{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_30136/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_30136","id":"gutenberg_30136","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30136","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - British","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Episcopal Church. Book of common prayer"],"text":"[Transcriber's Note: The footnotes have been numbered and moved to\nthe end of the document.]\n\nThis file was produced from images generously made available by\nThe Internet Archive/American Libraries.\n\n\nA SHORT HISTORY OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER\n\nTOGETHER WITH\n\nCERTAIN PAPERS ILLUSTRATIVE OF LITURGICAL REVISION 1878-1892\n\n\n\n\nBY\n\n\n\nWILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON D. D. D. C. L.\n\n_Rector of Grace Church New York_\n\n\n\n\nNEW YORK THOMAS WHITTAKER\n\n2 and 3 Bible House\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCopyright, 1893,\n\nby\n\nTHOMAS WHITTAKER,\n\n\n\nTHE MERSHON COMPANY PRESS, RAHWAY, N. J.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nI. A Short History of the Book of Common Prayer:\n\nI. Origins,\n\nII. Vicissitudes,\n\nII. Revision of the American Common Prayer,\n\nIII. _The Book Annexed_: Its Critics and its Prospects,\n\nAppendix:\n\nI. Permanent and Variable Characteristics of the Prayer Book--A\nSermon Before Revision, 1878\n\nII. The Outcome of Revision, 1892\n\nIII. Tabular View of Additions Made at the Successive Revisions,\n1552-1892\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY NOTE.\n\n\nThe opening paper of this collection was originally read as a\nlecture before a liturgical class, and is now published for the\nfirst time. The others have appeared in print from time to time\nduring the movement for revision. If they have any permanent\nvalue, it is because of their showing, so far as the writer's part\nin the matter is concerned, what things were attempted and what\nthings failed of accomplishment. Should they serve as contributory\nto some future narrative of the revision, the object of their\npublication will have been accomplished. So much has been said as\nto the poverty of our gains on the side of \"enrichment,\" as\ncompared with what has been secured in the line of \"flexibility,\"\nthat it has seemed proper to append to the volume a Comparative\nTable detailing the additions of liturgical matter made to the\nCommon Prayer at the successive revisions.\n\nW. R. H. New York, Christmas, 1892.\n\n\n\nA SHORT HISTORY OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.\n\n\n\n\nA SHORT HISTORY OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.\n\n\nI. ORIGINS.\n\n\nLiturgical worship, understood in the largest sense the phrase can\nbear, means divine service rendered in accordance with an established\nform. Of late years there has been an attempt made among purists to\nconfine the word \"liturgy\" to the office entitled in the Prayer\nBook, _The Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper or\nHoly Communion_.\n\nThis restricted and specialized interpretation of a familiar word\nmay serve the purposes of technical scholarship, for undoubtedly\nthere is much to be said in favor of the narrowed signification as\nwe shall see; but unless English literature can be rewritten, plain\npeople who draw their vocabulary from standard authors will go on\ncalling service-books \"liturgies\" regardless of the fact that they\ncontain many things other than that one office which is entitled\nto be named by eminence _the_ Liturgy. \"This Convention,\" write the\nfathers of the American Episcopal Church in the Ratification printed\non the fourth page of the Prayer Book, \"having in their present\nsession set forth a Book of Common Prayer and other rites and\nceremonies of the Church, do hereby establish the said book; and\nthey declare it to be the _Liturgy_ of this Church.\"\n\nFor the origin of liturgy thus broadly defined we have to go a long\nway back; beyond the Prayer Book, beyond the Mass-book, beyond the\nancient Sacramentaries, yes, beyond the synagogue worship, beyond\nthe temple worship, beyond the tabernacle worship; in fact I am\ndisposed to think that, logically, we should be unable to stop\nshort until we had reached the very heart of man itself, that\ndimly discerned groundwork we call human nature, and had discovered\nthere those two instincts, the one of worship and the other of\ngregariousness, from whence all forms of common prayer have sprung.\nWhere three or two assemble for the purposes of supplication, some\nform must necessarily be accepted if they are to pray in unison.\nWhen the disciples came to Jesus begging him that he would teach\nthem how to pray, he gave them, not twelve several forms, though\ndoubtless James's special needs differed from John's and Simon's\nfrom Jude's--he gave them, not twelve, but one. \"When ye pray,\"\nwas his answer, \"say Our Father.\" That was the beginning of\nChristian Common Prayer. Because we are men we worship, because\nwe are fellow-men our worship must have form.\n\nBut waiving this last analysis of all which carries us across the\nwhole field of history at a leap, it becomes necessary to seek\nfor liturgical beginnings by a more plodding process.\n\nIf we take that manual of worship with which as English-speaking\nChristians we are ourselves the most familiar, the Book of Common\nPrayer, and allow it to fall naturally apart, as a bunch of\nflowers would do if the string were cut, we discover that in\npoint of fact we have, as in the case of the Bible, many books\nin one. We have scarcely turned the title-page, for instance,\nbefore we come upon a ritual of daily worship, an order for\nMorning Prayer and an order for Evening Prayer, consisting in\nthe main of Psalms, Scripture Lessons, Antiphonal Versicles,\nand Collects. Appended to this we find a Litany or General\nSupplication and a collection of special prayers.\n\nMark an interval here, and note that we have completed the first\nvolume of our liturgical library. Next, we have a sacramental\nritual, entitled, _The Order for the Administration of the Lord's\nSupper or Holy Communion_, ingeniously interwoven by a system of\nappropriate prayers and New Testament readings with the Sundays\nand holydays of the year. This gives us our second volume.\nThen follow numerous offices which we shall find it convenient\nto classify under two heads, namely: those which may be said by\na bishop or by a presbyter, and those that may be said by a\nbishop only. Under the former head come the baptismal offices,\nthe Order for the Burial of the Dead, and the like; under the\nlatter, the services of Ordination and Confirmation and the Form\nof Consecration of a Church or Chapel.\n\nIn the Church of England as it existed before the Reformation,\nthese four volumes, as I have called them, were distinct and\nrecognized realities. Each had its title and each its separate\nuse. The name of the book of daily services was _The Breviary_.\nThe name of the book used in the celebration of the Holy Communion\nwas _The Missal_. The name of the book of Special Offices was\n_The Ritual_. The name of the book of such offices as could be\nused by a bishop only was _The Pontifical_. It was one of the\ngreatest of the achievements of the English reformers that they\nsucceeded in condensing, after a practical fashion, these four\nbooks, or, to speak more accurately, the first three of them,\nBreviary, Missal, and Ritual, into one. The Pontifical, or\nOrdinal, they continued as a separate book, although it soon for\nthe sake of convenience became customary in England, as it has\nalways been customary here, for Prayer Book and Ordinal to be\nstitched together by the binders into a single volume. Popularly\nspeaking the Prayer Book is the entire volume one purchases under\nthat name from the bookseller, but accurately speaking the Book\nof Common Prayer ends where _The Form and Manner of Making,\nOrdaining, and Consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons_\nbegins. \"Finis\" should be written after the Psalter, as indeed\nfrom the Prayer Book's Table of Contents plainly appears.\n\nSetting aside now, for the present, that portion of the formularies\nwhich corresponds to the Ritual and Pontifical of the mediaeval\nChurch, I proceed to speak rapidly of the antecedents of Breviary\nand Missal. Whence came they? And how are we to account for\ntheir being sundered so distinctly as they are?\n\nThey came, so some of the most thoughtful of liturgical students\nare agreed, from a source no less remote than the Temple of\nSolomon, and they are severed, to speak figuratively, by a valley\nnot unlike that which in our thoughts divides the Mount of\nBeatitudes from the Hill of Calvary.\n\nIn that memorable building to which reference was just made,\ninfluential over the destinies of our race as no other house of\nman's making ever was, there went on from day to day these two\nthings, psalmody and sacrifice. Peace-offering, burnt-offering,\nsin-offering, the morning oblation, and the evening oblation--these\nwith other ceremonies of a like character went to make what we\nknow as the sacrificial ritual of the temple.\n\nBut this was not all. It would appear that there were other\nservices in the temple over and above those that could strictly\nbe called sacrificial. The Hebrew Psalter, the hymn-book of that\nearly day, contains much that was evidently intended by the\nwriters for temple use, and even more that could be easily\nadapted to such use. And although there is no direct evidence\nthat in Solomon's time forms of prayer other than those associated\nwith sacrificial rites were in use, yet when we find mention in\nthe New Testament of people going up to the temple of those later\ndays \"at the hour of prayer,\" it seems reasonable to infer that\nthe custom was an ancient one, and that from the beginning of the\ntemple's history forms of worship not strictly speaking sacrificial\nhad been a stated feature of the ritual. But whether in the temple\nor not, certainly in the synagogues, which after the return from\nthe captivity sprang up all over the Jewish world, services\ncomposed of prayers, of psalms, and of readings from the law and\nthe prophets were of continual occurrence. Therefore we may safely\nsay that with these two forms of divine service, the sacrificial\nand the simply devotional and didactic, the apostles, the founders\nof the Christian Church, had been familiar from their childhood.\nThey were at home in both synagogue and temple. They knew by sight\nthe ritual of the altar, and by ear the ritual of the choir. They\nwere accustomed to the spectacle of the priest offering the victim;\nthey were used to hearing the singers chant the psalms.\n\nWe see thus why it is that the public worship of the Church should\nhave come down to us in two great lines, why there should be a\ntradition of eucharistic worship and, parallel to this, a tradition\nof daily prayer; for as the one usage links itself, in a sense,\nto the sacrificial system of God's ancient people and has in it a\nsuggestion of the temple worship, so the other seems to show a\ncontinuity with what went on in those less pretentious sanctuaries\nwhich had place in all the cities and villages of Judea, and indeed\nwherever, throughout the Roman world, Jewish colonists were to be\nfound. The earliest Christian disciples having been themselves\nHebrews, nothing could have been more natural than their moulding\nthe worship of the new Church in general accordance with the\nmodels that had stood before their eyes from childhood in the\nold. The Psalms were sung in the synagogues according to a settled\nprinciple. We cannot wonder, then, that the Psalter should have\ncontinued to be what in fact it had always been, the hymn-book of\nthe Church. Moreover, they had in the synagogue besides their\npsalmody a system of Bible readings, confined, of course, to the\nOld Testament Scriptures. This is noted in the observation that\nfell from Simon Peter, at the first Council of the Church, \"Moses\nof old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in\nthe synagogue every Sabbath day.\" Scripture lessons, therefore,\nwould be no novelty.\n\nWe gather also from the New Testament, not to speak of other\nauthorities, that in the apostolic days people were familiar with\nwhat were known as \"hours of prayer.\" There were particular times\nin the day, that is to say, which were held to be especially\nappropriate for worship. \"Peter and John went up together into\nthe temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.\" Again,\nat Joppa, we find the former of these two apostles going up upon\nthe house-top to pray at \"the sixth hour.\" Long before this David\nhad mentioned morning and evening and noon as fitting hours of\nprayer, and one psalmist, in his enthusiasm, had even gone so far\nas to declare seven times a day to be not too often for giving\nGod thanks. There was also the precedent of Daniel opening his\nwindows toward Jerusalem three times a day. As the love for order\nand system grew year by year stronger in the Christian Church,\nthe laws that govern ritual would be likely to become more\nstringent, and so very probably it came to pass. For aught we\nknow to the contrary, the observance of fixed hours of prayer\nwas a matter of voluntary action with the Christians of the first\nage. There was, as we say, no \"shall\" about it. But when the\nfounders of the monastic orders came upon the scene a fixed rule\ntook the place of simple custom, and what had been optional\nbecame mandatory. By the time we reach the mediaeval period\nevolution has had its perfect work, and we find in existence\na scheme of daily service curiously and painfully elaborate.\nThe mediaeval theologians were very fond of classifying things\nby sevens. In the symbolism of Holy Scripture seven appears as\nthe number of perfection, it being the aggregate of three, the\nnumber of Deity, and four, the number of the earth. Accordingly\nwe find in the theology of those times seven sacraments, seven\ndeadly sins, seven contrary virtues, seven works of mercy, and\nalso seven hours of prayer. These seven hours were known as\nMatins, Prime, Tierce, Sext, Nones, Vespers, and Complene. The\ntheory of the hours of prayer was that at each one of them a\nspecial office of devotion was to be said. Beginning before\nsunrise with matins there was to be daily a round of services at\nstated intervals culminating at bedtime in that which, as its\nname indicated, filled out the series, Complene. To what extent\nthis ideal scheme of devotion was ever carried out in practice it\nis difficult positively to say.\n\nProbably in the monastic and conventual life of the severer orders\nthere was an approximation to a punctual observance of the hours\nas they successively arrived. Possibly the modern mind fails to\ndo full justice to the conception of worship on which this system\nwas based. Those principles of devotion of which the rosary is the\nvisible symbol do not easily commend themselves to us. They have\nabout them a suggestion of mechanism. They remind us of the\nBuddhist praying wheel, and seem to put the Church in the attitude\nof expecting to be heard for her \"much speaking.\"\n\nDoubtless many a pure, courageous spirit fought the good fight\nof faith successfully in spite of all this weight of outward\nobservances; but in the judgment of the wiser heads among English\nchurchmen, the time had come, by the middle of the sixteenth\ncentury, when this complicated armor must either be greatly\nlightened or else run the risk of being cast aside altogether.\nLet Cranmer tell his own story. This is what he says in the\nPreface to the First Book of Edward VI. as to the ritual grievances\nof the times. The passage is worth listening to if only for the\nquaintness of its strong and wholesome English:\n\n\"There was never anything by the wit of man so well devised or so\nsurely established which, in continuance of time, hath not been\ncorrupted, as, among other things, it may plainly appear by the\ncommon prayer, in the Church, commonly called divine service. The\nfirst original and ground whereof, if a man would search out by\nthe ancient fathers, he shall find that the same was not ordained\nbut of a good purpose, and for a great advancement of godliness, for\nthey so ordered the matter that all the whole Bible, or the greatest\npart thereof, should be read over once in the year . . . But these\nmany years past this godly and decent order of the ancient fathers\nhath been so altered, broken, and neglected by planting in\nuncertain stories, legends, responds, verses, vain repetitions,\ncommemorations, and synodals that commonly, when any book of the\nBible was begun, before three or four chapters were read out all\nthe rest were unread. And in this sort the Book of Esaie was begun\nin Advent, and the Book of Genesis in Septuagesima, but they were\nonly begun and never read through . . . And moreover, whereas St.\nPaul would have such language spoken to the people in the Church\nas they might understand and have profit by hearing the same, the\nservice in this Church of England (these many years) hath been\nread in Latin to the people, which they understood not, so that\nthey have heard with their ears only, and their hearts, spirit,\nand mind have not been edified thereby . . . Moreover, the number\nand hardness of the rules called the Pie, and the manifold\nchangings of the service was the cause that to turn the Book\nonly was so hard and intricate a matter that many times there was\nmore business to find out what should be read than it was to read\nit when it was found out. These inconveniences therefore considered,\nhere is set forth such an order whereby the same shall be\nredressed.\"\n\nAs an illustration of what Cranmer meant by his curious phrase,\n\"planting in uncertain stories,\" take the following Lessons quoted\nby Dr. Neale in his _Essays on Liturgiology_:\n\n\"Besides the commemoration of saints,\" writes this distinguished\nantiquarian, \"there are in certain local calenders notices of\nnational events connected with the well-being of the Church. Thus,\nin the _Parisian Breviary_, we have on the eighteenth of August a\ncommemoration of the victory of Philip the Fair in Flanders, A.D.\n1304.\" Here is the fourth of the appointed lessons: \"Philip the\nFair, King of the French, in the year 1304, about the feast of St.\nMary Magdalene, having set forth with his brothers Charles and\nLouis and a large army into Flanders, pitched his tent near Mons,\nwhere was a camp of the rebel Flemings. But when, on the eighteenth\nof August, which was the Tuesday after the Assumption of St. Mary,\nthe French had from morning till evening stood on the defence, and\nwere resting themselves at nightfall, the enemy, by a sudden\nattack, rushed on the camp with such fury that the body-guard had\nscarce time to defend him.\n\n\"_Response_. Come from Lebanon, my spouse; come, and thou shalt be\ncrowned, The odor of thy sweet ointments is above all perfumes.\n_Versicle_. The righteous judge shall give a crown of righteousness.\"\n\nThen, after this short interlude of snatches from Holy Scripture,\nthere follows the Fifth Lesson: \"At the beginning of the fight the\nlife of the king was in great danger, but shortly after, his\ntroops crowding together from all quarters to his tent, where the\nbattle was sharpest, obtained an illustrious victory over the\nenemy\"--and more of this sort until all of a sudden we come upon\nthe Song of Solomon again. \"_V_. Thou art all fair, my love; come\nfrom Lebanon. _R_. They that have not defiled their garments,\nthey shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy.\"\n\nIs not Cranmer's contemptuous mention of these uncertain legends\nand vain repetitions amply justified? And can we be too thankful\nto the sturdy champions of the Reformation, who in the face of no\nlittle opposition and by efforts scarcely appreciated to-day, cut\nus loose from all responsibility for such solemn nonsense?\n\nThere are some who feel aggrieved that chapters from the Apocrypha\nshould have found admission to our new lectionary, and there are\neven those who think that of the canonical Scriptures, passages\nmore edifying than certain of those appointed to be read might\nhave been chosen, but what would they think if they were compelled\nto hear the minister at the lecturn say: \"Here beginneth the first\nchapter of the Adventures of Philip the Fair\"?\n\nBut the reformers, happily, were not discouraged by the portentous\nfront of wood, hay, and stubble which the liturgical edifice of\ntheir day presented to the eye. They felt convinced that there\nwere also to be found mixed in with the building material gold,\nsilver, and precious stones, and for these they determined to make\ndiligent search, resolved most of all that the foundation laid\nshould be Jesus Christ. This system of canonical hours, they\nargued, this seven-fold office of daily prayer is all very\nbeautiful in theory, but it never can be made what in fact it\nnever in the past has been, a practicable thing. Let us be content\nif we can do so much as win people to their devotions at morning\nand at night. With this object in view Cranmer and his associates\nsubjected the services of the hours to a process of combination\nand condensation. The Offices for the first three hours they\ncompressed into _An Order for Daily Morning Prayer_, or, as it was\ncalled in Edward's first Book, _An Order for Matins_, and the\nOffices for the last two hours, namely, Vespers and Complene,\nthey made over into _An Order for Daily Evening Prayer_, or, as\nit was named in Edward's first Book, _An Order for Evensong_.\n\nThese two formularies, the _Order for Matins_ and the _Order for\nEvensong_, make the core and substance of our present daily\noffices. But the tradition of daily prayer is only one of the\ntwo great devotional heritages of the Church. With the destruction\nof the temple by the Roman soldiery, the sacrificial ritual of\nthe Jewish Church came to a sudden end; but it was not God's\npurpose that the memory of sacrifice should fade out of men's\nminds or that the thought of sacrifice should be banished from\nthe field of worship. Years before the day when the legionaries\nof Titus marched amid flame and smoke, into the falling sanctuary\nof an out-worn faith, one who was presently to die upon a cross\nhad taken bread, had blessed it and broken it, and giving it to\ncertain followers gathered about him, had said, \"Take, eat; this\nis my body, which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.\"\nLikewise also he had taken the cup after supper, saying, \"This cup\nis the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you.\"\n\nCertainly there must be a relation of cause and effect between this\nscene and the fact, which is a fact, that the most ancient\nfragments of primitive Christian worship now discoverable are\nforms for the due commemoration of the sacrifice of the death of\nChrist.\n\nThese venerable monuments seem to exclaim as we decipher them:\n\"Even so, Lord, it is done as thou didst say.\" \"Thy name, O Lord,\nendureth forever and so doth thy memorial from generation to\ngeneration.\" Of the references to Christian worship discoverable\nin documents later than the New Testament Scriptures there are\nthree that stand out with peculiar prominence, namely, the lately\ndiscovered _Teaching of the Twelve Apostles_, placed by some\nauthorities as early as the first half of the second century;\nthe famous letter of Pliny to the Emperor Trajan, a writing of\nthe same period; and the Apology or Defence addressed by Justin\nMartyr to Antoninus Pius about the year 140 after Christ. The\nnoteworthy fact in connection with these passages is that of the\nthree, two certainly, and probably the third also, refer directly\nto the Holy Communion. In the _Teaching_ we have a distinct sketch\nof a eucharistic service with three of the prescribed prayers\napparently given in full. In Justin Martyr's account, the evidence\nof a definitely established liturgical form is perhaps less plain,\nbut nothing that he says would appear to be irreconcilable with\nthe existence of a more or less elastic ritual order. Whether he\ndoes or does not intend to describe extemporaneous prayer as\nforming one feature of the eucharistic worship of the Christians\nof his time depends upon the translation we give to a single word\nin his narrative. Later on in the life of the Church, though by\njust how much later is a difficult point of scholarship, we are\nbrought in contact with a number of formularies, all of them\nframed for the uses of eucharistical worship, all of them, that\nis to say, designed to perpetuate the commandment, \"This do in\nremembrance of me,\" and all of them preserving, no matter in what\npart of the world they may be found, a certain structural\nuniformity. These are the primitive liturgies, as they are\ncalled, the study of which has in late years attained almost to\nthe dignity of a science. As to the exact measure of antiquity\nthat ought to be accorded to these venerable documents the\nauthorities differ and probably will always differ. Dr. Neale's\nenthusiasm carried him so far that he was persuaded and sought\nto persuade others of the existence of liturgical quotations in\nthe writings of St. Paul. This hypothesis is at the present time\ngenerally rejected by sober-minded scholars. Perhaps \"the personal\nequation\" enters equally into the conclusions of those who assign\na very late origin to the liturgies, pushing them along as far as\nthe sixth or seventh century. If one happens to have a rooted\ndislike for prescribed forms of worship, and believes them in his\nheart to be both unscriptural and unspiritual, it will be the\nmost natural thing in the world for him to disparage whatever\nevidence makes in favor of the early origin of liturgies. Hammond\nis sensible when he says in the Preface to his valuable work\nentitled _Liturgies Eastern and Western_, \"I have assumed an\nintermediate position between the views of those on the one hand\nwho hold that the liturgies had assumed a recognized and fixed\nform so early as to be quoted in the Epistles to the Corinthians\nand Hebrews . . . and of those, on the other, who because there are\nsome palpable interpolations and marks of comparatively late date\nin some of the texts, assert broadly that they are all untrustworthy\nand valueless as evidence. This view I venture to think,\" he adds,\n\"equally uncritical and groundless with the former.\"\n\nTo sum up, the argument in behalf of an apostolic origin for the\nChristian Liturgy may be compactly stated thus: The very earliest\nmonuments of Christian worship that we possess are rituals of\nthanksgiving, having direct reference to the sacrifice of the\ndeath of Christ. Going back from these to the New Testament we\nfind there the narrative of the institution of the Holy Communion\nby Christ himself, and in connection with it the command, \"This\ndo in remembrance of me.\" It is, I submit, a reasonable inference\nthat the liturgies in the main fairly represent what it was in\nthe mind of the apostle to recognize and establish as proper\nChristian worship. I do not call it demonstration, I call it\nreasonable inference. There is a striking parallelism between the\nargument for liturgical worship and the argument for episcopacy.\nIn both cases we take the ground that continuity existed between\nthe life of the Church as we find it a hundred years after the\nlast of the apostles had gone to his rest and the life of the\nChurch as it is pictured in the New Testament.\n\nThat there were many changes during the interval must no doubt be\ngranted, but we say that if those changes were serious ones\naffecting great principles of belief or order, those who maintain\nthat such a hidden revolution took place are bound to bring\npositive evidence to the fact. This history of the Church during\nthe second century has been likened with more of ingenuity than\nof poetical beauty to the passing of a train through a railway\ntunnel.\n\nWe see the train enter, we see it emerge, but its movement while\ninside the tunnel is concealed from us. Similarly we may say that\nwe see with comparative distinctness the Christian Church of the\nApostolic Age, and we see with comparative distinctness the Church\nof the Age of Cyprian and Origen, but with respect to the interval\nseparating the two periods we are not indeed wholly, but, we are,\nit must be confessed, very largely ignorant. And yet as in the\ncase of the tunnel we confidently affirm an identity between what\nwe saw go in and what we see coming out, so with the doctrine,\ndiscipline, and worship of the Church, the usages of the third\ncentury, we argue, are probably in their leading features what the\nusages of the first century were. If reason to the contrary can\nbe given, well and good; but in the absence of countervailing\ntestimony we abide by our inference, holding it to be sound.\n\nI am far from wishing to maintain that these considerations bind\nliturgical worship upon the Christian Church as a matter of\nobligation for all time. It might be argued, and I think with\ngreat force, that liturgical worship having been universal\nthroughout the ancient world, heathen as well as Jewish, the\napostles and fathers of the Christian Church judged it unwise\nto make any departure at the outset from a custom so invariable,\ntrusting it to the spirit of the new religion to work out freer and\nless formal methods of approaching God through Christ in the times\nto come. This, I confess, strikes me as a perfectly legitimate line\nof reasoning and one which is strengthened rather than weakened by\nwhat we have seen happen in Christendom since the sixteenth\ncentury. Great bodies of Christians have for a period of some\nthree hundred years been worshipping Almighty God in non-liturgical\nways, and have not been left without witness that their service\nwas acceptable to the Divine Majesty. Moreover, the fact that\nabsolute rigidity in liturgical use never was insisted upon in\nany age of the Church until the English passed their Act of\nUniformity, makes in the same direction. And yet even after these\nallowances have been made, there remains a considerable amount\nof solid satisfaction for those who do adhere to the liturgical\nmethod, in the thought that they are in the line which is apparently\nthe line of continuity, and that their interpretation of the\napostolic purpose with respect to worship is the interpretation\nthat has been generally received in Christendom as far back as we\ncan go.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nVICISSITUDES.\n\n\nCertain of the necromancers of the far East are said to have the\npower of causing a tree to spring up, spread its branches, blossom,\nand bear fruit before the eyes of the lookers-on within the space\nof a few moments.\n\nModern liturgies have sometimes been brought into being by a process\nas extemporaneous as this, but not such was the genesis of the\nBook of Common Prayer.\n\nThere are at least eight forms under which the Prayer Book has\nbeen from time to time authoritatively set forth--five English,\none Scottish, one Irish, and one American; so that, if we would\nbe accurate, we are bound to specify, when we speak of \"The Prayer\nBook,\" which of several Prayer Books we have in mind.\n\nThe truth is, there exists in connection with everything that grows,\nwhether it be plant, animal, or building, a certain mystery like\nthat which attaches to what, in the case of a man, we call personal\nidentity. Which is the true, the actual Napoleon? Is it the\nNapoleon of the Directory, or the Napoleon of the Consulate, or the\nNapoleon of the Empire? At each epoch we discern a different phase\nof the man's character, and yet we are compelled to acknowledge,\nin the face of all the variations, that we have to do with one and\nthe same man.\n\nBut just as a ship acquires, as we may say, her personal identity\nwhen she is launched and named, even though there may be a great\ndeal yet to be done in the way of finishing and furnishing before\nshe can be pronounced seaworthy, so it is with a book that is\ndestined to undergo repeated revision and reconstruction, it does\nacquire, on the day when it is first published, and first given a\ndistinctive title, a certain character the losing of which would be\nthe loss of personal identity. There is many an old cathedral that\nmight properly enough be called a re-edited book in stone. Norman\narchitecture, Early English, Decorated, and Perpendicular, all are\nthere, and yet one dominant thought pervades the building.\nNotwithstanding the many times it has been retouched, the fabric\nstill expresses to the eye the original creative purpose of the\ndesigner; there is no possibility of our mistaking Salisbury for\nYork or Peterborough for London.\n\nThe first Book of Common Prayer was built up of blocks that for the\nmost part had been previously used in other buildings, but the\nresulting structure exhibited, from the very moment it received a\nname, such distinct and unmistakable characteristics as have\nguaranteed it personal identity through more than three hundred\nyears. Hence, while it is in one sense true that there are no\nfewer than eight Books of Common Prayer, it is in another sense\nequally true that the Book of Common Prayer is one.\n\nAn identity of purpose, of scope, and of spirit shows itself\nin all its various forms under which the book exists, so that\nwhether we are speaking of the First Prayer Book of King Edward\nthe Sixth, or of the book adopted by the Church of Ireland after\nits disestablishment, or of the American Book of Common Prayer,\nwhat we have in mind is, in a very real and deep sense, one and\nthe same thing.\n\nLet us proceed now to a rapid survey of the facts connected with\nthe first issue of the Common Prayer.\n\nFor a period long anterior to the Reformation there had been in\nuse among the English brief books of devotion known as \"primers,\"\nwritten in the language of the people. The fact that the public\nservices of the Church were invariably conducted in the Latin\ntongue made a resort to such expedients as this necessary, unless\nreligion was to be reserved as the private property of ecclesiastics.\n\nBy a curious process of evolution the primer, from having been\nin mediaeval times a book wholly religious and devotional, has\ncome to be in our day a book wholly secular and educational. We\nassociate it with Noah Webster and the Harper Brothers. The New\nEngland Primer of the Puritans, with its odd jumble of piety and\nthe three R's, marks a point of transition from the ancient to the\nmodern type.\n\nBut this by the way. The primer we are now concerned with is the\ndevotional primer of the times just previous to the Reformation.\nThis, as a rule, contained prayers, the Belief, the Ave Maria, a\nlitany of some sort, the Ten Commandments, and whatever else there\nmight be that in the mind of the compiler came under the head of\n\"things which a Christian ought to know.\" There were three of\nthese primers set forth during the reign of Henry the Eighth, one\nin 1535, one in 1539, and one in 1545. During the space that\nintervened between the publication of the second and that of the\nthird of these primers, appeared \"The Litany and Suffrages,\" a\nformulary compiled, as is generally believed, by Cranmer, the then\nArchbishop of Canterbury, and in substance identical with the Litany\nwe use to-day. This Litany of 1544 has been properly described as\n\"the precursor and first instalment of the English Book of Common\nPrayer.\" It was the nucleus or centre of crystallization about\nwhich the other constituent portions of our manual of worship\nwere destined to be grouped. A quaint exhortation was prefixed to\nthis Litany, in which it was said to have been set forth \"because\nthe not understanding the prayers and suffrages formerly used\ncaused that the people came but slackly to the processions.\"\nBesides the primers and the Litany, there were printed in Henry's\nreign various editions of a book of Epistles and Gospels in English.\nThere was also published a Psalter in Latin and English.\n\nAll this looked rather to the edification of individual Christians\nin their private devotional life than to the public worship of the\nChurch, but we are not to suppose that meanwhile the larger\ninterests of the whole body were forgotten. So early as in the\nyear 1542, Convocation, which according to the Anglican theory\nstands toward the Church in the same attitude that Parliament holds\nto the State, appointed a Committee of Eight to review and correct\nthe existing service-books. We know very little as to the proceedings\nof this committee, but that something was done, and a real impulse\ngiven to liturgical revision, is evidenced by the fact that at a\nmeeting of Convocation held soon after King Henry's death a\nresolution prevailed \"That the books of the Bishops and others who\nby the command of the Convocation have labored in examining,\nreforming, and publishing the divine service, may be produced\nand laid before the examination of this house.\"\n\nThe next important step in the process we are studying was the\npublication by authority in the early spring of 1548, of an Order\nof the Communion, as it was called, a formulary prepared by Cranmer\nto enable the priest, after having consecrated the elements in\nthe usual manner, to distribute them to the people with the\nsentences of delivery spoken in English. The priest, that is to\nsay, was to proceed with the service of the Mass as usual in the\nLatin tongue, but after he had himself received the bread and\nthe wine, he was to proceed to a service of Communion for the\npeople in a speech they could understand.\n\nAlmost everything in this tentative document, as we may call it,\nwas subsequently incorporated in the Office of the Holy Communion\nas we are using it to-day.\n\nWe have, then, as an abiding result of the liturgical experiments\nmade in anticipation of the actual setting forth of an authoritative\nPrayer Book, the Litany and this Order of the Communion.\n\nThe time was now ripe for something better and more complete; a\nnew king was upon the throne, and one whose counsellors were\nbetter disposed toward change than ever Henry had been. The great\nmovement we know under the name of the Reformation touched the\nlife of the Christian Church in every one of its three great\ndepartments--doctrine, discipline, and worship. In Henry's mind,\nhowever, the question appears to have been almost exclusively one\nof discipline or polity. His quarrel was not with the accepted\ntheological errors of his day, for as Defender of the Faith he\ncovered some of the worst of them with his shield. Neither was\nhe ill-disposed toward the methods and usages of public worship\nso far as we can judge. His quarrel first, last, and always was\nwith a certain rival claimant of power, whose pretended authority\nhe was determined to drive out of the realm, to wit, the Pope.\nBut while it was thus with Henry, it was far otherwise with many\nof the more thoughtful and devout among his theologians, and\nwhen the restraint that had been laid on them was removed by\nthe king's death, they welcomed the opportunity to apply to\ndoctrine and worship the same reforming touch that had already\nremoulded polity.\n\nAn enlarged Committee of Convocation sat at Windsor in the summer\nof 1548, and as a result there was finally set forth, and ordered\nto be put into use on Whitsunday, 1549, what has become known in\nhistory as the \"First Prayer Book of Edward VI.\"\n\nTo dwell on those features of the First Book that have remained\nunaltered to the present day would be superfluous; I shall\ntherefore, in speaking of it, confine myself to the distinctive\nand characteristic points in which it differs from the Prayer\nBooks that have succeeded it.\n\nIt is worthy of note that in the title page of the First Book\nthere is a clear distinction drawn between the Church Universal,\nor what we call in the _Te Deum_ \"the holy Church throughout all\nthe world,\" and that particular Church to which King Edward's\nsubjects, in virtue of their being Englishmen, belonged. The book\nis said to be \"the Book of the Common Prayer and administration of\nthe Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of _The Church_,\nafter the use of the Church of England.\" \"_The Church_\" is\nrecognized as being a larger and, perhaps, older thing than the\n_Church of England_, while at the same time it is intimated that\nonly through such use of these same prayers and sacraments as the\nEnglish Church ordains and authorizes can English folk come into\ncommunion with the great family of believers spread over the whole\nearth.\n\nThe Preface is a singularly racy piece of English, in which with\nthe utmost plainness of speech the compilers give their reasons\nfor having dealt with the old services as they have done. This\nreappears in the English Prayer Book of the present day under the\ntitle \"Concerning the Service of The Church,\" and so described is\nplaced after the Preface written in 1662 by the Revisers of the\nRestoration.\n\nThe Order for Daily Morning Prayer, as we name it, is called in\nEdward's First Book \"An Order for Matins daily through the year.\"\nSimilarly, what we call the Order for Daily Evening Prayer was\nstyled \"An Order for Evensong.\" These beautiful names, \"Matins\"\nand \"Evensong,\" which it is a great pity to have lost, for surely\nthere is nothing superstitious about them, disappeared from the\nbook as subsequently revised, and save in the Lectionary of the\nChurch of England have no present recognition. One of them,\nhowever, Evensong, seems to be coming very generally into colloquial\nuse. The Order for Matins began with the Lord's Prayer. Then, after\nthe familiar versicles still in use, including two that have no\nplace in our American book, \"O God, make speed to save me. O Lord,\nmake haste to help me,\" there followed in full the 95th Psalm, a\nportion of which is known to us as the _Venite_. From this point\nthe service proceeded, as in the English Prayer Book of to-day,\nthrough the Collect for Grace, where it came to an end. The\nstructure of Evensong was similar, beginning with the Lord's\nPrayer and ending, as our shortened Evening Prayer now does, with\nthe Collect for Aid against Perils. Then followed the Athanasian\nCreed, and immediately afterward came the Introits, Collects,\nEpistles, and Gospels.\n\nThese Introits, so-called, were psalms appointed to be sung when\nthe priest was about to begin the Holy Communion. They had been\nan ancient feature of divine service, but were dropped from the\nsubsequent books as a required feature of the Church's worship.\n\nThe title of the Communion Service in Edward's First Book is as\nfollows: \"The Supper of the Lord and the Holy Communion commonly\ncalled the Mass.\" Immediately after the Prayer for Purity--_i_.\n_e_., in the place where we have the Ten Commandments, comes the\n_Gloria in Excelsis_. The service then proceeds very much as with\nus, except that the Prayer for the Church Militant and the\nConsecration Prayer are welded into one, and the Prayer of Humble\nAccess given a place immediately before the reception of the\nelements. I note, in passing, certain phrases and sentences that\nare peculiar to the Communion Office of the First Book, as, for\ninstance, this from the Prayer for the whole state of Christ's\nChurch: \"And here we do give unto thee most high praise and hearty\nthanks for the wonderful grace and virtue declared in all thy\nsaints from the beginning of the world, and chiefly in the most\nglorious and blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of thy Son Jesus Christ\nour Lord and God, and in the holy patriarchs, prophets, apostles,\nand martyrs, whose examples, O Lord, and steadfastness in thy\nfaith and keeping thy holy commandments grant us to follow. We\ncommend unto thy mercy, O Lord, all other thy servants which are\ndeparted hence from us with the sign of faith and do now rest in\nthe sleep of peace. Grant unto them, we beseech thee, thy mercy and\neverlasting peace, and that at the day of the general resurrection\nwe and all they which be of the mystical body of thy Son may\naltogether be set on his right hand.\"\n\nAnd this from the closing portion of the Consecration: \"Yet we\nbeseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service, and\ncommand these our prayers and supplications by the ministry of thy\nholy angels to be brought up into thy holy tabernacle before the\nsight of thy divine majesty.\"\n\nFollowing close upon the Communion Service came the Litany, differing\nvery little from what we have to-day, save in the memorable petition,\n\"From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable\nenormities, good Lord deliver us.\"\n\nThe Baptismal Offices of the First Book contain certain unique\nfeatures. The sign of the cross is ordered to be made on the child's\nbreast as well as on his forehead. There is a form of exorcism said\nover the infant in which the unclean spirit is commanded to come\nout and to depart. There is also the giving of the \"Crisome\" or\nwhite vesture as a symbol of innocence. \"Take this white vesture\nfor a token of the innocency which by God's grace in this holy\nsacrament of Baptism is given unto thee, and for a sign whereby\nthou art admonished, so long as thou livest, to give thyself to\ninnocency of living, that after this transitory life thou mayest\nbe partaker of the life everlasting.\"\n\nThe Catechism in Edward VI. First Book, as in the subsequent books\ndown to 1662, is made a part of the Confirmation Office, although\nit does not clearly appear that the children were expected to say\nit as a preliminary to the service.\n\nThe Office for the Visitation of the Sick contains provision for\nprivate confession and absolution, and also directs that the priest\nshall anoint the sick man with oil if he be desired to do so.\n\nThe Office for the Communion of the Sick allows the practice of what\nis called the reservation of the elements, but contains also, be it\nobserved, that rubric which has held its place through all the\nchanges the Prayer Book has undergone, where we are taught that if\nthe sick man by any \"just impediment fail to receive the sacrament\nof Christ's body and blood, the curate shall instruct him that if\nhe do truly repent him of his sins and steadfastly believe that\nJesus Christ hath suffered death upon the cross for him . . . he\ndoth eat and drink the body and blood of our Saviour Christ,\nprofitably to his soul's health although he do not receive the\nsacrament with his mouth.\"\n\nThe Burial Office contains a recognition of prayer for the dead,\nbut except in the matter of the arrangement of the parts differs\nbut little from the service still in use. A special Introit,\nCollect, Epistle, and Gospel are appointed \"for the Celebration of\nthe Holy Communion when there is a Burial of the Dead.\"\n\nA Commination Office for Ash-Wednesday, substantially identical\nwith that still in use in the Church of England, concludes the book.\n\nThe First Prayer Book of King Edward the Sixth, memorable as it was\ndestined to become, proved, so far as actual use was concerned, but\nshort-lived. It became operative, as we have seen, on Whitsunday,\n1549, but it was soon evident that while the new services went too\nfar in the direction of reform to please the friends of the ancient\norder of things, they did not go far enough to meet the wishes of\nthe reforming party.\n\nBefore the year was out no fewer than three translations of the\nLiturgy into Latin had been undertaken with a view to informing\nthe Protestant divines of the Continent as to what their English\ncolleagues were doing. \"There was already within the Church\" (of\nEngland), writes Cardwell, in his comparison of Edward's two books,\n\"a party, though probably not numerous, which espoused the peculiar\nsentiments of Calvin; there were others, and Cranmer, it appears,\nhad recently been one of them, adhering strictly to the opinions\nof Luther; there were many, and those among the most active and the\nmost learned, who adopted the views of Bullinger and the theologians\nof Zurich; there was a still larger body anxious to combine all\nclasses of Protestants under one general confession, and all these,\nthough with distinct objects and different degrees of impatience,\nlooked forward to a revision of the Liturgy, to bring it more\ncompletely into accordance with their own sentiments.\"\n\nAs a result of the agitation thus vividly pictured by Cardwell,\nthere came forth in 1552 the book known as the Second Prayer Book\nof King Edward VI., a work of the very greatest interest, for the\nreason that it was destined to become the basis of all future\nrevisions. Whitsunday, 1549, was the day when the First Book began\nto be used. The Feast of All Saints, 1552, was the date officially\nappointed for the introduction of the Second Book. Presently King\nEdward died, and by an act of Mary passed in October, 1553, the use\nof his Book became illegal on and after December 20th of that year.