[1] Mr. Wodehouse’s Letter to the Bp. of Llandaff, p. 69.[2a] Cure of Church Div. Direct. 48, Pt. 3.[2b] Mr. Wodehouse, p. 50.[3a] p. 4.[3b] p. 35.[3c] p. 4.[3d] p. 35.[5a] p. 67.[5b] p. 26.[6a] Petition with explanations, p. 31, published 1832.[6b] p. 81.[7a] p. 30.[7b] p. 43.[8] p. 54.[9a] Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, p. 63.[9b] p. 45.[11] Article 1.[13] p. 41.[14a] Petition of 1833.[14b] Ordination Sermon, 1838.[15a] Heber’s Life of Jeremy Taylor, p. cv.[15b] p. 82.[15c] p. 81.[15d] p. 84.[16] p. 4.[19] Epist. Ded. to Sermon on the opening of Parliament.[21] My readers may wish to know who the Adelphi are to whom I have more than once alluded. They are the authors of a pamphlet, entitled “Observations on a Petition, (the Petition of last Session), for the Revision of the Liturgy, &c. written by two brothers, a Clergyman and a Layman.”

These brothers, by the impetuosity of their onslaught, are said to be distinguished amongst the petitioners as the Castor and Pollux of their little phalanx.

And as there are in their pamphlet some things which might render questionable the logical acumen of the one, and tend to cast a shadow of suspicion on the orthodoxy of the other—they have acquired credit for no indifferent tact in putting forth this Siamese sort of production, inasmuch as to any sentiment which might not be thought creditable to the divine; the barrister is ready with fraternal consideration to assert his claim,—“MEUS HIC sermo est,” and that which might not be highly esteemed for its soundness in the learned and honourable society of Lincoln’s Inn; the divine with reciprocal affection is at hand, to exclaim—“Adsum qui feci”—in short, the Barrister will be responsible for the divinity, and the Divine for the points of law.

Diligat et semper socius te sanguinis illo
Quo pius affectu Castora frater amat.

[22a] p. 113.[22b] p. 107.[24a] Bishop of Norwich Pamph. p. 18.[24b] Sparrow’s Collection, &c. p. 12.[25a] Bp. of Norwich’s Pamph. p. 18.[25b] Hart’s Eccl. Records, p. 2.[26a] Burnet Pref. vol. i.[26b] Sparrow’s Collection, &c. p. 1.[27a] Bishop Jebb’s Pastoral Instructions, Disc. iii. p. 61.[27b] History of his Own Times, vol. ii. p. 33.[28a] John and W. W. Hull’s observations on the petition, p. 23.[28b] p. 29.[29] p. 17.[31] Bp. of Norwich’s Pamph. p. 14.[32] Rule of Conscience, b. iii. c. iv. r. 23.[33] Bp. of Norwich Pamph. p. 29.[34a] Barclay’s Apol. p. 27.[34b] p. 67.[34c] Petition with Expl. p. 47.[34d] I have introduced the name of the Bishop of London, as it gives me an opportunity of doing fuller justice to his Lordship’s sentiments with respect to a Revision of the Liturgy than I have yet seen done them in any of the publications in which his name has been introduced in connection with the subject.

His Lordship admits, that since the Liturgy is a human composition, it falls short of perfection, and is consequently “susceptible of improvement.” “I should be deficient in candour,” says his Lordship, “if I did not acknowledge that I think the Liturgy susceptible of improvement, it would be little short of a miracle were it otherwise, . . . and I heartily pray that the time may come when the question can be looked at with calmness and candour, and if the recent conduct of dissenters forbids us to look forward with any sanguine hope to an extensive comprehension of those who differ from us, that something may be done for the satisfaction of many who are sincere and zealous members of the Church.”—Such is the sum and substance of all that his Lordship has admitted that may seem to favour the views of the revisers, and here most of them have been satisfied to stop short in their quotations from his Lordship’s charge.

From a passage in the Bishop of Norwich’s pamphlet, I should be led to think that his Lordship had been content to take his quotation from his brother Bishop’s charge at second hand, for after quoting the above passages, his Lordship says, “I have only to add, that had the Right Rev. Prelate who expressed these his deliberate sentiments in 1834, manifested in his speech of 1840, a disposition to follow them out in their true spirit and legitimate results, the conscientious men who signed the Petition, might have entertained a just hope that he would have lent his powerful aid in supporting its prayer.” [35a]

I will take up his Lordship’s charge where the Bishop of Norwich and you have left it—

“But,” says his Lordship, “when I consider the circumstances in which we are now placed, and the advantage which would be taken from different quarters, of any door which might be opened to change, I am led to adopt the sentiment of a pious and sagacious man, [35b] uttered nearly forty years ago:—‘As to our liturgy, I am far from thinking it incapable of amendment; though when I consider the temper and spirit of the present times, I dare not wish that the improvement of it should be attempted, lest the remedy should be worse than the disease.’” [35c]

Had these his Lordship’s sentiments as “deliberately expressed” as any other part of his charge been more generally made known, I must think that the conscientious men who signed the Petition, could have expected nothing so little as his Lordship’s powerful aid in support of its prayer.

