The Rev. F. S. WEBSTER, Principal of the Church Army Training Home, Oxford.

IT IS with some trepidation that I venture to address this meeting, because I feel that there are many of my brother clergy on the platform whose experience among working men must be much larger than my own. I wish, however, to speak on behalf of an association of working men, which is somewhat different from those which have been mentioned. It has been in existence for over three years in the parish of St. Aldate, Oxford, and has there been doing a work for which we have to thank God. It must be obvious to all that the deeper the motives that animate each individual member, and the higher the principles which bind them together, the more real, and lasting, and effectual will the association be. We have heard of many associations, bound together by various motives, and I would not say one word to disparage the good work they are doing. We have heard that which should encourage us all and stimulate us to effort. Thrift, the longing for self-improvement, the love of social intercourse, the desire for education,-all the principles which make so attractive the working men's club, the sick-club, the debating society, and similar associations, are good, and we should endeavour to lay hold of all these in order to raise working men to higher things. But I believe there are deeper principles and higher motives to which we may appeal. I long to see in every parish an association of working men, with hearts warm with gratitude to a personal Saviour, whose saving power they have themselves realised, and knit together by a longing desire to make known to their fellow working men the freeness and the fulness of the Divine Grace, which has proved their own salvation. Such associations for Christian work, such Christian unions are to be found in many a parish throughout the land. I have just left the parish of St. Aldate, Oxford. In that parish is an association called the Church Army, whose members are working for God night after night in the open air, without any reward except the spiritual reward which God bestows upon earnest labour for Him. It is a fact which we should all be thankful for, that these parochial Church Armies have spread throughout the land, especially in the North of England, and are working with unceasing energy to rescue and save the spiritually lost. The great principle which makes that association differ from others, is, the principle of aggression. What the Church needs at the present day more than anything else, is to have more of the aggressive spirit. Surely one of the best means of Church defence is Church aggression; it is by carrying the warfare more into the enemy's country that we shall best protect our own dominions. We are thankful for what has already taken place in the Church, for the re-awakening of spiritual life and activity. But what we want is not only beautiful services, sound doctrine, and good religious lives; we want not only daily worship, but also daily warfare. We want working men and women who will be bold in aggressive warfare for Christ, and who will not be ashamed of the Saviour they serve.

STEPHEN BOURNE, Esq.

IF I interpret aright the spirit of this meeting, none of the addresses we have heard have been more interesting and effective than that which fell from the lips of the youngest speaker (Mr. Adderley). After the history he gave of the work, in which he and his colleagues are engaged, I am unwilling that this meeting should separate without a word of testimony from one who has seen the operation of the society he has formed, and who knows how much good would have been done if only his example had been followed by a great many more. I take it that the association he has formed is an all-round one. go down there on a Saturday evening and find the men enjoying themselves, first with games, and then indulging in a pipe; and that whilst they are smoking, their ears are open to instruction. On the Sunday, to show the breadth of the work, there is just a plain, simple, unconventional service, the people being invited in to sing popular hymns and hear simple addresses on the grand truths of the Gospel, and their application to the lives of working men, old and young alike. I would ask of you, if at any time you are visiting the east-end of London, to just take a look in on the work. I believe that such arrangements being made in other parts

of the metropolis would tend more than anything else to wean men from the political discontent in which they are likely to be involved, and to teach them to live lives of purity, resistance to temptation, and employment in useful work. It would encourage them to separate themselves from the treacherous companions by whom many of them are surrounded, and to escape from the vile allurements to which they are subjected. I rejoice that this Association has been so fully described, and that it has received so much attention. It augurs well for the future of the country when our young men take so great an interest in such a work; and I do trust that, seeing the example which is thus set before them, all who are willing to work for the welfare of the world will go and do likewise.

LECTURE

HALL,

TUESDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 6TH, 1885.

The Right Rev. the LORD BIShop of Carlisle in the Chair.

The Very Rev. LORD ALWYNE COMPTON, Prolocutor of Canterbury, and Dean of Worcester.

