Subsequent revision of the Prayer Book has obliterated some of the more striking parallels as they appeared in the Prayer Book of 1549; but the parallels that still remain may be seen exhibited in Blunt's Annotated Book of Common Prayer.

The treatment of his original by Cranmer is much like his treatment of other matter derived from ancient sources. He translates some parts literally into English. Other parts he deals with in a spirit of criticism; he excises, modifies, amplifies as he thinks best. Thus the exorcism of the water in the Mozarabic form is removed and the prayer converted into a supplication for the Holy Spirit "to assist us and to be present at this our invocation." The character of other changes may be indicated by a few examples. "Sanctify this fountain, thou that art the sanctifier of the human race," became, " Sanctify this fountain of baptism, thou that art the sanctifier of all things." "Grant that whosoever here renounces the devil may triumph over the world. Amen," became, "Grant to all them which at this fountain forsake the devil and all his works, that they may have power and strength to have victory and to triumph against him, the world, and the flesh. Amen." While a petition, which it is better to give in the

'The ancient liturgy of Spain and its influence upon the Book of Common Prayer," has shown conclusive reasons for rejecting the supposition that the Gallican Missal was the source from which Cranmer drew. I lay little stress on the fact that no printed copy was known in modern times till Cardinal Tommasi published the Liturgy in 1680. Mr. Burbidge considers that several of our collects were affected by a knowledge of the Mozarabic Missal; but, I confess, his reasoning does not seem to me conclusive.

Latin, “Ut per ministerium nostrum tibi consecratus, aeternis ad te virtutibus, aeternis praemiis consecratur. Amen," became, "Grant that whosoever is here dedicated to thee by our office and ministry may also be endued with heavenly virtues and everlastingly rewarded," etc.*

We have now briefly noticed the four principal quarries from which our Reformers drew the material upon which they set to work, viz., the service-books of the medieval Church of England, the German Kirchenordnungen, together with the Latin of Hermann's Simplex ac pia Deliberatio, the Greek liturgies, and the Mozarabic liturgy.

We next turn to consider some of the structural changes made in the work of adapting the mediaval service-books and incorporating into them the new material.

66

The following parallels (which have since disappeared through revision of the service) between the Prayer Book of 1549 and the Mozarabic Benedictio Fontis may be noted: (1) "Whosoever shall confess thee, O Lord, recognise him also in thy kingdom. Amen.” Quicunque in hoc loco confessus fuerit, tu eum recognascas in regno. Amen." (2) "Grant that whosoever here shall begin to be of thy flock may evermore continue in the same. Amen." 'Quicunque hic tuus esse coeperit, tuus esse non desinat. Amen." And other parallels could be exhibited. See Missale Gothicum secundum regulam Beati Isidori, etc. (Cardinal Lorenzana's edit., Rome, 1804), col. 455.

CHAPTER IV.

STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE DAILY OFFICES: GAINS AND LOSSES-THE INVITATORY AND THE

ANTIPHON-THE THIRD COLLECT AT EVENING

PRAYER.

OF

F the seven, or more properly eight, "Hour Services" of the pre-Reformation Church of England, known as Nocturns or Matins, Lauds, Prime, Tierce, Sext, Nones, Vespers, and Compline, our Reformers, when constructing services that were intended for the people as well as the clergy, set aside altogether Tierce, Sext, and Nones. Matins, Lauds, and Prime, by curtailment and ingenious adaptation, were reduced into the form of our English Matins, or Morning Prayer; and similarly Vespers and Compline were combined and reconstructed, and became our Evening Prayer. So happily was this work accomplished that very few, unacquainted with the actual history of the Prayer Book, would ever suspect that our present daily offices were the outcome of a process of piecing together parts of different services and compressing them. The services as we now possess them have an entirely satisfying air of unity.

To adequately appreciate the ability with which this work was accomplished, it would be necessary to examine at length the whole of the five services thus

dealt with. It must suffice here to say that all the more important liturgical elements of the older services were carefully preserved.

The recitation of the Psalter was a leading feature of the pre-Reformation services. This was retained, and with the great improvement that the whole of the Psalms are now said, and not, as in actual practice before the Reformation, "a few of them daily said and the rest utterly omitted."*

The lessons (lectiones) of the old service-books were taken, some from Holy Scripture, some from legends of the Saints, some from the writings of the Fathers. Our Reformers confined the lessons wholly to the Holy Scriptures, including parts of the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. And, what was of primary importance, they so arranged the lessons that substantially the whole of the Scriptures are read in the course of the year. Indeed before the adoption of the New Lectionary (1871), made legal in England by 34 and 35 Vict. c. 37, the New Testament, with the exception of the Revelation of St. John, was read through three times every year in the service of the Church. At present, excepting Revelation, parts of which are not read, and parts read only once, it is read through twice, and the arrangement is such that the Gospels and Epistles are read through both at Morning and at Evening Prayer. Previous to 1871 those who could attend the daily service only in the evening never heard the Gospels, and those who attended only in the morning never * See 66 Concerning the Service of the Church" in the prefatory matter of the Prayer Book.

heard the Epistles. On the whole the New Lectionary has been well received; but it would be absurd to claim for it that it is beyond improvement. As to the most suitable place for ending a lesson, there may often be ground for a reasonable variety of opinion. In no case, I think, in the New Lectionary is there the strain put formerly upon the conscience of the over-scrupulous rubrician on April 24th, August 23rd, and December 21st, when, to be quite correct, he was bound to conclude the second morning lesson in the words, "And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying, Here endeth the second lesson"; or, again, on the evening of October 16th, when the conclusion of the lesson (Wisdom viii.) would be, "I prayed unto the Lord, and besought him, and with my whole heart I said, Here endeth the first lesson." But there are even in the New Lectionary some divisions of the lessons that reconsideration might improve; and in a new revision of the Lectionary helpful suggestions will be found in the American Lectionary (1892).

But, whatever improvements are yet desirable in our Lectionary system, there are none who can. question the great gains to the people of England from the continuous reading of the Holy Scriptures. We know well that it is no less important a part of worship to listen to God's voice than to utter our own petitions.

It is a matter more open to variety of opinion whether our Reformers were not over-hasty in their total rejection of the beautiful liturgical devices known as the Invitatory and the Antiphon. A