I sign this fourth Report as concurring generally in the rubrical changes which it recommends, but I feel it to be my duty to record my dissent from two of the proposed rubrics.

1. "The directions concerning the daily use of the Church services are retained, not as a compulsory rule, but as a witness to the value put by the Church on daily prayers and intercessions, and on the daily reading of the Holy Scriptures.",

rea

It is superfluous to declare that the present directions are not "a compulsory rule" of daily service, since they 66 ," "absence," or specify" sickness,' sonable hindrance," as causes for its omission. The proposed rubric, by rendering the rule uncertain, would be a cause of embarrassment to the clergy, and by inducing a neglect of the daily morning and evening prayer, would deprive the people of many opportunities of united worship.

2. I dissent also from the proposed rubric, which in the administration of the Holy Communion would permit the bread and the cup to be delivered to several persons without addressing to each the appointed words.

The Church has always taught that Christ died for every individual believer, and in our Liturgy she brings this consolatory truth to the heart of each communicant by saying to him in the words which accompany their delivery, "the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee,"-" the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for thee."

The inconvenient length of the service when the communicants are numerous (alleged as a reason for the innovation) might be remedied by increasing the number of the officiating clergy, or by multiplying the celebrations; but the consideration of mere convenience ought not to weigh against the evil of a change which would seriously impair the sense of personal interest in the sacrifice of Christ, and would shock and distress many devout communicants.

3. I regret that the rule affecting vestments, one of the most important subjects committed to our consideration, should be left wholly unsettled.

In our First Report we expressed an opinion" that it was expedient to restrain all variations in respect of vesture from that which has long been the established usage," but we neither described what was "the established usage" to which we referred, nor did we indicate in what respects the restraint we recommended was to be exercised.

In signing this Report, I desire humbly to express to your Majesty my deep regret that the Royal Commission has not recommended such changes in the rubric before the so-called Athanasian Creed as could have put an end to its use as part of the services of the Church of England; because,

(1.) It seems to me that there is great presumption in the attempt made by that creed to give a precise definition of the nature of the Supreme Being; (2.) The assertions it makes as to the nature of the Supreme Being are nowhere to be found stated in such terms in Holy Writ; but they are the deductions drawn from Scripture by the theologians of the period in which it was written. Now I cannot think that a Christian Creed ought to consist of inferences (however logical) drawn from Scripture, but only (like the Apostles Creed) of the very statement of Scripture itself, given in its own words. (3.) Its declaration, that those who do not accept its statement of the Christian faith without doubt will perish everlastingly, is generally acknowledged to be false, and nothing can be less fitting than to invite the people to make a solemn asseveration of that which it is not even wished that they should believe. (4.). It commits the Church of England to the doctrine, long since exploded, that error is a crime, punishable with horrible torments.

I object to the note that it is proposed to append to the Athanasian Creed, because, in my opinion it affirms that

which is clearly contrary to the fact. The Athanasian Creed was written at a time when all men firmly believed that erroneous doctrine would be punished with everlasting perdition; and it was undoubtedly intended as a denunciation of such perdition against all those who did not hold that statement of doctrine which it sets forth. Accordingly, it precedes the statement by the words, "which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly; and the Catholic faith is this," it concludes the statement by saying, "This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved." The meaning of this declaration at the beginning and ending of its statement of the Catholic faith does not surely admit of any doubt whatever. Were there any such doubt, it would be altogether extinguished by the additional words thrown into the middle of the creed. "He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly. I consider, therefore, that it is only by perverting the obvious meaning of the above words, that we can aver, in the language of the note, that they" are to be no otherwise understood than as a solemn warning of the peril of those who wilfully reject the Catholic faith."

I further earnestly protest against the course taken by the Commission with respect to the burial service. While approving the proposal of introducing alternative chapters; I deeply regret that the word "unbaptized" should not have been omitted from the first rubric. The refusal of Christian burial to the unbaptized appears to me to emanate from the superstitious belief, that grew up in the dark ages, that no one could be saved who had not received baptism.

