Our State and Prospects (part 2 of 2)

The thin edge of the wedge has got in, and a beginning of wise counsels has been made. Whether we shall have a House of Laymen in the Northern Province remains yet to be seen.

(2) Next in importance comes the much-talked of union of the Northern and Southern Convocations. To this, under the present state of things, I am thoroughly opposed, and I trust I shall never live to see it. If the Church of England were ever disestablished like the Church of Ireland, and a brand-new constitution had to be framed, there might be something in the idea. Again, if the Lower House of Canterbury was completely reformed and recast on the model of the Lower House of York, with two clerical representatives from each Archdeaconry, there might be something in the idea. Whether there is much chance of this I venture to doubt. At present the two Lower Convocations are not homogeneous, and till they are, fusion and amalgamation seem to me out of the question. After all, it is a very doubtful matter whether the proposed union would ever work well. The votes of the North would be so entirely swamped and outnumbered by those of the South, that I suspect the huge populations of the North would be dissatisfied. Moreover, if one great Synod was held in London for the whole Church, I predict that the attendance of members from the North of England would be very scanty. The Metropolis is the natural centre of the South of England, and for many reasons members of Convocation gravitate towards it. It is not so with the North. The inhabitants of Lancashire and Yorkshire have their own great centres in Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, and Sheffield, and do not see the need of continually going to London. It is my impression that one great Synod would fall very much into the hands of a few busy Churchmen in and around London, and the North would be practically left out in the cold. In short, I have a decided opinion that the two Convocations must be content at present to co-operate by delegations, and that any attempt to amalgamate and unite them would be a mistake.

(3) The next public subject about which I shall say a few words is the proposed ‘Church House’ in London. I feel it my duty not to leave it unnoticed, and I want my attitude towards the scheme not to be misunderstood. The Church House is undoubtedly a brilliant idea, and if carried out would be a graceful memorial of the Jubilee year of Her Majesty Queen Victoria’s reign. The building would be most useful to the Convocation of Canterbury, which at present has no suitable dwelling-place. If any Churchman in my Diocese likes to send aid to the proposed Church House, by all means let him do so. I would not lift a finger to prevent him; though I should have thought that London with its four millions might easily have done the work without asking the help of Lancashire. But I must say plainly, that I cannot see what benefit the Northern Province of York would receive from the Church House in London, so long as the two Convocations are separated, and not united. For business purposes we have the offices of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne’s Bounty Board. The great Religious Societies have their own offices, and are not likely to give them up. For meetings of Bishops, Lambeth Palace is sufficiently large. For what other remaining purposes a northern Churchman can need a London Church House I do not at present see. Beside all this, we want a large sum of money for a Cathedral in Liverpool, and money to build at least a dozen more proposed churches in the Diocese, of which the promoters are brought to a dead standstill for want of funds. Last, but not least, we sorely want a Church House of our own in Liverpool, and! am sure we do not want it quite as much as a Cathedral. A suitable building in a central position in this great city containing the Registry, the Consistory Court, business rooms for my own interviews, offices for the Diocesan Finance Association and all our other Church Societies, a moderately-sized room for Committee meetings, a Church club and reading-room, and the dep6t of the Christian Knowledge Society-- such a building, I believe, would be of incalculable value to our Diocese, and! heartily wish it might be built. At present the business of the Diocese is carried on in cribbed, cabined, confined, and highlyrented offices in a most inconvenient way. In the face of such facts as these, I think you cannot be surprised that I have not seen my way to call upon our Diocese to support the London Church House. (4) The last public subject which I think it right to touch upon may seem a small one at first sight. But small as it is I dare not pass it over, because it seems to me to contain the germ of much mischief. The subject I refer to is the proposed addition to the Church Catechism which has been lately discussed seriously in the Lower House of Canterbury Convocation. Far be it from me to say that our venerable Catechism is perfect; and I daresay we all think we could improve it. But what I strongly object to is the slightest attempt to pull about anything in the Prayer-book, and to introduce the thin edge of addition, subtraction, mutilation, or alteration. A more fertile source of strife, debate, controversy, and division than the very additions which have been recently launched I cannot conceive. Where are we going to stop? What next, and what next? Happily the Prayer-book can never be legally altered or added to without permission from the Government and a ‘letter of business.’ I doubt extremely whether such permission will ever be granted. In the meantime I earnestly hope that the clergy of my Diocese will lend no support to the proposed addition to the Catechism. Let every man explain it loyally and honestly to his parishioners according to his own light. But for the sake of peace, let us not add to the old document, but leave it alone.

