lect for the day, on the seven days succeeding the festival; nor the direction for the Bishop to question those about to be confirmed, who have had no god-parents, in words somewhat different from those used to such as have god-parents; whilst the Northern Convocation directs the insertion of the prayer for Unity in the Service for the Queen's Accession amongst the Collects at the end of the Communion Office, which the Southern Convocation appears not to have done.

Besides this, there were a number of verbal changes, intended to clear up any doubts which might arise about the meaning of the direction given, but these were of a kind possessing no general interest, and it would only weary our readers if we were to attempt to enumerate them. We have said nothing specially of the changes introduced by the Shortened Services Act, because we assume that they are well known, as they have been in operation for some years.

After the Southern Convocation had agreed to the substance of its Report to the Queen, in answer to the letters of business sent down to it, the question necessarily arose as to the action to be taken concerning it. With the present constitution of the House of Commons it was felt to be most undesirable to put the Prayer-Book at the mercy of both Houses of Parliament to be dealt with as its members might think fit; for if they should alter the proposals made by the two Convocations, such alterations would, without the possibility of any revision by the Church, form part of any statute which might be passed. To have sent the reports without safeguard would have been to place it in the hands of the Minister of the day to decide whether this course should or should not be pursued, as it would have rested with him to direct that the changes agreed to by the Convocations should be embodied in a Bill and placed before Parliament; and after the Bill had been brought in, its contents would have become the plaything of all Parliamentary busybodies and crotchetmongers. To make it possible to obtain legislative sanction for any alterations in the Book of Common Prayer which might seem desirable to the Convocations, with the minimum of Parliamentary interference, the two Convocations agreed to recommend for adoption a Bill introduced into the House of Lords by the Bishop of London in 1874, and since re-introduced by the Bishop of Carlisle. This Bill proposes to enact that, 'when the two Convocations, by and with the authority of the Queen's Majesty, may have prepared and laid before Her Majesty a scheme for making 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 seem to them to be required:' that then 'such scheme, if Her Majesty see fit, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament; and if neither House of Parliament shall, within forty days after such scheme shall have been laid before it, present an address to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold her consent from such scheme or any part thereof, then Her Majesty in Council shall make an order ratifying such scheme, and it shall become law.'

The Southern Convocation appended to their Report to Her Majesty a statement that their consent was given to the changes proposed upon the condition that no legislative sanction was sought for them until the Bishop of Carlisle's Bill had become law.

We are confidently told that in the present temper of the two Houses of Parliament it is hopeless to expect their concurrence in such a Bill. At the same time persons of wellearned influence are convinced that if the Church be resolved to carry such a measure through Parliament, it would not be long before she would succeed, as her influence upon the constitution of Parliament is so great that when the vast majority of her members are united in seeking the consent of Parliament to what they propose, it cannot long be safely withheld. This is, however, not the occasion to test the grounds for such a supposition, for we are not very sure even of what the constituency of any future Parliament may be, and as the electors are, so of course must the members be.

For ourselves, we are in no hurry about the matter. We feel that public opinion is being educated by the constant discussion of the points in dispute. It would not have been dignified for the Church's Synods to have cried non possumus when it was desirable to seek the settlement of a vexed and difficult question, which the courts of law have proved themselves unable to decide, in some manner which might satisfy the sense of justice, and carry conviction as to the modifications being the enunciation of old law, and not the creation of new law, to the minds of the great mass of candid people who have really studied the subject. To most people the present practice of the Church seems inconsistent with her written law, and it is only by legislation, or universal obedience to the requirements of the letter of the law, that the two can be reconciled. The latter course seems to us impossible, even if it were desirable, which we cannot say that we think it to be. The only way, therefore, open to us for a technical rectification

of our anomalous position is by legislation, and supposing that such could be undertaken in a large-hearted spirit, so as to give freedom to earnest and enthusiastic men, who passionately long for the restoration of the beauty and dignity of worship, as well as to protect the fair rights and privileges of those who shrink from changing forms and habits to which they have become wedded, we should rejoice to see it carried out. Until that time we are content to wait. Every day the virtual and consensual legislation of Churchmen in their Synods and their Conferences is gaining form and substance, and the extent to which it may be profitably used has never yet been adequately tested.

ART. II.—THE FOUR GOSPELS AND MODERN SCEPTICISM.

1. The Holy Bible with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary. Edited by F. C. Cook, M.A., Canon of Exeter. New Testament. Vol. I., S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke. (London, 1878.) Vol. II., S. John and the Acts.

don, 1879.)

(Lon

2. A New Testament Commentary for English Readers. Edited by CHARLES JOHN ELLICOTT, D.D., Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. Vol. I., The Four Gospels. (London, 1879.)

