then formed into a new parish. They had also procured the building of a school-chapel at Dedworth, a hamlet about two miles from the town, and here one of the Eton workers, the Rev. Stephen Hawtrey (who became the first incumbent of Holy Trinity, Windsor), laboured for some time. He formed a small choir, which he used to take with him, passing the whole Sunday at Dedworth, and resting between the services in a cottage or in the fields.

Then, when Mr. Carter began his work, he found some new life already stirring, but the long past neglect left bitter fruits.

For some time the parish had been under sequestration, owing, it was said, to the intemperate habits of the late rector, and though for two years the locum tenens (the Rev. R. J. Gould, Mr. Carter's brother-in-law, afterwards Curatein-charge of Windsor) had done all that was possible to amend matters, the time was too short to produce much effect.

The ancient and now beautiful church was in worse than disrepair. Some of the massive pillars had been cut away and the walls held up with iron clamps. The little churchyard, being over full, a second had been formed-not adjoining, but across a road (in which was the parish pound)—a desolate place indeed, with no visible sign of its consecration. When the first cross was placed on a grave, people said that there was nothing to be seen like it, except in the graveyard of the Roman Catholic chapel at Reading.

The behaviour of the congregation was on a par with the appearance of the church and churchyard. At first the new rector used to sit in the desk in his surplice while the bells were ringing, as a means of stopping the talk that went on among the men in the large square pews, and the women who gathered in winter round a stove, which stood in the middle of the church. The font was filled with hats. old barrel-organ led the singing of a few school-children.

An

"Perhaps the very worst feature of the time was the churchwardens having half the alms, and giving them in

28

PRACTICAL ADVICE.

money gifts to those who came regularly to Holy Communion. Such was the effect, that people generally were repelled from Communion, and those who came were objects of contempt as eleemosynary beggars. It took long to root out this most unhappy state of feeling, though the churchwardens kindly gave up to me their share of the alms. It was extraordinary how long it took also to do away with the prevailing habit of looking out for gifts, arising, I suppose, from the very indiscriminate manner of giving, which had spread itself to all the labouring class."

Letters of this date show with what anxious thought and care Mr. Carter entered on his difficult work. He again wrote for advice to Dr. Pusey, whose answer gives an interesting glimpse into the practical difficulties of the time.

"MY DEAR CARTER,

"I have some difficulty in answering your questions, because I have never had a parochial care, and so cannot judge of the temper of people.

"I should think that there should be a difference between those rubrics which relate to yourself, and would affect those only who wish to avail themselves of a provision so made, and those which would affect all who go to church at all. We have, in restoration, not our own duty only to perform, but to regard our people. It may be ground enough for restoring anything that it is required of us; but unless people have been first taught to look upon the Church as a parent, this, alone, is rather a dry ground for them. . . . There is an obvious objection in their minds, that the Church has not, for above a century, had any power of revising her rubrics, that we do not know whether she would have retained them... and there is something in this. We ought not to be in the state in which we are. The very necessity of change, implies defect, and a previous acknowledgment of it. Unless we were wrong before, we should be wrong now, and until people see that we have been so, there is a rightful prejudice against change. Then restoration ought to be the act of the body, so that people should feel that they were obeying not only disused laws, but a living authority. . . . I think harm has been done by trying to introduce changes without teaching people about them before, and trying to raise their mind to them. It does not seem to me right by our people to bring all at once

a practice before them which they have to receive or reject so unprepared. It seems to me risking the putting them in a worse condition, and a want of Christian consideration. We have not only acts and services to restore, but which is far more, habits of mind to recover in our own people. .

"My own theory, then, for restoration, would be, I think, to commence at once those things which did not put people decidedly in a worse position if neglected, and require them to choose at once for better or worse. Thus, unless there were local reason to the contrary, I should at once commence daily service at an early hour, because attendance at that office is at all times a question of duty; and being at an unusual hour (I believe an early hour is far the best), it is not like a deliberate refusal. It is meant, as things are, not for all, but for those who can attend.

