2 The speak in the future as they have done in the past. Bishop of Liverpool's recent sneer-for it is nothing elseat the utility of the daily services ordered by the Prayer Book,' and the Bishop of Southwell's contention that the practice of Confession is not contemplated by the Church of England, and the Bishop of Worcester's apparent unwillingness to stop the ministrations of a beneficed clergyman in his diocese who openly teaches heresy and has published a book which denies the deity of our Lord, weaken seriously any attempt made to promote greater conformity to our authorized formularies. If the Archbishops can induce a small number of the bishops to be more loyal to the Prayer Book of the Church whose servants they are, they will, we respectfully submit, have done hardly less to promote the peace and welfare of the Church of England than they have already accomplished in the recently issued Charge and Pastoral Letter. Truly, the time is full of anxiety for loyal sons of the Church of England. It calls for most serious thought from those in authority and those under authority. It demands the consideration of great principles and all which they involve. Its needs will not be met except as those in authority take pains to understand not only their historical position but also the spiritual needs of Church-people, and as those under authority have regard not only to themselves and their own parishes and congregations, but also to the wider interests of the body to which they belong. It is a time also of hope, and not least because the Archbishops have made a serious attempt to grapple with the problems of the day. SHORT NOTICES. The Regulations of 1860 regarding the use of Government Churches for Presbyterian Worship, and the Revised Regulations of 1898 by which their use was extended to Wesleyans. Extract from the Proceedings of the Government of India in the Home Department (Ecclesiastical) Simla, 17th June, 1898.' WE have placed this official document, issued by the Government of India, at the head and front of our Short Notices' because we think it very necessary and desirable that members of the Church of England should know and understand how the Church is being treated by the civil and military authorities in India. 1 See Guardian, November 23, 1898, p. 1806. On June 17, 1898, an order was issued from the Home Department that 'a church provided by Government and consecrated for the services of the Church of England may be used for the Services of the Church of Scotland and the Wesleyan Church, and for the services of any other denomination to which the Government of India may from time to time make those rules applicable.' There is certainly an apparent safeguard in the proviso that it shall be necessary to obtain the consent of the bishop of the diocese in each case ;' that the bishop, or the Church of England chaplain shall under the bishop's instructions fix the hours at which the church shall be available;' and that 'the Bishop of the diocese may withdraw his assent to use the church whenever he shall think fit.' But all this show of fairness and equity is cancelled by the last paragraph, which says that if in any case dissatisfaction is felt with any order passed under these rules as to the use of a church by a congregation not belonging to the Church of England, the complaint is to be brought before the Lieutenant-General of the Command through the General officer Commanding the district, and the Lieutenant-General shall then, if he considers this necessary, communicate with the Bishop. But if the complaining party, either Presbyterian or Wesleyan, is not satisfied with the arrangement made by the Lieutenant-General and the Bishop, the final decision is to rest, in the case of military churches, with the Commander-in-Chief; and in the case of civil churches, with the Local Government. All this means, that the churches 'consecrated and set apart for ever for the honour and worship of Almighty God, and for the celebration of Divine Service according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England,' are to be handed over and placed at the disposal of persons who need not be members of the Church of England, or even Christians at all. For either of these qualifications could easily be fulfilled by a lieutenant-general of the command, or a commander-in-chief. The order was published after the late Metropolitan had resigned, and we can hardly think he would have let it pass without an earnest protest, had it been set forth during his episcopate. But on this point we grieve to say that we cannot speak as positively as we could wish, sinister rumours having reached our ears. We notice that a calm and temperate remonstrance has been sent by the clergy of the various dioceses in India, in which they point out the two distinct difficulties which arise out of the position created by these proposed new rules. The first is that Government have in all cases sanctioned, and in many cases requested, the consecration of all churches of the Church of England in which they are in any way interested. After the consecration the Government assume the office of trustees and maintain the buildings in repair; and the responsibilities of trusteeship in this case mean also the necessity of protecting the bishop and the clergy in the exercise of their duties and exclusive rights which consecration guarantees. The second difficulty naturally comes out of the first, namely, that by claiming a right to violate the trusts declared and set forth by the act of consecration, even though their co-trustee the Bishop in these particular cases dissents from them, they are introducing a fatal and disastrous principle into the hitherto harmonious co-operation of the Government and the Church of England in India. There could no longer be any such harmonious or successful working between two parties unless there is perfect faith and confidence, and it is clear a breach of faith is proposed to be exercised by the Government of India between themselves and the ecclesiastical authorities. The justification for this extraordinary act is built upon an arrangement entered into by the Government and Bishop Cotton in 1860. But if anyone will read the Life of Bishop Cotton, in which this question is fully entered into (pp. 146-154), he will see the cases are different. The Presbyterians were only allowed to use the churches as a concession, not as a right, and in all cases the final consent or refusal rested with the bishop. As he says, 'the amount of concession to the Scotch Church is considerable.' The Government accepted this position and framed the official notice of the arrangement in conformity with it. For in the Resolution of 1860 they inserted a Clause :-'The Church shall not be used for the service of any other denomination, not being of the Church of England, than Presbyterians, nor shall any other minister officiate in it than a minister of the Church of Scotland.' Now, on this concession it is sought to establish a right, and to admit any other denomination, although this was strictly forbidden in the original rules of 1860. The Government of India attempt to meet this by saying that in 1860 the number of Wesleyans was comparatively small, and now they have become very numerous. Why not, then, build them a chapel for their use? This idea was thought of in 1860 for the Presbyterians, but was rejected because it was thought certain that the Government would not consent to multiply churches for a few Highland regiments whose detention at any given station, or in India at all, might be of short duration. But this