r-i^^ Cf^iS' 
 
 
 ^<:^<?"*^c. 
 
 
 
 1%**:- est? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _ "^^ 
 ^*&i- 
 
 ax r ;, 
 
 4r *r cMtcr 
 
 
 
 :^
 
 ^M-::^rmjMmmmii!mi^mmmi 
 
 L 1 B RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N IVERSITY 
 
 or ILLl NOIS
 
 ^^. C- Xjmi 
 
 REM A R K S 
 
 Ma 
 
 PETITION 
 
 PRESENTED TO HEB MAJESTY, 
 
 REVISION OF THE LITUEGY, 
 
 SIGNED BY 4G0 CLERGYMEN. 
 
 F. B. WOODWARD, M.A. 
 
 CllAl'LAIN TO THE E.Ntil-ISH COiNUREGATlON AT ROME. 
 
 LONDON; 
 
 EIVINGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE. 
 
 1860.
 
 LONDON : 
 (ill.BERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTF.RS, 
 
 ST. John's square.
 
 To make the following remarks intelligible to those 
 who may not have seen the Document on which I 
 comment, I think it advisable here to reprint it in 
 extenso. I give it as it appeared in the Guardian 
 of September 28, 1859 :— 
 
 " To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council. 
 The humble petition of the undersigned Clergy of the 
 Church of England, slioweth — 
 
 " That your Majesty's petitioners approach the throne 
 of your Majesty with feelings of fervent loyalty and 
 devotion ; and having had their attention directed to 
 various proceedings, in Parhament and elsewhere, re- 
 lating to alterations in the Book of Common Prayer, 
 that they respectfully ask permission to bear their testi- 
 mony to the importance of the subject. 
 
 " 2. That the experience of. j^our Majesty's petitioners 
 leads them to coincide in the opinion that abbreviation 
 is an important principle in the work of alteration or 
 revision, and that no new doctrine should be introduced ; 
 and if additional services or prayers are contemplated, 
 they desire to leave this, mider God, to the wisdom of 
 their superiors in ecclesiastical concerns. 
 
 " 3. That a change in the Lessons they could desire 
 to see; substituting portions from the Canonical Scrip- 
 tures for such as are taken from the Apocrypha, and those 
 portions being generally shorter than some which are 
 now appointed to bo read ; that there are cases, also, 
 in which lessons called " proper " might well be changed 
 for others more appropriate, and tliat proper second 
 
 A 2
 
 4 PETITION FOR A REVISION 
 
 Lessons, as well as first, might be appointed for all 
 Sundays in the year, with good effect. 
 
 "4. That a beneficial abbreviation might be found in 
 discontinuing the congregational use of the Athanasian 
 Creed, especially as the doctrines of it (sound as your 
 Majesty's Petitioners believe them to be) are too abstrusely 
 expressed for common worship, and are all found in other 
 parts of the Liturgy ; also that the other two Creeds 
 might be so placed in juxtaposition, as that one or the 
 other, and not both, might be used in the same service, 
 or combination of services, 'at the discretion of the 
 minister ;' that one of the prayers for the Queen in 
 the Communion Service might be placed in like manner 
 in connexion with that in the Daily Service, and used 
 as an alternative with it, the other in the Communion 
 Service being put away; and that, in consistency with 
 this arrangement, it would be sufficient if the Lord's 
 Prayer were used twice in the Morning Service with 
 Communion, and once in the Evening Service. 
 
 " 5. That the observance of Saints' Days was matter of 
 strong objection in the Conference of 1661, and, though 
 the services appointed for them are not in themselves 
 examples of the idolatrous worship of saints, yet that the 
 observance appears to many to countenance this error ; 
 the most distant tendency to which cannot be too jealously 
 kept clear of by the Church of Christ ; that Apostolic 
 examples, therefore, should be made edifying by minis- 
 terial teaching, and the only days for which permanent 
 special Services are reserved should be those which have 
 special reference to the great events of our blessed 
 Saviour's life and death, the coming of the Holy Ghost, 
 and the Commemoration of the Holy Trinit}?-. 
 
 " 6. That the Burial Service shovdd be so cleared of 
 passages inapplicable to some deceased persons as to 

 
 OF THE LITURGY. 5 
 
 remove the just scruples already expressed under the 
 signatures of nearly four thousand of our Clergy, many 
 of them still hoping for relief in relation to this subject 
 with anxious expectation. 
 
 " 7. That it would also be a great relief if the absolu- 
 tion in the Visitation of the Sick, which seems, as some 
 think, to be more than merely declarative, were deli- 
 vered from all appearance of being an absolution by 
 priestly authority, giving it the semblance of a dangerous 
 error. 
 
