ne of the most statesmanlike of
prelates, at first endeavoured to detach Temple and Jowett from their
associates; but, though Temple was broken down with a load of care,
and especially by the fact that he had upon his shoulders the school at
Rugby, whose patrons had become alarmed at his connection with the book,
he showed a most refreshing courage and manliness. A passage from his
letters to the Bishop of London runs as follows: "With regard to my own
conduct I can only say that nothing on earth will induce me to do what
you propose. I do not judge for others, but in me it would be base and
untrue." On another occasion Dr. Temple, when pressed in the interest
of the institution of learning under his care to detach himself from his
associates in writing the book, declared to a meeting of the masters
of the school that, if any statements were made to the effect that he
disapproved of the other writers in the volume, he should probably find
it his duty to contradict them. Another of these letters to the Bishop
of London contains sundry passages of great force. One is as follows:
"Many years ago you urged us from the university pulpit to undertake the
critical study of the Bible. You said that it was a dangerous study, but
indispensable. You described its difficulties, and those who listened
must have felt a confidence (as I assuredly did, for I was there) that
if they took your advice and entered on the task, you, at any rate,
would never join in treating them unjustly if their study had brought
with it the difficulties you described. Such a study, so full of
difficulties, imperatively demands freedom for its condition. To tell a
man to study, and yet bid him, under heavy penalties, come to the same
conclusions with those who have not studied, is to mock him. If the
conclusions are prescribed, the study is precluded." And again, what,
as coming from a man who has since held two of the most important
bishoprics in the English Church, is of great importance: "What can be a
grosser superstition than the theory of literal inspiration? But because
that has a regular footing it is to be treated as a good man's mistake,
while the courage to speak the truth about the first chapter of Genesis
is a wanton piece of wickedness."

The storm howled on. In the Convocation of Canterbury it was especially
violent. In the Lower House Archdeacon Denison insisted on the greatest
severity, as he said, "for the sake of the young who are tainted