just when the soil is stirred, but which plainly prove the flame. of holy zeal at work within. Here are Bishop and Clergy wearily plodding over icy no-roads, scrambling through forest and tangled briers breast high, rowing boats, sailing through fog and sleet, spending nights and days amidst the rocks, stooping to the commonest domestic offices for each other, dwelling in hovels not weather-tight, (and this in a country of seven months' ice and snow,) braving hunger and thirst, lack of raiment and lack of friends, alone in the waste howling wilderness, with only the contemplation of the Cross to instrengthen them, and all, as though it were a matter-of-course, common, every-day thing, just simply their work, and nothing else. We care not to confess that, if all this is not the saintly temper, and this the Apostolic life, such never existed in the Christian world, or in any age, or branch, of the Church. And it is to mar this fair work, and to introduce confusion where all might be peace and duty,- it is to pluck up the Cross just planted on Labrador itself, the latest and sharpest triumph of the English Church,-that we are summoned to a new Evangelical League, under Islington auspices, and at the call of the Vicar of Islington and the Vicar of Cheltenham.

509

NOTICES.

THE Bishop of S. Andrew's, undeterred by the outcry which has been raised against the Scotch Prayer-book, has authorized Hymns and Anthems for the holy Service of the Church,' (Lendrum,) within his Diocese. It makes the first approach we have yet seen in our Communion to a Proprium Sanctorum for the Lesser Saints. Thus, not only have all the black letter days, in the prefixed Calendar, a reference given to the Common of Martyrs, Bishops, Virgins, Holy Women, or Confessors, but S. Columba, S. Palladius, and S. Ninian, have hymns of their own. (In S. Ninian's hymn we perceive that' dear' is a misprint for 'drear.') There are about one hundred and thirty hymns in all, the majority imitations rather than translations of those in the Roman and Paris Breviary. We also notice some from other quarters: as the Alleluia, dulce carmen. On the whole, the translations are very good. We meet here and there with some vulgarisms, as 'Come, let's adore the gracious hand;' and some hymns that certainly were better away, as that beginning, 'Let others take their course;' and a good many contortions, as 'Thou dost us here in mercy spare.' But this does not detract from the general merit. We wish, as we had occasion to say before, that the Latin metre had been retained in the translations; and that our poets would remember that half the original beauty is lost, unless the original melody can be employed. But here, the exquisitely graceful and triumphant Ad regias Agni dapes cannot be used for, 'At the Lamb's high feast we sing;' and so in many other instances. The order of the book is-the Hebdomadal Hymus: two Matins and one Evening, for the ordinary week-days: -then the Proper of Time, the Common of Saints, and the Proper of Saints; the whole followed by Prose Anthems, arranged also according to time. We have criticised one or two little flaws in the poetry of the book; but the high sacramental character of its theology is worthy of those wonderful hymns which it endeavours to familiarize to the Scotch Churchmen. We must not forget to add, that the profits of the book, after the united Dioceses are supplied gratis, go to S. Ninian's Cathedral at Perth: a work, indeed, commanding our most earnest good wishes.

'Hymnale secundum usum insignis ac præclaræ Ecclesiæ Sarisburiensis. Accedunt Hymni quidam secundum usus matris Ecclesiæ Eboracensis et 'insignis Ecclesiæ Herford.' This is a Littlemore reprint, and creditable both to the editor and publisher. A Sarum hymnal is exceedingly convenient for the English student, not so much from any rarity or peculiarity in the hymns themselves,-for out of about one hundred and fifty hymns which the present volume contains, very few are not given, in a slightly altered form, in the Roman Breviary,—but because it of course preserves the original reading, uncorrupted by the emendations of the literati of Urban VIII. Accessit Latinitas, recessit pietas, was the cry at the time. But this is not all. The chains of metre, which the Church had deliberately cast away, were again forced upon her, and the free bold thoughts of medieval poets cramped into pseudo-Latinity. It was this adulterated edition of the Roman Hymns which Mr. Newman, some years ago, reprinted. To these he added almost all those of the Sarum and York Breviaries, which differ from the Roman. Of Sarum Hymns, not common to the Roman use, the gem is NO. LXX.-N.S.

