ercise of this domestic ministry, without infringing on the peculiar functions of the priestly office, as defined by the Lord Jesus Christ himself (John xx. 22, 23), those portions of the Liturgy which the priest only may pronounce have been omitted, and the service so arranged that it may be properly and profitably used, without further alteration, by readers of the laity.'

This part of the work indeed is simply the usual Church service on the Lord's day, including the "Prayers and Thanksgivings upon several occasions," the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels, with the Prayer-Book version of the Psalms, but not extending to the Communion Office.

"The principle of this arrangement has been to hold fast the form of sound words' which the restorers and second fathers of our Church have transmitted to us as a legacy above all price: and not to admit the slightest deviation from the words of the original, which could be construed, by the most scrupulous or apprehensive, to touch the doctrine, or to affect the

So far, then, the "Domestic Liturgy" is no more than an edition of the Morning and Evening Services, with the abridgment specified.

The second part, however, is a selection of prayers and thanksgivings, designed for daily use in families, taken or adapted from the Book of Common Prayer.

"To these no addition has been made in any instance: and only such omissions or alterations have been admitted as were necessitated by the circumstances of the case. Regard has been had to the order of the Church, as far as was practicable, by the use of the Daily Collects throughout the year, and the adaptation of the Litany for the Wednesday and Friday morning prayer. It is intended to combine, in each morning and evening act of worship, the four great essential parts or elements of Common Prayer,' Confession, Supplication, Intercession, Thanksgiving: and thus to assimilate the Family Service, as nearly as possible, to the pattern of the Temple Worship."

Mr. D. expresses a hope that this will be acceptable to all those who, to the question, "What prayers shall we use in the domestic circle?" would return the answer of the saintly George Herbert, "The prayers of my mother, the Church of England: no prayers are equal to them!" adding

"Indeed no better means than the exclusive employment of these consecrated formularies can be devised, it is thought, for the attainment of our Master's gracious promise, that where any two of His people shall AGREE as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of his Father which is in heaven.'

We cordially respond to Herbert's sentiment touching our Church prayers, and are free to acknowledge that Mr. D. has shown considerable skill and judgment in weaving from them a domestic Liturgy for daily use.' But there seems to be some

It does, however, strike us that Mr. Dale's daily service is by no means to be recommended as an exclusive one. We have never been satisfied with any adaptation of the

thing implied in Mr. D.'s remark here, from which we must express our dissent, as also in a previous remark which we have not yet quoted. Let us first complete our outline.

Another feature of the work before us, is an arrangement of "Prayers from the Liturgy, in three distinct services, adapted for the Sick Chamber:" and to this is added a selection of " Special Prayers," adapted in like manner. This part, as well as the "Prayers for every Day in the Week," appears to us, on the whole, judiciously compiled, and will, no doubt, in many cases, be very serviceable. Mr. D. remarks upon it—

"Here, as before, the design is only to supply, as circumstances will admit, the lack of pastoral visitation,—not to substitute the layman for the priest, and thus supersede the greater benefit by the less. But whenever our afflicted friends or relatives are precluded by local or physical impediments from the attendance of the Church's ministers, it must surely be most desirable that they should have at least the comfort of the Church's prayers: and that a judgment in the selection should be exercised on behalf of those who might be, at such a moment, too deeply affected to exercise it for themselves."

Mr. D. had previously observed (which is the remark we referred to) :

Liturgy to this purpose; and, to speak truth, we think it a great mistake to attempt to mould a full responsive service, intended for public use, into a number of short detached offices, which are to supersede all others and to be regarded as fully adequate for all the purposes of a domestic Liturgy. We do not see that reverence for the prayers or authority of the Church requires this. The Church has not bound us in this particular, and for ourselves we had rather be free. Some may regret that the Book of Family Prayer, drawn up to be authorized by the Convocation of 1689, was never published, but at last mislaid and lost. On the whole, however, we are inclined to another conclusion. Prescription and authority may greatly exceed in matters of this nature, and we are less disposed to regret the loss of a domestic Liturgy in the hands of Bishop Williams than the failure of some other projects in that memorable Convocation. At the same time, avoiding the pernicious, fatal extreme of authoritative uniformity, we think that a Family Book might very advantageously be provided by the Church for the use of her members, and that it would tend much to promote the observance of domestic worship were the whole question brought before us in an authorized way, and the relative claims of daily public service and daily family prayer candidly considered with reference to the times. "The change which has taken place in our national habits during the last four centuries," (Archdeacon Wilberforce has well observed,)" has disposed men to look for instruction much more from written and much less from oral communication. To this circumstance, as well as to the reaction consequent on that over-estimate of religious forms, for which the middle ages were remarkable, we must in great measure refer it, that the daily custom of public worship has passed almost into disuse. It is obvious also that increased wealth and population have introduced a more bustling spirit than of old, so that the attendance on such a service in this mercantile age would require greater effort than it did formerly. It was at the era of the Reformation that these causes began to operate. The need of something which might be substituted in the place of what was abandoned was at once perceived. It was then, accordingly, that those forms of prayer appeared which are appended to our older copies of the Scripture." We sincerely wish the Archdeacon of the East Riding had thrown as much zeal into this matter as he has into some others of less questionable utility, and that the important ideas thrown out in the interesting Preface to his father's Prayers had been thoroughly matured and brought out in a still more practical form. The field is a very rich and inviting one-and, if carefully surveyed, would lead, we think, to another conclusion than the Archdeacon's--" To return.... exactly to what was once practised might prove better still," i. e. the Daily Service. He sees this "cannot be," and might perhaps very safely say more.