THE recent appearance of these and many other Commentaries upon the New Testament in whole or in part—each, in its own department, of very considerable value and interestbears witness to two wants of the age deeply felt by different classes of minds. The first is the want of those who are rendered sceptical, in the strict sense of the word, by the general spirit and tendencies of the age; who are in a state of suspended speculation, of almost equilibration of critical judgment upon the written records of Christianity, and especially the Gospels. To these we will not say that the Speaker's Commentary is addressed; but, at least, it bears them habitually in mind. And it aims at doing so by a process, and in a form, which renders essential service to a different and much wider class of readers. Many educated laymen hear a passage of Scripture in the course of conver sation canvassed and criticized. Anxious to form an opinion

for themselves, they enquire for a competent commentary. They are referred, say to Stier's beautiful Words of Jesus, and after reading ten or fifteen pages upon a single word come halfdespairingly to the conclusion that life is too short, and human business too urgent, for an investigation which is yet admittedly of vast importance. The great German Commentaries are, generally speaking, repugnant in their form to the tastes of English people, and most unhappily translated into the bargain. The brain reels at the very sight of the mass of quotations the lumps of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin—the interminable prolixity, the infinitesimal subtlety, the labyrinthine sub-divisions. Enquirers long for the clear ringing tone of truth; for a few decided monosyllables above the hubbub of disputatious voices. They want to know what the text really means, not what fifty different people say about it. The bell of modern Biblical criticism may be a big bell; but, however large, it is of lead, not of silver, and its tones are neither musical nor sonorous. The Speaker's Commentary aspires to meet the wants of such readers by disencumbering the pages of the Commentary proper of all but the most absolutely necessary references and quotations; by cutting as short as possible curious researches into the question what schools and commentators have written, and going curtly and directly to the real question-what Apostles and Evangelists meant. The work aims at giving the result, without too much display of the apparatus, of criticism. Of the two books, whose names stand at the head of this Article, the first is mainly for those who wish to learn, in a succinct and intelligible shape, what is said about the meaning of the Bible itself by those who may fairly be supposed to know most about it; for the thoughtful layman, the scholarly man of the world immersed in business, anxious to ascertain the conclusions at which experts have arrived, without a circuitous process, which makes too large a demand upon his time.

The Commentary for English Readers is, of course, intended for minds of a different mould. Were it not so, it would scarcely have enjoyed the enormous advantage of the editorship of one who stands so high in the department of Biblical exegesis, and who might be supposed to have a peculiar interest in the other great undertaking. Bishop Ellicott observes many earnestly seeking for that which we are here endeavouring to present to them-the father of the family, the up-growing children, the teacher in the Sunday-school, or the instructor of the Bible-class, and, last and chief of all, that large class of English readers who feel themselves more and

1

more drawn to God's Word by the very restlessness of the times in which they are living.' Yet to draw the distinction between these two Commentaries too sharply upon the line which we have indicated might lead us to do scanty justice to either undertaking. The Commentary for English Readers may frequently claim the merit of presenting its readers with the most solid results of the most advanced scholarship. The Holy Bible with Commentary often affords the purest food for devotion, by bringing the words of Christ'a little closer to the hearts of men.'

We shall begin our reflections apparently outside the class of books, the titles of two of which we have prefixed as a starting-point, yet keeping them in view throughout. In order to estimate them more completely, we propose (I.) to attempt a general view of contemporary scepticism, as it exists outside those quarters of the world of thought, where it is vaunted and professed. Such a survey, it will be seen, must lead us to the Gospels, and so to the Commentaries before We shall conclude (II.) by a comparative estimate of portions of the two works before us, which, we hope, will at least be found impartial and dispassionate.

us.

I.

The kind of scepticism of which we have spoken above is suspended speculation, equilibration of judgment, the mental condition of those who seem to exclaim-'There is a great deal to be said for this, but there is also a great deal to be said against it. Speculatively we are perplexed. Practically, we adhere to that which is so venerable, beautiful, and useful.' This is scepticism, not of the first intention, not of professed sceptics, but of thousands of amiable and well-educated Christians. It is a scepticism, not of iron, but of haze; it has, so to speak, neither point nor density. Yet, for that very reason, it may be more dangerous; as it is more terrible to live day after day in a medium where we inhale the germs of zymotic disease, than to be lunged at by an assassin, whose thrust may be parried or his weapon broken, once for all. These symptoms, we repeat, are largely felt at the present moment inside all Churches and Communions of Christians. Only the position of the sceptic inside is- There is something to be said against this, but a great deal for it.' The position of the sceptic outside is―There is something to be said for this, no doubt, but there is a great deal more to be said against

1 Preface, p. vii.