MR. GLADSTONE'S CHURCH PATRONAGE.

to our own.

Ir is not often that we sympathise with the Record; still more rarely do we agree with it. Certainly, there have been latterly some good, honest articles in the Record on the Temple scandal, and its appreciation of Mr. Gladstone is very similar But as surely as we read an article in one number of our Puritan contemporary with which we are disposed to agree, so certain we are to find in the next, some bigoted and uncharitable remarks, which cause us to regret our former approval. One day we may rejoice at an orthodox outspoken leader on the present Bishop of Exeter and his milk and water theology; in the next we are filled with loathing and disgust at some wicked and unchristian critique like that which recently appeared on Mr. Liddon's admirable memoir of the late Bishop of Salisbury. The good rule, " De mortuis nil," &c., is always disregarded by the Record. There is nothing it loves so dearly as speaking hard, uncharitable things about the dead. It could not write the other day on Bishop Temple without dragging poor Bishop Phillpotts out of his grave, to give him the benefit of some ill-natured remarks.

The Record has been wailing long and loudly of late concerning Mr. Gladstone's ecclesiastical appointments. The so-called Evangelical party has been utterly ignored by that evil statesman. The profound learning of a Ryle, the erudition of a Garbett, the parochial zeal of a Daniel Wilson, the courtly grace and eloquence of a Miller, the good taste and honesty of an Ormiston, the Christian charity of a Hoare, have been completely disregarded by Mr. Gladstone, in favour of such unknown and ultra-Church (the word is of the Record's own coining) theologians as Drs. Temple, Fraser, Mackarness and Moberly. Poor Dr. Miller, whose electioneering zeal in favour of the Premier, is a long time meeting with its well-merited reward, who is mentioned for every vacant Deanery and Bishopric, and who frequently has to write to contradict his appointment in the public journals-much deserves to be pitied. Indeed the Record has just cause for complaint, and we would far rather see one of its partisans elevated to the Bench than men of Rationalistic opinions like Dr. Temple. However bigoted and persecuting the former may be, at all events they believe in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Still the Record must not forget that during the Palmerston regime its party got all the good things-Bishoprics, Canonries, Deaneries, fat Livings, all fell in rapid succession into the hands of Low Churchmen, so that the Record, in a rapture of gratitude, praised and fawned upon this most frivolous and irreligious of Premiers during his life, and exalted him into a saint after his death. To the Record, Lord Palmerston was as infallible as Mr. Gladstone is to the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian. We are just now inclined to sympathise with our Puritan contemporary, because our own case is very much the same; for with the exception of Salisbury (and Dr. Moberly's silence on the Temple question was not Satisfactory by any means) not one vacant mitre has Mr. Gladstone given to the High Church party. Every one of his Bishops have been more or less Broad Church-from the open Rationalism of Dr. Temple to the Radical High Churchism of

Price ld.

the new Bishop of Oxford, who won his preferment from his connection with the Solicitor-General, combined with his open hostility to the Irish Church. The excuse made for Mr. Gladstone by his High Church supporters for elevating Dr. Temple to the Bench was, that all parties in the Church should be represented in the Episcopate, therefore the extreme Broad Church party had a perfect right to one vacant mitre; but on these grounds surely the Catholic party may claim the same. It is larger and more influential than the extreme Broad section, and quite as important and numerous as the semi-Broad and High section, which the Premier delights to honour. If a thoroughly Catholic Bishop would have too greatly shocked the Protestant prejudices of the more noisy portion of the community, surely Mr. Gladstone might have given us a Catholic Dean. What appreciation has he yet shown of the loving spirit and deep erudition of Dr. Pusey, and of the constant political support which he has always given him? Why is not such a man as Mr. Carter, of Clewer, promoted, not to speak of countless other hardworking Incumbents and learned scholars of the Catholic school? While Bishoprics and Deaneries have been given away to comparatively unknown Clergymen, the magnificent talents of Mr. Liddon have been passed by unappreciated. Now at last they are tardily and inadequately recognised by a Canonry instead of the Deanery he so well deserved.

No excuse can possibly be made for the Premier in thus ignoring the Catholic party-the fact only plainly shows the tendency of his mind. He has long since turned his back upon the friends of his youth. With Radical views in politics he has adopted, as a natural consequence, Latitudinarian opinions in religion. With such a Parliamentary majority at his back he might in spite of Court influence have promoted Dr. Pusey and others, had he had the will to do so.

