THE DOCTRINE OF FINALITY.

103

and not denied even by the redoubtable "Ten Thousand," whose "retreat" is already foreshadowed in Lord Ebury's unanswerable address.*

The best report of Lord Lyttelton's speech, that we have seen, is supplied in the Guardian. Pity that it was not accompanied by an equally faithful report of that of Lord Ebury, to enable the readers of that organ of the High Church party to profit by an opportunity (which they rarely enjoy through that channel) of fairly hearing both sides of the question.

As in his correspondence with Lord Ebury (which we noticed in the autumn of last yeart), so in his present speech, Lord Lyttelton appears anxious that it should be understood that "he does not altogether differ" from the noble leader of the Revision movement. Lord Lyttelton, like the valiant Lord John, "cannot hold the doctrine of finality, simply and abstractedly." Who, but the Bishop of Oxford, does?-He conceives, moreover, "that the Church of England ought not to be deprived of the liberty, that properly belongs to her, of adjusting from time to time her standards and formularies, being matters of human origin and composition."

And then, as to "the time"-"this present time!"Our readers will not be surprised to hear that Lord Lyttelton "thinks that it is no great arrogance on behalf of the Churchmen of this day to believe that they are as well qualified to deal with such subjects as those of the times, whether troubled, apathetic, or corrupt, of the Reformation, the Hampton Court Conference, or the Savoy Conference." Who, but the Bishop of Oxford, ever doubted

this?

* See Lord Ebury's Speech of May 8, 1860 (Hatchard, Piccadilly), p. 9. See Vol. I., Letter LIX., p. 358.

Earl Russell, the keenest Reformer of his day; died 1878.

So far so good. Here, however, comes in that unlucky monosyllable to which the Bishop of St. David's is so partial, and which is ever crossing the path of all wholesome legislation.

That two such eminent Cambridge men, both of them Senior Optimes, should have agreed to fix their affections on anything so insignificant, is quite surprising. Yet, so it is. Accordingly, just as we are pressing forward to congratulate Lord Lyttelton on having emancipated himself from the serfdom of fashion, in comes the miserable little BUT, Tantalus-wise, to dash the cup of joy from our lips. His lordship is a scholar, and remembers how the runaway slave was nicknamed in ridicule Homo Trium Literarum, from having the letters F. U. R. branded on his cheek. Were we now living in those Laudian days which some of the opponents of Revision are seeking to restore, we could almost wish to see a little pleasant tyranny exercised on the noble lord's smiling countenance, and that of the more solemn Prelate, (his ally in this matter,) if it were but to act in terrorem against all future legislators, and make them beware of following these two obstructives in this their wicked error of tacking B. U. T. to all their arguments.†

I shall not inflict on your readers the painful task of pursuing the diminutive imp through all its artful dodges. Depend upon it, and take it for an infallible rule, wherever a man first admits a principle, and then qualifies his admission with a BUT, there is something behind which is

* See Vol. I., Letters xxvI., pp. 179, 180; xxxvII., p. 241.

The Bishop of Chester (Graham) is one of these trium literarum homines," opposing everything, and proposing nothing." He was known in his diocese by the unctuous title of "But-ter in a lordly dish," from his inveterate habit of suggesting doubts and difficulties on every occasion, though couched in the blandest and most oily phraseology.

not intended to be seen, and it is vain to look for it. It would be "et oleum et operam perdere ; " neither of which have we any inclination to spend on the present occasion. - Convocation" is one of the "difficulties in the way,

of course. The "doctrinal" part of the subject is another, of course. The "interference of Parliament" another, of course. Just as if these three buts had never existed before. -Just as if the five previous Revisions of the Liturgy had never had to encounter a Convocation, a Parliament, or doctrinal alterations !-Why, revision without doctrine would be like poor Kate's "mustard without beef." The thing, Lord Lyttelton well knows, is impossible, or next to it; and so his BUT here is a simple shelving of the subject for another two hundred years-a by no means impossible result under your Lyttelton class of legislators!