\nIt thus appears that the First Book was in use for two years and\nabout four months, and the Second Book one year and about two\nmonths. A memorable three years and a half for the English-speaking\npeoples of all time to come, for it is not too much to say that\nwhile the language of Tyndale and of Cranmer continues to be heard\non earth, the devotions then put into form will keep on moulding\nthe religious thought and firing the spiritual imagination of this\nrace.\n\nThe points in which the second of King Edward's two books differs\nfrom the first are of such serious moment and the general complexion\nof the later work has in it such an access of Protestant coloring,\nthat high Anglican writers have been in the habit of attributing the\nmain features of the revision to the interference of the Continental\nReformers. \"If it had not been for the impertinent meddling,\" they\nhave been accustomed to say, \"of such foreigners as Bucer, Peter\nMartyr, and John a-Lasco, we might have been enjoying at the present\nday the admirable and truly Catholic devotions set forth in the\nfresh morning of the Reformation, before the earth-born vapors of\ntheological controversy and ecclesiastical partisanship had\nbeclouded an otherwise fair sky.\" But it does not appear that there\nis any solid foundation in fact for these complaints.\n\nThe natural spread of the spirit of reform among the people of the\nrealm, taken in connection with the changes of opinion which the\nswift movement of the times necessarily engendered in the minds of\nthe leading divines, are of themselves quite sufficient to account\nfor what took place. Certainly, if the English of that day were at\nall like their descendants in our time, it is in the highest degree\nunlikely that they would have allowed a handful of learned refugees\nto force upon them changes which their own sober judgment did not\napprove.\n\nThe truth is, very little is certainly known as to the details of\nwhat was done in the making of Edward's Second Book. Even the names\nof the members of the committee intrusted with the revision are\nmatter of conjecture, and of the proceedings of that body no\nauthentic record survives. What we do possess and are in a position\nto criticise is the book itself, and to a brief review of the\npoints in which it differs from its predecessor we will now pass.\n\nUpon taking up the Second Book after laying down the First, one is\nstruck immediately with the changed look of Morning Prayer. This\nis no longer called Matins, and no longer begins as before with the\nLord's Prayer. An Introduction has been prefixed to the office\nconsisting of a collection of sentences from Holy Scripture, all of\nthem of a penitential character, and besides these of an Exhortation,\na Confession, and an Absolution. There can be little doubt that this\nopportunity for making public acknowledgment of sin and hearing\nthe declaration of God's willingness to forgive, was meant to\ncounterbalance the removal from the book of all reference, save\nin one instance, to private confession and absolution. The Church\nof England has always retained in her Visitation Office a permission\nto the priest to pronounce absolution privately to the sick man.\nThis was a feature of the First Book that was not disturbed in the\nSecond. But wherever else they found anything that seemed to look\ntoward the continuance of the system familiarly known to us under\nthe name of \"the Confessional,\" they expunged it. Between the\nExhortation and the Confession there is, in point of literary merit,\na noticeable contrast, and it is scarcely to be believed that both\nformularies can have proceeded from one and the same pen. Another\nstep in the Protestant direction was the prohibition of certain\nvestments that in the First Book had been allowed, as the alb and\ncope. The Introit Psalms were taken away. The word \"table\" was\neverywhere substituted for the word \"altar.\" The changes in the\nOffice of the Holy Communion were numerous and significant. The\nTen Commandments, for instance, were inserted in the place where\nwe now have them. The _Gloria in Excelsis_ was transferred from\nthe beginning of the service to the end. The Exhortations were\nre-written. The supplication for the dead was taken out of the\nPrayer for the whole state of Christ's Church, and the words\n\"militant here on earth\" were added to the title with a view to\nconfining the scope of the intercession to the circle of people\nstill alive. The Confession, Absolution, Comfortable Words, and\nPrayer of Humble Access were placed before the Consecration instead\nof after it. Most important of all was the change of the words\nappointed to be said in delivering the elements to the communicants.\nIn the First Book these had been, \"The body of our Lord Jesus Christ\nwhich was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting\nlife,\" and in the case of the cup, \"The blood of our Lord Jesus\nChrist, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto\neverlasting life.\" For these were now substituted in the one\ninstance the words, \"Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ\ndied for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with\nthanksgiving,\" and in the other, \"Drink this in remembrance that\nChrist's blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.\"\n\nFrom the Office for the Communion of the Sick the direction to\nreserve the elements was omitted, as was also the permission to\nanoint the sick man with oil. The Service of Baptism was no longer\nsuffered to retain the exorcism of the evil spirit, or the white\nvesture, or the unction; and there were other items of less\nimportant change. Those mentioned reveal plainly enough what was\nthe animus of the revisers. Most evidently the intention was to\nproduce a liturgy more thoroughly reformed, more in harmony with\nthe new tone and temper which the religious thought of the times\nwas taking on.\n\nWe come to the Third Book of Common Prayer. Bloody Mary was dead,\nand Elizabeth had succeeded to the throne.\n\nDuring the Roman reaction proclamation had been made that all the\nReformed service-books should be given up to the ecclesiastical\nauthorities within fifteen days to be burned. This is doubtless\nthe reason why copies of the liturgical books of Edward's reign\nare now so exceedingly rare. Reprints of them abound, but the\noriginals exist only as costly curiosities.\n\nSoon after Elizabeth's accession a committee of divines assembled\nunder her authority for the purpose of again revising the\nformularies.\n\nThe queen was personally a High-Churchwoman, and her own judgment\nis said to have been favorable to taking the first of Edward's two\nbooks as the basis of the revision, but a contrary preference\nswayed the committee, and the lines followed were those of 1552\nand not those of 1549.\n\nThe new features distinctive of the Prayer Book of Elizabeth,\notherwise known as the Prayer Book of 1559, are not numerous.\nA table of Proper Lessons for Sundays was introduced. The old\nvestments recognized in the earlier part of King Edward's reign\nwere again legalized. The petition for deliverance from the tyranny\nof the Pope was struck out of the Litany, and by a compromise\npeculiarly English in its character, and, as experience has shown,\nexceedingly well judged, the two forms of words that had been used\nin the delivery of the elements in the Holy Communion were welded\ntogether into the shape in which we have them still.\n\nQueen Elizabeth's Prayer Book continued in use for five-and-forty\nyears. Nothing was more natural than that when she died there should\ncome with the accession of a new dynasty a demand for fresh revision.\nKing James, who was not afflicted with any want of confidence in\nhis own judgment, invited certain representatives of the disaffected\nparty to meet, under his presidency, the Churchmen in council with\na view to the settlement of differences. The Puritans had been\ngaining in strength during Elizabeth's reign, and they felt that\nthey were now in position to demand a larger measure of liturgical\nreform than that monarch and her advisers had been willing to\nconcede to them.\n\nKing James convened his conference at Hampton Court, near London,\nand he himself was good enough to preside. Very little came of the\ndebate. The Puritans had demanded the discontinuance of the sign of\nthe cross in Baptism, of bowing at the name of Jesus, of the ring\nin marriage, and of the rite of confirmation. The words \"priest\"\nand \"absolution\" they sought to have expunged from the Prayer Book,\nand they desired that the wearing of the surplice should be made\noptional.\n\nAlmost nothing was conceded to them. The words \"or Remission of\nSins\" were added to the title of the Absolution, certain Prayers\nand Thanksgivings were introduced, and that portion of the Catechism\nwhich deals with the Sacraments was for the first time set forth.\nAnd thus the English Prayer Book started out upon its fourth lease\nof life destined in this form to endure unchanged, though by no\nmeans unassailed, for more than half a century.\n\nA stirring half century it was. The Puritan defeat at Hampton Court\nwas redressed at Naseby. With the coming in of the Long Parliament\nthe Book of Common Prayer went out, and to all appearances the\ntriumph of the Commonwealth meant the final extinction of the usage\nof liturgical worship on English soil. The book, under its various\nforms, had lasted just a hundred years when he who\n\n  Nothing common did or mean\n  Upon that memorable scene\n\nsuffered at Whitehall.\n\nThey buried him in St. George's Chapel, Windsor, and no single word\nof the Prayer Book he had loved and for which he had fought was\nsaid over his grave.\n\nOn January 3, 1645, Parliament repealed the statutes of Edward VI.\nand of Elizabeth that had enjoined the use of the Book of Common\nPrayer, and took order that thereafter only such divine service\nshould be lawful as accorded with what was called the _Directory_,\na manual of suggestions with respect to public worship adopted by\nthe Presbyterian party as a substitute for the ancient liturgy.\n\nWith the restoration of the Stuarts in 1660 came naturally the\nrestoration of the Prayer Book, and with equal naturalness a\nrevision of it. But of what sort should the revision be, and under\nwhose auspices conducted? This was an anxious question for the\nadvisers, civil and ecclesiastical, of the restored king. Should\nthe second Charles take up the book just as it had fallen from the\nhands of the first Charles, unchanged in line or letter, or should\nhe seek by judicious alterations and timely concessions to win\nback for the national Church the good-will and loyalty of those\nwho, eighteen years before, had broken down her hedge? The situation\nmay be described as triangular.\n\nThe king's secret and personal sympathies were probably all along\nwith the Roman Church; his official allegiance was plainly due to\nthe Church of England; and yet, at the same time, he owed much\nto the forbearance of the men who had been dominant under the\nCommonwealth. The mind of the nation had, indeed, reacted toward\nmonarchy, but not with such an absolute and hardy renunciation of\nthe doctrines of popular sovereignty as to make it safe for the\nreturning king to do precisely as he chose. The glorious Revolution\nthat was destined so soon to follow upon the heels of the gracious\nRestoration gave evidence, when it came, that there were some\nthings the people of England prized even more highly than an\nhereditary throne. Misgivings as to the amount there might still\nbe of this sort of electricity in the atmosphere suggested to the\nking and his counsellors the expediency of holding a conference,\nat which the leaders on either side might bring forward their strong\nreasons in favor of this or that method of dealing with the\necclesiastical question in general, and more especially with the\nvexed problem of worship.\n\nAccordingly, early in the spring of 1661 the King issued a\nroyal warrant summoning to meet at the Savoy Palace in the\nStrand an equal number of representatives of both parties--namely,\none-and-twenty Churchmen and one-and-twenty Presbyterians.\n\nThe Episcopal deputation consisted of twelve bishops and nine other\ndivines called coadjutors. The Presbyterians had also their twelve\nprincipal men and their nine coadjutors.\n\nConspicuous among the Episcopalians for weight of learning were\nBishops Sanderson, Cosin, and Walton, and Doctors Pearson, Sparrow,\nand Heylin. Baxter, Reynolds, Calamy, and Lightfoot were the most\nnotable of the Presbyterians.\n\nThe conference, which has ever since been known from its place of\nmeeting (an old palace of the Piedmontese Ambassadors) as the Savoy\nConference, convened on April 15, 1661. For various reasons, it\nwas evident from the outset that the Churchmen were in a position\nof great advantage. In the first place, signs and tokens of a\nrenewed confidence in monarchy and of a revived attachment to the\nreigning House were becoming daily more numerous.\n\nBefore he had had a chance to test the strength of the existing\npolitical parties and to know how things really stood, Charles had\nborne himself very discreetly toward the Presbyterians, and had\nheld out hopes to them which, as the event proved, were destined\nnever to be realized. In a declaration put forth in the autumn of\n1660, after he had been for some months on English soil, he had even\ngone so far as to say: \"When we were in Holland we were attended\nby many grave and learned ministers from hence, who were looked\nupon as the most able and principal asserters of the Presbyterian\nopinions; with whom we had as much conference as the multitude of\naffairs which were then upon us would permit us to have, and to\nour great satisfaction and comfort found them persons full of\naffection to us, of zeal for the peace of the Church and State, and\nneither enemies, as they have been given out to be, to episcopacy\nor liturgy, but modestly to desire such alterations in either,\nas without shaking foundations might best allay the present\ndistempers.\"\n\nBy the time the conference met it had become evident, from votes\ntaken in Parliament and otherwise, that the Churchmen could sustain\ntoward their opponents a somewhat stiffer attitude than this without\nimperilling their cause. Another great advantage enjoyed by the\nEpiscopalians grew out of the fact that they were the party in\npossession. They had only to profess themselves satisfied with the\nPrayer Book as it stood, in order to throw the Presbyterians into\nthe position of assailants, and defense is always easier than\nattack. Sheldon, the Bishop of London, was not slow to perceive\nthis. At the very first meeting of the conference, he is reported\nto have said that \"as the Non-conformists, and not the bishops, had\nsought for the conference, nothing could be done till the former\nhad delivered their exceptions in writing, together with the\nadditional forms and alterations which they desired.\" Upon which\nBishop Burnet in his _History of his own Times_ remarks: \"Sheldon\nsaw well what the effect would be of putting them to make all their\ndemands at once. The number of them raised a mighty outcry against\nthem, as people that could never be satisfied.\"\n\nThe Presbyterians, however, took up the challenge, set to work at\nformulating their objections, and appointed Richard Baxter, the most\nfamous of their number, to show what could be done in the way of\nmaking a better manual of worship than the Book of Common Prayer.\n\nBaxter, a truly great man and wise in a way, though scarcely in the\nliturgical way, was guilty of the incredible folly of undertaking\nto construct a Prayer Book within a fortnight.\n\nOf this liturgy it is probably safe to say that no denomination of\nChristians, however anti-prelatical or eccentric, would for a\nmoment dream of adopting it, if, indeed, there be a single local\ncongregation anywhere that could be persuaded to employ it. The\ncharacteristic of the devotions is lengthiness. The opening sentence\nof the prayer with which the book begins contains by actual count\neighty-three words. It is probable that Baxter by his rash act did\nmore to injure the cause of intelligent and reverential liturgical\nrevision than any ten men have done before or since. In every\ndiscussion of the subject he is almost sure to be brought forward\nas \"the awful example.\"\n\nA document much more to the point than Baxter's Liturgy was the\nformal catalogue of faults and blemishes alleged against the Prayer\nBook, which the Puritan members of the conference in due time\nbrought in. This indictment, for it may fairly be called such,\nsince it was drawn up in separate counts, is very interesting\nreading. Of the \"exceptions against the Book of Common Prayer,\"\nas the Puritans named their list of liturgical grievances, some\nmust strike almost any reader of the present day as trivial and\nunworthy. Others again there are that draw a sympathetic Amen from\nmany quarters to-day. To an American Episcopalian the catalogue\nis chiefly interesting as showing how ready and even eager were\nour colonial ancestors of a hundred years ago to remove out of the\nway such known rocks of offence as they could. An attentive student\nof the American Prayer Book cannot fail to be struck with the number\nof instances in which the text gives evidence of the influence\nexerted over the minds of our revisers by what had been urged, more\nthan a hundred years before, by the Puritan members of the Savoy\nConference. The defeat of 1661 was, in a measure at least, avenged\nin 1789. It is encouraging to those who cast their bread upon\nliturgical waters to notice after how many days the return may come.\nBut the conference, to all outward seeming, was a failure. Baxter's\nunhappy Prayer Book was its own sufficient refutation, and as for\nthe list of special grievances it was met by the bishops with an\n\"Answer\" that was full of hard raps and conceded almost nothing.\n\nA few detached paragraphs may serve to illustrate the general tone\nof this reply. Here, for instance, is the comment of the bishops\nupon the request of the Puritans to be allowed occasionally to\nsubstitute extemporaneous for liturgical devotions. \"The gift or\nrather spirit of prayer consists in the inward graces of the spirit,\nnot in extempore expressions which any man of natural parts having\na voluble tongue and audacity may attain to without any special\ngift.\" Nothing very conciliatory in that. To the complaint that\nthe Collects are too short, the bishops reply that they cannot\nfor that reason be accounted faulty, being like those \"short but\nprevalent prayers in Scripture, Lord, be merciful to me a sinner.\nLord, increase our faith.\" The Puritans had objected to the\nantiphonal element in the Prayer-Book services, and desired to\nhave nothing of a responsive character allowed beyond the single\nword Amen. \"But,\" rejoin the bishops, \"they directly practise the\ncontrary in one of their principal parts of worship, singing of\npsalms, where the people bear as great a part as the minister. If\nthis way be done in Hopkin's why not in David's Psalms; if in metre,\nwhy not in prose; if in a psalm, why not in a litany?\" Sharp, but\nnot winning.\n\nThe Puritans had objected to the people's kneeling while the\nCommandments were read on the score that ignorant worshippers\nmight mistake the Decalogue for a form of prayer. With some asperity\nthe bishops reply that \"why Christian people should not upon their\nknees ask their pardon for their life forfeited for the breach of\nevery commandment and pray for grace to keep them for the time to\ncome they must be more than 'ignorant' that can scruple.\"\n\nThe time during which the conference at the Savoy should continue\nits sessions had been limited to four months. This period expired\non July 24, 1661, and the apparently fruitless disputation was at\nan end. Meanwhile, however, Convocation, the recognized legislature\nof the Church of England, had begun to sit, and the bishops had\nundertaken a revision of the Prayer Book after their own mind, and\nwith slight regard to what they had been hearing from their critics\nat the Savoy. The bulk of their work, which included, it is said,\nmore than six hundred alterations, most of them of a verbal\ncharacter and of no great importance, was accomplished within the\ncompass of a single month. It is consoling to those who within our\nown memory have been charged with indecent haste for seeking to\neffect a revision of the American Book of Common Prayer within a\nperiod of nine years, to find this precedent in ecclesiastical\nhistory for their so great rashness.\n\nSince Charles the Second's day there has been no formal revision of\nthe Prayer Book of the Church of England by the Church of England.\n\nSome slight relaxations of liturgical use on Sundays have been made\nlegal by Act of Parliament, but in all important respects the Prayer\nBook of Victoria is identical with the book set forth by Convocation\nand sanctioned by Parliament shortly after the collapse of the Savoy\nConference. Under no previous lease of life did the book enjoy\nanything like so long a period of continued existence. Elizabeth's\nbook was the longest lived of all that preceded the Restoration,\nbut that only continued in use five-and-forty years. But the Prayer\nBook of 1661 has now held its own in England for two centuries and\na quarter. When, therefore, we are asked to accept the first\nEdwardian Book as the only just exponent of the religious mind of\nEngland, it is open to us to reply, \"Why should we, seeing that\nthe Caroline Book has served as the vehicle of English devotion for\na period seventy-five times as long?\" The most voluminous of the\nadditions made to the Prayer Book, in 1661, were the Office for the\nBaptism of Adults and the Forms of Prayer to be used at Sea. The\nwide diffusion, under the Commonwealth, of what were then called\nAnabaptist opinions, had brought it to pass that throughout the\nkingdom there were thousands of men and women who had grown up\nunbaptized. At the time of the Reformation such a thing as an\nunchristened Christendom seems not to have been thought possible.\nAt any rate no provision was made for the contingency. But upon\nthe spread of liberty of religious thought there followed, logically\nenough, the spread of liberty of religious action, and it was not\nstrange that after a whole generation had spent its life in\ncontroversy of the warmest sort over this very point of Baptism,\nthere were found to be in England multitudes of the unbaptized.\n\nAnother reason assigned in the Preface of the English Prayer Book\nfor the addition of this office was that it might be used for the\nbaptizing of \"natives in the plantations and other converts.\" This\nis the first hint of any awakening of the conscience of the English\nChurch to a sense of duty toward those strangers and foreigners who\nin the \"Greater Britain\" of these later days fill so large a place.\nThe composition of the office, which differs very little, perhaps\nscarcely enough, from that appointed for the Baptism of Infants, is\nattributed to Griffith, the Bishop of St. Asaph. The compiler of\nthe Forms of Prayer to be used at Sea was Bishop Sanderson, famous\namong English theologians as an authority on casuistry. He must have\nfound it rather a nice case of conscience to decide whether a Stuart\ndivine in preparing forms of prayer for a navy that had been the\ncreation of Oliver Cromwell ought wholly to omit an acknowledgment\nof the nation's obligation to that stout-hearted, if non-Episcopal\nChristian. Other additions of importance made at this revision were\nthe General Thanksgiving, in all probability the work of Reynolds,\na conforming Presbyterian divine, the Collect, Epistle, and Gospel\nfor the Sixth Sunday after the Epiphany, the Prayer for Parliament,\nupon the lines of which our own Prayer for Congress was afterward\nmodelled, and the Prayer for All Sorts and Conditions of Men. In\nthe Litany the words \"rebellion\" and \"schism\" were introduced into\none of the suffrages, becoming tide-marks of the havoc wrought in\nChurch and State by what the revisers, doubtless, looked back upon\nas \"the flood of the ungodly.\" The words \"Bishops, Priests, and\nDeacons\" were substituted for \"Bishops, Pastors, and Ministers of\nthe Church.\" New Collects were appointed for the Third Sunday in\nAdvent and for St. Stephen's Day. Both of these are distinct gains,\nalbeit had the opinion then prevailed that to introduce into the\nPrayer Book anything from the pen of a living writer is an impiety,\nwe should have gained neither of them.\n\nAnother important change made in 1662 was the adoption for the\nSentences, Epistles and Gospels of the language of King James's\nBible in place of that of earlier versions. This principle was not\napplied to the Psalter, to the Decalogue, or, in fact, to any of\nthe portions of Scripture contained in the Communion Service.\n\nIt is also interesting to note that the Confession in the Holy\nCommunion, which the earlier rubric had directed should be said\nby one of the congregation, or else by one of the ministers, or\nby the priest himself, \"was now made general and enjoined upon all\nthe worshippers.\"\n\nMost suggestive of all, however, was the reinsertion at the end of\nthe Communion Service of a certain Declaration about the significance\nof the act of kneeling at the reception of the elements, which had,\nas some say, irregularly and without proper authority, found its way\ninto the Second Book of Edward VI., but had been omitted from all\nsubsequent books till now. This Declaration, which from its not\nbeing printed in red ink is known to those who dislike it under the\nname of \"the black rubric,\" was undoubtedly intended to ease the\nconsciences of those who scrupled to kneel at the altar-rail for\nfear of seeming to countenance that superstitious adoration of the\nelements known to and stigmatized by the Reformers as \"host-worship.\"\nThe language of the black rubric as it stood in Edward's Second\nBook was as follows: \"Although no order can be so perfectly devised\nbut it may be of some, either for their ignorance and infirmity,\nor else of malice and obstinacy, misconstrued, depraved, and\ninterpreted in a wrong part; and yet because brotherly charity\nwilleth that so much as conveniently may be offences should be\ntaken away; therefore we willing to do the same: whereas, it is\nordained in the Book of Common Prayer, in the Administration of\nthe Lord's Supper, that the communicants kneeling should receive the\nHoly Communion, which thing being well meant for a signification\nof the humble and grateful acknowledging of the benefits of Christ\ngiven unto the worthy receiver, and to avoid the profanation and\ndisorder, which about the Holy Communion might else ensue, lest\nyet the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise; we do\ndeclare that it is not meant thereby, that any adoration is done\nor ought to be done, either unto the sacramental bread or wine\nthere bodily received or unto any real and essential presence there\nbeing of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For as concerning the\nsacramental bread and wine they remain still in their very natural\nsubstances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were idolatry\nto be abhorred of all faithful Christians: and as concerning the\nnatural body and blood of our Saviour Christ, they are in heaven\nand not here, for it is against the truth of Christ's true natural\nbody to be in more places than in one at one time.\"\n\nIn restoring this significant Declaration, the revisers of 1662\nsubstituted the words \"corporal presence\" for the words \"real and\nsubstantial presence,\" but probably with no intention other than\nthat of making the original meaning more plain. The fact that in\nthe teeth and eyes of the black rubric the practice known as\nEucharistical adoration has become widely prevalent in the Church\nof England, only shows how little dependence can be placed on forms\nof words to keep even excellent and religious people from doing\nthe things they have a mind to do.\n\nIn taking leave of the Caroline revision, it may be permitted to\ndwell for a moment upon the serious character of the conclusion\nreached by the ecclesiastical leaders of that day. An opportunity\nwas given them to conciliate dissent. Without going all lengths,\nwithout in any measure imperilling the great foundation principles\nof Anglican religion, they might, it would seem, have won back to\nthe national church thousands of those whom their sternness not\nonly repelled but permanently embittered. But it was the hour of\nvictory with the Churchmen, and \"Woe to the conquered\" seems to\nhave been their cry. They set their faces as a flint against\nconcession; they passed their iron-clad act of uniformity, and\nnow for more than two hundred years religion in Great Britain has\nbeen a household divided against itself. Perhaps nothing that the\nmen of the Restoration could have done would have made it otherwise.\nPerhaps the familiar question of the cynical Dean of St. Patrick's,\n\"What imports it how large a gate you open, if there be always left\na number who place a pride and a merit in refusing to enter?\" was\na fair question, and fatal to any dream of unity. And yet one may\nbe pardoned for believing that had a little of the oil of brotherly\nkindness been poured upon those troubled waters we whom the waves\nstill buffet might to-day be sailing a smoother sea.\n\nAs stated above, the Convocation of 1662 gave to the Prayer Book of\nthe Church of England the form it has ever since retained. But it\nmust not be supposed that no efforts have been made meanwhile to\nbring changes to pass. The books written upon the subject form a\nliterature by themselves.\n\nThe one really serious attempt to reconstruct the Liturgy in\npost-Caroline times was that which grew naturally enough out of the\nRevolution of 1688. In every previous crisis of political change,\nthe Prayer Book had felt the tremor along with the statute-book.\n\nChurch and State, like heart and brain, are sympathetically\nresponsive to one another; revisions of rubrics go naturally\nalong with revisions of codes. It was only what might have been\nanticipated, therefore, that when William and Mary came to the\nthrone a Commission should issue for a new review. If Elizabeth\nhad found it necessary to revise the book, if James had found it\nnecessary, if Charles had found it necessary, why should not the\nstrong hand of William of Orange be laid upon the pages? But this\ntime the rule was destined to find its exception. The work of review\nwas, indeed, undertaken by a Royal Commission, including among its\nmembers the great names of Stillingfleet, Tillotson, and Beveridge,\nbut nothing came of their work. Convocation again showed itself\nunfriendly to anything like concessive measures, and so complete\nwas the obscurity into which the doings of the Commission fell,\nthat even as late as 1849, Cardwell, in the third edition of\nhis _History of Conferences_, speaks as if he knew nothing of\nthe whereabouts of the record. In 1854 the manuscript minutes\nof the Commission's proceedings were discovered in the Library\nof Lambeth Palace, and by order of Parliament printed as a\nBlue-book. The same document has also been published in a more\nreadable form by Bagster. One rises from the perusal of this Broad\nChurch Prayer Book--for such, perhaps, Tillotson's attempt may not\nunfairly be called--profoundly thankful that the promoters of it\nwere not suffered to succeed. The Preface to our American Book of\nCommon Prayer refers to this attempted review of 1689 \"as a great\nand good work.\" But the greatness and the goodness must have lain\nin the motive, for one fails to discern them either in the matter\nor in the manner of what was recommended.\n\nEven Macaulay, Whig that he is, fails not to put on record his\ncondemnation of the literary violence which the Prayer Book so\nnarrowly escaped at the hands of the Royal Commission of 1689.\nTerseness was not the special excellency of Macaulay's own style,\nyet even he resented Bishop Patrick's notion that the Collects\ncould be improved by amplification. One of the few really good\nsuggestions made by the Commissioners was that of using the\nBeatitudes in the Office of the Holy Communion as an alternate\nfor the Decalogue. There are certain festivals of the Christian\nyear when such a substitution would be most timely and refreshing.\n\nWe make a leap now of just a hundred years. From 1689 we pass to\n1789, and find ourselves in the city of Philadelphia, at a\nconvention assembled for the purpose of framing a constitution\nand setting forth a liturgy for a body of Christians destined to\nbe known as the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States\nof America. During the interval between the issue of the Declaration\nof Independence and the Ratification of the Constitution of the\nUnited States, the people in this country who had been brought\nup in the communion of the Church of England found themselves\necclesiastically in a very delicate position indeed. As colonists\nthey had been canonically under the spiritual jurisdiction of the\nBishop of London, a somewhat remote diocesan. But with this\nEpiscopal bond broken and no new one formed, they seemed to be\nin a peculiar sense adrift. It does not fall to me to narrate\nthe steps that led to the final establishment of the episcopacy\nupon a sure foundation, nor yet to trace the process through which\nthe Church's legislative system came gradually to its completion.\nOur interest is a liturgical one, and our subject matter the\nevolution of the Prayer Book. I say nothing, therefore, of other\nmatters that were debated in the Convention of 1789, but shall\npropose instead that we confine ourselves to what was said and\ndone about the Prayer Book. In order, however, fully to appreciate\nthe situation we must go back a little. In a half-formal and\nhalf-informal fashion there had come into existence, four years\nbefore this Convention of 1789 assembled, an American Liturgy now\nknown by the name of _The Proposed Book_. It had been compiled on\nthe basis of the English Prayer Book by a Committee of three\neminent clergymen, Dr. White of Pennsylvania, Dr. William Smith\nof Maryland, and Dr. Wharton of Delaware. Precisely what measure\nof acceptance this book enjoyed, or to what extent it came actually\ninto use, are difficult, perhaps hopeless questions.\n\nWhat we know for certain is that the public opinion of the greater\nnumber of Churchmen rejected it as inadequate and unsatisfactory.\nIn the Convention of 1789 The Proposed Book does not seem to have\nbeen seriously considered in open debate at all, though doubtless\nthere was much talk about it, much controversy over its merits and\ndemerits at Philadelphia dinner-tables and elsewhere while the\nsession was in progress.\n\nThe truth is, the changes set forth in _The Proposed Book_ were\ntoo sweeping to commend themselves to the sober second-thought of\nmen whose blood still showed the tincture of English conservatism.\nPossibly also some old flames of Tory resentment were rekindled,\nhere and there, by the prominence given in the book to a form of\npublic thanksgiving for the Fourth of July. There were Churchmen\ndoubtless at that day who failed duly to appreciate what were called\nin the title of the office, \"the inestimable blessings of Religious\nand Civil Liberty.\" Others again may have been offended by the\ntreatment measured out to the Psalter, which was portioned into\nthirty selections of two parts each, with the _Benedicite_ added\nat the end, to be used, if desired, on the thirty-first day of any\nmonth. Another somewhat crude and unliturgical device was the\nrunning together without break of the Morning Prayer and the\nLitany.\n\nI speak of blemishes, but _The Proposed Book_ had its excellences\nalso. Just at present it is the fashion in Anglican circles to heap\nridicule and contempt on _The Proposed Book_ out of all proportion\nto its real demerits. Somehow it is thought to compromise us with\nthe English by showing up our ecclesiastical ancestors in an\nunfavorable light as unlearned and ignorant men. It is treated\nas people will sometimes treat an old family portrait of a forebear,\nwho in his day was under a cloud, mismanaged trust funds, or made\nmoney in the slave trade. Thus a grave historiographer by way of\nspeaking comfortably on this score, assures us that the volume\n\"speedily sunk into obscurity,\" becoming one of the rarest of the\nbooks illustrative of our ecclesiastical annals.\n\nAnd yet, curiously enough, _The Proposed Book_ was in some points\nmore \"churchly,\" using the word in a sense expressive of liturgical\naccuracy, than the book finally adopted. In the Morning Prayer it\nhas the _Venite_ in full and not abridged. The _Benedictus_ it also\ngives entire. A single form of Absolution is supplied. The versicles\nfollowing upon the Creed are more numerous than ours. In the Evening\nPrayer the great Gospel Hymns, _the Magnificat_ and the _Nunc\ndimittis_, stand in the places to which we with tardy justice have\nonly just restored them.\n\nAgain, if we consider those features of _The Proposed Book_ that\nwere retained and made part of the Liturgy in 1789, we shall have\nfurther reason to refrain from wholesale condemnation of this\ntentative work. For example, we owe the two opening sentences of\nMorning Prayer, \"The Lord is in his holy temple\" and \"From the\nrising of the sun,\" to _The Proposed Book_, and also the special\nform for Thanksgiving Day. And yet, on the whole, the Convention\nof 1789 acted most wisely in determining that it would make the\nPrayer Book of the Church of England, rather than _The Proposed\nBook_, the real basis of revision. It did so, and as a result we\nhave what has served us so well during the first century of our\nnational life--the _Book of Common Prayer and Administration of\nthe Sacraments and other rites and ceremonies of the Church\naccording to the use of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the\nUnited States of America_. The points wherein the American Prayer\nBook differs from the Prayer Book of the Church of England are too\nnumerous to be catalogued in full. \"They will appear,\" says the\nPreface (a composition borrowed, by the way, almost wholly from\n_The Proposed Book_), \"and, it is to be hoped, the reasons of them\nalso, upon a comparison of this with the Book of Common Prayer of\nthe Church of England.\"\n\nThe most important differences are the following: The permissive\nuse of \"Selections of Psalms in place of the Psalms appointed for\nthe day of the month.\" This was doubtless suggested by the wholesale\ntransformation of the Psalter in _The Proposed Book_ into a series\nof selections.\n\nThe permitted shortening of the Litany is an American feature.\n\nA number of the special prayers, as, for example, the prayer for a\nsick person, that for persons going to sea, the thanksgivings for a\nrecovery and for a safe return, all these are peculiar to the\nAmerican use. Extensive alterations were made in the Marriage\nService and certain greatly needed ones in the Burial Office.\nThe two most noteworthy differences, however, are the omission\nfrom our Prayer Book of the so-called Athanasian Creed, and the\ninsertion in it of that part of the Consecration Prayer in the\nCommunion Office known as the Invocation. The engrafting of this\nlatter feature we owe to the influence of Bishop Seabury, who by\nthis addition not only assimilated the language of our liturgy more\nclosely to that of the ancient formularies of the Oriental Church,\nbut also insured our being kept reminded of the truly spiritual\ncharacter of Holy Communion. \"It is the spirit that quickeneth,\"\nthis Invocation seems to say; \"the flesh profiteth nothing.\" Quite\nin line with this was the alteration made at the same time in the\nlanguage of the Catechism. \"The Body and Blood of Christ,\" says the\nEnglish Book, \"which are verily and indeed taken and received by\nthe faithful in the Lord's Supper.\"\n\n\"The Body and Blood of Christ,\" says the American Book, \"which are\nspiritually taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's\nSupper.\"\n\nMany verbal changes are to be found scattered here and there\nthrough the book, some of them for the better, some, perhaps,\nfor the worse. The prevailing purpose seems to have been to\nexpunge all obsolete words and phrases while dealing tenderly\nwith obsolescent ones. In this course, however, the revisers\nwere by no means always and everywhere consistent.\n\n\"Prevent,\" in the sense of \"anticipate,\" is altered in some places\nbut left unchanged in others. In the _Visitation of Prisoners_, an\noffice borrowed from the Irish Prayer Book, the thoroughly obsolete\nexpression, \"As you tender,\" in the sense of \"as you value,\" the\nsalvation of your soul, is retained.\n\nFrom the Psalter has disappeared in the American Book \"Thou tellest\nmy Sittings,\" although why this particular archaism should have\nbeen selected for banishment and a hundred others spared, it is\nnot easy to understand.\n\nPerhaps some sudden impatience seized the reviser, like that which\nmoved Bishop Wren, while annotating his Prayer Book, to write on\nthe margin of the calendar for August, \"Out with 'dog days' from\namong the saints.\"\n\nConsidering what a bond of unity the Lord's Prayer appears to be\nbecoming among all English-speaking worshippers, it is, perhaps,\nto be regretted that our revisers changed the wording of it in two\nor three places. The excision of \"Lighten our darkness\" must\nprobably be attributed to the prosaic matter-of-fact temper which\nhad possession of everybody and everything during the last quarter\nof the eighteenth century.\n\nThe Ordinal, the Articles, the Consecration of Churches, and the\nInstitution of Ministers made no part of the Prayer Book as it was\nset forth in 1789; nor do they, even now, strictly speaking, make\na part of it, although in the matter of binding force and legal\nauthority they are on the same footing.\n\nThe Ordinal and Articles are substantially identical with the\nEnglish Ordinal and Articles, save in the matter of a reference\nto the Athanasian Creed and several references to the connection of\nChurch and State. The Consecration of Churches and the Institution\nof Ministers are offices distinctively American. If I add that the\nAmerican Book drops out of the Visitation of the Sick a form\nof private absolution, and greatly modifies the service for\nAsh-Wednesday, we shall have made our survey of differences\ntolerably, though by no means exhaustively complete.\n\nAnd now what is the lesson taught us by the history of the Prayer\nBook? Homiletical as the question sounds, it is worth asking.\n\nWe have reviewed rapidly, but not carelessly, the vicissitudes of\nthe book's wonderful career, and we ought to be in a position to\ndraw some sort of instructive inference from it all. Well, one\nthing taught us is this, the singular power of survival that lives\nin gracious words. They wondered at the \"gracious words which\nproceeded out of His mouth,\" and because they wondered at them\nthey treasured them up.\n\nKind words, says the child's hymn, can never die; neither can\nkindly words, and kindly in the deepest sense are many, many of\nthe words of the Common Prayer; they touch that which is most\ncatholic in us, that which strongly links us to our kind. There\nis that in some of the Collects which as it has lasted since the\ndays when Roman emperors were sitting on their thrones, so will\nit last while man continues what he is, a praying creature.\n\nAnother thing taught us by the Prayer Book's history is the duty\nof being forever on our guard in the religious life against \"the\nfalsehood of extremes.\"\n\nThe emancipated thinkers who account all standards of belief to\nbe no better than dungeon walls, scoff at this feature of the\nAnglican character with much bitterness. \"Your Church is a Church\nof compromises,\" they say, \"and your boasted _Via media_ only a\ncoward's path, the poor refuge of the man who dares not walk in\nthe open.\" But when we see this Prayer Book condemned for being\nwhat it is by Bloody Mary, and then again condemned for being what\nit is by the Long Parliament, the thought occurs to us that\npossibly there is enshrined in this much-persecuted volume a truth\nlarger than the Romanist is willing to tolerate, or the Puritan\ngenerous enough to apprehend.\n\nA third important lesson is that we are not to confound revision\nwith ruin, or to suppose that because a book is marvellously good\nit cannot conceivably be bettered. Each accomplished revision of\nthe Book of Common Prayer has been a distinct step in advance. If\nGod in his wise providence suffered an excellent growth of devotion\nto spring up out of the soil of England in the days of Edward\nthe Sixth, and, after many years, determined that like a vine\nout of Egypt it should be brought across the sea and given root\non these shores, we need not fear that we are about to lose\nutterly our pleasant plant if we notice that the twigs and leaves\nare adapting themselves to the climate and the atmosphere of the\nnew dwelling-place. The life within the vine remains what it always\nwas. The growth means health. The power of adaptation is the\nguarantee of a perpetual youth.\n\n\n\n\nREVISION OF THE AMERICAN COMMON PRAYER.\n\n\n\n\nII. REVISION OF THE AMERICAN COMMON PRAYER.[1]\n\nThe revision of long established formularies of public worship is,\nas it ought to be, a matter compassed about with obstacles many and\ngreat. A wise doubtfulness prompts conservative minds to throw every\nmover for change upon the defensive, when liturgical interests\nare at stake. So many men are born into the world with a native\ndisposition to tamper with and tinker all settled things, and so\nmany more become persuaded, as time goes on, of a personal \"mission\"\nto pull down and remake whatever has been once built up, esteeming\nlife a failure unless they have contrived to build each his own\nmonument upon a clearing, that lovers of the old ways are sometimes\ncompelled in sheer self-defence to put on the appearance of being\nmore obstinately set against change than they really are. It ought\nnot to be absolutely impossible to alter a national hand-book of\nworship (which is what any manual calling itself a Common Prayer\nmust aspire to become), but it is well that it should be all but\nimpossible to do so. Logically it might seem as if the possession\nof a power to make involved a continuance of power to remake; and\nso it does, to a certain extent, but only to a certain extent.\nLiving organisms cannot be remodelled with the same freedom as dead\nmatter. A solemnity hangs about the moment of birth that attaches\nto no other crisis in a man's life until death comes. Similarly\nthere are certain features which the founders of institutions, the\nfirst makers of organic law, imprint lastingly upon their work. We\nmay destroy the living thing so brought to birth; to kill is always\npossible; but only by very gradual and plastic methods can we hope\nin any measure to reconstruct the actual embodiment of life once\nachieved. The men of 1789 had us in their power, even as the men\nof 1549 had had both them and us. In every creative epoch many\nthings are settled by which unborn generations will be bound.[2]\n\nIt may be urged that this is an argument against adopting liturgies\nin the first instance as vehicles of worship; and such undoubtedly\nit is in so far forth as immobility ought in such matters to be\nreckoned a disadvantage. But we are bound to take into account the\ngain which comes with immobility as well as the drawbacks. We must\nconsider how large a proportion of the reverence which the great\ninstitutes of human life exact from us is due to the fixity of the\nthings themselves. Mont Blanc loses nothing of its hold upon our\nadmiration because we always find it in the same place.\n\nMen like to feel that there is something in the world stronger\nthan the individual will, stronger simply because it expresses\nthe settled common-sense of many as to what is fitting and right\nin contrast with the whim of one. Lawyers, as a class, are almost\nas conservative as ecclesiastics, and for the very reason that\nthey also are charged with the custody of established forms which\nit is important that men should reverence. Laws affecting the tenure\nof property, the binding force of contracts, the stability of the\nmarriage relation, not only cannot be lightly altered, the very\nphraseology in which they are couched must be carefully handled,\nfor fear lest with the passing away of the form something of the\nsubstance go also.