 "8. That similar ideas and sensations suggest them- 
 selves respecting the expressions in our Consecration and 
 Ordination Services, which appear to imply (however 
 they may be otherwise explained) the giving of the Holy 
 Ghost by human hands. 
 
 " 9. That the like regret is felt by many on the subject 
 of the communication of the Holy Ghost by the adminis- 
 tration of Holy Baptism, as our Ritual seems to express 
 it ; that the unhappy divisions which prevail in our 
 Church on this subject might be closed for ever by an 
 alteration in the Baptismal Service, which should exclude 
 the sponsorial element, and such portions as seem to imply 
 Regeneration, or the Birth of the Spirit in or by Baptism : 
 that very beautiful services woidd remain ; and the form 
 of Baptism, given in charge by our Lord to His Apos- 
 tles, having no such implication, they may be perfectly 
 Scriptural without it. 
 
 " 10. That it results from the judgment of your 
 Majesty's highest tribunal in matters ecclesiastical (how- 
 ever that judgment may be viewed) that the Churchman- 
 ship of those who, like your Majesty's petitioners, do not 
 hold Baptismal Regeneration in the absolute sense, is no 
 less good than that of those who do ; and that, there- 
 fore, your Majesty's petitioners arc honest and consistent
 
 6 PETITION FOR A REVISION 
 
 Churclimen in using the Baptismal Ritual in a sense 
 which avoids that view, according to the judgment. 
 
 " 11. That they wish, therefore, only for what is just 
 and reasonable, in desiring a ritual clear in terms from 
 what they are authorized to eschew in fact ; and that they 
 humbly ask why language occasioning continued dissension, 
 without giving the palm of superior Churchmanship to 
 one party more than another, should remain in a for- 
 mulary which might be complete without it ? And your 
 Majesty's petitioners are the more solicitous upon this 
 subject, because it is notoriously the chief occasion of 
 disturbance to the peace of the Church, so ardently to be 
 desired for her efficiency, and a cause (as your peti- 
 tioners believe) of keeping many out of her Communion 
 who would otherwise be glad to join it. 
 
 " 12. That it remains to be observed, in connexion 
 with what has been said, that the Office for Confirmation 
 would of course require to be conformed to that of Infant 
 Baptism; that the Catechism also would require the 
 same conformity, as well as other corrections; and that, 
 in fact, the adoption or construction of another in agree- 
 ment, for the most part, with the original Catechism of 
 King Edward VI., but more concise and brief in its 
 questions and answers, would be a most valuable acqui- 
 sition. 
 
 " 13. That other alterations might be alluded to, both 
 in the body and the rubrics of the Liturgy, which must 
 readily suggest themselves as the work proceeds. The 
 Litany, for instance, on Sunday mornings might be ap- 
 pointed only for the second and fourth Simdays of the 
 month, a proportionate quantity of the daily prayers 
 from and after the Jubilate being disused for that time, 
 as also when the Litany is used on week days ; and 
 that the eftect would be that of orderly variety, as well
 
 OF THE LITURGY. 7 
 
 as of abbreviation ; that the forms, also, for the 5th of 
 November, the 29th of May, and the 30th of January, 
 might be relinquished ; and generally all obsolete terms 
 be exchanged for others now more appropriate. 
 
 "14. That on these grounds your petitioners most 
 humbly pray that your INtajesty, by and with the advice 
 of your Privy Council, will be graciously pleased to take 
 the premises into your royal consideration, and to appoint 
 a Commission for the revision of the Book of Common 
 Prayer, in harmony with the views hereby most respect- 
 fully submitted to your Majesty ; and if it become law 
 that persons hereafter to be ordained, on being in- 
 stituted or licensed to any benefice with cure of souls, 
 shall therein use the new form only, nevertheless that it 
 may be lawful for those who have been already ordained, 
 and have subscribed the second article of the Thirty- 
 sixth Canon, to continue the use of the old form ; until, 
 being possessed of any benefice, the new form shall be 
 voluntarily adopted by them together with a majority 
 of their seat-holders, and in the case of chapters and 
 colleges, until it be so adopted by the heads and majo- 
 rities of the ruling powers thereof. 
 
 " 15. And that, finally, your Majesty's petitioners 
 advance nothing touching their assent and consent to 
 the Liturgy as it is, but earnestly plead for improve- 
 ments, of which it is obviously, urgently, and easily 
 susceptible, as they woidd seek alterations for the better 
 in the laws of the land, to which they bear true allegi- 
 ance ; and that, commending both your most gracious 
 Majesty and themselves to the mercy and goodness of 
 God, your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever 
 pray," &c.
 
 REMARKS, 
 
 The first reflections suggested by the perusal of 
 this Petition are these three : — 
 
 1. That it is matter of no surprise that the 
 writers of it should fail to appreciate the beauty 
 and symmetry of the English Ritual. 
 