The appointments of the Conservative ministry contrast, on the whole, favourably with those of Mr. Gladstone; but it would be folly not to acknowledge that here too we have several great mistakes to deplore, of which we have recently experienced the only too bitter fruits. Had Lord Derby not yielded to Puritan importunities in promoting Mr. Boyd to Exeter, but appointed some sterling Churchman like Archdeacon Denison in his room, how different the conduct of the Dean and Chapter in the Temple affair would have undoubtedly been? Had Mr. Disraeli not made the greatest fault in his political career, by elevating Dr. Tait to the Primacy, but placed there a thoroughly Orthodox Prelate like Dr. Ellicot or Dr. Claughton, Dr. Temple probably would never have been consecrated Bishop of the See of Exeter. This deplorable appointment has always been attributed to Court influence which Mr. Disraeli, being in a Parliamentary minority, could not withstand. If such were the case, resignation, at all events, was open to him, and that resignation would have come but a few weeks earlier than it actually did. Supposing Mr. Disraeli had resigned what respect would he have gained from the whole Church. Even his bitterest opponents, even the Church Times, the Guardian, and Mr. Malcolm MacColl would have been obliged to esteem him. We know of Churchmen, who had been Conservatives all their lives, who were foolish enough to

change their politics when these appointments were made, and turn Radicals. We wonder whether Dr. Temple's appointment made them revert to their original opinion. For ourselves, we uphold measures not men. The best of statesmen may err, but principles can never change, and we pity those whose politics are of so frail and feeble a nature that they can be swayed hither and thither by the mistakes of a fallible Premier, or by some ecclesiastical appointment which does not entirely meet with their approbation.

THE REVISION OF THE PRAYER BOOK.

Ir must be evident to the most Ecclesiastically Conservative minds that the action of the Bishops of the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury, in appointing Committees for the revision of the Lectionary and the revision of the authorised translation of the Bible, is inaugurating a new era. We have had as yet no opportunity of obtaining an insight into the temper and feeling of the Lower House of Convocation on the matter; but there is an impression abroad that even in the Lower House, conservative as it is of Anglican Ecclesiastical traditions, a new spirit and tone is prevailing, very different from what has hitherto been the predominant characteristic of the Jerusalem Chamber. If this be the case it is no doubt a phenomenon that cannot be disregarded, or at least that ought not to be disregarded. It ought to be turned to account. It is absurd to suppose that, if the Prayer Book is to be altered at all, it is to be altered at the discretion of a few amiable or non-amiable laymen such as Lord Harrowby or Lord Portman-a Royal Commission is only a concession to constitutional formalism. What do such men know about the composition of a Lectionary? It is still more absurd to suppose that, if the Athanasian symbol is to be eliminated from our devotions, it is to be done at the will of Dean Stanley or Lord Ebury. Yet we hear that the Bishops have referred it to the Royal Commission. Surely the Church at large must have a voice in these matters of faith and of doctrine; and surely the Church at large, if it expresses a voice, will demand other changes, and in another direction, than the omission of the Story of Dinah or the semi-Arianizing of the doctrine of the Trinity. Now, while some changes are being proposed, other changes should be insisted on. The fact itself invites them. We Churchmen have long mourned over the Protestant omission from our Prayer Book of any Service carrying out the Scriptural injunction to anoint the sick with oil in the Name of the Lord. It has been a grievous and unaccountable omission on the part of a Church which boasted itself to be founded on Scripture. Now is the time to restore that omission, to place again the lost Pleiad among the mysteries of grace. Here is the opportunity, which has not occurred before and may not occur again, to require that the Visitation Office be restored to its old form in the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. The tables of the Upper and Lower Houses of Convocation ought, in their next Session, to be covered with petitions to this effect. Then let us look at our present Confirmation Office. How meagre and unsacramental it is, though it is no doubt practically valid. This ought also to be conformed to that of the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. And now we approach another point-and that is our present Communion Office. Let any unprejudiced Liturgiologist compare it with that sublime Catholic and truly devotional office which the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. gave to the Church, and the present office sinks into insignificance beside it, as the Liturgy of a true Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is truly worth an effort, to restore so great a treasure to the ordinary worship and public devotions of English Churchmen. While so much is being changed, that change is one that must be acknowledged to be worth making, and to be for the better. These restorations, then, are

changes which are desirable in the highest degree, as they are also really Scriptural, Catholic and devotional. They are in thorough accordance with the principles of the Reformation, for they come from the Prayer Book of the Reformation. Lord Shaftesbury himself can hardly object to what recalls that prince of blessed memory, Edward VI. We are not advocating change on the principle of change. But the Upper House of Convocation has started the principle; and we demand that the changes which are being made shall not be solely of an Erastian or a Socinian complexion. Scepticism may be in fashion in high places, but it cannot carry everything its own way in the Church of England. When we do begin alterations in the Prayer Book, let those alterations be for the most part recurrences to the first Prayer Book of the Reformation, and let Churchmen insist that they be so. This is what we advocate.

