We confess that we do not see how any clergymen can consistently petition for a revision of the Liturgy, or for any alteration in the formularies or canons to which their implicit approbation is unhappily pledged. Nor could we, under existing circumstances, anticipate any satisfactory result from such revision. After endless wrangling and party contention, the whole business would probably terminate in some compromise and a few insignificant alterations, that would afford no substantial relief. Let us see what Mr. Riland wishes to have altered. In the first place, he is confounded,' that any lessons from the Apocrypha should be retained in the Calendar, and that such 'impure trash as, for example, the sixth and seventh chapters ' of Tobit, should be tolerated in any branch of the Christian 'Church.' He does not seem to be aware, that Bel and the Dragon was first inserted by the Bishops in the last revision, in direct opposition to the Presbyterians. We should really hope, however, that the Apocryphal lessons would now be given up, and, possibly, the first three chapters of the Apocalypse be admitted in their place. Mr. Riland next attacks the three Creeds; the Apostles' Creed, because its title is spurious, and its contents, an indefinite, deficient, and ill-assorted compend of the Gospel'; the Nicene, because it equally separates the forgiveness of sins from the only source of pardon'; and the Athanasian, because it is a dry, abstract, unapplied series of 'positions about the Trinity',-and he thinks it high time that something should be done to close for ever this hitherto inex'haustible source of evil to the Church of Christ.' Proceeding to examine the Liturgy, he remarks, that a 'most oppressive 'weight of objection might be effectually and easily removed by ' compliance with three principles of reform.'

In the first place, let the ritual be cleansed from every expression even tending to irritate another party; from personalities of whatever dimensions. On this point, the services for the fifth of November, thirtieth of January, and twenty-ninth of May, furnish revolting examples, and such as need not be particularized. They are an illegitimate scion of the Liturgy, and have long since lapsed into desuetude; or, if used, have been read by all men of reflection with feelings of disgust, grief, and shame.

On this subject, and on a collateral cause of humiliation, I cordially concur in the following remarks:-" When, at the Restoration, the two forms of public devotion for the martyrdom of Charles the First, and for the return of the Second Charles, were drawn up by the then hierarchy, a truly humiliating difference was discernible between the ancient Liturgy, as generally compiled by the Reformers, and these two appendages. When the Jews saw the second temple, they wept!

"The offices in question were, in fact, drawn up by Sancroft; a prelate whose character these performances teach us to appreciate.

For some time, his productions were laid aside as improper; and other forms, constructed with sobriety and moderation, proposed to be adopted. But on Sancroft's succession to the primacy, he revived the energy of Ego et Rex meus, and contrived to introduce his own performances under the royal authority. They were accordingly inserted in the Prayer-book, as we now find them.

"After the Savoy Conference, as Burnet relates, a collect was also drawn up for the Parliament, in which a new epithet was added to the king's title, that gave great offence, and occasioned much indecent raillery he was styled our most religious king. It was not easy to give a proper sense to this, and to make it go well down; since, whatever the signification of religious might be in the Latin word, as importing the sacredness of the king's person, yet, in the English language, it bore a signification that was in no way applicable to the king. And those who took great liberties with him, have often asked him, What must all his people think, when they heard him prayed for as their most religious king?'

"Would Cranmer, and Ridley, and Jewell, all high prerogative men, as is evident from the Homilies on Rebellion, have created a world of causeless mislike and irritation for the sake of a single epithet; which even the good sense and easy nature of Charles the Second would first have laughed at, and then have discarded from the Liturgy?

"But while the religious sensibility of that monarch's prelates was sufficiently stagnant, they were wide awake, and all in motion, when the debates of the times touched the prerogative. Their error was so far excusable, as being, in the usual course of human things, the effervescence of minds fresh with the feelings of injury, and intoxicated with a recent and finished victory." p. 172–175.