 2. That should Her Majesty be advised to grant 
 their Prayer, it is to be hoped that the Royal Com- 
 missioners will not be chosen from among the com- 
 posers of this document. If we are to have a new 
 Prayer Book, at least let us have it in good 
 English \ 
 
 * I certainly cannot coincide with Lord Ebury in his estimate 
 of the literary merits of this composition. (See Correspond- 
 ence with Lord Lyttelton in Guardian, Sept. 7.) His Lord- 
 ship considers it remarkable for "clearness and propriety of 
 diction ;" whereas it seems to me that there is not a tolerably 
 written sentence in it from beginning to end. Tlie following 
 are only specimens of the slovenly style in which the writers 
 think it seemly to address Her Majesty : —
 
 REMARKS ON A TETITION, &C. 9 
 
 3. That an attack on the Prayer Book so utterly 
 feeble in itself, could claim no notice, were it not 
 that it has gained adventitious importance from a 
 Peer of Parliament havino^ thoufjht it worth his 
 
 Paragraph 3. " A change in the Lessons they could desire 
 to see." But indeed the whole paragraph is of a piece. 
 
 Paragraph 4. "That the" Apostles' and Nicene "Creeds 
 might be so placed in juxtaposition as that one or the other, 
 not both, might be used." Again, the Lord's Prayer being 
 " used twice in the Morning Service," &c., they speak of as 
 being "in consistency with'''' their proposed arrangement re- 
 garding the Prayers for the Queen — as if the one had the 
 slightest connexion with the other. 
 
 Paragraph 5. " The only days for which permanent special 
 Services are reserved, should he those which have special refer- 
 ence," &c. According to my notions of " propriety of diction," 
 "are " and " should be " ought to change places. 
 
 Paragraph 8. " Similar ideas and sensations suggest them- 
 selves." Similar to what ? Besides " sensations suggesting 
 themselves" is nonsense. Any of the petitioners suffering from 
 toothache would think it an odd question if he were asked 
 whether much pain was suggesting itself. 
 
 Paragragh 9. " The like regret." Like to what ? No regret 
 had been previously expressed. 
 
 Paragraph 12. " Adoption or construction " of a new Cate- 
 chism. As probably there is not an existing Catechism on 
 earth which meets the requirements they express, I pre- 
 sume that by this phrase they mean " construction amd adop- 
 tion." 
 
 Paragraph 13. On the days on which they allow the Litany 
 to be used, they desire that " a proportionate quantity of the 
 daily prayers" may be omitted. Proportionate to what ? 
 
 Paragraph 15. They speak of the Liturgy being *' urgently 
 susceptible " of improvements !
 
 10 REMARKS ON A PETITION 
 
 while to circulate it among the Members of the 
 House to which he belongs ^ 
 
 I have called this Petition an attack on the 
 Prayer Book; for such substantially is its character. 
 The petitioners profess, indeed, to ask only for a 
 Revision ; but as they require the Revision to be 
 carried out "in harmony with the views" which 
 they have "submitted to Her Majesty," we have but 
 to look at the " views" so "submitted" to perceive 
 that what they call "Revision" is in fact Mutila- 
 tion, and that on a large scale. We have, indeed, 
 the usual heavy common-places about the Proper 
 Lessons, and the Absolution in the Visitation of 
 the Sick. But with the exception of recommending 
 changes in these two, and one or two other trifling 
 alterations, their "views" develop themselves in the 
 following excisions from the formularies of the 
 Church : — 
 
 1. The Apocryphal Lessons, extending as they 
 do over near two months of the year, besides some 
 Holy days. 
 
 2. The Athanasian Creed, in toto. 
 
 3. One or other of the other Creeds, on every 
 Sunday and Holyday throughout the year. 
 
 4. The Prayer for the Queen in the Communion 
 Service. 
 
 ' See Correspondence between Lord Lyttelton and Lord 
 Ebury.
 
 FOR A REVISION OF THE LITURGY. 1 1 
 
 5. The Lord's Prayer /owr times on every day on 
 which the Holy Communion is celebrated ; and, I 
 presume, three times on every other day. 
 
 C. The Collects, Epistles, and Gospels for at 
 least twenty^ Holydays, together with the Proper 
 Lessons for the same which have not already been 
 cut off by No. 1. 
 
 7. The Commination Service, and Proper Psalms 
 for Ash- Wednesday. 
 
 8. The Burial Service to be "cleared of" certain 
 "passages" not specified. 
 
 9. A similar "clearing" to be applied to "our 
 Consecration and Ordination Services," in regard of 
 certain "expressions" which to the petitioners 
 " appear to imply," and to the bulk of Christendom 
 appear very plainly to enunciate, a certain very 
 important doctrine. 
 