But why shrink from an inquiry into the "doctrine of the Prayer-book? If it is in unison with the Bible and the Articles, who wishes to disturb it? If not, who, I should like to ask, wishes to retain it? Does the noble lord ?-We hope, and believe not.*

Has he, then, misgivings as to the tribunal before which the truth would have to be tried? Surely his own words contradict such an hypothesis. He is "confident," and bids us to be so, (a bidding which, for our own parts, we never required,) "in the protection of Providence and the strength of the Church."-Of what then is he afraid? If these two were sufficient for our security in 1661, why not in 1861? Have two hundred years of the Church's exclusiveness so

* A Conference, numerously attended, was held at No. 17, Buckingham Street, Adelphi, on June 5, 1873, for the purpose of considering whether it would not be possible to unite Evangelical Churchmen and Nonconformists, in procuring such an alteration in the Formularies of the Church of England as would bring them in thorough harmony with the Articles of Religion and the great doctrines of the Protestant Reformation; Lord Ebury presiding.

weakened her hold upon the affections of the people that she dare no longer trust herself in the hands of the National Assembly ?*

Oh, but there are Roman Catholics, Quakers, "Jews, Infidels, and" (not Turks, but) certainly "heretics" in the present Parliament !-Well, and what if there are? Do they make up the majority of the representatives of the people, or anything like it? Are they as one to three of the members of the Church in the House of Commons? Or if they are in a stronger proportion, how is that? How comes it that the constituency of the nation has not sent a decided and preponderating number of Churchmen to represent the national mind ? + Is not this to confirm the position of the Revisionists, who maintain that the majority of the nation, or at least a large section of it, is not satisfied with the Prayerbook as it stands; and therefore call for a Commission of Inquiry into its shortcomings?

But, after all, Lord Lyttelton knows perfectly well that Parliament would not be called upon to interfere; and what is more, that the members of that body would little thank any one who would put them to a task for which they have small inclination, perhaps still smaller qualification. All that it would be called upon to do would be to ratify the Commissioners' report ;-supposing always that report to be founded on truth, and not on the attempt of any one "party" to take advantage of another. Give us, therefore,

* If Parliament was too liberal to entertain this serious question in 1862-3, is it likely to be less so as time advances? Dr. Sherlock, in his "Test Act Vindicated" (1718), observes, that "in the year 1676 the Nonconformists of all sorts, including Papists, were in proportion to the members of the Church of England as one to twenty." (Life of Calamy, vol. i., p. 80.) Why are the proportions so different now?

+ The long-continued and nearly-balanced struggle on the Burial question shows the strength of the Church feeling still prevailing in the Lower House of legislation, though we fear it is somewhat on the wane. (1878.)

BIT-BY-BIT LEGISLATION.

*

107

but a well-selected and honest Commission, and all the BUTS of the noble lord burst into empty air like so many soapbubbles.

And as for Convocation-perhaps after it has fleshed itself with revising one canon,t it will not be so fastidious about attacking one rubric ;-say that of the "dresses of the minister and ornaments of the Church, which were in use in the reign of King Edward the Sixth."

It is a slow process, to be sure,-one canon in ten years; one rubric, possibly, in ten years more. Lord Lyttelton may be satisfied with such bit-by-bit legislation; we confess it does not satisfy us; and we had much rather proceed per saltum, as we have a faint remembrance his lordship did some twenty years ago to his M.A. degree at our common university.

June 15, 1860.

I am, yours, &c.,

"INGOLDSBY."

LETTER LXXXVIII.

ARCHBISHOP WHATELY A REVISIONIST.

"Reverend and wise, whose comprehensive view
The past, the present, and the future knew."-POPE.

SIR, What I have to-day to submit to your notice is a comment upon the Archbishop of Dublin's recent charge to his clergy, now published in the form of a pamphlet, and likely to be widely circulated.

*Not such as the Rubrical Commission of 1867-70, of which we have more than once had occasion to speak in terms otherwise than commendatory. †The 29th Canon, after having been somewhat ostentatiously "repealed" by the Convocation of Canterbury in 1860, still remains (as much as ever it was) the law of the Church and nation, that is to say, observed by those who like, and disregarded by as many-probably by more! See Letter CVIII.