It is possible that the Lower House of Convocation may be more Conservative than the Upper, and may refuse to alter the Prayer Book as it exists, and as the Clergy have accepted it, in any degree or way. Still there is a mode by which even those prejudices, which we highly respect, may be met. The additional or improved offices may be appended to the existing book for alternative use. It might not be desirable to force the execution of the inspired command of St. James upon a Lutheranised or Erastian Priest; but the office for the Anointing the Sick might be appended to the Prayer Book as an alternative to the existing Caroline office. In the same way the office for Holy Communion, with its vestment rubrics which are already law, might be appended to the existing Prayer Book to be used at the discretion of the officiator. Celebration after either form might be equally lawful, as no doubt it would be equally valid. No compulsion would thus exist for the Puritan, while a mighty gain would have accrued to the Catholic. In the same appendix would come the revised Lectionary of the Royal Commission to be used alternatively on the same principles, and Harvest Thanksgiving Services and Compline Services would be relegated to the same realm of voluntary and alternative use. How vastly this would increase the devotional treasury of our Church must be obvious to the most superficial judgment; and how little disputing, or angry altercation, or unprincipled compromise such an alternative use would give rise to is equally plain. The Bishops have shown us the way. They are ready and willing to have changes in the Prayer Book. It only remains for us to urge upon them to carry out their own principles of action in the method most likely to be successful, and for them to do so. Thus the Anglican Church would regain the use of a Communion Office worthy of her, and the letter of Holy Scripture in regard to the Sacramental Rite ordered by St. James would be obeyed. The time has come. The occasion has offered itself. Let Churchmen heartily, unitedly, and at once seize it before it be past.

Reviews of Books.

THE RITUAL OF THE ALTAR, containing the Office of Holy Communion, with Rubrical Directions, Private Prayers, and Ritual Music, according to the Use of the Church of England, &c. Edited by the Rev. Orby Shipley, M.A. (London: Longmans, 1870.)

The title of this book is misleading, and a misnomer. It is not what it professes to be. Its compiler is a bold man, having put on its title page "according to the use of the Church of England," when three-fourths of it, by a scissors and paste process, has been taken from the Roman Catholic "Missal of the Laity." This being so, there is an unreality about the whole composition which is at once depressing and unfortunate. It consists of a discursive Preface of about forty pages, in which, as we shall point out afterwards, there are

queer principles and strange suggestions. Then follows an English version of the Viri Venerabiles. For ourselves we prefer the Latin original. The book itself contains 254 pages. The Ordinary of the Mass, and the Canon, with slices of our Church-of-England Communion Service inserted at different parts, stand first. Then follow Collects, Epistles and Gospels other than those in the Prayer Book, and which comprise the Proper of the Season, the Proper of Saints, the Common of Saints, the Common of Virgins, various Collects, Epistles and Gospels-e.g., Mass of the Holy Ghost, Mass of the Dead, and Memorials of the Departed. Then follows an eclectic selection in English of the general Rubrics of the Roman Missal, and so the book ends.

We gather from the first page of Mr. Shipley's Preface that this volume is to "be used by the Priest at the time of Divine Service." If so our Clergy would use an ill-constructed jumble of both the Roman and Anglican Services. Such an incongruous composition would occupy about an hour and a quarter at Low Celebration, and about two hours and a half at High. For ourselves, as Laymen, nothing is more irritating or dispiriting than to see a Priest fumbling and mumbling over a book of private devotion when he should be exclusively engaged in reverently but promptly celebrating Divine Service according to the rites of the Church in which he ministers. A Priest should say his preparatory private devotions and thanksgivings at home, and not inconvenience the Christian public by unauthorised interpolations at the altar. If the Clergy were to follow Mr. Shipley, independent of using the whole English Communion Service, they must first recite twelve closely-printed pages of prayers (pp. 1-12). There are twenty-four more pages to be added as opportunity offers. At the altar twelve more pages are to be recited, and then we arrive at the first "Our Father" of the Anglican Service. At pages 18 and 19 of the Ordinary of the Mass we get additional and contradictory directions with regard to the Epistle and Gospel. At the Offertory are six more pages of interpolated matter, and then follows the "Prayer for the Church Militant." After this there are interpolations and insertions of all kinds and characters from the Roman Missal-including all its distinctive peculiaritiesso that the hodge-podge (for this it really is, to write plainly) is quite complete. Our readers will thus be able to imagine the style and character of the book before us. It will be welcome only to the narrowest section of Radical Romanizers, who are doing their best to bring the Catholic Revival into contempt.

