This is well as far as it goes; but it is far from being all that comes rightly under the head of "verbal revision." What of the Calendar of Lessons, for daily and Sunday use? What of the Apocrypha? What of a better arrangement of the Psalms? What of an authorised hymnal? What of the introductory sentences, and the "dearly beloved ?" The Marriage Service, and Commination? What of the dresses and attitudes of the officiating clergy? The altars, candles, stoles, copes, fringes, and the like? None of these, I conceive, belong to the class of doctrinal alterations ; and yet are they not greatly needed ?-are they not "worth the cost" of the pen, ink, and paper, postage-stamps, and printing, which a dozen well-selected Commissioners would consume in as many months, while engaged in the task of deliberating, and afterwards advising the Crown and Parliament (yes, and Convocation too, if it will take advice), on the best mode of arranging these matters for the greater comfort, peace, and edification of the Church?

Do not all these things tend more or less to the glory of God? And should we shrink from "the cost of the

Rev. F. C. Massingberd, published in the Lincolnshire Chronicle of January 27, 1860:

"Few, I suppose, would assert that our Prayer-book, admirable as it is in itself, and strong in the associations and affections of the people, will not admit of adaptation to altered circumstances; and there might be an almost general agreement as to the desirableness of modifying or explaining some of its Rubrics, of revising the Table of Lessons, and of providing some additional Occasional Services, as well as a shorter Form of Prayer for the weekdays."

At a meeting of Convocation in February, 1862, the Dean of Norwich put a notice on the paper for "a thorough Revision of the Calendar." This has now been done, in what is called the "New Lectionary;" which, however, though a decided improvement on the old one, is still far from being perfect, and admits of—nay, demands—further Revision. (1878.)

+"A Church Missionary in India has sanctioned that great improvement in the Psalter, the threefold division of the Psalms, in the revised Liturgy which he is preparing." (Savile, p. 24.)

A DOCTRINAL REVISION.

99

offering, whether it present itself in the shape of money, time, labour, or whatever else is intended by the very ambiguous expression made use of by his Grace ?*

But "doctrinal revision" is a far more serious affair; for, says the Archbishop, with the concurrence of his Right Reverend brethren, "it would throw the whole Church into confusion."

Lord Ebury, on the other hand, affirms (and I fear public opinion supports his lordship in the remark) that the Church is in that happy state already;† so we might spare ourselves the trouble of arguing that matter with his Grace and his Right Reverend supporters.

But granting that a doctrinal revision should increase this "confusion,"-instead of allaying it, as many think it would; even so his Grace's position is hardly tenable, if the question lies (as alleged by the Revisionists) between TRUTH and ERROR, between the inventions of man and the undoubted Word of God. In such a case, "fiat justitia ruat cœlum" is a sound and noble maxim. And it can hardly be otherwise than desirable, if merely for the sake of peace, that a competent Commission of honest men be appointed to decide the point one way or the other; instead of leaving the clergy -yes, and the bishops too (to tell their lordships what is said of them by those that are without)-under the imputation of knowingly retaining in the Prayer-book certain

Greater liberty in the use of the Calendar alone, and less stringency about some of the other forms in the Book of Common Prayer, would be an inestimable boon to the Church, and "the cost" of granting such liberty the merest trifle.

+ See motto to Letter XXXVII., Vol. I., p. 238. Surely "the settled decision and resolute practice of millions to have nothing to do with the Prayerbook as it is," can hardly be a less evil than any that might ensue from the attempt to amend such a state of things. (See Times of May 7, 1858.)-The "Reformed Episcopal Church" has taken the law into its own hands, and boasts to have six bishops, one hundred clergy, and communicants by thousands! (See Correspondence with "Bishop Gregg," 1878.)

expressions not resting upon sufficient warrant of Scripture, and which, therefore, " ought not to be required of any one as a matter of faith." And yet we, the existing clergy, and those who will follow us, for generations yet unborn, according to his Grace's view of the case, are (or will be) called upon to give an "unfeigned assent and consent" to each and all of these (to say the least of it, disputed) points.*

What these points are,-what are the few terms or phrases in the Prayer-book, thus continually brought under discussion-it is needless for me to particularise. They have been abundantly set forth by others, and have been already noticed in these Letters. But nowhere, perhaps, have they been so concisely exhibited as in a late tract by the Rev. D. Mountfield, of Oxon near Shrewsbury,† which I am glad to take this opportunity of noticing with approval.

