we offer to God a loving tribute of adoration. There is a common confession of dependence; a common imploring of mercy and grace; common thanksgiving; common participation in the Holy Communion. Its purpose is to enable us "with one mind and one mouth" to glorify God. But, however laudable the design of providing a service for the common use of the Church, it may be more than doubted whether in the Rubrics of the Prayer Book and the provisions of the Act of Uniformity, too narrow and rigid a rule has not been adopted; and whether in the altered circumstances of our own times, this should not be relaxed so as to admit of an adaptation of services to the condition and wants of the people: whether a greater variety of services might not be provided, and a greater freedom of selection and use permitted, whereby the general efficiency of the Service of the Church might be much increased.

The Christian system has a marvellous power of adaptation to the various circumstances of man. Now, it is an objection often made against the Church Service that it is adapted to the educated, but not to the ignorant. It cannot be denied that it requires education, and a high degree of education, in order fully to appreciate this service, but neither can it be denied that there are many parts of it in which the poor and the humble can find the expression of their devotional feeling, and sustenance for their spiritual life. The Church, it must be admitted, intended that her members should take part, and an intelligent part, in the appointed services. Whilst she is bound to help forward the education by means of which this co-operation may become more general, might it not be well that she should provide additional services of a shorter and simpler kind, adapted to the condition of those who do not share in the benefit of the established service to the extent to which they are entitled? This service, according to the full measure of the Rubric, with appointed lessons, which in some instances are not the most appropriate as a part of the worship, and, in many instances, not the most suitable for the purposes of instruction; this service, as a daily service, is not found to be adapted to the wants of the humbler classes, or to the convenience of any class. The multiplication of Bibles, the increased knowledge of Scripture, and the use of family prayers, may render a daily Church Service of less importance to many; but there are not a few who would appreciate the value of a pithy service of prayers selected from the Prayer Book, with a Scripture lesson. This might be arranged with a view to the convenience of men of business and men who are tied to hours. The morning service, when the celebration of Holy

Communion is a part of it, might be shortened by the omission of the Litany. At least, its use might be left optional on such occasions • In churches where there is an afternoon as well as an evening service, the Litany might be omitted in the morning, and used in the afternoon as a distinct service. It is so complete in itself, and so devotional, as to make it desirable that greater facility should be given for using it as a separate service. The part which the congregation take in this service gives it an additional value, as their attention is generally more engaged by those parts of the Church's service which they audibly repeat, and in which they are required to join, than by those which are appropriated to the minister alone. I think it is also desirable to provide for Holy Communion as a separate service, not so as to supersede, but to supplement the usual and stated celebration, that is part of the morning service on the days appointed. This would be a boon to those who find themselves unable, after a protracted service and a sermon, to come to the Lord's table with fresh and quickened feeling; and also to those who might desire to partake of Holy Communion more frequently than the stated occasions admit.

If a revision of the Lectionary has been found to be needful, as well with reference to the harmony of worship as to the purposes of suitable instruction, surely some step should be taken with reference to Hymnals. The state of the Service of the Church in this important part of it, is one in which everything is arbitrary and nothing is authorised. "Upon this deficiency in our service," Coleridge observes, "Wesley and Whitfield seized; and it is the hearty congregational singing of Christian hymns which keeps the humbler Methodists together. It is a part of the worship" (he says), "which, by its association with music, is meant to give a fitting vent and expression to the emotions, and in which, more than in all the rest, the common people might and ought to join." The good music of a choir may satisfy the passive worshipper, but good congregational singing has a higher excellence, as a part of the common devotion. Good preaching, faithful and eloquent, has its special attraction and its godly uses; but from the way in which our clergy are too often dispersed rather than distributed, the power of the pulpit has not been turned to the best account. Surely we might increase the stock of well-considered exposition, by which the people might have more assistance in the profitable study of the Holy Scriptures. Preaching should be conducted on system. How often would a short judicious exposition be acceptable in the evening service, when a long didactic sermon is found to be wearisome? Again, how often is the

opportunity neglected, by which, from time to time, the Lessons, Collect, Epistle and Gospel of the day, might be exhibited in the light in. which the Church intended that they should be viewed; and thus, difficulties which are often imputed to the Prayer Book, would be seen to be Bible difficulties, the solution of which was to be found in a better understanding of the word of God. Good reading is, perhaps, not less exceptional than good preaching. This, at least, the Church requires, that the reading of the service should be distinct and reverent, so that the people might hear and understand. To read distinctly and audibly, to read naturally, to read impressively, must contribute to the efficiency of the service.