I shall now conclude this Charge by calling your attention to two heavy black clouds which appear to me to loom large on our ecclesiastical horizon. I have swept a tolerably large field in my survey of our Church’s progress and condition, both inside and outside of our own Diocese. I have brought prominently forward many causes for deep thankfulness, and no one I think can fairly say that I am a pessimist today. But it is useless to ignore dangers, and especially in a great institution like the Church of England. To my eyes there are two very formidable dangers ahead which imperatively require the attention and the prayers of all loyal Churchmen. To be always crying ‘Peace, peace, when there is no peace,’ and to refuse to touch unpleasant topics, is neither honesty nor charity. It is the conduct of a flatterer and not of a friend. Let me then point out what these two dangers are.

(i) The first danger I see is the utter paralysis of discipline in the Church of England.

We all know, and know to our sorrow, that disputes about the ritual of the Lord’s Supper have been the plague and trouble of the Church of England for more than twenty years. Differences of opinion about many points there always have been within the Established Church, and no man of common sense expects a rigid cast-iron uniformity of thought and practice among Churchmen. If we cannot be liberal and comprehensive, if we cannot ‘think and let think,’ we are not in our right place in the Anglican Communion. There will always be High, Low, and Broad schools of thought within our pale. But it is evident that liberty and comprehensiveness must have some limits, and the Lord’s Supper is a subject about which Churchmen are reasonably jealous, when they remember that our martyred Reformers were burned because they would not receive the Romish doctrine about that blessed sacrament. We know also that novelties in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper have been made the subject of several law-suits in the Ecclesiastical Courts of this country, and have several times been distinctly condemned and declared illegal. Finally, we know that many clergymen regard the judgments of these Courts as null and void, refuse to pay the slightest attention to them, continue to do the very things which they condemn, deny their authority as ecclesiastical tribunals, and decline to obey the admonitions of their Bishop if he supports the Courts, notwithstanding their oath of obedience.

Footnote ‘We hold it to be most desirable that the National Establishment should continue to comprise members who are attached to the different schools of thought, so long as every minister whom the Church appoints shall be willing to conform to her standard of doctrine and ritual. But this large comprehension seems to us to render it most desirable, and indeed essential, that in the Church’s ministration the officiating minister should not introduce innovations, which are welcome to one party, but are wholly offensive to another’. A. C. Ewald: Life of Sir Joseph Napier, p. 334.

Now this is precisely the state of things which I call dangerous in the highest degree, and I think it my duty to direct your attention to it. You will observe that I do not touch the question of right or wrong in these unhappy disputes. I do not say whether the judgments have been good or bad. But I do say that a Church in which the clergy refuse to obey the Church’s Courts, Courts which are duly recognized by Queen, Lords, and Commons; Courts which are the only representatives of the royal supremacy--that such a Church is in a most unsatisfactory condition. It is a Church without order and discipline. It is a Church which is in a state of lawlessness, anarchy, chaos, and confusion, and, unless some remedy is applied, must make shipwreck. In short, in matters of discipline we are at present drifting like a ship without a rudder. Unless we mind what we are about, we shall find, by painful experience, that tolerated lawlessness is just as dangerous to a Church as it is to a State. The evils of this position of things are simply incalculable. Their name is legion. Party spirit increases in every Diocese. Diocesan Institutions are starved and neglected. One man will not support them because he thinks them too High, and another because he thinks them too Low! Strife, controversy, and theological squabbles about trifles absorb time and attention. Divisions weaken our whole body, and prevent us showing a united front to our enemies. Sceptics and infidels make capital out of our differences, and tell us it is time enough to become believers when we are agreed among ourselves. The advocates of Disestablishment rejoice to see us playing their game so well, and biting and devouring one another. The gulf between clergyman and clergyman becomes wider and wider every year, and ministers of the same Church keep aloof and separate from one another, as if they did not belong to the same communion. At the rate things are going it will soon be impossible for a Bishop to ask candidates for orders any questions about the Lord’s Supper! If all this does not constitute danger, I know not what can.

