Part 17 (1/2)

[40] _The Church Quarterly Review_ for April, 1884, and July, 1884. _The Church Times_ for August 29, 1884; also July 31, August 7, 14, 21, 28, September 4, 1885. _The Guardian_ for July 20, 1885.

[41] Recall the ”Additional Hymns” of 1868.

[42] This proposal of arbitration has occasioned so much innocent mirth that, in justice to the maker of it, attention should be called to the ambiguity of the language in which it is couched.

The wording of the pa.s.sage is vague. It is just possible that by ”the question” which he would be content to submit to the judgment of the four specified men of letters, he means, not, as he has been understood to mean, the whole subject-matter of _The Book Annexed_, but only the abstract question whether verbal variations from the English original of the Common Prayer be or be not, on grounds of purity of style, desirable. Even if this be all that he means there is perhaps still room for a smile, but, at all events, he ought to have the benefit of the doubt.

[43] _Discussions and Arguments_, p. 341.

[44] ”The list might be brought down as late as the authorities pleased to bring it, even to include, if they chose, such names as John Keble, James De Koven, and Ferdinand Ewer.”--_The Church Times_ for August 14, 1885.

[45] This form of absolution suggested as an alternate in _The Book Annexed_ is taken from the source mentioned.

[46] The paper read by the Dean of Worcester dealt exclusively with the legal aspects of the question as it concerns the Church of England.

[47] The Rev. Edgar Morris Dumbleton (Rector of St. James's, Exeter).

[48] The Rev. George Venables (Hon. Canon of Norwich and Vicar of Great Yarmouth).

[49] The Rev. Arthur James Robinson (Rector of Whitechapel).

[50] See letter of ”J. L. W.” in _The Southern Churchman_ for August 6, 1885.

[51] See letter of ”Ritualist” in _The Standard of the Cross_ for July 2, 1885.

[52] See the ”Report of the Committee of the Council of the Diocese of Wisconsin,” _pa.s.sim_.

[53] The evident intention of the Joint Committee in the introduction of this Canticle was to make it possible to shorten the Morning Prayer on week-days, without spoiling the structure of the office, as is now often done, by leaving out one of the Lessons. It is certainly open to question whether a better alternate might not have been provided, but it is surprising to find so well furnished a scholar as the Wisconsin critic speaking of the _Benedictus es Domine_ as a liturgical novelty, ”derived neither from the Anglican or the more ancient service-hooks.” As a matter of fact the _Benedictus es Domine_ was sung daily in the Ambrosian Rite at Matins, and is found also in the Mozarabic Breviary.

[54] See Wisconsin Report, p. 5.

[55] See the precautions recommended in _The Living Church Annual_ for 1886, p. 132, art. ”Tabernacle.”

[56] In this respect _The Book Annexed_ may be compared to _The Convocation Prayer Book_ published by Murray in 1880, for the purpose of showing what the English Book would be like if ”amended in conformity with the recommendations of the Convocations of Canterbury and York, contained in reports presented to her Majesty the Queen in the year 1879.”

[57] The Report was adopted.

[58] In addition to the Maryland Report we have now a still more admirable one from Central New York.

[59] Strangely enough the Elizabethan period, so rich in genius of every other type, seems to have been almost wholly barren of liturgical power. Men had not ceased to write prayers, as a stout volume in the Parker Society's Library abundantly evidences; but they had ceased to write them with the terseness and melody that give to the style of the great Churchmen of the earlier reigns so singular a charm.

[60] The liturgical ma.n.u.scripts of Sanderson and Wren, made public only recently by the late Bishop of Chester, ought to be included under this head.

[61] Many of these ”Treasuries,” ”Golden Gates,” and the like, have here and there something good, but for the most part they are disfigured by sins against that ”sober standard of feeling,”

than which, as a high authority a.s.sures us, nothing except ”a sound rule of faith” is more important ”in matters of practical religion.” Of all of them, Scudamore's unpretentious little ”Manual” is, perhaps, the best.

[62] For a _conspectus_ of the various t.i.tle-pages, see Keeling's _Litugiae Britannicae_, London, 1842.

[63] The question of a change in the name of the Church is a const.i.tutional, and in no sense a liturgical question. Let it be considered at the proper time, and in a proper way, but why thrust it precipitately into a discussion to which it is thoroughly foreign?

[64] By the Maryland Committee.