I further differ from the conclusion arrived at by the Commission not to alter the rubrics in the marriage service, so as to enable the clergyman to omit those portions of it which often give pain and embarrassment to those engaged in the service.

I also greatly regret that liberty has not been given to the clergyman, under proper restriction, to shorten, as well as to divide, the morning service on Sundays.

CHARLES BUXTON.

We consider it to be our duty humbly to express to your Majesty our deep

regret that the majority of your Majesty's Commissioners, whilst recommending changes of which for the most part we cordially recognize the advantage, have felt themselves restrained from advising other relaxations, not less desirable and equally within the terms of your Majesty's Commission. We refer to proposals for such diminutions of the undue length and repetitions in the services, as are frequently adopted in many London churches and in some college chapels. We refer also to suggestions for giving to the minister the power, frequently taken, of omitting expressions in the marriage service which shock the more refined feelings of the present time. We refer also to resolutions for giving relief to conscientious minds disturbed by various expressions, as for example, with regard to the sponsorial system in the baptismal service, with regard to the maintenance of an obsolete discipline in the commination service, with regard to the forms of the 13th century enjoined to be employed by the priest in the visitation of the sick and by the bishop in the ordination of priests, with regard to the condemning clauses of the Athanasian Creed, on which we have delivered our opinions at greater length elsewhere. We refer also to proposals for the omission of antiquated regulations, such as those in the burial service relating to "the unbaptized, the excommunicate, and those who have laid violent hands on themselves," which are in fact all but nugatory, and which, if rigidly enforced, would be extremely mischievous. We refer lastly to directions for relaxing the provisions now laid down or implied in the preface to the ordination service, and in the Act of Uniformity, excluding from even occasional ministrations persons not episcopally ordained, such as in former times were permitted to officiate and to preach in the Church of England. We regret these several failures the more, because, at least in some instances, as will appear by the minutes, the beneficial changes which had been carried in earlier stages of our proceedings were reversed in the reduced or altered state of our Commismission, owing to the enforced absence of some of our members from illness or other causes.

We venture to suggest that, if no other means occur for carrying out modifications so urgently demanded by the exigencies of the time, the Legislature should entrust some such power of relaxation to the bishops and ordinaries of the Church, in conformity with the spirit of the provision of the first Act of

Uniformity in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, under any check which the Legislature might advise. It is only by adopting these or similar changes in the machinery of the Church, that we can hope for the preservation of order in public worship amongst the clergy and laity, who are becoming increasingly impatient of the inflexible rigidity of our present system, and for the Church's adequate discharge of its functions as a great national institution in promoting Christian charity and Christian truth under the widely varying circumstances of our age and country.

A. P. STANLEY. EBURY.

I desire to express my conviction that it was the duty of those who served on your Majesty's Commission to recommend the relaxation of the use of the Athanasian Creed in the service of the Church of England. This might have been effected either by the substitution of "may" for "shall" in the rubric, or by the omission of the rubric altogether, according to the two proposals of Lord Stanhope; or by forbidding its use in parish churches, whilst permitting but not enforcing it in cathedral and collegiate churches, according to the proposal of the Bishop of Carlisle; or by leaving it to be used alternatively with the Apostles Creed, according to the conditional proposal of Mr. Perry; or by "calling attention to the question of placing it with the Articles of Religion, at the end of the Book of Common Prayer," according to the proposal of the Bishop of Winchester. Any one of these recommendations would have relieved the consciences of those who are burdened by its use, without depriving those who are attached to it of the advantage which may, in their judgment, be derived from the retention of the creed in the formularies of the Church.

I deeply regret that a change, proposed with such evident endeavours to conciliate the scruples of those opposed to it, should have been rejected; and I beg to offer the following reasons for that regret:

1. Because the creed was received and enforced in the Church of England when it was believed to be the "Creed of St. Athanasius," whereas it is now known to be the work of an unknown author, not earlier than the 5th century, perhaps as late as the 8th.