But unhappily this is not all. Throughout England, whenever any clergyman refuses to obey the Courts or listen to his Bishop, the local press is at once inundated with a flood of crude, wild opinions from anonymous correspondents, which reflect little credit on the wisdom of the writers, but do infinite harm to ignorant readers. One man tells the public that every zealous and earnest clergyman ought to be let alone, and to be allowed to preach and practise in his church exactly what he likes. Another man maintains the astounding position that every congregation should be allowed to have any kind of ceremonial it pleases, ignoring the fact that our Church is not an assembly of independent congregations, but a corporate body, requiring a reasonable measure of uniformity in all its members. A third asserts that the famous ‘Ornaments rubric’ is flatly contrary to the decisions of the Law Courts on ritual matters, but forgets or omits to tell the public that the two greatest lawyers of our time maintained, in a closely reasoned judgment, that this is a complete mistake; that the ‘Ornaments rubric’ must be interpreted by the light of the ‘advertisements’ of Queen Elizabeth’s day, and that the authority of these ‘advertisements’ is admitted by the Archbishops of that reign, by Hooker, and by the 24th Canon of our own Church, and endorsed by the findings of three centuries. A fourth protests against the Courts condemning sacrificial vestments and the like, unless they require copes to be worn. But he does not tell the public that copes have no doctrinal significance like chasubles, that they have been disused by common consent for three hundred years, and that the same canons which recommend copes forbid the clergy to wear white stockings. A fifth coolly proclaims that a Bishop’s power of ‘veto’ was never intended to give a Bishop any discretion at all, and that it is a Bishop’s bounden duty to prohibit any prosecution of a clergyman, however illegal the clergyman’s conduct may seem to be. Crude and wild statements such as these are doing great harm so long as our present paralysis of discipline continues, because they gradually crystallize and solidify until they look like truth. The sooner they are dispersed by the reign of law and order, the better for the Church of England.

Now, if you ask me, as your Bishop, what is the remedy for the present deplorable state of things, I answer the question without hesitation. I see no remedy except legislation. There is a deadlock, and to Caesar we must go. If things have come to such a pass that clergymen will neither obey the Ecclesiastical Courts nor the admonitions of their Bishop, something must be done by Parliament. The distinction between the supremacy of the Crown and the supremacy of Parliament, which some attempt to draw, I fail entirely to see. The Crown must exercise its supremacy through Parliament under the British constitution, and cannot act independently. The Clergy Discipline and Public Worship Acts must either be amended and improved, or else entirely new tribunals must be created by Parliamentary legislation. Courts which no Churchman can appeal to without bringing down on himself furious persecution, Courts whose judgments cannot be enforced without calling out a display of violence, second only to what takes place at an Irish eviction--such Courts are evidently useless. We cannot go on many years longer as we do now. The policy of drifting, doing nothing, waiting, and letting alone, must be given up. It is not in reality the policy of peace. The end of such a policy will be secession or separation.

I am quite aware that the difficulties of Parliamentary legislation about ecclesiastical matters are extremely great. Many shiver and tremble at the very thought of it, and ‘fear to launch away.’ The surgical operation has been deferred so long, that there is some doubt whether the patient will survive it. But I believe it ought to be attempted. There are seasons when boldness is the highest wisdom. The old saying is strictly true, ‘Periculum sine periculo raro vincitur’. (Danger is seldom overcome without (encountering) danger.) No doubt the danger of legislation is very great. But in my opinion the danger of doing nothing at all is greater still.

I purposely say nothing about the notable remedy for the present distress which finds favour with some people. I refer to the proposal to have all disputes settled by exertion of the Bishop’s paternal authority. I say nothing, because it seems waste of time. Throughout the country the advocates of ceremonial novelties exhibit very little disposition to attend to Episcopal admonitions, however insignificant or non-essential the practices may be which they are requested to discontinue. One of our ablest Bishops has said with truth, ‘There is something very one-sided in this cry for fatherliness from the Bishop, when they meet with no filialness from the clergy.’ What the constitution of the new Ecclesiastical Courts may be, in the event of legislation being attempted, of course I do not know. We have had lines laid down by the Royal Commission which may be useful. But the proposed measure will have to pass through the crucible of Parliament, and whether it will emerge in the same state that it goes in is very doubtful. On two points alone I venture a confident prediction. No Parliament, I believe, will ever allow such ritual questions as have been litigated during the last twenty-five years to be finally decided by clerical judges alone, without the aid of laymen. The common objection that lay judges have no right to touch questions of faith or doctrine appears to me unreal and imaginary.

