The name of Whately is so well known, and so generally respected, that anything proceeding from his Grace's pen is sure to command attention; and this the more so when his remarks are directed, as on the present occasion, to a subject of such growing interest as the Revision of the Book of Common Prayer.

The observations of the Archbishop on this much-agitated question will be read with very different feelings by the different sections in the Church. There will be those who will find fault with his Grace, as having gone too far in the direction of Revision; there will be many who will regret that he had not gone farther; there will be more who, like ourselves, will acknowledge with thankfulness the great boon conferred upon the Church by this record in favour of Revision from one high in place and influence, while so many similarly situated have either shrunk from giving expression to their opinions, or have thrown their weight into the opposing scale.

*

To ourselves it is not in the least degree surprising that, with the experience he must have of the widely diverse sentiments of the clergy, both in his own† and other dioceses, the Archbishop should not have declared himself more decidedly the advocate for an extensive measure of Liturgical Reform at this present moment. If he has erred at all, he has erred on the side of prudence and discretion, while he has sufficiently shown that his own leanings are in the direction of advance, not retrogression-action, not stagnation-in the formulæ and subordinate accessories of devotion.

Even the Clerical Journal (Sept. 11, 1860) observes: "The Archbishop of Dublin is too sensible a man not to see that alterations might be made in the Prayer-book to considerable advantage."

How strong was the feeling of the Irish Church, both lay and clerical, on the subject, has been shown to demonstration since it was emancipated from State control.

THE SPIRIT OF THE EARLY REFORMERS.

109

He represents the case fairly as it stands between the respective parties,-anxious, apparently, that each should have an impartial hearing, and willing to do justice to both.

"No one," his Grace observes, "of sense and candour can deny that both by the advocates and opponents of Revision much has been advanced that has considerable weight, or at least plausibility." Our own opinion is that the weight is all on one side, the plausibility on the other. The arguments in favour of Revision appear to us irresistible; those per contra to be founded on mere timidity, and a vague misapprehension of the views of the reformers-the reformers, we mean, of the nineteenth, not the sixteenth century, the opinions of which latter it is so much the fashion with the Bishop of Oxford and his adherents to uphold.*

The omne ignotum pro magnifico has probably a little to do with this. For our part, we had rather pin our faith on the wisdom of the Victorian than on that of the Elizabethan era, as in other things, so not least in the matter of regulating the accidents of divine worship.

Speaking, however, of the sixteenth century divines, the Archbishop observes :-" It has been urged that they neither possessed nor claimed infallibility; and that even supposing them to have had the most undoubted confidence that everything they appointed was the very best possible, under the time and circumstances, they would not themselves have thence concluded that it must be equally suitable for all future ages and for all changed circumstances. In fact, the Reformers themselves, were they now living, would probably be among the very first to recommend some modification of what they never designed to fix as unalterable."

* See the Bishop's remarks in Convocation, Vol. I., Letter xi., p. 67.

This argument we hold to be unanswerable as against those the Bishop of Oxford for one-who lay so much stress on maintaining the Prayer-book as it is, on the ground of its being (what in fact it is not) "the work of the Reformers."

The Archbishop proceeds to show, from the analogy of the conduct of the Apostles and their immediate followers, that it was manifestly the Divine intention that each Church should be left at large, in all non-essential points, to enact, alter, and abrogate, from time to time, according to the best of their judgment.

Referring to Convocation, he designates it as "not, perhaps, the best constituted body for making alterations," but which "might conceivably be so remodelled as better to express the voice of the Church." The fact is, the absence of the lay element is an inherent and fatal defect in the constitution of Convocation;* and must for ever stand as a bar against its being accepted in our age as the exponent of the national mind. Add to this, its machinery for all practical purposes is far too complicated and cumbersome. To use a homely but expressive proverb, there are too many cooks. Indeed, they themselves admit as much, by devolving all their real work upon sub-committees, who, after all, are but a very indifferent substitute for a Royal Commission. Their reports, as they themselves cannot but feel, have no manner of authority; and, labour as they may, it must still in a great measure be all labour in vain.

On the other hand, what his Grace observes of the miscellaneous character of the Great Council of the nation, is no doubt perfectly true; but we must bear in mind that not Parliament, but the responsible advisers of the Crown,

*See Vol. I., Letter 1., p. 5, on the Constitution of Convocation.

ARCHBISHOP WHATELY ON NON-DOCTRINAL REVISION. 111

would have the nomination of a Royal Commission. And the report of this Commission, when made, would not require for its sanction the unanimous approval of the miscellaneously-constituted National Assembly, but simply that of the majority, which, we are persuaded, is in the main true to the best interests of religion, and would never willingly confirm with its authority anything tending to impair the efficiency or stability of the Established Church.

Knowing how your space is occupied at this season, I will for to-day close my remarks on the Archbishop's Charge, and, with your permission, will resume the subject in another letter, remaining meanwhile

July 19, 1860.

Yours, &c.,

"INGOLDSBY."

LETTER LXXXIX.

ARCHBISHOP WHATELY ON NON-DOCTRINAL REVISION.

"If we are to consider ourselves so stereotyped as not to be at liberty to alter our forms in any respect, we shall impede the progress of the Church, lose our influence and position, and be chargeable with great dereliction of our duty.”—Chancellor Martin in Convocation, Feb. 16, 1860.

SIR, The Archbishop of Dublin instances a few places in the Prayer-book, out of many which, as he observes, require amendment. For example, he points out how the opening of the Confirmation Service is no longer suitable to the age at which young persons are now usually brought to that rite; adding "that it is inconceivable that the framers of our Service could have designed that a change which has been fully established for 300 years should con

"The Church hath thought good to order that none hereafter shall be confirmed but such as can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments," &c.-Opening of Confirmation Service.

tinue for ever to be publicly announced to the congregation, and explained and vindicated. They would, doubtless, if now living, be among the first to propose that the words, if retained at all, should be retained as a rubric, and not as an address."

The same observation applies to some other parts of the Prayer-book; for instance, the lengthy exhortation to attend the Holy Communion, which is now in practice more commonly, and far more effectively, delivered in the form of a sermon the previous Sunday.

"a

With regard to obsolete words and phrases, both in the Liturgy and Bible version, his Grace very justly remarks, that the same principle which led the Reformers to adopt the practice of having the public service performed in " tongue understanded of the people," would have induced them now to remove whatever is either not understood, or, which is of far more importance, misunderstood.

Of this class is the word "damnation," as used in the administration of the Lord's Supper, which, to our knowledge, has proved a most unhappy and unnecessary stumblingblock to many, simply from their not rightly apprehending its force in that particular place. It is true, as his Grace remarks, that several clergymen in this (as in many other instances) take the law into their own hands,* and read" condemnation." But "surely it is better," he adds, "that these things should be done under competent authority, and by a regular sanction of the Church, than by connivance at a departure from rules not formally abrogated." To how many cases, we ask, does this remark apply? Probably, to some hundred; and if such a devia

* As many do with regard to not reading the Athanasian Creed, or lessons from the Apocrypha, or altering the lesson "appointed for the day." In Rom. xiii. 2, and elsewhere, the word xpîua is wrongly rendered "damnation" in our version.