THE

CHRISTIAN

REMEMBRANCER.

MAY, 1829.

REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS.

ART. I.—1. An Inquiry concerning the Means and Expedience of proposing and making any Changes in the Canons, Articles, or Liturgy, or in any of the Laws affecting the Interests of the Church of England. By WILLIAM WINSTANLEY HULL, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister at Law, late Fellow of Brasennose College, Oxford. J. Parker, Oxford; Rivingtons, London. 1828. 8vo. Price 7s.

2.-Church Reform. By A CHURCHMAN. London: J. Murray and J. Parker. 1828. 8vo. Price 6s. 6d.

3.-Hints for a Revision of the Book of Common Prayer, with the Morning and Evening Service, as a Specimen; after the Plan recommended by Bishop Porteus, Bishop York, and Archdeacon Paley. London: Hurst, Chance, & Co., 65, St. Paul's Church-yard. 1828. small 8vo.

4.-The Common Prayer Book of the Sect of the Thirty-nine Articles, (still whimsically enough styling itself the Church of England,) made Scriptural in point of Language, if not in its mode of Address, to the one only true God, viz. the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; for the use of Children at Scriptural Schools, and other not "almost only, but altogether" Protestant Christians, who have not an opportunity of attending any other Place of Worship than the Parochial Building of the aforesaid Established Sect. To which are added a few words of Note and Comment on the AUTHORIZED Version of the Scriptures. T. Lake, Printer, Uxbridge. 8vo.

We have classed these four tracts together, in the order of their merits, for the purpose of discussing the common topics, to which they relate. They embrace, our readers will observe, a wide field; and as the changes which they advocate are, in our estimation, of the highest moment to the interests of the Church, we shall feel it necessary to extend our critique beyond the limits of the present article; and we purpose to commence it with the subject of the

changes contemplated in our Liturgy, meaning to reserve our observations upon the other measures of ecclesiastical reform to a subsequent number of the Christian Remembrancer.

The Barrister's Inquiry is the production of a scholar, a gentleman, and a Christian. It is evidently the offspring of no ordinary research; and, however we may be found to dissent from his proposals, we have much pleasure in acknowledging our obligations to him for the unusual courtesy with which, in these perilous times of calumny and cant, he uniformly speaks of the Clergy of the Establishment. We are sure that our learned author will forgive us, if we hint our suspicions that his love of Aristotle has imparted a singular obscurity to his style, and our surprise at his denominating the Stagirite a writer "delightfully clear." But, where the matter is so important, we forbear to institute any fastidious inquiry into the manner of the work before us. "Church Reform, by A Churchman," is characterised by great simplicity, and much laudable zeal for the advancement of true religion, and the security of our Church Establishment. It is evidently the production of a practised writer; and we more than suspect that its pious author is not only a Churchman, but a Minister of the Church, and not only a Minister of the Church, but a zealous labourer, by whose published Sermons we have been often edified and pleased. Like the Barrister's Inquiry, it contains a multiplicity of topics of very unequal importance, to some of which we cordially grant the sanction of our imprimatur, whilst against others we are under the necessity of entering a decided veto. Our readers will at once be made masters of the topics discussed by the "Churchman," when we open to their inspection the table of contents. The work is divided into ten chapters, headed respectively as follows:

Chap. I. Church Reform.-II. Church Discipline.-III. Church Law.—IV. Church Endowments.-V. Church Pluralities.-VI. Church Dignities.-VII. Church Service.-VIII. Church Liturgical Offices.-IX. Church Edifices.— X. Church Property.

In our present article we would confine ourselves to the consideration of the subjects of the seventh and eighth chapters, in which our author suggests certain alterations of our Church Service, and proposes some remedies for the defects of our Liturgical Offices.

For the respectable and learned authors of the two volumes which stand first in this article, we entertain the sincerest respect; and however we may dissent from the propositions which they mutually advocate, we willingly acknowledge the purity of their motives, and admire the wariness with which they recommend the gradual adoption of their respective measures of reform.

The "Hints for a Revision of the Book of Common Prayer," is an unfortunate "specimen" of the changes contemplated by their editor.

And though we see nothing objectionable in the spirit of the work, we confess that the inaccuracies with which it abounds, have wedded our affections more closely to the Liturgy as it is, and augmented our reluctance to adopt the innovations proposed.

"The Common Prayer Book of the Sect of the Thirty-nine Articles" is a Socinian tract, replete with insult for lack of argument. "Scorn and execration" (p. 23) are miserable substitutes for sober inquiry and calm investigation; and an attempt to palm such a mass of heresy upon us as an improvement of the Book of Common Prayer, is as ludicrous as the amendments sometimes moved in Parliament, which condemn the whole form and purpose of the original proposition, which they seek to supplant, and of which they retain only the word that. Utterly worthless as this impudent pamphlet may seem, we think it may serve to convince those who are zealous for reforming our incomparable Liturgy, with the pious design of "lessening the hostility of the enemies of the Church," how fruitless would be their endeavours! The substance of Mr. Hull's Inquiry may be best learnt from his table of contents, which we here subjoin.

Chap. I. General Principles of Union.-II. Charles the Second's Commission in 1661; Preface to English and American Prayer Books.-III. Some general grounds of Inquiry.-IV. Reasons against any hasty conduct of such an Inquiry.-V. Nature of Truth and Opinion as affecting Creeds and Articles.-VI. Import of the words "Church" and "Salvation."--VII. The nature and basis of any profession of Faith.-VIII. The Athanasian Creed, and various opinions about it-IX. Number of Articles in the Church, and other questions affecting it, somewhat uncertain.-X. Charles the Second's Declaration, 1660; Savoy Conference; Act of Uniformity; Sir M. Hale's Bill.-XI. The proceedings in the Jerusalem Chamber, and various matters relating thereto.-XII. General Questions, which might be debated before any Commissioners at this time.-XIII. American Church and Prayer Book.-XIV. Conclusion.