To these sentiments his Lordship appended a note supporting his own views by the authority of Archbishop Secker and of Dr. Balguy. From that note you have quoted the well deserved terms of praise in which his Lordship speaks of, “the candid and christian spirit which breathes throughout your preface,” to your reprint of Dean Prideaux, in which praise all who have read the work will readily join. But as it illustrates his Lordship’s views, we may as well give the remainder of the note. The quotation from Archbishop Secker is as follows:—

“Et hÆc eadem velim sibi in memoriam revocent, qui Liturgiam item recenseri reformarique flagitant. Ornatior quidem, accuratior, plenior, brevior, et POTEST EA FIERI ET DEBET; sed modesta tractatione, sed tranquillis hominum animis; non temerariis, qualia vidimus et videmus, ausis, non inter media dissidia mutuasque suspiciones.”

“Some of the faults imputed to our public service are,” as Dr. Balguy says, “of such a nature as to admit of no alteration. In these instances we must renounce our faith before we can consent to reform our worship; to reform it, I mean, in the only way which can stop the complaints of its adversaries.”—Discourses, vol. 1, p. 103. [36c]

Not having arrived at your conclusion—“That the Bishop of London, who came forward as the principal opponent of the Petition, is an unfit guide for public opinion on such a subject.” [36d] I have thought it but just that the public should know what his Lordship’s sentiments on the subject of a Revision of the Liturgy really are.[35a] Bp. of Norwich’s Pamp. p. 45.[35b] Rev. John Newton, Apologia, p. 9.[35c] Bishop of London’s Charge, 1834.[36a] Hor. Epist. II. i. 45.[36b] Bishop of Norwich’s Pamph. p. 5.[36c] Bishop of London’s Charge, Appendix N.[36d] p. 3.[37] Nares Bamp. Lect. p. 466, note 3.[38] Articles, &c. in the Primary Visitation of Edward, Bishop of Norwich, 1838.[39a] p. 18.[39b] p. 92.[39c] Hull, 15.[40] p. 14.[42] Visitation Charge, 1771.[43a] Hull, p. 19.[43b] Bishop of London’s Charge, 1834, p. 40.[43c] South’s Serm. vol. ii. Epist. Ded. to Univ. of Oxford.[44a] Eccl. Pol. b. V. s. 42.[44b] Bishop of Norwich’s Pamph. p. 28.[44c] Mark xvi. 14.[44d] John iii. 15.[44e] John ix. 26.[44f] 2 Thess. xi. 12.[45] Vogan’s Bampton Lect. p. 375.[46a] Bishop of Norwich’s Pamph. p. 28.[46b] Just Vind. of the Church of England, Disc. iii.[47a] Schism Guarded, iv. Sect. x.[47b] See Pearson on the Creed, Art. 8, note.[48a] Paraphrase on Com. Prayer, Append. Numb. 3, p. 292, second edition.[48b] p. 54.[49a] Pet. with Expl. 27.[49b] Petition, &c. p. 25.[49c] p. 24.[49d] p. 23.[50] Belsham’s Calm Inquiry, pp. 291, 292.[51a] Petition, &c. p. 31.[51b] Bishop of Norwich’s Pamphlet, p. 34.[52a] Bp. of Norwich’s Pamph. p. 33.[52b] Ezek. xiii. 19.[53a] Service for Visiting the Sick.[53b] MS. Note by Bishop Overall.[54a] Petition, &c. p. 31.[54b] p. 33.[54c] Eccl. Pol. B. vi.[56] Antiquities, vol. viii. Append. p. 239.[57a] Eccl. Pol. b. V. s. 77.[57b] Div. Inst. of Off. Min. pp. 225, 226.[59a] p. 51.[59b] Div. Inst. of Off. Min. Sect. vii.[59c] Petition, &c. p. 37.[60a] Acts vi. 6.[60b] 1 Tim. i. 6.[60c] Petition, &c. p. 38.[61a] Antiquities, b. ii. c. xi. sec. 9.[61b] Petition, &c. p. 42[62a] Eccl. Pol. b. V. s. 77.[62b] p. 58.[62c] p. 105.