as our Hooker has done―the attitude of Apologists. We simply contend, that our branch of the Church Universal has acted wisely, and with a just regard for the best rules of action, in decreeing precomposed forms of common prayer, and in assimilating them to the best forms that remain to us from the early days of the Church.*

It results of course from the practical connexion of this subject with Episcopalianism, that the current discussions on Forms of prayer are either contained in works on the Episcopal controversy, or have something of the controversial character. Though the whole subject may be presented, even in such treatises, still it is presented mainly in its exterior relations: the features which are brought out with the greatest pains are those which the stranger would first scan the most carefully; those which the family circle alone can the best appreciate are passed over with a hasty hand. Yet it is with the current treatises that Churchmen, as well as others, must be the most conversant. Those aspects of the subject which are necessarily prominent in such Apologies are those, therefore, in which it comes naturally to present itself to the minds of Episcopalians. Hence there is nothing in which they are more at home, than the authority which we have for our Forms, their operation to exclude violations of propriety from public worship, and their tried efficacy to incorporate sound views of the Gospel into the very mind and heart of the body of the people, after articles and subscriptions have failed to secure the preaching of orthodoxy from the pulpit.

But this may be said to be as much knowledge for others as for them. The subject has, besides these exterior relations, those which are interior. It presents many questions which can be of interest only to those who use the Liturgy in their public worship questions some of which no others can decide. Such, for instance, are those which relate to the origin and history of the English and American Prayer Book, the ritual principles upon which they were constructed, the occasion and propriety of successive alterations made in them, the interpretation of rubrics, the validity of certain customs not expressly enacted in any of our laws, and the many points of practice which are occasionally brought into discussion and sometimes settled with

We do not venture to assert that such moderation, in the attitude assumed, has in all cases been observed, on either side. Plenty of Churchmen have been "exclusive" enough, we dare say, as to forms, while Dr. Owen (as we somewhere have read) holds them to be utterly unlawful and sinful.

more or less of approach to authority. Now we cannot say that this sort of knowledge seems to be cultivated amongst us in its due proportion. It would appear to suffer under a sort of eclipse from the intervention of its more polemic satellite. Many a staunch Churchman-many a Church clergyman-- may be armed at all points, a champion of the Liturgy as against others, and yet show himself comparatively ignorant of that other ritual knowledge, which he ought to carry with him into the House of Prayer. The book which he has triumphantly defended, he cannot use with the correct and beautiful propriety of one who has studied its structure as he ought. Many a bad custom, which has grown out of long past necessities or palliating circumstances connected with the growth of the Church in our country, or out of the previous habits of congregations composed of persons brought up under a different system, or finally out of ignorance and carelessness, is either sanctioned as true and valid, or tolerated without the slightest effort at reform.* The proper rules of interpretation are either so little known or so little regarded, that some serious and formal attempts at settling points of practice, have only substituted one unauthorized practice for anotherif they have not done worse. We need not speak of particular cases that have come under our observation, which show rather an utter contempt of all Church principles than merely ritual ignorance. Yet we have seen well-meaning and honest men come to practical results almost as mischievous, by an apparent inability to perceive the less obtrusive beauty of existing rites, and a careless attempt to incorporate coarse improvements of their own ceremonies as new at least as Laud's, and not many degrees more pleasing to our taste.t And, as a general remark,

We have known Churches in which the Surplice was absolutely unknown; and when their ministers endeavored to introduce it, they were treated as if they were imposing some new and strange thing upon their people, and were forced to defend an established Church custom against Churchmen as they would against non-Episcopalians. The black gown, which rests for us upon the very same authority, seems never to have been scrupled at, apparently because the silk was considered as coming from the English market, but as for the linen, it was believed to have been invoiced at Babylon.

As a single specimen: The rubric (in the Communion Office) says, Here shall be sung a hymn, &c. THEN the Priest shall receive, &c. Some worthy clergyman, being desirous of improving the rubrical arrangement, by which a solemn silence is maintained through the receiving, cause their choir first to sing one verse of the Hymn; then the Priest partakes of the elements; then another verse is sung, and the first body of communicants partake; and so on throughout the administra tion. Now to say nothing of the breach of rubrics here, could any thing be devised less in the taste of the Prayer Book? The invention savors of importation-an honor which surely might have been reasonably withheld from such ware.

we think it not unjust to say, that minute and accurate ritual knowledge is anything but common amongst those who might be expected to possess it. Proper views concerning the worth of Rituals generally, and even taste a sense of the genuine beauties and proprieties of ritual worship, are of course proportionally rare.