\n\nMoreover, the affections of men fasten themselves very tenaciously\nto such a trellis as a liturgy affords. The love for \"the old words\nand the old tunes\" against which all innovators in hymnody, however\ndeserving, have to do battle, asserts itself under the form of\nlove for the old prayers with ten-fold vehemence. An immense fund\nof latent heat smoulders beneath the maxim, \"Let the ancient customs\nprevail\"; and few of the victories achieved by the papacy are so\nstartling as those that have resulted in the displacement of the\nliturgical uses of local Churches, that of Paris, for example, by\nthe Roman rite.\n\nBut true principles, as we are often reminded, become falsehoods\nwhen shoved across the line of proper measure. The very cycles of\nthe astronomers have an end, and the clock-work of the most ancient\nheavens, or at least our reading of it, calls, from time to time,\nfor readjustment. So long as man continues fallible his best\nintended workmanship will occasionally demand such alteration for\nthe better as, within the limits already pointed out, may be\npossible.\n\nMany signs of the times suggest that the hour for a fresh review\nof the Anglican formularies of worship is nigh at hand. Some of\nthese tokens are written on a sky broad enough to cover the whole\nEnglish-speaking race, others of them are visible chiefly within\nour own national horizon. With respect to the English book, Cardwell\n[3] writing in 1840 and Freeman[4] in 1855, considered revision,\nhowever desirable in the abstract, to be a thing utterly out of\nreach, not within the circle, as the parliamentary phrase now runs,\nof \"practical politics.\"\n\nBut it may be fairly questioned whether these high authorities,\nwere they living to-day, would not concur in the judgment of a more\nrecent writer when he says--in language which, _mutatis mutandis_,\napplies to our own case: \"The most weighty plea in favor of timely\ninquiry into the subject is that the process of revision is actually\ngoing on piecemeal, and with no very intelligent survey of the\nbearings as a preliminary to any one instalment. The New Lectionary\nof 1871, the Shortened Services Act, the debates in the Convocation\nof Canterbury on rubrical amendments, none of them marked by any\nsufficient care or knowledge, and all fraught with at least the\npossibility of serious consequence, are examples of formal and\nrecognized inroads on the Act of Uniformity; while such practical\nthough unauthorized additions to the scanty group of Anglican\nformularies as the Three Hours' Devotion, Harvest Thanksgivings,\nPublic Institution of Incumbents, Ordination of Readers and\nDeaconesses, and Children's Services prove incontestably that\nthe narrow limits of the Common Prayer Book are no longer adequate\nfor the spiritual needs of the Church of England . . .\n\n\"It is evident, then, that contented acquiescence with the old state\nof things already belongs to the past, and that a return to it is\nimpossible. We must perforce advance, for good or ill, in the path\nof revision, and cannot even materially slacken the pace nor defer\nthe crisis. One choice, however, is left in our power, and that is\nthe most important of all, namely, the direction which revision\nshall take--that of conservative and recuperative addition, or that\nof further evisceration, ceremonial or devotional.\" [5]\n\nA measure looking in the direction towards which this reviewer\npoints was actually passed by the General Convention of our own\nChurch at its late session in October, 1880.\n\nThe wording of the Resolution referred to was as follows:\n\n\"_Resolved_: That a Joint Committee, to consist of seven bishops,\nseven presbyters, and seven laymen be appointed to consider and\nreport to the next General Convention whether, in view of the fact\nthat this Church is soon to enter upon the second century of its\norganized existence in this country, the changed conditions of the\nnational life do not demand certain alterations in the Book of\nCommon Prayer in the direction of liturgical enrichment and\nincreased flexibility of use.\"[6]\n\nIn the present article the writer proposes to inquire, in connection\nwith this measure:\n\n(1) What motives may fairly be supposed to have actuated the\nConvention in allowing so important an initiatory step to be taken?\n\n(2) What measure of authority was conferred on and what scope given\nto the Joint Committee then constituted?\n\n(3) What reasons exist for considering the present a happy moment\nto attempt liturgical revision, within certain limits, should such\na thing be determined upon?\n\n(4) What serious difficulties and obstacles are likely to be\nencountered in Committee, in Convention, and in the Church at large?\n\n(5) What particular improvements and adjustments of our existing\nsystem would be, in point of fact, best worth the effort necessary\nto secure them?\n\nI. The interpretation of motives, difficult enough in the case of\nindividuals, becomes mere guess-work when the action under analysis\nis that of a large body of men. Which one of many considerations\nurged upon the Convention carried with it the supreme weight of\npersuasion in this particular instance it is impossible to say.\nTwo or three arguments, however, from their frequent reappearance\nin the debate may fairly be judged to have exercised a controlling\ninfluence. One of these was hinted at in the language of the\nresolution itself, namely, the call for revision that has grown\nout of \"the changed conditions of the national life.\" Shrewd and\nfar-seeing as were William White and his coadjutors in their\nforecast of nineteenth century needs made from the standpoint of\nthe Peace of Versailles, they would have been more than human had\nthey succeeded in anticipating all the civil and ecclesiastical\nconsequences destined to flow from that memorable event. Certainly\nit ought not to be held strange that this \"new America\" of ours,\nwith its enormously multiplied territory, its conglomerate of races,\nits novel forms of association, its multiplicity of industries not\ndreamed of a generation ago, should have demands to make in respect\nto a better adaptation of ancient formularies to present wants, such\nas thoughtful people count both reasonable and cogent. That a Prayer\nBook revised primarily for the use of a half-proscribed Church\nplanted here and there along a sparsely inhabited sea-coast, should\nserve as amply as it does the purposes of a population now swollen\nfrom four millions to fifty, and covering the whole breadth of the\ncontinent, is marvel enough; to assert for the book entire adequacy\nto meet these altered circumstances is a mistake. \"New time, new\nfavors, and new joys,\" so a familiar hymn affirms, \"do a new song\nrequire.\" We have conceded the principle so far as psalmody is\nconcerned, why not apply it to the service of prayer as well as\nto that of praise, and in addition to our new hymns secure also such\nnew intercessions and new thanksgivings as the needs of to-day\nsuggest? The reference in the resolution to the approaching\ncompletion of the century has since been playfully characterized\nas a bit of \"sentimentalism.\"[7] The criticism would be entirely\njust if the mere recurrence of the centennial anniversary were the\npoint chiefly emphasized. But when a century closes as this one of\nours has done with a great social revolution whereby \"all estates\nof men\" have been more or less affected, the proposal to signalize\nentrance upon a fresh stretch of national life by making devotional\npreparation for it is something better than a pretty conceit; there\nis a serious reasonableness in it.[8]\n\nEvery revision of the Common Prayer of the Church of England, and\nthere have been four of them since Edward's First Book was put in\nprint, has taken place at some important era of transition in the\nnational life: and conversely it may be said that every civil\ncrisis, with a single exception, has left its mark upon the\nformularies.\n\nTo one who argues that because we in this country are evidently\nentering upon a new phase of the national life we ought similarly\nto re-enforce and readjust our service-book, it is no sufficient\nreply to urge the severance effected here between Church and State.\nThe fact that ours is a non-established Church does not make her\nwholly unresponsive to the shocks of change that touch the civil\nfabric. In so far as a political renewal alters the social grading\nof society, bringing in education, for instance, where before it\nwas not, or suddenly developing new forms of industrial activity,\nthe Church, whether established or not, is in duty bound to take\ncognizance of the fresh field of duty thus suddenly thrust upon her,\nand to prepare herself accordingly.\n\nIn the Preface added to the English Prayer Book at the Restoration,\nand commonly attributed to Sanderson, \"that staid and well weighed\nman,\" as Hammond called him, there occurs a sentence which, both\non account of its embodying in a few words the whole philosophy of\nliturgical revision and because of a certain practical bearing\npresently to be pointed out, it is worth while, in spite of its\nfamiliarity, to quote:\n\n\"The particular forms of Divine worship, and the rites and ceremonies\nappointed to be used therein, being things in their own nature\nindifferent and alterable and so acknowledged, it is but reasonable,\nthat upon weighty and important considerations, according to the\nvarious exigency of times and occasions, such changes and alterations\nshould be made therein, as to those that are in place of authority\nshould from time to time seem either necessary or expedient.\"\n\nContemporaneously with this utterance there came into the Prayer\nBook, as a direct consequence of the enormous enlargement of the\nnaval and commercial marine that had taken place under the\nCommonwealth, the \"Forms of Prayer to be used at Sea.\" Here was a\nwise and right-minded recognition of a new want that had sprung up\nwith a new time, a want which jealousy of the Puritans who had built\nup the naval supremacy did not prevent the Caroline bishops from\nmeeting. But the change that passed on England during five years of\nCromwell was as nothing compared with the transformation of America\nunder ninety-five years of the federal constitution. Take a single\nillustration. The year 1789, the date of the Ratification of the\nAmerican Prayer Book, saw sea-island cotton first planted in the\nUnited States, and it was about that time that upland cotton also\nbegan to be cultivated for home and foreign use. As the effect of\nthis scarcely noticed experiment there straightway sprang up an\nindustry, North and South, which has been to our country almost\nwhat her shipping interest is to Great Britain. Bishop White and\nhis associates were not to blame for failure to provide bread that\nall this unanticipated multitude of toilers should eat. And yet a\nfailure there has been. No one who has not labored at the task of\ntrying to commend the Church of the Prayer Book to the working\nclass, as it is represented in our large manufacturing towns, can\nknow how lamentable that failure is. We gather in the rich and the\npoor, but the great middle class that makes the staple and the\nstrength of American society stands aloof.\n\nNowhere in this country, for instance, has the Church had a better\nopportunity to show what it could do for American people than in\nthe city of Lowell, where cotton spinning had its first large\ndevelopment. It was a virgin soil: the Episcopal Church, as rarely\nhappens, was earliest on the ground: and not only so, but it enjoyed\nfor some years the friendly protection of the proprietors of the\nnew settlement, almost a religious monopoly--was, in fact, an\necclesiastical preserve. Moreover, this beginning antedated the\nIrish occupation by many years, at least so far as skilled labor\nwas concerned, for during a considerable period the operatives in\nthe mills were of native New England stock, the best possible\nmaterial to be made over into churchmen and churchwomen. And yet\nnotwithstanding all this, and notwithstanding the patient and\nunintermitted toil through more than fifty years of perhaps the\nmost laborious parish priest on the American clergy list, the\nEpiscopal Church has to-day but a comparatively slender hold upon\nthe affections and loyalty of the people of this largest of the\nmanufacturing cities of New England.\n\nA similar failure to \"reach the masses\" betrays itself in Worcester\nand Fall River, the two cities of like character that come next in\norder of population, for in the former of these last named places\nonly about two per cent, of the inhabitants have affiliations of\nany sort with the Episcopal Church.\n\nIt was considerations of this sort, backed perhaps by memories of\nthe ringing appeal sounded three years before at Boston by the\nBishop of Connecticut, that moved the Convention to interpret as\nsomething better than a bit of sentimentalism the invitation to\nlook the times in the face, and give the new century its infant\nbaptism.\n\nBut besides all this there pressed upon the mind of bishops and\ndeputies a cumulative argument of a wholly different sort. The\ndemand for revision seemed to be closing in upon the Church on\nconverging lines. It was plain that, before long, hands of change\nmust necessarily be laid upon certain semi-detached portions of\nthe Prayer Book. There was the New Lectionary, for example, that\nwould presently be knocking for hospitable reception within the\ncovers, and the old Easter Tables, as they now stand, could not, it\nwas observed, last very much longer. A new book, in the publisher's\nsense of that term, would soon have to be made. The sanctity of\nstereotype plates must be disturbed. Moreover, here was an admirable\nopportunity to settle the wrangle, now of nine years' standing, over\nthe best way of bringing to pass shortened services for week-day\nuse. Add to this the fact that the intrinsic weakness of the driblet\nmethod of revision[9] had been made so abundantly plain that even\nits former friends wisely refrained from all attempt to urge it,\nand our summing up of probable motives becomes approximately\ncomplete.\n\nII. As to the measure of authority conferred on, and scope allowed\nto the Committee of Twenty-one, it is possible to speak with more\ndefiniteness.\n\nA precisian might of course, were he so disposed, take up the ground\nthat the report of the Committee when made ought to be monosyllabic,\n\"Yes\" or \"No.\" The wording of the resolution admits of such a\nconstruction beyond a doubt; the Joint Committee was requested to\nconsider and report whether, etc., etc. But no one who listened to\nthe debate on the resolution could have been left in uncertainty\nas to the real _animus_ of the measure. The thing intended to be\nauthorized was an experimental review, with implied reference to a\nlimited revision at some time future, in case the fruits of the\nreview should commend themselves to the mind of the Church.\n\nA distinction must be drawn between revision and review. Revision\nimplies review as an antecedent step, but review is by no means\nnecessarily followed by revision. The English book was reviewed and\nrevised in 1662; it was reviewed but not revised in 1689. Review is\ntentative and advisory; revision is authoritative and final. In the\npresent instance not an atom of power to effect binding change has\nbeen conveyed. No authority has been given to anybody to touch a\nline or a letter of the Prayer Book save in the way of suggestion\nand recommendation. Responsible action has been held wholly in\nreserve.\n\nMoreover, even the pathway of review was most scrupulously hedged.\nApplying to the resolution the legal maxim, _expressio unius est\nexclusio alterius_, one sees at a glance that doctrinal change is a\nmatter left wholly on one side. The two points to which the\nCommittee is instructed to bend all its studies are \"liturgical\nenrichment\" and \"increased flexibility of use.\" Whatsoever is\nmore than these is irrelevant. Accurate distinguishment between\nsuch \"enrichments\" as have and such as have not a doctrinal bearing\nis, no doubt, a delicate point, and must be set down among the\ndifficulties to be encountered. As such it will be considered\nfurther on. For the present the fact to be noted is that the\nauthorized reviewers are both in honor and in duty bound to keep\nthemselves absolutely clear of controversial bias. The movement\nis not a movement to alter in any slightest respect the dogmatic\nteaching of the Church, not a movement to unsettle foundations,\nnot a movement toward disowning or repudiating our past, but simply\nand only an endeavor to make the Common Prayer, if possible (and\nwe are far from being sure, as yet, that it is possible), a better\nthing of its kind, more comprehensive, more elastic, more readily\nresponsive to the demands of all occasions and the needs of \"all\nsorts and conditions of men.\" Some who are deeply persuaded that\nonly by doctrinal revision in one direction or another can the\nPrayer Book be made thoroughly to commend itself to the heart and\nmind of the American people will esteem the measure of change\nabove indicated not worth the effort indispensable to the attainment\nof it. Be it so; other some there are who do think the attempt\nwell advised and who are willing to waive their own pet notions\nas to possible doctrinal improvements of the book for the sake of\nsecuring a _consensus_ upon certain great practical improvements\nwhich come within the range of things attainable.\n\nCertain it is that any attempt of a body of reviewers like this to\ndisturb, even by \"shadowed hint,\" the existing doctrinal settlement\nunder which we are living together, would be resented by the whole\nChurch.\n\nThere are divines among us who in the interest of a more sharply\ndefined orthodoxy are conscientiously bent upon securing the\nreintroduction among our formularies of the so-called Athanasian\nCreed.\n\nThere are others who consider that a more damaging blow at the\ncatholicity of our dogmatic position as a Church could scarcely\nbe dealt.\n\nAgain, there are theologians who account the Prayer Book to be\nso thoroughly saturated in all its parts with the sacramental\nidea, that they would account it not only a piece of far-seeing\nstatesmanship, but also a perfectly safe procedure to allow those\nwho chose to do so to thank God after a child's baptism for the\nsimple fact that he had thereby been \"grafted into the body of\nChrist's Church.\"\n\nBut over against these stand a much larger number who think\nnothing of the sort, and who would put up with the liturgical\nshortcomings of the Prayer Book, go without \"enrichments\" for\na thousand years, rather than see the single word \"regenerate\"\ndropped out of the post-baptismal office.\n\nSensible men not a few are to be found who hold that the incoming\ntide of host-worship with which, as they conceive, our reformed\nChurch is threatened can never be stayed unless some carefully\ncontrived definition inserted in the Prayer Book shall make\nimpossible this subtile and refined species of idolatry. But\nmen no whit less sensible laugh them in the face, pointing to\nthe \"black rubric\" and its history as evidence that between the\nadmitted doctrine of the real presence and the disallowed tenet\nof transubstantiation no impervious barrier of words can possibly\nbe run.\n\nThese illustrations of probable divergence in opinion, in case\nthe field of doctrine were once entered, might be multiplied. The\nretranslation of the Nicene Creed and the more accurate punctuation\nof its sentences; the rendering of the word Sabbath in the Fourth\nCommandment into its English equivalent of Rest; the abolition of\nthe curious misnomer under which we go on calling XXXVIII Articles\nXXXIX; the removal from the Catechism, or else the conversion into\nmother English of that sad _crux infantum_, the answer to the\nquestion, \"What desirest thou of God in this prayer?\" are a few\nexamples of less importance than those previously cited; and yet,\nin the case of the least of them, it is most unlikely that the\nadvocates of change would have the show of hands in their favor,\nso sensitive is the mind of the Church to anything that looks in\nthe least degree like tampering with the standards of weight and\nmeasure, the shekels of the sanctuary.\n\nOn the other hand, there are certain manifest and palpable instances\nof inaccuracy and, more rarely, infelicity of diction which the\nreviewers might very properly take occasion to amend even though\nsuch alterations could not be classified by a strict constructionist\nunder either of the two heads \"enrichment\" and \"flexibility.\" In the\nmasterly Report of the Rev. Dr. T. W. Coit to the Joint Committee\nappointed by the Convention of 1841 to prepare a Standard Prayer\nBook,[10] a document of classical rank, there is more than one\nintimation of the hope that future reviewers would be given a larger\nliberty in this direction than he had himself enjoyed. He chafed,\nand naturally enough, under the necessity of reprinting in a\n\"standard\" book, evident and acknowledged solecisms and blunders.\n\"We wanted,\" he says, \"to correct one ungrammatical clause in the\nConsecration Prayer of the Communion Service. It is in the last\nsentence but one, at its close. It should be, not that he may dwell\nin them and they in him; but, that he may dwell in us and we in him.\nThe prayer is made up out of two or three others; and anyone who\nwill examine the parts put together will easily see how the thing\nwas overlooked. A much greater error was overlooked elsewhere,\nshowing that our American compilers were not sufficiently aware of\nthe necessity which requires that the Prayer Book should always be\nconsistent with itself. I allude to something in the office for the\nPrivate Baptism of Children. Suppose a clergyman to avail himself of\nthe license given in the Rubric after the certification. He will then\nbe made to talk thus: 'As the Holy Gospel doth witness to our\ncomfort, on this wise--Dost thou in the name of this child,'\" etc.[11]\n\nOther cases of evident inaccuracy, besides those referred to by\nthis eminent critic, might be cited, even from the latest Standard\nPrayer Book, that of 1871. It is hard, for instance, to imagine even\nthe veriest martinet in such matters objecting to the redress of a\ngreat wrong done on page 36 of the volume mentioned, where the\nprayer \"to be used at the meetings of Convention\" is entered under\nthe general heading, \"For malefactors after condemnation.\" Our\necclesiastical legislators have doubtless, like the rest of us,\n\"erred and strayed\" more than once, but to deal out to them such\nharsh measure as this is cruel.\n\nA strange uncertainty would seem from the Rubric to exist with\nreference to the limits of the Litany. On page 554 of the Standard\nPrayer Book, the words, \"Here endeth the Litany,\" occur immediately\nafter the prayer, \"We humbly beseech thee, O Father,\" while on page\n31 the same statement is placed immediately after the minor\nbenediction.\n\nThese are not faults for which it could ever be worth while to\nrevise a Prayer Book, but they are blemishes of which the revisers\nof a Prayer Book ought to take note.\n\nIt is a graver matter to speak of infelicities of diction in a book\nso justly famous as the Prayer Book for its pure and wholesome\nEnglish. Wordsworth's curse on\n\n  One who would peep and botanize\n  Upon his mother's grave\n\nseems, in the judgment of many, fairly earned by the critic, whoever\nhe may be, who ventures to suggest that in any slightest instance\nthe language of the formularies might have been more happily\nphrased. But there are spots on the sun. In the prayer already\nreferred to, that for use \"at the meetings of Convention,\" the\npetition, \"We beseech thee to be _present_ with the council of thy\nChurch here assembled in thy name and _presence_\" does seem open\nto the charge of tautology if nothing worse.\n\nIt would be well if wherever the word occurs in the Prayer Book\nin connection with Deity the anthropomorphic plural \"ears\" could\nbe replaced by the symbolic singular \"ear.\"\n\nConsidering also the great evil of having in a formulary of worship\ntoo many things that have to be laboriously explained, it might be\nwell if in the Litany the adjective \"sudden,\" which ever since\nHooker's day has given perpetual occasion for cavil, were to yield\nto \"untimely,\" or some like word more suggestive than \"sudden\" of\nthe thought clumsily expressed in the \"Chapel Liturgy\" by the\nawkward phrase, \"death unprepared for.\"[12]\n\nIt must be again remarked that these are not points for the sake\nof which word-fanciers would be justified in disturbing an existing\norder of things; they are simply instances of lesser improvements\nthat might very properly accompany larger ones, should larger ones\never be seriously undertaken.\n\nWith so many pegs upon which controversies might be hung staring\nus in the face, can we think of it as at all likely that any\nconsiderable number of Churchmen assembled in committee (to say\nnothing of Convention) will be able to agree upon a common line\nof action with reference to an amendment of the formularies?\n\nThat is the very point at issue, and how it is to be decided only\nthe event can show. Certainly in the roll of the victories of\ncharity, a favorable result, were it achieved, would stand exceeding\nhigh.\n\nThis reflection naturally leads up to the inquiry whether there is\nany special reason to consider the present a happy moment to\nattempt within the limits already defined a revision of the Prayer\nBook.\n\nIII. The argument for timeliness has been, in part, already stated.\nA revision will be timely, if the times imperatively demand it;\nand the main reasons for thinking that they do are before the\nreader. Something, however, is still left to be said in evidence\nthat the movement now begun is opportune--not rudely thrust upon\nthe Church. \"To everything,\" saith the preacher, \"there is a season,\nand a time to every purpose under heaven,\" and among the categories\nthat follow this statement we find reckoned what answers to\nliturgical enrichment, for \"there is,\" he observes, \"a time to\nbuild up.\"\n\nFifty years ago a persuasive argument against attempting to amend\nthe Prayer Book, either in text or rubrics, might have been based\nupon the lack of hands competent to undertake so delicate a task.\nRaw material, well adapted to edification, was lying about in\nblocks, but skilled workmen were scarce. This can hardly be said\nto-day. Simultaneously with the beginning of the Oxford movement,\nthere naturally sprang up a fresh interest in liturgical studies,\nan interest which has gone on deepening and widening until in volume\nand momentum the stream has now probably reached its outer limit.\nThe convincing citation, \"There were giants in those days,\" with\nwhich a late bishop of one of the New England dioceses used to\nenforce his major premise that wisdom died with Cranmer and his\ncolleagues, no longer satisfies. Probably no period of corresponding\nlength in the whole range of English Church history has shown itself\nso rich in the fruits of liturgical study as the fifty years that\nhave elapsed since the introduction into the English Parliament of\nthe first Reform Bill.[13] This particular historical landmark is\nmentioned on account of the close connection of cause and effect\nbetween it and the remarkable movement set on foot by Newman, Pusey,\nKeble, and Froude. To be sure, one of the earliest utterances in\nthe Tracts ran in these words: \"Attempts are making to get the\nLiturgy altered. My dear brethren, I beseech you consider with me\nwhether you ought not resist the alteration of even one jot or\ntittle of it.\"[14]\n\nAnd yet, notwithstanding this disclaimer, one of the main impulses\nthat lay behind the whole movement represented by the Tracts was an\nearnest desire to quicken the life of the Church of England in the\nregion of worship. In the _Table of the Tracts, showing their\narrangement according to Subjects_, the \"Liturgical\" section comes\nfirst.\n\nThe present writer acknowledges but a very limited sympathy with\nthe doctrinal motives and aims of either the earlier or the later\nTractarians. But let us, above all things, be fair. With whatever\nprepossessions one looks back upon it, the ground traversed by the\nChurch of England during the past fifty years cannot be otherwise\nregarded than as a field sown with mingled tares and wheat.\nIndividuals will differ in judgment as to the proportion in which\nthese two products of a common soil have coexisted, but even those\nwho have most stoutly opposed themselves to the Oxford movement,\nas a whole, are fain to credit it with, at least, this one good\nresult, the rescue of the usages of worship from slovenliness and\ntorpor, and the establishment of a better standard of what is\nseemly, reverent, and beautiful in the public service of Almighty\nGod. Not that there have not been, even in this respect, grave\nerrors in the direction of excess; the statement ventured is simply\nthis, that, up to a certain point, all Churchmen agree in admitting\na genuine and wholesome improvement in the popular estimate of what\npublic worship, as such, ought to be. An immense amount of devout\nstudy has been given, during the period mentioned, by many able men\nto liturgical subjects, and it would be strange indeed if fifty\nyears of searching criticism had not resulted in the detection of\nsome few points in which formularies originally compiled to meet\nthe needs of the sixteenth century might be better adapted to the\nrequirements of the twentieth. Or, to put the same point in another\nway, has not all this searching into the mines of buried treasure,\nall this getting together of quarried stone (with possibly a certain\nsurplusage of stubble) been so much labor lost, if there is never to\ncome the recognition of a ripe moment for the Church to avail itself\nof the results achieved? Are the studious toils of a Palmer, a\nMaskell, a Neale, a Scudamore, and a Bright to go for nothing\nexcept in so far as they have been contributory to our fund of\necclesiological lore? If so, the contempt often expressed for ritual\nand liturgical studies by students busy with other lines of research\nwould seem to be not wholly undeserved.\n\nA good opportunity is now before the Church to give answer as to\nwhether this form of investigation is or is not anything better\nthan a species of sacred antiquarianism. Liturgiology as an aspirant\nfor recognition among the useful sciences may be said at the present\nmoment to be waiting for the verdict. To be sure, it can be asserted\nfor liturgiology that to those who love it it is a study that proves\nitself, like poetry, \"its own exceeding great reward.\" It is not\nworth while to dispute this point. Liturgiology pursued for its own\nsake may not be the loftiest of studies, but this, at least, can be\nsaid for it, that it is a not less respectable object of pursuit\nthan many another specialty the devotees of which look down upon the\nliturgiologist with self-complacent scorn as a mere chiffonier. The\nforms which Christian worship has taken on in successive generations\nand among peoples of various blood are certainly as well worthy of\nanalysis and classification as are the flora and fauna of Patagonia\nor New Zealand. But while the Patagonian naturalist secures\nrecognition and is decorated, every jaunty man of letters feels\nat liberty to scoff at the liturgiologist as a laborious trifler.\n\nMoreover, remembering that in favorite studies, as in crops, there\nrules a principle of rotation, fashion affecting even staid divines\nwith its subtle influence, we may look to see presently a decline\nof interest in this particular department of inquiry. Especially\nmay serious men be expected to turn their attention in other\ndirections, should it be found that a _Non possumus_ awaits every\neffort to make the fruits of their labor available for the\nnourishment of the Church's daily life. So then, instead of\ndeferring action until liturgical knowledge shall have become\nmore widely spread, and available liturgical material more abundant,\nwe shall, if we are wise, perceive that only by moving promptly\nwill it be possible in this case to take the tide at the full.\nNever again will opportunity be more ripe.\n\nAnother evidence of timeliness is supplied by the present pacific\ncondition of the Church. Previous movements toward liturgical\nrevision have been of a more or less partisan and acrimonious\ntemper. Now for the first time we seem to be taking up this subject\nwithout the expression of a fear from any quarter that if changes\nare made this or that party will get the advantage of some other.\nThe peculiar conditions that ensure this unwonted truce of God are\nnot likely to last forever, nor is it perhaps wholly desirable that\nthey should do so; what is desirable, and very desirable, is that\nwe should avail ourselves of the lull to accomplish certain changes\nfor the better, which in ordinary times the prevalent heat of\nfriction makes impossible. The Joint Committee of Twenty-one is\nconfidently believed to contain within itself every shade of color\nknown to belong to the Anglican spectrum; if white light should be\nfound to emerge, three years hence, as a result of the Committee's\nlabors, it will be said, and truly, that never before in our history\ncould such a blending of the rays possibly have taken place.\n\nStill another consideration properly included under the general\nhead of timeliness is said to have been urged with much force in\nthe House of Bishops when the \"enrichment\" resolution was under\ndiscussion.\n\nUp to the present time the Episcopal Church of this country has\nstood easily at the head in the matter of providing for the people\na dignified and beautiful order of divine service. In fact, there\nhas been, until lately, no one to compete. But all this is changing.\nOurs are no longer the only congregations in which common prayer is\nto be found. It is true that thus far the attempts at imitation\nhave been rather grotesque than formidable, but such, until\nrecently, have also been, in the judgment of foreign critics,\nall of our American endeavors after art. We are to consider what\napt learners our quick-witted countrymen have shown themselves to\nbe, in so much that even Christmas Day, once the _bete noire_ of\nPuritan legislators, has come to be accounted almost a national\nfestival, and we shall be convinced that our primacy in the field\nof liturgies is not an absolutely assured position. This argument\nis open to the criticism that it seems to lower and cheapen the\nwhole subject by representing Anglican religion in a mendicant\nattitude bidding for the favor of the great American public,\nand vexed that others, fellow-suppliants, have stolen a good\nformula of appeal. Nevertheless there is a certain amount of\nreasonableness in this way of putting the thing. Certainly with\nthose who reckon the liturgical mode of worship among the notes\nof the Church, the argument is one that ought to have marked\ninfluence; while with those who, not so persuaded, nevertheless\nview with pleased interest the general spread of a liturgical\ntaste among the people of this country, seeing in it a token\nof better things to come, a harbinger of larger agreements\nthan we have yet attained to, and of an approaching \"consolation\nof Israel\" once not thought possible--even with such the argument\nought not to be wholly powerless.[15]\n\nThe fact that the Convocations of Canterbury and York have taken\nin hand and carried through a revision of the rubrics of the Prayer\nBook will seem to those who hold that our Church ought to advance\n_pari passu_ with the Church of England, and no faster, another\nevidence of the timeliness of the American movement. Under the\ntitle of _The Convocation Prayer Book_ there has lately appeared\nin England an edition of the Prayer Book so printed as to show how\nthe book would read were the recommendations of York and Canterbury\nto go into effect. It is true that the consent of Parliament must\nbe secured before the altered rubrics can have the force of law;\nbut whatever may come of the rubrics recommended, the existence of\nthe book containing them is evidence enough of a wide-spread\nconviction among the English clergy that change is needed.\n\nIndeed never has this point been more powerfully put in the fewest\npossible words than by the brilliant, and no less logical than\nbrilliant Bishop of Peterborough in a recent speech in the Upper\nHouse of Convocation.[16] \"If the Church of England wants absolute\npeace, she should have definite rubrics.\"\n\nIt is true he goes on to say that in his judgment the dangers of\ncarrying the question of rubrical revision into Parliament\nare greater than the evil of letting it alone, but it is to be\nremembered that we in this country are hampered with no Parliamentary\nentanglements and are free to do of our own motion, and in a quiet,\norderly way, that which the Church of England can only do at the\nrisk of something very like revolution.\n\nBut this matter of the rubrics and their susceptibility of\nimprovement will come up later on. It seemed proper to refer\nto it, if no more, under the head of timeliness. If nothing else\nin the way of change be opportune at the present moment, it is an\neasy task to show that the rubrics, as they stand, cry aloud for\na revision.\n\nIV. The obstacles to be encountered by any Committee undertaking\nso to carry forward a review of the Prayer Book that revision may\neventually result, are of two sorts; there are the inherent\ndifficulties of the work itself, such, for instance, as that of\nmatching the literary style of the sixteenth century writers, and\nthere is the wholesome dread of a change for the worse which\nis sure to assert itself in many quarters the moment definite\npropositions shall have reached a point at which the \"yeas and\nnays\" are likely to be called.\n\nBeginning, then, with the inherent difficulties, and taking them\nin the inverse order of arduousness, we see at once how hard it\nmust be to secure unity and self-consistency in the revision of a\nbook so complicated as the Common Prayer. It is like remodelling\nan old house. We think it a very easy matter, something that can\nbe done in one's head, but the mistake is discovered when the new\ndoor designed to give symmetry to this room is found to have spoiled\nthe looks of that, when the enlargement of the library turns out\nto have overtaxed the heating energy of the fireplace, and the\ningenious staircase, instead of ending where it was expected to\nend, brings up against an intractable brick wall. Just such perils\nas these will beset anybody who ventures to disturb the adjustments\nof the \"Prayer Book as it is\" and to introduce desirable additions.\nBut domestic architecture is not given up on account of the patient\ncarefulness the practice of it demands, neither need Liturgical\nRevision be despaired of because it requires of the men who\nundertake it a like wisdom in looking before and after.\n\nThe really formidable barrier to revision, so far as what have been\ncalled the \"inherent difficulties\" are concerned, is reached when\nwe touch style. How to handle without harming the sentences in which\nEnglish religion phrased itself when English language was fresher\nand more fluent than it can ever be again is a serious question.\nThe hands that seek to \"enrich\" may well be cautioned to take heed\nlest they despoil. It is to be remembered, however, in the way of\nreassurance that the alterations most likely to find favor with the\nreviewers are such as will enrich by restoring lost excellencies,\nrather than by introducing forms fashioned on a modern anvil.\n\nThe most sensitive critic could not, on the score of taste, find\nfault with the replacement in the Evening Prayer of the _Magnificat_\nand the _Nunc dimittis_, nor of bringing back a few of the Versicles\nthat in the English book follow the Lord's Prayer, nor yet of our\nbeing allowed to say, \"Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee, Lord,\"\nrather than \"O Lord, our Heavenly Father, by whose Almighty power\nwe have been preserved this day.\" Objections to these alterations\nmay be readily imagined, but it would be necessary to base them on\nother grounds than those of literary fastidiousness. In the case of\nenrichments like these no one could raise the cry that the faultless\nEnglish of the Prayer Book had been marred.\n\nBut what shall be said of the composition of entirely new services\nand offices, if it should be judged expedient to give admission to\nany such? How can we be sure that such modern additions to the\nedifice would be sufficiently in keeping with the general tone of\nthe elder architecture? It might be held to be an adequate answer\nto these questions to reply that if the living Church cannot now\ntrust herself to speak out through her formularies in her natural\nvoice as she did venture to do in the seventeenth century and the\neighteenth, it must be that she has fallen into that stage of\ndecrepitude where the natural voice is uncertain.\n\nBut, really, what ought to be said is this--that if the same canons\nof style that ruled the sixteenth century writers are studied and\nobeyed, there is no reason in the world why a result equally\nsatisfactory with the one then attained should not be reached now.\nThere is nothing supernatural about the English of the Prayer Book.\nCranmer and his associates were not inspired. The prose style of\nthe nineteenth century may not be as good as that of the sixteenth,\nbut, at its best, it is vastly superior to eighteenth century style,\nand of this last there are already no inconsiderable specimens in\nthe American Book of Common Prayer. The Office for the Visitation of\nPrisoners, for example, is so redolent of the times of the Georges,\nwhen it was composed, that it might be appropriately enough\ninterleaved with prints out of Hogarth. A bit of Palladian\narchitecture in a Gothic church is not more easily recognized.\nMany worse things might happen to the Prayer Book than that the\nnineteenth century should leave its impress upon the pages.\n\nIn fact, it is just as possible, if men will only think so, to use\nour language with effect for any good purpose to-day as it was\nthree hundred years ago. All that is necessary is a willingness\nto submit to the same restrictions, and those mostly moral, that\ncontrolled the old writers; and our work, though not identical\nwith theirs, will have the proper similarity. True, a modern author\nmay not be able to reproduce, without a palpable betrayal of\naffectation and mannerism, the precise characteristics of a bygone\nstyle. Chattertons are not numerous. It is easier to secure for\nthe brass andirons and mahogany dining chairs of our own manufacture\nthe look of those that belonged to our grandfathers than it is to\ncatch the tones of voices long dead; and just as good judgment\ndictates the wisdom of repeating the honest and thorough workmanship\nof the old cabinet-makers in place of slavishly imitating their\npatterns, so it will be well if the compilers of devotional forms\nfor modern use seek to say what they have to say with sixteenth\ncentury simplicity rather than in sixteenth century speech. In\nletters, as in conduct, the supreme charm of style is the absence\nof self-consciousness. \"Say in plain words the thing you mean, and\nsay it as if you meant it,\" is good advice to any seeker after\nrhetorical excellence, be he young or old. The Reformers, that is\nto say, the men who Englished the Prayer Book, in seeking to meet\nthe devotional needs of the people of their own time do not seem\nto have been at pains to tie themselves to the diction of a previous\ngeneration. They dared to \"call a spade a spade\" whenever and\nwherever the tool came into use, and they have their reward in the\npermanence of their work. Sweetnesses and prettinesses they banished\naltogether. Indeed, in those days it seems not to have occurred\nto people that such things had anything to do with religion. It\nwas not that they did not know how to talk in the sweet way--never\nhas sentimentalism been more rife in general literature than then,\nbut they would not talk in that way; the stern traditions of Holy\nChurch throughout all the world forbade. Religion was a most\nserious thing to their minds, and they would speak of it most\nseriously or not at all.\n\nNever since language began to be used have severity and tenderness\nbeen more marvellously blended than in the older portions of the\nEnglish Prayer Book.\n\nThis effect is largely due to an almost entire abstention on the\npart of the writers from figurative language, or at least from all\nimagery that is not readily recognized as Scriptural. Bread and\nbeef are what men demand for a steady diet. Sweetmeats are well\nenough, now and then, but only now and then.\n\nIt is the failure to observe this plain canon of style that has\nmade shipwreck of many an attempt to construct liturgies _de novo_.\nAmbitious framers of forms of worship seem almost invariably to\nforget that there may be such a thing as a too exquisite prayer,\nan altogether too \"eloquent address to the throne of grace.\" The\nlongest and fullest supplicatory portion of the Prayer Book, the\nLitany, does not contain, from the first sentence to the last,[17]\none single figurative expression, it is literally plain English\nfrom beginning to end; but could language be framed more intense,\nmore satisfying, more likely to endure?\n\nScriptural metaphor, whether because it comes to us with the stamp\nof authority or on account of some subtle intrinsic excellence, it\nmay be difficult to say, does not pall upon the taste. And yet even\nthis is used sparingly in the Prayer Book, some of the most striking\nexceptions to the general rule being afforded by the collects for\nthe first and third Sundays in Advent, the collects for the Epiphany\nand Easter Even, and the opening prayer in the Baptismal Office. All\nthese are instances of strictly Scriptural metaphor, and moreover\nit is to be kept in mind that they are designed for occasional, not\nconstant use. In the orders for daily Morning and Evening Prayer,\nthe \"lost sheep\" of the General Confession and the \"dew\" of God's\nblessing in the Collect for Clergy and People are almost the sole,\nif not the sole cases of evident metaphor, and these again are\nScriptural. When in Jeremy Taylor's prayer, introduced by the\nAmerican revisers into the Order for the Visitation of the Sick,\nwe come upon the comparison of human life to a \"vale of misery\" we\nfeel that somehow we have struck a new current in the atmosphere;\nfor the moment it is the rhetorician who speaks, and no longer the\nearnest seeker after God.\n\nBesides this freedom from figures of speech, we notice in the\nstyle of Prayer Book English a careful avoidance of whatever looks\nlike a metaphysical abstraction. The aim is ever to present God\nand divine things as realities rather than as mere concepts or\nnotions of the mind. So far as the writer remembers, not a single\nprayer in the whole book begins with that formula so dear to the\nmakers of extemporary forms of devotion, \"O Thou.\" On the contrary,\nthe approach to the Divine Majesty is almost always made with a\nreference to some attribute or characteristic that links Deity to\nman and man's affairs; it is \"O God, the Protector of all that\ntrust in thee,\" or \"Almighty and everlasting God who of thy tender\nlove toward mankind,\" or \"Lord of all power and might who art the\nauthor and giver of all good things.\"\n\nCardinal Newman in one of his theological works written before\nhis departure from the Church of England, has a powerful passage\nbearing upon this point. He is criticising the evangelicals for\ntheir one-sided way of setting forth what it must mean to \"preach\nthe Gospel.\" No less a person than Legh Richmond is the object of\nhis strictures.\n\n\"A remarkable contrast between our Church's and this false view of\nreligion,\" he says, \"is afforded in the respective modes of treating\na death-bed in the Visitation of the Sick, and a popular modern\nwork, the Dairyman's Daughter. The latter runs thus: My dear friend,\ndo you not FEEL _that you are supported_? The Lord deals very gently\nwith me, she replied. Are not his promises _very precious to you?