This must also be much affected by the manner in which it is conducted. And here, I would say, that it is much easier to point out how in this respect its efficiency may be hindered, than how it may be helped. In his celebrated letter to Sir George Villiers, Lord Bacon says:-"Orders and ceremonies are comely and commendable, but there must be great care not to introduce innovations-they will quickly prove scandalous. Men are naturally over prone to suspicion. The true Protestant religion is seated in the golden mean; the enemies unto her are the extremes on either side." A great light of our Church in Ireland, Bishop Jeremy Taylor, in his rules and advice to his clergy, says: "Let no minister of a parish introduce any ceremony, rites, or gestures, though with some seeming piety and devotion, but what are commanded by the Church and established by law; and let these also be wisely and usefully explicated to the people, that they may understand the reasons and measures of obedience; but let there be no more introduced, lest the people be burdened unnecessarily, and tempted or divided." Any change from established usage in the mode of conducting the service, has more or less of a disturbing tendency. "Ipsa quippe mutatio consuetudinis, etiam quæ adjuvat utilitate, novitate perturbat. Quâ propter quæ utilis non est, perturbatione infructuosâ consequenter noxia est." Such was the wise reflection of St. Augustine. There may be occasion for a change that would conduce to decency and order, or that is likely to increase the general interest and encourage heartiness in the worship: but it must not infringe on the liberty of worship that is secured by the Church to all alike. This liberty, where all are supposed to agree, stands upon a different footing from that of the liberty of teaching, where all are free to differ, and the teacher alone is responsible. For the service in which all are to join, the Church is responsible, and therefore nothing can be lawfully admitted

that is not consistent with and subsidiary to this service. The preservation of peace and unity in the Church is one of the leading objects of the revised service, as appears from the passage in the preface to which I have already referred. There is no surer way of promoting this object, and thereby increasing the efficiency of the service for this its professed purpose, than by a conscientious regard to the divine law of Christian charity which requires that in things indifferent offence should not be given to any of our brethren, and that we should rather study to please our neighbour for his good to edification, than to please ourselves.

I have not adverted to the increase of efficiency which some suppose might be effected by alterations in the service. There are obvious reasons why I should not go into details; but I may state generally, that I cannot but conclude that the disuse of some* repetitions, and the removal or amendment of whatever cannot be explained or defended, without having recourse to interpretation that is forced and non-natural, would cut off occasion from them that seek occasion for cavil or quarrel against the service-would give ease to tender consciences, and make the use of the Church's service more generally acceptable. There are other agencies and means, not directly connected with the performance of the service, but which must exercise an important, though indirect, influence on its efficiency. Of these, there is one which I feel constrained to notice. I allude to instruction by which the structure, meaning, and use of the Book of Common Prayer might be more generally and more accurately understood. I need scarcely suggest how this might assist the study of the Holy Scriptures. But for this purpose, the Book of Common Prayer must be dealt with in its true character, not as designed for the use of one portion of the Church to the prejudice or exclusion of another, but as deliberately framed to meet differences of apprehension of the various aspects of truth, within certain limits; and as "entitled to such just and favourable construction as, in common equity, ought to be allowed to all human writings, especially such as are set forth by authority, and even to the very best translations of the Holy Scripture itself." The fact is, that we are too often tempted to use the Prayer Book as we use (or rather misuse) the Bible, by picking out what we think will suffice to support some pet opinion, and by overlooking or not duly considering other relevant portions, we

* I had inadvertently used the word "vain;" but my attention having been directed to it by the criticism of my friend, Mr. Beresford Hope, I willingly with. draw it.-J. N.

miss the larger truth that grows out of and reconciles seeming contradictions. The Church does not sanction this sectarian use of either the Bible or the Prayer Book. Not a few of the objections that are made to the latter, have their root in this partial private interpretation. The correction of it, in training the young and teaching adult members of the Church, might contribute largely to increase efficiency.

It was the observation of Wordsworth, that every author, as far as he is great, and at the same time original, has had the task of creating the taste by which he is to be enjoyed. This may be in some degree applicable to the Church's service. But this is not all. The service however improved, whatever facility of adaptation or freedom of use may be conceded; or whatever instruction may be provided for young and adult-what is this but filling the waterpots to the brim? The crowning process is the work of Jesus. "Revive thy dying Churches, Lord,

And bid our drooping graces live;
And more, that energy afford

A Saviour's blood alone can give."

DISCUSSION.

A. BERESFORD HOPE, ESQ., M. P. :-Within my appointed time, I can only offer some suggestions for the increase of the efficiency of our Church's worship, especially upon the Lord's Day. You must believe that I have arguments behind, but I have unfortunately only fifteen minutes. That worship stands regulated by the Act of Uniformity of 1662, which includes the actual Prayer Book; and in all that I may suggest, I intend to keep within the limits of that Act.

I have a special and personal reason for this reservation. I have the honour to be a member of the Royal Commission on Rubrics, and, as such, I consider that my mouth is closed. It would not be decorous in me to commit myself in this assembly to any opinion either for or against any change in the Prayer Book. I may, however, in passing, observe that there is one proposal in the generally excellent paper of Mr. Walsham How, against which I feel bound on broad principles to protest. He suggested, in order to give variety to the services, that we should occasionally substitute other canticles for the Venite, the Magnificat, and the Nunc Dimittis (in addition to the existing substitutes for the two latter); but considering how ancient and how general a tradition of the Christian Church the daily use of these three Canticles is, I should be very sorry to see variety purchased by a diminution of their constant use in our Church. I am also bound to say, that I was pained in listening to the otherwise most feeling and thoughtful paper of my honoured friend, Sir Joseph Napier, to find the expression "vain repetitions" accidentally slipping from his pen in reference to the contents of the Prayer Book. I have no more to say in reference to the papers of my predecessors.

Christian worship, to be efficient, ought not to be the echo of the passions, the prejudices, or the conventionalities of the hour. It must be the reflex of the mind o