shows how urgently a more elastic system is required for the edification of the lower classes, and how easily it might be attained. Without wholly approving of Dr. Robinson's suggestions, we feel that they demonstrate at least the feasibility of liturgical reform; and they would prove very valuable, should ever such a Commission be issued as that which Lord Ebury has asked for.

Still more valuable perhaps, though formidable from their multiplicity to ordinary readers, are the suggestions of the Rev. C. H. Davis, a veteran writer on the subject, and one who rivals or excels Mr. Fisher himself in the amount of learning which he has accumulated upon it. Like Dr. Robinson, Mr. Davis seems to have no strong doctrinal bias on the matter; and he is able therefore to urge with the better effect on the considerations of High Churchinen the arguments which his wide acquaintance with precedents enables him to supply.

We have now passed briefly in review the principal works which have appeared on this side of the question, or such a selection from them at least as seems to us fairly to represent the convictions and desires of the various sections of revisionists. And now the question recurs. Are these remonstrances to be uttered in vain? are they still to be met on the part of the Church authorities with a stern refusal or with contemptuous indifference? The reception which the subject has recently encountered, both in the House of Lords and from the clergy in general, is in truth sufficiently discouraging; and yet not so much so as it seems at first sight. Nothing else can well be looked for from the House of Lords, until the bishops are induced to give the matter a fair consideration; but that this will be the result before long is an expectation based on the necessity of the case, as well as on a just estimate of the character of the episcopal body. The bishops are not men to shut their eyes wilfully on the claims of justice. Meanwhile it cannot be a matter of wonder that they should shrink from the responsibility they are invited to assume, and loudly re-echo the opinion which a majority of the clergy have already expressed, that any at'tempt at the present time to alter the Book of Common Prayer 'would be attended with great danger to the peace and unity of the Church.'

The words just quoted form the declaration which has recently obtained the signature of nearly 10,000 clergymen; a majority perhaps (though this is hardly certain) of the ordained ministers of the United Church of England and Ireland. But, in any case, we agree with Lord Ebury in thinking that this declaration will not bear the weight which his most zealous

opponents have endeavoured to lay upon it. Every one knows that in so conservative a body as the clergy are, any change, or rumour of change, however salutary, will be received at first with suspicion and dread. Yet even amongst this highly conservative body, it is notorious that nothing like 10,000 would have joined in signing the declaration we have quoted, had it not been couched in studiously cautious and moderate terms. Large no doubt as is the High Church party in its various gradations of opinion, all opposed more or less to any abatement of sacerdotal and sacramental pretensions, and numerous as are those who without any deep convictions either way simply cling to things as they are, there are many (to our certain knowledge) among the subscribers, and some even (we more than suspect) among the promoters of the declaration, who readily confess that the Prayer-book needs reform, and who would thankfully see such a reform effected, but who doubt nevertheless whether the time be come, and whether the persons to do the work can be found;. so that they apprehend worse evils than at present exist, from the opening of a question which has been so long closed. To these it would be a welcome result, could moderate and comprehensive measures be made practicable, and rendered acceptable to the Church; and every endeavour to excite an interest in the subject, and clear away the difficulties which surround it, will have their heartiest concurrence.

Of these difficulties the greatest and most formidable is of course the danger of narrowing the basis of the Church on one side, while endeavouring to extend it on the other. That such a result would be a most disastrous one, no reasonable man can doubt. But is it possible to effect the contemplated good, without this countervailing evil? Is it possible to concede such claims as those we have been speaking of, and to remove the barriers which now exclude so many thousands of conscientious nonconformists, without at the same time alienating an equally large, perhaps a larger, number of loyal members of the Church, laymen no less than clergymen, whose acceptance of its formularies as consistent with Catholic truth, depends very materially on some of the very expressions which are most obnoxious to the revisionists?

To this question many will answer at once, It is not possible. But it may be allowed to those who are sanguine enough to entertain a different hope, to give their reasons for their unaltered convictions. Believing as they do that the very existence of the National Church depends upon timely concessions in this matter; believing, moreover, that elasticity of comprehensiveness is a necessary element of Catholic doctrine; and that

the progress of the ages, while revealing new secrets in the physical and moral world, manifests itself chiefly in the province of theology by disclosing more and more the breadth and simplicity of the great principles of truth-they cannot but believe also, that, if really approached in a spirit of wisdom and mutual forbearance, the question is one which admits of a satisfactory adjustment.

Let us examine then with this view the principal points which are at issue with regard to the Liturgy. It will not be difficult to fix upon them.