"The work is designed as subsidiary to, not as a substitute for, the public service of the Church: and, indeed, to the true and lively Churchman, what could compensate for the absence of the one thing which must be wanting in every domestic service thus conducted-the authoritative declaration of absolution and remission of sins, to all that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe Christ's holy gospel?'"

It is upon these connected passages that we shall anon offer a remark or two.

The concluding part of Mr. D.'s work, entitled "The Family Chaplain," consists of sermons suited to the Sunday services throughout the year, and for these "the Compiler of the Domestic Liturgy' is alone and altogether responsible." They are Mr. D.'s own discourses, and we think he has done well in departing from his original intention, which was "to have selected appropriate sermons from authors of high name aud approved orthodoxy." In addition to the reasons assigned by himself, we may observe, that no name probably would secure a wider acceptance to "the Family Chaplain" than his own; and doubtless it is a great recommendation of the volume that it contains fifty-eight original sermons from the pen of so impressive and practical a preacher as the late vicar of St. Bride's. We give Mr. D. full credit for the concluding paragraph of his Preface. He observes:—

"In the preparation or adaptation of these discourses, the author can truly aver that he has never willingly deviated from one great principle-the principle, that the teaching of the Church's ministers should accord and harmonize with the spirit of the Church's prayers. How far he has succeeded, must be left to the judgment of others. For himself he would only say, in the words of an apocryphal writer, that if he has done well, it is that which he desired; but if slenderly and meanly, it is that which he could attain unto.’ Nor will he consider that his labours have been in vain, if he shall be made instrumental, however humbly, in diffusing through any of the homes of England, the pure apostolical spirit of her Church, and in directing Christian households to the reasonable service, the bounden duty, the invaluable privilege of' COMMON PRAYER.'"

We sincerely trust Mr. D.'s warmest hopes will be realized, and that many a family may have occasion to bless him as their domestic chaplain, though speaking by proxy, and, as the Church's minister, furnishing them with so useful a compilation from her consecrated Prayers. "Family religion," as Mr. Cecil observes, "is of unspeakable importance," and. when rightly conducted, is "an engine of

Remains, p. 274. The whole of Mr. Cecil's remarks (pp. 274-277) on the subject of Family Worship appear to us highly valuable, and we beg specially to recommend them to attention. It would be easy to multiply passages having the authority of great names to sanction and enforce the practice of family prayer. We subjoin two, as quoted in Archdeacon Wilberforce's Preface, which we happen to have at hand.

"One principal part of religion," says Archbishop Tillotson," consists in the setting up the constant worship of God in our families, by daily prayers to God every morning and evening, and by reading some portion of the Holy Scriptures at those times, especially out of the Psalms of David, and the New Testament. And this is so necessary

vast power." Wherever established and kept up in Christian simplicity, its benefits are incalculable. "It diffuses a sympathy" through the family circle. "It calls off the mind from the deadening effect of worldly affairs. It arrests every member, with a morning and evening sermon, in the midst of all the hurries and cares of life. It says, "There is a God!" . . . . "There is a spiritual world!" "There is a life to come!" "It fixes the idea of responsibility in the mind. It furnishes a tender and judicious father or master with an opportunity of gently glancing at faults, when a direct admonition might be inexpedient. It enables him to relieve the weight with which subordination or service often sits on the

to keep alive, and to maintain, a sense of God and religion in the minds of men, that where it is neglected I do not see how any family can in reason be esteemed a family of Christians, or indeed to have any religion at all."

Daily public worship "being impracticable in country parishes, by reason of the difficulty of getting the people together from their several distant habitations, the next thing that is practicable is to be said in its stead, and that is family prayer."-From one of Prideaur's Addresses to the Clergy of his Archdeaconry.

