measure a form of words already used in the course of the day. Surely this is the most harmless of all the recommendations of this Bill,-yet it has not escaped censure.

§ 6. Neither has this-whereby permission is given, “when more than one Psalm is appointed to be read, to omit one or more, but not all." It sometimes happens that most incongruous Psalms are thrown together by the present arrangement; a Psalm, for instance, of thanksgiving, followed by a penitential one; or vice versâ. In the American Prayer-book a selection is made by which this incongruity is avoided, and shorter portions offered for occasional use. A variation of the Psalms for a third Service (in some churches) is absolutely required.*

§ 7, Gives permission to omit part or parts of the Lesson of the day. It is needless to observe that this is already constantly done; all that is here asked is legal sanction for the practice. The existing Calendar gives frequent instances of such omission, and would be greatly improved by a further extension of the principle. †

§ 8, Sanctions the substitution of the Canonical Scripture in place of the Apocrypha, but does not compel it. Nothing in this Schedule is compulsory; and surely here, if anywhere, an option might be fairly conceded.

§ 9. Until the entire Calendar is revised by authority, some such permission as this is highly desirable on occasionsay, for example, at harvest homes, club feasts, Church openings, and the like. The concluding provision, however, that information thereof must be sent to the Ordinary,‡

*This has been done by a careful re-arrangement of the Psalter, with this object in view, by the Prayer-book Revision Association, 17, Buckingham Street. (1878.)

The "New Lectionary" has all but removed this objection to the old Calendar of Lessons; but more liberty might still be granted. (1878.) See last Letter, p. 324-5.

SENDING NOTICE TO THE ORDINARY."

329

would be found in practice so utterly inoperative and vexatious, and borders so closely on the absurd, that we cannot conceive it will be ever adopted by the Legislature.

§ 12, Has been subjected to what Bishop Thirlwall calls coarse insinuation and misplaced ridicule;" but it is by no means likely that the permission, if granted, would be abused, and if not, it would frequently be of service in calling attention to passing events, eminently deserving of present and earnest prayer. The American war now raging, which the Bishop of Oxford in vain attempted to introduce as the subject of prayer (even by a pause in the service), is a case in point, and similar ones are continually arising.

§ 13. The principle of Special Services has already received the sanction of Convocation. We again, however, protest against the annexed condition of sending notice to the Ordinary. With every respect for the bishops in general, we cannot for a moment believe they would wish to be burdened with such a petty power of interfering with the liberty of the clergy; and if they did, sure we are that the strong would, as usual, neglect to comply with so peddling and meddling a requirement.

14. It is certain that the number of Communicants is materially affected by the length of the previous service. It would seem, therefore, highly desirable that, where the service cannot be conveniently divided, some liberty of omission (like that suggested in this section) should be sanctioned, especially about Easter-tide.

§ 15. A large portion of the Prayer-book is occupied by whole chapters relating to our Lord's Passion, accessible now-a-days to every one in their New Testaments and "Church Services." If selected portions of fifteen or twenty verses were appointed to be read on the days referred to in this section, instead of entire chapters, the several events of the holy week might be exhibited in orderly succession, and

the confusion arising from the present repetition be avoided, while the events themselves would be made more impressive on the congregation by their appropriateness to the day. Incidentally an advantage would accrue by the saving of considerable space (in this Hand-book of devotion), which might be profitably applied to the introduction of Special Services, Occasional Prayers and Thanksgivings, an authorised Hymnal, Prayers for Domestic Use, and the like.

§ 16. Of the Three Exhortations, it is notorious that in practice only part of the first is commonly read. The second is rarely or never used at all, a hortatory sermon being found in these days better adapted for the purpose. With regard to the third, it contains much that is ill-suited to those who have already decided on offering themselves as communicants, while the expression" eating and drinking their own damnation " is stronger than is warranted by the original text, and often, it is to be feared, defeats its own end.

