little indeed.  But it is oftentimes a sad grief to me that I cannot accept some of the reasonings and opinions of dear Mr. Keble in his book on “Eucharistic Adoration.”  I know that I have no right to expect to see things as such a man saw them:  that most probably the instinctive power of discerning truth—­the reward of a holy life from early childhood—­guided him where men without such power feel all astray.  But yet, there is something about the book which may be quite right and true, but does not to me quite savour of the healthy sound theology of the Church of England; the fragrance is rather that of an exotic plant; here and there I mean—­though I feel angry with myself for daring to think this, and to say it to you, who can understand him.

’November 27th.—­I leave this as I wrote it, though now I know from our mails, which have come to us, that you are Bishop of Salisbury, not of Winchester.  I hardly stop to think whether it is Winchester or Salisbury, so great is my thankfulness and joy at the report being substantially true.  Though it did seem that Winchester was a natural sphere for you, I can’t help feeling that at Salisbury you can do (D.V.) what perhaps scarcely any one else could do.  And now I rejoice that you have had the opportunity of speaking with no uncertain sound in your “Bampton Lectures.”  Anyone can tell what the Bishop of Salisbury holds on the great questions of Church Doctrine and Church Government.  The diocese knows already its Bishop, not only by many former but by his latest book.  Surely you will have the confidence of all Churchmen, and be blessed to do a great work for the glory of God and the edification of the Church.

’And now, my dear Bishop of Salisbury, you will excuse my writing on so freely, too freely I fear.  I do like to think of you in that most perfect of Cathedrals.  I hope and trust that you will have ere long, right good fellow-workers in Exeter, Winton, and Bath and Wells.

’But in the colonies you have a congeries of men from all countries, and with every variety of creed, jumbled up together, with nothing whatever to hold them together—­no reverence—­no thoughts of the old parish church, &c.  They are restless, worldly people to a great extent, thinking of getting on, making money.  To such men the very idea of the Church as a Divine Institution, the mystical Body of the Lord, on which all graces are bestowed, and through whose ministrations men are trained in holiness and truth, is wholly unknown.  The personal religion of many a man is sincere; his position and duty as a Churchman he has never thought about.  I wish the clergy would master that part, at all events, of your Lectures which deals with this great fundamental point, and then, as they have opportunity, teach it to their people.  And by-and-by, through the collective life of the Church in its synods, &c., many will come to see it, we may hope.