It is indeed a favourite habit of the advocates of the status quo, to represent the demands of the revisionists as vague and discordant; and on this account, as well as others, unworthy of serious attention. If it be meant by this that various independent minds, working freely and independently, have not pursued quite the same line of thought, or arrived at precisely the same conclusions, there is truth, no doubt, in the charge. But surely it is very unreasonable to point to this fact, as bringing discredit on the cause. Nay more, it is highly unadvisable also to insist upon a more complete agreement between its supporters, before their case is thought worthy of consideration. Such an agreement could only be brought about by an organised combination-a result which can hardly be desired either for the peace of the Church, or for the interests of truth. As it is, each of the remonstrants now speaks his own convictions only: and all that can fairly be expected under such circumstances, in token that the cause deserves respectful attention, is that there should be found a general congruity and consistency in the representations and demands thus separately expressed.

Now in this respect the cause of the revisionists can with no good reason be stigmatised as vague and inconsistent. They write and speak as men who fully know their own minds; and, all unconcerted for the most part as the movement has hitherto been, there is a remarkable concurrence among those who have taken part in it. It is true that in this as in most other things, there is a less and a more, -some who desire considerable changes, and some who would be content with a few,-but to a certain point all advance alike; and beyond that point it is not so much divergence that divides them, as a greater or less tendency to proceed further. That we may more thoroughly estimate the apprehended difficulties of revision, let us at once consider the case of its more advanced supporters, those who are represented as advocating extreme views. The points of the

VOL. CXIII. NO. CCXXIX.

C

Liturgy, which they fix upon as open to objection, are substantially five.

1. The form of words used in the Ordination of Priests.

2. The absolution contained in the Office for Visitation of the Sick.

3. The use of the Athanasian Creed in Public Worship. 4. Some phrases in the Burial Service.

5. The structure and language of the Baptismal Services, with the corresponding parts of the Catechism and of the Order for Confirmation.

Some of these points would be urged with greater vehemence by some of the remonstrants, others by others. But these are unmistakably the points where men feel their consciences offended or perplexed; these are the points on which a very large proportion of the clergy (consciously or not) are at variance with the plain grammatical meaning of the formularies in which they minister: these are the points which the great body of doctrinal Dissenters would cite in justification of their nonconformity: these are the points (we believe that we may add) in which an immense majority of the lay members of the Church, whether desiring revision or not, would unhesitatingly repudiate the views which the Prayer-book encourages.

Now it is not our intention to enter upon a theological discussion of the points in question, which would be a proceeding foreign to our usual habit. Without departing from the proper province of a lay journal, we may still be permitted to ask, what we proposed to ourselves just now, whether some change or licence in all these five points might not be admitted without alienating or disgusting that large element which it is as desirable to retain within the National Church as it is to embrace those others who are now excluded? The difficulty, if we understand it aright, is this; that any distinct abandonment of what are technically called Church principles,' even the deliberate omission of them in the Church formularies, would be considered by a large number of estimable men, both lay and clerical, such treason against what they hold to be emphatically Catholic truth, that secession from the Anglican Communion would in their opinion become a duty.

1. In the Ordination Service that which is especially complained of, and as most men will think not without abundant reason, is the language put into the mouth of the bishop, when he ordains a priest. Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed ' unto thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost 'forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain,

they are retained.' That these words, identical (but for some amplification) with the Saviour's authoritative benediction of the apostles after the resurrection*, should be arrogated by mortal man on any occasion however solemn, does indeed seem monstrous to ordinary apprehensions, and would go beyond the pretensions (one should think) of those who have the loftiest views of priestly dignity and apostolical succession. Nothing, in our opinion, but the positive permission or command of Christ himself would justify their use. Still, if only the terms of clerical subscription were so altered as to relieve the clergy from seeming to approve of all and everything contained in the Prayer-book, this is a matter perhaps which might be left wholly to the consideration of the bishops. It concerns them chiefly. Let them decide it. If they really think such language becoming and right—if by any interpretation they have been used to give to the words, they can justify their retention, and are content to employ them-it may be the wiser course to let this matter alone, and not to alarm the susceptibilities of that portion of the Church who think most reverently of the grace of ordination. And yet let it be remembered what a prolific source of scandal these words have proved, and will always prove to be so long as they continue in the Ordinal. Many are those whom they have forced into unwilling nonconformity, and who else would have sought orders at the hands of the bishops. They are a source of deep distress too to some excellent clergymen of the Church, and may occasion great practical difficulty to others besides bishops, seeing that presbyters are associated with the latter in the act of ordination, and virtually involved with them therefore in responsibility for the language then employed.† They fall strangely and harshly on the ear of many a young minister, who is devoting himself with humility and simple faith to the work of the Gospel: while in others of a different stamp they excite or encourage feelings of superstitious_arrogance, quite foreign to the better judgment of sound and moderate High Churchmen, and quite unessential (to say the least) to the principles of the ancient Church, the Church of the Fathers. For consider the origin of this formula. It is well known, and universally acknowledged, that the words in question were not introduced into the Ordinal till the twelfth or at least the eleventh century,-a period which we suppose is allowed by all, who are not essentially Romanists in doctrine, to have been one of peculiar darkness and superstition, and to

* John, xx. 22, 23.

† See Canon Wodehouse's Letter, p. 6.