I HAVE been asked to read a paper on the Prayer Book, and to speak, first, of the rearrangement of the services, and next of supplementary services. On the first point I shall say very little. There was formerly a doubt whether any arrangement of the services was legal, except that which had long been usual-viz., the Litany and the Communion Service following without any break after Morning Prayer. But this doubt, arising I suppose from considering the rubrics as part of an Act of Parliament, and so not to be freely interpreted or set aside by ecclesiastical authority, has received its solution from the Act of Uniformity Amendment Act (35 and 36 Vict., cap. 35), which distinctly authorises the use of the various services together, or in varying order as separate services, allows the use of the Litany at evensong, and the preaching of sermons without any previous service. It is hardly necessary for me to go into the question whether it is well to avail ourselves of this and the other provisions of the Act, and to what extent we should do so; the general principles of our action must be to do all things to edification, all things decently and in order; and the application of these principles will vary according to local circumstances. As regards supplementary services, the question is a far more difficult one. By supplementary services, I understand services to be used upon special occasions, other than those provided for in the occasional offices

in the Prayer Book. The number of such special occasions is almost unlimited. A zealous member of the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury has given notice of a motion directing a committee to provide for seventeen occasions. Visitatio Infirmorum contains about twenty-five offices; and the "Priest's Prayer Book," published by Masters, has nearly a hundred for the use of priests, besides others for bishops. I may mention briefly some of the special objects for which such additional offices are proposed. The American "Protestant Episcopal Church has under its consideration, as additions to the Common Prayer Book, a form of thanksgiving for harvest; a form of prayer for visitation of prisoners; forms of prayer for use in families; form of consecration of a church or chapel; an office of institution of ministers into parishes or churches. If we add to these offices for particular cases of sickness-for the impenitent, the despairing, the insensible, for one about to undergo an operation, for the dying, for the friends of one deceased; offices for admission to particular positions, a chorister, a member of a guild, or sisterhood; for meetings of particular bodies of persons, confirmation, and communicant-classes, guilds, ruridecanal chapters; I need hardly go on with the ever-lengthening list. How are these to be provided for?

The great difficulty, as regards any services for public use in the church, is one of law. The Act of Uniformity, 13 and 14 Charles II., cap. 4, appears absolutely to forbid the use in churches or chapels of any form of prayer other than what is prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer. Notwithstanding this Act, special, forms of prayer have from time to time been set forth by authority of the Crown; and there are a few instances in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, when bishops, by their own sole authority, as it would appear, issued and directed the use of special forms, notwithstanding the equally stringent clause of the then existing Act. If this power is really lodged in their hands no difficulty remains. But the recently passed Act of Uniformity Amendment Act clearly shows that in the mind of those who framed it bishops have no such power. For it expressly confers upon them, not confirms, the power to permit the use of special forms of service on special occasions, and with this limitation, that there shall not be introduced into them anything, except anthems or hymns, which does not form part of the Holy Scriptures or Book of Common Prayer. This would cut off from Episcopal action such forms as are now occasionally issued by the Crown, and such forms as bishops sometimes issued in Queen Elizabeth's reign; it would exclude all collects, all thanksgivings, other than those in the Prayer Book; it reduces the materials available to give a special character to the proposed offices to psalms and lessons, hymns and anthems. Practically, it makes the public use in church of suitable forms of prayer for almost all special occasions impossible. How is this difficulty to be met?

Can we fall back on the authority of the bishop, who undoubtedly in ancient times had the right, ecclesiastically, to direct the use within his diocese of such prayers as he thought advisable? I think it is at least doubtful whether his powers have not been limited too much by the Acts of Uniformity (including 35 and 36 Vict., cap. 35). And were it not so, I doubt whether the single action of single bishops would meet our requirements. For single events which seem to call for the prayers

of the Church no doubt it would suffice; but for what may be termed recurrent special occasions, it would seem better to act upon the principle of the Book of Common Prayer, and not to revert to the earlier variety of "uses," some churches "following Salisbury use, some Hereford use, and some the use of Bangor, some of York, some of Lincoln." There is an obvious convenience in having the new occasional offices like the old ones forming part of the Book of Common Prayer, which is in everyone's hands.