"There was also provided a family book, to be authorized by this Convocation (1689): it contained directions for family devotions, with several forms of prayer for worship every morning and evening, suited to the different circumstances of the families in which they were to be used. There was room to hope that this work might have been of great use towards the restoring of family devotion among us, and thereby make religion flourish in the land. For families may be considered as lesser churches, of which the national one is the aggregate: and the introducing of religion into the parts seems the most effectual way of making it flourish in the whole."-Life of Dean Prideaux, p. 61.

Whereas these (the Church) prayers are many of them proper only to be used by men in orders: many families of the nobility and gentry, where there were no chaplains, began to disuse them: and nothing being substituted in their room, this was, in a great many families, the occasion of totally neglecting the duty."-Ib. p. 61.

....

Archdeacon Wilberforce himself justly observes, that family worship" is not only recommended by its own usefulness, but it has in its favour the concurrent testimony of every age of Christians."... There is truth, but not the whole truth, in the following passage, which we quote from the Preface:- "It was exactly on this principle that it was proposed by the Convocation of 1689 to put forth an authorized form of family devotion. Had that great crisis of our religious history been marked by a measure which, making this custom nearly universal among churchmen, would have brought the lofty principles of our faith into immediate contact with the realities of life, it seems scarcely possible that it should have been followed by the age of indifference which succeeded. But the abandonment of this purpose was one evil which resulted from that interference with the liberties of the English Church, to which the critical state of his affairs, the res dura et regni novitas,' incited the yet unestablished monarch."-(Pref. pp. xvi. xvii.) It is perhaps more important to remark (as the Archdeacon has done), that at the era of the Reformation, when those causes began to operate which led to the disuse of the daily church service," the need of something which might be substituted in the place of what was abandoned was at once perceived. It was then, accordingly, that the forms of prayer appeared, which are appended to our older copies of the Scripture." He refers to certain godly prayers" found attached to most Bibles printed in the reign of Elizabeth; and to the many forms of prayer for families printed separately about the same period. It is observable that while the prayers thus printed show the importance attached to family devotion, they do not follow the plan of adapting the congregational Liturgy to domestic use, or of copying its general outline, much less do they restrict social and family prayer to forms composed or compiled by the Church. Like the forms of prayer provided in the Family Book they are appropriate, and “suited to the different circumstances of the families in which they were to be used." Happily we we have now an abundauce of such forms, Our eve at this moment falls on an advertisement by one house alone, (Hatchards') specifying fifteen " Books of Family and Private Devotion." most of which we know to be of great value-and to what extent the list might be enlarged, it is impossible to say.

minds of inferiors." Who that has made the experiment, or shared the benefit of such an experiment, does not concur in these views? The individual who sketches these lines knows no blessing for which he has more reason to be thankful than the early impression upon his youthful, almost infant, mind, of family prayer-no solace greater under after cares and troubles not a few, than that which he has enjoyed through a series of years in the sacred exercises of the social circle; nor is it to be questioned that the observance of family worship is in a sense the test of a vital social Christianity. What can be said of the families who "call" not "upon the name of the Lord?" or how can we hope that our cities, towns, and villages will ever be leavened with a vital Christianity, unless the obligation and privilege of family prayer become more generally recognized than they have ever yet been? It is not overflowing congregations, or even large communions that can be regarded as a clear and satisfactory test of the amount of our religion. There is much here that is deceptive even in parishes the most hopeful; but let the families be marked who consecrate their homes by the daily devout worship of Almighty God, and we shall approach pretty nearly to the real standard of a nation's piety. Next to the sacred transactions of the closet, the social exercises of devotion must doubtless be regarded as the most natural genuine development of real religion; and just in proportion as these flourish, may we conclude that religion has found a home among us, and will extend its pervading influence to all the nations and people with whom the providence of God connects us. We say not this in derogation of the solemnities of public worship, or of the value of what are called, by a just distinction, the Church's prayers. But, unless we greatly mistake, the danger ever has been and still is, of resting in a public service, and of so magnifying its importance as to throw into shade and greatly peril the free and natural exercise of social piety. The present attempt to force " the daily service" 66 as a law in God's kingdom appears to us ominous of evil; and hence the interest we feel in all such works as the one under notice-works which have for their object the service and extension of what we would call domestic Christianity. Next to an energetic faithful ministry of the word-plain, earnest, and abundant preaching in the pulpit, and, so to speak, from house to house we know of no means so likely to effect a revival of pure and undefiled religion among us as the inculcating upon seriousminded Christians the great importance of family prayer, and the

See Archdeacon Manning's Sermon under this title, vol. i. p. 186. Does not Mr. Dale's idea of Temple Worship and priestly ministration approach too nearly this transcendental notion of the Archdeacon's? It is one of the beau ideals of the Tractarian School, and involves considerable danger.