 10. The "Baptismal Service" to be subjected to 
 a double " clearing ; " the " sponsorial element to be 
 
 * I am giving them the benefit of the most liberal interpreta- 
 tion of their words. They say, 
 
 " the only days for which permanent special services are re- 
 served, should be those which have special reference to the 
 great events of our Saviour's Life and Death, the coming of 
 the Holy Ghost, and the commemoration of the Holy Trinity." 
 
 They best know whether they will thank me for my generosity 
 in assuming that they would allow the following to remain ; — the 
 Circumcision, the Epiphany, the Purification, the Annunciation, 
 the five days of Holy "Week besides Good Friday, Monday 
 and Tuesday in Easter Week, Ascension Day, and Monday and 
 Tuesday in AVhitsun "Week.
 
 12 REMARKS ON A PETITION 
 
 excluded," as well as "such portions as seem to 
 imply Regeneration, or the Birth of the Spirit in or 
 by Baptism." And as the exclusion of these two 
 "elements" might seem to some very like the ex- 
 clusion of the whole Service^ they console us by the 
 assurance that "very beautiful Services would 
 remain." 
 
 11. The "Office for Confirmation" to be "con- 
 formed to that of Infant Baptism;" of course, by 
 the " exclusion " of the same two ofiending " ele- 
 ments." 
 
 12. The Church Catechism to be reduced to the 
 " same conformity " by a like process, as well as to 
 be submitted to " other corrections." It seems that 
 in the case of the Catechism subtraction has not 
 the singular property of multiplication that it has 
 as applied to the Baptismal Service ; for we are not 
 told that after this double expurgation "very 
 beautiful Catechisms would remain." On the con- 
 trary, the petitioners hint that the handiest way of 
 dealing with the Catechism would be to get rid of 
 it altogether. For they proceed to acquaint Her 
 Majesty that " in fact the adoption or construction 
 [construction and adoption ?] of another " " would 
 be a most valuable acquisition." 
 
 Here the petitioners pause in their work of demo- 
 lition, apparently from sheer exhaustion, not from 
 any lack of obnoxious matter to be got rid of, for 
 they say that " other alterations might be alluded
 
 FOR A REVISION OF THE LITURGY. 13 
 
 to, both in the body and the rubrics of the Liturgy, 
 which must readily suggest themselves, as the 
 work" of revision "proceeds." However, as they 
 have the pruning knife still in their hands, before 
 they resign it to the Commissioners, they think 
 they may as well just give a parting cut ; and, 
 accordingly, in mere wantonness, — 
 
 13. They lop off the Litany from twenty-eight 
 Sundays in the year. And this arbitrary and un- 
 meaning distinction between these Sundays and the 
 other twenty-four, they call " orderly variety," and 
 speak of it as an alteration which "must readily 
 suggest itself!!" They add that on the days on 
 which they would allow the Litany to be used, " a 
 proportionate quantity of the daily prayers, from 
 and after the Jubilate''^ should be "disused for that 
 time." From this proviso I really can gather 
 nothing but their intense love of lopping. It seems 
 to be merely a cut at random. For if I rightly 
 understand their very awkward expressions, it would 
 seem that what they propose to do, is already done 
 by the existing rubric^ : unless, indeed, they mean 
 to enlarge the provisions of the rubric by — 
 
 14. Lopping off the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the 
 Versicles, and the three Collects. 
 
 * " Then these five Prayers following are to be read here, 
 except wlien tlie Litany is read, and then only the two last are 
 to be read, as they arc there placed." — Rubric hefore the 
 Prayer for the Queen's Majesty in the Obdek fob Moening 
 Pbateb.
 
 14 REMARKS ON A PETITION 
 
 Such are the " views" which the petitioners have 
 " submitted to Her Majesty." And if, as they 
 require, the "other alterations" which "might be 
 alluded to," " and which must readily suggest them- 
 selves," are to be carried out " in harmony with" 
 these "views," it "must readily suggest itself" that 
 we run a good chance of not having much of our 
 Prayer Book left to us. One knows not whether to 
 be amused or amazed to find the propounders of 
 such "views" whining through two paragraphs at 
 the "palm of superior Churchmanship" not being 
 adjudged to them! 
 
 But let us examine more particularly some of the 
 changes which they propose to make. 
 
 The Athanasian Creed. This is to be given 
 up for the sake of what they call " beneficial abbre- 
 viation." Let us see what this abbreviation would 
 amount to. This Creed is appointed to be used on 
 thirteen days in the year. Of these thirteen the 
 petitioners themselves abolish at least seven^ in the 
 following paragraph, leaving only six to be dealt 
 with. The Athanasian Creed occupies about 
 (rather less than) four minutes in reading. Sub- 
 stituting for it, as the petitioners permit, the Nicene 
 Creed, which takes about one minute, the actual 
 
 * The Feasts of S. Andrew, S. Matthias, S. John the Bap- 
 tist, S. .Tames, S. Bartholomew, S. Matthew, and SS. Simon 
 and Jude.
 
