THE REVIEWER REVIEWED. 153 tation, from its revival in 1855 down to the present hour, say at what period during that interval the prospects of the Revisionists have been brighter than they are now. is true that a dozen fresh pamphlets are not published every month, as they were about this time last year, in support of the measure; for the best of all possible reasons, that there must be an end to all things, and that not one of the scores that have been published has as yet received a satisfactory answer. But can our adversaries name any previous epoch, in their imaginary ebb and flow of this cry for revision, wherein a bishop has been known to step forward from the serried phalanx of his brethren of the lawn, and openly to proclaim himself friendly to almost the extreme section of the movement? A bishop, too, of no ordinary attainments, of high connexions, in the prime of manhood, and full vigour of his intellects?* "When went it by since the great flood," that an Archbishop (Whately) devoted two-thirds of his triennial charge to discussing the entire subject; himself inclining to the view of those who would grapple with all the "difficulties" of the case, and dispose of it at once? Is it on the records of the Church that a third bishop, of known moderation (Philpott of Worcester), added his voice to swell and give harmony to the cry? Surely at the mouth of three such witnesses the word may be considered as established, that the revision question, so far from being on the "ebb," is moving steadily forward towards its accomplishment, and taking deep hold on the minds of men. * Bishop Baring, of Gloucester and Bristol, now of Durham (1878). See Letter XCVш., p. 158. + Perhaps the nearest approximation to the present state of the revision movement is that of the times of Tillotson, Tenison, and Burnet, 1689. The reviewer having thus, as he conceives, demolished our cause in limine, proceeds next to attack ourselves. It is now "Ingoldsby's" turn to feel the lash, and wince and writhe under the critic's pen. "Cædimur, inque vicem præbemus terga flagello." We have overdone it, says our reviewer, by prefixing six mottoes to our volume,* testifying to the superiority of the "ridiculum over the "acri."-We should ourselves have written acre, but let that pass.-The statement itself is untrue. We have not prefixed six mottoes to our volume. The second motto is simply a translation of the first (by particular desire) for the benefit of the ladies, who, we have reason to know, take a lively interest in the subject.† The third has nothing to do with either acre or ridiculum, but is merely a notice to all anti-revisionists, from bishops down to reviewers, that a country parson is watching their words, spoken or written, and will print his comments thereon. The fifth (which the reviewer calls the sixth) is a parody of Virgil, telling a homely truth, not always acceptable to ears polite, that till men could be brought to see the anti-revisionists in their real light, as occupying a very "ridiculous" position, it was vain attempting to get a hearing at all, which happily we have at length got;—and the result is, that truth and common sense (as usual in such cases) are about, however tardily, to prevail. Even the reviewer himself is constrained to admit (what he would not have done three years ago) that our present Prayer-book is imperfect; but then, says he, by your * The mottoes are reduced at the commencement of the present edition, being introduced elsewhere in the body of the work. "Prolia conjugibus loquenda," may be truly said of "Revision." The Clerical Journal, that staunch anti-revisionist paper, observes (Jan. 30, 1862), "We are far from asserting that the Prayer-book is perfect, and THERE ALWAYS WERE DISSENTERS. 155 "come out of the caulThe question is between process of revision, the book will dron little better than it went in. two imperfect liturgies; the present and the revised one." Fallacy No. 3, or, which is much the same thing, assertion without a shadow of proof. It is easy to say, before the trial has been made, that the public would gain nothing by revision. It is as easy to assert the contrary. Meanwhile the onus probandi surely rests with those who refuse to submit their old father to the boiling operation. One thing is quite certain, that the book, whose imperfections our opponents are so enamoured of, cannot grow young again of itself; there must be some friendly Medea to lend a helping hand towards relieving it of the infirmities of age. Then we are told we shall not gain a single Dissenter by our alleged desire for a charitable comprehension :-"There always were Dissenters, and there always will be."