King (Charles II), came together1-Canterbury in regular session, and York represented by proxies-authorized to "review" the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal, "comparing the same with the most "ancient liturgies which have been used in the Church "in the primitive and purest times," and to "make "such alterations and additions in said books as to "them seemed meet and convenient" ("Cardwell's Conferences," p. 300).

The Convocations, after completing their revision, sent the book, in the form it has ever since retained, to Parliament, with the approval of the King. The Parliament then passed a statute making the book thus prepared the law of the realm; and by this concurrent action of the Church and the State the services and ritual which this book contains are now "set forth" as those which only may be used in any public worship of the Church. The statute says (§ 17), "No form or order of common prayer, administration of "Sacraments, etc., shall be openly used in any church, "etc., other than what is prescribed and appointed to be "used in and by the said book;" and as one of its reasons for requiring this "universal agreement in the "public worship of God," it had previously declared "that it was "to the intent (§ 2) that every person "within this realm may certainly know the rule to which "he is to conform in public worship."

Thus, whether we take the language of the various Acts of the Church or Parliament in reference to the

1 Lathbury's "History of the Convocation,” p. 286.

Parker's "Introduction to the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 430.” Joyce's "Acts of the Church," p. 219.

appointed services of the Prayer Book, or the application of these Acts by the bishops and clergy of the Church from the time of the Reformation down, we shall find that the law of worship of the English clergy does not allow them to introduce into their services the ritual of the "Sarum use," or any other "use" of the ante-Reformation periods, nor any of the disused ceremonials connected with these rituals.

Dr. Lee, in "The Directorium Anglicanum," has indeed constructed a sort of mongrel service, composed of bits and patches from any of the offices, ancient or modern, that chanced to please his fancy; and he claims as his warrant for this incongruous production that "what was not specifically, legally and actually abolished in the sixteenth century is still in force," the "Ritual of the Altar"2 prepared by Mr. Orby Shipley while he was yet in the communion of the Church of England, as his conception of the proper mode in which the English clergy should perform the communion service, is also based on the same principle, and sundry lesser lights have followed their example and framed like fantastic services for their own use, which they too think to justify by a like assumption.

But whatever weight, if any, may be due to this assertion, it cannot avail as a ground on which the clergy may bring back again the ritual of any of the pre

1"The Directorium Anglicanum," by the Rev. George Frederick Lee, D.C.L., F.S.A., Vicar of All Saints, Lambeth, 4th edition, p. 44. 2" Ritual of the Altar," by Rev. Orby Shipley.

To be sure Mr. Shipley has given a very emphatic illustration of the real significance of the principles of this school by connecting himself since the publication of his work with the Church of Rome.

Reformation diocesan "uses" into the performance of the present offices, for the preceding evidence has shown: 1. That the distinct purpose of Church and Parliament alike was that there "should be BUT ONE USE throughout the whole realm," and this must be the forms and ceremonies "mentioned and set forth" in the Book of Common Prayer. 2. In order the more effectually to enforce this law, and because certain persons would still resort to some of these old usages, it was ordered both by statute and royal injunction, that ALL the BOOKS and WRITINGS which contained any of the former services and ritual whatsoever were to be "utterly and clearly abolished, extinguished and forbidden ever to be used or kept in this realm." 3. And this ordinance was so universally and strictly carried out by the BISHOPS AND OTHER OFFICERS OF THE CHURCH, that it has been a matter of great difficulty ever since to find even a few perfect copies of them in all England for reference and consultation by students who were interested in that branch of learning (Maskell). 4. Along with this, and as the legal and intended substitute in place of what was thus done away, the Prayer Book as it was from time to time set forth was given to the Church with the always repeated command that the services therein appointed were to be used as therein "mentioned," and described, and that nothing “should be either added to or diminished" from any of them. 5. That accordingly, ALL the pre-Reformation services as contained in their several uses, except those contained in the Prayer Book and in the manner therein appointed, were "specifically, legally and actually abolished in the sixteenth century," hence are not "in

force," do not "remain as a part of the Church's lawful inheritance."

If the right thus to restore the "abolished" forms of the medieval English "use," in whole or in part, does not belong to the clergy of the Church of England, and has not at any time been theirs through all the centuries since the first revision of the services in the reign of Edward VI (1549), we cannot have derived it from them. Hence we have no authority in the historical facts of the case, and certainly none from the acts of our own National Church, to assume that such a power inheres in our clergy of to-day.

It is well that we revive and study these memorable voices from the past, that we read the words and know the manner in "which our fathers have declared the noble work thou, O Lord, didst in their days and in the old time before them." It is well to imbibe into our hearts and lives all they have of fervor, of devotion, of lofty aspiration, of high spiritual truth, and they have much of all these remaining in them, even after the large portions of their best thoughts which we have preserved in our offices and interwoven through every fibre of our spiritual life.

It is better still to go farther back, nearer the Divine source and author of "the faith once for all delivered to the saints," to drink deep of those earlier forms, the liturgies of the Apostolic ages, the departure from which was the beginning of the sore evils which in the after centuries made the Reformation a vital necessity, if the true Gospel was to be kept alive among men, and the spirit, the thought which pervaded those primal offices of its Divine service was to be preserved as a living power in the world.

They were the rich outpourings of the devotional life of the Church while the very words of the Apostles were yet fresh in its heart; utterings of both the worship and the truth of the Church, while these were still aglow with the Spirit of the Pentecost. And it is one of the chief glories of the Church of England, in which we also as one of her branches have a share, that she finds in these early days, and these grand monuments of Apostolic truth, the standard to which, in dependence on the light of Holy Scripture, she has endeavored to conform all her services and all her authoritative teaching, and the test by which she seeks, and wishes all her children to "try all things and hold fast that which is good."

But whatever of love or admiration we may have for these ancient forms, whether in themselves or as remains of a past which had in it so much that was good and great; and however much we may, if we are earnest ought to bring their truths before the minds of our people, and endeavor to make their thoughts familiar with all that is true and wise in them, the only question with which, in the actual service of the priest at the altar, we practically have to do is, "What Is the Law to which we, as members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, have promised obedience, and what are the ordinances of 'doctrine and Sacraments' which we have vowed 'always to minister?""

It is not consistent with the purpose of these lectures to go into the details of special Rubrics, nor to discuss the minute questions of ritual law which may be raised concerning them; hence we must leave all