_\nThey are all yea and amen in Christ Jesus.. . Do you experience any\n_doubts or temptations_ on the subject of your eternal safety? No,\nsir; the Lord deals very gently with me and gives me peace. What\nare your _views_ of the dark valley of death now that you are\npassing through it? _It is not dark_. Now, if it be said that\nsuch questions and answers are not only in their place innocent\nbut natural and beautiful, I answer that this is not the point,\nbut this, viz., they are evidently intended, whatever their merits,\nas a pattern of what _death-bed examinations should be_. Such is\nthe Visitation of the Sick in the nineteenth century. Now let us\nlisten to the nervous and stern tone of the sixteenth. In the Prayer\nBook the minister is instructed to say to the person visited:\nForasmuch as after this life there is an account to be given to\nthe _Righteous Judge_ . . . I require you to examine yourself and\nyour estate both toward God and man. Therefore I shall rehearse to\nyou the _Articles of our Faith_, that you may know whether you do\nbelieve as a Christian man should or no . . . 'Then shall the\nminister examine whether he repent him truly of his sins, and be\nin _charity_ with all the world: exhorting him to forgive from the\nbottom of his heart all persons who have offended him, and if he\nhath offended any other to _ask their forgiveness_, and where he\nhath done injury or wrong to any man that he _make amends_ to the\nutmost of his power.' . . . Such is the contrast between the dreamy\ntalk of modern Protestantism, and 'holy fear's stern glow' in the\nChurch Catholic.\"[18]\n\nIn this striking, though perhaps somewhat unnecessarily harsh way,\nNewman brings out a point which is unquestionably true, namely,\nthat the language of the Prayer Book is of the sort which it is\njust now the fashion to call realistic, that is, a language\nconversant with great facts rather than with phases of feeling\nand moods of mind; which after all is only another way of saying\nthat it is a Book of Common Prayer and not a manual for the\nfurtherance of spiritual introspection.\n\nThese, then, are the characteristics of the Prayer Book style:\nit is simple, straightforward, unmetaphorical, realistic. Seriously\nit looks almost like a studied insult alike to the scholarship and\nto the religion of our day, to say that these are excellencies\nattainable no longer. That revisers venturing upon additions to\nthe Prayer Book would be bound to set the face as a flint against\nany slightest approach to sentimentality is true. But why assume\nthat the men do not exist who are capable of such a measure of\nself-control? Grant that there are whole volumes of devotional\nmatter, original and compiled, which one may ransack without\nfinding a single form that is not either prolix, wishy-washy, or\nsuperstitious--it does not follow that if the Prayer Book is to\nbe enriched, the enrichments must necessarily come from such\nsources. Moreover it is to be remembered that there is another\nvice of style to be shunned in liturgical composition quite as\ncarefully as sentimentality, namely, jejuneness. We cannot escape\nbeing sentimental simply by being dull. Feeling must not be denied\nits place in prayer for fear that it may not prove itself a duly\nchastened feeling. There ought to be a heart of fire underneath\nthe calm surface of every formulary of worship. Flame and smoke\nare out of place; but a liturgy should glow throughout. Coldness,\npure and simple, has no place in devotion.\n\nOver and above the intrinsic difficulties in the way of revision\ngrowing out of the delicate nature of the work itself, obstacles\nof a different sort are certain to be encountered. In so large a\nbody of men as the Joint Committee of the two Houses, entire and\ncordial agreement is almost too much to be expected; and then even\nsupposing a unanimous report submitted, what is likely to follow?\nWhy this--if the changes proposed are few, the cry will be raised,\nIt surely is not worth while to alter the Prayer Book for the sake\nof so insignificant a gain; whereas if the changes proposed are\nconsiderable, the counter cry will be sounded, This is revolution.\n\nThen there is the anxious question, How will it look to the English?\nWhat will be the effect on the _Concordat_ if we touch the Prayer\nBook? To be sure, the Concordat does not seem to weigh very heavily\non the shoulders of the other party, as indeed there is no reason\nwhy it should. Convocation does not much disturb itself as to the\nview General Convention is likely to take of its sayings and doings,\nand even disestablishment might proceed without our being called\ninto consultation. And yet the Concordat difficulty will have to\nbe reckoned with; and the dire spectre of a possible disowning of\nus by our mother the Church of England will have to be laid, before\nany alterations in the Book of Common Prayer will be accounted by\nsome among us perfectly safe.\n\nBut it is scarcely worth while to go on gratuitously suggesting\nopposition arguments. They will be sure to present themselves\nunsolicited in due time. For the present it is enough to add that\nif the movement for liturgical revision has not in it enough\ntoughness of fibre to enable it to survive vigorous attack, it\ndoes not deserve success.\n\nV. Under the head of liturgical enrichment ought to be classed\nwhatever alteration would really serve to enhance the beauty,\nmajesty, or fitness, of accepted formularies of worship. Excision\nmay, under conceivable circumstances, be enrichment. James Wyatt\nundoubtedly imagined that he was improving the English cathedrals\nwhen he whitewashed their interiors, added composition pinnacles\nto the west towers of Durham, and rearranged the ancient monuments\nof Salisbury; but an important part of the enrichment accomplished\nby our nineteenth century restorers has lain simply in the undoing\nof what Wyatt did.\n\nAgain, substitution may be enrichment, as in the case where a\nwooden spire built upon a stone tower is taken down to be replaced\nby honest work. It would be an enrichment if in St. George's Chapel,\nthe central shrine of British royalty, the sham insignia now\noverhanging the stalls of the knights of the garter were to give\nroom to genuine armor. Not merely then by addition, but possibly,\nin some instances, by both subtraction and substitution, we may\nfind the \"Prayer-book as it is\" open to improvement.\n\nBefore, however, entering upon any criticism of the formularies\nin detail, it is important to draw a distinction between two very\ndifferent things, namely, the structure of a liturgical office and\nthe contents of it. By structure should be understood the skeleton\nor frame that makes the groundwork of any given office, by contents\nthe actual liturgical material employed in filling out the office\nto its proper contour.\n\nThe offices of the Roman Breviary, for example, continue, for the\nmost part, identical in structure from day to day, the year through;\nbut they vary in contents. For an illustration nearer home take\nour own _Order for Daily Morning Prayer_. The structure of it\nis as follows: 1. Sentences, 2. Exhortation, 3. Confession, 4.\nAbsolution, 5. Lord's Prayer, 6. Versicles, 7. Invitatory Psalm,\n8. The Psalms for the day, 9. Lection, 10. Anthem or Canticle, 11.\nLection, 12. Anthem or Canticle, 13. Creed, 14. Versicles,\n15. Collect for the day, 16. Stated Collects and Prayers, 17.\nBenediction.\n\nNow it is evident that without departing by a hair's breadth from\nthe lines of this framework, an indefinite number of services might\nby a process of substitution be put together, each one of which\nwould in outward appearance differ widely from every other one.\nThe identical skeleton, that is to say, might be so variously\nclothed upon that no two of its embodiments would be alike. But\nis it desirable to run very much after variety of such a sort in a\nbook of prayer designed for common use? Most assuredly, No. To\njeopard the supreme _desideratum_ in a people's manual of worship,\nsimplicity: to make it any harder than it now is for the average\n\"stranger in the Church\" to find the places, would be on the part\nof revisionists an unpardonable blunder.\n\nThere are, however, a few points at which the Morning Prayer\nmight advantageously be enriched, and no risk run. It would\nsurely add nothing to the difficulty of finding the places if\nfor one-half of the present opening sentences there were to be\nsubstituted sentences appropriate to special days and seasons of\nthe ecclesiastical year. We should in this way be enabled to\ngive the key-note of the morning's worship at the very outset.\nHaving once departed, as in the case of our first two sentences,\nfrom the English precedent of putting only penitential verses of\nScripture to this use, there is no reason why we should not\ncarry out still more fully in our selection the principle of\nappropriateness. The sentences displaced need not be lost, for\nthey might still stand, as now, at the opening of the Evening\nPrayer.\n\nPassing on to the declarations of absolution there is an opportunity\nto simplify the arrangement by omitting the alternate form borrowed\nfrom the Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, where\nonly it properly belongs. This, however, is a change likely to be\nresisted on doctrinal grounds, and need not be urged.\n\nComing to the _Venite_, we find another opportunity to accentuate\nthe Christian Year. It may be said that the rubric, as it is already\nwritten, allows for the substitution of special anthems on the\ngreater festivals and fasts. This is true; but by giving the anthem\nfor Easter a place of honor, while relegating anthems for the other\ngreat days to an unnoticed spot between the Selections and the\nPsalter, the American compilers did practically discriminate in\nfavor of Easter and against the rest. The real needs of the case\nwould be more wisely met if the permission to omit _Venite_ now\nattached to \"the nineteenth day of the month\" were to be extended\nto Ash-Wednesday and Good Friday, and special New Testament anthems\nanalagous to the Easter one were to be inserted along with the\nrespective Collects, Epistles, and Gospels, for Christmas-day and\nWhitsunday.\n\nBy this change we should put each of the three great festivals of\nthe year into possession of an invitatory anthem of its own; and we\nshould obviate on the fasting days, by the simple expedient of\nomission, the futile efforts of choir-master and organist to\ntransform _Venite_ from a cry of joy into a moan of grief.\n\nThis brings us to the Psalter. Here we have an opportunity to\ncorrect the palpable blunder by which it has come about that the\ngreatest of the penitential psalms, the fifty-first, has no place\nassigned it among the proper psalms either for Ash-Wednesday or\nfor Good Friday.[19] It would also be well to make optional, if\nnot obligatory, the use of \"proper psalms\" on days other than those\nalready provided with them; _e_. _g_., Advent Sunday, the Epiphany,\nEaster Even, Trinity Sunday, and All Saints' Day.[20] There would\nbe a still larger gain in the direction of \"flexibility of use,\"\nas well as a great economy of valuable space, if instead of\nreprinting some thirty of the Psalms of David under the name of\nSelections, we were to provide for allowing \"select\" psalms to be\nannounced by number in the same manner that \"proper\" psalms are\nnow announced. Instead of only the ten selections we now have,\nthere might then be made available twenty or thirty groups of\npsalms at absolutely no sacrifice of room. It has been objected\nto this proposal that the same difficulty which now attaches to\nthe finding of the \"proper psalms\" on great days would embarrass\ncongregations whenever \"select psalms\" were given out; but this\nis fairly met by the counter consideration that if our people were\nto be educated by the use of select psalms into a more facile\nhandling of the Psalter it would be just so much gained for days\nwhen the \"proper psalms\" must of necessity be found and read. The\nservices, that is to say, would run all the more smoothly on the\ngreat days, after congregations had become habituated, on ordinary\ndays, to picking out the psalms by number.\n\nAnother step in the line of simplification, and one which it is\nin order to mention here, would be the removal from the Morning\nPrayer of _Gloria in Excelsis_, seeing that it is never, or almost\nnever, sung at the end of the psalms unless at Evening Prayer. As\nto the expediency of restoring what has been lost of _Benedictus_\nafter the second lesson, the present writer offers no opinion.\nThere are some who warmly advocate the replacement, and there is,\nunquestionably, much to be said in favor of it. It is unlikely\nthat any doctrinal motive dictated the abbreviation.\n\nPausing a moment at the Creeds for the insertion of a better title\nthan \"_Or this_\" before the confession of Nicaea, we pass to the\nversicles that follow.\n\nHere again it would be enrichment to restore the words of the\nEnglish book, although the task of finding an equally melodious\nequivalent for _O Lord, save the Queen_ might not be easy.\n\nHappily the other versicles are such as no civil revolution can\nmake obsolete. It will never be amiss to pray,\n\n_Endue thy ministers with righteousness_.\n\nAnswer. _And make thy chosen people joyful_.\n\nThese are all the alterations for which the present Morning Prayer\nconsidered as a form of Divine Service for Sundays would seem to\ncall. It will be observed that they are far from being of a radical\ncharacter, that they affect the structure of the office not at\nall, and touch the contents of it but slightly.\n\nThe case is altered when we come to the Order for Evening Prayer.\nHere there is a demand, not indeed for any structural change, but\nfor very decided enrichment by substitution. The wording of the\noffice is altogether too exact an echo of what has been said only\na few hours before in Morning Prayer. It betokens a poverty of\nresources that does not really exist, when we allow ourselves thus\nto exhort, confess, absolve, intercede, and give thanks in the\nvery same phrases at three in the afternoon that were on our lips\nat eleven in the morning.\n\nDoubtless liturgical worship owes a good measure of its charm to\nthe subtle power of repetition; but the principle is one that must\nbe handled and applied with the most delicate tact, or virtue goes\nout of it. We must distinguish between similarity and sameness.\nThe ordered recurrence of accents is what makes the rhythm of\nverse; but for all that, there is a difference between poetry and\nsing-song, just as there is a difference between melody and monotony.\nMoreover, the taste of mankind undergoes change as to the sorts of\nrepetition which it is disposed to tolerate. No modern poet of\nstanding would venture, for instance, to employ identical epithets\nto the extent that Homer does, making Aurora \"rosy-fingered\"\nevery time she appears upon the scene, and Juno as invariably\n\"ox-eyed.\" People were pleased with it then, they would not be\npleased with it now. It is possible in liturgies so to employ\nthe principle of repetition that no wearying sense of sameness\nwill be conveyed, and again it is possible so to mismanage it\nas to transform worship into something little better than a\n\"slow mechanic exercise.\" Mere iteration, as such, is barren\nof spiritual power; witness the endless sayings over of _Kyrie\nEleison_ in the Oriental service-books, a species of vain repetition\nwhich a liturgical writer of high intelligence rightly characterizes\nas \"unmeaning, if not profane.\"[21] Now the common popular\ncriticism upon the Evening Prayer of the Church is that it repeats\ntoo slavishly the wording of the Morning Prayer. If this is an\nunjust criticism we ought not to let ourselves be troubled by it.\nOn the other hand, if it is a just criticism it will be much wiser\nof us to heed than to stifle the voice that tells us the truth.\nIt might seem to be straining a point were one to venture to explain\nthe present very noticeable disinclination of Churchmen to attend\na second service on Sunday, by connecting it with the particular\ninfelicity in question; but that the excuse, We have said all this\nonce to-day; why say it again? may possibly have something, even\nif not much, to do with the staying at home is certainly a fair\nconjecture.\n\nWithout altering at all the structure of the Evening Prayer, it\nwould be perfectly possible so to refill or reclothe that formulary\nas to give it the one thing needful which now it lacks--freshness.\nIn such a process the _Magnificat_ and the _Nunc dimittis_ would\nplay an important part; as would also certain \"ancient collects\"\nof which we have heard much of late. Failing this, the next best\nthing (and the thing, it may be added, much more likely to be done,\nconsidering what a tough resistant is old usage) would be the\nprovision of an alternate and optional form of Evening Prayer, to\nbe used either in lieu of, or as supplementary to the existing\noffice. In the framing of such a _Later Evensong_ a larger freedom\nwould be possible than in the refilling of a form the main lines\nof which were already fixed. Still, the first plan would be better,\nif only it could be brought within the range of things possible.\n\nNext to Evening Prayer in the order of the Table of Contents comes\nthe Litany. Here there is no call for enrichment,[22] though\nincreased flexibility of use might be secured for this venerable\nform of intercessory prayer by prefixing to it the following rubric\nabridged from a similar one proposed in The Convocation Prayer\nBook:\n\n\"_A General Supplication, to be sung or said on Sundays, Wednesdays,\nand Fridays, and on the Rogation Days, after the third collect at\nMorning or Evening Prayer, or before the Administration of the Holy\nCommunion; or as a separate Service_.\n\n\"_NOTE.--The Litany may be omitted altogether on Christmas Day,\nEaster Day, and Whitsunday_\"\n\nIn connection with the Morning and Evening Service there is another\nimportant question that imperatively demands discussion, namely, a\nweek-day worship. The movement for \"shortened services,\" so-called,\nhas shared the usual fate of all efforts at bettering the life of\nthe Church, in being at the outset of its course widely and seriously\nmisunderstood. The impression has gone abroad, and to-day holds\npossession of many otherwise well-informed people, that a large\nand growing party in the Episcopal Church has openly declared\nitself wearied out with overmuch prayer and praise. Were such\nindeed the fact, the scandal would be grave; but the real truth\nabout the matter is that the promoters of shortened services,\ninstead of seeking to diminish, are really eager to see multiplied\nthe amount of worship rendered in our churches. \"Shortened services\"\nis a phrase of English, not American origin, and has won its way\nhere by dint of euphony rather than of fitness. Readjusted services,\nthough a more clumsy, would be a less misdirecting term. In the\nmatter of Sunday worship, the liberty now generally conceded of\nusing separately the Morning Prayer, the Litany, and the Holy\nCommunion is all that need be asked. Whether these services, or\nat least two of them, do not in themselves admit of a certain\nmeasure of improvement is a point that has already been considered,\nbut there certainly is no need of shortening them, whatever else\nit may be thought well to do. When what a Boston worthy once termed\n\"a holy alacrity\" is observed, on the part of both minister and\nsingers, even the aggregated services of Morning Prayer, Litany,\nand \"Ante-Communion,\" together with a sermon five-and-twenty minutes\nlong, can easily be brought within the compass of an hour and a\nhalf--a measure of time not unreasonably large to be given to the\nprincipal occasion of worship on the Lord's Day. As for the Evening\nPrayer--there certainty ought to be no call for the shortening of\nthat on Sundays; for it would be scarcely decent or proper to devote\nto such a service anything less than the half hour the existing\noffice demands.\n\nWhat the advocates of shortened services really desire to see\nfurthered is an increase in the frequency of opportunities for\nworship during the week, their conviction being that if the Church\nwere to authorize brief services for morning and evening use, such\nas would not occupy much more time than family prayers ordinarily\ndo, the attendance might be secured of many who, at present, put\naside the whole question of going to church on week-days as\nimpracticable. Supposing it could be proved that such a provision\nwould work to the discouragement of family prayer, it would plainly\nbe wrong to advocate it; no priesthood is more sacred than that\nwhich comes with fatherhood. But we must face the fact that in our\nmodern American life family prayer, like sundry other wholesome\nhabits, has fallen largely into disuse. If the Church can, in any\nmeasure, supplement the deficiencies of the household, and help\nto supply to individuals a blessing they would gladly enjoy at\ntheir own homes, if they might, it is her plain duty to do so.\nMoreover, many a minister who single-handed cannot now prudently\nundertake a daily service, as that is commonly understood, would\nacknowledge himself equal to the less extended requirement.\n\nNot a few careful and friendly observers of the practical working\nof Anglican religion have been reluctantly led to consider the daily\nservice, as an institution, only meagrely successful. Looking at\nthe matter historically we find no reason to wonder at such a\nconclusion.\n\nOur existing usage (or more correctly, perhaps, _non-user_) dates\nfrom the Reformation period. The English Church and nation of that\nday had grown up familiar with the spectacle of a very large body\nof clerics, secular and regular, whose daily occupation may be said\nto have been the pursuit of religion.[23] The religion pursued\nconsisted chiefly in the saying of prayers, and very thoroughly,\nso far at least as the consumption of time was concerned, were the\nprayers said. What more natural than that, under such circumstances,\nand with such associations, the compilers of a common Prayer Book\nfor the people should have failed to see any good reason for\ndiscriminating between the amount of service proper to the Lord's\nDay and the amount that might be reasonably expected on other days?\nTheoretically they were right, all time belongs to God and he is\nas appropriately worshipped on Tuesdays and Thursdays as on Sundays.\nAnd yet as a result of their making no such discrimination, we have\nthe daily service on our hands--a comparative, even if not an utter\nfailure. We may lament the fact, but a fact it is, that In spite\nof all its improved appliances for securing leisure, the world is\nbusier than ever it was; and there will always be those who will\ninsist that the command to labor on six days is as imperative as\nthe injunction to rest upon the seventh. As a consequence of all\nthis accelerated business, and of the diminution in the number of\npersons officially set apart for prayer, the unabridged service of\nthe Church fails to command a week-day attendance. We have no\n\"clerks\" nowadays to fill the choir. The only clerks known to modern\ntimes are busy at their desks.\n\nIt may be urged in reply to this that the practical working of the\ndaily service ought to be kept a secondary consideration, and that\nits main purpose is symbolical, or representative; the priest\nkneeling in his place, day by day, as a witness that the people,\nthough unable personally to be present, do, in heart and mind,\napprove of a daily morning and evening sacrifice of prayer. This\nconception of the daily service as a vicarious thing has a certain\nmystical beauty about it, but if it is to be adopted as the Church's\nown let us, at least, clear ourselves of inconsistency by striking\nout the word \"common\" from before the word \"prayer\" in characterizing\nour book.\n\nWhat is really needed for daily use in our parishes is a short form\nof worship specially framed for the purpose. If they could be\nemployed without offence to the Protestant ear (and they are good\nEnglish Reformation words) _Week-Day Matins_ and _Week-Day Evensong_\nwould not be ill chosen names for such services. The framework of\nthese Lesser Orders for Morning and Evening Prayer, as they might\nalso be called, were the other titles found obnoxious, ought to be\nmodelled upon the lines of the existing daily offices, though with\na careful avoidance of identity in contents. There should be, for\ninstance, as unvarying elements, the reading of the lessons for the\nday, the use of the collect for the day, and the saying or singing\nof the psalms for the day. Another constant would be the Lord's\nPrayer; but aside from these the _Lesser Order_ need have nothing\nin common with the Order as we have it now. There might be, for\nexample, after the manner of the old service-books, an invitatory\nopening with versicles and responses, or if the present mode of\nopening by sentences were preferred, specially chosen sentences,\ndifferent from those with which the Sunday worship has made us\nfamiliar, could be employed. Moreover, the anthems or canticles\nand the prayers, with the exception of the two just mentioned,\nought also to be distinctive, and, in the technical sense of the\nword, _proper_ to the week-day use.\n\nAgain, it would serve very powerfully and appropriately to emphasize\nthe pivot points in the ritual year if this same principle were to\nbe applied to saints' days, and we were to have special _Holyday\nMatins_ and _Holy-day Evensong_, there still being required, on the\ngreater festivals and fasts, the normal Morning and Evening Prayer\nproper to the Lord's Day.[24]\n\nThe argument in favor of thus specializing the services for week-days\nand holydays, in preference to following the only method heretofore\nthought possible, namely, that of shortening the Lord's Day Order,\nrests on two grounds. In the first place permissions to skip and\nomit are of themselves objectionable in a book of devotions. They\nhave an uncomely look. Our American Common Prayer boasts too many\ndisfigurements of this sort already.\n\nSuch a rubric as _The minister may, at his discretion, omit all\nthat follows to, etc. _, puts one in mind of the finger-post\npointing out a short cut to weary travellers. It is inopportune\nthus to hint at exhaustion as the probable concomitant of worship.\nThat each form should have an integrity of its own, should as a\nseparate whole be either said complete or left unsaid, is better\nliturgical philosophy than any \"shortened services act\" can show.\n\nIn the second place, a certain amount of variety would be secured\nby the proposed method which under the existing system we miss.\nThere is, of course, such a danger as that of providing too much\nliturgical variety. Amateur makers of Prayer Books almost invariably\nfall into this slough. Hymn-books, as is well known, often destroy\ntheir own usefulness by including too many hymns; and Prayer Books\nmay do the same by having too many prayers.[25]\n\nTo transgress in the compiling of formularies the line of average\nmemory, to provide more material than the mind of an habitual\nworshipper is likely to assimilate, is to misread human nature.\nBut here, as elsewhere, there is a just mean. Cranmer and his\ncolleagues in the work of revision jumped at one bound from a\nscheme which provided a distinctive set of services for every day\nin the year to a scheme that assigned one stereotyped form to all\ndays.\n\nNow nothing could be more unwise than any attempt to restore the\nmethods of the Breviary, with its complicated and artificial forms\nof devotion; but so far to imitate the Breviary as to provide within\nlimits for a recognition of man's innate love of change would be\nwisdom. By having a distinctive service for week-days, and a\ndistinctive service for holydays, Ave might add just that little\nincrement to the Church's power of traction that in many instances\nwould avail to change \"I cannot go to church this morning\" into \"I\ncannot stay away.\"\n\nIt will be urged as a counter-argument to these considerations that\nthe thing is impossible, that such a measure of enrichment is\nentirely in excess of anything the Church has expressed a wish\nto have, and that for reviewers to propose a plan so sweeping would\nbe suicide. Doubtless this might be a sufficient answer to anybody\nwho imagined that by a bare majority vote of two successive General\nConventions new formularies of daily worship could be forced upon\nthe Church. But suppose such formularies were to be made _optional_;\nsuppose there were to be given to parishes the choice between these\nthree things, viz.: (_a_) the normal Morning Prayer; (_b_) a\nshortened form of the normal Morning Prayer; and (_c_) such a\nspecial order as has been sketched--what then? Would the Church's\nliberty be impaired! On the contrary, would not the borders of that\nliberty have been most wisely and safely widened by the steady hand\nof law?\n\nThis is perhaps the right point at which to call attention to the\npresent state of the \"shortened services\" controversy, for wearisome\nas the story has become by frequent repetition, the nexus between\nit and the subject in hand is too important to be left out of sight.\n\nIn the General Convention of 1877, where the topic under its\nAmerican aspects was for the first time thoroughly discussed,\nthe two Houses came to a deadlock. The deputies on the one hand,\nalmost to a man, voted in favor of giving the desired relief by\nrubric, thus postponing for three years' time the fruition of\ntheir wish; while the bishops with a unanimity understood to have\nbeen equally striking insisted that a simple canon, such as could\nbe passed at once, would suffice. And so the subject dropped.\n\nAt the late Convention of 1880 an eirenicon was discovered. The\nquick eye of one of the legal members of the House of Deputies\ndetected on the fourth page of the Prayer Book, just opposite the\nPreface, a loophole of escape, to wit, _The Ratification of the\nBook of Common Prayer_. Here was the very _tertium quid_ whereby\nthe common wish of both parties to the dispute might be effected\nwithout injury to the sensibilities of either.\n\nThe _Ratification_ certainly did not look like a canon; neither\ncould anybody with his eyes open call it a rubric--why not amend\nthat, and say no more about it? The suggestion prevailed, and by a\nvote of both Houses, the following extraordinary document is\nhereafter to stand (the next General Convention consenting) in\nthe very fore-front of the Prayer Book:\n\n  THE RATIFICATION OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.   _By the Bishops,\nthe Clergy, and the Laity of the Protestant   Episcopal Church in\nGeneral Convention assembled_.\n\nThe General Convention of the Church having heretofore, to wit:\non the sixteenth day of October in the year A. D. 1789, set forth\na _Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and\nother Rites and Ceremonies of the Church_, and thereby established\nthe said book, and declared it to be the Liturgy of said Church,\nand required that it be received as such by all the members of the\nsame and be in use from and after the first day of October in the\nyear of our Lord 1790; the same book is hereby ratified and\nconfirmed, and ordered to be the use of this Church from this\ntime forth.\n\n\"But note, however, that on days other than Sundays, Christmas-day,\nthe Epiphany, Ash-Wednesday, Good Friday, and Ascension Day, it\nshall suffice if the Minister begins Morning or Evening Prayer at\nthe General Confession or the Lord's Prayer preceded by one or more\nof the Sentences appointed at the beginning of Morning and Evening\nPrayer, and end after the Collect for Grace or the Collect for Aid\nagainst Perils, with 2 Cor. xiii. 14, using so much of the Lessons\nappointed for the day and so much of the Psalter as he shall judge\nto be for edification.\n\n\"And note also that on any day when Morning and Evening Prayer shall\nhave been duly said or are to be said, and on days other than those\nfirst aforementioned, it shall suffice, when need may require, if\na sermon or lecture be preceded by at least the Lord's Prayer and\none or more Collects found in this book, provided that no prayers\nnot set forth in said book, or otherwise authorized by this Church,\nshall be used before or after such sermon or lecture.[26]\n\n\"And note further also that on any day the Morning Prayer, the\nLitany, or the Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper\nmay be used as a separate and independent service, provided that\nno one of these services shall be disused habitually.\"\n\nIt may seem harsh to characterize this act as the mutilation of a\nmonument; but really it does seem to be little else. The old\nRatification of 1789 is an historic landmark; it is the sign-manual\nof the Church of White's and Seabury's day, and ought never to be\ndisturbed or tampered with while the Prayer Book stands. The year\n1889 might very properly see a supplemental Ratification written\nunder it; and testifying to the fact of Revision; but to write into\nthat venerable text special directions as to what may be done on\ndays other than Ash-Wednesday, and what must not be done without\n2 Cor. xiii. 14, is very much as if the City Government of Cambridge\nshould cause to be cut upon the stone under the Washington elm which\nnow records the fact that there the commander of the American armies\nfirst drew his sword, divers and sundry additional items of\ninformation, such as the distance to Watertown, the shortest path\nacross the common, etc., etc.\n\nWhy the Convention after having entrusted to a Joint Committee,\nby a decisive vote, the task of devising means for securing for\nthe Prayer Book \"increased flexibility of use,\" should have thought\nit necessary subsequently to take up with this compromise of a\ncompromise (for such the proposal to amend the Ratification really\nis) it is difficult to say. Perhaps it was with the determination\nto have, at any rate, something to fall back upon in case the larger\nand more comprehensive measure should come to naught.\n\nThe rubric is confessedly the proper place for directions as to\nhow to use the services, and but for the very natural and defensible\nobjection on the part of some to touching the Prayer Book at all,\nthere never would have been any question about it.[27] This\nobjection having been at last waived, a straight path is now open\nto the end desired, and it ought to be followed even at the cost\nof three years more of delay.\n\nReturning to the general subject, and still following the order of\nthe Table of Contents, we come to Prayers and Thanksgivings upon\nseveral Occasions.\n\nHere it would be well to note more intelligibly than is done by\nthe present rubric the proper places for the introduction of the\nPrayers and the Thanksgivings, providing for the use of the former\nbefore, and of the latter after the General Thanksgiving.\n\nAs to the deficiencies in this department let the late Dr. Muhlenberg\nspeak.\n\n\"The Prayer Book,\" he says, \"is not undervalued as to its treasures\nin asserting its wants. The latter cannot be denied. Witness the\nmeagre amount of New Testament prayer and praise for the round of\nfestivals and fasts; the absence of any forms suited to the peculiar\ncircumstances of our own Church and country and to the times we\nlive in; or for our benevolent and educational institutions. There\nare no prayers for the increase of Ministers, for Missions, or\nMissionaries, for the Christian teaching of the young; for sponsors\non occasions of Baptism; for persons setting out on long journeys\nby land, quite as perilous as voyages by sea; for the sick desiring\nthe prayers of the Church when there is no prospect of or desire\nfor recovery; for the bereaved at funerals, and many other occasions\nfor which there might as well be provision as for those few for\nwhich we already have the occasional prayers.\"[28]\n\nAfter the _Prayers and Thanksgivings_ come _The Collects, Epistles,\nand Gospels _. Here again there is some room for enrichment.\nDistinctive collects for the first four days of Holy Week, for\nMonday and Tuesday in Easter Week, and for Monday and Tuesday in\nWhitsun Week, would add very materially to our liturgical wealth,\nwhile there would seem to be no reason whatever why they should\nnot be had. It would also serve to enhance the symmetry of the\nChristian Year if the old feast of the Transfiguration[29] (August\n6) were to be restored to its place among the recognized holy days\nof the Church and given its proper collect, epistle, and gospel.\n\nThere are some liturgists who desire the restoration of the introits\nof the First Book of Edward VI. The introit (so called from being\nthe psalm sung when the priest goes within the altar-rails) has\nbeen in modern usage replaced by a metrical hymn. A sufficient\nreason for not printing the introit for each day in full, just\nbefore the collect, as was the mode in Edward's Book, is that to\ndo so would involve a costly sacrifice of room. A compromise course\nwould be to insert between the title of each Sunday or holyday and\nthe collect proper to it, a simple numerical reference stating\nwhereabouts in the Psalter the introit for the day is to be found,\nand adding perhaps the Latin catchwords. Any attempt to make the\nuse of the introit obligatory in our times would meet with deserved\nfailure; the metrical hymn has gained too firm a hold upon the\naffections of the Church at large ever to be willingly surrendered.\n\nComing, next, to the orders for the administration of the two\nsacraments, we find ourselves on delicate ground, where serious\nchange of any sort is out of the question. Permission, under certain\ncircumstances, still further to abbreviate the Office of the\nCommunion of the Sick might, however, be sought without giving\nreasonable cause of alarm to any, and general consent might perhaps\nalso be had for a provision with respect to the Exhortation, \"Dearly\nbeloved in the Lord,\" that in \"Churches where there is frequent\nCommunion it shall suffice to read the Exhortation above written\nonce in a month on the Lord's Day.\"[30]\n\nThere are three liturgical features of the Scottish Communion\nOffice which some have thought might be advantageously transferred\nto our own service. They are (_a_) the inserting after Christ's\nsummary of the Law a response, _Lord, have mercy upon us and write\nthese thy laws in our hearts, we beseech thee_; (_b_) the repeating\nby the people, after the reading of the Gospel, of a formula of\nthanks corresponding to the _Glory be to thee, O Lord_, that\nprecedes it; and (_c_) the saying or singing of an Offertory\nsentence at the presentation of the alms. Upon these suggested\nenrichments the present writer offers no opinion.\n\nIn the Order of Confirmation a substitution for the present\npreface[31] of a responsive opening, in which the bishop should\ncharge the minister to present none but such as he has found by\npersonal inquiry \"apt and meet\" for the reception of the rite would\nbe a marked improvement.\n\nThe remaining Occasional Offices would seem to demand no change\neither in structure or contents, although in some, perhaps in all\nof them, additional rubrics would be helpful to worshippers.\n\nSome addition to the number of Occasional Offices would be a\nreal gain. We need, for instance, a short Office for the Burial of\nInfants and Young Children; a Daybreak Office for Great Festivals;\nan Office for Midday Prayer; an Office of Prayer in behalf of\nMissions and Missionaries; an Office for the Setting apart of a\nLayman as a Reader, or as a Missionary; a Form of Prayer at\nthe Laying of a Corner-stone; and possibly some others. It is\nevident that these new formularies might give opportunity for\nthe introduction of hitherto unused collects, anthems, and\nbenedictions of a sort that would greatly enhance the general\nusefulness of the Prayer Book.\n\nThis completes the survey of the field of \"liturgical enrichment.\"\nA full discussion of the allied topic, \"flexibility of use,\" would\ninvolve the examination in detail of all the rubrics of the Prayer\nBook, and for this there is no room. It is enough to say that\nunless the rubrics, the hinges and joints of a service-book, are\nkept well oiled, much creaking is a necessary result. There are\nturning-points in our public worship where congregations almost\ninvariably betray an awkward embarrassment, simply because there\nis nothing to tell them whether they are expected to stand or to\nsit or to kneel. It is easy to sneer at such points as trifles and\nto make sport of those who call attention to them; but if it\nis worth our while to have ritual worship at all it is also worth\nour while to make the directions as to how people are to behave\nadequate, explicit, plain. A lofty contempt for detail is not the\ntoken of good administration either in Church or State. To the list\nof defective rubrics add those that are confessedly obsolete and\nsuch as are palpably contradictory and we have a bill of particulars\nthat would amply justify a rubrical revision of the Prayer Book even\nif nothing more were to be attempted.\n\nThere is another reason. Far more rapidly than many people\nimagine, we are drifting away from the position of a Church that\nworships by liturgy to that of a Church worshipping by directory.\nThe multiplicity of \"uses\" that vexed the Anglican Reformers is\nin our day multiplied four-fold. To those who honestly consider a\ndirectory a better thing than a liturgy this process of relaxation\nis most welcome, but for others who hold that, until the binding\nclauses of a Book of Common Prayer have been formally rescinded,\nthey ought to be observed, the spectacle is the reverse of edifying.\nThey would much prefer seeing the channels of liberty opened at the\ntouch of law, and this is one of their chief reasons for advocating\nrevision.\n\nTwo questions remain untouched, both of them of great practical\nimportance. Could the Prayer Book be enriched to the extent\nsuggested in this paper without a serious and most undesirable\nincrease in its bulk as a volume?\n\nEven supposing this were possible, is it at all likely that the\nChurch could be persuaded to accept the amended book?\n\nUnless the first of these two eminently proper questions can be\nmet, there is, or ought to be, an end to all talk about revision.\nThe advantage to a Church of being able to keep all its authoritative\nformularies of worship within the compass of a single volume is\ninestimable. Even the present enforced severance of the Hymnal\nfrom the Prayer Book is a misfortune.[32]\n\nThose were good days when \"Bible and Prayer Book\" was the Churchman's\nall sufficient formula so far as volumes were concerned.\n\nRome boasts a much larger ritual variety than ours, but she secures\nit by multiplying books. The Missal is in one volume, the Breviary\nin four, the Pontifical, the Ritual, and the Ceremonial in one each,\nmaking eight in all.[33] This is an evil, and one from which we\nAnglicans have had a happy escape. It was evidently with a great\ngroan of relief that the Church of England shook herself free from\nthe whole host of service-books, and established her one only\nvolume. It behooves us to be watchful how we take a single step\ntowards becoming entangled in the old meshes.[34]\n\nBut need the enrichment of the Prayer Book--such enrichment as has\nbeen described, necessarily involve an unwieldiness in the volume,\nor, what would be still worse, an overflow into a supplement?\nCertainly not; for by judicious management every change advocated\nin this paper, and more besides, might be accomplished without\ntransgressing by so much as a page or a paragraph the limits of\nthe present standard book. All the space needed could be secured\nby the simple expedient of omitting matter that has been found by\nactual experience to be superfluous. Redundancy and unnecessary\nrepetition are to the discredit of a book that enjoys such an\nunrivalled reputation as the Common Prayer. They are blemishes\nupon the face of its literary perfectness. Who has not marvelled\nat the strange duplication of the Litany and the Office of the Holy\nCommunion in the Ordinal, when the special petitions proper to\nthose services when used in that connection might easily have been\nprinted by themselves with a direction that they be inserted in\nthe appointed place?\n\nScholars, of course, know perfectly well how this came about. The\nOrdinal does not belong to the Prayer Book proper, but has a\nseparate identity of its own. When printed as a book by itself\nit is all very well that it should include the Litany and the Holy\nCommunion in full, but why allow these superfluous pages to crowd\nout others that are really needed?[35]\n\nIt has already been explained how the room now occupied by the\n\"Selections\" might be economized, and by the same simple device\nthe space engrossed by divers psalms here and there in the Occasional\nOffices, _e_. _g_., Psalm li in the Visitation of Prisoners, and\nPsalm cxxx in the Visitation of the Sick could be made available\nfor other use.\n\nAgain, why continue to devote a quarter of a page of precious\nspace to the \"Prayer for imprisoned debtors,\" seeing that now,\nfor a long time past, there has been no such thing in the United\nStates as imprisonment for debt? By availing ourselves of only a\nportion of these possible methods of garnering space, all that is\ndesired might be accomplished, without making the Prayer Book\nbulkier by a single leaf than it is to-day.\n\nBut would a Prayer Book thus enriched be accepted by the Church\nat large? Is there any reason to think that the inertia which\ninheres in all large bodies, and to a singularly marked degree\nin our own Communion, could be overcome? The General Convention\ncan give an approximate answer to these questions; it cannot settle\nthem decisively, for it is a body which mirrors only to a certain\nextent the real mind and temper of the constituencies represented\nin it. One thing is certain, that only by allowing fullest possible\nplay to the principle of \"local option\" could any wholly new piece\nof work on the part of revisionists, however excellent it might be\nin itself considered, find acceptance. To allow features introduced\ninto the body of an existing service to be accounted optional,\nwould indeed be impossible, without gendering the very wildest\nconfusion. Upon such points the Church would have to decide\noutright, for or against, and stand by her decisions. But as\nrespects every additional and novel Office proposed, the greatest\ncare ought to be taken to have the indefinite An rather than the\ndefinite _The_ prefixed to it. Before such new uses are made binding\non all, they must have met and endured the test of thorough trial\nby some. This is only fair.\n\nBut there is a limit, it must be remembered, in the Church's case\nto the binding power of precedent and prescription. The social\norder changes, and of these tides that ebb and flow it is our\nbounden duty to take note. Had mere aversion to change, dogged\nunwillingness to venture an experiment always carried the day,\ninstead of having the \"Prayer Book as it is,\" we should still be\ndrearily debating the rival merits of Hereford and Sarum. The great\nquestion to be settled is, Does an emergency exist serious enough\nto warrant an attempt on our part to make better what we know\nalready to be good? Is the Republic expecting of us, and reasonably\nexpecting of us, greater things than with our present equipment we\nare quite able to accomplish? There are eyes that think they see a\ngreat future before this Church--are they right, or is it only\nmirage? At any rate ours is no return trip--we are outward bound.\nThe ship is cutting new and untried waters with her keel at every\nmoment. There is no occasion to question the sufficiency of either\ncompass or helm, but in certain matters of a practical sort there\nis a demand upon us to use judgment, we are bound to give a place\nin our seamanship to present common-sense as well as to respect for\nancient usage, and along with it all to feel some confidence that\nif the ship is what we think her to be, \"the winds of God\" may be\ntrusted to bring her safely into port.\n\n\n\n\nTHE BOOK ANNEXED: ITS CRITICS AND ITS PROSPECTS.\n\n\n\n\nTHE BOOK ANNEXED: ITS CRITICS AND ITS PROSPECTS.[36]\n\n\nFirst, last, and always this is to be said with respect to\nthe revision of the American Common Prayer, that unless we can\naccomplish it with hearty good feeling the attempt at improvement\nought to be abandoned altogether.\n\nThe day has gone by when new formularies of worship could be\nimposed on an unwilling Church by edict, and although under our\ncarefully guarded system of ecclesiastical legislation there is\nlittle danger of either haste or unfairness, we must bear it well\nin mind that something more than \"a constitutional majority of both\nhouses\" is needful if we would see liturgical revision crowned with\nreal success. Of course, absolute unanimity is not to be expected.