 FOR A REVISION OF THE LITURGY. 15 
 
 time saved by its omission would be about three 
 minutes. And to save three minutes' time on six 
 days in the year, 460 clergymen come forward to 
 demand that the Athanasian Creed shall be struck 
 out of the public service of the Church of England ! 
 I say that this is intolerable trifling with a very 
 grave subject. 
 
 But the petitioners say that this " abbreviation " 
 would be "especially" beneficial, because "the 
 doctrines" of this Creed "are too abstrusely ex- 
 pressed for common worship." Now, I do not 
 scruple to assert that any clergyman of the Church 
 of England ought to be ashamed to put such a 
 sentiment on paper. The doctrines of the Atha- 
 nasian Creed are not "abstrusely expressed :" they 
 are expressed with the utmost possible perspicuity. 
 The doctrines themselves, of course, involve mys- 
 teries which our intelligence cannot fathom. But 
 for any one who thinks these doctrines " sound," as 
 the petitioners profess to do, and who takes no 
 exception to the manner in which they are " ex- 
 pressed" in the Nicene Creed, to say that they are 
 "too abstrusely expressed" in the Athanasian^ is 
 simply preposterous. There is but one clause 
 ("The Father incomprehensible," &c.) which could, 
 in any sense, come within the petitioners' de- 
 scription. And even of this clause the abstruseness 
 is not in the terms themselves: it arises from the
 
 16 REMARKS ON A TETITION 
 
 fact that the primary meaning of the word " incom- 
 prehensible" is not, in modern times, the common 
 one. But I defy the petitioners to point out one other 
 clause "abstrusely expressed," without exposing 
 themselves to the charge of culpable ignorance of 
 the elementary principles of the theology which 
 they have undertaken to teach. And should any 
 of their flocks be so ill informed as to complain of 
 this Creed being "too abstrusely expressed," I 
 think the petitioners would be employed better, 
 and in a manner more suitable to the sacred office 
 they have assumed, in trying to show these people 
 their mistake, than in petitioning the Queen to 
 deprive them of this great bulwark of their faith. 
 
 Saints' Days. The grounds for abolishing 
 these, as set forth in the Petition, are as fol- 
 lows : — 
 
 "That tlie observance of Saints' Days was matter of 
 strong objection in the Conference of 1661 ; and though the 
 Services appointed for them are not in themselves ex- 
 amples of the idolatrous worship of saints, yet that the 
 observance appears to many to countenance this error ; 
 the most distant tendency to which cannot be too jealously 
 kept clear of by the Church of Christ." 
 
 From their reference to the Conference of 1661, I 
 presume they mean to identify their views with 
 those of the Presbyterians at that Conference. 
 This is rather an odd authority for Clergymen of
 
 FOR A REVISION OF THE LITURGY. 17 
 
 the Church of England to appeal to, as supporting 
 their views in regard to the Prayer Book. But 
 still, had they taken the trouble to refresh their 
 memory of the proceedings to which they allude, 
 by a reference to " Cardwell's History of Confer- 
 ences^'' &c., they would hardly have ventured to 
 take shelter under the wing of the Presbyterians of 
 1661. The objection urged at the Conference is 
 stated in these words : — 
 
 " That the religious observation of Saints' Days, ap- 
 pointed to be kept as holy days, and the vigils thereof, 
 without any foundation (as we conceive) in Scripture, 
 may be omitted *." 
 
 This, at any rate, cannot be called a very " strong 
 objection:" considering the parties who urged it, 
 it rather seems a moderate and qualified one. But 
 the material thing to observe, is the ground on 
 which it is placed. There is not a word said about 
 the observance of these days " appearing to coun- 
 tenance the idolatrous worship of saints," or having 
 any " tendency " that way. Nothing is said but 
 that " as they conceived," it was " without any 
 foundation in Scripture," — a reason, by the bye, 
 that would sweep away much that the petitioners 
 would probably be willing enough to retain. Un- 
 less, therefore, the petitioners wrote in ignorance 
 or forgetfulness (and they ought not to be either 
 ignorant or forgetful) of the proceedings of the 
 
 • Cardwell, p. 306.
 
 18 REMAKKS ON A PETITION 
 
 Conference, it really was not honest to represent 
 themselves as reproducing the objections of IGGl. 
 