If this is admitted, there seems to be only one body qualified by its position to take the needful steps in the preparation of such services, and that is Convocation. There we have the bishops assembled together; there we have chosen representatives of the clergy; and there I venture to say, after many years of personal knowledge, we shall always find some of those best qualified for the work in hand by their liturgical attainments, by their familiarity with Holy Scripture, by their experience of the needs of all classes of the people; some of those best qualified; the help of others, not actual members of the body, is easily attainable. The Convocation of Canterbury has already provided services for the induction and institution of incumbents, and for the Day of Intercession for Missions, which have been very generally used. For any larger scheme it would be well for the Convocations of the two provinces to act together, as they did in respect to the Book of Common Prayer. This is not the proper occasion to discuss how such united action can best be secured now; but I assume it can be secured. The materials for such offices are abundant; the ancient service books of the Western Churches abound in collects, the Oriental Liturgies in longer prayers, which merely require a little modification to fit them for the particular purpose in view; and besides these, many of which are now available in translations, the devotional works of our divines from the Reformation to the present day will supply much to the judicious compiler; and we have among us some who can themselves compose prayers well suited for the use of the Church. With respect to the form in which such occasional offices should be cast, I think we shall be wise to follow the form of those in the Prayer Book, which are already familiar to the laity, with perhaps some slight modifications either for simplicity on the one hand, or enrichment of the offices on the other.

And how are such offices to be legally used? I have pointed out the difficulty. The Act of Uniformity Amendment Act confines us to the words of the Prayer Book and Bible; and anyone examining the two offices drawn up by the Convocation of Canterbury will see how great an obstacle this is. I hardly think that it would be enough, or that it would be wise, merely to seek for the excision of this limitation. I think there might be some jealousy, not unjustifiable, on the part of the laity, of an absolute power in the hands of every bishop of authorising whatever services he pleased. I think, therefore, that what we need is an Act, whereby the Queen in Council should be enabled to authorise the use of special services after they have been laid before Parliament for forty days. Such an Act would acknowledge the power of veto possessed by Parliament-possessed in consequence of the existence of the Acts of Uniformity. I do not discuss whether such a power should be in the hands of the Legislature: I simply accept facts, and seek for

the best means, under existing circumstances, of gaining what we needwhat is commonly termed greater elasticity in the matter of public services. The Bill prepared by the Lower House of Convocation of Canterbury in the year 1878, taken in great measure from a previous Bill of the Bishop of London, provided, first, for the legalisation of the amendments in the Book of Common Prayer agreed to by the two Convocations of Canterbury and York, when the report of the Ritual Commission was before them; and secondly, as to the future, it enacted that the presidents and other ten bishops and clergy of the two Convocations, by and with the authority of the Queen's Majesty, signified to them in such manner as her Majesty shall see fit, may from time to time prepare and lay before her Majesty in Council a scheme for making such alterations in and additions to the rubrics and directions contained in the Book of Common Prayer, and for providing such additional services and prayers to be used in public worship as may from time to time seem to them to be required. Such schemes to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and if not objected to in forty days, then to be considered by her Majesty in Council, and if then approved to be authorised by Order in Council. If such an Act could be passed, it would, I think, be found sufficient for our needs, but without it I do not see how it is possible to provide for many of these supplementary services. I have indeed mentioned that Convocation has already provided one for the Day of Intercession for Missions, and one for the institution and induction of new incumbents. But in both these cases the ordination services now forming part of the Prayer Book supplied nearly all that was required. In the Service for Missions, collects, other than those in the Prayer Book, have been printed for private use during a period of silence. This is not quite satisfactory, but it was all that appeared possible to the committee which drafted the office. I venture, then, to press upon this Congress, and especially upon the laity, the great desirability of an enabling Act to untie our hands.

The Rev. E. N. DUMBLETON, Rector of St. James's,
and Prebendary of Exeter.

I SHALL assume that by rearrangement of services is intended not only that liberty to say our services separately, and to shorten them, which has been authorised for some years past, but that the subject now to be considered may be thus fairly stated in more comprehensive termsnamely,

What can we do by means of lawful additions, interpolations, and substitutions, which will bring about such a rearrangement as will meet the just and obvious religious requirements of our times?

Can it be seriously doubted that there are requirements of this age which are not satisfied by the provision for public worship made in the sixteenth century?

Can any really suppose that the compilers of that brief manual, the Prayer-book, however proud we may rightly be of their work, were so gifted with inspired foresight as to save the Church of future ages the responsibility of considering and supplying the devotional wants of successive generations?