2. Because its exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity is couched in language extremely difficult to be under

3. Because it is never recited in a mixed congregation in any other church than our own.

4. Because the parts of the creed, which are at once most emphatic, most clear, and most generally intelligible are the condemning clauses, which give most offence, and which in their literal and obvious sense are rejected by the explanatory note which is now proposed to be appended to them.

5. Because the use of anathemas in the public services of all churches has been generally discontinued.

6. Because these condemning clauses assert in the strongest terms a doctrine now rejected by the whole civilized world, viz., the certain future perdition of all who deviate from the particular statements in the creed.

7. Because they directly exclude from salvation all members of the Eastern churches; to whom, nevertheless, the clergy and the bishops of the Church of England, at various times, and especially of late, have made overtures of friendly and Christian intercourse, entirely inconsistent with the declaration that they "shall without doubt perish everlastingly."

8. Because the passage commonly quoted from the authorized version of Mark xvi. 16, in their defence is irrelevant; (a) as being much more general in its terms; (b) as being of very doubtful genuineness; (c) as being in the original Greek much less severe than in the English translation.

9. Because the use of this creed, and of those clauses especially, has been condemned by some of the most illustrious divines of the Church of England, such as Chillingworth, Baxter, Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Archbishop Tillotson, Archbishop Secker, Dr. Hey, Dr. Arnold, Dr. Burton, Bishop Lonsdale.

10. Because the use of the creed arouses scruples in candidates for ordination which can only be overcome by strained explanations.

11. Because it has been rejected by the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, which is in full communion with the Church of England, and whose clergy are authorized by statute to minister in our churches, being yet under no obligation to use this creed.

12. Because it is a stumbling-block

in the way of almost all Nonconform

ists.

13. Because the public use of the creed as a confession of Christian faith, being, as it is, the composition of an unknown author, and not confirmed by any general authority, is a manifest vio lation of the well-known decrees of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.

14. Because the recitation of the creed had in many English churches become obsolete, till it was revived some thirty years ago.

15. Because many excellent laymen, including King George III., have for the last hundred years at least, declined to take part in its recitation.

16. Because so far from recommending the doctrine of the Trinity to unwilling minds, it is the chief obstable in the way of the acceptance of that doctrine.

For these reasons I consider that the relaxation of the use of the creed, whilst giving relief to many, ought to offend none. It has, no doubt, an historical value as an exposition of the teaching and manners of the Church between the 5th and 9th centuries. It has also a theological value, as rectifying certain erroneous statements; and as excluding from the essentials of the Catholic faith the larger part of modern controversy. But these advantages are quite insufficient to outweigh the objections which are recorded above, and which, even in the minds of those disposed to retain the use of the creed, have found expression in an explanatory note, tantamount to a condemnation of it.

With regard to the explanatory note, whilst acknowledging the benefit derived from the indirect but unquestionable discouragement which it inflicts on the use of the creed, I would humbly state the reasons why it appears to me to aggravate the mischief which it is intended to relieve.

1. Because it attempts a decision on a complex dogmatical and historical question which the Commission is not called to offer, and which it has not attempted in other instances, equally demanding and more capable of such explanations, such as the baptismal service, the ordination service, and the visitation of the sick.

2. Because this dogmatical decision was carried by a small majority in a Commission of reduced numbers; whereas, in order to have any weight it ought to have received the general concurrence of those most qualified to pronounce it.

3. Because the words in the crced which it professes to explain are per

fectly clear in themselves, whilst it leaves unexplained other words, such as person, "substance," "incomprehensible," which are popularly understood in a sense different from their original meaning, and which as so understood mislead the mass of the congregation and even preachers into some of the very opinions so terribly denounced by the condemning clauses.

4. Because the statement which it implies is historically false, viz., that "the condemnations in this confession of faith" do not apply to the persons to whom they evidently were intended to apply.

5. Because the main statement which it contains is either extremely questionable, or a mere truism, or else so ambiguous as to be only misleading.

6. Because, after well considering a similar explanation given in 1689, Archbishop Tillotson thus expressed himself:

"The account given of Athanasius' creed appears to me nowise satisfactory. I wish we were well rid of it."