The other principles of reform specified by Mr. Riland, are, that the doctrinal system of the ritual should be symmetrized,' and that all religious compliments should be entirely rescinded. He then goes on to urge the necessity of severing from our 'folio Prayer book, that ambiguous body of ecclesiastical law, 'drawn up, under the name of Canons, at the end of the 'seventeenth century, and which furnishes an unhappy exam'ple of the accuracy with which the Anglican Protestants of 'that day copied the style and spirit-the si quis dixerit and 'the anathema sit-of the Roman Catholic Church.' Lastly, he examines the Thirty-nine Articles seriatim, from which he would reject the third, the eighth, the sixteenth, the twentieth, the twenty-second, the thirty-sixth, and the thirty-eighth, as wholly superfluous or objectionable. The sixth, he would place first; and for the first, second, and fifth, he would substitute such clauses of the Creeds as exclusively illustrate the doctrines of the Trinity.

What do we gain by the party spirit of the Preface to the Liturgy; the ill selection of Proper Lessons, Epistles, and Gospels; the reten

VOL. IV.-N.S.

N

tion of legendary names and allusions in the Calendar; the lection of the Apocrypha, and the omission of the Apocalypse; the mention of feasts and fasts never observed; the repetitions of the Pater noster, Kyrie eleison, and Gloria Patri; the wearisome length of the services; the redundance and assumptions in the state prayers; the unsatisfactoriness of the three Creeds; the disputable character of the Baptismal and Burial offices; the incompleteness, and dubious construction, of the Catechism, and of the Order of Confirmation; the inapplicable nature, and absolution, of the Visitation of the Sick; the imperfection of the Commination Service; the discordance between the Prayer-book and Bible translations of the Psalms; the contumelious and offensive language of the state services; and, added to all these sources of weakness, similar causes of inefficiency in the Articles and Homilies?

The universal feeling of self-preservation might dictate the necessity of reviewing these many points of insecurity; as a measure, at least, of prudence, and of prospective advantage. I would repeat a position already advanced,-that no Reformed church has a moral right to insist upon terms of communion not recognized by the general assent of Protestants united in the fundamentals of Christianity. It is a disruption of the common bonds of the church of Christ.'

pp. 209, 210.

These proposals and suggestions, it will be seen, go far beyond all that the Nonconformists thought of demanding. And does Mr. Riland dream that they will be favourably entertained by the majority of the clergy, or that there is the slightest chance of their being acceded to? It seems to us, that he has begun at the wrong end. A shorter, perhaps a more effective, at all events a more decorous way of obtaining the desired relief, on the part of clergymen pledged and sworn to implicit consent and approbation,--would be, to seek for the repeal of the cruel, unnecessary, and unrighteous oath by which they are ensnared and hampered. Till this is rescinded, with what decency could any alteration be made? Or, if made, with what decency could it be imperatively imposed on those who were pledged to the unaltered formularies? We term it a cruel oath, for its framers were actuated by vindictive cruelty, and it was intended to operate as an instrument of persecution;-unnecessary, for the circumstances which afforded a state plea for the enactment, no longer exist, the Presbyterian party has long been extinct,and Dr. Paley has taught the clergy how to regard it as a mere matter of form, which has well nigh lost its meaning;-unrighteous, because it requires what no body of men have a right to exact from the ministers of Christ. Upon this point, we must be allowed to cite a few paragraphs from Mr. Hurn's volume.

The subject of inquiry here is, whether any officers or rulers in the Christian church have authority from Christ to impose on all ministers and congregations an exclusive form of prayer; to demand of

all who officiate in sacred things, a declaration, that they will use the prescribed form, and no other; and to enforce the use of it under the severest penalties in the power of the church to inflict; and whether such a regimen can be defended by any solid arguments, by the practice of the primitive times, and above all, by any thing taught by Christ and his apostles? It is also of great importance to inquire, whether the ministers of the gospel may lawfully, and without offending their Master in heaven, acknowledge such a power in any of their brethren, and bind themselves, so far as the prayer-book extends, to an unreserved and implicit subjection? pp. 155, 6.