Under this head, all that Lord Ebury at present asks for, is a Commission to inquire whether these matters are rightly

* The Clerical Journal of Sept. 12, 1862, in a notice of the Bishop of Worcester's Primary Charge, observes, "Of course the Bishop of Worcester (Philpott) is opposed to the Bill for relieving persons in holy orders from the necessity of declaring their assent and consent to the Book of Common Prayer. He well puts the real state of the case when he says, 'that the effect of the proposed law would have been to sanction by the authority of Parliament a distinction between the outward public use of the Prayer-book by the beneficed clergy, and their private opinions and belief respecting it;' and that 'it would have gone to weaken the authority of the Prayer-book as a test and standard of doctrine, and to destroy the confidence of the people that the teaching of their appointed ministers would be in hearty and conscientious agreement with the Liturgy they use.' One would have expected a Cambridge senior wrangler to recognise the wide distinction between that which may be distinctly proved from Scripture, and that upon which the best men have differed from the days of Cranmer to our own, and will differ to the end of time as long as things remain in statu quo.

+ Letters on the Revision of the Canons and Liturgy of the Church of England, by Rev. D. Mountfield, now Rector of Newport, Salop. (Partridge, 1860.) See also "Assent and Consent," by an Irish Clergyman. (Seeley, 1860.)—The Association for Promoting a Revision of the Prayer-book has put forth an exhaustive paper containing the views of that body upon these controverted points.

LORD LYTTELTON ON REVISION.

101

set forth in the Book or no; and to report accordingly to the Parliament and the country. It is impossible but that such report should clear away some of "the mists" which (to use the Bishop of Oxford's curious metaphor) "tarnish" and deface the volume, and impair its efficiency as the authorised manual of devotion for the universal British Church.

For the Archbishop, in conclusion, we are convinced that if, instead of further resisting this reasonable and repeated demand (which, we honestly tell his Grace and his Right Reverend brethren, will never be thus silenced), he had given it his willing support, he would have done more to promote peace and quiet in the Church than it will ever be in his power to effect by any other process. A Churchman of his conciliatory temper at the head of a Commission of Inquiry, such as that moved for by Lord Ebury, would have been of inestimable value as a directing and presiding spirit, and his name would have gone down to posterity as much honoured for the exercise of moral courage, as it is now for the exhibition of every other Christian grace.*

I remain, yours obediently,

May 31, 1860.

"INGOLDSBY."

LETTER LXXXVII.

LORD LYTTELTON ON THE REVISION OF THE LITURGY.

"Nil agit exemplum, litem quod lite resolvit."-HOR. Sat. ii. 3, 103. "By such expedients truth can ne'er be tried,

They but perplex the question, not decide."-FRANCIS.

SIR, The Archbishop having left the question of Revision more unsettled than he found it, the next peer who

His Grace's day is past and gone. It remains to be seen whether any of his successors will profit by the rare opportunity afforded them of signalising their Primacy by a work worthy of the most enlightened of their predecessors.

rose to address their lordships was Lord Lyttelton,* who had occupied a conspicuous place in the centre of the house during the speeches of Lord Ebury and the Most Reverend Prelate; to both of which he had given marked attention, as if determined to make himself thoroughly master of the subject. We hold this for a good sign. For though the noble lord did not exactly support Lord Ebury, yet neither did he oppose him-and it was pretty clear which way his own inclination lay.

There is an honesty of purpose, an openness of countenance, and a good-natured cheerfulness of manner about Lord Lyttelton that are irresistible; and we feel persuaded that had he met the motion before the House by an amendment, in the way of compromise, instead of joining the bishops in their direct negative, he would have carried a large portion of the peers, if not a majority, with him. Nor are we sure that the noble mover himself would have been otherwise than glad of the opportunity to accept such a mode of escape from the Sisyphian labour under which he has been toiling for the last three years; and which may, for aught we see to the contrary, continue to engage him for at least three years longer.†

Lord Lyttelton, however, for some reason or other, preferred to signify his "concurrence in the recommendation of the Most Reverend Primate;" that is to say, he preferred leaving the matter for further agitation, and all the evil which is sure to attend upon a long delayed remedy of an admitted grievance. Admitted, we say advisedly, not only by the noble lord himself, but also by the Primate,

This unfortunate nobleman committed suicide while in a low state of mind, by throwing himself over a staircase, in London, April 18, 1876, ætat. 59. See Vol. I., Letter LIX., p. 359.

+ This prophecy was, alas! too truly fulfilled, only for three substituting twenty () (November, 1878.)