Richard Baxter would have substituted for our noble liturgy, will, I think, feel thankful that the nation was delivered from this and such other calamitous afflictions. I remember seeing, some years ago, a proposed amended Book of Common Prayer, in which, in place of the opening sentences now used, the morning service commenced with the ominous, and certainly not encouraging, quotation—“ How dreadful is this place." But, however, weak and absurd may have been most of the individual liturgical attempts already made, surely we cannot believe that the Church is so bankrupt in taste and piety, as to be unable to find amongst its members any one capable of writing devotional prayers worthy of being used in public worship. Can any one who has heard noble sentiments of zeal and love for Christ, expressed in language of power and beauty as we have done at the Congress in Dublin in the year 1868, talk of a decadence in the Church? Can any one say, that all the gifts which the Apostle tells us our risen Lord has bestowed on men are withdrawn; or that the machinery which he gave for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ, is a thing of the past?

But, it may be said, that the variety of schools of opinion into which the Church is divided, renders any new liturgies impossible, as we could not obtain perfect agreement respecting them. But, were all parties perfectly agreed when our present services were compiled, or afterwards, when they were revised? Let the history of the Prayer Book reply.

In conclusion, I may say that, whether in the use of old or new forms of prayer, I believe the only road to true efficiency in our services is to be found in an intelligent appreciation of their devotional meaning, and a spirit of supplication in the worshipper, to give life to the forms themselves. Without these conditions, the most beautiful forms are but skeletons of devotion, dead and helpless as the dry bones in the vision of Ezekiel; but when the spirit of prayer breathes into them they are quickened into life and power.

THE REV. JOHN JEBB, D.D. (Rector of Peterstow, and Prebendary of Hereford) :— I may begin with saying that I am afraid I shall be a very incompetent speaker on the subject before us, as I have been labouring during the week under a severe cold. But let me say, with regard to the subject in general, that I quite concur with what was said by the former speakers, that our province is not to consider how we may alter the liturgy, but how to employ what is already in our possession. This is a practical way of viewing the subject, because from the differences of opinions as to the measure and the particulars of liturgical changes which prevail at present, it is hopeless to expect that any of these proposed alterations can be carried into effect. I feel convinced myself, that the compilation of our liturgy, and its revision in 1C62, were so directly acts of Divine Providence, that it is hardly possible to change a word in our formulas for the better; and any change would besides have an effect that would imperil, in the mind of our people, the feeling which they have ever had in the liturgy of their Church as it is. It would be a deep matter of regret to my own heart, if one single syllable of that liturgy was changed, for I would be then in a state of continual apprehension of some other changes being introduced. It was not my intention to have addressed any observations to you on this part of the subject, or on the proposed alterations suggested by the Ritual Commission Report; but the subject having been introduced, I must only express very decidedly my great apprehension and dislike of all Commis

sions whatever. The tendency of every Commission is to try and make what is square round, and round square; to tamper with something, and alter something else. But I confess I was quite alarmed by some changes which seem to be intended to be carried out in altering our Epistles and Gospels.

BISHOP OF OXFORD.- No. No such change is proposed-it is merely that the reading of the Gospels as the Second Lesson should not be confined to the morning, and of the Epistles to the evening.

DR. JEBB.—I didn't apprehend that; but I entertain a very great objection to any change in our "Lectionary," as it is called. It is impossible to look at our services without seeing the wisdom which characterised their original selection; and no matter what changes are thought desirable—and I suppose there are as many changes suggested as there are men,-I believe it would be much wiser and safer to have things as they are. For instance, the length of our morning and evening services is, perhaps, one of the most serious inconveniences we have to contend with; but then, let us remember that thousands of devoted members of the Church have lived through these difficulties for three hundred years; and these services have been daily repeated at our Colleges and our Cathedrals; and many of us have resorted to them with affectionate regard and great comfort, if not daily, yet very frequently.