7. Because, in most instances, it will give no ease to those who are offended by the use of the creed in public services.

8. Because, whilst virtually condemning the use of the creed, it still leaves the rubric enjoining that use.

9. Because it will have the effect of increasing the existing burden by seeming to state that in the view of the Commission it is a sufficient remedy.

10. Because it is one of several proposed explanatory notes which appear in the minutes, and which are manifestly inconsistent with this and with each other.

11. Because (in the language used by our chairman, in putting it to the vote), it is "illogical and unsatisfactory."

Church since the period of the Reformation:

That the introduction of such vestments and ornaments has excited the greater alarm, as it is avowedly a close imitation of the practice, if not directly connected with the erroneous doctrines, of the Church of Rome :

That the use of such vestments and ornaments is invariably defended by a reference to the rubric before morning and evening prayer; and that the said rubric has been so differently interpreted by eminent legal advisers that the meaning seems to remain obscure and undetermined:

That under these circumstances it appears to be absolutely necessary recommend either that the said rubric should be so altered as to be made conformable to the general and long established usage of the Church of England, or that, for the resolution of all doubts, an authoritative interpretation should be appended to it.

These resolutions were not adopted; and, after deliberations, which have extended over a period of three years, whilst the diversity in public worship has become still greater, the disputed rubric remains unaltered and unexplained, and one of the main objects for which the Commission was appointed has been defeated.

2. Athanasian Creed.-I am unable to recommend that the rubric which prescribes the use of this creed should be retained:

Because an exposition of faith, containing a series of subtle definitions on the most abstruse points of doctrine, may be fitly placed among the articles of religion, but is ill adapted to be" sung or said" in the public worship of the Church.

Because the condemning clauses which precede and follow those definitions, when understood in their obvious sense, cause extreme distress of mind to many men of unquestionable piety, who unfeignedly believe all the articles of the Christian faith.

Because, however desirable it may be to present an authoritative interpretation of the creed, the Commission has no authority to interpret doctrinal statements; and the note, which it is proposed to add, seems rather to attest the fact than to diminish the force of grave and serious objections.

Because the Church has omitted the anathematizing clauses at the end of the Nicene Creed, as it stood originally; and the principle thus applied to a creed which was sanctioned by a General

Council might, with at least equal propriety, be applied to a creed which was composed at a later age, and by an unknown author.

Because the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, which has not only rejected the use of the Athanasian Creed in its public services, but even omitted all reference to the creed itself in the VIIIth of the Articles of Religion, is not the less cordially acknowledged to be in full communion with the Church of England.

3. Order of the Burial of the Dead.I cannot concur in the proposed alterations of this service, because I fear that they will multiply practical difficulties, and fail to remove conscientious scruples. I also regret extremely that it should be left to the choice of the minister to read a short passage of Scripture instead of the longer lesson drawn from 1 Cor. xv.-a lesson which is admirably adapted to set forth, on a most solemn and affecting occasion, when the minds of the most thoughtless are awed into seriousness, the proofs of that great doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead, which is "the keystone of the Christian fabric." J. A. JEREMIE.

I, the undersigned member of your Majesty's Commission, concur in the first and third paragraphs.

M. G. ARMAGH.

In signing the Report I venture to express my regret that your Majesty's Commission has not been able to agree upon any method of amending the ornaments rubric. I think it would have been better, for the avoidance of doubt and litigation, if the "ornaments of the Church and of the ministers thereof" had been more exactly defined.

I object to the note appended to the creed commonly but erroneously called the Creed of St. Athanasius, for the following reasons:

I. Because the Commission possessed neither the right nor the authority to put an interpretation upon any of the formularies of the Church.

II. Because the note explains the anathemas of the creed in a manner contrary to their plain grammatical sense, and thereby introduces into the Prayer Book the principle of the nonnatural interpretation of the creeds and formularies of the Church; a principle fatal to the maintenance of any standard of doctrine whatsoever.

III. Because the note gives no ease or relief to the consciences of those who are offended by the recitation of this creed at public worship.