reason does not now exist, by the admission of the Government itself. There is a reason different from this, and we wish to ask all earnest members of the Church of England to consider it thoughtfully. It is the desire of the authorities in the State, whether at home or abroad, to hamper and lessen the power of the English Church. There are cases in India where the Government have acted towards the English Church as an establishment in a way they would never have dared to act towards the civil or the military service, and in England the tendency of the State is, as we all know, to lower the prestige and position of the Church. The fact is, and Churchmen must face it, that dissenters are becoming more and more strong politically (we do not say religiously), and they exercise great pressure upon the authorities. Their vote and influence is important, and cannot be disregarded by either party when in power. The Church is believed to be a decaying force, and may consequently be neglected. Dissenters use their power in order to weaken and harass the Church. You see this in Parliament, in school boards, in district and county councils, in boards of guardians, in the meetings of rural VOL. XLVII.-NO. XCIV. K K parishes. The one thing is to lower the Church. And now we see it in India. Our contention is that churches consecrated for the use of the Church of England are subject to the trusts declared by the deed of consecration, trusts of which the proposed rules are a gross violation, as the Government themselves are in the position of cotrustees. It should also be remembered that in many cases members of the Church of England, in full faith that the trusts of the deed of consecration would be faithfully and religiously observed, have given lavishly of their substance towards the fabric, the furniture, the fittings, and the sacred vessels of the church. Courts of equity in England, it is notorious, have constantly enforced strict observance of the trusts and conditions imposed by founders of Presbyterian, Wesleyan, Baptist, and other chapels; but the Church of England in British India is by the proposed rules degraded to a lower level than the various Nonconformist bodies in England. What Churchmen must do is to be active and energetic in asserting their position and rights. The Roman Catholics can do this, the Jews can do this. The Roman Catholic Church in India is as truly endowed by the State, whether as to chaplains or churches, as the English Church is, yet the Government did not venture to propose that every denomination should use their churches, because they felt the opposition would be too strong. In this present case if all earnest thinking Churchmen at home and in India would unite in a strong and temperate memorial to the authorities in India, to the Secretary of State for India, to members of Parliament who are Churchmen, to all who can make their voice heard, then possibly the hopeful opinion of the Indian Churchman (September 1898) may be realized, 'We have every confidence that the situation has but to be explained to Government to be followed by the recall of the new rules.' We trust that the new Metropolitan, Dr. Welldon, now on his way to India, will insist on getting the rules rescinded. He will do well to bear in mind a very homely saying, 'It is dogged that does it.' Some Bishops in these days seem to consider it the key to popularity and the acme of tact not to be too Churchy.'. Dr. Welldon, we are persuaded, is not one of these. He will not forget that to pilot the vessel of the Church through the rocks and quicksands which environ it, a man in the exalted position to which God has called him needs not only grace but grit. The Parallel Psalter: being the Prayer Book Version of the Psalms and a New Version arranged on opposite pages. With an Introduction and Glossaries. By the Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., Litt. D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, &c. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898.) THE title of this book explains its characteristic feature, and the author's name is a guarantee of scholarship and conscientious labour. Whatever Dr. Driver does is done carefully and well. The faults of his work arise from lack of the poetic and imaginative faculties, or from his exclusively academic training, never from any failure in taking pains. The Introduction to this little book is extremely interesting. It contains, first, a concise history of the text of the present Prayer Book Version of the Psalter, and an account of sundry curious mistakes which have crept into the text in later editions. Then the leading principles which have guided the author himself in making this new version are set forth. The feature which distinguishes it from other revised translations of the Psalter now current is that it is based definitely upon and follows the line of our Prayer Book Version. It is thus intended to be a help to those who are most familiar with that version. My desire,' says Dr. Driver, 'has been, not to produce a version to supersede the Prayer Book Psalter, but to produce a version which may be read beside it and explain it' (Preface vi). The author is appreciative of the many beauties as well as the faults of our familiar version. 'The Prayer Book Version of the Psalms has many merits. Though made upwards of 360 years ago, it is still-save for occasional archaisms, to be noted presently-perfectly intelligible; its style is bold and vigorous, and at the same time singularly flowing and melodious; its phraseology while thoroughly idiomatic, and of genuinely native growth, is dignified and chaste. . . . But the warmest admirers of Coverdale's work must allow that it is disfigured by many inaccuracies—inaccuracies which were unavoidable at the time when it was made, but which are capable of correction now. These inaccuracies are due to various causes. In some cases they arise from the undue influence of the Vulgate ; in others from the imperfect philology of the sixteenth century; in others from the fact that, even where the general sense was correctly apprehended, the need of precision in such points as the rendering of tenses, the preservation of characteristic expressions, and the distinction of synonyms, was not formerly so clearly perceived as it is in modern times. It has been my aim in the present volume to provide the reader who is not conversant with Hebrew with a version of the Psalms, which while avoiding a pedantic or slavish literalism, may be as faithful to the original as idiom permits, and at the same time by placing it side by side with the Prayer Book Version to enable him to judge for himself where and how far the latter is at fault, and in what case its renderings are merely legitimate paraphrases or real inaccuracies' (xxiv-xxv). It is, however, we must confess, a little disappointing on turning to this actual revised version, to notice how very many alterations have been made. Hardly a verse remains as it was. Taking a psalm at random, the 137th, we counted at least thirty alterations in its nine verses. We do not, however, complain of this, if the book be regarded simply as a private help to the understanding of the Psalter. This it cannot fail to be for an intelligent student. Not only are well-known blunders corrected; interpolations marked by the use of smaller type (following in this case the forgotten examples of the Great Bible and the Sealed Book), and the connexion of apparently incoherent verses made clear; but there are also some brief but very excellent footnotes, and two glossaries, one of which |