Footnote The late Sir Joseph Napier, a man distinguished both as a lawyer and a Christian, declared at Norwich Congress, that the Committee of Privy Council of which he was a prominent member, ‘had no jurisdiction to declare doctrine nor to establish it by law. Its province was was dicere, non jus dare (to expound, not to make, the law)’.

The lay judges of the present Court of Final Appeal have repeatedly declared they do not pretend to settle what is religious truth and the doctrine of Scripture. They simply undertake to ascertain the real meaning of certain formularies and rubrics, and to show the sense of the words in which they were drawn up by those who compiled them. My own conviction is, that legally-trained minds are just as competent to do this as clerical minds, and even more so, and I cannot believe for a moment that Parliament will ever sanction ecclesiastical tribunals in which lay judges have not a prominent place. The other prediction I venture to make is that, in any new Church Courts legislation, Parliament will not sanction the Episcopal veto. About that unhappy provision, you all know, I have always held a very decided opinion. A more mischievous arrangement, a more ingenious device for setting a Bishop at variance with one party in his Diocese whenever a complaint of illegality is made, and for creating divided counsels among Bishops--one Bishop allowing suits and another forbidding them--I cannot conceive. I cannot think the veto will survive the ordeal of the House of Commons.

What the result of creating new ecclesiastical tribunals will be, I will not attempt to conjecture. Of course there would be new suits, new arguments, and new decisions. It is not the least likely that those who consider the law of the Church broken by modern novelties in the ritual of the Lord’s Supper, will retire from the field, fold their arms and sit still. No! they will appeal to the new Courts for justice. And then what will the judgments be? He that will answer that question is bolder than I am. It is just possible that all the old decisions may be confirmed, and the whole body of ritual novelties completely condemned. It is just possible that the old decisions may be reversed, and the whole mass of disputed ceremonial formally sanctioned, and declared to be the binding rule of the Church of England. It is quite possible that a principle of general compromise and toleration will run through all future decisions, and that it will be decreed that every clergyman shall do exactly what is right in his own eyes, and that everybody is right and nobody wrong. Rather formidable possibilities all these! Not one of them that will satisfy everybody! Not one of them that will not endanger the life of the Church of England! But we have reached a point when something must be risked. And I repeat that the present paralysis of discipline, law, and order, is one of the greatest dangers of the Established Church, and a bold attempt ought to be made to remedy it.

(2) The other danger of our Church in the present day is one of a very different kind, but not less serious than the one I have been discussing. It is one which may not strike a careless observer. But for all that I believe it to be real and true.

The danger I refer to is the growing tendency of most preachers in this age to be content with a low, meagre, defective, and imperfect statement of Bible truth in the pulpit. I do not for a moment retract what I said at an earlier part of this Charge. I frankly admit that, compared to the sermons of former times, the sermons of this day are greatly improved. But for all that, I am obliged to say that much of the preaching of this generation strikes me as very unsatisfying and unsatisfactory. It is rarely, perhaps, that there is reason to complain of downright false doctrine in a modern sermon. But, somehow or other, there is too often short measure, short weight, and something wanting. Too often, if not a mere firework, it is a leaden sword, without edge or point, as impotent to wound as it is to heal.

I look at the mighty cloud of verities which I read in the Epistles of the New Testament. I am struck with the clearness, distinctness, decision, sharpness, depth, fulness and boldness with which these verities are placed before the reader. I then turn to the many volumes of modern sermons which are continually flowing from the press, or the sermons reported in religious newspapers. And as I read I am often painfully struck with the timid, faltering, hesitating utterances of modern preachers about such mighty subjects as the inspiration of Scripture, original sin, the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the atonement, the personality and work of the Holy Spirit, justification, conversion, sanctification, the reality of the devil, the judgment day, the state beyond the grave, and the enormous difference between spiritual death and spiritual life. Too frequently your modern preacher seems to approach such subjects in a cautious, shaky, trembling, apologetic, uncertain tone, as if he was afraid of offending you, and had not quite made up his own mind, and dared not speak more strongly. I know not whether I make my meaning plain. But after carefully watching the English pulpit for forty years, I am sure there is reason in what I say, and I invite your best attention to the subject. With occasional rare exceptions, I am afraid the sermons of the clergy are too often below the doctrinal standard of the Bible, and intellectually behind the times. The causes of this defectiveness in modern preaching are many and various. Some men are so entirely absorbed in the care of huge parishes, multiplied parochial machinery, and constant little congregational meetings, that they leave themselves no time for deep pulpit preparation, and their sermons are always elementary, thin, and shallow. Others are so thoroughly and conscientiously convinced that music and singing (things hardly mentioned in the Epistles), and the Lord’s Supper (only mentioned in one Epistle), are the principal parts of divine service and religion, that they give very little time to their pulpit work. Others are morbidly afraid of the intellectual part of their hearers, the philosophers, so-called, and men of science. They dread being censured and pulled up if they are positive and dogmatical, and they cannot get rid of the fear of man. Others, and they perhaps the greatest number, are eaten up with the mischievous idea that a minister’s chief object should be to please people; that he should avoid saying things that might give offence, strong language, strong doctrine, strong reproof, strong exhortation, and should try to make everything as smooth and pleasant as possible. Yet an Apostle said, ‘If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.’ (Galatians 1:10)