§ 17. The mode of distributing the elements continually varies according to the fancy of the minister and the nature of the congregation. This section is therefore only sanctioning by law what is now done without law. Perhaps the most convenient and solemn mode of administering the bread and wine, where there are several recipients, is, to address the former part of the sentence in the plural to the collected rail, the latter ("Take, &c.") in the singular to each individual in his turn.*

§ 18. Unless the baptismal difficulty is to remain a perpetual bar to a wider comprehension within the Church, I know of no better way than that here suggested for meeting the feelings of all parties. They who hold the extremest

And here it may be noted that the Ritualistic practice of receiving the bread in crossed palms is in distinct violation of the expression "Take, eat," and without any authority whatever from Scripture.

AGREEING TO DIFFER.

331

views of the rite might thus continue to use the entire service as it now stands; while they who cannot conscientiously hold such views (and they are notoriously a large number) would not be debarred from Church membership, but might meet on the common ground of "agreeing to differ." It is clear some such middle course will one day have to be adopted, as the best way of reconciling the legal with the theoretical interpretation of this deep and intricate subject. The only alternative

appears to be war to the knife, to the great scandal of religion, and serious detriment of the Church.

§ 19. In the Solemnization of Matrimony there is not one clergyman in a hundred who does not already take some liberties with the service. Nowhere is the permission to omit more needed than here.

§§ 20, 21. The expediency of these suggestions seems hardly to require a comment. The Commination-like the Exhortation at the beginning of Morning and Evening Prayer, at Confirmation, and before the Communion, the Homily at Matrimony, and the Address to Godfathers and Godmothers at Baptism, is part of the system of an age when preaching and expounding Scripture, and teaching in Sunday-schools, were things comparatively rare. They suppose a degree of ignorance of the first elements of religion which would now-adays discredit the veriest tyro in the Christian faith.

I have thus brought to an end, as briefly as was consistent with the necessity of the case, the observations which it occurs to me to make on this much-canvassed Bill. I see in it nothing but good intention, and what I believe would prove good if brought into action. That others hold an opposite opinion, I am well aware; but as nothing serious has as yet been offered in the way of refutation, I do not despair of seeing some such measure one day forming part and parcel of the law of the land. I am, yours, &c.,

March 20, 1862.

"INGOLDSBY."

LETTER CXXVI.

LORD EBURY AND THE ACT OF UNIFORMITY, MAY 27, 1862.

"Unam minimamque relinque:

De multis mimimam posco, clamavit, et unam.”—OVID. "The noble lord, having minimised the alterations he proposed, now brings forward a bill on which he does not dare to take a division."

BISHOP OF OXFORD (WILBERFORCE).

SIR, 'Tis done. The great debate is over; and the question of a present Revision of the Book of Common Prayer, or, which amounts to the same thing, any modification of the oppressive Act of Uniformity, does not appear to meet with the approbation of Parliament, or at least of the House of Lords. The bishops are against it; and Government is not at this moment strong enough to set the bishops at defiance. The Wisdom of our Ancestors, notwithstanding all the cutting sarcasm of the inimitable Sydney Smith, is still the watchword with the majority of the Upper House. The Church and the world are pronounced to be no wiser in 1862 than they were two centuries ago. The experience of two hundred years, the progress made by printing, postage, telegraphs, and railways, has done nothing to open our eyes, or enlarge our understanding;-it is considered impossible to improve upon the Act of 1662 ;*-" the thing that hath been, is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which

* An original writer speaks of this Act as follows:"Let not things indifferent cause so much difference. Let there be no such Act of Uniformity as to cause deformity. Take away such unnecessary terms of union as breed divisions. Lord, grant to England's rulers a spirit of wisdom to know and heal our distempers, and unite their hearts to heal our breaches."-Rev. Robert Meeke's Diary, Nov. 25, 1690.

Who can say how much of the present power of Dissent might not have been broken had this wise and truly Christian prayer been acted on by the Statesmen and Parliament under William III.? And is it still too late?