergy. His sympathies were not naturally warm and expansive, but he endeavoured to throw himself heartily into the subjects brought before him, and showed tenderness and consideration towards men with whose opinions he had no agreement. We are told that in 1864 Bishop Whipple, of Minnesota, wrote concerning a visit to Fulham

'One night as I was sitting in my room Bishop Tait rapped at the door, and came in to ask me some question about a recent conversation. As he was leaving again I said, "Will you pardon me if I ask you a question? I know your theological views. Why do you permit the ritualism of those clergy in East London ?" I shall never forget the deep feeling he showed as, with tears in his eyes, he answered, "Bishop, those men realize that those poor lost souls can be saved, and that our blessed Saviour is their Saviour as He is ours. Who am I to meddle with such work as they are doing, in the way they think best, for those who are going down to death?" '1

The impression conveyed by these pleasing words is greatly 1 Life, ii. 586.

strengthened by many passages in the diary, and still more by the correspondence with Mr. Mackonochie at the very close of his life.

The Archbishop was not a great preacher, but he was a powerful and impressive speaker, and in the House of Lords, in Convocation, on platforms, and elsewhere his speeches were listened to with pleasure, and always seemed to support the high position which he filled. As an administrator he was industrious and hard-working, and if we cannot accord him such a high place as that occupied by Bishop Blomfield or Bishop Wilberforce as an originator of new methods for meeting the wants of the time, or as a popular leader who left an enduring mark upon the episcopate of England, he was certainly most painstaking, and desirous to encourage and further whatever he could to promote the increase of true religion amongst those over whom he had been placed in charge. The one great institution for the establishment of which he was responsible was the Bishop of London's Fund, and with a few words about it we will conclude this notice.

Until the year 1819 the Church had done little towards providing additional church accommodation for the rapidly increasing population of the metropolis or of any part of the country. Parliament had made two grants, the first of a million and the second of half that sum, towards erecting new churches, but very little had been done by private liberality. Until that year no church, to form the centre of a new parish, could be built without a separate Act of Parliament, the cost and trouble of obtaining which, in addition to the large sum needed for structural purposes, were sufficient to deter all but the most energetic or wealthy from making the attempt. It can be no matter for surprise, therefore, that only one or two churches were annually built under these conditions, in addition to which a certain number of chapels of ease were provided by the wealthy for their own accommodation; but this was all that was done. Many of the Evangelical clergy preferred erecting chapels, that were used under Acts of Parliament legalising Dissenting chapels, untrammelled by the rules of the Church, of some of which they were impatient. When the Act of 1819 became law there was a rapid change, and all over the country churches were erected. The very populous diocese of Chester stood forth prominently in the zeal and liberality with which it erected new churches for the enormous manufacturing population which had sprung up within its limits. A good deal of this was accomplished under Bishop Blomfield, and when he was translated to

London he was desirous to continue the work where it was especially needed. When the census of churches and clergy and ecclesiastical incomes was taken by a Royal Commission in 1836, it was found that there were many parishes at the West, as well as at the East, End of London, with very large populations, for whose spiritual edification only one church, served by one clergyman, was provided, and not infrequently that one clergyman was a curate with a very scanty income, the rector being a pluralist and holding one or more benefices in the country, on one of which he resided. Bishop Blomfield took up in earnest the cause of the East End, and for Bethnal Green and other parts he provided several new churches, and he erected one church at his own cost near to Fulham. But he was pressed with the difficulty of finding incomes for the clergy who were placed in charge of the churches erected in the poorer parts of the diocese, where it was hopeless to expect that a provision could be made for their support out of the pew rents, which were then regarded as the one source of income on which the Church must depend for the support of her clergy in new districts. The Cathedral Act, passed at the instigation of Bishop Blomfield, devoted a considerable proportion of the capitular incomes to the endowment of poor parishes all over the country: but it needed time to make this income available; for not only were existing life interests spared, but the estates belonging to the cathedral bodies were let out upon leases of a most unprofitable character, and it was only by suffering these leases to run out that the Commission could ever hope to obtain money sufficient to meet in any adequate manner the wants that were pressed upon them. By the time that Dr. Tait came to the see of London there was hope that at no very distant date the Ecclesiastical Commission would be able to make grants that would provide for the more urgent necessities of the poorest places. The time had, therefore, come to make a systematic effort to cope with the spiritual wants of the diocese. Bishop Tait was alive to the opportunity, and boldly asked for a million of money wherewith to erect new churches where they were most required. The success of this endeavour has been great indeed. The fund has made large and liberal grants out of the money contributed to its coffers towards carrying out the great objects for which it was called into existence, and it has attracted still larger sums from the neighbourhoods that it has helped. In numberless instances where men would have despaired of success if they had been left unaided to supply what was wanted they were encouraged to make the requisite