L L

Lætabundus: which Salisbury was peculiar in using as a hymn, rather than what it is, a sequence. Collaudemus Magdalenæ also possesses great beauty; it is one of the few which seem of English origin. Why parts of those of Ven. Bede's did not find their way into our Breviaries, especially that of York, it is hard to say; some of his, especially that of the Holy Innocents, are truly exquisite. With respect to the editor's part, we rather doubt the propriety of retaining absolute errors, because they had crept into the English Breviaries. Thus, in the great hymn of S. Thomas, we have In suprema noctis cœná, instead of In supremæ nocte cœnæ ; in that of Prudentius, Cultor Dei memento, we have Christus hic est, liquesce, instead of Hic Christus est, liquesce; in the Urbs beata Hierusalem, we read, Præparata ET sponsata Copuletur Domino, instead of ut. In the glorious Vexilla Regis, the unintelligible second verse, Confixa clavis, &c., is in all Sarum Breviaries retained. But we doubt, nevertheless, if it were in common English use, because in the very curious song on the death of Piers Gaveston, beginning, 'Vexilla Regis prodeunt, Fulget cometa comitum; Comes dico Lancastriæ, Qui domuit indomitum,' it is omitted. With regard to the theology of the hymns, we cannot help quoting the very neat conclusion of the preface:'Quod idem observatum sit in invocationibus cæterisque hujusmodi, de quibus ut cuique visum fuerit judicandum est, vel etiam, si placuerit, nulla omnino sententia ferenda. Pie certe interpretanda sunt quæ tantæ pietatis imaginem præ se ferunt.'

'A Letter to the Right Reverend the Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway. By a Scotch Presbyter. Edinburgh.' (Grant.) The author of this letter, which is very well written, is one of the few who, without any tendencies to Rome, is yet not afraid to look our difficulties in the face. He points out the fallacy of those comparisons which have been drawn between the straits to which the Church has been reduced in former times, e. g., by the Robbers' Meeting at Ephesus, and the Councils of Rimini and Seleucia, and our own position. The Scottish Presbyter gives some modern comparisons more completely to the point, and not quite so favourable to ourselves. In the question of mixed marriages, the Archbishop of Posen defied the King of Prussia, and was committed to prison for refusing to obey the Royal Mandate. On the same question the Archbishop of Cologne asserted his spiritual authority, in defiance of the King's decree, and died in the prison to which he was sent for his refusal. In the Gallican Church, M. de Bonald has not unfrequently resisted the unjust encroachments of the State, and, in the Education Scheme, has successfully opposed the Republican Government of France; and more recently, in Sardinia, the Archbishop of Turin refused to give the last offices of religion to a Minister of State under ecclesiastical censure, and, I believe, has been imprisoned for the act."

The edition of the Scotch Prayer-book, authorised by the Bishop of S. Andrew's, which we noticed with so much thankfulness in our last number, has given rise to an important controversy in Scotland. We regret to learn that a majority of both Bishops and Clergy have pronounced against it; but under circumstances which give little weight to their judgment. The Bishops judged it for the first time without having had time to examine the book further than by a cursory glance as they sat in Synod; and the result was a sentence against the publisher, such as is

unknown in modern times, and we believe questionable at common law. The Diocesan Synods seem to have acted with equal haste; though we must do all parties the justice to say that,-so far as we have heard,they condemned nothing in the book beyond the title page, which certainly contains an oversight difficult to defend. The last act of the Episcopal Synod-the Bishop of Brechin, if report speak true, protestinghas been to determine on issuing a strong Pastoral Letter to the Clergy and people, a milder communication to the Archbishop of Canterbury, (who has about as much to do with the matter as the Metropolitan of Moscow,) and a gentlemanly letter to the Bishop of S. Andrew's himself. Here we have that old Collegiate spirit, which is for ignoring diocesan Episcopacy, and exalting the Synod into a sort of aristocratical Papacy. We rejoice to hear that the Venerable Bishop of S. Andrew's addressed a temperate and judi-` cious memorial to his Episcopal brethren, declining to allow the matter to be taken up by way of appeal,-the only method in which it could properly come before them,-and admonishing them, that they would best consult their own credit and the peace of the Church by recalling their former hasty resolution. The real author of the disunion is the Warden of Trinity College, Glenalmond. He, according to his own showing, obtained a copy from the publisher before publication, and sent it with all haste to the Bishop of Glasgow, who, it will be remembered, had till very recently been a priest in a southern English county, and was, therefore, necessarily without experience in the Scotch Church. The Bishop espoused the Warden's side. Mr. Wordsworth then, not content with attacking the Prayer Book in his own Diocesan Synod, commenced a series of letters to the Guardian. The tone, manner, and argument of these productions, a real respect for Mr. Wordsworth's former services alone prevents us from characterising as they deserve. The history of the Prayer Book, which Mr. Wordsworth has sadly misrepresented, is briefly this. One of the Clergy of the Diocese of S. Andrew's, feeling the difficulty of following an use in which his people could not so fully join, suggested to the Bishop the propriety of authorising an edition of the Scotch Prayer Book, with rubrics containing the acknowledged use of the Scotch Church. The venerable Prelate, after some demur, agreed to do so if petitioned by a majority of the Diocese. On occasion of an ordination, such a petition was actually adopted by all the Clergy then present, who formed exactly a majority of those licensed in the diocese. And it was then expressly stated that the Book, when published, was not to be forced on the individual use of any clergyman. It was distinctly understood that those who had used the Scotch Office before, would use it still; only with practices now no longer traditional, but rubrical. The Bishop then went over the book with the priest who had first proposed the edition,―gave him a rough draft of the additions which he thought necessary,—and' ordered him to return a fair copy of these for his further inspection. This was done in the following May. The Bishop, in July, returned the copy with some additional corrections, and his imprimatur, requiring, at the same time, that such of the proofs should be sent to him as contained any of his corrections. And not till all this labour had been expended on revision did the book appear. We are thus minute, because Mr. Wordsworth, to mask his attack on the Bishop, has untruly represented the book as the composition of others; and has thought it right to suggest that fail