\nEvery improvement that the world has seen was greeted at its birth\nby a chorus of select voices sounding the familiar anthem, \"The old\nis better\"; and the generation of those, who, in the sturdy phrase\nof King James's revisers, \"give liking unto nothing but what is\nframed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil,\" will be always\nwith us. But substantial unanimity may exist, even when absolute\nunanimity is impossible, and if anything like as general a consent\ncan be secured for revision in 1886 as was given to it in 1883, the\nfriends of the movement will have good reason to be satisfied.\n\nThat there has been, since the publication of _The Book Annexed as\nModified_, a certain measure of reaction against the spirit of\nchange must be evident to all who watch carefully the pulse of\npublic opinion in the Church. Whether this reaction be as serious\nas some imagine, whether it have good reasons to allege, and whether\nit be not already giving tokens of spent force, are points which\nin the present paper will be touched only incidentally, for the\nwriter's purpose is rather irenic than polemical, and he is more\nconcerned to remove misapprehensions and allay fears than to seek\nthe fading leaf of a controversial victory.\n\n\nLIMITATIONS.\n\nNo estimate of the merits and demerits of _The Book Annexed_ can\nbe a just one that leaves out of account the limitations under\nwhich the framers of it did their work. These limitations were not\nunreasonable ones. It was right and proper that they should be\nimposed. There is no good ground for a belief that the time will\never come when a \"blank cheque,\" to borrow Mr. Goschen's mercantile\nfigure, will be given to any company of liturgical revisers to fill\nout as they may see fit. But the moulders of forms, in whatever\ndepartment of plastic art their specialty lies, when challenged to\nshow cause why their work is deficient in symmetry or completeness,\nhave an undoubted right to plead in reply the character of the\nconditions under which they labored. The present instance offers\nno exception to the general rule. In the first place, a distinct\npledge was given in the House of Deputies, in 1880, before consent\nto the appointment of the Joint Committee was secured, that in case\nsuch permission to launch a movement in favor of revision as was\nasked for were to be granted, no attempt would be made seriously\nto change the Liturgy proper, namely, the Office of the Holy\nCommunion.\n\nThe question was distinctly asked by a clerical deputy from the\ndiocese of Maryland,[37] Do you desire to modify the Office of\nthe Holy Communion? and it was as distinctly answered by the mover\nof the resolution under which the Joint Committee was finally\nappointed, No, we do not. It is true that such a pledge, made by\na single member of one House, could only measurably control the\naction of a Joint Committee in which both Houses were to be\nrepresented; but it is equally plain that the maker of the pledge\nwas in honor bound to do all in his power to secure the observance\nof its terms.\n\nLet this historical fact be noted by those who are disposed to\ncomplain that the Joint Committee did not pull to pieces and\nentirely rearrange the Anglo-Scoto-American Office, which now\nfor a long time, and until quite recently, we have been taught\nto esteem the nearest possible approach to liturgical perfection.\n\nUnder this same head of \"limitations\" must be set down the following\nresolutions passed by the Joint Committee itself, at its first\nregular meeting:\n\n_Resolved_, That this Committee asserts, at the outset, its\nconviction that no alteration should be made touching either\nstatements or standards of doctrine in the Book of Common Prayer.\n\n_Resolved_, That this Committee, in all its suggestions and acts,\nbe guided by those principles of liturgical construction and ritual\nuse which have guided the compilation and amendments of the Book\nof Common Prayer, and have made it what it is.\n\nIt was manifestly impossible, under resolutions like these, to\ndepart very widely from established precedent, or in any serious\nmeasure to disturb the foundations of things.\n\nThe first of them shut out wholly the consideration of such\nquestions as the reinstatement of the Athanasian Creed or the\nproposal to make optional the use of the word \"regenerate\" in\nthe Baptismal Offices; while the other forbade the introduction\nof such sentimental and grotesque conceits as \"An Office for the\nBlessing of Candles,\" \"An Office for the Benediction of a Lifeboat,\"\nand \"An Office for the Reconciliation of a Lapsed Cleric.\"[38]\n\nStill another very serious limitation, and one especially unfriendly\nto that perfectness of contour which we naturally look to see\nin a liturgical formulary, grew out of the tender solicitude\nof the Committee for what may be called the vested rights of\ncongregations. There was a strong reluctance to the cutting\naway even of what might seem to be dead wood, lest there should\nensue, or be thought to ensue, the loss of something really\nvaluable.\n\nIt was only as the result of much painstaking effort, and only at\nsome sacrifice of literary fastidiousness, that the Committee was\nenabled to report a book of which it could be said that, while it\nadded much of possible enrichment, it took away almost nothing that\nhad been in actual possession.[39] There could be no better\nillustration of this point than is afforded by certain of the\nalterations proposed to be made in the Order for Evening Prayer.\n\nThe Committee felt assured that upon no point was the judgment of\nthe Church likely to be more unanimous than in approving the\nrestoration to their time-honored home in the Evening Office of\n_Magnificat_ and _Nunc dimittis_, and yet so unwilling were they\nto displace _Bonum est confiteri_ and _Benedic anima mea_ from\npositions they have only occupied since 1789 that they authorized\nthe unquestionably clumsy expedient of printing three responds to\neach Lesson.\n\nProbably a large majority of the Committee would have preferred to\ndrop _Bonum est confiteri_ and _Benedic anima mea_ altogether,\nretaining _Cantate Domino_ and _Deus miser eatur_ as the sole\nalternates to the two Gospel canticles, as in the English Book,\nbut rather than have a thousand voices cry out, as it was believed\nthey would cry out, \"You have robbed us,\" the device of a second\nalternate was adopted, to the sad defacement of the printed page.\nIn may be charged that, in thus choosing, the Committee betrayed\ntimidity, and that a wise boldness would have been the better\ncourse; but if account be taken of the attitude consistently\nmaintained by General Convention towards any proposition for the\nchange of so much as a comma in the Prayer Book, during a period\nof fifty years prior to the introduction of _The Book Annexed_, it\nwill perhaps be concluded that for the characterization of the\nCommittee's policy timidity is scarcely so proper a word as caution.\n\n\nSPECIAL CRITICISMS.\n\n(_a_) _Foreign_.\n\nAs there is reason to believe that opinion at home has been very\nconsiderably affected by foreign criticism of _The Book Annexed_,\nit will be well at this point to give some attention to what has\nbeen said in English journals in review of the work thus far\naccomplished. The more noteworthy of the foreign criticisms are\nthose contained in _The Church Quarterly Review_, _The Church\nTimes_, and _The Guardian_.[40]\n\nThe Church Quarterly reviewer opens with an expression of deep\nregret at \"the failure to take advantage of the opportunity for\nreinstating the Athanasian Creed.\" As already observed, no such\nopportunity existed. By formal vote the Joint Committee debarred\nitself from any proceeding of this sort, and the Convention, which\nsat in judgment on its work, was manifestly of opinion that in so\nacting the Committee had rightly interpreted its charter.\n\nThe reviewer, who is in full sympathy with the movement for\nenrichment as such, goes on to recommend, as a more excellent\nway than that followed in _The Book Annexed_, the compilation of\n\n  An Appendix to the Book of Common Prayer to contain the much\n  needed _Additional Services_ for both Sunday and other use in\n  churches, in mission chapels, and in religious communities, as\n  well as a full supply of _Occasional Prayers and Thanksgivings_\n  for objects and purposes, missionary and otherwise, which are as\n  yet entirely unrepresented in our Offices.\n\nThere are obvious reasons why this device should commend itself to\nan English Churchman, for it is unlikely that anything better than\nthis, or, indeed, anything one half so satisfactory, could be\nsecured by Act of Parliament.\n\nFor something very much better than this, however, a self-governed\nChurch, like our own, has a right to look, and, in all probability,\nwill continue to look until the thing is found. _An Appendix_ to a\nmanual of worship, whether the manual be Prayer Book or Hymnal,[41]\nis and cannot but be, from the very nature of things, a blemish to\nthe eye, an embarrassment to the hand, and a vexation to the spirit.\nSuch _addenda_ carry on their face the suggestion that they are\nmakeshifts, postscripts, after-thoughts; and in their lack of\ndignity, as well as of convenience, pronounce their own condemnation.\n\nMoreover, in our particular case, no \"Appendix,\" \"Prymer,\" or\n\"Authorized Vade-mecum\" could accomplish the ends that are most\nof all desired. Fancy putting the _Magnificat_, the _Nunc dimittis_,\nthe Versicles that follow the Creed, and the \"Lighten our darkness\"\ninto an \"Appendix.\" It would be the defeat of our main object.\n\nThen, too, this is to be remembered, that in order to secure a\n\"fully authorized Appendix,\" we, in this country, should be obliged\nto follow precisely the same legal process we follow in altering\nthe Prayer Book. If an Occasional Office cannot pass the ordeal of\nthe criticism of two successive Conventions, it ought not to be set\nforth at all; if it can and does stand that test, then it ought to\nbe inserted in the Prayer Book in the particular place where it most\nappropriately belongs and may most readily be found.\n\nMoreover, it should be remembered that one, and by no means the\nleast efficient, of the causes that brought the Common Prayer into\nexistence in the sixteenth century was disgust at the multiplication\nof service-books. We American Churchmen have two already; let us\nbeware of adding a third.\n\nThe critic of _The Quarterly_ was probably unacquainted with the\nfact that in the American Episcopal Church the experimental setting\nforth of Offices \"for optional and discretional use\" is not possible\nunder the terms of the Constitution. We either must adopt outright\nand for permanent use, or else peremptorily reject whatever is urged\nupon us in the name of liturgical improvement.\n\nEntering next upon a detailed criticism of the contents of The _Book\nAnnexed_ the writer proceeds to offer a number of suggestions, some\nof them of great value. He pleads earnestly and with real force for\nthe restoration of the Lord's Prayer to its \"place of honor\" between\nthe Creed and the Preces, showing, in a passage of singular beauty,\nhow the whole daily office \"may be said to have grown out of, or\nradiated from, or been crystallized round the central _Pater\nnoster_\" even as \"from the Words of Institution has grown the\nChristian Liturgy.\"\n\nThe critic has only praise for the amendments in the Office\nfor Thanksgiving Day; approves the selection of Proper Sentences\nfor the opening of Morning and Evening Prayer; avers, certainly\nwith truth, that the Office of the Beatitudes might be improved;\nwelcomes \"the very full repertory of special prayers\"; thinks\nthat the _Short Office of Prayer for Sundry Occasions_ \"certainly\nsupplies a want\"; rejoices in the recognition of the Feast of the\nTransfiguration; and closes what is by far the most considerable,\nand, both as respects praise and blame, the most valuable of all\nthe reviews that have been made of _The Book Annexed_ whether at\nhome or abroad, with these words:\n\nOn the whole, we very heartily congratulate our Transatlantic\nbrothers on the labors of their Joint Committee. We hope their\nrecommendations may be adopted, and more in the same direction;\nand that the two or three serious blemishes which we have felt\nconstrained to point out and to lament may be removed from the\nbook in the form finally adopted.\n\nAnd further, we very earnestly trust that this work, which has\nbeen very evidently so carefully and conscientiously done, may\nspeedily, by way of example and precedent, bear fruit in a like\nprocess of enrichment among ourselves.\n\nCommending these last words to the consideration of those who\ntake alarm at the suggestion of touching the Prayer Book lest\nwe may hurt the susceptibilities of our \"kin beyond sea,\" and\nunduly anticipate that \"joint action of both Churches,\" which,\nat least until disestablishment comes, must always remain a sheer\nimpossibility, we pass to a consideration of the six articles\ncontributed to the _Church Times_ in July and August last, under\nthe title, _The Revised American Prayer Book_. Here we come upon\na writer who, if not always edifying, has the undoubted merit of\nbeing never dull. In fact, so deliciously are logical inconsequence\nand accidental humor mingled throughout his fifteen columns of\ndiscursive criticism that a suspicion arises as to the writer's\nnationality. It is doubtful whether anyone born on the English side\nof the Irish Sea could possibly have suggested the establishment\nof a Saint's Day in honor of the late respected Warden of Racine\nCollege, or seriously have proposed that Messrs. Oliver Wendell\nHolmes, Russell Lowell, Henry James, and W. D. Howells be appointed\na jury of \"literary arbitrament\" to sit in judgment on the liturgical\nlanguage of _The Book Annexed_; and this out of respect to our\nproper national pride. Doubtless it would add perceptibly to the\namused sense of the unfitness of things with which these eminent\nliberals must have seen themselves thus named, if permission could\nbe given to the jury, when empanelled, to \"co-opt\" into its number\nMr. Samuel Clemens and Mr. Dudley Warner.[42]\n\nThe general tenor of the writer in _The Church Times_ may fairly\nbe inferred from the following extract from the first article of\nthe series:\n\nThe judgment that must be pronounced on the work as a whole is\nprecisely that which has been passed on the Revised New Testament,\nthat there are doubtless some few changes for the better, so obvious\nand so demanded beforehand by all educated opinion that to have\nneglected them would at once have stamped the revisers as blockheads\nand dunces; but that the set-off in the way of petty and meddlesome\nchanges for the worse, neglect of really desirable improvements,\nbad English, failure in the very matter of pure scholarship just\nwhere it was least to be expected, and general departure from\nthe terms of the Commission assigned to them (notably by their\nintroduction of confusion instead of flexibility into the services,\nso that the congregation can seldom know what is going to happen)\nhas so entirely outweighed the merits of the work that it cannot\npossibly be adopted by the Church, and must be dismissed as a dismal\nfiasco, to be dealt with anew in some more adequate fashion.\n\nThis paragraph is not reproduced for the purpose of discrediting\nthe writer of it as a judge of English prose, for there are various\npassages in the course of the six articles that would more readily\nlend themselves to such a use. The object in quoting it is simply\nto put the reader into possession, in a compact form, of the most\nangry, even if not the most formidable, of the various indictments\nyet brought against _The Book Annexed_.\n\nMoreover, the last words of the extract supply a good text for\ncertain didactic remarks that ought to be made, with respect to\nwhat is possible and what is not possible in the line of liturgical\nrevision in America.\n\nWorthless as the result of the Joint Committee's labors has turned\nout to be, their motive, we are assured, was a good one. The\ncritic's contention is not that the work they undertook is a work\nthat ought not to be done, but rather that when done it should be\nbetter done. The revision as presented must be \"dismissed as a\ndismal fiasco,\" but only dismissed \"in order to be dealt with anew\nin some more adequate fashion.\" But on what ground can we rest this\nsanguine expectation of better things to come? Whence is to\noriginate and how is to be appointed the commission of \"experts\"\nwhich is to give us at last the \"Ideal Liturgy\"?\n\nCardinal Newman in one of his lesser controversial tracts remarks:\n\nIf the English people lodge power in the many, not in the few, what\nwonder that its operation is roundabout, clumsy, slow, intermittent,\nand disappointing? You cannot eat your cake and have it; you cannot\nbe at once a self-governing nation and have a strong government.[43]\n\nSimilarly it may be said that, however great the difficulties that\nbeset liturgical revision by legislative process at the hands of\nsome five hundred men, nevertheless the fact remains that the body\nknown in law as The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States\nof America has provided in its Constitution that change in its\nformularies shall be so effected and not otherwise. It may turn\nout that we must give up in despair the whole movement for a better\nadaptation of our manual of worship to the needs of our land and\nof our time; it may be found that the obstacles in the way are\nabsolutely insuperable; but let us dream no dreams of seeing this\nthing handed over, \"with power,\" to a \"commission of experts,\" for\nthat is something which will never come to pass.\n\nWhether \"experts\" in liturgies are any more likely to furnish us\nwith good prayers than \"experts\" in prosody are likely to give us\nthe best poetry is a tempting question, but one that must be left,\nfor the present, on one side. Perhaps, if the inquiry were to be\npushed, we might find ourselves shut up to the curious conclusion\nthat the framers of the very earliest liturgies, the authors of\nthe old sacramentaries, were either verbally inspired or else were\nlacking in the qualifications which alone could fit them to do\nworthily the work they worthily did, for clearly \"experts\" they\nwere not.\n\nBut the question that immediately concerns us is one of simple\nfact. Assuming the present laborious effort at betterment to have\nbeen proved a \"fiasco,\" how is the General Convention to set in\nmotion any more promising enginery of revision? \"Summon in,\" say\nour English advisers, \"competent scholars, and give them _carte\nblanche_ to do what they will.\" But the Convention, which is by\nlaw the final arbiter, has no power to invite to a share in its\ncouncils men who have no constitutional right to a seat upon its\nfloor. How thankfully should we welcome as participants in our\ndebates and as allies in our legislation the eminent liturgical\nscholars who give lustre to the clergy list of the Church of\nEngland; but we are as powerless to make them members of the\nGeneral Convention as we should be to force them into the House\nof Commons. The same holds true at home. If the several dioceses\nfail to discover their own \"inglorious Miltons,\" and will not send\nthem up to General Convention, General Convention may, and doubtless\ndoes, lament the blindness of the constituencies, but it cannot\ncorrect their blunder. The dioceses in which the \"experts\"\ncanonically reside had had full warning that important liturgical\ninterests were to be discussed and acted upon in the General\nConvention of 1883; why were the \"experts\" left at home? And if\nthey were not returned in 1883, is there sufficient reason to\nbelieve that they will ever be returned in any coming year of\ngrace? It must be either that the American Church is bereft of\n\"experts,\" or else that the constituencies, influenced possibly\nby the hard sense of the laity, have learned hopelessly to confound\nthe \"expert\" with the doctrinaire.\n\nOf \"expert testimony,\" in the shape of the liturgical material\ngathered, mainly by English writers, during the last fifty years,\nthe Joint Committee had no lack. That this material was carefully\nsifted and conscientiously used, _The Book Annexed_ will itself one\nday be acknowledged to be the sufficient evidence.\n\nThere is still another point that must be taken into account in\nthis connection, to wit, the attitude which the Episcopate has a\nright to take with respect to any proposed work of liturgical\nrevision. Bishops have probably become inured to the hard measure\nhabitually dealt out to them in the columns of the _Church Times_,\nand are unlikely to allow charges of ignorance and incompetency so\nfar to disturb their composure as to make them afraid to prosecute\na work which, from time immemorial, has been held to lie peculiarly\nwithin their province. It may be affirmed, with some confidence,\nthat no revision of the American Offices will ever be ratified, in\nthe conduct of which the Bishops of the Church have not been allowed\nthe leadership which belongs to them of right. Then it is for the\nGeneral Convention carefully to consider whether any House of\nBishops destined to be convened in our time is likely to have on\nits roll the names of any prelates more competent, whether on the\nscore of learning or of practical experience, to deal with a work\nof liturgical revision than were the seven prelates elected by the\nfree voice of their brethren to represent the Episcopal Order on\nthe Joint Committee of Twenty-one.\n\nComing to details the reviewer of the _Church Times_ regrets, first\nof all, the failure of the Convention to change the name of the\nChurch. He goes on to express a disapproval, more or less qualified,\nof the discretionary power given to bishops to set forth forms of\nprayer for special occasions, and of the continued permission to\nuse Selections of Psalms instead of the psalms for the day. It is\nnot quite clear whether he approves the expansion of the Table of\nProper Psalms or not, though he thinks it \"abstractedly desirable\"\nthat provision be made in this connection for \"Corpus Christi and\nAll Souls.\"\n\nHe condemns the latitude allowed in the choice of lessons under\nthe rules of the new lectionary, fearing that a clergyman who\nhappens to dislike any given chapter because of its contents may\nbe tempted habitually to suppress it by substituting another, but\nin the very next paragraph he gravely questions the expediency of\nlimiting congregations to such hymns as have been \"duly set forth\nand allowed by authority.\" Yet most observers, at least on this\nside of the water, are of opinion that liberty of choice within\nthe limits of the Bible is a far safer freedom, so far as the\nbreeding of heresy goes, than liberty of choice beyond the limits\nof the Hymnal has proved itself to be. The reviewer is pleased with\nthe addition of the Feast of the Transfiguration to the Calendar,\nbut \"desiderates more,\" and would gladly welcome the introduction\ninto the Prayer Book of commemorations of eminent saints, from\nIgnatius down,[44] but of this, mention has already been made,\nand it is unnecessary to revert to it.\n\nThere follows next a protest against the selection of proper\nSentences prefixed to Morning and Evening Prayer.\n\nThe revisers seem to have a glimmering of what was the right\nthing to do . . . but they should have swept away the undevotional\nand unliturgical plan of beginning with certain detached texts,\nwhich has no fitness whatever, and has never even seemed to answer\nany useful end.\n\nThis is stronger language than most of us are likely to approve. A\nChurch that directly takes issue with Rome, as ours does, with\nrespect to the true source of authority in religion has an excellent\nreason for letting the voice of Holy Scripture sound the key-note\nof her daily worship, whether there be ancient precedent for such\na use or not. At the same time, the reviewer's averment that \"the\nonly proper opening is the Invocation of the Holy Trinity\" is\nentitled to attention; and it is worth considering whether the\nlatter portion of the nineteenth verse of the twenty-eighth chapter\nof St. Matthew's Gospel might not be advantageously added to the\nlist of opening Sentences, for optional use.\n\nIn speaking of the new alternate to the Declaration of Absolution,\nthe reviewer suggests most happily that it would be well to revive\nthe form of mutual confession of priest and people found in the old\nservice-books.[45] This proposal would probably not be entertained\nin connection with the regular Orders for Morning and Evening\nPrayer, but room for such a feature might perhaps be found in\nsome optional office.\n\nAfter a grudging commendation of the steps taken in _The Book\nAnnexed_ to restore the Gospel Canticles, the reviewer next puts\nin a strong plea for a larger allowance of versicles and responses\nafter the Creed, contending that this is \"just one of the places\nwhere enrichment, much beyond that of replacing the English versicles\nand responses now missing, is feasible and easy,\" to which the\nanswer is that we, who love these missing versicles, shall think\nourselves fortunate if we succeed in regaining only so much as we\nhave lost. Even this will be accomplished with difficulty. It is\nmost interesting, however, to notice that this stout defender of\nall that is English acknowledges the coupling together of the\nversicle, \"Give peace in our time, O Lord,\" and the response,\n\"Because there is none other that fighteth for us, but only thou,\nO God,\" to be \"a very infelicitous _non-sequitur_.\" For correcting\nthis palpable incongruity, the authors of _The Book Annexed_ have\nbeen sharply criticised here at home. What were they that they\nshould have presumed to disturb ancient Anglican precedent in such\na point? If we could not understand why the God of battles, as\nthe God of battles, should be implored to \"give peace in our time,\"\nso much the worse for our intelligence. But here comes the most\nacrid of all our critics, and shows how the collocation of sentences\nin the English Book has, from the beginning, been due to a palpable\nblunder in condensing an office of the Sarum Breviary. Of the\nAmerican substitute for this \"unhappy response\" the best he can\nsay, however, is that it is \"well intentioned.\"\n\nOf the \"Office of the Beatitudes\" the reviewer declares that it\n\"needs thorough recasting before it can stand,\" and in this we\nagree with him, as will hereafter appear, though wholly unable\nto concur in his sweeping condemnation, in this connection, of\none of the most beautiful of Canon Bright's liturgical compositions,\nthe Collect beginning, \"O God, by whom the meek are guided in\njudgment and light riseth up in darkness for the godly.\" Of this\nexquisite piece of idiomatic English, the reviewer allows himself\nto speak as being \"a very poor composition, defective in rhythm.\"\n\nThe criticism of the eucharistic portions of _The Book Annexed_ is\nmainly in the line of complaint that more has not been added in the\nway of new collects and proper prefaces, but upon this point it is\nunnecessary to dwell, the reasons having been already given why\nthe Joint Committee and the Convention left the liturgy proper\nalmost untouched. Neither is there anything that specially calls\nfor notice or serious reply in what is said about the Occasional\nOffices.\n\nThe Office for the Burial of Children is acknowledged to be a needed\naddition, but as it stands \"is pitched in an entirely wrong key. The\ncognate offices in the _Rituale Romanun_ and the _Priest's Prayer\nBook_ ought to have shown the Committee, were it not for their\npeculiar unteachableness, a better way.\" To one who can read between\nthe lines, this arraignment of the Americans for their lack of\ndocility to the teachings of the Priest's Prayer Book is not devoid\nof drollery.\n\nIt will happily illustrate the peculiar difficulties that beset\nliturgical revision to close this resume of the censures of\n_The Church Times_ by printing, side by side, the reviewer's\nestimate of the changes proposed in the Confirmation Office and\nthe independent judgment of a learned evangelical divine of our\nown Church upon the same point.\n\nThe Confirmation Service, as one of the very poorest in the Anglican\nrites, stood particularly in need of amendment and enrichment,\nespecially by the removal of the ambiguous word \"confirm\" applied\nto the acts of the candidates, whereby the erroneous opinion that\nthey came merely to confirm and ratify their baptismal promises,\nand not to be confirmed and strengthened in virtue of something\nbestowed upon them, has gained currency.\n\nThus far the English Ritualist. Here follows the American\nEvangelical:\n\nI still hope you will see your way clear to modify the present\ndraft of the proposed Confirmation Office, as it gives a much\nhigher Sacramentarian idea of it than the present, a concession\nwhich will greatly please the Sacerdotalists, to which they are\nby no means entitled.\n\nThe critic of _The Guardian_ is a writer of different make,\nand entitled every way to the most respectful attention. His\nfault-finding, which is invariably courteous, is mainly confined\nto the deficiencies of _The Book Annexed_.\n\nHe would have had more done rather than less; but at the same\ntime clearly points out that under the restrictions which controlled\nthe Committee more could not fairly have been expected. He regrets\nthat in restoring the lost portions of _Venite_ and _Benedictus_\nthe Convention did not make the use of the complete form in every\ncase obligatory; and of the eight concluding verses of the latter\ncanticle, which under the rubric of _The Book Annexed_ are only\nobligatory during Advent, he says, \"Imagine their omission on\nChristmas Day!\"\n\nTo this criticism there are several answers, any one of which may\nbe held to be sufficient. In the first place, it should be remembered\nthat into the Committee's plan of enrichment there entered the\nelement of differentiation. The closing portion of the _Venite_\nhas a special appropriateness to Lent; the closing portion of the\n_Benedictus_ a special appropriateness to Advent. Moreover, if any\ncongregations desire the whole of these two canticles throughout\nthe year, there is nothing in the rubrics of _The Book Annexed_ to\nforbid such an enjoyment of them. They may be sung in full always;\nbut only in Lent in the one case, and in Advent in the other, mast\nthey be so sung. The revision Committee was informed, on what was\nconsidered the highest authority, that in the Church of England\nthe _Benedictus_, on account of its length, had been very generally\ndisused. But, however this may be, there can be little doubt that\nthe effort after restoration would have failed completely in the\nlate Convention had the use of these two canticles in full been\ninsisted upon by the promoters of revision.\n\nThere is less of verbal criticism in _The Guardian's_ review than\ncould have been wished, for any suggestions with respect to\ninaccuracies of style or rhythmical shortcomings would have\nbeen most welcome from the pen of so competent a censor. Attention\nis called to the unmusical flow of language in the alternate\nConfession provided for the Evening Office; the figurative features\nof the proposed Collect for Maundy-Thursday are characterized as\ninfelicitous; and the Collect provided for the Feast of the\nTransfiguration is declared to be inferior to the corresponding\none in the Sarum Breviary.\n\nOf this sort of criticism, at the hands of men who know their\ncraft, _The Book Annexed_ cannot have too much. In fact, of such\nimmeasurable importance is good English in this connection, that\nit would be no hardship were every separate clause of whatever\nformulary it may be proposed to engraft upon the Prayer Book to\nbe subjected to the most searching tests.\n\nLet an epoch be agreed upon, if necessary, that shall serve as\nthe criterion of admissibility for words and phrases. Let it\nbe decided, for instance, that no word that cannot prove an\nElizabethan parentage, or, if this be too severe a standard,\nthen no word of post-Caroline origin, shall be admitted within\nthe sacred precincts. Probably there are words in _The Book\nAnnexed_ which such a canon would eject; but let us have them\npointed out, and their merits and demerits discussed. Such\ncriticism would be of infinitely more value to the real interests\nof revision than those vague and general charges of \"crudeness\"\nand \"want of finish\" which it is always so easy to make and\nsometimes so difficult to illustrate.\n\nThe writer in _The Guardian_ closes an only too brief commentary\nupon what the Convention has laid before the Church with the\nfollowing words:\n\nMany of the proposals now in question are excellent; but others\nwill be improved by reconsideration in the light of fuller ritual\nstudy, such as will be seen to produce a more exact and cultured\nritual _aesthesis_, perhaps we may, without offence, add, a more\ndelicate appreciation of rhythm. What _The Book Annexed_ presents\nto us in the way of emendation is, on the whole, good; but, if\nsubjected to a deliberate recension, it would, we predict, become\nstill better. If thus improved by the Convention of 1886, it might\nbe finally adopted by the Convention of 1889.\n\nThis conspectus of English critical opinion would be incomplete\nwere no account to be made of the utterances of the various writers\nand speakers who dealt with the general subject of liturgical\nrevision at the recent Church Congress at Portsmouth.\n\n_The Book Annexed_ could scarcely ask a more complete justification\nthan is supplied by these testimonies of men who at least may be\nsupposed to be acquainted with the needs of the Church of England.\n\nThe following catena, made up from three of the four Papers[46]\nread upon the Prayer Book, gives a fair notion of the general tone\nof the discussion. It will be worth anyone's while to collate it\nwith the thirty Resolutions that make up the \"Notification to the\nDioceses.\"\n\nCan it be seriously doubted that there are requirements of this\nage which are not satisfied by the provision for public worship\nmade in the sixteenth century? Can any really suppose that the\ncompilers of that brief manual, the Prayer Book, however proud\nwe may rightly be of their work, were so gifted with inspired\nforesight as to save the Church of future ages the responsibilities\nof considering and supplying the devotional wants of successive\ngenerations?\n\nWho has not felt the scantiness of holy association in our Sunday\nand week-day worship? . . . Much, I know, has been supplied by our\nhymnology, which has progressed nobly in proportion as the meagreness\nof our liturgical provision has been realized. But beyond hymns we\nneed actual forms of service, which shall strike the ear and touch\nthe heart by fresh and vivid adaptations of God's Word to the great\nmysteries of the Gospel faith . . . After-services on Sunday evenings\nhave of late grown common; for them we need also the aid of regular\nand elastic forms.\n\nMost deplorably have we felt the need of intercessory services\nfor Home and Foreign Missions; and, though there are beautiful\nmetrical litanies which bear directly on these and other objects,\nyet these are not sufficient, and of course are limited to times\nwhen a good and strong choir can be secured; . . . and further we\nwant very simple forms of prayer to accompany addresses given in\nhomes and mission rooms.[47]\n\nI declare it as my conviction, after many years of (I hope) a not\nindolent ministry, and of many opportunities of observation and\nexperiment, that the Church stands in pressing and immediate\nneed of a few rearrangements and adaptations of some of her\nOffices; also of an enormous number of supplementary Offices or\nservices--some for frequent use, others for occasional purposes\nwithin the consecrated buildings; and that besides these there is\nneed of a supply of special Offices for the use of a recognized\nlay agency outside of the church edifices.\n\nWhy limit our introductory sentences to seven deprecatory texts? . . .\nWhy can we not introduce the anthem used on Easter-day, instead\nof the _Venite_, throughout the Octave; or at least on Easter Monday\nand Tuesday? Would not spiritual life be deepened and intensified,\nand, best of all, be strengthened, by the use in the same manner of\na suitable anthem instead of the _Venite_ on Advent Sundays, on\nChristmas-day, at Epiphany, on Ash-Wednesday, on Good Friday,\nduring Rogation days, at Ascension-tide, and on harvest festivals\nand the special annual Church festival of the year?\n\nI submit that an enrichment of the Book of Common Prayer is also\nrequired. For although, as already suggested, this may be provided\nto some extent by a Collect for occasional use before the final\nprayer of Morning Prayer or Evensong, the needs of the Church will\nnot be fully supplied without some complete additional offices.\nCertainly an additional service for Sunday afternoon and evening . . .\nThe times are very solemn, and we must wait no longer . . . We have\ntalked for nearly twenty-five years--not vainly, I believe--but\nlet us \"go and do\" not a little in the next five years . . . Prove\nyourself to be of the Church of God by doing all the work of the\nChurch, and in the proper way. Proclaim before our God by your\nactions and your activities, and by providing all that is needed,\nnot only for Churchmen, but for earnest Christians who are not\nChurchmen, and for the poor, weary sinners who are living as if\nthere were neither Church nor Saviour, such services for the one,\nand such means for drawing the others to Christ, that they all may\nbecome one in him. And for all this you must have (as I think):\n\n1. Possibly a small rearrangement of existing services.\n\n2. Variety and additions in some of these services.\n\n3. Enrichment by many services supplementary.\n\n4. Services for use by laymen.\n\nI wish to alarm none, but I wish we were all astir, for there is\nno time to wait.[48]\n\nI should like to suggest, if it seems desirable, as it does to me,\nto make any further variation from the original arrangement of\nMorning Prayer, that on such days as Easter-day, Whitsunday, and\nAscension-day we should begin in a little different fashion than\nwe do now.\n\nIs it always needful to begin on such great days of rejoicing for\nChristians with the same sentences and the _same_ Exhortation and\nConfession, and have to wait, so to speak, to give vent to our\nfeelings till we reach the special psalms for the day? Might we\nnot on such days accept the glorious facts, and begin with some\nspecial and appropriate psalm or anthem? . . . Thus we should at\nonce get the great doctrine of the day, and be let to rejoice in\nit at the very outset, and then go on to the Lord's Prayer and the\nrest as we have it now. Confession of sin and absolution are not\nleft out in the services of the day, as, of course, they occur in\nthe Holy Communion; but leaving them out in the ordinary services,\nand beginning in the way suggested, would at one and the same time\nmark the day more clearly, and give opportunity for Christian\ngladness to show itself . . . Only one other alteration would, I\nthink, be needed, namely, that a good selection of psalms be made,\nand used, as in the American Church, at the discretion of the\nminister. I think all must feel that for one reason or another all\nthe psalms are not adapted for the ordinary worship of a mixed\ncongregation; and this plan would ease the minds of many clergy\nand laity. Also copying the American Church, it would be well to\nomit the Litany on Christmas-day, Easter-day, and Whitsunday.[49]\n\nIn the light of this summary of Anglican desiderata, compiled by\nwholly friendly hands, it is plain that whatever we may do in this\ncountry in the line of liturgical revision, always supposing it\nto be gravely and carefully done, instead of harming, ought\nmarvellously to help the real interests of the Church of England.\nCertain principles of polity adopted in our own Church a century\nago, and notably among them those affecting the legislative rights\nof the laity in matters ecclesiastical, are beginning to find tardy\nrecognition in the England of the present. Possibly a hundred years\nhence, or sooner, a like change of mind may bring English Churchmen\nto the approval of liturgical methods which, even if not wholly\nconsonant to the temper of the Act of Uniformity, have nevertheless\nbeen found useful and effective in the work of bringing the truth\nand the power of God to bear upon the common life of a great nation.\nThe Church of England is to-day moving on toward changes and chances\nof which she sees enough already to alarm and not yet enough to\nreassure her. The dimness of uncertainty covers what may yet turn\nout to be the Mount of her Transfiguration, and she fears as she\nenters into the cloud. How shall we best and most wisely show our\nsympathy? By passing resolutions of condolence? By childish\ncommiseration, the utterance of feigned lips, upon the approaching\nsorrows of disestablishment? Not thus at all, but rather by a\ncourageous and well-considered pioneering work, which shall have\nit for its purpose to feel the ground and blaze the path which\npresently she and we may find ourselves treading in company. Tied\nas she is, for her an undertaking of this sort is impossible. We\ncan show her no greater kindness than by entering upon it of our\nown motion and alone.\n\n(_b_) American.\n\nCriticism at home has been abundant; much of it intelligent and\nhelpful, and by no means so much of it as might have been expected\ncaptious. Of what may be called official reviews there have been\nthree, one from the Diocese of Central New York, one from the\nDiocese of Wisconsin, and one from the Diocese of Easton. The\nsubject has also been dealt with in carefully prepared essays\npublished from time to time in _The Church Review_ and _The Church\nEclectic_, while in the case of the weekly journals the treatment\nof the topic has been so frequent and so full that a mere catalogue\nof the editorial articles and contributed communications in Which,\nduring the two years last past, liturgical revision has been\ndiscussed would overtax the limits of the present paper.\n\nThe only practicable means of dealing with this mass of criticism\nis to adopt the inductive method, and to seek to draw out from the\nutterances of these many voices the four or five distinct concepts\nthat severally lie behind them.\n\n_In limine_ however, let this be said, that the broadest generalization\nof all is one to which the very discordance of the critics bears\nthe best possible witness. Of a scheme of re vision against which\nis pressed, in Virginia,[50] the charge of Mariolatry; in Ohio,[51]\nthe charge of Latitudinarianism; and in Wisconsin[52] the charge of\nPuritanic pravity, this much may at least be said, that it possesses\nthe note of fairness. From henceforth suggestions of partisan bias\nare clearly out of order.\n\nThe Anglo-Catholic censures of _The Book Annexed_ are substantially\nsummed up in the assertion that due regard is not had, in the\nchanges proposed, to the structural principles of liturgical\nscience. In the exceedingly well written, if somewhat one-sided\ndocument, already referred to as the Wisconsin Report, this is,\nthroughout, the burden of the complaint. The accomplished author\nof the Report, than whom no one of the critics at home or abroad\nhas shown a keener or a better cultivated liturgical instinct, is\nafraid that a free use of all the liberties permitted by the new\nrubrics of the daily offices would so revolutionize Morning and\nEvening Prayer as practically to obliterate the line of their\ndescent from the old monastic forms. If there were valid ground\nfor such an expectation the alarm might be justifiable; but\nis there? The practical effect of the rubrics that make for\nabbreviation will be to give us back, on weekdays almost exactly,\nand with measurable precision on Sundays also, the Matins and\nEvensong of the First Book of Edward VI. Surely this is not the\ndestruction of continuity with the pre-Reformation Church.\n\nIn his dislike of the provision for grafting the Beatitudes upon\nthe Evening Prayer, the author of the Wisconsin Report will have\nmany sympathizers, the present writer among them; but in his fear\nthat in the introduction of the Proem to the Song of the Three\nChildren, as a possible respond to the First Lesson,[53] there\nlurks a covert design to dethrone the _Te Deum_, he is likely to\nfind few to agree with him.\n\nBut after all, may not this scrupulous regard for the precedents\nset us in the old service-books be carried too far? It is wholesome,\nbut there is a limit to the wholesomeness of it. We remember who\nit was that made war for the sake of \"a scientific frontier.\" Some\nof the scientific frontiers in the region of liturgies are as\nillusory as his was. For example, _The Book Annexed_ may be\n\"unscientific\" in drawing as largely as it does on the language\nof the Apocalypse for versicles and responses. There has certainly\nbeen a departure from Anglican precedent in this regard. And yet\nit would scarcely seem that we could go far astray in borrowing\nfrom the liturgy of heaven, whether there be earthly precedent or\nnot.\n\nCranmer and his associates made a far bolder break with the old\noffice-books than _The Book Annexed_ makes with the Standard Common\nPrayer. The statement of the Wisconsin Report, that \"The Reformers\nof the English Church did not venture to write new Offices of\nPrayer,\" must be taken with qualifications. They did not make\noffices absolutely _de novo_, but they did condense and combine\nold offices in a manner that practically made a new thing of them.\nThey took the monastic services and courageously remoulded them\ninto a form suitable for the new era in which monasteries were to\nexist no longer.\n\nHappily they were so thorough in their work that comparatively\nlittle change is called for in adapting what they fitted to the\nneeds of the sixteenth century to the more varied requirements of\nthe nineteenth. Still, when they are quoted as conservatives, and\nwe are referred for evidence of their dislike of change to that\nparticular paragraph of the Preface to the English Prayer Book\nentitled, _Concerning the Service of the Church_[54] it is worth\nour while to follow up the reference and see what is actually\nthere said. The Wisconsin Committee use very soft words in\nspeaking of the mediaeval perversions and corruptions of Divine\nService. \"It was in the monasteries chiefly,\" they tell us,\n\"that these services received the embellishments and wonderful\nvariety which we find in the later centuries.\" But the following\nis the cruel manner in which, in the English Preface cited as\nauthority, the \"embellishments\" and \"wonderful variety\" are\ncharacterized:\n\nBut these many years past, this godly and ancient order of the\nancient fathers hath been so altered, broken, and neglected,\nby planting in uncertain stories and legends, with multitudes\nof responds, verses, vain repetitions, commemorations, and\nsynodals, that commonly when any book of the Bible was begun,\nafter three or four chapters were read out, all the rest were\nunread.\n\n. . . And furthermore, notwithstanding that the ancient fathers\nhave divided the Psalms into seven portions, whereof every one was\ncalled a Nocturn, now of late time a few of them have been daily\nsaid and the rest utterly omitted . . . So that here you have an\nOrder for Prayer and for the Reading of the Holy Scripture much\nagreeable to the mind and purposes of the old fathers, and a great\ndeal more profitable and commodious than that which of late was\nused.\n\nThis is conservatism in the very best sense, for the object aimed\nat is plainly the conservation of purity, simplicity, and truth,\nbut surely it is not the conservatism of men with whom inaction is\nthe only wisdom and immobility the sole beatitude.\n\nWe change our sky completely in passing from Anglo-Catholic to\nBroad Church criticism of _The Book Annexed_. This last has, in\nthe main, addressed itself to the rubrical features of the proposed\nrevision. \"You promised us 'flexibility,'\" the accusation runs,\n\"but what you are really giving us is simply rigidity under a new\nform. Let things stay as they are, and we will undertake to\nfind all the 'flexibility' we care to have, without help from\nlegislation.