* we readily admit that when it can be revised by friendly and authorised hands, a benefit will be conferred upon the Church.” The sometime editor of this journal writes as follows in 1875: "In all essential particulars, if a worshipper in a parish church who died in the 17th century could now find himself in the same place, he might use the same Prayer-book, and attend to the same forms which he then employed. Indeed, for a century previous, since the reign of Elizabeth, the Prayer-book has possessed the same character of immutability. "But this phenomenon will appear the more remarkable when two things are considered: "First, that the compilers of the Book of Common Prayer did not contemplate this finality, as appears from their preface. "Secondly, that almost throughout the whole of these 300 years desires for revision and alteration have been more or less expressed. "Yet the quieta non movere principle has up to this time had power enough to defeat the efforts of those who are given to change; and the same resolute defiance of popular feeling has succeeded in preventing a reform of Convocation, and in keeping down every really important measure for the improvement of Church organisation, both in Cathedral and Parochial life."-Disestablishment and Disendowment, pp. 13-14. *See Lord Ebury's speech of May 8, 1860; p. 20. "It is said all attempts at conciliation will do nothing; you will drive some of your Now I have lived for some fifteen years in the country* "Obscuro positus loco;" enjoying no small portion of that otium sine dignitate which the great Liturgical reformer, Sir Matthew Hale, was thankful to fall back upon at the close of his glorious career. There was one drawback, however, to this otherwise earthly paradise, when I first came into these parts "Nihil est ab omni parte beatum": the highways, and even turnpike roads, were execrable. It was in vain I remonstrated, in vain I threatened; "they always had been so in the memory of the oldest inhabitant;" mine was not the first carriage that had stuck fast in the mud, nor would it be the last. Being, however, put presently into the commission (not for the revision of the Liturgy, but of the peace), I set my shoulder to the wheel, and by dint of a £5 fine or so upon some recalcitrant surveyor, and incurring a little temporary odium amongst my bucolic neighbours, I succeeded in removing the only drawback to my felicity; and we hear no more of lamed horses and shattered vehicles, while we have the satisfaction of paying half the amount of rates for good roads that we before paid for bad. "Quid rides ?-mutato nomine de te (Mr. Reviewer), Fabula narratur." Let the undeniable obstructions in our Church system be taken out of the way-the blocks of stone, the six-inch ruts, attached Churchmen away, and gain nothing from the ranks of Dissent. These are assertions wholly unsupported by practical proof." Edmund Calamy, on the other hand, speaking of Tillotson's idea of comprehension, 1689, observes, "I was one of those that was very well disposed towards falling in with the Establishment, could his scheme have taken place.”– Life of CALAMY, Vol. I., p. 207. London, Bentley, 1829. *Now upwards of thirty, and all I have seen and heard in that long experience tends only to confirm and establish the opinion expressed in the text. THE IMPOTENCE OF CONVOCATION. 157 the dirt, and the clay-and we are mistaken if the ecclesiastical coach will not roll along smoother than it has done for the last two hundred years; ever since, in short, the Act of Uniformity has proved it impossible for religion to be uniform; and the determination to exact conformity by force has multiplied Dissent till it almost equals the members of the Establishment. We are deceived if, in this event, church-rates will not be cheerfully paid, where they are now resisted or grudgingly disbursed;*-in fact, if almost all that we now complain of in the matter of public worship will not become a thing of the past, and charity and goodwill take the place of acrimony and mutual recrimination.t Lastly, asks the reviewer, "Who is to do it? Ingoldsby says a Royal Commission."-And to that view we still adhere, and shall adhere-till the reviewer (which we hold to be impossible) has pointed out a better course.‡ As for Convocation, which the reviewer swears by-when it has succeeded in revising a single Canon, it may prove itself in a condition to attack a single Rubric, and so by degrees proceed to the consideration of the whole Prayer-book. We have said, however, and say it again, the thing is impossible in practice; however plausible in theory. To wait for the decision of Convocation is to wait till "the consummation of all things;" which we are in no disposition to do, whatever may be the amount of patience possessed by our unknown reviewer.§ There can be little doubt that church-rates were lost to the Establishment from the obstinate resistance to all measures of Church reform and comprehension, while such things were possible. + Until the trial has been made, no one is justified in saying this view of the case is Utopian;-"Exitus acta probat." But everything depends upon the constitution of such Commission. It is absurd to expect grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles. § "The Reformation had never been brought about, had it been left to a |