But I hasten on to the main point, which I am most anxious to place before yon, and I am afraid I shall be taking the place of a fault-finder and an alarmist. It is rightly said that the main and most essential part of Divine worship which requires the most vigorous revival is that which was always the centre of Divine worshipI mean the celebration of the Supper of the Lord. Upon that, from the feeling which has been shown already here, I believe no difference whatever exists between the various parties in the Church. I doubt very much whether a general profession of approval would have been given some years ago to the sentiments expressed about it here to-day. Now, I do not desire to enter here into the question of the doctrine of the Eucharist; but it is almost impossible to avoid it altogether. Most heartily is it to be wished that the weekly Communion should be restored in all our parish churches; but I fear the tendency of the present day is rather to abuse than to use; and the abuse in this particular is the encouragement by some good men, who seek to have a restoration of the celebration of that highest office in a way which can hardly be called "Communion" at all-which reduces that Holy Sacrament to a thing to be gazed upon, and not to be participated in by every member of the congregation present. Nothing can be more evident to careful readers of the writings of the more ancient Fathers, and Liturgies than this, that it was regarded almost as a sinful thing for any person who had not a positive impediment in the way of doing it, not to attend the Holy Communion and be present at its celebration. I confess I don't know what a proper celebration is, if it be not one at which all present partake. I by no means imply any sort of depreciation of the act of consecration itself, as it is a very holy and mysterious thing, only I utterly deny that there can be any benefit, except to those who follow the direct teaching of the Lord himself; not to those who look on without communicating. And now I must again revert to the painful subject to which I adverted the other day-the proposals of the Royal Commissioners on the subject of the Irish Church. One of their propositions is to abolish some of the Cathedrals. Their proper duty would have been to try and restore the constitution of those ancient Cathedrals, so that they might become colleges of priests and laymen, whose most sacred office should be to keep up the weekly, and, where possible, the daily services

of the Church, and of the Holy Communion especially. All the legislation of late years has gone into the opposite direction; and it is well to know that, as a matter of fact, there are no less than five Cathedrals, the suppression of which is now contemplated, which are all endowed with minor canons or vicars choral, for the very purpose of keeping up the more solemn service of God. In one of those much-injured Cathedrals, that of Cashel, it is sustained; with what efficiency and zeal I leave for those who know to judge and declare.

THE REV. J. Fletcher BickerDIKE:--Among many excellent things in the first paper there was nothing in which I more fully agreed than that, if the Minister would make his reading of the prayers really effective, he must pray them. That is the first thing; that is the second thing; and that is the third thing. When this is absent, all other ways of improving our services are useless; and when this is present, I was almost going to say, all other things may be dispensed with. For there is such a sympathy between heart and heart, that when one person is really and unaffectedly praying as before God, others in whom the spirit of prayer is, will pray with him. This is so obvious as to seem hardly worth mentioning; yet, perhaps, there is a danger lest in our many expedients for improving the outward expres. sion of our services, we should neglect the very life of them.

However, while this is the main thing that we are to do, there are, of course, other things that we are not to leave undone.

And first I would mention the explanation of our Liturgy. It has been already suggested on a former day, that the Liturgy should be explained in our Sunday Schools. I would venture to suggest, that this may profitably be done also in our Churches. If, for example, it be pointed out, that in the Litany we pray, first for ourselves, then for the different orders and classes of persons in the universal Church, and then for our fellow-men, simply as such; these divisions will be resting-places for the mind, and the attention of the worshippers will be quickened, and will take a fresh start as they enter on each fresh division. Again, if the intensity of the form of supplication which we have in the Litany be pointed out; how the enumeration of our wants, and desires, and intercessions, is broken in upon by the fervent ejaculation of the congregation, that our good Lord will deliver and hear us; people will be ashamed that a form of such intensity should be animated by so weak a spirit of devotion. Again, if people are reminded of what a solemn pledge they give to God, when they pray for the destitute, the widow, and the fatherless, that they put themselves at God's disposal, as His instruments, to convey to the destitute that succour and comfort for which we pray, they will be less likely to respond to such petitions in the listless way in which it is too often done. Observations, such as I should desire, would be not historical, or controversial, but conceived in the same spirit of devotion in which the Liturgy itself has been written.

Another point that I think very important is, that we should endeavour to secure the most religiously minded persons in our congregations as members of our choirs; for there is a great difference between the singing of those who feel what they sing, and that of those who do not. I would rather, for my own part, have in my choir persons of moderate musical powers and high spirituality, than persons of high musical powers and low spirituality; and I should expect that they would in the end prove more helpful to the devotion of the people.

Another thing that I would venture to suggest is, that those parts of the service which are taken in common by the minister and people, should he said with suffi. cient deliberation, to allow the people, and especially the poorer part of them, to

join in them with comfort.

We must remember that in every congregation, both

the minds and the utterance of some, and especially of the uneducated, are slower than those of others; while, on the other hand, the clergyman, who, from his greater familiarity with sacred things, sees the meaning at a glance, may sometimes, perhaps, be disposed to greater rapidity of utterance than others. A little allowance should, I think, be made for this. For those parts of the service which all say together, are so full of deep meaning, especially the Lord's Prayer, that a moderate rate of saying them would be no grievance to any one-as even the most educated might well be glad of an additional moment to enter more fully into the meaning of what they utter; while for persons of slower thought, to be forced on faster than they can realise what they say, turns their prayer into the merest piece of formality.