\"\n\nThis criticism has at least the merit of intelligibility, for\nit directly antagonizes what was, without doubt, one main purpose\nwith the revisers, namely, that of reviving respect for the\nrubrics by making compliance with their terms a more practicable\nthing.\n\nEvidently what Broad Churchmen, or at least a section of them,\nwould prefer is the prevalence of a general consent under which\nit shall be taken for granted that rubrics are not literally binding\non the minister, but are to be stretched and adapted, at the\ndiscretion of the officiant, as the exigencies of times and seasons\nmay suggest. It is urged that such a common understanding already\nin great measure exists; and that to enact new rubrics now, or\nto remodel old ones, would look like an attempt to revivify a\nprinciple of compliance which we have tacitly agreed to consider\ndead.\n\nThe answer to this argument is not far to seek. If the Church\nmeans to allow the Common Prayer, which hitherto has been regarded\nas a liturgy, to lapse into the status of a directory; if, in other\nwords, she is content to see her manual of worship altered from a\nbook of instructions as to how Divine Service _shall_ be performed\ninto a book of suggestions as to how it _may_ be rendered, the\nchange ought to be officially and definitely announced, and not\nleft to individual inference or uncertain conjecture. We are\nrapidly slipping into a position scarcely consistent with either\nthe dignity or the honor of a great Church--that of seeming\nto be what we are not. To give it out to the public that we\nare a law-respecting communion, and then to whisper it about\namong ourselves that our laws bind only those who choose to be\nbound by them, may serve as a convenient device for tiding over\na present difficulty, but is, oh the whole, a course of procedure\nmore likely to harden than to relieve tender consciences.\n\nTake, by way of illustration, the case of a city clergyman who\nwould gladly introduce into his parish the usage of daily service,\nbut who is convinced, whether rightly or wrongly, that to secure\neven a fair attendance of worshippers he ought to have the liberty\nof so far condensing the Morning or the Evening Office as to bring\nit within the limits of a quarter of an hour. He seeks relief\nthrough the lawful channel of rubrical revision, and is only\nlaughed at for his pains. In this busy nineteenth century it is\nnonsense, he is assured, to spend a dozen years in besieging so\nobdurate a fortress as the General Convention. The way to secure\n\"shortened services\" is to shorten services. This is easy logic,\nand applicable in more directions than one. Only see how smoothly\nit runs: If you want hymns that are not in the Hymnal, print them.\nIf you want a confessional-box, set it up. If you want a \"reserved\nsacrament,\" order the carpenter to make a tabernacle and the\nlocksmith to provide a bolt.[55] This is a far less troublesome\nmethod of securing the ends desired than the tedious and roundabout\nprocess of proposing a change at one meeting of the General\nConvention, having your proposal knocked about among some forty\nor fifty dioceses, and brought up for final action three years later.\n\nAnd yet, superior as the former method may be to the latter in\npoint of celerity and directness, the latter has certain advantages\nover the former that ought to be evident to men who are not\nfrightened by having their scrupulousness called scrupulosity.\n\nMoreover, why should this whole matter be discussed, as so commonly\nit is discussed, wholly from the clerical side? Have the laity no\nrights in the liturgy which the clergy are bound to respect? When\nand where did the Protestant Episcopal Church confer on its\nministers a general dispensing power over the ordinances of\nworship which it withheld from the body of the faithful?\n\nHeretofore it has been held that when a layman went to church he\nhad a right to expect certain things guaranteed him by the Church's\nlaw. If all this has been changed, then formal notice ought to be\nserved upon us by the General Convention that such is the fact.\n\n\nTHE MOTIVE OF THE EFFORT AFTER REVISION.\n\nIt is asked, and with no little show of plausibility, Why--in\nthe face of such manifold hostility and such persistent opposition,\nwhy press the movement for revision any further? Is it worth while\nto divide public sentiment in the Church upon a question that\nlooks to many to be scarcely more than a literary one? Why not\ndrop the whole thing, and let it fall into the limbo, where lie\nalready the _Proposed Book_ and the _Memorial Papers_? For this\nreason, and it is sufficient: There has arisen in America a\nmovement toward Christian unity, the like of which has not been\nseen since the country was settled. It is the confident belief\nof many that the key to the situation lies with that Church which\nmore truly than any other may be said to represent the historical\nChristianity of the peoples of English stock. One of the elements\nin this larger movement is the question of the form of worship.\nThe chief significance of _The Book Annexed_ lies in the claim made\nfor it by its friends, that more adequately than the present\nStandard it supplies what may fairly be demanded as their manual\nof worship by a people circumstanced like ours. While, in one\nsense, more English than the present book in that it restores\nliturgical treasures lost at the Revolution, it is also more\nthoroughly American, in that it recognizes and allows for many\nneeds which the newly enfranchised colonists of 1789 could not\nhave been expected to foresee.\n\nThe question is, Shall we turn a cold shoulder on the movement\nchurchward of our non-Anglican brethren of the reformed faith,\ndoing our best to chill their approaches with a hard _Non possumus_,\nor shall we go out to meet them with words of welcome on our lips?\nUnion under \"the Latin obedience\" is impossible. For us, in the face\nof the decrees of 1870, there can be \"no peace with Rome.\" The\nGreeks are a good way off. Our true \"solidarity,\" if \"solidarity\"\nis to be achieved at all, is not with Celts, but with our own kith\nand kin, the children of the Reformation. Is it wise of us to say\nto these fellow Christians of ours, adherents of the Catholic Faith\nas well as we, \"Nay, but the nearer you draw to us the farther we\nmean to draw away from you; the more closely you approximate to\nAnglican religion, the more closely shall we, for the sake of\ndifferencing ourselves from you, approximate to Vatican religion?\"\n\nIn better harmony with the apostolic temper, in truer continuity\nwith the early churchmanship, should we be found, were we to join\nvoices thus:\n\n_V_. Come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord.\n\n_R_. And he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\n_The Book Annexed_ may be said to hold to the possible standard\nCommon Prayer of 1890 a relation not unlike that of a clay model\nto the statue which is to be. The material is still in condition\nto be moulded; the end is not yet. It was in anticipation of this\nstate of things that the friends of revision in 1883 were anxious\nto carry through the preliminary stage of acceptance as many of\ntheir propositions as possible. To revert to our parable, the\nmodeller, in treating the face of his provisional image, must\nbe careful to lay on clay enough, or he may find himself barred\nat the last moment from giving the features just that finishing\ntouch which is to make them ready for the marble. All the skill in\nthe world will not enable him to secure for the face precisely the\nexpression he would have it wear, if the _materia_ be insufficient.\nLooked at in this light, the suggestion made by the Joint Committee\nin the House of Deputies at an early stage of the session of 1883,\nthat the entire Book Annexed, in precisely the form in which it had\nbeen submitted, should be passed, and sent down to the dioceses\nfor consideration, instead of being the arbitrary and unreasonable\ndemand it was reckoned by those who lifted their eyebrows at the\nvery mention of such a thing, was really a sensible proposition\nwhich the Convention would have done well to heed.\n\nFew, if any, critics of _The Book Annexed as Modified_ have\npronounced it an improvement to _The Book Annexed_ as presented.\nThe Book came out of the Convention less admirable than it went\nin. As a school of Liturgies, the long debate at Philadelphia was\ndoubtless salutary and helpful, but whether the immediate results,\nas shown in the emendation of the Joint Committee's work, were\nequally deserving of praise is another question.\n\nNevertheless, as was argued in the paper of which this one is the\ncontinuation, we must take things as we find them, not as we wish\nthey were; and since there is no other method of liturgical revision\nknown to our laws than revision by popular debate, to revision by\npopular debate we must reconcile ourselves as best we may.\nRegrets are idle. Let us be thankful that the amicable struggle\nat Philadelphia had for its outcome so large rather than so small\na mass of workable material, and instead of accounting _The Book\nAnnexed_ to be what one of the signers of the Joint Committee's\nReport has lately called it, \"a melancholy production,\" recognize\nin it the germ of something exceedingly to be desired. From\nthe first, there has never been any disposition on the part of\nsober-minded friends of Revision to carry through their scheme\nwith a rush; the delay that is likely to better things they will\nwelcome; the only delay they deprecate is the delay that kills.\n\nThe changes enumerated in the \"Notification to the Dioceses,\" and\nillustrated to the eye in _The Book Annexed_ as Modified, may be\nbroadly classified under the following heads:\n\n(_a_) Clearly desirable alterations, with respect to which there\nis practically unanimous consent, and for which there is immediate\ndemand, _e_. _g_., shortened offices of week-day prayer.\n\n(_b_) Alterations desirable in the main, but likely to be more\ncordially acquiesced in, could still further improvement be\nsecured, _e_. _g_., the new versicles introduced into Evening\nPrayer after the Creed.\n\n(_c_) Alterations generally accounted undesirable on any terms,\ne. g., the permissive rubrics with respect to the reading of\ncertain psalms during Lent, instead of the regular responds to\nthe First and Second Lessons of the Evening Prayer.\n\nThe question arises, Is any course of action possible that will\ngive us without delay the changes which for some fifteen years the\nwhole Church has been laboring to secure; that will give us, with\na reasonable delay of three years longer, the confessed improvements\na little more improved; while at the same time we are kept from\nbecoming involved in the wretched confusion sure to result from\nputting into circulation, within a brief period, two authorized\nbut diverse books of Common Prayer? This threefold question it is\nproposed to meet with a threefold affirmative.\n\n\n\n\nTHE STANDARD PRAYER BOOK OF 1890.\n\nThe end we ought to have in view is the publication, in the year\n1890, of a standard Book of Common Prayer, such as shall embody\nthe ripe results of what will then have been a period of ten years\nof continuous labor in the work of liturgical revision. To this\nreckoning of ten years should properly be added the seventeen years\nthat intervened between the presentation of \"The Memorial\" in 1853\nand the passing of the \"Enrichment Resolutions\" in 1880: so that\nreally our Revision would look back for its historical beginnings,\nnot across a decade merely, but over almost the lifetime of a\ngeneration. No single one of the various revisions of the English\nBook has observed anything like so leisurely a movement.\n\nBut by what methods of legislative procedure could such a result\nas the one indicated be reached? The precedent of the last century\ndoes not help us very much. The American Book of Common Prayer was\nset forth on the sixteenth day of October in the year of our Lord\n1789; but with an express statutory provision that the \"use\" of\nthe book, as so set forth, should not become obligatory till the\nfirst day of October, 1790. We cannot copy this line of procedure,\nfor the simple reason that no such undertaking as that of 1789 is\nin hand. It is not now proposed to legislate into existence a new\nLiturgy. The task before us is the far humbler one of passing\njudgment upon certain propositions of change, almost every one\nof which admits of segregation, has an independent identity of its\nown, and may be accepted or rejected wholly without reference to\nwhat is likely to happen to the other propositions that accompany\nit.\n\n_The Book Annexed as Modified_ is in no proper sense a _Proposed\nBook_, nor can it without misrepresentation be called such; it is\nsimply a sample publication[56] illustrative of what the Book of\nCommon Prayer would be, were all the Resolutions of Revision that\npassed their first stage of approval in 1883 carried into final\neffect; a result most unlikely to occur.\n\n\n\n\nTHE MEANS TO THE END.\n\nThe most expeditious and every way satisfactory means to the end\nthat has now been defined would be the appointment, at an early\nstage of the session in October, of a Joint Committee of Conference.\nTo this committee should be referred:\n\n(_a_) The question: How many of the Resolutions of 1883, or of\nthe \"several recommendations therein contained,\" is it either\npracticable or desirable to approve at once?\n\n(_b_) The question: How may such of the Resolutions of 1883 as\nare too good to be lost, but not in their present form good enough\nto satisfy the Church, be so remoulded as to make their adoption\nprobable in 1889?\n\n(_c_) All new propositions of improvement that may from time to\ntime during the session be brought to the notice of the Convention,\neither by individual members or by memorials from Diocesan\nConventions. Such a Committee of Conference, holding daily\nsessions of three or four hours each, would be able in due\ntime to report a carefully digested scheme which could then be\nintelligently discussed. By this method a flood of frivolous and\naimless talk would be cut off without in the slightest degree\ninfringing or limiting the real liberty of debate.\n\nBut even if the Convention were to show itself reluctant to give\nto a select committee so large a power as this of preparing an\n_agenda_ paper, it still would be possible to refer to such a\ncommittee the subject-matter of so many of the resolutions as\nmight chance, when put upon their passage, to fail by a narrow vote.\n\nIt is to be remembered that the various recommendations contained\nin the resolutions of 1883 are to be voted upon _in ipsissimis\nverbis_. There will be no opportunity for the familiar cry: \"Mr.\nPresident, I rise to propose an amendment.\" The resolution, or the\nsection of a resolution, as the case may be, will either be approved\njust as it stands or condemned just as it stands. In this respect\nthere will be an immense saving of time. Most of the tediousness\nof debate grows out of the natural disposition of legislators to\ntry each his own hand at bettering the thing proposed; hence\n\"amendments,\" \"amendments to amendments,\" and substitutes for the\namendment to the amendment. Even the makers of parliamentary law\n(much enduring creatures) lose their patience at this point, and\nperemptorily lay it down that confusion shall no further go.\n\nBut to return to the supposed case of a proposition lost because\nof some slight defect, which, if only our Medo-Persian law had\npermitted an amendment, could easily have been remedied. Surely\nthe sensible course in such a case as that would be to refer the\nsubject-matter of the lost resolution to the Committee of Conference,\nwith instructions to report a new resolution to be finally acted\nupon three years hence. So then, whether there be given to the\nCommittee of Conference either the large power to recommend a\ncarefully thought out way of dealing with all the material _en\nbloc_, or the lesser function of sitting in judgment on new\npropositions, and of remoulding rejected ones, in either case\nthere could scarcely fail to result from the appointment of such\na committee large and substantial gains.\n\n\n\n\nIMPROVEMENTS.\n\nIt follows, from what has been said, that if there are features\nthat admit of improvement in the proposals which the Convention\nhas laid before the Church for scrutiny, now is emphatically the\ntime for suggesting the better thing that might be done. Even the\nbitterest opponents of _The Book Annexed_ can scarcely be so\nsanguine as to imagine that nothing at all is coming from this\nlabored movement for revision. A measure which was so far forth\nacceptable to the accredited representatives of the Church, in\ncouncil assembled, as to pass its first stage three years ago\nalmost by acclamation, is not destined to experience total collapse.\nThe law of probabilities forbids the supposition. The personal\nmake-up of the next General Convention will be to a great extent\nidentical with that of the last, and of the one before the last.\nSober-minded men familiar with the work of legislation are not\naccustomed to reverse their own well considered decisions without\nweighty cause. The strong probability is that something in the\nline of emendation, precisely how much or how little no one can\nsay, will, as a matter of fact, be done. In view of this likelihood,\nwould not those who are dissatisfied with _The Book Annexed_ as\nit stands be taking the wiser course were they to substitute\nco-operative for vituperative criticism? So far as the present\nwriter is in any sense authorized to speak for the friends of\nrevision, he can assure the dissidents that such co-operation\nwould be most welcome.\n\nA. B., a scholar thoroughly familiar, we will suppose, with the\nsources of liturgical material, is dissatisfied with the collects\nproposed for the successive days of Holy Week. Very well, he has\na perfect right to his dissatisfaction and to the expression of\nit in the strongest terms at his command. He does only his plain\nduty in seeking to exclude from the Prayer Book anything that\nseems to him unworthy of a place in it. But seeing that he must\nneeds, as a \"liturgical expert,\" acknowledge that the deficiency\nwhich the Joint Committee sought to make good is a real and not\na merely fancied deficiency, would not A. B. approve himself a\nmore judicious counsellor if, instead of bending all his energy\nto the disparagement of the collects proposed, he should devote a\nportion of it to the discovery and suggestion of prayers more\nhappily worded?\n\nAnd this remark holds good with reference to whatever new feature\nis to be found between the covers of The Book Annexed. If\nbetterment be possible, these six months now lying before us\nafford the time of all times in which to show how, with the least\nof loss and most of gain, it may be brought about.\n\nThe Diocese of Maryland is first in the field with an adequate\ncontribution of this sort. A thoroughly competent committee,\nappointed in October, 1884, has recently printed its Report, and\nwhether the Diocesan Convention adopt, amend, or reject what is\npresented to it, there can be little doubt that the mind of the\nChurch at large will be perceptibly affected by what these\nrepresentative men of Maryland have said.[57] Apart from a\ncertain aroma of omniscience pervading it (with which, by the\nway, sundry infelicities of language in the text of the Report,\nonly indifferently consort), the document, is a forcible one, and\nof great practical value.\n\nThe Committee have gone over the entire field covered by the\n\"Notification to the Dioceses,\" taking up the Resolutions one\nby one, and not only noting in connection with each whatever is\nin itself objectionable, but also (a far more difficult task)\nsuggesting in what respect this or that proposition might be\nbetter put. The _apparatus criticus_ thus provided, while not\ninfallible, is eminently helpful, sets a wholesome pattern, and\nif supplemented by others of like tenor and scope, will go far\nto lighten the labor of whatever committee may have the final\nrecension of the whole work put into its hands.[58]\n\nIt would be a poor self-conceit in the framers of _The Book\nAnnexed_, that should prompt them to resent as intrusive any\ncriticism whatsoever. What we all have at heart is the bringing\nof our manual of worship as nearly as possible to such a pitch\nof perfectness as the nature of things human will allow. The thing\nwe seek is a Liturgy which shall draw to itself everything that\nis best and most devout within our national borders, a Common\nPrayer suited to the common wants of all Americans. Whatever\ntruly makes for this end, it will be our wisdom to welcome, whether\nthose who bring it forward are popularly labelled as belonging\nto this, that, or the other school of Churchmanship. To allow\nparty jealousies to mar the symmetry and fulness of a work in which\nall Churchmen ought to have an equal inheritance would be the worst\nof blunders. By all means let the raiment of needlework and the\nclothing of wrought gold be what they should be for such sacred\nuses as hers who is the daughter of the great King, but let us not\nfall to wrangling about the vats in which the thread was dyed or\nthe river bed from which the gold was gathered.\n\nIn a later paper the present writer intends to venture upon a task\nsimilar to that undertaken by the Maryland Committee. He will do\nthis largely in the hope of encouraging by example other and more\ncompetent critics to busy themselves in the same way. Meanwhile a\nfew observations may not be amiss with respect to the sources of\nliturgical material, and the methods by which they can be drawn\nupon to the best advantage.\n\nThere has been, first and last, a deal of ill considered talk\nabout the boundlessness of the liturgical treasures lying unused\nin the pre-Reformation formularies of the English Church, as well\nas in the old sacramentaries and office-books of the East and the\nWest. Wonder is expressed that with such limitless wealth at its\ncommand, an \"Enrichment Committee\" should have brought in so\npoverty-stricken a Report. Have we not Muratori and Mabillon? it\nis asked: Daniel and Assemani, Renaudot and Goar? Are there not\nMissals Roman, Ambrosian, and Mozarabic? Breviaries Anglican,\nGallican, and Quignonian? Has Maskell delved and Neale translated\nand Littledale compiled in vain? To all of which there are two\nreplies, namely: first, It is inexpedient to overload a Prayer\nBook, even if the material be of the best; and secondly, This best\nmaterial is by no means so abundant as the volume of our resources\nwould seem to suggest. It was for the very purpose of escaping\nredundancy and getting rid of surplusage that the Anglican Reformers\ncondensed Missal, Breviary, and Rituale into the one small and\nhandy volume known as the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. It was\na bold stroke, doubtless denounced as perilously radical at the\ntime; but experience has justified Cranmer and his friends. In the\nwhole history of liturgies there is no record of a wiser step. It\nis scarcely possible so grievously to sin against a people's Prayer\nBook as by making it more complicated in arrangement and more bulky\nin volume than need actually requires. It was ground of justifiable\n pride with the \"Enrichment Committee\" that the Book which they\nbrought in, despite the many additions it contained, was no thicker\nby a single page than the Prayer Book as it is. To be sure, the\nGeneral Convention spoiled all this by insisting on retaining\ncertain duplicated formularies which the Committee had very properly\ndropped in order to find room for fresh material. But of the Book\nas first presented, it was possible to say that in no degree was\nit more cumbrous than that to which the people were already\naccustomed. Doubtless it would have been still more to the\nCommittee's credit could they have brought in an enriched Book\nsmaller by a third than the Book in use; but this their conservatism\nforbade.\n\nOf even greater moment is the other point, which concerns the\nquality of the available material. It is the greatest mistake in\nthe world to suppose that simply because a given prayer exists,\nsay in an Oriental liturgy, and has been translated into English\nby an eminent scholar, it is therefore proper material to be worked\ninto our services. As a matter of fact, a great deal of devotional\nlanguage of which the Oriental liturgies is made up is prolix and\ntedious to a degree simply insufferable. Moreover in the case of\nprayers in themselves admirable in the original tongue in which\nthey were composed, all is often lost through lack of a verbal\nfelicity in the translation. If anyone questions this judgment,\nlet him toil through Neale's and Littledale's _Translations of\nthe Primitive Liturgies_ and see whether he can find six, nay,\nthree, consecutive lines which he would be willing to see introduced\ninto our own Communion Office. Or, as respects translations\nfrom the Latin office-books of the Church of England, let him\nscrupulously search the pages of the \"Sarum Hours,\" as done\ninto the vernacular by the Recorder of Salisbury, and see how\nmany of the Collects strike him as good enough to be transplanted\ninto the Book of Common Prayer. The result of this latter voyage\nof discovery will be an increased wonder at the affluence of the\nmediaeval devotions, combined with amazement at the poverty and\nunsatisfactoriness of the existing translations. It is with a Latin\ncollect as with a Greek ode or an Italian sonnet: no matter how\nwonderful the diction, the charm of it is as a locked secret until\nthe thing has been Englished by genius akin to his who first made\nit out of his own heart. Of others besides the many brave men who\nlived before Agamemnon might it be written:\n\n    sed omnes illacrumabiles\n  Urgentur, ignotique larga\n  Nocte, carent quia vate sacro.\n\nIt was the peculiar felicity of Schiller that he had Coleridge for\na translator, and the shades of Gregory and Leo owe it to a living\nAnglican divine that we English-speaking Christians can think their\nthoughts after them, and pray their prayers.\n\nSuch being the facts in the case, it is evident that the range of\nchoice open to American revisers is far narrower than half-informed\npersons imagine it to be.\n\nThe very best sources of liturgical material are the following:\n\n(_a_) King James's Bible, including the Apocrypha, and supplemented\nby the Prayer Book version of the Psalms;\n\n(_b_) The old Sacramentaries, Leonine, Gregorian, and Gelasian,\nchiefly as illustrated by the genius of Dr. Bright;\n\n(_c_) The Breviary in its various forms;\n\n(_d_) The Primers and other like _fragmenta_ of the era of the\nEnglish Reformation;[59]\n\n(_e_) The devotional writings of the great Anglican divines of the\nschool of Andrews, Ken, and Taylor;[60] and last and least,\n\n(_f_) The various manuals of prayer, of which the past twenty years\nhave shown themselves so prolific.[61]\n\nOf the Anglican writers, Jeremy Taylor would be by far the most\nhelpful, were it not for the efflorescence of his style. As it is,\nthe best use that can be made of his exuberant devotions is to cull\nfrom them here and there a telling phrase or a musical cadence.\nThe \"General Intercession,\" for example, on page 50 of _The Book\nAnnexed_, is a cento to which Taylor is the chief contributor.\n\nThat the Enrichment Committee made the best possible use of the\nvarious quarries to which they had access is unlikely. Even if they\ncredited themselves with having done so, it would be immodest of\nthem to say it. Better material than any that their researches\nbrought to light may still be lying near the surface, somewhere\nclose at hand, waiting to be unearthed. Certainly this paper will\nnot have been written in vain if it serves the purpose of provoking\nto the good work of discovery some of those who on the score both\nof quality and of quantity account what has been thus far done in\nthe line of revision inadequate and meagre.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\n\nIt is next proposed to take up the Philadelphia Resolutions of\nRevision (1883) one by one, and to consider in what measure, if\nin any, the subject-matter of each of them lies open to improvement.\n\nShould the method of procedure recommended in the previous\npaper, or any method resembling it, find favor at the approaching\nConvention, and a Conference Committee of the two Houses be\nappointed to remould the work with reference to final action\nthree years hence, criticism of this sort, even though inadequate,\ncan scarcely fail of being in some measure helpful.\n\n\nRESOLUTION I.\n\n\n_The Title-page _.\n\nThe proposals under this head are two in number: (_a _) that the\nwords, \"together with the Psalter or Psalms of David,\" be dropped\nfrom the title-page as superfluous, and (_b _) that a general title,\n\"THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,\" be printed on the first page of the\nleaf preceding the title-page.\n\nNeither of these suggestions is of any great importance, and the\ninterest attaching to them is mainly bibliographical. Whenever any\naddition has been made to the Prayer Book of the Church of England,\nthe rule has been to note it invariably in the Table of Contents,\nand sometimes also on the title-page.\n\nUntil 1662 the Psalter formed no part of the Prayer Book; it was\na volume by itself, and was cited as such. In fact, it was a sort\nof \"Hymnal Companion to the Book of Common Prayer.\" In the revision\nof 1662 the Psalter was incorporated, and immediately there appeared\nupon the title-page of the Common Prayer, in addition to what had\nbeen there before, the words, \"together with the Psalter or Psalms\nof David printed as they are to be sung or read in the churches.\"\nThe present title-page of the English Book has a singularly crowded\nand awkward look, contrasting most unfavorably in this regard with\nthose of 1559, 1552, and 1549.[62] But if the needless mention of\nthe Psalter on our present title-page gives pleasure to any\nconsiderable number of people, it would be foolish to press the\nsuggestion of a change. Let it pass.\n\nOf a more serious character would be the omission, which some\nurge, of the words \"Protestant Episcopal\" from the title-page.\nShould anything of this sort be done, which is most unlikely, Dr.\nEgar's suggestion to drop the words, \"of the Protestant Episcopal\nChurch,\" leaving it to read, \"according to the use in the United\nStates of America,\" would carry the better note of catholicity.\n\nBut, after all, the remonstrants have only to turn the page to\nfind the obnoxious \"Protestant Episcopal\" so fast riveted into\nthe _Ratification_ that nothing short of an act of violence done\nto history could accomplish the excision of it.[63]\n\n\nRESOLUTION II.\n\n\n_The Introductory Portion_.\n\n(a) _Table of Contents_.--The suggestion[64] that all entries\nafter \"The Psalter\" should be printed in italics, is a good one.\n\n(b) _Concerning the Service of the Church_.--This substitute for\nthe present \"Order how the Psalter is appointed to be read\" and\n\"Order how the rest of the Holy Scripture is appointed to be read\"\nis largely based on the provisions of the so-called \"Shortened\nServices Act\" of 1872. The second paragraph relating to the use\nof the Litany appears to be superfluous.\n\nThe enlarged Table of Proper Psalms and the Table of Selections of\nPsalms, which come under this same general heading, would be a very\ngreat gain. Why the Maryland Committee should have pronounced the\nlatter Table \"practically useless, since the psalms are not to be\nprinted,\" it is hard, in the face of the existing usage with\nrespect to \"Proper Psalms,\" to understand; nor is there any special\nfelicity in the proposal emanating from the same source that the\nnumber of the Selections be cut down to three, one for feasts and\none for fasts and one for an extra service on Sunday nights.\n\nOn the other hand, the Maryland Committee does well in recommending\nthat permission be given to the minister to shorten the Lessons at\nhis discretion, though the hard and fast condition, \"provided he\nread not less than fifteen consecutive verses,\" apart from the\nquestionable English in which it is phrased, smacks more of the\ndrill-room than of the sanctuary. Far better would it be (if the\nsuggestion may be ventured) to allow no liberty of abridgment\nwhatever in the case of Proper Lessons, while giving entire freedom\nof choice on all occasions for which no proper lessons have been\nappointed. So far as \"ferial\" days are concerned, it would be much\nwiser to let the Table of Lessons be regarded as suggestive and\nnot mandatory. The half-way recognition of this principle in the\nnew Lectionary, in which such a freedom is allowed, _provided_ the\nLesson taken be one of those appointed for \"some day in the same\nweek,\" seems open to a suspicion of childishness.\n\nThe rubrical direction entitled \"Hymns and Anthems\" requires\nverbal correction, but embodies a wholesome principle.\n\nUnder this same general head of \"The Introductory Portion\" come the\nnew Lectionary and the new Tables for finding Easter. Of these, the\nformer is law already, except so far as respects the Lessons\nappointed for the proposed Feast of the Transfiguration. The Easter\nTables are a monument to the erudition and accuracy of the late\nDr. Francis Harison. The Tables in our present Standard run to the\nyear 1899. Perhaps a \"wholesome conservatism\" ought to discover a\ntincture of impiety in any proposal to disturb them before the\ncentury has expired.\n\n\n\n\nRESOLUTION III.\n\n\n_The Morning Prayer_.\n\n(a) _The First Rubric_.--The Maryland Committee is quite right\nin remarking that the language of this important rubric, as set\nforth by the Convention of 1883, is \"inelegant and inaccurate,\"\nbut another diocese has called attention to the fact that the\nsubstitute which Maryland offers would, if adopted, enable any\nrector who might be so minded to withhold entirely from the\nnon-communicating portion of his flock all opportunity for _public_\nconfession and absolution from year's end to year's end. It is not\nfor a moment to be supposed that there was any covert intention\nhere, but the incident illustrates the value to rubric-makers of\nthe Horatian warning--_Brevis esse labor o, obscurus fio_.\n\nPassing by the Proper Sentences for special Days and Seasons,\nagainst which no serious complaint has been entered,[65] we come\nto the proposed short alternative for the Declaration of Absolution.\nAs it stood in the Sarum Use this Absolution ran as follows:\n\n\"The Almighty and Merciful Lord grant you Absolution and Remission\nof all your sins, space for true penitence, amendment of life, and\nthe grace and consolation of the Holy Spirit. Amen.\"[66]\n\nWith the single change of the word \"penitence\" to \"repentance\" this\nis the form in which the Absolution stood in the original _Book\nAnnexed_. The Convention thought that it detected a \"Romanizing\ngerm\" in the place assigned to \"penitence,\" and an archaism in the\ntemporal sense assigned to \"space,\" and accordingly rearranged the\nwhole sentence. But in their effort to mend the language, our\nlegislators assuredly marred the music.[67]\n\n(e) _The Benedictus es, Domine_.--The insertion of this Canticle\nas an alternate to the _Te Deum_ was in the interest of shortened\nservices for week-day use, as has been already explained. The same\npurpose could be served equally well, and the always objectionable\nexpedient of a second alternate avoided, by spacing off the last\nsix verses of the _Benedicite_, which have an integrity of their\nown, and prefixing a rubric similar to those that stand before the\n_Venite_ and the _Benedictus_ in \"_The Book Annexed_\"; e. g.:\n\n_On week-days, it shall suffice if only the latter portion of\nthis Canticle be said or sung_.\n\n(n) _The Benedictus_.--With reference to the restoration of the\nlast portion of this Hymn, it has been very properly remarked by\none of the critics of _The Book Annexed_, that the line of division\nbetween the required and the optional portions would more properly\ncome after the eighth than after the fourth verse. This would make\nthe portion reserved for Advent begin with the reference to John\nthe Baptist, as undoubtedly it ought to do: \"And thou, child, shalt\nbe called the Prophet of the Highest.\"\n\n(o) _De Profundis_.--There will probably be general consent to the\nomission of this alternate, as being what the Maryland Committee\n_naively_ call it, \"too mournful a psalm\" for this purpose.[68]\n\n\n\n\nRESOLUTION IV.\n\n\n_Daily Evening Prayer_.\n\n(c) The proposed words, \"Let us humbly confess our sins unto\nAlmighty God,\" are justly thought by many to be inferior both\nin rhythm and in dignity to \"Let us make humble confession to\nAlmighty God.\"\n\n(i)-(l) There seems to be absolute unanimity in the judgment that\n_Magnificat_ and _Nunc Dimittis_ ought, as Gospel Hymns, to have\nthe prior places after the Lessons which they follow. In the\ninterest of simplicity of arrangement a like general consent to\nomit altogether _Bonum est confiteri_ and _Benedic anima mea_ would\nbe most fortunate, but this point has been already enlarged upon\nin a previous paper.[69]\n\nThe \"Notes,\" permitting the use of Psalms xlii. and xliii. after\nthe Lessons during Lent, seem to have found no favor in any quarter,\nand ought undoubtedly to be dropped.\n\n(n) If the lost versicles are to be restored after the Creed, as\nall who have learned to love them in the service of the Church of\nEngland must earnestly desire, some better substitute for \"God save\nthe queen,\" than \"O Lord, save our rulers,\" ought surely to be\nfound.[70] Moreover, the order of the versicles, as Prof. Gold\nhas clearly pointed out,[71] is open to improvement.\n\n\n\n\nRESOLUTION V.\n\n\n_The Beatitudes of the Gospel_.\n\nThis is the one feature of _The Book Annexed_ against which the\nfire of hostile criticism has been the most persistently directed.\nWhether the strictures passed upon the Office have been in all\ncases as intelligent as they have been severe, may be open to\nquestion, but there can be no doubt whatever that, in its present\nform, Resolution V. would, if put to the vote, be rejected.\n\nPassing by the more violent utterances of those whose language\nalmost suggests that they find something objectionable in the\nvery BEATITUDES themselves,[72] it will suffice to consider\nand weigh what has been said in various quarters, first, about\nthe unprecedented character of the Office, and secondly, concerning\nthe infelicity of the appointed response, \"Lord, have mercy upon\nus, and be it unto thy servants according to thy word.\"\n\nSo far as concerns precedent, it ought to be enough to say that\nthe words are our Lord's words, and that they were thrown by him\ninto a form which readily lends itself to antiphonal use. The very\nsame characteristics of parallelism and antithesis, that make the\nPsalms so amenable to the purposes of worship, are conspicuous in\nthe BEATITUDES. If the Church of England, for three hundred years,\nhas been willing to give place in her devotions to the Curses of\nthe Old Testament,[73] we of America need not to be afraid,\nprecedent or no precedent, to make room among our formularies for\nthe Blessings of the New.\n\nThose who allow themselves to characterize the liturgical use of\nthese memorable sayings of the Son of Man as \"fancy ritual\" and\n\"sentimentalism\" may well pause to ask themselves what manner of\nspirit they are of. The BEATITUDES are the charter of the kingdom\nof heaven. If they are \"sentimental,\" the kingdom is \"sentimental\";\nbut if, on the other hand, they constitute the organic law of the\nPeople of God, they have at least as fair a right as the Ten\nCommandments to be published from the altar, and answered by the\ngreat congregation.\n\nBut is the complaint of \"no precedent\" a valid one, even supposing\nconsiderations of intrinsic fitness to have been ruled out?\n\nThe Liturgy of St. Chrysostom provides that the Beatitudes shall\nbe sung on Sundays in room of the third antiphon.[74]\n\nThe learned Bishop of Haiti, in a paper warmly commending the\nliturgical use of the BEATITUDES,[75] calls attention to the\nfurther fact that the Eight Sayings have a place in some of the\nservice-books of the Eastern Church in the Office for the Sixth and\nNinth Hours, and notes the suggestive and touching circumstances\nthat, as there used, they have for a response the words of the\npenitent thief upon the cross. We might all of us well pray to be\n\"remembered\" in that kingdom to which these Blessings give the law.\n\nIn _The Primer set forth by the King's Majesty and his Clergy_ in\n1545, a sort of stepping-stone to the later \"Book of Common Prayer,\"\nwe find the BEATITUDES very ingeniously worked into the Office of\nThe Hours, as anthems; beginning with Prime and ending with\nEvensong. Appropriate Collects are interwoven, some of them so\nbeautiful as to be well worth preserving.[76]\n\nBut the most interesting precedent of all remains still to be\nstudied. In the first year of the reign of William and Mary, a\nRoyal Commission was appointed to revise the Book of Common Prayer.\nThe most eminent Anglican divines of the day, including Tillotson,\nStillingfleet, Patrick, and Beveridge, were among the members. To\nall outward appearance the movement came to naught; for the proposed\nrevision was not even put into print, until in 1854, the House of\nCommons, in response to a motion of Mr. Heywood, ordered it to be\npublished as a Blue-book. And yet in some way our American revisers\nof 1789 must have found access to the original volume as it lay\nhidden in the archbishop's library at Lambeth; for not only does\ntheir work show probable evidence of such consultation, but in their\nPreface they distinctly refer to the effort of King William's\nCommission as a \"great and good work,\"[77] a thing they would\nscarcely have done had they possessed no real knowledge of the\nfacts. Macaulay's sneering reference to the work of the Commission\nis well known, but, strangely enough, the justice which a Whig\nreviewer withholds, a high Anglican divine concedes, for no less\nexacting a critic than Dr. Neale, while manifesting, as was to be\nexpected, a general dislike of the Commissioners of 1689, and of\ntheir work, does yet find something to praise in what they\nrecommended.[78]\n\nAmong the real improvements suggested by the Commission was the\nliturgical use of the BEATITUDES, and this in two places, once in\n\"The Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper,\" as an\nalternate to the Ten Commandments; and again in the Commination\nOffice as a proper balance to the Anathemas of the Law.\n\nBut the Commission, like the late Joint Committee on the Book of\nCommon Prayer, was unfortunate in its choice of a response; and no\nwonder, for the task of finding the proper one is difficult.[79]\n\nA Beatitude differs from a Commandment in that while the latter\nenjoins the former only declares. The one therefore simply calls\nfor assent, or, at most, assent coupled with petition, while the\nother peremptorily demands a cry for mercy. The immemorial form of\nthe cry for mercy in the devotions of Christendom is the \"Kyrie\neleison,\" _Lord, have mercy upon us_; the immemorial form of assent\nthe word _Amen_. Can we do better, therefore, in adapting the\nBEATITUDES to liturgical use than to treat them precisely as the\nCurses are treated in the Commination Office of the Church of\nEngland, namely, by inserting after each one of them a plain\n_Amen_.\n\nThis recommendation has the great merit of simplicity. Two or three\nstrikingly ingenious schemes for supplying each of the Eight Sayings\nwith a proper response of its own have been suggested;[80] but the\nobjection to them is that, beautiful though they are, their\ncomplexity would embarrass and distress the kneeling worshipper.\nIn these matters, practical drawbacks have to be taken into account\nas well as abstract excellencies, and no matter how felicitous the\nantiphonal responses, they would be worse than useless were a\npuzzled congregation to refuse to join in them.\n\nThere will be found appended to this Paper a plan for recasting\nthe Office of the BEATITUDES in such a way as to make it coincide\nstructurally, as far as it goes, with the introductory portion\nof the Holy Communion.[81] Were the Office to be thus set forth,\nit would be possible on week-days, and with singular appropriateness\non Saints' Days, to substitute the BEATITUDES for the Commandments,\nwithout encumbering the Communion Office with an alternate. Should\nthis suggestion find acceptance, the two Collects in the present\nOffice of BEATITUDES, which are far too good to be lost, one of\nthem being the modified form of a Leonine original, and the other\none of the very best of Canon Bright's own compositions, might be\ntransferred to a place among the \"Occasional Prayers.\"\n\n\n\n\nRESOLUTION VI.\n\n\n_The Litany_.\n\nThe rubrics prefixed to the Litany are a gain, but except by the\naddition of the two new suffrages, the one for the President and\nthe other for the increase of the ministry, it will probably be\nbest to leave the text of this formulary untouched. Even in the\ncase of the new petitions it would be well if they could be\ngrafted upon suffrages already existing, a thing that might easily\nbe done.[82]\n\nIt would be a liturgical improvement if the Litany, in its shortened\nform, were to end at the _Christe_, _audi_, and the minister\ndirected to return, at this point, to the General Thanksgiving\nin the Morning Prayer. This would divide the Litany symmetrically,\ninstead of arbitrarily, as is now done, and would remove the General\nThanksgiving from a place to which it has little claim either by\nhistorical precedent or natural congruity.\n\nThe greatest improvement of all would be the restoration of the\naugust and massive words of invocation which of old stood at the\nbeginning of the Litany. The modern invocations have a dignity of\ntheir own, but they are not to be compared for devotional power and\nsimple majesty with the more ancient ones. But for an \"enrichment\"\nso good as this, it is too much to hope.\n\n\n\n\nRESOLUTION VII.\n\n\n_Prayers and Thanksgivings_.\n\nThe Maryland Committee[83] have much to say in criticism of this\nsection, and offer many valuable suggestions, the best of them being\na recommendation to print the Prayer entitled, \"For Grace to speak\nthe Truth in Love,\" in Canon Bright's own words. Some of their\ncomments, on the other hand, suggest canons of criticism which,\nif applied to \"The Prayer Book as it is,\" would make havoc of its\nchoicest treasures.[84]\n\nThe Committee of Central New York[85] go much further in the line\nof destructive criticism than their brethren of Maryland, and after\nexcepting four of the proposed prayers, condemn all the rest to\ndismissal.\n\nPossibly this is just judgment, but those who have searched\ndiligently the storehouses of devotional English, will think\ntwice before they consent to it. No doubt the phraseology of some\nof the proposed prayers might be improved. In view of the searching\ncriticism to which for three years it has been exposed, it would\nbe strange indeed if such were not found to be the case. But the\ncollection as a whole, instead of suffering loss, ought to receive\nincrement. At least three or four more prayers for the work of\nmissions in its various aspects ought to be added, also a Prayer\nfor the furtherance of Christian Education in Schools and Colleges.\nAs Br. Dowden shrewdly asks, in speaking of spiritual needs which\nwe postpone expressing for lack of language sufficiently artistic\nin form, \"What is the measure of our faith in the efficacy of united\nprayer, when we are content to go on, year after year, and never\ncome together to ask God to supply those needs?\"[86]\n\nThere is one consideration connected with this supply of special\nprayers too frequently lost out of sight. While it is perfectly\ntrue that the Book of Common Prayer was never designed to be a\n_Treasury of Devotion_ for individuals, it is equally true that\nfor thousands and hundreds of thousands of our fellow-countrymen\nwho live remote from \"Church book-stores,\" or lack the means of\npatronizing them, the Prayer Book is, as a matter of fact, their\nonly devotional help. In countless households, moreover, many of\nthem beyond \"Protestant Episcopal\" borders altogether, the Prayer\nBook is doing a work only less beneficent than it might do, were we\nto concede a very little more to that outwardly illogical but\nspiritually self-consistent policy which, breaking away, a century\nago, from the chain of precedent, inserted in the American Book\n\"The Forms of Prayer to be used in Families.