 To come, now, to the objections of the petitioners 
 themselves. I would ask these gentlemen whether, 
 in the clumsy sentence which I have quoted, they 
 are expressing their own sentiments. Let them 
 stand forward, and say plainly whether they believe 
 that the observance of Saints' Days in the Church 
 of England " countenances idolatrous worship," or 
 has " the most distant tendency " to it. If they 
 do, what becomes of their " unfeigned assent and 
 consent to all and every thing contained and pre- 
 scribed in and by the Book " of Common Prayer ? 
 What becomes of their Subscription, (at least 
 in the case of those ordained in Ireland,) by which 
 they bound themselves not to "declare or speak 
 any thing in the derogation or the despising of 
 the said Book ?" Can any thing be more derogatory 
 than such a charge ? But, of course, they would 
 reply, that they are not expressing their own 
 sentiments : far from it ; they only say that the 
 observance of Saints' Days "appears to many" 
 to countenance idolatrous worship. " Appears to 
 many!" To whom does it appear? Is it to Dis- 
 senters? Are they, then, prepared to sacrifice 
 every thing that Dissenters object to ? Or might 
 it not rather be expected that Clergymen of the 
 Church of England, especially those proclaiming 
 themselves candidates for the "palm of superior 
 Churchmanship," would indignantly repel this
 
 FOR A REVISION OF THE LITURGY. 19 
 
 charge as a vile and patent slander, instead of 
 insinuating (as it " appears to many " that they 
 do) that its truth cannot be denied ? Or is it the 
 feelings of ill-informed members of our own Church 
 that they are consulting ? Then, I say, that they 
 would be acting a much more becoming part, if 
 they were to try to disabuse their flocks of so 
 stupid a prejudice, instead of humouring them by 
 mangling the Prayer Book, and breaking in upon 
 the Church system, which they have solemnly 
 undertaken to administer. 
 
 Burial Service. Of the clearances which they 
 suggest in this Service I will not speak positively, 
 not having an opportunity of referring to the 
 Petition to wdiich they allude. But if my memory 
 does not fail me, I suspect that they will not get 
 more help from the signers of that Petition, than 
 from their Presbyterian friends of ICGl. My 
 belief is, that the 4000 Clergy did not ask for an 
 alteration of the Burial Service at all; but wanted 
 only that the State should leave the Church free 
 to exercise her own discipline in regard of its 
 use. 
 
 Visitation of the Sic re. AVhat sort of chanire 
 they wish for in the Absolution does not appear 
 very clearly. They do not propose to strike it 
 out ; and it so happens that the only " error," the 
 " semblance " of which they deprecate, is expressly 
 guarded against in the existing Form, in which 
 
 B 2
 
 20 REMARKS ON A PETITION 
 
 the Priest declares that he " absolves " not by his 
 own authority, but " by the authority of Christ." 
 However, if it were not for the danger of altering 
 the Prayer Book at all, there is not a Churchman 
 in the land that would object to any verbal change 
 (if such were possible) that would satisfy weak minds, 
 without compromising the doctrine that God " hath 
 given power ^^ as well as "commandment to His 
 ministers, to declare and pronounce to His people, 
 being penitent, the absolution and remission of 
 their sins ^" 
 
 Consecration and Ordination Services, Bap- 
 TiSMAL Service, Office for Confirmation, and 
 Church Catechism. The alterations proposed in 
 these, with the exception of the exclusion of the 
 " Sponsorial element," being ejusdem generis^ I 
 shall consider them together. 
 
 And, first, I must protest against the statement 
 that " it results from the judgment " of the Privy 
 Council in the Gorham case " (however that 
 judgment may be viewed) that the Churchmanship 
 of those who do not hold Baptismal Regenera- 
 tion in the absolute sense" (whatever the ab- 
 solute sense may mean) "is no less good than that 
 of those who do." No such issue was raised, nor 
 
 ' Absolution in the order for Moenino and Evening 
 Peatee. When a Priest absolves a penitent, he does only 
 what the petitioners, every time they read prayers, declare tliat 
 " God hath given him power" to do.
 
 FOR A REVISION OF THE LITURGY. 21 
 
 any thing the least like it. Indeed, so far as the 
 judgment may be thought to bear upon that ques- 
 tion, it " appears to many " that the deniers of Bap- 
 tismal Regeneration barely escaped exclusion from 
 the Church. But the petitioners are so little skilled 
 in the art of writing, that the parenthesis which 
 they throw in almost involves a flat contradiction 
 of their own statement. They say the above 
 result follows, " however that judgment may be 
 viewed." I have just stated one way in which the 
 judgment "may be viewed." Do they mean that 
 "it results from the judgment" according to that 
 view, that those who barely escape exclusion from 
 the Church, are as good Churchmen as those whose 
 Churchmanship it would be insanity to doubt ? 
 