The consequences of this defectiveness of modern preaching are to my mind very plain and unmistakable. There is no proportionate result of Christian victories and conversion-work, considering the immense amount of restless, busy, bustling Church work that is annually done. I suppose there never was an age when there were so many religious services and Christian agencies and preachings every week throughout the land. There never were so many special missions both in town and country. But what is the fruit of it all? What quantity of conversions is there? What large additions are being annually made to the number of our communicants? What harvest of souls turned from darkness to light is being reaped? What increase is there of men and women really born again and made new creatures? Alas, I fear there is very little to show. And I have a very strong and growing conviction that the fault is to be found in our pulpits. The Holy Ghost is grieved, and the Holy Ghost withholds His blessing. The Holy Ghost will bless nothing but the truth and the whole truth.

My Reverend Brethren, I leave this branch of my Charge with an earnest request that you will weigh well what I have been saying, and realize that I have good reason for calling your attention to the work of the pulpit. Few, I suspect, are aware that this is probably one of the weakest points in our Church’s present condition. There is great room for improvement. There is real want of reform. In every age, during the last eighteen centuries, God has always honoured those ministers most who have most honoured His written Word.

In bringing this Charge to a conclusion, I am aware that I have detained you at an unusual length. But I felt that I could not well pass over any subject that I have touched. The field over which I have travelled is wide. The signs of our own times are peculiar. The position of the Church of England is an anxious one. The first seven years of a new Diocese like ours form a very interesting period, and demand special investigation. Last, but not least, my own advancing years remind me that I ought to leave nothing unsaid that I want to say. When a Bishop has passed the stage of threescore and ten, he is bound to remember that each Triennial Visitation may be his last. In looking back over the seven years of my Episcopate, I find abundant reasons for deep thankfulness. I came among you, clearly seeing that the position I was called to occupy was one of great and peculiar difficulties. I have not found these difficulties greater than I expected. I came, knowing well that every English Bishop in this day must make up his mind to be severely criticized, and that in all his actions, words, and appointments he will always displease somebody. But after living in this city and moving continually under the public eye, I do not feel that I have much cause to complain. So long as human nature is what it is, people will talk, and write, and misunderstand, and misrepresent; and our wisest course is to take it patiently, and hold on our way, turning neither to the right hand nor to the left. There is deep wisdom in the old Scottish proverb about gossip and tittle-tattle: ‘They have said. What have they said? Let them say.’

My course since I came to Liverpool has been greatly smoothed by the almost uniform kindness and courtesy with which I have been received by the clergy, as well as the laity, of my Diocese. I came among you a man of very decided theological opinions; and I think it likely that many of you would have preferred a Bishop of a different school of thought. But you have treated me kindly and fairly, and with rare exceptions I have found no difficulty in working with all. I am very sensible that I have said and done things that might better have been left unsaid and undone; and that all I have said and done might have been said and done more perfectly. But I have tried to do my duty, and if I have paved the way for a younger, abler, and more active Bishop, I shall have done something.

My Reverend Brethren, accept the hearty good wishes of your Bishop at the close of his Triennial Charge. ‘Be steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord’ (1 Corinthians 15:58). That is a grand text, and one which a clergyman should never forget. There are better days in store for our new Diocese, though my eyes may not see them. There is a great and effectual door before you, and a grand field of usefulness, though there are many adversaries. Work on, and work together as much as you can, and try to think less of the points in which you differ than of those in which you agree. I am firmly convinced, at the end of a long life, that loyal, honest, true-hearted Churchmen of all schools can co-operate in many ways far more than they do, and have much more common ground than they think.