\"\n\n\n\n\nRESOLUTION VIII.\n\n\n_Penitential Office for Ash-Wednesday_.\n\nThis is the English Commination Office, with the introductory\nportion omitted. It would add to the merit of the formulary,\nespecially when used as a separate office, were it to be prefaced\nby the versicle and response, similarly employed in the Hereford\nBreviary:\n\n_V_. Let us confess unto the Lord, for he is gracious.\n\n_R_. And his mercy endureth forever.\n\nIn view of the great length of the Morning Service on Ash-Wednesday,\nand the close similarity between the closing portion of the Litany\nand the intermediate portion of this Office, the following emendation\nof the first Rubric is suggested, a change which would carry with\nit the omission of the Rubric after psalm li. a little further on.\n\n_On the_ First Day of Lent, _at_ Morning Prayer, _the Office\nensuing shall be read immediately after the words_, Have mercy\nupon us, _in the Litany, and in place of what there followeth_.\n\nIn the third Rubric it might be well to add to \"_shall be said_\"\nthe words, \"_or sung_.\"\n\nThe blessing at the end of the office should stand, as in the\nEnglish Book, in the precatory form; otherwise we might have the\nanomaly of a benediction pronounced before the end of the service.\n\n\n\n\nRESOLUTION IX.\n\n\n_Thanksgiving-day or Harvest-home_.\n\nThe only alteration needed in this office is the restoration of\nthe beautiful prayer for unity to its own proper wording as given\nin the so-called \"Accession Service\" appended to the English Prayer\nBook. As it stands in _The Book Annexed_ the language of the prayer\nis possibly ungrammatical and certainly redundant. A critic,\nalready more than once quoted,[87] protests against the prominence\ngiven to this office in _The Book Annexed_, ascribing it to\ninfluences born of the associations of New England. But although\nthe motive of the revisers might have had a worse origin than that\nof which the reviewer complains, the actual fact is that the\nformulary was placed where it is purely in consideration of the\nliturgical fitness of things; it having been held that the proper\nposition for an Office of Thanksgiving must be in immediate sequence\nto an Office of Penitence.\n\nIt is with sincere diffidence that the present writer differs\nwith _The Seminarian_, on a point of historical precedent, but\nhe ventures to suggest that to find the prototype of Harvest-home\nwe must go back far beyond New England, and for that matter far\nbeyond Old England, nay, beyond the Christian era itself, even\nto the day when it was said, \"Thou shalt observe the Feast of\nTabernacles, seven days, after that thou hast gathered in thy corn\nand thy wine.\" Doubtless there is a joy greater than the \"joy of\nharvest,\" and to this we give expression in the Eucharist; but\ndoubtless also the joy of harvest is in itself a proper joy and\none which finds fitting utterance in such forms of prayer and\npraise as this.\n\n\n\n\nRESOLUTION XI.\n\n\n_Collects, Epistles, and Gospels_.\n\nNo department of liturgical revision calls for a nicer touch than\nthat which includes the Collects. That new collects for certain\nunsupplied feasts and fasts would be a genuine enrichment of The\nBook of Common Prayer, has long been generally acknowledged among\nAnglican scholars. The most weighty fault to be found with the\ncollects added by the revisers is that in too large proportion\nthey are addressed to the second and third Persons of the Holy\nTrinity. The Eucharist itself, as a whole, is properly conceived\nof as addressed to the Eternal Father. The Collects, as forming\npart of the Eucharistic Office, ought, strictly speaking, to be\nalso so addressed. It is true that there are exceptions to this\nrule, and they are found, some of them, in the Prayer Book as it\nis. But the revisers ought not to have altered the proportion so\nmarkedly as they have done, for whereas in our present Book the\ncollects addressed to the Father are as eighty-three to three\ncompared with those not so addressed, the ratio in _The Book\nAnnexed_ is that of eleven to three.\n\nMoreover, there would seem to be no good reason for reverting to\nthe usage of the First Book of Edward VI., which provides a second\nCollect, Epistle, and Gospel for the two great feasts of Christmas\nand Easter. A better way would be to take these additional collects,\nwhich are among the most beautiful in the language, and assign them\nrespectively to the Sunday after Christmas, and the Monday in\nEaster-week.\n\n\n\n\nRESOLUTION XII.\n\n\n_The Holy Communion_.\n\nTo the few changes proposed in this Office, comparatively slight\nexception has been taken in any quarter. It will probably be\nwise to leave the language of the Prayer of Consecration wholly\nuntouched, notwithstanding the alleged grammatical error near the\nend of it.\n\nThe Rubric which it has been proposed to append to the Office,\ntouching the number of communicants without which it shall not be\nlawful to administer the Sacrament, being of a disciplinary rather\nthan of a liturgical character, ought not to be urged. The proposal\nto transfer the Prayer of Humble Access to a place immediately\nbefore the Communion appears to be very generally acceptable.\n\nIt would relieve many worshippers who scruple as Christians at\nresponding to the Fourth Commandment on the score of its Judaic\ncharacter, if the language of the rubric prefixed to the Decalogue\ncould contain, as did the corresponding rubric in Laud's Book for\nScotland, a clause indicative of the mystical and spiritual sense\nin which the Law should be interpreted by those who live under the\nGospel. But such a proposal would probably be accounted \"of\ndoctrine,\" and so be self-condemned.\n\nOf the desirability of allowing a week-day use of the BEATITUDES\nin the room of the COMMANDMENTS enough has been already said.\n\n\n\n\nRESOLUTION XVI.\n\n\n_Confirmation_.\n\nThe permission to use a form of presentation instead of, or in\naddition to, the Preface is likely to be widely welcomed. The\nother _addenda_ to this office, being apparently distasteful (for\nunlike reasons) to all the \"schools of thoughts\" in the Church,\nare likely to fail of acceptance; and on the whole may easily be\nspared.\n\n\n\n\nRESOLUTION XVIII.\n\n_Visitation of the Sick_.\n\nThe proposed Commendatory Prayer, though in some of its features\nstrikingly felicitous, is open to formal improvement. The addition\nof a short _Litany of the Dying_ would be appreciated by those\nwhose ministry is largely exercised among the sick.\n\n\n\n\nRESOLUTION XX.\n\n\n_Burial of the Dead_.\n\nBy far the most important section of this Resolution is the one\nproviding for the insertion of special features when the office\nis used at the burial of children. The provision, or at least the\nsuggestion, of a more appropriate Lesson would be wise, but for\nthe rest, the office is almost all that could be wished.\n\nA recent critic[88] raises the question, \"Why single out infants\nalone for a special service? Why not forms for rich men and poor\nmen--old men and maidens--widows and orphans?\" And yet our Lord\nJesus Christ did single out little children in a very striking and\nwonderful manner, and drew a distinction between them and us which\nmay well justify our treating their obsequies with a peculiar\ntenderness. Even Rome, _Mater dura infantum_ as she has been\nsometimes thought, is studious to consult in this point the natural\naffections of the bereaved, and appoints a funeral mass distinct\nfrom that appointed for the dead in general.\n\nBishop Seabury felt the need of a rite of this sort and prepared\none, but whether it was ever in actual use among the clergy of\nConnecticut the writer is not informed. Many, very many, since\nSeabury's day, have felt the same need, and it is safe to say that\nno one feature of _The Book Annexed_ has enjoyed so universal a\nwelcome as this rightful concession to the demands of the parental\nheart.\n\n\n\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\n\nThe survey of corrigenda is now complete. The list looks like a\nlong one, but really the points noted are few compared with those\nwhich have passed unchallenged. Here and there in the Resolutions\nthat have not been considered are words or phrases that admit of\nimprovement, and which in an actual and authorized re-review by\na Committee of Conference would undoubtedly be improved.\n\nThe bulk of the work has, for a period of three years, stood the\nincessant fire of a not always friendly criticism far better than\ncould have been anticipated by those who in the first instance\ngave it shape. The difficulties of the task have been immense. That\nthey have not all of them been successfully overcome is clear\nenough, but that they were faced with an honest purpose to be\njust and fair, and that this purpose was clung to persistently\nthroughout, is a credit which Churchmen of the next generation\nwill not withhold from those who sought to be of service to them.\n\nIt remains to be seen whether the representatives of the Church\nwill take up this work and perfect it; or _per contra_ in response\nto the demand for a \"Commission of Experts,\" or the specious but\nutterly impracticable[89] proposal of concerted action with the\nChurch of England, will decide to postpone the whole affair to the\nGreek Kalends. One thing is certain, to wit, that the death of this\nmovement will mean inaction for at least a quarter of a century.\nThe men do not live who will have the courage to embark on a fresh\nenterprise of the like purport while the shipwreck of this one is\nbefore their eyes. There are many who, out of a conscientious fear\nof disturbing what they like to think of as permanently settled,\nwould view such a conclusion of the whole matter with profound\ngratitude to God. But there are many more to whom such a confession\nof the Church's inability to appreciate and unwillingness to meet\nthe spiritual needs of a civilization wonderfully unlike anything\nthat has preceded it would be most disheartening. Least of all is\nthere valid ground for hope in the case of those who fancy that if\nthey can only annihilate this project, the day will speedily\ncome when they can revise the Prayer Book in a manner perfectly\nconformable to their own conception of the \"Ideal Liturgy,\" and\nafter a fashion which the most ardent Anglo-Catholic must fain\napprove.\n\nThe American Book of Common Prayer bears the impress to-day of\ntwo controlling minds, the mind of Seabury and the mind of White.\nDoubtless it stood written in the councils of the Divine Providence\nthat so it should be. The two men represented respectively the two\nmodes of apprehending spiritual truth which have always been allowed\ncounterplay and interaction in the history of English religion, and\nwhich always will be allowed such counterplay and interaction while\nEnglish religion remains the comprehensive thing it is. No scheme\nof liturgical revision, no matter how scientifically constructed,\nwill ever find acceptance with the people of this Church which does\nnot do even-handed justice to both of the great historic growths\nwhich find their common root in Anglican soil.\n\nWhen the spirit of Seabury shall have completely exorcised the\nspirit of White, or the spirit of White shall have completely\nexorcised the spirit of Seabury from the Church and from the Prayer\nBook, logic will have triumphed, as sixteen years ago it triumphed\nunder the dome of St. Peter's--logical consistency will have\ntriumphed, but catholicity will have fled.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE.\n\n\nTHE BEATITUDES OF THE GOSPEL.\n\n\n_On_ Christmas-day, Easter-day, _and_ Whitsunday, _and on any\nweek-day save_ Ash-Wednesday _and_ Good Friday, _this Office may\nbe used in lieu of so much of_ The Order for the Administration\nof the Lord's Supper _as precedeth the Epistle for the Day_.\n\n_This Office may also be used separately on occasions for which\nno proper Order hath been provided_.\n\n_The Minister standing up shall say the Lord's Prayer and the\nCollect following, the People kneeling, but the Lord's Prayer may\nbe omitted if it hath been said immediately before_.\n\nOur Father, who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom\ncome. Thy will be done on earth, As it is in heaven. Give us this\nday our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive\nthose who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; But\ndeliver us from evil. _Amen_.\n\n_The Collect_.\n\nAlmighty God, unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and\nfrom whom no secrets are hid; Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by\nthe inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee,\nand worthily magnify thy holy Name; through Christ our Lord. _Amen_.\n\n_Then shall the Minister, turning to the People, rehearse the Eight\nSayings of our Lord commonly called_ THE BEATITUDES; _and the\nPeople, still kneeling, shall after every one of them reverently\nsay_ Amen.\n\n_Minister_.\n\nJesus went up into a mountain; and his disciples came unto him. And\nhe opened his mouth and taught them, saying: Blessed are the poor\nin spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.\n\n_Answer_. Amen.\n\n_Minister_. Blessed are they that mourn; for they shall be comforted.\n\n_Answer_. Amen.\n\n_Minister_. Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth.\n\n_Answer_. Amen.\n\n_Minister_. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after\nrighteousness; for they shall be filled.\n\n_Answer_. Amen.\n\n_Minister_. Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God.\n\n_Answer_. Amen.\n\n_Minister_. Blessed are the peace-makers; for they shall be called\nthe children of God.\n\n_Answer_. Amen.\n\n_Minister_. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness'\nsake; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.\n\n_Answer_. Amen.\n\n_Minister_.\n\nHear also what the voice from heaven saith. Blessed are the dead\nwho die in the Lord.\n\n_Answer_.\n\nEven so, saith the Spirit, for they rest from their labors.\n\n_Minister_.\n\nLet us pray.\n\nAlmighty and Eternal God, to whom is never any prayer made without\nhope of mercy; Bow thine ear, we beseech thee, to our supplications,\nand in the country of peace and rest cause us to be made partners\nwith thy holy servants; through Jesus Christ our Lord. _Amen_.[90]\n\n_Then shall be said the Collect for the Day and, unless the Holy\nCommunion is immediately to follow, such other prayer or prayers,\ntaken out of this Book, as the Minister shall think proper_.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX:\n\n\n_SERMONS BEFORE AND AFTER_.\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\nPERMANENT AND VARIABLE CHARACTERISTICS OP THE PRAYER BOOK.\n\nA SERMON PREACHED IN ST. STEPHEN'S CHURCH, PHILADELPHIA, ON THE\nANNIVERSARY OF THE BISHOP WHITE PRAYER BOOK SOCIETY, SUNDAY,\nNOVEMBER 24, 1878.\n\nOne generation passeth away; and another generation cometh.--Eccles.\ni.4.\n\nAgainst the background of this sombre fact of change, whatever\nthere is in life that is stable stands out with a sharpness that\ncompels notice. Just because the world is so full of variableness,\nour hearts' affections fasten with the tighter grip upon anything\nthat seems to have the guarantees of permanence. The Book of Common\nPrayer appeals to us on this score, precisely as the Bible, in its\nlarger measure, does: it is the book of many generations, not of\none, and there is \"the hiding of its power.\" We have received the\nPrayer Book from the generations that are gone; we purpose handing\nit on when \"another generation cometh\"; we hold it for the use and\nblessing of the generation which now is.\n\nOur thoughts about the book, therefore, if we would have the\nthinking rightly done, must take hold upon the past, the present,\nand the future, a breadth of topic covered well enough perhaps by\nthis phrase, The Permanent and the Variable Characteristics of the\nPrayer Book.\n\nI make no apology for asking you to take up the subject in so grave\na temper. Now, for more than three hundred years, the Common Prayer\nhas been the manual of worship in use with the greater number of\nthe people of that race which, meanwhile, in the providence of God,\nhas been growing up to be the leading power on earth. Everywhere\nthe English language seems to be going forth conquering and to\nconquer, and whithersoever it penetrates it carries with it the\nletters and the social traditions of a people whose character has\nbeen largely moulded by the influences of the Prayer Book. Africans,\nIndians, Hindoos are to-day, even in their heathenism, feeling the\neffects of waves of movement which throb from this centre. Men in\nauthority, the world over, are living out, with more or less of\nconsistency and thoroughness, those convictions about our duty\ntoward God, and our duty toward our neighbor, which were early\ninwrought into their consciences through the instrumentality of\nthese venerable forms. Surely no one can afford to think or speak\notherwise than most seriously and carefully with regard to a book\nwhich has behind it a history so worthy, so rich, so pregnant with\npromise for the future.\n\nLook first, then, at the power which the Prayer Book draws from\nits affiliations with the past. It is a common remark, so common\nas to be commonplace, that our liturgy owes its excellence to the\nfact of its not having been the composition or compilation of any\none man. So much is evident enough upon the face of it: for a form\nof worship devised off-hand by an individual, or even put together\nby a committee sitting around a table, could scarcely be wholly\nsatisfactory to any save the maker or the makers of it. But it is\nmore to the purpose to observe that not only is the Prayer Book\nnot the result of any one man's or any one committee's labors; it\nis not the work even of any one generation, or of any one age.\n\nThe men who gradually put the Prayer Book into what is substantially\nits present shape, in the days of Edward VI. and of Elizabeth, were\nno more the makers of the Prayer Book than were the men who, in a\nlater reign, set forth what we call \"the authorized version\" of the\nHoly Scriptures, the first translators of the Bible. In both cases\nthe work done was a work of review and revision. A much more severe\nreview, a vastly more sweeping revision in the case of the Prayer\nBook than in the case of the Bible, I grant; but still, mainly\na work of review and revision after all. \"Continuity,\" that\ncharacteristic so precious in the eye of modern science, continuity\nmarked the whole process.\n\nThe first Prayer Book of the Reformed Church of England was a\ncondensed, simplified, and purified combination of formularies\nof worship already in use in the National Church. A certain\namount of new material, some of it home-made, some of it drawn\nfrom foreign sources, was added; but the great bulk of the\nnew service-book had been contained in one or other of the\nolder manuals. The Reformers did but clip and prune, with that\nexquisite taste and judgment which belong by tradition to English\ngardeners, the overgrowth and rank luxuriance of a too long\nneglected, \"careless-ordered\" garden. But whence came the earlier\nformularies themselves, from which Cranmer and the rest quarried\nthe stone for the new building?--to change the metaphor as Paul,\nyou remember, does so suddenly from husbandry to architecture.[91]\nWhence came Missal, and Breviary, and Book of Offices--the best\nportions of which were merged in the English Common Prayer?\nFrom the far past; the Missal from those primitive liturgies or\ncommunion services, some of which we trace back with certainty\nto the later portion of the ante-Niceneage, and by not unreasonable\nconjecture to the edge of apostolic days; the Breviary or daily\nprayers from the times when Christians first took up community\nlife; the Offices from periods of uncertain date all along the\ntrack of previous Church history. But what advantage, asks someone\nfull of the modern spirit, what advantage has the Common Prayer\nin that it can trace a genealogy running up through ages of such\nuncertain reputation? Have we not been accustomed to regard those\ntimes as hopelessly corrupt, impenetrably dark, universally\nsuperstitious? Ought we not to be mortified, rather than gratified,\nto learn that from the pit of so mouldy a past our book of prayer\nwas digged? Would not a brand-new liturgy, modernized expressly\nto meet the needs of nineteenth century culture, with all the old\nEnglish idioms displaced, every rough corner smoothed and every\ncrooked place made straight--would not that be something far\nworthier our respect, better entitled to our allegiance, than\nthis book full of far-away echoes, and faint bell-notes from a\nhalf-forgotten past?\n\nYes, if modern man were only modern man and nothing more, such\nreasoning would be extremely cogent. But what if modern man be\nreally, not the mere creature of the century in which he lives,\nbut the gathered sum and product of all that has preceded him in\nhistory? What if you and I, from the very fact that we are living\nnow, have in the dim groundwork of our nature something that would\nnot have been there had we lived one, three, twelve hundred years\nago? What if there be such a thing as cumulative acquirement for\nthe race of men, so that a new generation starts with an available\ncapital of associations and ideas of which the generation last\npreceding it owned but a part? Take such words as \"feudalism,\" \"the\nCrusades,\" \"the Renaissance,\" \"the printing press,\" consider how\nmuch they mean to us, and then remember that to a man of the third\ncentury they would have been empty sounds conveying absolutely no\nmeaning. What all this goes to show is that human nature is a map\nwhich is continually unrolling. To say that the entirety of it lies\nbetween the two meridians that bound the particular tract in which\nour own little life happens to be cast is stupid. The whole great\npast belongs to us--river and island, ocean, forest, continent, all\nare ours. You and the man in armor, you and the Venetian merchant,\nyou and the cowled monk have something, be it ever so little,\nsomething in common. That which was in the foreground of their life\nis now in the background or in the middle distance of yours. It has\nbecome a part of you.[92]\n\nSo, then, if we would have a liturgy that shall speak to our whole\nnature, and not to a mere fraction of it, it must be a liturgy full\nof voices sounding out of the past. There must be reminders and\nsuggestions in it of all the great epochs of the Church's story.\nYes, echoes even from those very ages which we call dark (perhaps\nas much because we are in the dark about them as on account of any\nspecial blackness attaching to the times themselves), some echoes\neven from them may have a rightful place in the worship which is to\ncall out responsively all that is in the heart of the most modern\nof modern men.\n\nAs there were heroes before Agamemnon, so were there holy and humble\nmen of heart before Cranmer and Luther, yes, and before Jerome and\nAugustine. If any cry that ever went up from any one of them out of\nthe depths of that nature which they share with us and we with them,\nif any breath of supplication, any moan of penitence, any shout of\nvictory that issued from their lips has made out to survive the\nnoise and tumult of intervening times, it has earned by its very\npersistency of tone a _prima facie_ title to be put into the Prayer\nBook of to-day.[93] And this is why a prayer book may survive the\nwreck of many systems of theology. A prayer book holds the utterance\nof our needs; a theological system is the embodiment of our thoughts.\n\nNow our thoughts about things divine are painfully fallible and\nliable to change with change of times; but a want which is genuinely\nand entirely human is a permanent fact; the great needs of the soul\nnever grow obsolete, and though the language in which the lips shall\nclothe the heart's desire may alter, as tastes alter, yet the\nsubstance of the prayer abides, and in some happy instances the\nform also abides.\n\nTo an eye that looks wisely and lovingly on such sights, there is\nthe same keen sense of enjoyment in finding here and there in the\nPrayer Book suggestions of forgotten customs, reminders of famous\npersons and events, that there is in detecting in the masonry of\nan old castle or minster tell-tale stones which betray the different\nages, the \"sundry times and divers manners\" which the fabric\nrepresents. Who, for instance, that has traced the history of\nthat apostolic ordinance, \"the kiss of peace,\" down through the\nliturgical changes and revolutions of eighteen hundred years, can\nfail to be interested in finding in a single clause of one of the\nexhortations of our communion service that which corresponds to\nthe literal kiss of primitive times, as well as to the petrified\nsymbol of the original reality, the silver, ivory, or wooden\n\"osculatory\" of the mediaeval Church?[94] So with \"Ash-Wednesday,\"\na single syllable opens a whole chapter of Church history. Again,\nthe Latin headings to the psalms of the Psalter; with what an\nimpatient gesture can we imagine a spruce reviser brushing these\naway as so much trash! They are not trash, they are way marks that\ntell of times when devout men loved those catchwords, as we love\nthe first lines of our favorite hymns. A few of the headings,\nsuch as \"_De Profundis_\" and \"_Miserere_,\" still possess such\nassociations for ourselves. There was a time when very many more\nof them meant to men now dead and gone as much as \"Rock of Ages,\"\nor \"Sun of my Soul,\" or \"Lead, kindly Light,\" can mean to you or\nme.[95]\n\nThen, too, the monuments of specially revered heroes of the faith\nthat dot the paths of the Common Prayer, how precious they are! We\nlike to think of Ambrose as speaking to us in the lofty sentences\nof the _Te Deum_. It is pleasant to associate Chrysostom with the\nprayer that bears his name, and to know that he who swayed the\ncity's multitude still prized the Master's promise to the \"two or\nthree gathered together\" in his name. So also, in our American Book,\nJeremy Taylor, the modern Chrysostom, meets us in the Office for\nthe Visitation of the Sick, in that solemn prayer addressed to Him\n\"whose days are without end, and whose mercies cannot be numbered.\"\nAll these things help to make the Prayer Book the large-hearted,\nwide-minded book we all of us feel it to be, so like a friend\nwhom we revere because he is kindly in his tone, generous in his\njudgments, quick to understand us at every point.\n\nSo much for the past of the Prayer Book. We have touched it in no\nimage-breaking mood, but with reverence. \"One generation passeth\naway, another generation cometh,\" and it has been the peculiar\nfelicity of this book to stand\n\n  A link among the days, to knit\n  The generations each to each.\n\nWe pass on to consider the present usefulness of the Prayer Book\nand the possibility of extending that usefulness in the future.\nAnd now I shall speak wholly as an American to Americans, not\nbecause the destinies of the Prayer Book in the New World are\nthe more important, though such may in the end turn out to be\nthe fact, but simply because we are at home here and know our own\nwants and wishes, our own liabilities and opportunities, far better\nthan we can possibly know those of other people. As a Church we\nhave always tied ourselves too slavishly to English precedent. Our\nvine is greatly in danger of continuing merely a potted ivy, an\nindoor exotic. The past of the Common Prayer we cannot disconnect\nfrom England, but its present and its future belong in part at\nleast to us, and it is in this light that we are bound as American\nChurchmen to study them. Let us agree, then, that the usefulness\nof the book here and now lies largely in the moulding and formative\ninfluence which it is quietly exerting, not only on the religion\nof those who use it, but also largely on the religion of the far\ngreater number who publicly use it not. It has interested me, as\nit would interest almost anyone, to learn how many prayer books\nour booksellers supply to Christian people who are not Churchmen.\nEvidently the book is in use as a private manual with thousands,\nwho own no open allegiance to the Protestant Episcopal Church. They\nkeep it on the devotional shelf midway between Thomas a Kempis and\nthe Pilgrim's Progress, finding it a sort of interpreter of the\none to the other, and possessed of a certain flavor differencing\nit from both. This is a happy augury for the future. Much latent\nheat is generating which shall yet warm up the dullness of the land.\nThe seed-grain of the Common Prayer will not lie unproductive in\nthose forgotten furrows. The fitness of such a system of worship\nas this to counteract some of the flagrant evils of our popular\nreligion can scarcely fail to commend it to the minds of those who\nthus unobserved and, \"as it were in secret,\" read and ponder.\nMuch of our American piety, fervid as it is, shows confessedly\na feverish, intermittent character which needs just such a tonic\nas the Prayer Book provides in what Keble happily called its \"sober\nstandard of feeling in matters of practical religion.\"\n\nThen, too, there is the constantly increasing interest which it\nis such a pleasure to observe among Christians of all names in\nthe order of the ritual year, in Christmas and Easter, Lent and\nGood-Friday--who can tell how much of this may not be due to the\nleavening influence of the Prayer Book, over and above what is\neffected by the public services of the Church? \"I wonder,\" said\na famous revivalist to a friend, a clergyman of our Church, \"I\nwonder if you Episcopalians know what a good thing you have in\nthat year of yours. Why don't you use it more?\"\n\nAnd true enough, why do we not? That we might learn to do so was a\nwish very near to the heart of that holy and true man who, if\nanyone, deserves the title of the saint among our priests, the\nlate Dr. Muhlenberg, the man who twenty-five years ago headed the\nnot wholly abortive movement known as the \"Memorial.\"[96] One\nfruit of that movement is perhaps to be seen in the earnest desire\nnow prevalent throughout the Church to see the scope of the Prayer\nBook's influence enlarged. In General Conventions and Church\nCongresses nowadays no topic excites greater interest than the\nquestion how better to adapt the services of the Church to\nthe present needs and special conditions of all classes of the\npopulation. To be sure, the apparent impotence of the governing\nbody to find or furnish any lawful way of relief is a little\ndiscouraging, but it is something to see an almost universal\nassent given in terms, to the proposition that relief ought to\nbe had. What we have to fear is that during the long delay\nwhich puts off the only proper and regular method of giving more\nelasticity to the services, there may spring up a generation of\nChurchmen from whose minds the idea of obligation to law in matters\nof ritual observance will have faded out altogether.\n\nThere is a conservatism so conservative that it will stand by and\nsee a building tumble down rather than lay a sacrilegious hand on\na single stone, will see dam and mill and village all swept away\nsooner than lift the flash-boards that keep the superabundant water\nfrom coming safely down. It is among the things possible, that for\nlack of readjustment and timely adaptation of the laws regulating\nworship, just such a fate may befall our whole liturgical fabric.\n\nThe plausible theory of \"the rubric of common sense,\" about which\nwe have heard so much, a theory good within limitations, is\nthreatening, by the wholesale application it receives, presently\nto annul all other rubrics whatsoever. When, by this process,\nuniformity and even similarity shall have been utterly abolished,\nwhen it shall have become impossible for one to know beforehand of\na Sunday whether he is going to mass, or to meeting, or to church,\nthe inquiry will be in order, What has conservatism of this sort\nreally conserved?\n\n\"The personal liberty of the officiating clergyman,\" I fear\nwill be the only answer; certainly not, \"The liberty of the\nworshipping congregation.\" The straight and only honest way out\nof our embarrassment will, some day or other, be found, I dare not\nbelieve very soon, in a careful, loving, fair-minded revision of\nthe formularies; a revision undertaken, not for the purpose of\ngiving victory to one theological party rather than to another, or\nof changing in any degree the doctrinal teaching of the Church,\nbut solely and wholly with a view to enriching, amplifying, and\nmaking more available the liturgical treasures of the book.\n\n\"One generation passeth away, another generation cometh.\" As we\nhave seen in these words an argument in favor of not breaking with\nthe past, so let them also speak to us of our plain duty to the\npresent. True, the great needs are, as I have said, common alike\nto all the generations, to those that pass and those that come; but\nthe lesser needs are variable, and unless we are prepared to take\nthe ground that because \"lesser\" they maybe disregarded altogether,\nwe are bound, with the changed times, to provide for the new wants\nnew satisfactions. Take, simply by way of illustration, the need we\nstand in of an appropriate form of third service for use on Sundays\nin city churches, when Morning and Evening Prayer have been already\nsaid according to the prescribed order.\n\nWhy have we no such service?\n\nSimply because no such need existed in our American cities when the\nPrayer Book, as we have it now, was taking shape, at the close of\nthe last century. Just as no form for the administration of Adult\nBaptism was put into Queen Elizabeth's Prayer Book, simply because\nthe usage of Infant Baptism was universal in that day, and there\nwere no unbaptized adults; but such service was inserted at the\nRestoration to meet the need that had sprung up under the Puritan\nregime; so was it unnecessary in Bishop White's day to provide for\na form of service which has only become practicable and desirable\nsince modern discovery has enabled us to make the public streets\nalmost as safe at night as in the daytime, and church-going as easy\nby gaslight as by sunlight.\n\nNow it is perfectly possible, of course, under the present order of\nthings, and with no change in rubric or canon law, for any clergyman\nto provide an additional service, to provide it in the form of a\nmosaic made up of bits of the liturgy wrenched out of their proper\nplaces, and so irregularly put together that no stranger among the\nworshippers can possibly, with the book in hand, thread his way\namong its intricacies.\n\nBut when we consider how many exquisite gems of devotional speech\nthere are still left outside the covers of the Prayer Book; when we\nconsider how delightful it would be to have back again the\n_Magnificat _, and the _Nunc Dimittis _, and some of the sweet\nversicles of the Evensong of the Church of England; when we consider\nthe lamentable mistake already made in our existing formularies of\nintroducing into Morning and Evening Prayer identically the same\nopening sentences, the same General Exhortation, the same General\nConfession, the same Declaration of Absolution, the same Prayer for\nthe President, and the same General Thanksgiving--is it not evident\nthat an additional, or, if you please, an alternative service,\ncomposed of material not elsewhere employed, would be for the\nworshippers a very great gain? The repetition which wearies is\nonly the repetition which we feel need not have been. We never\ntire of the Collect for Peace any more than we tire of the sunset.\nIt is in its place, and we always welcome it. In a perfect liturgy\nno form of words, except the Creed, the Doxology, and the Lord's\nPrayer, would at any time reappear, but as in arabesque work every\nsquare inch of space differs from every other square, so each clause\nand sentence of the manual of worship would have a distinctive\nbeauty of its own, to be looked for precisely there and nowhere\nelse.\n\nThis is but one illustration of what may be called a possible\nenrichment of our Book of Common Prayer. Impoverishment under\nthe name of revision may very justly be deprecated, but who shall\nfind any just fault with an enrichment that is really such?\n\nWe must remember that the men who gave us what we now have were, in\ntheir day and generation, the innovators, advocates of what the\nmore timid spirits accounted dangerous change. We cannot, I think,\nsufficiently admire the courageous foresight of those Reformers\nwho, at a time when public worship was mainly associated in men's\nminds with what went on among a number of ecclesiastics gathered\ntogether at one end of a church, dared to plant themselves firmly\non the principle of \"common\" prayer, and to say, Henceforth the\nworship of the National Church shall be the worship not of priests\nalone, but of priests and people too. What a bold act it was! The\nprinting-press, remember, although it had given the impulse to the\nReformation, was far from being at that time the omnipresent thing\nit is now; books were scarce; popular education, as we understand\nit, was unknown; there were no means of supplying service-books to\nthe poorer classes (no Prayer Book Societies, like this of yours),\nnor could the books have been used had they been furnished. And yet\nin the face of these seemingly insuperable obstacles, the leaders\nof religious thought in the England of that day had the sagacity\nto plan a system of worship which should involve participation by\nthe people in all the acts of divine service, including the\nadministration of the sacraments.\n\nHere was genuine statesmanship applied to the administration of\nreligion. Those men discerned wisely the signs of their own times.\nThey saw what the right principle was, they foresaw what the art\nof printing was destined in time to accomplish, and they did a\npiece of work which has bravely stood the wear and tear of full\nthree hundred years.\n\nNo Churchman questions the wisdom of their innovations now. Is it\nhopeless to expect a like quickness of discernment in the leaders\nof to-day? Surely they have eyes to see that a new world has been\nborn, and that a thousand unexampled demands are pressing us on\nevery side. If the Prayer Book is not enriched with a view to\nmeeting those demands, it is not for lack of materials. A Saturday\nreviewer has tried to fasten on the Church of England the stigma\nof being the Church which for the space of two centuries has not\nbeen able to evolve a fresh prayer.\n\nIf the reproach were just it would be stinging indeed; but it is\nmost cruelly unjust. In the devotional literature of the Anglicanism\nof the last fifty years, to go no further back, there may be found\nprayers fully equal in compass of thought and depth of feeling to\nany of those that are already in public use. Not to single out\ntoo many instances, it may suffice to mention the prayers appended\nto the book of Ancient Collects edited a few years since by a\ndistinguished Oxford scholar. The clergy are acquainted with them,\nand know how beautiful they are. Why should not the whole Church\nenjoy the happiness of using them?[97] Why is there not the same\npropriety in our garnering the devotional harvest of the three\nhundred years last past that there was in the Reformers garnering\nthe harvest of five times three hundred years?\n\n\"One generation passeth away, another generation cometh.\" I have\nspoken of the present and the past, what now of the future? We\nknow that all things come to an end. What destiny awaits the book\nto which our evening thoughts have been given? That is a path not\nopen to our tread. The cloudy curtain screens the threshold of it.\nStill we may listen and imagine that we hear sounds. What if such\na voice as this were to come to us from the distance of a hundred\nyears hence--a voice tinged with sadness, and carrying just the\nleast suggestion of reproach? \"Our fathers,\" the voice says,\n\"in the last quarter of the last century, forfeited a golden\nopportunity. It was a time of reconstruction in the State, social\nlife was taking on the form it was destined long to retain, a great\nwar had come to an end and its results were being registered, all\nthings were fluent. Moreover, there happened, just then, to be an\nalmost unparalleled lull in the strife of religious parties; men\nwere more disposed than usual to agree; the interest in liturgical\nresearch was at its greatest, and scholars knew and cared more\nthan they have ever done since about the history and the structure\nof forms of prayer. Nevertheless, timid councils prevailed; nothing\nwas done with a view to better adapting the system to the needs of\nsociety, and the hope that the Church might cease to wear the\ndimensions of a sect, and might become the chosen home of a great\npeople, died unrealized. We struggle on, a half-hearted company,\nand try to live upon the high traditions, the sweet memories of our\npast.\"\n\nGod forbid, my friends, that the dismal prophecy come true! We will\nnot believe it. But what, you ask, is the pathway to any such\nbetterment as I have ventured roughly to sketch to-night? I will\nnot attempt to map it, but I feel very confident which way it\ndoes not run. I am sure it does not run through the region of\ndisaffection, complaint, threatening, restlessness, petulance,\nor secession. Mere fretfulness never carries its points. No, the\ntrue way to better things is always to begin by holding on manfully\nto that which we already are convinced is good. The best restorers\nof old fabrics are those who work with affectionate loyalty as\nnearly as possible on the lines of the first builders, averse to\nany change which is made merely for change's sake, not so anxious\nto modernize as to restore, and yet always awake to the fact that\nwhat they have been set to do is to make the building once more what\nit was first meant to be, a practicable shelter.\n\n\n\n\nTHE OUTCOME OF REVISION--A SERMON[98]\n\n\n\" . . . We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth, and\nbuild the house that was builded these many years ago.\"--Ezra v.11.\n\nThis was the reply of the rebuilders of Jerusalem to certain\ncritical lookers-on who would fain be informed by what authority\na picturesque ruin was disturbed. It is a serviceable answer still.\nThere are always those to whom the activity of the Christian Church\nis a standing puzzle. Religion, or at any rate revealed religion,\nhaving, as they think, received its death-blow, the unmistakable\nsigns of life which, from time to time, it manifests take on almost\nthe character of a personal affront. They resent them. What right\nhave these Christians to be showing such a lively interest in their\nvanquished faith? they ask. What business have they to be holding\ncouncils, and laying plans, and acting as if they had some high and\nsplendid effort in hand? Are they such fools as to imagine that\nthey can reconstruct what has so evidently tumbled into ruin?\n\nBut the wonderful thing about this great building enterprise known\nas the kingdom of God is that, from the day when the corner-stone\nwas laid to this day, the workmen on the walls have never seemed to\nknow what it meant to be discouraged. In the face of taunt and\nrebuff and disappointment, they have kept on saying to their\ncritics: \"We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth, and\nbuild the house that was builded these many years ago.\" This is\njust what the Church Council which has been holding its sessions\nin Baltimore during the last three weeks has to say for itself.\nIts task has been an architectural task. According to its lights,\nit has been at work upon the walls of the city of God. Let me give\nyou, as my habit has been under similar circumstances in the past,\nsome account of its doings.\n\nThe General Convention of 1892 will be memorable in our ecclesiastical\nannals for having closed one question of grave moment only to open\na kindred one of still larger reach. The question closed was the\nquestion of liturgical revision; the question opened is the question\nof constitutional revision. I should like to speak to you this\nmorning retrospectively of the one, and prospectively of the other.\n\nIt is now about twenty years since the question of modifying, to\nsome extent, the methods of our public worship began to be mooted.\n\nWhile it was acknowledged that the need was greater in the mother\ncountry than here, many of the repetitions and superfluities of the\nEnglish Church service having been set aside by Bishop White and\nhis compeers in the American Revision of 1789, it was felt that\nfurther improvements were still possible, and that the time had\nfully come for making them. Since the beginning of the so-called\n\"tractarian movement\" in the Church of England a great deal of\nvaluable liturgical material had been accumulating, and it was\ndiscerned that if ever the fruits of the scholarship of such men\nas Palmer and Neale and Maskell and Bright were to be garnered\nthe harvest-day had arrived. To the question often asked why\nit would not have been wiser to wait until the Church of England\nhad led the way and set the pattern, the answer is that the\nhands of the Church of England were tied, as they have been\ntied these many years past, and as they may continue to be tied,\nfor aught we know to the contrary, for many years to come. The\nChurch of England cannot touch her own Prayer Book, whether to\nmend or to mar it, except with the consent of that very mixed\nbody, the House of Commons--a consent she is naturally and properly\nmost loth to ask. Immersed in a veritable ocean of accumulated\nliturgical material, she is as helpless as Tantalus to moisten\nher lips with so much as a single drop. It was seen that this\nfact laid upon us American Churchmen a responsibility as urgent\nas it was unique, viz., the responsibility of doing what we could\nto meet the devotional needs of present-day Christendom, not only\nfor our own advantage, but with a view to being ultimately of\nservice to our Anglican brethren across the sea. An experiment\nof the greatest interest, which for them was a sheer impossibility,\nit lay open to us to try. After various abortive attempts had\ncome to nought, a beginning was at length made in the General\nConvention of 1880, a joint committee of bishops and deputies\nbeing then appointed to consider whether, in view of the fact\nthat this Church was soon to enter upon the second century of\nits organized existence in America, the changed condition of\nthe national life did not demand certain alterations in the Book\nof Common Prayer in the direction of liturgical enrichment and\nincreased flexibility of use.\n\nFew were of the opinion at the time that anything definite would\ncome of the deliberations of this committee, and the fact, never\nbefore publicly stated till this moment, that of the deputies\nappointed to serve upon it the greater number were men who had\nnot voted in favor of the measure, makes it all the more interesting\nto remember that the report, when brought in at Philadelphia\nthree years later, was signed by every member of the committee\nthen living. This Philadelphia report recommended very numerous\nchanges in the direction both of \"flexibility\" and \"enrichment,\"\nand by far the greater number of the recommendations met with the\napproval of the convention. There is, however, a very wise provision\nof our Church constitution, a provision strikingly characteristic\nof the Anglo-Saxon mind, which, by way of making allowance for\nsecond thought, requires that liturgical changes, before being\nfinally adopted, shall run the gauntlet of two successive conventions.\nMuch was accepted at Philadelphia; it remained to be seen how much\nwould pass the ordeal of its second reading at Chicago three years\nlater.\n\nInto the war of words waged over the subject during that interval\nperiod, I have neither the time nor the disposition to carry you.\nThe three years, while they gave opportunity for reaction, also\nallowed space for counter-reaction; so that when, at last, the\nquestion came once more before the Church in council assembled\nwhether the work done at Philadelphia should be approved or\ndisallowed, men's minds had sufficiently recovered balance to\npermit of their exercising discrimination. Accordingly in 1886\nsome things were rejected, some adopted, and some remanded for\nfurther revision. But why should I confuse your minds by an attempt\nto tell in detail the whole story of the movement? No matter how\nclear I might make the narrative it would be difficult to follow\nit, for in the progress of the work there have been surprises many,\nsuccesses and reverses not a few; enough that, at last, the long\nlabor is ended and in this Columbian year the ship comes into port.