amplified, but not deformed.* Thus each successive contrast demonstrates more effectually its present excellence, and shows that from the first tentative step in the direction of Protestantism in liturgical reform, the issue of the Order of the Communion in 1548, down to those last amendments of the final revision which gave us our Prayer Book'as we have it to-day, the progress of alteration has been steadily away from Rome and Ritualism, and almost uniformly towards simplicity and Protestant purity. If Churchmen would know what they now have, let them more clearly understand what they once had. The constrast will make an impression upon the mind that can never be effaced. In the face, then, of these facts, and considering the state of the Church as a whole, it seems to me that it is the wisdom of Protestant Churchmen to be content with the Prayer Book they have, and in the shape they have it. Tampering at present would not only be inexpedient and unnecessary, but it would be dangerous. We have in the Book of Common Prayer all that fair-minded Churchmen and conscientious Christians can demand: a Protestant and scriptural Prayer Book. Imperfect, confessedly, on some points; but the points are of such comparative unimportance that every liberal and thoughtful Protestant must infinitely prefer their retention to the possibility of the introduction of more serious errors. And it is certain that were any revision attempted, the tendency at present would be to introduce changes of a retrograde character. Within the last thirty years, the leaven of a soi-disant Catholicism has spread through the ranks of the clergy with incredible rapidity, and to a most alarming degree. Doctrines that twenty-five or thirty years ago were regarded as infallible indications of a tendency to Rome are to-day held by thousands as the true, and, in fact, the only, teaching of the Church. Men who, thirty years ago, were denounced in most scathing language by bishops of most pronounced High Church opinions, are to-day the Gamaliels and Mentors of nearly all the clergy who hold these same views. To-day thousands in the Church of England openly scout the notion that the advocacy of the sacrificial character of the Lord's Supper, sacramental absolution, and auricular confession, indicates any real tendency to Rome. Thousands hold these doctrines most implicitly who deny that the effect of either their ritual or teachings is to lead any nearer to the Church of Rome; they even go to the length of saying that these men are the men who are the most successful and conscientious opponents of Romish teaching. But thirty years ago it was not so. The doctrines which to-day are held as bonâ fide doctrines of the Anglican Church were, in those days, taken to indicate a bona fide tendency to Rome. I suppose that the late Bishop Wilberforce may be taken as a representative exponent of the High Anglican school of theology: indeed, he himself claimed to be of the school of Andrewes, and other High Churchmen. Let Bishop Wilberforce, then, be our witness. In a letter written not thirty years ago, in his capacity as Bishop of Oxford, he gives his definition of what should be considered as bona fide Romanizing tendencies: "By bona fide Romanizing tendencies in the Church, I mean the revival of a system of auricular confession, sacramental absolution, the sacrificial character of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the denial of justification by faith," &c. (Life of Bishop Wilberforce, p. 195.*) Here we have four distinct marks or notes of the Romanizing system : First, the revival of a system of auricular confession. *Dutton & Co., New York. Third, of the sacrificial character of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Fourth, the denial of justification by faith. That classification is eminently satisfactory. It is at once descriptive and comprehensive. Loyal Churchmen, the world over, would agree that each of these separately, and all together, are distinct evidences of a departure from the faith of the Church of England in the direction of Rome. Those four marks will stand. But so steady and subtle has been the advance of these Tridentine, or so-called "Catholic" principles, that there are multitudes of clergy who are led to believe that there is no necessary connection between the holding of these doctrines and a tendency Rome-wards. Now, these doctrines are held to be essentially "Anglo "-Catholic, and the men who hold them are strong in the Church. The only dogmas the holding of which would indicate a Romish tendency would be the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, and the temporal headship of the Pope. The fact is indisputable-the most extreme members of the party themselves do not deny it-eminent authorities in the Roman Church admit it-the tide is set in the current of High Anglican doctrine, and is rising fast; so fast that, in the event of any attempted anthoritative revision of the Prayer Book, changes might be made that would be most disastrous. They would probably restore the word "altar," and thus get Prayer Book authority for using a word now largely though unlawfully employed. They would insert the word "sacrifice." They would doubtless expunge the post-Communion rubric. They would probably exchange the long-disused and doubtfully legal, if not thoroughly illegal, Ornaments Rubric for a law binding all the clergy.* See Appendix on the so-called Ornaments Rubric, p. 201. They would, in fact, if their leaders and mouthpieces are qualified exponents of the views of their school, assimilate the Prayer Book, as far as possible, to the Prayer Book of the Scottish Episcopal Church; nay, the great majority, if the statement of the President of the English Church Union is correct, would be satisfied with nothing less than a return to the First Prayer Book of Edward VI., or, at least, liberty to perform its ceremonies, and employ its usages, without scruple of conscience, or defiance of ecclesiastical law. Nay, more. One of the organs of the "Catholic party," the Church Review, boldly declared lately: "The thing which English Catholics have in hand. at present, and are likely to have in hand, as their principal work, for at least one generation to come, is the restoration of the altar, the re-establishment of the Mass in its seat of honour as the sun and centre of Christian worship. Till this great work has progressed much further than it has at present, it would be waste of time to emphasise too strongly doctrines of great importance, indeed, but of less importance than that of the Eucharistic sacrifice. But unless the Catholic revival is to come to an untimely end— a catastrophe which there is no reason faithlessly to anticipate the future will see in our restored public worship unmistakable marks of the belief of the Christian Church in the efficacy of the intercessions poured forth by the blessed Mary, and all saints, at the Throne of Grace, and of our real communion (that is, mutual union) with them in the acts which we perform as members of the one body of Christ." What, then, are the blemishes upon our Prayer Book that are of such tremendous consequence as to risk the almost certain introduction of deadlier and deeper stains? The question is not whether there are matters which might not rightly be altered, words which might not be expunged, explanatory clauses which might not safely be added, for upon this I think all Churchmen are fairly agreed; but whether the risk depending on retaining them as they are is sufficient to counterbalance the risk of changing them for something else? We think it is. The errors are few, and the risk of retention is proportionately small, for the body of the Book, on the whole, is sound. But the risk of change is fearfully great. So widespread is the leaven of the Trentine party, traditionalism, and ceremonialism, that we can be sure that the number of changes which would be agreeable to the Protestant evangelical would be vastly outnumbered by changes which would make the Prayer Book of our Reformers agreeable to the Anglo-Catholics and Tractarians of to-day. "Let well alone" was the motto of one of England's greatest statesmen; and rather than imperil the Protestantism of our Prayer Book and Church by such a rash and dubious requisition as an authoritative revision, I would say: Let our Prayer Book stand as it is; the monument of the invincible Protestantism of our glorious Reformers; the most admirable and matchless of all standards of worship; the most scriptural of all formularies of public devotion; Churchly enough for the most conservative Churchman; evangelical enough for the most evangelical; and in its practical removal from all Popish superstitions, Protestant enough for the most ardent Protestant. A few words in conclusion. What end our blessed Lord has in view in permitting the present strifes and divisions in His Church, we do not know. Why He has allowed a party to gain such mischievous predominance within the last thirty or forty years, as to uproot much of the good effects of the glorious Reformation, we cannot understand. The external signs of abatement in the waters of the prevailing floods of Trentinism are, to human |