It is my own deliberate opinion that there is a great future before the Established Church of England, if her children know the time of their visitation, continue faithful to the principles of her Articles and Prayer-book, and co-operate heartily on those principles. If the clergy, as a body, will only be satisfied with the ritual which satisfied Hooker and Andrews and Hall and Herbert and Usher and Ken and Beveridge and Pearson and Butler; if the zealous advocates of ceremonial novelties, not essential to the validity of the Lord’s Supper, will only abstain from irritating people and creating suspicion until their favourite novelties are formally legalized by some competent tribunal--if all this might be, I believe the old Church of England might ‘turn the world upside down,’ and gather into her fold a large portion of the Christianity of the land. Let us, however, distinctly understand that we must cooperate on real Church principles, and that we must not be expected to sacrifice truth for the sake of peace. I believe there are few, if any, clergymen in the Diocese of Liverpool who really wish for re-union with the Church of Rome, and I trust for the honour of Lancashire it will ever be so. With such men, in any part of England, I find it impossible to co-operate, and I charge you with all my heart, and soul, and mind, and strength never to be drawn into their net, and never to assist them. Unity and re-union, no doubt, are fine, high-sounding words. But you may buy gold too dear; and unity bought at the expense of Christ’s truth is utterly worthless. Re-union with Rome means the abolition of our Thirty-nine Articles, the complete mutilation of our Communion service, the reception of the Mass and the Confessional, and the base surrender of all the countless blessings of the Protestant Reformation. From such a surrender, from re-union on such terms and conditions, good Lord, deliver us!

Yes, my brethren! when the Church of Rome returns to the pure scriptural doctrines embalmed in our Thirty-nine Articles, it will be time for the Church of England to seek re-union with her. But till that time, I maintain that the Established Church of England had better be disestablished, disendowed, and broken to pieces, than reunited with the Church of Rome. Till that time, let our sentence always be, ‘Nolumus leges Ecclesiae Anglicanae mutari.’ (‘We are unwilling for the laws of the Church of England to be altered.’)

APPENDIX: CHAPTER 6

The following are the churches which I have consecrated since I became Bishop of Liverpool:

1. St. John the Evangelist, Walton;
2. Maghull Parish Church;
3. St. Ambrose, Farnworth;
4. St. Andrew, Wigan;
5. St. Luke, Southport;
6. St. Cyprian, Edge Hill, Liverpool;
7. St. Stephen, Crown Street, Liverpool;
8. All Saints, Toxteth Park, Liverpool;
9. St. Gabriel, Toxteth Park;
10. St. Agnes, Toxteth Park;
11. St. Bede, Toxteth Park;

12. St. Chad’s, Everton;
13. St. Polycarp, Everton;
14. St. Benedict, Everton;
15. St. Athanasius, Kirkdale;
16. Aspull, Wigan;
17. St. Paul, Widnes;
18. St. Mary, Waterloo;
19. St. Philip, Southport;
20. Crossens, Southport.

St. Lawrence, Kirkdale, and St. Philip, Shiel Road, Liverpool, are opened, but not consecrated for want of an endowment fund. Three large new churches are being built, and approach completion, one at Earle Road, Liverpool, one at Woolton, and one at Ince, near Wigan.

TABLE I

The following is a summarized Statement, carefully drawn up from Visitation Returns, of the Total Expenditure in each Rural Deanery in the Diocese of Liverpool, on building, enlarging, or restoring Churches, on building or enlarging Schoolrooms, and on building Mission Rooms or Parish Rooms, firstly, during the three years ending October 1884, £145,385 and, secondly, during the three years ending October 1887: £197,821

TABLE II

The following is a summarized Statement, carefully drawn up from Visitation Returns, of the Money contributed and expended in each Rural Deanery in the Diocese of Liverpool, for Parochial Charities, Diocesan Institutions, Home Missions, and Foreign Missions, firstly, during the three years ending October 1884, £98,771 and, secondly, during the three years ending October 1887:£117,508.

I think it right to say that the sum total in each of these Tables does not represent the whole amount of money actually expended and contributed. Unhappily the returns from some Parishes are rather incomplete. But on the whole there is a very satisfactory increase during the second period of three years.

J. C. LIVERPOOL.