\n\nAs to results, their number and their quality, opinions will of\ncourse differ. In connection with this, as with all similar\nundertakings, there are many to cry: \"Who will show us any good?\"\nCertainly nothing that could be called a radical change has been\nbrought to pass; but then, is there any reason to suppose that\nradical changes were either sought or desired by those who have\nbeen active in the movement? Certain distinct and indisputable\ngains may be counted up. The recovery of the great Gospel hymns\ncome under this head. There are some of us who think that only to\nhave succeeded in replacing the _Magnificat_ and the _Nunc Dimittis_\nin the Evening Prayer is of itself a sufficient reward for years\nof effort, but this is only a small part of our harvest. The new\nopening sentences for Morning and Evening Prayer, which have so\n\"adorned and beautified\" our observance of great festivals, the\nremodelling of the Ash-Wednesday service, the recovered Feast of\nthe Transfiguration, the various provisions for adapting the\nChurch's worship to the exigencies of times and seasons, the\nincreased freedom in the use of the Psalter, all these go to make\nup an aggregate of betterment the measure of which will be more\nfully understood as time goes on. \"_Parturiunt montes_\" is an easy\nverdict to pronounce; it remains to be proved whether in this case\nit is a just one to render. If there are some (as doubtless some\nthere are) who hold that the sample book presented at Philadelphia\nin 1883, faulty as it confessedly was, is still, all things\nconsidered, a better book for American needs than the standard\nfinally adopted at Baltimore, week before last, if there are some\nwho deeply regret the failure to include among our special offices\none for the burial of little children, and among our prayers\nintercessions for the country, for the families of the land, for\nschools of good learning, for employers and those whom they employ,\ntogether with many other forms of supplication gathered from the\nwide field of English liturgiology--if, I say, there arc some who\nare of this mind they must comfort themselves with the reflection\nthat, after all, they are a minority, that the greater number of\nthose upon whom rested the responsibility of decision did not wish\nfor these additions, and that the things which finally found\nacceptance were the things unanimously desired. For, when we think\nof it, this is perhaps the very best feature of the whole thing,\nlooked at in its length and breadth, that there is no defeated\nparty, no body of people who feel that they have a right to fret\nand sulk because unpalatable changes have been forced upon them by\nnarrow majorities. It is a remarkable fact, that of the many scores\nof alterations effected, it can be truly said that, with rare, very\nrare exceptions, they found, when it came to the decisive vote,\nwhat was practically a unanimous consent. They were things that\neverybody wanted.\n\nAs to the annoyance and vexation experienced by worshippers\nduring the years the revision has been in progress, perhaps the\nvery best thing that can be done, now that the end is so near at\nhand, will be to forget all about it. In a few months, at the\nfurthest, the Prayer Book, in its complete form, will be available\nfor purchase and use, and the hybrid copies which have been so\nlong in circulation, to the scandal of people of fastidious taste,\nwill quickly vanish away. Meanwhile, it is interesting to know\nthat all through this stretch of years while the Prayer Book has\nbeen \"in solution,\" as some have been fond of phrasing it, the\nEpiscopal Church has exhibited a rate of growth quite unparalleled\nin its history.\n\nOf course nobody can say with certainty what has caused the\nincrease. But it is at least conceivable that among the accelerating\nforces has been this very work of liturgical revision. People at\nlarge have been made aware that this Church was honestly endeavoring\nto adapt its system of worship to the needs of our time and country;\nand the mere fact of their seeing this to be the case has served to\nallay prejudice and to foster a spirit of inquiry. Finding us\ndisposed to relax something of our rigidity, they, on their part,\nhave been first attracted, then conciliated, and finally completely\nwon.\n\nI cannot leave this subject without paying a personal tribute\nto a prelate but for whose aid in the House of which he is a\ndistinguished ornament, liturgical revision would, humanly speaking,\nhave long ago come to nought. To the fearlessness, the patience, the\nkindly temper, and the resolute purpose of William Croswell Doane,\nBishop of Albany, this Church for these results stands deeply and\nlastingly indebted. When others' courage failed them, he stood firm;\nwhen friends and colleagues were counselling retreat, and under\ntheir breath were whispering \"Fiasco!\" and \"Collapse!\" his spirit\nnever faltered. He has been true to a great purpose, at the cost of\nobloquy sometimes, and to the detriment even of old friendships.\nSeparated from him by a dozen shades of theological opinion and by\nas many degrees of ecclesiastical bias, I render him here and now\nthat homage of grateful appreciation which every Churchman owes him.\n\nSo much for the ship that has dropped anchor. I have left my self\nbut a few moments in which to say God-speed to the other craft which\nis even now sliding down the ways, ready for the great deep. Put\nperhaps it is just as well. History is always a safer line to enter\nupon than prophecy; and were I to say all that is in my mind and\nheart as to the possibilities of this new venture of faith on the\nChurch's part, constitutional revision, I might be betrayed into\nexpressions of hopefulness which would strike most of you as\noverwrought.\n\nSuffice it to say, that never since the Reformation of Religion\nin the sixteenth century has a fairer prospect been opened to\nthe Church of our affections than is opened to her to-day. No\ninterpretation of the divine purpose with respect to this broad\nland we name America has one-half so much of likelihood as that\nwhich makes our country the predestined building plot for the\nChurch of the Reconciliation.\n\nAll signs point that way. To us, if we have but the eyes to see it,\nthere falls, not through any merit of our own, but by the accident,\nif it be right to use that word, by the accident of historical\nassociation, the opportunity of leadership.\n\nIt is possible for us, at this crisis of our destiny, so to mould\nour organic law that we shall be brought into sympathetic contact\nwith hundreds of thousands of our fellow-countrymen who worship the\nsame God, hold the same faith, love the same Christ. On the other\nhand, it is possible for us so to fence ourselves off from this\nhuge family of our fellow-believers as to secure for our lasting\nheritage only the cold privileges of a proud and selfish isolation.\nThere could be no real catholicity in such a choice as that.\n\nWe have the opportunity of growing into a great and comprehensive\nChurch. We have the opportunity of dwindling into a self-conscious,\nself-conceited, and unsympathetic sect. Which shall it be? With\nthose to whom, under God, the remoulding of our organic law has\nbeen intrusted it largely rests to say.\n\n\nCOMPARATIVE TABLE OF ADDITIONS MADE TO THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER AT\nTHE SEVERAL REVISIONS SINCE 1549.\n\n\n                        1552   1559   1604   1662   1789   1892\nScripture Sentences       11                           8     31\nCollects                                        3      1      3\nEpistles                                        2      1      3\nGospels                                         1      1      3\nOffices                   13                    8      1      1\nPrayers                   15       2     7     18     13      9\nProper Psalms (days)                            2            10\nSelections of Psalms                                  10     10\nCanticles                                              8      2\nVersicles                  4                    3            11\nLitany Suffrages                   1                          1\nCatechetical Questions                  12\nExhortations               3                    2\n\n\n\n\nNOTES\n\nNotes for a Short History of the Book of Common Prayer\n\n[1] First printed in the _American Church Review_, April, 1881.\n\n[2] Much confusion of thought and speech in connection with our\necclesiastical legislation grows out of not keeping in mind the\nfact that here in America the organic genetic law of the Church,\nas well as of the State, is in writing, and compacted into definite\npropositions. We draw, that is to say, a far sharper distinction\nthan it is possible to do in England between what is constitutional\nand what is simply statutory. There is no function of our General\nConvention that answers to the \"omnipotence of Parliament.\" This\ncreative faculty was vacated once for all at the adoption of the\nConstitution.\n\n[3] _Conferences_, p. 461.\n\n[4] _Principles of Divine Service_, vol. i. p. 390.\n\n[5] _Church Quarterly Review_, London, October, 1876.\n\n[6] The votes of the House of Bishops are not reported numerically.\nIn the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies the vote stood as\nfollows: \"Of the Clergy there were 43 Dioceses represented--Ayes,\n33; nays, 9; divided, 1. Of the Laity there were 35 Dioceses\nrepresented--Ayes, 20; nays, 11; divided, 4.\"--_Journal of\nConvention of_ 1880, p. 152.\n\n[7] _Church Eclectic_ for November, 1880.\n\n[8] Remembering the deluge of \"centennial\" rhetoric let loose\nupon the country five years ago, another critic may well feel\njustified in finding in the language of the resolution what he\nconsiders \"an unnecessary _raison d'etre_.\" But it is just possible\nthat centennial changes rest on a basis of genuine cause and effect\nquite independent of the decimal system. A century covers the range\nof three generations, and the generation is a natural, not an\narbitrary division of time. What the grandfather practises the son\ncriticises and the grandson amends. This at least ought to commend\nitself to the consideration of the lovers of mystical numbers and\n\"periodic laws.\"\n\n[9] The real argument against the \"driblet method\" (by which is\nmeant the concession of improvement only as it is actually conquered\ninch by inch) lies in what has been already said about the\nundesirability of frequent changes in widely used formularies of\nworship.\n\nIt may be true, as some allege, that a revision of the Prayer Book\nwould shake the Church, but it is more likely that half a dozen\npatchings at triennial intervals would shatter it. After twenty\nyears of this sort of piecemeal revision, a _variorum_ edition of\nthe Prayer Book would be a requisite of every well furnished pew.\n\nThe late Convention has been twitted with inconsistency on the\nscore of having negatived outright the proposal for a Commission\nto overhaul the Constitution of the Church while consenting to\nsend the Prayer Book to a committee for review. Discernment would\nbe a better word than inconsistency, for although on grounds of\npure theory the Constitution and the Prayer Book seem to stand in\ncorresponding attitudes as respects methods of amendment, in\npractice the difference between the two is very wide. Triennial\nchanges in the letter of the Constitution (and these have often\nbeen made) involve no inconvenience to anybody, for the simple\nreason that that document must of necessity be reprinted with every\nfresh issue of the Journal. Old copies do not continue in use,\nexcept as books of reference, but old Prayer Books do hold their\nplace in parish churches, and the spectacle of congregations trying\nto worship in unison with books some of which contained the reading\nof 1880, others that of 1883, and still others that of 1886 would\nscarcely edify. Theoretically, let it be freely granted, the\n\"driblet method\" of amendment is the proper one for both Prayer\nBook and Constitution, but the fact that the Convention had eyes\nto see that this was a case to which the maxims of pure mathematics\ndid not apply should be set down to its credit, rather than its\ndiscredit.\n\n[10] Reprinted together with a supplementary Letter in the Journal\nof the Convention of 1868.\n\n[11] Dr. Coit's Letter of 1868, also reprinted in Journal of that\nyear.\n\n[12] See _Book of Common Prayer according to the use of King's\nChapel, Boston_. Among the rhetorical crudities of this emasculated\nPrayer Book (from the title-page of which, by the way, the definite\narticle has been with praiseworthy truthfulness omitted) few things\nare worse than the following from the form for the Burial of\nChildren, a piece of writing which in point of style would seem\nto savor more of the Lodge than of the Church: \"My brethren, what\nis our life? It is as the early dew of morning that glittereth for\na short time, and then is exhaled to heaven. Where is the beauty\nof childhood? Where is [sic] the light of those eyes and the bloom\nof that countenance?\" . . . \"Who is young and who is old? Whither\nare we going and what shall we become?\" And yet the author of\nthis mawkish verbiage probably fancied that he was improving upon\nthe stately English of the Common Prayer. It is a warning to all\nwould-be enrichers.\n\n[13] A list of the more noticeable Anglican works on Liturgies\npublished during the period named, arranged in the order of their\nappearance, will serve to illustrate the accuracy of the statement\nmade above, and may also be of value to the general reader for\npurposes of reference.\n\n1832. Origines Liturgicae, William Palmer. 1833-41. Tracts for\nthe Times. 1840. Conferences on the Book of Common Prayer, Edward\nCardwell. 1843. The Choral Service of the Churches of England and\nIreland, John Jebb. 1844. The Ancient Liturgy of the Church of\nEngland, William Maskell. 1845. Pickering's Reprints of the Prayer\nBooks of 1549, 1552, 1559, 1603, and 1662. 1846. Monumenta\nRitualia, William Maskell. 1847. Reliquiae Liturgicae, Peter\nHall. 1848. Fragmenta Liturgica, Peter Hall. 1849. Book of Common\nPrayer with Notes legal and historical, A. J. Stephens. Manuscript\nBook of Common Prayer for Ireland, A. J. Stephens. Tetralogia\nLiturgica, John Mason Neale. 1853. Two Liturgies of Edward VI.,\nEdward Cardwell. 1855. Principles of Divine Service, Philip\nFreeman. History of the Book of Common Prayer, F. Proctor. 1858.\nHistory of the Book of Common Prayer, T. Lathbury. 1859.\nDirectorium Anglicanum, J. Purchas. 1861. Ancient Collects,\nWilliam Bright. 1865. Liber Precum Publicarum, Bright and Medd.\n1865. The Priest's Prayer Book. 1865. History of the Book of Common\nPrayer, R. P. Blakeney. 1866. The Prayer Book Interleaved, Campion\nand Beaumont. 1866. The Annotated Book of Common Prayer, J. H.\nBlunt. 1870. The Liturgy of the Church of Sarum, Translated,\nCharles Walker. 1870. The First Prayer Book of Edward VI. with\nthe Ordinal, Walton and Medd. 1872. Psalms and Litanies, Rowland\nWilliams. 1872. Notitia Eucharistica, W. E. Scudamore. 1875-80.\nDictionary of Christian Antiquities, Smith and Cheetham. 1876.\nFirst Prayer Book of Edward VI., compared with the successive\nRevisions, James Parker. 1877. Introduction to the History of the\nsuccessive Revisions of the Book of Common Prayer, James Parker.\n1878. Liturgies--Eastern and Western, C. E. Hammond. 1880. The\nConvocation Prayer Book.\n\n[14] Tract No. 3. _Thoughts respectfully addressed to the Clergy on\nalterations in the Liturgy_.\n\n[15] One of the most curious illustrations of the spread of\nAnglican ideas about worship now in progress is to be found in\nthe upspringing in the very bosom of Scottish Presbyterianism of\na CHURCH SERVICE SOCIETY. Two of the publications of this Society\nhave lately fallen in the present writer's way. They bear the\nimprint of Wm. Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh, and are entitled\nrespectively, _A Book of Common Order_, and _Home Prayer_. With\nquestionable good taste the compilers have given to the former\nwork a Greek and to the latter a Latin sub-title (_Evxolioyiov_\nand _Suspiria Domestica_). Both books have many admirable points,\nalthough, in view of the facts of history, there is a ludicrous\nside to this attempt to commend English viands to Northern palates\nunder a thin garniture of Scottish herbs which probably has not\nwholly escaped the notice of the compilers themselves.\n\n[16] See _The Guardian_ (London), February 9, 1881.\n\n[17] Unless \"finally to beat down Satan under our feet,\" be\nreckoned an exception.\n\n[18] _Lectures on Justification_, p 380.\n\n[19] The rationale of this curious lapse is simple. The American\nrevisers, instead of transferring the Commination Office _in toto_\nto the new book, wisely decided to engraft certain features of\nit upon the Morning Prayer for Ash-Wednesday. In the process, the\nfifty-first Psalm, which has a recognized place in the Commination,\ndropped out, instead of being transferred, as it should have been,\nto the proper psalms.\n\n[20] See the Convocation Prayer Book.\n\n[21] _Prayer Book Interleaved_, p. 65.\n\n[22] A curious illustration of the sensitiveness of the Protestant\nEpiscopal mind to anything that can be supposed even remotely to\nendanger our doctrinal settlement was afforded at the late General\nConvention, when the House of Deputies was thrown into something\nvery like a panic by a most harmless suggestion with reference to\nthe opening sentences of the Litany. A venerable and thoroughly\nconservative deputy from South Carolina had ventured to say that\nit would be doctrinally an improvement if the tenet of the double\nprocession of the Holy Ghost were to be removed from the third of\nthe invocations, and a devotional improvement if the language of\nthe fourth were to be phrased in words more literally Scriptural\nand less markedly theological than those at present in use. Eager\ndefenders of the faith instantly leaped to their feet in various\nparts of the House, persuaded that a deadly thrust had been aimed\nat the doctrine of the Trinity. Never was there a more gratuitous\nmisconception. The real intrenchment of the doctrine of the\nTrinity, so far as the Litany is concerned, lies in the four\nopening words of the second and the five opening words of the\nthird of the invocations, and these it had not been proposed to\ntouch. In confirmation of this view of the matter, it is pertinent\nto instance the _Book of Family Prayers_ lately put forth by a\nCommittee of the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury.\nThis manual provides no fewer than six different Litanies, all of\nthem opening with addresses to the three Persons of the adorable\nTrinity, and yet in no one instance is the principle advocated by\nthe deputy from South Carolina unrecognized. Every one of the six\nLitanies begins with language similar to that which he recommended.\n[See also in witness of the mediaeval use, which partially bears\nout Mr. McCrady's thought, the ancient Litany reprinted by Maskell\nfrom _The Prymer in English_. Mon. Hit. ii. p. 95.] If the Upper\nHouse of the Convocation of Canterbury, fondly supposed by us\nAnglicans to be the very citadel of sound doctrine, be thus tainted\nwith heresy, upon what can we depend?\n\nPolemical considerations aside, probably even the most orthodox\nwould allow that the invocations of the Litany might gain in\ndevotional power, while losing nothing in august majesty, were\nthe third to run--_O God the Holy Ghost, Sanctifier of the\nfaithful, have mercy upon us miserable sinners_. And the fourth\nas in Bishop Heber's glorious hymn, _Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God\nAlmighty, have mercy upon us miserable sinners_. But all this is\ndoctrinal and plainly _ultra vires_.\n\n[23] A very natural explanation, by the way, of the fact, often\nnoticed, that there is no petition in the Litany for an increase\nof the ministry.\n\n[24] Here, _i_. _e._, in connection with Saints' Day services,\nwould be an admirable opportunity for the introduction into\nliturgical use of the Beatitudes. What could possibly be more\nappropriate? And yet these much loved words of Christ have seldom\nbeen given the place in worship they deserve.\n\nThey do find recognition as an antiphon in the _Liturgy of St.\nChrysostom_. To reassert a usage associated in the history of\nliturgies with the name of this Father of the Church and with his\nname only, would be to pay him better honor than we now show by\nthree times inserting in our Prayer Book the collect conjecturally\nhis--a thing the Golden-mouthed himself, when in the flesh, would\nnot have dreamed of doing. \"Once,\" he would have said, \"is enough.\"\n\n[25] The Priest's Prayer Book has 688 (!!) mostly juiceless.\n\n\n[26] In connection with this clause there sprang up an animated\nand interesting debate in the House of Deputies as to the wisdom\nof thus seeming to cut off every opportunity for extemporary prayer\nin our public services. Up to this time, it was alleged, a liberty\nhad existed of using _after_ sermon, if the preacher were disposed to\ndo so, the \"free prayer\" which _before_ sermon it was confessedly\nnot permitted him to have--why thus cut off peremptorily an\nancient privilege? why thus sharply annul a traditional if not a\nchartered right?\n\nAt first sight this distinction between before and after sermon\nlooks both arbitrary and artificial, but when examined there is\nfound to be a reason in it. The sermon, especially in the case of\nemotional preachers, is a sort of bridge of transition from what\nwe may call the liturgical to the spontaneous mood of mind, and if\nthe speaker has carried his listeners with him they are across\nthe bridge at the same moment with himself. The thing that would\nhave been incongruous before, becomes natural after the minister\nhas been for some time speaking less in his priestly than in his\npersonal character.\n\nThe notion that the points at issue between the advocates of\nliturgical and the advocates of extemporaneous worship can be\nsettled by a promiscuous jumbling together of the two modes, is\na fond conceit, as the Reformed Episcopalians will doubtless confess\nwhen they shall have had time enough to make full trial of the\nfollowing rubrics in their Prayer-book:\n\n_Then shall the Minister say the Collects and Prayers following in\nwhole or in part, or others at his discretion_.\n\n_Here may be used any of the occasional Prayers, or extemporaneous\nPrayer_.\n\nThis is bad philosophy. It need not be said that such directions\nare undevotional--for doubtless they were piously meant; but it\nmust be said that they are inartistic (if the word may be allowed),\nat variance with the fitness of things and counter to the instinct\nof purity. Formality and informality are two things that cannot\nbe mingled to advantage. There is place and time for each. The\nsecret of the power of liturgical worship is wrapped up with the\nprinciple of order. A certain majesty lies in the movement which\nis without break. On the other hand the charm of extemporaneous\ndevotion, and it is sometimes a very real charm, is traceable to our\nnatural interest in whatever is irregular, fresh, and spontaneous.\n\nTo suppose that we can secure at any given time the good effects of\nboth methods by some trick of combination is an error--as well\nattempt to arrange on the same plot of ground a French and an\nEnglish garden. If indeed Christian people could bring themselves\nto acknowledge frankly the legitimacy of both methods and provide\namicably for their separate use, a great step forward in the\ndirection of Church unity would have been achieved; but for a\ncatholicity so catholic as this, public opinion is not yet ripe,\nand perhaps may not be ripe for centuries to come. Those who\nbelieve in the excellency of liturgies, while not believing in\nthem as _jure divino_, would be well content in such a case to\nwait the working of the principle of the survival of the fittest.\n\n[27] The able and fair-minded jurist who first hit upon this\ningenious scheme for patching the Ratification has lately, with\ncharacteristic frankness, said substantially this under his own\nsignature.\n\n\"The proper place for the amendment,\" he writes, \"is at the end\nof the first rubric preceding the sentences of Scripture for both\nMorning and Evening Prayer, after the word Scripture, as everyone\ncan see by looking.\" He adds: \"This, however, is only a question\nof form, and ought not to interfere with the adoption of the\namendment at the next Convention. It is to be hoped that the\nresolution for enrichment, so called, will present a variety of\nadditions out of which an acceptable selection can be made; and\nwhen they are finally carried that the Book of Common Prayer will\nbe not only the standard book, but a sealed book, so to speak, for\nas many generations as have passed since the present book was\nadopted.\"--Letter of the Hon. J. B. Howe of Indiana in _The\nChurchman_ for January 29, 1881.\n\n[28] See page 578 of _Evangelical Catholic Papers_. A collection\nof Essays, Letters, and Tractates from \"Writings of Rev. Wm.\nAugustus Muhlenberg, D. D.\" during the last forty years.\n\nThe failure of this devout and venerated man to secure sundry\nmuch desired liturgical improvements (although it yet remains to\nbe seen whether the failure has been total) was perhaps due to a\ncertain vagueness inherent in his plans of reform. A clear vision\nof the very thing desired seems to have been lacking, or at least\nthe gift of imparting it to others. But even as no man has deserved\nbetter of the American Episcopal Church than he, so it is no more\nthan right that his deeply cherished wishes should be had in\ncareful remembrance.\n\n[29] Now a \"black-letter day\" in the English Calendar.\n\n[30] The Convocation Prayer Book, _in loc_.\n\n[31] Originally only an explanatory rubric. See Procter, p. 397.\n\n[32] Let us hope that before long there may be devised some better\nway of providing relief for our Widows and Orphans than that of\nthe indirect taxation of the singers of hymns.\n\n[33] The Greek Office Books, it is said, fill eighteen quartos.\n\n[34] In that naive and racy bit of English (omitted in our\nAmerican book) entitled _Concerning the Service of the Church_,\none of the very choicest morsels is the following: \"Moreover,\nthe number and hardness of the Rules called the Pie, and the\nmanifold changings of the Service, was the cause, that to turn\nthe Book only was so hard and intricate a matter, that many times\nthere was more business to find out what should be read than to\nread it when it was found out.\"\n\n[35] It may be wise to buttress the position taken with a\nquotation out of Dr. Coit.\n\n\"We really, however, do not see any necessity for either of\nthese Services in American Books, as with us the Ordinal always,\nnow, makes a part of the Prayer Book in all editions. It would\nbe a saving to expunge them and no change would be necessary,\nexcept the introduction of such a litanical petition and suffrage\nwith the Services for Deacons and Priests, as already exists in\nthe Service for Bishops. The Church of England retains the Litany\nin her Ordinal, for that, until latterly, was printed in a separate\nbook, and was not to be had unless ordered expressly. And yet with\neven such a practice she has but one Communion Service. We study\ncheapness and expedition in our day. They can both be consulted\nhere, _salvafide et salva ecclesia_.\"--Report of 1844.\n\n[36] First printed in _The Church Review_, 1886.\n\n[37] The Rev. Dr. Orlando Hutton.\n\n[38] _Priest's Prayer Book_, Fifth edition, pp. 238, 243, 281.\n\n[39] The _Prayer for Imprisoned Debtors_ is believed to be the\nonly formulary actually dropped.\n\n[40] _The Church Quarterly Review_ for April, 1884, and July,\n1884. _The Church Times_ for August 29, 1884; also July 31, August\n7, 14, 21, 28, September 4, 1885. _The Guardian_ for July 20, 1885.\n\n[41] Recall the \"Additional Hymns\" of 1868.\n\n[42] This proposal of arbitration has occasioned so much innocent\nmirth that, in justice to the maker of it, attention should be\ncalled to the ambiguity of the language in which it is couched.\nThe wording of the passage is vague. It is just possible that by\n\"the question\" which he would be content to submit to the judgment\nof the four specified men of letters, he means, not, as he has been\nunderstood to mean, the whole subject-matter of _The Book Annexed_,\nbut only the abstract question whether verbal variations from the\nEnglish original of the Common Prayer be or be not, on grounds of\npurity of style, desirable. Even if this be all that he means there\nis perhaps still room for a smile, but, at all events, he ought to\nhave the benefit of the doubt.\n\n[43] _Discussions and Arguments_, p. 341.\n\n[44] \"The list might be brought down as late as the authorities\npleased to bring it, even to include, if they chose, such names\nas John Keble, James De Koven, and Ferdinand Ewer.\"--_The Church\nTimes_ for August 14, 1885.\n\n[45] This form of absolution suggested as an alternate in _The\nBook Annexed_ is taken from the source mentioned.\n\n[46] The paper read by the Dean of Worcester dealt exclusively\nwith the legal aspects of the question as it concerns the Church\nof England.\n\n[47] The Rev. Edgar Morris Dumbleton (Rector of St. James's,\nExeter).\n\n[48] The Rev. George Venables (Hon. Canon of Norwich and Vicar\nof Great Yarmouth).\n\n[49] The Rev. Arthur James Robinson (Rector of Whitechapel).\n\n[50] See letter of \"J. L. W.\" in _The Southern Churchman_ for\nAugust 6, 1885.\n\n[51] See letter of \"Ritualist\" in _The Standard of the Cross_\nfor July 2, 1885.\n\n[52] See the \"Report of the Committee of the Council of the\nDiocese of Wisconsin,\" _passim_.\n\n[53] The evident intention of the Joint Committee in the\nintroduction of this Canticle was to make it possible to shorten\nthe Morning Prayer on week-days, without spoiling the structure\nof the office, as is now often done, by leaving out one of the\nLessons. It is certainly open to question whether a better\nalternate might not have been provided, but it is surprising to\nfind so well furnished a scholar as the Wisconsin critic speaking\nof the _Benedictus es Domine_ as a liturgical novelty, \"derived\nneither from the Anglican or the more ancient service-hooks.\" As\na matter of fact the _Benedictus es Domine_ was sung daily in the\nAmbrosian Rite at Matins, and is found also in the Mozarabic\nBreviary.\n\n[54] See Wisconsin Report, p. 5.\n\n[55] See the precautions recommended in _The Living Church Annual_\nfor 1886, p. 132, art. \"Tabernacle.\"\n\n[56] In this respect _The Book Annexed_ may be compared to _The\nConvocation Prayer Book_ published by Murray in 1880, for the\npurpose of showing what the English Book would be like if \"amended\nin conformity with the recommendations of the Convocations of\nCanterbury and York, contained in reports presented to her Majesty\nthe Queen in the year 1879.\"\n\n[57] The Report was adopted.\n\n[58] In addition to the Maryland Report we have now a still more\nadmirable one from Central New York.\n\n[59] Strangely enough the Elizabethan period, so rich in genius\nof every other type, seems to have been almost wholly barren of\nliturgical power. Men had not ceased to write prayers, as a stout\nvolume in the Parker Society's Library abundantly evidences; but\nthey had ceased to write them with the terseness and melody that\ngive to the style of the great Churchmen of the earlier reigns so\nsingular a charm.\n\n[60] The liturgical manuscripts of Sanderson and Wren, made\npublic only recently by the late Bishop of Chester, ought to be\nincluded under this head.\n\n[61] Many of these \"Treasuries,\" \"Golden Gates,\" and the like,\nhave here and there something good, but for the most part they\nare disfigured by sins against that \"sober standard of feeling,\"\nthan which, as a high authority assures us, nothing except \"a sound\nrule of faith\" is more important \"in matters of practical\nreligion.\" Of all of them, Scudamore's unpretentious little\n\"Manual\" is, perhaps, the best.\n\n[62] For a _conspectus_ of the various title-pages, see Keeling's\n_Litugiae Britannicae_, London, 1842.\n\n[63] The question of a change in the name of the Church is a\nconstitutional, and in no sense a liturgical question. Let it be\nconsidered at the proper time, and in a proper way, but why thrust\nit precipitately into a discussion to which it is thoroughly\nforeign?\n\n[64] By the Maryland Committee.\n\n[65] This paragraph was written before the author had been\nprivileged to read Prof. Gold's interesting paper in _The\nSeminarian_. It is only proper to say that this accomplished\nwriter and very competent critic does object emphatically to\nthe theory that the opening Sentences are designed to give the\nkey-note of the Service. But here he differs with Blunt, as\nelsewhere in the same paper he dissents from Freeman and from\nLittledale, admirably illustrating by his proper assertion of\nan independent judgment, the difficulty of applying the Vicentian\nrule in liturgical criticism. Such variations of opinion do,\nindeed, make against \"science,\" but they favor good sense.\n\n[66] Chambers's Translation.\n\n[67] This is not to be understood as an acknowledgment that\nthe doctrinal and philological objections to the formulary as\nit originally stood were sound and sufficient. On the lips of\na Church which declares \"repentance\" to be an act whereby we\n\"forsake sin,\" a prayer for time does not seem wholly inappropriate,\nwhile as for this use of the word \"space\" of which complaint was\nmade, it should be noticed that King James's Bible gives us\nnineteen precedents for it; and the Prayer Book itself one.\n\n[68] In _The Book Annexed_, as originally presented, there\nstood in this place the beautiful and appropriate psalm, _Levavi\noculos_. But the experts declared that this would never do, since\nfrom time immemorial _Levavi oculos_ had been a Vesper Psalm, and\nit would be little less than sacrilege to insert it in a morning\nservice, however congruous to such a use the wording of it might,\nto an unscientific mind, appear. Accordingly the excision was made;\nbut upon inquiry it turned out that the monks had possessed a larger\nmeasure of good sense, as well as a better exegesis, than the\nConvention had attributed to them, for _Levavi oculos_, it appears,\nbesides being a Vesper psalm, stood assigned, in the Sarum Breviary,\nto Prime as well; the fact being that the psalm is alike adapted to\nmorning and to evening use, and singularly appropriate both to the\n\"going out\" and the \"coming in\" of the daily life of man.\n\n[69] See p. 6.\n\n[70] \"O Lord, bow thine ear,\" has been suggested as a substitute.\nIt is in the words of Holy Scripture, it is the precise metrical\nequivalent of \"O Lord, save the queen,\" and it is directly\nantiphonal to the versicle which follows.\n\nThere being no Established Church in the United States, it is\ndoubtful whether any prayers for \"rulers\" are desirable, over and\nabove those we already have. And if this point be conceded, the\nother considerations mentioned may be allowed to have weight in\nfavor of \"O Lord, bow thine ear.\"\n\n[71] _The Seminarian_, 1886, pp. 29, 30.\n\n[72] It may be well to throw, into a foot-note a single illustration\nof what might otherwise be thought an extravagant statement. The\nRev. W. C. Bishop, writing in _The Church Eclectic_ for February,\n1884, says:\n\n\"The service of the Beatitudes proposed by the Committee is just\none of 'fancy-liturgy making,' which ought to be summarily rejected.\nWe have more than enough of this sort of thing already; the\ncommandments, comfortable words, _et hoc genus omne_, are anything\nbut 'unique glories' of our Liturgy. Anything of which we have\nexclusive possession is nearly certain to be a 'unique _blunder_,'\ninstead of anything better, because the chances are a thousand to\none that anything really beautiful or edifying would have been\ndiscovered by, and have commended itself to, some other Christians\nin the last two thousand years.\" If such is to be the nomenclature\nof our new \"science,\" Devotion may well stand aghast in the face\nof Liturgies.\n\n[73] See the Commination Office in the Prayer Book of the Church\nof England.\n\n[74] Daniel's _Codex Liturgicus_, vol. iv. p. 343. Quoted in\n_Dictionary of Christian Antiquities_. The translation of makapismoi\nhas been doubted; but Dr. Neale and Prof. Cheetham agree that the\nreference is to the BEATITUDES of the Gospel.\n\n[75] _Church Eclectic_ for April, 1884.\n\n[76] The following will serve as an illustration:\n\n_The Anthem_;\n\nBlessed are the merciful, for they shall get mercy; blessed are the\nclean in the heart, for they shall see God.\n\n_The Versicle_:\n\nLord hear my prayer.\n\n_The Answer_:\n\nAnd let my cry come to thee.\n\n_Let us pray_.\n\nLord Jesu Christ, whose property is to be merciful, which art alway\npure and clean without spot of sin; Grant us the grace to follow\nthee in mercifulness toward our neighbors, and always to bear a\npure heart and a clean conscience toward thee, that we may after\nthis life see thee in thy everlasting glory, which livest and\nreignest God, world without end. _Amen_.\n\n[77] It is interesting and suggestive to observe with how much\nless frequency our attention is called to this paragraph of the\nPreface than to the later one which asserts historical continuity\nwith the Church of England.\n\n[78] _Essays on Liturgiology_, p. 226.\n\n[79] The response proposed by the Commissioners ran, \"Lord have\nmercy upon us, and make us partakers of this blessing,\" a prayer\nunobjectionable for substance, but painfully pedestrian in style.\n\n[80] Notably one in which the responses are all taken from Psalm li.\n\n[81] See Note at the end of this Paper.\n\n[82] _E_. _g_.: \"That it may please thee to send forth laborers\ninto thy harvest, and to have mercy upon all men.\"\n\n[83] See Report, pp. 6-9.\n\n[84] \"Strike it out,\" said the literalist of a certain committee\non hymnody, many years ago, as he and his colleagues were sitting\nin judgment on Watts's noble hymn, \"There is a land of pure delight.\"\n\"Either strike out the whole hymn or alter that word, 'living.'\n\n  \"'Bright fields, beyond the swelling flood,\n   Stand dressed in living green.'\n\nWhat sense is there in '_living_' green? It is the grass that\nlives, not the green.\" Happily the suggestion failed to find a\nseconder. But revisers, whose work is to be passed upon by ballot,\nmay well be shy of idiomatic English. Take such a phrase as,\n\"Now for the comfortless trouble's sake of the needy\"; Lindley\nMurray, were he consulted, would have no mercy on it: and yet a\nmore beautiful and touching combination of words is not to be\nfound anywhere in the Psalter. It is the utter lack of this\nidiomatic characteristic that makes \"Lambeth prayers\" proverbially\nso insipid.\n\n[85] See Report, p. 12.\n\n[86] Quoted in _The Church Eclectic_ for August, 1886.\n\n[87] Prof. Gold in _The Seminarian_, p. 34.\n\n[88] The Rev. Dr. Robert in _The Churchman_ for July 17, 1886,\n\n[89] Specious, because our continuity with the Church life of\nEngland is inestimably precious; impracticable, because there is\nno representative body of the English Church authorized to treat\nwith us.\n\n[90] This Prayer has been gathered from the _Dirige_ in _The\nPrimer set forth by the King's Majesty and his Clergy_, 1545; the\nsame source (it is interesting to note) to which we trace the\nEnglish form of the _Collect for Purity_ at the beginning of the\noffice.\n\n[91] 1 Cor. iii. 9.\n\n[92] Born into life!--man grows\n  Forth from his parents' stem,\n  And blends their bloods, as those\n  Of theirs are blent in them;\n  So each new man strikes root into a far foretime.\n  Born into life!--we bring\n\n  A bias with us here,\n  And, when here, each new thing\n  Affects us we come near;\n  To tunes we did not call our being must keep chime.\n                          _Empedocles on Etna_.\n\n[93] \"Parliaments, prelates, convocations, synods may order forms\nof prayer. They may get speeches to be spoken upward by people on\ntheir knees. They may obtain a juxtaposition in space of curiously\ntessellated pieces of Bible and Prayer Book. But when I speak of\nthe rareness and preciousness of prayers, I mean such prayers as\ncontain three conditions--permanence, capability jot being really\nprayed, and universality. Such prayers primates and senates can no\nmore command than they can order a new Cologne Cathedral or another\nepic poem.\"--_The Bishop of Berry's Hampton Lectures_, lect iv.\n\n[94] The following _catena_ is curious:\n\n\"Salute one another with an holy kiss.\"--Rom. xvi. 10.\n\n\"Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity.\"--1 Pet. v. 14.\n\n\"_And let the bishop salute the church, and say_: Let the peace of\nGod be with you all.\n\n\"_And let the people answer_, And with thy spirit.\n\n\"_And let the deacon say to all_, Salute one another with a holy kiss.\n\n\"_And let the clergy kiss the bishop; and of the laity, the men\nthe men, and the women the women, and let the children stand by\nthe Bema. _\"--_The Divine Liturgy of St. Clement_ (Bretts's\nTranslation, corrected by Neale).\n\n\"_At Solemn High Mass, the deacon kisses the altar at the same\ntime with the celebrating priest, by whom he is saluted with the\nkiss of peace, accompanied by these words_, PAX TECUM.\"--Rubric of\nthe Roman Missal.\n\n\"PAX OR PAXBREDE. A small plate of gold, or silver, or copper-gilt,\nenamelled, or piece of carved ivory or wood overlaid with metal,\ncarried round, having been kissed by the priest, after the Agnus\nDei in the Mass, to communicate the kiss of peace.\"--_Pugin's\nGlossary_.\n\n_St. George's Chapel, Windsor_. \"Item, a fine PAX, silver and gilt\nenamelled, with an image of the crucifixion, Mary and John, and\nhaving on the top three crosses, with two shields hanging on either\nside. Item, a ferial PAX, of plate of silver gilt, with the image\nof the Blessed Virgin.\"--_Dugdale's Monasticon_ quoted in above\nGlossary.\n\n\"Ye who do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, _and are\nin love and charity with your neighbors_, and intend to lead a new\nlife . . . Draw near with faith, and take this holy sacrament to your\ncomfort.\"--Shorter Exhortation in the Communion Office of the Prayer\nBook.\n\n[95] A friend who heard the sermon preached has kindly sent me the\nfollowing apt illustrations. They do not, indeed, come from history\ntechnically so-called, but they report the mind of one to whose eye\nthe whole life of the Middle Ages was as an open book.\n\n\"There was now a pause, of which the abbot availed himself by\ncommanding the brotherhood to raise the solemn chant, _De profundis\nclamavi_\"--_The Monastery_, chap, xxxvii.\n\n\"'To be a guest in the house where I should command?' said the\nTemplar; 'Never! Chaplains, raise the psalm, _Quare fremuerunt\nGentes_? Knights, squires, and followers of the Holy Temple, prepare\nto follow the banner of _Beau-seant_!'\"--_Ivanhoe_, chap. xliv.\n\n[96] So many good things are washed oat of men's memory by the lapse\nof even a quarter of a century that possibly some even of those who\nknew all about the \"Memorial\" in 1852 may be willing to be reminded\nwhat its scope and purpose were.\n\nThe petition was addressed to the bishops \"in council,\" and\nprayed for the appointment of a commission to report upon the\npracticability of making this Church a central bond of union\namong the Christian people of America, by providing for as much\nfreedom in opinion, discipline, and worship as might be held to\nbe compatible with the essential faith and order of the Gospel.\n\nThe desired commission was appointed, Bishops Otey, Doane, A.\nPotter, Burgess, and Williams being the members of it. Their\nReport, subsequently edited in book form by Bishop Potter, is one\nof the most valuable documents of American Church history. The\nfollowing extract from Bishop Burgess' portion of the Report will\nbe read with interest by all who ever learned to revere that\ntheologian for the largeness of his learning, the calmness of his\njudgment, and the goodness of his heart. He has been speaking of\nliturgical changes as contemplated and allowed for by the framers\nof our ecclesiastical system. Then he says:\n\n\"There would seem to be five contingencies in which the changes,\nthus made possible and thus permitted, become also wise and salutary.\n\n\"The first is simply when it is evident that in any respect the\nliturgy or its application may be rendered more perfect. To hazard\nfor this result the safety or unity of the Church may be inexcusable,\nand the utmost certainty may be demanded before a change of\nthis kind shall be practically ventured. But should it be once\nestablished, beyond the smallest doubt, that any addition or\nalteration would increase the excellence or the excellent influence\nof the liturgy in any degree sufficient to compensate or more than\ncompensate for the inconveniences incident to all change, it seems\nas difficult to say that it should not be adopted by the Church,\nas to excuse any Christian from adding to his virtues or his\nusefulness.\n\n\"The other 'contingencies' recognized are briefly these:\n\n\"(2) When in process of time words or regulations have become\nobsolete or unsuitable.\n\n\"(3) When civil or social changes require ecclesiastical changes.\n\n\"(4) When the earnest desire of any respectable number of the\nmembers of the Church, or of persons who are without its communion,\nis urged in behalf of some not wholly unreasonable proposal of\nalteration.\n\n\"(5) When error or superstition has been introduced; when that\nwhich was at first good and healthful has been perverted to the\nnourishment of falsehood or wickedness; or when that which was\nalways evil has found utterance, and is now revealed in its true\ncharacter.\"\n\nThe Memorial failed for the reason that the promoters of it had not\na clearly defined notion in their own minds of what they wanted--the\nsecret of many failures. Out of its ashes there may yet rise,\nhowever, \"some better thing\" that God has kept in store.\n\n[97] _Ancient Collects and Other Prayers selected for Devotional\nUse from Various Rituals_. By William Bright, M. A. J. H. & Jas.\nParker, Oxford and London.\n\nFrom the Appendix I take the following illustrations of the\nstatement ventured above:\n\n\"_For Guidance_--O God, by whom the meek are guided in judgment,\nand light riseth up in darkness for the godly; grant us in all our\ndoubts and uncertainties the grace to ask what thou wouldest have\nus to do; that the Spirit of wisdom may save us from all false\nchoices, and that in thy light we may see light, and in thy straight\npath may not stumble: through Jesus Christ our Lord.\n\n\"_For those who live in sin_.--Have mercy, O compassionate Father,\non all who are hardened through the deceitfulness of sin; vouchsafe\nthem grace to come to themselves, the will and power to return to\nthee, and the loving welcome of thy forgiveness through Jesus Christ\nour Lord.\n\n\"_For all who do the work of the Church_.--O Lord, without whom\nour labor is but lost, and with whom thy little ones go forth as the\nmighty, be present to all works in thy Church which are undertaken\naccording to thy will, and grant to thy laborers a pure intention,\npatient faith, sufficient success upon earth, and the bliss of\nserving thee in heaven, through Jesus Christ our Lord.\n\n\"_For grace to speak the Truth in love_.--O Lord and Saviour Jesus\nChrist, who earnest not to strive nor cry, but to let thy words\nfall as the drops that water the earth: grant all who contend\nfor the faith once delivered, never to injure it by clamor and\nimpatience, but speaking thy precious truth in love, so to present\nit that it may be loved, and that men may see in it thy goodness\nand thy beauty: who livest and reignest with the Father and the\nHoly Ghost, one God, world without end.\"\n\nBoth as regards devotional flavor and literary beauty these prayers\nwill, I feel sure, be judged worthy, by such as will read them more\nthan once, to stand by the side certainly of many of the collects\nalready in the Prayer Book.\n\n[98] Preached in Grace Church, N. Y., on the Twentieth Sunday after\nTrinity, that being the Sunday next following the adjournment of the\nGeneral Convention of 1892.","title":"A Short History of the Book of Common Prayer","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":66094}