Let us suppose for argument's sake, that the liturgy is without fault, and in all points unexceptionable, such as good men would wish it to be. Can any reason be assigned why it should not in this case be established on the exclusive plan? Yes; several of the main objections continue in full force. What scriptural authority is there for a discipline of this nature? Why must all other prayers equally proper and scriptural be set aside and withheld from the church? Is it not presumption in men, to fix their boundaries where God, for wise and gracious purposes, has left His people at liberty, and grants them enlargement? Why are no cases to be brought before the Lord in prayer, but those prescribed in the rubric, and which vary not; whereas the spiritual wants of a congregation are liable to perpetual variation, and to be multiplied without end?' pp. 163, 4.

If any plead for the use of forms, because they have need of such helps, and believe they can use them with advantage, I have no controversy with them. They plead for the same liberty with myself; and which every man has a right to claim. I have clearly a right to pray to God in that way which I believe most agreeable to His will, and most conducive to my own spiritual well-being. But should any of my brethren attempt to deprive me of this privilege, and to compel me to adopt their words, and no other, in my prayers, and, in case of my refusal, to inflict the severest punishment in their power; I am bound to protest against such claims as strongly as I am able, because they are founded in impiety and injustice, are anti-scriptural and a violation of natural rights. Whatever office they may hold in the church, this assuredly belongs not to the duties of it. After a close investigation of this subject, with long and serious attention, the result has been a full conviction, without the shadow of a doubt, that God has never delegated such a power as this to any person or persons whatever upon earth; and that the usurpation of it involves an awful responsibility to Him in that day when he shall judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom he hath ordained. It is a power which was never claimed by those holy men who had the first fruits of the Spirit, and were the first preachers of the gospel; but is, indeed, irreconcilable with their doctrine. It is a power which exalts itself above every power assumed and exercised by the Son of God Himself, in the government of his church, with respect to the prayers of his people. And I frankly acknowledge, that if the liturgy were without blemish, and nothing were required of me in order to my exercising my ministry in the establishment, except a strict and never

varying conformity to the authorized prayers, I should feel obliged by my present convictions to say as before, not upon that condition.

In the excursions of the mind while engaged by this subject, I have often imagined some believer in the apostolic age informing his brethren, that a period would arrive when rulers in the church would assume the right of prescribing the very words which all ministers should use in public worship, and enforce the observance of them by compulsory laws; that they would exact promises of implicit compliance, and oblige them to speak of the prescribed prayers in terms which implied their perfection; that means would be employed to continue the same words in public prayer from age to age, and to render them perpetual; and that no minister, however wise or holy, would be allowed to speak to the people from a single pulpit under their jurisdiction, unless he should first comply with their requisitions. I have likewise endeavoured to form some conception of the surprise, astonishment, and pain which such a prediction would have excited, and also the difficulty of believing that the events would ever take place. But it may be observed, that corrupt innovations creep into practice gradually; and that after they have become habitual, and gained a permanent footing, we cease to wonder at them.'

pp. 174-176. Whenever I give attention to the subject, my conviction is strengthened, that the word of God is deprived of that honour which He claims for it, that its free course is impeded, and that the design for which He gave it, is, in a measure, frustrated by various legislative enactments. It is true, that the clergy receive a charge to preach the word, that portions of it are read, and honourable mention made of it in the public services, and that the 6th article declares, that "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed, &c." This witness is true; and it would be well for my country, if her laws required nothing inconsistent with it. But, be it remembered, that there is (if I may use a figure) another little book, containing declarations, promises, subscriptions, oaths, &c. which every clergyman is obliged to swallow, before he is permitted to teach out of the Bible, in the churches of the establishment. The avowed design of it is to pre-engage him in favour of another larger book, comprising liturgical services and forms of devotion, all of which, excepting the selections from scripture, are of human composition; and it appears to me, that this latter book, under the sanction of human authority, does therefore take precedence of the Bible itself. Here the limits of his faith are drawn; and here his spiritual researches are circumscribed. And if we include the unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing in the book, his mind is so entirely prepossessed as to disable him from receiving the Bible in its full authority and appropriate influence. To me it is evident, that a clergyman, who understands and acts consistently with his preengagements, will not feel at liberty to make the scripture his only rule; those engagements being an effectual bar to all new discoveries in the oracles of God, and a check on his attempts to make further