TABLE OF CONTENTS TO VOL. II. LXX. Retrospect of Revision for the Year 1859 LXXI. Dean Trench and the Anti-Revisionists LXXII. The Rev. C. H. Davis on Liturgical Revision...... LXXIII. Resignation of Canon Wodehouse, and the Times. LXXIV. Common Sense about the Church... LXXV. A Limited, or Unlimited Commission ? LXXVI. The Bishop of Carlisle (Montagu Villiers) LXXVII. Bishop Villiers on Revision of the Liturgy. LXXVIII. The Church Cause and the Church Party LXXIX. Aquila de Rupe, the Rev. Richard Bingham LXXX. Thoughts on the Liturgy, by Rev. Philip Gell LXXXI. The Liturgy and Dissenters, by Rev. I. Taylor... LXXXII. Advance of the Ten Thousand..... LXXXIII. Rev. F. Massingberd on Revision of Prayer-book. LXXXIV. Debate in House of Lords on Revision, May 8, 1860 LXXXV. Lord Ebury in the House of Lords, May 8, 1860. LXXXVI. Archbishop Sumner in Reply to Lord Ebury...... LXXXVII. Lord Lyttelton on the Revision of the Liturgy.... 101 XC. Objections urged against all Change XCI. Omission of parts construed as Rejection XCII. Bishop of London in Reply to Lord Ebury, No. 1 125 XCV. Earl Stanhope on the Revision of the Liturgy 140 XCVI. Bishop Wilberforce in Reply to Lord Ebury 145 XCVIII. Bishop Baring on Revision of Prayer-book, No. 1 158 XCIX. Bishop Baring on Revision of Prayer-book, No. 2 161 C. The Bishop of Derry and Raphoe, 1860 CIII. The Prayer-book Remodelled. An Experiment... 183 CIV. Association for Promoting Revision of Prayer-book 195 CV. The Doctrinal Revisionists CVI. Charge of the Bishop of St. David's (Thirlwall)... 204 CVII. Retrospect of Revision for the Year 1860 ... 211 CX. Examination for Bishoprics and other Dignities... 233 CXI. The Rev. Christopher Nevile on the Prayer-book. 241 CXII. Negative Theology an Argument for Revision ... 251 CXIII. The Church and the Nonconformists, Mountfield. 258 CXIV. Dublin Association for Revision of the Prayer-book 262 CXVII. Lord Ebury in the House of Lords, July 22, 1861 274 CXVIII. An Hour with Spurgeon. CXXI. The Compass and Church Reformer..... CXXVI. Lord Ebury in the House of Lords, May 27, 1862 332 CXXVII. Charges of Bishops of Worcester and London, 1862 336 "Audi Alteram partem." REPLY TO THE BISHOPS, &c., ON THE Revision of the Book of Common Prayer. The following Letters, like those in Vol. I., appeared originally in various London and Provincial Newspapers at the date attached to each. LETTER LXX. RETROSPECT OF REVISION FOR THE YEAR 1859. "Cum se verterit annus."-JUVENAL. TO THE EDITOR, ETC. SIR,-At the commencement of last year we took a review of the position of the Liturgical warfare,* which has been now carried on with more or less activity for some time; and we see no reason for departing from the practice on the present occasion. There is always this advantage, if no other, in adopting such a course. It serves to keep the subject of Revision. before the public eye; to let the opponents of the measure see that the enemy are still advancing, or, if not advancing, certainly not retreating from the ground they have occupied ;+ * See Vol. I., Letter XLI., pp. 270-276. + Non regredi, in this case, as in some others, est progredi. The Revisionists have at least stood their ground, and TIME has visibly strengthened their position. b and that, moreover, they show no signs of any present intention to do so. It gives confidence to the timid; it serves to fix the waverers; it contributes more than anything to draw a clear line of demarcation between those who are for, and those who are against, the issue of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Prayer-book. Now, it is certain, as we said before,* that if "this work and this counsel" be of Divine origin, "nothing can overthrow it." It is equally certain that " if it be of men, it will come to nought." And the time seems drawing near which is to decide the question.† One thing meanwhile is evident to the most casual observer of this long-continued strugglenamely, that the opponents of the Revision of the Prayerbook have departed, or have been driven, from their original tactics of passive resistance. Their Gamaliel, whoever he may be, has relinquished the sage counsel once given, and acted on, to "let these men alone," to "refrain from them," and see if they did not share the fate of "one Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody." The aggressive movement has been too apparent, too systematic, too sustained, to render such a policy any longer either tenable or expedient. The fire would not go out of itself; the smothered smoke would keep bursting into flames here and there; fresh fuel was still forthcoming, notwithstanding all the pains taken to remove inflammatory material out of sight and reach. It was in vain that bishops and archdeacons pooh-poohed the subject in their charges; in * Vol. I., Letter LV., p. 345. + The issue of the Rubrical Commission was at that time under consideration, but its very constitution precluded from the first any useful result from its labours. See Appendix A, Vol. I., p. 426. ‡ The Archdeacon of Taunton (Denison), for example, called the Revision movement" 'a poor, weak, and miserable agitation." The Bishop of Oxford compared the agitators to the "scene-shifters and candle-snuffers flitting across the stage to represent a vast army." |