 These, however, are but minor considerations. 
 Whatever the petitioners may feel, there are those 
 who think that the great controversy which un- 
 happily divides the Church, is of a higher order 
 than a paltry squabble about the " palm of superior 
 Churchmanship." There are those who believe that 
 the contest is not about " words and names," but 
 about vital doctrine. There are those who would 
 make the petitioners a present of the " palm," or 
 fling it to the winds, if that were necessary to 
 secure the undisturbed possession of the Catholicity 
 which, through God's mercy, their Church has 
 inherited. 
 
 The petitioners say that they " wish only for 
 what is just and reasonable in desiring a Ritual
 
 22 REMARKS ON A TETITION 
 
 clear from" the matter at which they take offence 
 in the above-named formularies. Let us see whether 
 their demands can fairlv be so designated. How 
 does the case stand ? Here are two parties among 
 the Clergy: the one a minority, I believe a very 
 small minority; the other a majority, I believe an 
 overwhelming majority. And here are certain for- 
 mularies, to which both parties " declare their 
 unfeigned assent and consent." These formularies 
 contain certain "expressions" and large "portions," 
 which the two parties unfortunately interpret diffe- 
 rently. The majority believe them to exhibit, and 
 that they were intended to exhibit, two doctrines of 
 vital moment; namely, the transmission of a great 
 spiritual gift by Apostolical Succession, and Rege- 
 neration by Baptism : the very being of the Church, 
 in their view, depending on the one; the other 
 being, as they think, an article of the Christian 
 Creed. Be they right or wrong, that is the inter- 
 pretation which they put on the passages in question. 
 The minority interpret the same passages differently ; 
 how, I really do not know, but it is in some manner 
 that they profess to be satisfactory to themselves; 
 for they, equally with their brethren, " declare 
 their unfeigned assent and consent" thereto. What, 
 then, is the amount of grievance that the minority, 
 or rather a small fraction of the minority, complain 
 of? It is not that doctrines are imposed upon 
 them from which they conscientiously dissent: 
 for they deny that the language they object to ex-
 
 FOR A REVISION OF THE LITURGY. 23 
 
 presses the doctrines ; they interpret it in a different 
 sense, and in that sense assent and consent to it. 
 The whole grievance, therefore, is that they think 
 this language comes so close to, and is so like, an 
 expression of the doctrines, that it is unpleasant to 
 them to use it. And, doubtless, it must be unplea- 
 sant, and it is quite natural that they should wish 
 to be relieved from the necessity of using it. 
 But, after all, since they profess to be able con- 
 scientiously to assent and consent to this language 
 as it is, it can only be their taste^ not their con- 
 science^ which is oflPended. What, then, is the 
 remedy they ask for ? Simply that all the pas- 
 sages in question shall be blotted out of the Prayer 
 Book. That is, they set their taste against their 
 brethren's conscience : and to relieve themselves of 
 a certain amount of unpleasantness — a large amount, 
 let it be admitted — they propose that what the 
 majority consider the Catholicity of the Church 
 should be sacrificed. Now, wdll any impartial man 
 say that this demand is "only just and reasonable?" 
 Is the grievance of which they complain, in the 
 retention of these passages, to be put in the balance 
 against that which they want to impose upon their 
 brethren, in the renunciation by the Church of what 
 they deem vital Christian doctrine ? 
 
 The petitioners say that " they are the more soli- 
 citous" to have these alterations carried into effect, 
 because they think it would be the means of restor- 
 ing " peace " to the Church. But surely they must
 
 24 REMARKS ON A PETITION 
 
 know that it would be impossible for their opponents 
 to accept these alterations; that they, or at any 
 rate the great bulk of them, must withdraw from 
 the communion of a Church that would seem to 
 them to be voluntarily embracing heresy ; and, 
 therefore, that their wished-for "peace" would be 
 gained, only by the expulsion of thousands of 
 faithful ministers from the Church. Are the peti- 
 tioners desirous of this ? I hope not. But it would 
 not be the first time that extermination has been 
 called "peace." Solitudinem faciunt^ pacem appel- 
 lant. 
 