"The restoration of Communions is far more difficult, unless they also are placed at an early hour, which in itself is far the best, and which in most places is almost an absolute duty in the case of frequent (i.e. weekly) Communion. For on the one hand, that feeling which has been handed down to us of ' never turning the back' upon it, is so valuable, that one would be risking serious injury to persons, and much inward strife and distress, by bringing them to the choice unprepared, and might be breaking down a valuable feeling; on the other hand, we might lead them to diminish preparation, and the aim with which they now approach it. For there is among the uneducated a much deeper reverence often, and unwillingness to approach without full preparation, than among the rich. I should be disposed in this to lay down no rule for myself beforehand, but ascertain who were communicants, learn something of them, and then speak with them.

"With regard to the prayer for the Church Militant, I think it would be best to prepare people's minds beforehand by a sermon on intercessory prayer, which might make part of a course of sermons on prayer (including the daily service), for all that has been said about it might make people think it a mere form or badge, and so they would never come to feel the full beauty of it; whereas I think that if they learnt how Apostolic and exactly prescribed by Holy Scripture it is, none of the better sort of people would object to it.

"For ordinary charitable collections, that way of collecting at the door, leaving God's House, as if wrong to do it in His sight, is really so heathen and irreverent, and the other of offering the alms to Him with prayer for their acceptance,

30

ARCHDEACON MANNING.

at His Altar, is so beautiful and fitting, just what any mind of simple piety would wish, that I can hardly think there would be any difficulty if the subject were adequately explained, high ground taken, and withal arrangements made as to length in collecting and privacy in giving (by some sort of box or bag).

"But a weekly offertory is a high thing. It also is so clearly Scriptural, and such an obvious act of grateful piety, and such a manifest blessing on the week's labours, that I should hope people might be brought, without any great difficulty, to this also. . . . Intending to carry out the rubrics altogether, you would restore catechising in an evening service, which, if pains is taken, may be much more interesting and instructive than a sermon. . . . I hardly think it expedient to consult the Bishop, when the use is clear, because it makes him responsible, which they had often rather not be. I do not think that it is any compromise not doing everything at once, provided that it is your intention to do so, and that you delay only until you have prepared your people's minds for it. . . .

"Yours affectionately,

"Lent, Ember Week. Friday. 1844."

"E. B. P."

The condition of the Church was early considered, though some time passed before much could be taken in hand; and there is a letter from Mr. J. H. Parker, dated July 13, 1844, advising as to a suitable pavement, and the best design for a font-cover.

"Archdeacon Manning" was consulted as to the best way of creating an interest in missionary work, and he wrote from Lavington in July, 1845, about "a plan (short of the offertory) for parochial collections."

"I can think of nothing better than the scheme you suggest of two boxes in the church, one for home and one for abroad, with Lectures.

"If I were to suggest anything further, it would be: (1) Sermons on Missions, etc., without collections; (2) Boxes in private houses, even of the poor; (3) Collector for the S.P.G., and each having a book with a few names. I find this

enlists a strong and active feeling distinct from the principle of giving. Obviously, the thing we have all neglected too much is frequent mention of alms corporal and spiritual, and of missions, etc., in our common preaching and catechising.

"Believe me, my dear sir,

"Yours very truly,

"H. E. MANNING."

With this letter was found a copy in Mr. Carter's writing of one written by himself on this subject, which seems to have occupied him a good deal. It is only dated September 26.

"MY DEAR MR. HOBHOUSE,

"Had I the pleasure of a longer conversation with you, I would have mentioned to you that Archdeacon Manning entirely supports the association system. The plan pursued in his archdeaconry is to get persons to give their names as contributors, then have their offerings collected by some voluntary agents, the sums being delivered to the parish priest, and once at the end of the year the sum-total is brought and laid on the altar at the time of the offertory. He has found this plan well succeed, and has strongly recommended it. He advises, also, an alms-box in the church as well as in private houses, and particularly speaks on the need of sermons on missions, etc.

"I certainly feel that there is great good in the principle of getting persons to give their names and avowedly join a body united for such a purpose. In America, where the mission system is put on the highest ground, the plan in each separate parish is personally to get persons to give in their names as contributors, and then they bring their offering to church, wrapped in paper, signed with their name, and it is collected by the persons appointed.

"But the principle of associating persons by name as contributors seems fully acted upon, the only difference being that we collect out of church, and they in. Much as I prefer the latter method, yet it seems impracticable in our present circumstances in ordinary parishes, and therefore collecting at the houses seems unavoidable. Manning has spoken to me strongly of the good of getting collectors in the parish, both as good for themselves as well as for the