ing years and faculties alone induced the Prelate to give his imprimatur. The points in the Prayer Book chiefly objected to by Mr. Wordsworth and his companions are these:-1. The expression in the title page, according to the use of the Church of Scotland; that being, they say, the legal title of the Establishment. We shall certainly not answer such an argument; and Mr. Wordsworth, himself, has ere now employed the same language which he here reproaches with a want of good faith. 2. The permission to employ the Summary of the Law instead of the Ten Commandments. This is given in what is the norm of the Scotch Prayer Book, the form exhibited by Bishop Horsley in the House of Lords, and which received the imprimatur of the then Primus Skinner. It was adopted by the American Church at the suggestion of the Scotch consecraters of Bishop Seabury. 3. The form of Confirmation: 'I sign thee with the Sign of the Cross; and I lay mine hands upon thee, in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST. Defend, O LORD, &c.' Now here we take very much higher ground. The English form of Confirmation has never been allowed (as the English Liturgy has been) by the Scotch Church; and if any Bishop employ it, this is the real usurpation and presumption. It is the same stretch of authority which it would be in an English Prelate to employ the Scotch form. 4. The Reservation of the Consecrated Gifts. On this Mr. C. Wordsworth expends the chief part of his declamation, alleging that the English Articles, accepted for a particular purpose by the Scotch Church, forbid it. Now here we find him guilty of a misrepresentation of both the Scotch and English Churches. Of the Scotch Church, in imagining that the same Bishops who practised reservation, received the English Articles, while they believed them to forbid it; and of the English Church in alleging that her Articles so forbid it. If they did condemn the practice, they would condemn the all but universal use of the Catholic Church; and Mr. Wordsworth's assertion, therefore, we regard as an injustice to ourselves. The words of the English Article are perfectly true: The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not, by CHRIST's ordinance, reserved.' The meaning was, perhaps, to protest against-if any such there were conceived to be-a superstitious Reservation or more probably, a declaration in favour of the lawfulness of sick-room consecration. Another argument much relied on by Mr. Wordsworth and his followers, is the rubric at the end of the English Communion Office, that the consecrated elements shall not be carried out of the church. But, they argue, if the Scotch Church allows that office, it is clear that she can command nothing contrary to its rubrics. But this argument shows a large misapprehension of facts. The rubrics at the end of the English office have never been accepted by the Scotch Church; she does not expect even such of her Clergy as use that office to comply with them; nay, rather, she tacitly disapproves them. For, in her 20th Canon, she says, 'Every Clergyman shall pay attention to the spirit and design of the rubrics prefixed to the office.' What is this but to say that she does not wish them to pay attention to the spirit and design of the rubrics affixed to it? The Scotch Prayer Book, as edited and recommended by the Bishop of S. Andrews, is nothing else than the normal Scotch Prayer Book of Bishop Skinner, with the addition of rubrics expressing, in words, practices hitherto handed down by tradition only. The single point of difference is