Yet we do not wonder at this so much as we regret it. That minute knowledge and that delicate perception of ritual beauty, of which we have just spoken, cannot reasonably be looked for in every man, even of those who are far from being uncultivated. Perhaps it requires a peculiar kind of mind to possess or to value them. And, generally, an exact acquaintance with the interior relations of the Prayer Book is to be gathered from books which are neither particularly inviting nor always easy to be found. The English Prayer Book, for instance, a mere collation of which with our own would teach us more perhaps than any thing else, is of course rarely seen in our country. Of the best English works on Rituals, only two have been published in this country-Wheatly and the Variorum Commentary of Mant. Of these, the former is any thing but a popular work, and the latter is (with all its good qualities) large, heavy, and expensive. Perhaps no work, on such a subject, written in and for a past age, however justly it may retain its place among the learned, can hope to produce much effect upon the present generation. To awaken fresh attention, to exert an active and general influence, a man must rise up amongst his fellows, look at things under the same relations and circumstances, and speak to them in a voice and spirit that have some affinity with their own. No one has yet done this with respect to Rituals. Yet a good service, of another kind, has been done in this cause by the compiler of the work, the title whereof stands at the head of this article. In the "Origines Liturgica" Mr. Palmer has supplied a want which has been felt by most American students of the Prayer Book. He gives us the original sources, where we had been compelled to take facts at second hand. We are now able, with the help of these volumes, to scan the features of our Liturgy in its several stages, without searching in vain through American libraries for the "Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man," or the Prayer Book of Edward the Sixth.

We cannot, indeed, expect that the "Origines Liturgica" will be a popular book, or that it will claim a place in the library of even a great part of the clergy. It is not, and does not profess to be, the organ of awakening a general interest in the

subject of Rituals. But to those clergymen, in particular, who have already made the proprieties of our public worship an object of attention, and have been led to extend their inquiries to the history and interpretation of our Book of Common Prayer, it will be both an encouragement and an assistance. It is not our purpose to furnish an analysis, or to enter upon a formal review of the work. It is enough to have given a general account of its contents, and to approve the manner in which the Editor has executed his task. The student of Rituals will then know it is the book for him, and that is enough.

But in regard to the general subject to which this work relates, we wish to take the occasion of expressing ourselves more at large. To do justice to the feelings and aspirations that have been re-awakened within us, we must speak out for ourselves. Old opinions and pleasant speculations have been brought back, fresh and lively as when they were formed and suggested, by a study pursued without such valuable assistance. What we have to say will not, however, by any means, be a digest of our reading, but rather thoughts suggested by it, with (what may be found peculiar) deductions and applications of our own.

In such rather unsystematic fashion we propose to discuss subjects taken from every part of the wide field of Rituals, viewing them, however, under such aspects alone as best suit our purpose and the state of our knowledge. As to the extent of the field, our claims, we must confess, are not over moderate. We reckon as part and parcel thereof every thing that has any near relation to public worship; so that the reader who has been accustomed to grant to the ritualist peaceably Forms of Prayer, Church Garments, and Church Ceremonies, will be modestly desired to give up to him likewise, Sacred Poetry, Church Music, and Church Architecture,*—or, at least, to convey to him certain rights in them as hereditaments incorporeal. Without meaning to be too closely bound by our promise, we propose to make each of these subjects topics of discussion in separate articles, in such order and at such intervals as we may find most convenient.

Before, however, entering upon such a series-which we reserve for future papers-we have something to say now on all

We do not include Painting, because it contributes nothing to the Rituals of Protestant Churches. This has been regretted by many whose opinions deserve the highest respect. The subject deserves to be discussed, and the more so, as it certainly has its difficulties, far other than those, however, that probably weighed with our Reformers. But it cannot be done in this connexion.

the branches of Rituals, so defined, taken together. Each branch is usually considered too much by itself, and with a degree of attention not always measured by that given to some other. For once that Church Garments are even hinted at, the case of the Liturgy is carefully examined a dozen times; and we do not know that Church Architecture is even treated of in connexion with Christian Worship. And if we have any reason to lament, that the Prayer Book is looked upon only in its exterior relations, we may express our regret with far less reserve and limitation as to the other branches of Rituals. How very rarely does one ever hear anything else asserted of our "holy garments," than that they rest upon the authority of the law that ordained the ephod, and the primitive example that sanctioned the robe of linen clean and white. Or if, occasionally, an attempt is made to show the propriety of retaining them, and the good effect they are meant to produce, we are told, perhaps, that the scarf is meant to remind the beholder of his original sin, and the white surplice, of the grace of the Gospel,-and somewhat more of the like sapient description! Doubtless, these "holy garments" have a utility and are "in any wise to be retained" in proportion as the good people are dexterous at spelling out these allegories of silk and linen! As to music and poetry we cannot make the same complaint, although even here we might find something further, if not different, to say with respect to the way in which they co-operate with the other agencies set at work in the worship of God.

In our view, this mode of treating the different parts of Rituals by themselves, and of sinking some altogether, while all are looked at too much in reference to the mere "authority" (so called) on which they rest or seem to rest, is any thing but satisfactory. Can we be content with being told, again and again, that the Liturgy, with all its accompaniments, stands here in the house of God simply and solely because there are precedents therefor? We grant that is reason enough for showing that the Common Prayer rather than the Directory should stand there; and so far all is well. But for what does it, by authority, stand there instead? And shall we be content again, when to this we are answered, that it is to keep out crudities, improprieties, and doctrinal errors from the language of prayer? Does every thing in this world go by negatives? In institutions, supposed to have any thing like divine or apostolic sanction, can it be thought, that they work only to remove hinderances without tendering positive help? Is this analogous to the principles dis