I cannot agree with the writer of the first paper, that it would be any improvement of our services, if the responses were said upon one note. This is a matter of individual perception. I once attended a parish church at Oxford, where the services were remarkably hearty and fervent, which was the chief attraction that drew me there on Sunday evenings. After a while, however, by way of improving them, the responses were intoned; but from that time I never found in the services there the same help to my devotion that I had felt before. I think it would be a great mistake in us to try to imitate the service of our cathedrals in our parish churches. The intoning of the prayers may be a necessity in those vast buildings; but for us to use it without necessity, would, I think, not tend to heighten but to lower our devotion. It is not that I object in the least to music being used to heighten the expression of prayer and praise. On the contrary, I think it to be the natural overflow of the Spirit of God in the heart of man :-" Speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs." The reason why I object to intoning is, not that it is too musical, but that it is contrary to the very end of music, which is the heightening of our emotion; for, to my perception, it diminishes emotion, instead of increasing it. And, therefore, I do not regard it as a higher style of utterance than speaking, but as a lower style. I freely admit that a few gifted persons may be able to infuse some feeling, even into what seems to me so cold and stiff a mode of utterance as intoning, but with ordinary persons it is not so.

THE VERY REV. J. S. Howson, D.D. (Dean of Chester):-I am very much obliged to your Grace for allowing me to occupy the meeting for a few moments, and I shall be much obliged to the Congress if they will permit me to say a few words on one or two topics which have come before us in the course of the addresses we have heard. I took a note of one word in the address of Mr. Walsham How the word "kneeling." And I would wish to make a very serious appeal to this meeting- to ask the Clergy whether they have done their part, in preaching to their congregations on the duty of kneeling, and whether fathers and mothers have done their part to their children, in inculcating upon them the duty of outward reverence both in domestic and public devotion. We trust that, as one of the speakers has said, the high square pew has been superannuated, and that it may soon be banished from our Churches; but the bad habits into which they have trained our people are not easily got rid of. We cannot indeed make our congregations kneel by merely scolding them; but we can do a great deal by being careful-I take a hint from Mr. Ryle-in the construction of our Churches: and we may do still more by the force of example through those members of our congregations in whom we find we can place confidence. Let it be remembered, in constructing our Churches, that

the first great purpose in coming to Church is, not to be comfortable, but to be awake. Hence they should not be so arranged as to encourage what too often happens, namely, that the majority of the congregation, poor and rich, men and women, settle themselves into the posture which will enable them to be as nearly asleep as possible during prayers without attracting attention. Dr. Jebb has alluded to Cathedral life. He has had large experience of Cathedral life; I am a novice, and have only been at work one year in this way but I can tell you of one useful thing which we have done in our Cathedral at Chester. In preparing for our Special Evening Services we constructed a new set of benches: for I was determined that no member of the congregationunless indeed they were crammed together, as was the case at S. Patrick's last night, and as they have often been with us-should be without facility for kneeling. Now let me advertise and recommend for your adoption the "Chester bench "—and as I am not the inventor of it, and shall not get any per-centage on the sale of it, my advice is perfectly disinterested. Seriously. I believe this matter of the internal accommodation in our Churches is of vast importance; and if any of you are ever passing through Chester, you might spend a few moments usefully in looking at the peculiarities and advantages of our bench.

The next observation I wished to make was suggested by a phrase used by Mr. Hope. He said, that a "Voluntary Choir meant systematic good will.” That is a sentence which deserves to be written in gold. I have found it to be true. Dr. Jebb, I think, spoke of the way in which a Voluntary Choir may be connected with practical work in the Parish. I have found that a Cathedral Voluntary Choir of 150 people has a tendency to facilitate a great deal of practical work. Not long ago I invited Clergy and Laity to meet in the Chapter House to discuss that question of Lay Agency, which the Congress dealt with yesterday, and one of the best speakers was a member of my Voluntary Choir-a man who walks some two or three miles to the Cathedral every Sunday Evening, and who said several things at that meeting which, in my opinion, were very good for us the Clergy to hear. A Voluntary Choir has a most satisfactory tendency to combine together worship and work.

There is now another topic on which I desire to say a word or two, and I will endeavour to use no phrase which can offend any one-it is a subject on which we have all been thinking, but which hitherto has been very lightly touched. Mr. How expressed some sentiments strongly in reference to certain marked developments of worship in external matters, and we are thankful to him for that expression of opinion. Canon Trevor, too, has remarked that, for any one to do what he knows his Bishop does not approve of in public worship, is inconsistent with Catholic principle. Dr. Jebb has alluded to certain changes in the mode of celebrating the Holy Communion, and their tendency towards introducing views and habits entirely alien to the Church of England; and bringing in again a state of things which the English people deliberately removed and abolished some two or three centuries ago. Now, with regard to these external matters of worship, the Bishop of S. David's, with his usual penetration, has said it was a great delusion to treat them as trivial matters. If our public worship is so transformed and altered as to be totally unlike what our people have been accustomed to see, and very like what we have been accustomed to revolt from, then such a