 To advocate changes in the Prayer Book, and 
 the system of the Church of England, so sweeping 
 as those which we have reviewed, besides others 
 which we are told "must readily suggest them- 
 selves," does seem so extraordinary in men who 
 have " declared their unfeigned assent and consent 
 to all and every thing," which they propose to 
 sweep away, that curiosity is excited to know how 
 the apparent inconsistency is to be explained. The 
 petitioners seem to think that some reference to 
 the subject would be expected from them ; and 
 accordingly they do refer to it; but certainly not 
 in a manner to give the desired explanation, 
 because it is impossible to believe that they mean 
 what they say. They premise that they " advance 
 nothing touching their assent and consent," — which 
 is not very enlightening on the point in hand. But
 
 FOR A REVISION OF THE LITURGY. 25 
 
 though they say they " advance nothing," they do 
 immediately " advance " something, and something 
 very queer. They advance a principle, which, if 
 it means any thing, means that they do not con- 
 sider their declaration of assent and consent to 
 have any binding force at all. Now I, for one, 
 do not accept this as the true explanation of the 
 Petition. I cannot believe that the petitioners 
 intended to "advance" any such principle; though 
 what they did intend I cannot pretend to guess. 
 I cannot doubt that they were honest in their 
 declaration of " assent and consent," and that they 
 do consider themselves bound thereby. But their 
 W07'ds mean what I have said; and the only moral 
 obliquity which I charge upon them, is that of 
 rashness and presumption in thrusting themselves 
 forward as improvers of the Prayer Book, when 
 they know not how to express their own senti- 
 ments in intelligible language. Their words are 
 these : — 
 
 "Finally, your Majesty's petitioners advance nothing 
 toucliing their assent and consent to the Liturgy as it 
 is, but earnestly plead for improvements, of which it is 
 obviously, urgently, and easdy susceptible, as they would 
 seek alterations for the better in the laws of the land 
 to which they bear true allegiance." 
 
 With the most sincere desire not to misrepresent 
 the writers of this sentence, I really can infer 
 nothing from it, but that they consider that their 
 declaration of "assent and consent" imposed no 
 
 c
 
 26 REMARKS ON A PETITION 
 
 obligation upon them in regard of the Book of 
 Common Prayer, m addition to the general obliga- 
 tion they are under to obey the laws of the land. 
 Now, is this a principle that any honest man can 
 admit? Will any honest man gravely maintain 
 that in exacting from the Clergy this public and 
 solemn declaration, the Legislature intends nothing 
 but to test their allegiance as peaceful citizens ? 
 Are there not many laws upon the Statute Book, 
 to which the petitioners would yield obedience for 
 conscience sake, but to which they would sooner 
 cut off their right hand than "declare their un- 
 feigned assent and consent?" Is Mr. Spooner to 
 be considered to have declared his "unfeio-ned assent 
 and consent " to the Maynooth Endowment, because 
 he is not prepared to organize an insurrection for its 
 repeal ? I repeat, that I do not mean to insinuate a 
 doubt of the bonajides of the petitioners. But in the 
 name of honour, of straightforwardness, and of com- 
 mon sense, let it not go forth as the sentiment of any 
 section of the Clergy, that their declaration of un- 
 qualified approval of the whole contents of the 
 Prayer Book, bound them to nothing but not to he 
 rebels. 
 
 P.S. Since these Remarks went to press, I have 
 seen a letter from Rev. D. Nihill, one of the 
 signers of the Petition, in the Guardian^ of January 
 18. It certainly was new to me to learn that, 
 as Mr. Nihill informs us, there is a "general
 
 FOR A REVISION OF THE LITURGY. 27 
 
 consent " among the Clergy that the words " all 
 and every thing contained and prescribed in and 
 by," are to be " construed " to signify only " in the 
 main." It would seem to those who have no fancy 
 for "non-natural interpretations," that the words 
 must have been chosen for the express purpose of 
 precluding the possibility of such a construction. 
 But to let that pass, how can those who advocate 
 the changes proposed and hinted at in this Peti- 
 tion, be said to yield " a hearty approbation to the 
 Prayer Book in the main?" I suspect that Mr. 
 Nihill would find that he puts a very "liberal con- 
 struction " on his own term. By the way I see, in 
 the same number of the Guardian^ that Dr. McNeile, 
 in his letter to the Dean of Westminster, states that 
 what " for a series of years " conduced "to peace and 
 unity " in the Church, was that the Prayer Book 
 was " naturally interpreted " by the Clerg}^ " on 
 both sides;" whereas Mr. Nihill avows that on one 
 side at least they give " a non-natural interpreta- 
 tion." I must leave it to Dr. McNeile and his 
 co-petitioner to settle this difference; only remark- 
 ing that when the petitioners themselves take such 
 contradictory views of the Prayer Book they are 
 objecting to, it is impossible to imagine that any 
 Prayer Book they would put in its place would long 
 secure " peace and unity." 
 
 GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, ST. JOHN S SftUARE, LONDON,
 
 By the saine Author. 
 
 SERMONS, 
 
 PREACHED AT ROME, 
 During the Seasons of 1580—1851, and 1851—1852,
 
 
 LP >
 
 •r '?.- 
 
 > 3fc> 
 
 
 ^ < 
 
 
 
 
 >y :^^'^^^ 
 
 
 
 
 •"^^^