articles and injunctions as are distinctively Protestant in tone and intention were imposed on the (schismatical) English Church, in Edward's reign especially-for Elizabeth merely revived and amplified them-by the sole authority of King and Parliament, against the will, though with the ultimate submission, as already shown, of the clergy in convocation. Further, that all such prayers and formularies as are capable of a Catholic interpretation and they are very many owe their place in the Book of Common Prayer chiefly to the conservative or "Catholic" party in both reigns, a party which may justly be characterized as intensely "national," squally opposed, under Elizabeth especially, to the "Popery" of Spain and to the ultra-protestantism of the continental "reformers." Not a little must, however, be attributed to Elizabeth's policy of making it possible, as she deemed and intended, for the whole nation to conform to her "ordering" of the national religion; of making Church and State synonymous and identical under the new conditions, as they had been under the old; under her supremacy in spirituals, as under "the usurped authority of the Bishops of Rome." And it is curious, to say the least, that the article on this point is worded to deny the Pope's claim to jurisdiction "in this realm of England," as if to exclude a temporal, while leaving a spiritual jurisdiction-should any be brave enough to draw so dangerous and "Jesuitical" a distinction. The result has been a typically English compromise not unlike the national tolerance of parliamentary and constitutional inconsistencies; an "Established Church," comprehensive of Puritans and "Catholics" alike, and a Book of Common Prayer-a manual of devotion, theology and canon law-to which all parties, High, Broad and Evangelical, appeal confidently in support of their contentions. But it may, further, be maintained that "germs of Popery," as they are called by a member of the last of these schools, are to be found in the Prayer Book, and that "of these," as he says, "the Catholic revival has been evolved." "This witness is true." To some of these "germs," and to the forms into which they have grown of late, I purpose to return presently.

Meanwhile, it may be well to note here, as of immediate connection with our subject, the order in which, as it were, England lost the distinctive doctrines of the Catholic faith first preached to her by S. Augustine. The first to be discarded-the keystone, indeed, of the whole structure, as Henry soon learned was that of the divinely constituted primacy of Peter and of his successors, the Vicars of Christ. The next, and inevitably that of the essential necessity of visible unity in communion with the Holy See, a necessity which only now the heirs of Henry's schism and Elizabeth's apostasy are beginning to realize. The doctrine of the communion

belief in the Mass that we attribute exclusively the distinguishing characteristics of the Catholic spiritual life, we are led to ask: Are there any traces of such belief in the Real Presence, at leastto be found in the Anglican formularies?

In attempting to answer such a question in the affirmative, I must necessarily trespass on the patience of my readers with somewhat lengthy quotations and with such explanations as may seem to be required in order that there may be no misunderstanding as to their meaning and import. In so doing, moreover, I shall be dealing for the most part with those very "germs of Popery" referred to, from which unquestionably the "Catholic revival" of the present day has been evolved, thus bringing us to the sources and principles of that most wonderful "counter-reformation" which, surely and not slowly, is undoing the evil work of the sixteenth century.

In the year 1548, then, an "Order of Communion" was imposed on the schismatical, but not formally heretical English Church, by the ruling powers, which, however, "left the Latin Mass, according to the various rites hitherto in use in England, still intact. 'The varying of any rite or ceremony of the Mass,' up to and including the communion of the priest, is expressly forbidden by a rubric of this 'Order.' "3 If, therefore, 1548 is to be taken as "the first and second year of Edward VI." specified by the "Ornaments Rubric"-to be referred to presently-this ordering of the traditional ceremonies, including obviously the vestments, is of supreme importance in considering the claim of the "Anglo-Catholics" that they are acting legally in their revival of ancient ritual and customs; that it is a revival, not an innovation; that the plain law of the "Church" is in their favor.

In this "Order," as in the first Prayer Book of 1549, the words of administration in "the Office of Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass," were practically, if not actually, those of the ancient offices. In the second Prayer Book of 1552 all reference to "the Body of Christ" at the time of administration is carefully and, no doubt, purposely omitted. The form now runs: "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on Him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving." At the ministering of the chalice: "Drink this in remembrance that Christ's Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful." In the Prayer Book ordered by the Act of Uniformity in 1559, Elizabeth, in pursuance of her policy of comprehension, of making it possible for Calvinists and Papistsas she doubtless deemed to accept her new religion, caused both forms, the Catholic and the Zwinglian, to be combined as they remain to this day. It is permissible, therefore, so far as these

still commonly used in this technical sense-"shall be retained and

be in use, as were in this Church of England
in the second
year of the reign of King Edward VI." This rubric was again
imposed at the final revision of the Prayer Book in 1661.

Of this ritual injunction the returned Protestant exiles had this to say at the time of its imposition: "The last Book of Service (1552) is gone through with the proviso to retain the ornaments which were used in the first and second year of King Edward. Our gloss upon the text is that we shall not be forced to use them, but that others" -the extreme "reformers," presumably-"in the meantime shall not convey them away."

The contemporary expression, "first and second year of King Edward," is worth noting. Edward came to the throne in January, 1546-1547, according to the then method of beginning the year on March 25. The "first and second year," then, would be 1547-1548, the latter being that which saw the issue of the "Order of Communion" (April 1, 1548), enjoining, under penalties, the use of the full ancient ritual of the English Church. As to the modifications and legal interpretations which this "interpretation clause of the ritual law of the Church of England," as Mr. Blunt calls it, has undergone, I would refer my readers to that author's learned preface to his "Annotated Book of Common Prayer" (pp. lxv., 599). What is of more immediate connection with our present subject is the view taken of it by the gentleman to whom we are indebted for the phrase "germs of Popery." Under date of April 4, 1899, he writes to the English Churchman as follows: "They (the "Romanizers") appeal to that book (the Prayer Book) with its 'ornaments rubric,' and claim, most plausibly, that it prescribes their Romish 'ornaments of the Church and Ministers,' the Mass vestments, and, as a corollary, the Mass!" This writer, at least, is under no illusion as to the real significance of the ritual revival brought about by the Oxford counter-reformation, a revival which only those who have seen it can estimate at anything approaching its scope and importance, which, indeed, only a series of illustrations and an array of facts and figures could convey to those not so familiar. Nor has the gentleman any doubt as to the part which symbols play in religious life and in the dissemination of doctrines and ideas. The Mass vestments, as he says, connote the Mass, as truly as a flag connotes a country or a victory. It is easy, therefore, to understand why the battle of the counter-reformation has been waged, apparently, over "externals." It is because the externals have a certain definite, unmistakable meaning. As he refers to other "germs of Popery," it may be as well to finish the quotation from his letter. "They • "Elizabethan Religious Settlement," p. 92.