Of course Mr. Shipley has made a defence for the strange and unprecedented principle adopted; but we can scarcely appreciate its character or understand the relevancy of its suggestions. Neither his own arguments nor those of "a friend whose learning and judgment in liturgical matters are second to those of no living scholar" convince us that this is other than a mischievous publication, ca culated to make the superficial restless and dissatisfied, and the Clerical acrobats more clerically acrobatic. At p. xlvii. of the Preface we are favoured with a repetition of the High Church-Radical theories regarding the union of Church and State; and the Clergy seem to be indirectly urged to break the existing law. All this, of course, tends to complicate our present difficulties. A mere servile imitation of Rome, or an apeing of Ultramontane peculiarities is out of place in an Anglo-Catholic Revival. Submission to Rome, and Re-union with Rome are two totally opposite ideas. The Church of England occupies a very dignified and important position. It has its defects, which are many and various but; with these sterling advantages, second to those of no Church in Christendom. The High-Church Radical, talkative and superficial, is ever harping on a rupture with the State as the sole means of removing anomalies. We have no intention of classing Mr. Shipley with the fussy enthusiasts who crow or cackle on this one subject. But some of

the remarks of his Preface are deeply tainted with a false theory of Ecclesiastical politics. To neither the book, therefore, nor the defence for it, can we give our approval, agreeing as we do with one of the Roman Catholic reviews of it-that those who adopt such an outrageous line within the borders of the Church of England would be more consistent if they were outside rather than inside her pale when doing so.

Literary Notices.

edition of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. Many will be very grateful to Mr. Orby Shipley for a new (London: Longmans.) A treatise such as this, known and highly reputed throughout the whole Latin Rite, needs no commendation at our hands. Within a century of the first appearance of the Exercises they had been translated into every European language. In its present form it will be very acceptable to others than the women of the Church of England; for the Christian religion is not yet extinct here. Mr. Ashley's introductory essay, concise, clearly expressed and suggestive, is very ably written. The book itself as regards its typography equals any production of the Plantain Press.

ST. LAWRENCE, JEWRY.

We are enabled to lay before our readers a short account of the result of the late meetings of the vestry of this parish, protesting against the "increase of the number of the Services in the Church, and the Ritual observances of those officiating and joining in such Services." It is altogether most satisfactory. True, the Bishop has asked the Vicar of St. Lawrence to give up the use of the Invocation of the Blessed Trinity before the Sermons and he stated in a recent Sermon that he should discontinue its use in deference to such expressed wish. Saving this, his Lordship has distinctly approved of the "use" of this Church, and we trust that the many Church-folk who take so lively an interest in the great work of St. Lawrence, will see how much has been gained to the Church by those who strove to injure her, and that the worthy Vicar and his choir will never lack true and earnest support in their work. A meeting of the vestry was recently held to receive and consider a report of the Churchwardens on the subject of their late correspondence with the Bishop of London and the Vicar of the parish upon the increase of the number of Services now held in the Parish Church, and of the Ritual observed at such Services. In their report the Churchwardens state that if the Vicar would meet the wishes of the vestry, and remove the cross from the altar, and omit and forbid the posturings and ceremonies recently introduced into the Service, the objections against a Choral Service might be withdrawn ; further, they consider the question in difference is not whether there reasonably ought or ought not to be an attractive or a musical Service, but rather whether such a Service is not quite compatible with the absence of those matters, manners, and forms which have been objected to as having disturbed the minds of some of the parishioners, and as being in their opinion assimilated to those used by the body of believers in Our Lord from whom this nation dissented some centuries ago."

The Vicar wrote a long letter to the Churchwardens, treating of each subject in detail. With regard to the postures objected to of the Clergy and choir, they could not be of importance to persons who never attended the Church. Generally speaking the officiating Priest would kneel to pray, stand to address the congregation or to read, and when praying, as the representative of the congregation, he would kneel, facing the East, as they did. It had been said that the outward reverences of some members of the congregation were

as to cause distraction and to disturb others; he considered the reverential acts of the people matter for rejoicing. He could more easily tolerate an excess of affectionate reverence, than the grossness of conduct which he had sometimes seen and heard of in that Church. The cross he could on no account consent to remove from its

place over the altar; it must be retained as a protest against the infidelity of the day, and to remind the congregation of the great doctrine of the Atonement. Happy would it be if those who now complain would attend the instruction given in the Church; they would see, as others have seen, how reasonable and profitable it is to have all the doctrines of the faith brought to mind by surrounding objects. In conclusion, the Vicar reminds them of a few matters which, as Church wardens, they should