Confining our view for the present to the subject of liturgical reform, it may be well, perhaps, to consider the alterations proposed,-the means of effecting them, and their expediency.

1. The Barrister seems to think it advisable (though he approaches the subject warily, "only for the purpose of making out a case for future inquiry,") to shorten the Communion Service; to divide the present Morning Prayer into distinct services; to change some of the Lessons, and especially some of the Sunday Lessons; to divide the whole Church into Catechumens, the Penitent, and the Faithful, so that "the general service might be drawn up with greater allowances for Dissenters, than will be deemed practicable without some such distinction;" to omit the first four sentences in the Litany; to discard wholly the "mischievous" and "uncharitable" creed of Athanasius; to adopt a better translation of the Psalms; and to make the Catechism more comprehensive.

"Merely verbal alterations in the Prayer Book," according to the

Barrister, "need not be mentioned, as they are almost universally called for. The American Prayer Book changes which,' and other such expressions, throughout; and indeed," it is added, "words like prevent,' 'after,' 'let,' 'chances,' &c., used against the established choice and rule and right of speaking, tend to mislead many." (P. 167.)

So much for the liturgical alterations contemplated by Mr. Hull. Let us now turn to the "Churchman." He, like his learned coadjutor, is of opinion that

It would be a material improvement in our Church service, if some alterations were made in the Proper Lessons for Sundays. (P. 132.) I am advocating (our author writes,) no sudden, no violent or compulsory change. I merely wish that in some instances a fresh selection could be made by authority, and that a discretion,‚—a discretion always to be sanctioned by the Bishop of the diocese,— should be given to make use of such selection.-P. 136.

Our "Churchman" advocates, not the total rejection of the Athanasian Creed, but merely the removal of the damnatory clauses; and he would confine the use of the symbol thus expurgated "to the three high festivals of Christmas, Easter, and Whitsunday." (P. 126.) The other alteration, which our author wishes to see effected, is the omission of the words "most religious," in the prayer for the Parliament, according to the intention of the Commissioners for reviewing the Liturgy in 1689. The "longsomeness" (what a word!) of the Church Service constitutes another ground of objection. Reminding his readers that the Morning Prayer "is made up of three distinct services, which were originally intended to be performed at three distinct times," our reformer submits that

A service for Sunday morning might be formed from the three, retaining all that assists devotion, all that promotes the honour of Him who is the object of all worship, all that contributes to the edification of the people, omitting only what is superfluous, and what savours of needless repetition.-P. 138.

The cautious moderation of the "Churchman" is discernible in the following passage, which we quote in justice to the writer, and as a fair specimen of his unaffected simplicity of style:

I wish to see a morning service arranged by authority, and the use of it not enjoined, not at first perhaps even permitted,-generally in parish churches, but permitted in the chapels of colleges, and on all occasions on which the Liturgy is used, excepting in parish churches. Very soon I would permit and encourage the use of such abridged service in parish churches also, on those days when the Lord's Supper is administered, and on week days, when there happens to be divine service. And by degrees the use of it might be permitted generally, in all cases in which the Bishop of the diocese should see fit to sanction it. The present race of incumbents should not be required to make any change, but they might be permitted to adopt it, upon finding that it would be acceptable to their parishioners. Generally, perhaps, the best time for its adopon would be upon the appointment of a new incumbent.-P. 139.

ith regard to the Occasional Offices, and the Rubric, our author

contends for some reform "both in the offices themselves, and in the manner in which they are administered." (P. 140.) He strenuously advocates "uniformity of practice;" and, very properly censuring the deviations sometimes made from the Rubric, when Public Baptism is not administered AT THE FONT, in time of divine service; when Private Baptism is used in cases, where there is no real danger, or “need compelling;" when women are churched (as it is called) at home; and when many parts of the marriage service are omitted; he would obviate these evils by granting a dispensing power to the Bishops in certain cases, and by enjoining a strict compliance with the Rubric "in all cases in which such compliance is not attended with great and manifest inconvenience." (P. 150.) Our author doubts the expediency of continuing the Rubric relative to baptizing "after the second lesson;" he is of opinion that parents might be admitted as sponsors, and therefore would repeal the 29th Canon. He would dispense with the Rubric about dipping the child. He would give in a Rubric! a clear and short explanation of the liturgical sense of the word regeneration. He would change the word "worship" in the marriage service into "honour." He would omit the petition for fruitfulness in procreation of children, and contends for a general discretion as to the use of the concluding exhortation. He would make the expressions in the form of absolving the sick "less strong." In the office for the Burial of the Dead, our Churchman seems to agree with such as think that "it expresses too confident a hope of the salvation of every individual over whose remains the office is used;" and he wishes that some alteration should be effected in the prayer, where the minister says, "we give thee hearty thanks for that it hath pleased thee to deliver this our brother," &c. &c. from an idea that the real sentiments of the mourning friends do not "correspond in a majority of cases with this expression of thankfulness." (P. 158.) Referring to the "Hints for a Revision of the Book of Common Prayer," which occupies the third place at the head of our present article, we pass over the mere errors of the press, with which it abounds, such as the omission of the word "may" before "obtain," in the exhortation; the use of the third person "desireth," instead of "desirest," in the absolution; and the substitution of "the" for "thy” in the thanksgiving for deliverance from the Plague, and come at once to the alterations themselves. The first is in the Rubric, prefixed to "the absolution or remission of sins," which is changed thus,-"Then shall follow the prayer for absolution or remission of sins." The absolution accordingly is made to assume a precatory form, and omits the words, "and hath given power and commandment to his ministers to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins." "Thou didst condescend to assume the