were not to learn all by heart, or as would happen in England if they did not read their discourses, they would appear to preach very ill. These objections he answers, and then adds:

'Whatever method be adopted, it is always needful to write much, even although little or nothing be learned by heart; and before writing it is indispensable to have thought, read, studied, and meditated deeply. To write is the means of fixing what we have thought, of reviewing it in the mind, and by a plan firmly held, and by foresight of developments, to give one's self sureness of doctrine and teaching' (p. 168).

We had marked many more passages for quotation, from an anxiety to lead the clergy to read this most useful and instructive essay; but we have already exceeded the length we had proposed to ourselves. There is, however, one more passage which we must place before our readers, as it not only warns against a fault which we fear may still be found among us, but it also shows that French preachers err in the same manner that do some of our own.

'You know the expression dry bread in reference to certain pastors who, having written and composed with care when they were young curates, many years ago, a certain number of discourses more or less rhetorical, more or less academic, when they have obtained parishes of their own, write no more, but preach over and over again, word for word, the same sermons for twenty years, thirty years after they were written, and would go on giving them, I verily believe, to all eternity. Is that, gentlemen, the word of life, the living word, the Apostolic work of pastoral preaching? Dry bread,' and that ten, twenty, thirty years old! Is that healthful and life-giving sustenance? Is that fitted for those whose servants they are? Will they be able to assimilate it? to make it a part of their own souls, and, in short, to live upon it?' (p. 194).

We are convinced that the complaints of the poverty of the sermons preached, of the lack of interest in such discourses, of the weariness of congregations, and of the little attention that is often paid to what is said from the pulpit, would in a great measure cease if only preachers would really lay to heart what Bishop Dupanloup says in this essay, and endeavour to follow its teaching. It is not an order of preachers that we require, but that parish priests should give more serious thought to the subject of preaching. To have a ceaseless series of mission sermons, or passionate addresses, or revival appeals, however eloquently they might be set forth, would weary after a time. What is wanted is single-minded devotion to the duties of the pastoral office, simple teaching of the truths of the gospel combined with a real knowledge of the

people, and careful study. Where these are joined to a holy life, the preacher's words will not be uttered in vain, however slender his natural talents may be, and however feeble his oratorical powers. And where these are wanting, what account of his stewardship will the priest be able to give at the last day?

The book to which we have been calling attention is a translation, and it undoubtedly has some of the faults of a translation. While seeking to give an exact rendering of the text, it occasionally falls into grammar of a somewhat slipshod character. We also think that Dr. Eales has made a mistake in always inserting the words of the Vulgate whenever there is a quotation from Holy Scripture. We see no reason why Latin words should not be translated as well as French ones; and while it is a custom of Roman Catholic writers to quote the Vulgate as Bishop Dupanloup does, and as our own divines subsequent to the Reformation were in the habit of doing, it is certainly not what we are accustomed to at the present day, and it detracts from the pleasure of reading the book, although the Latin words may be nearly as familiar as the English ones. We did not like to pass over these slight blemishes without notice; at the same time we desire most earnestly to commend the book to the attention of our clerical readers, and we are convinced that those who follow our advice and study its pages will be thankful to us for having brought so useful a book under their notice.

ART. X.-CRANMER'S LITURGICAL PROJECTS. Edward VI. and the Book of Common Prayer. An Examination into its Origin and Early History, with an Appendix of Unpublished Documents. By FRANCIS AIDAN GASQUET, O.S.B., Author of Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries, and EDMUND BISHOP. (London, 1890.)

SOMETIMES we may notice in the history of letters that a great writer has been surrounded in his own time by rivals who, indeed, approach his greatness but never equal it. The genius retains his predominance and is remembered during the following centuries; but the very existence of the writers about him is forgotten and has to be rediscovered. So a hundred years ago Charles Lamb had to remind Englishmen that Shakespeare's Elizabethan fellows were not wholly eclipsed

by him whom the world had never forgotten. And now by means of the labours of Messrs. Bishop and Gasquet we find around the English Prayer Book a number of rival schemes, long forgotten, even if ever known, of which the substance of the Second Prayer Book only has survived. That alone of Cranmer's projects had come down to our day. Whether indeed it has in this case been the survival of the fittest, is another matter.

The important book which we have now under review divides itself at once into two parts, the text and the appendices; and we may say, without hesitation, that the second, third, and fourth appendices are the most valuable contributions to the early history of the Prayer Book that have yet appeared. We could wish, indeed, that these documents had fallen into the hands of some loyal son of the Church of England, and it is much to be regretted that a want of energy or indifference in this matter should have allowed the task of publication to fall into other hands. The existence of the manuscripts is said to have been known to the late Mr. F. H. Dickinson as well as elsewhere in the Church. But since it was not to be an English churchman who was to publish these documents, it is some consolation that they have been edited by two gentlemen, one of whom is well known for the moderation with which he has set before us the miserable work of Henry VIII. in the suppression of the monasteries; and the other, less widely known perhaps than his colleague, but whose great learning and powers of investigation, joined to a determination always to follow wherever the facts shall lead, have been long acknowledged by liturgical students in this country and abroad.

One of the triumphs claimed by modern criticism is the ability to distinguish in a document the parts of the various authors who have contributed their share; for some, like Beaumont and Fletcher, for instance, this critical solvent has been defied; but we almost fancy that in the work before us the printers themselves have already performed this useful office. The appendices generally are printed in one type, the body of the work in another; and we strongly suspect

1 While thus cordially admitting Mr. Gasquet's general fairness in Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries, we have shown in a previous number of this Review that we cannot altogether agree with him in his conclusions as to the value of monastic institutions, and as to the mischief resulting from their extinction. See Church Quarterly Review, January 1890, vol. xxix. p. 386, 'English Monasticism in the Sixteenth Century.' In the same article Mr. Gasquet is convicted of several incorrect state

ments.

that this represents the division of labour. The two parts show the hands of different workmen ; and we should be inclined, from internal evidence, to assign the appendices ii. iii. iv. and v. to Mr. Bishop, and the rest of the work to Mr. Gasquet. For instance, there is a trifling difference in the editing of the two parts which is, perhaps, suggestive. In the notes to the appendices we always have Te Deum, Benedictus, and Magnificat spoken of, without the definite article, just as in the old English writers: in the introduction we have always 'the Te Deum,' as the French usually speak of 'le Te Deum,' and we find the definite article introduced into quotations of English sentences even where it is absent in the original; as, for example, at p. 65, where it is twice inserted. We think, too, there is a difference in the manner of giving references; those in the appendices are easier to verify. We wish we could have given a word of praise to the printing and the binding; and the publisher has filled up the first pages of the book with advertisements of translations and papal recommendations, so that the real work runs a great danger of being mistaken for another.

In the reviews which we have hitherto seen it is the early portion of the book to which special importance has been given. We are of opinion, on the contrary, that it is not the early part which calls for such special notice. This is polemical and controversial, and therefore of less value; while the appendices and their notes are historical, and will no doubt prove of permanent value. It is the discovery of the manuscripts which gives the book all its interest, and the introduction is a mere reading into the appendices of the views of one of the editors.

In the present article, therefore, we shall deal mainly with the appendices, of which we have said that they are of first-rate importance. Appendix i. is merely an account of the collection in which app. ii. iii. and iv. are found,' and which can be traced through the Royal Library to Lord Lumley, whose autograph it bears, and thence by inference to Cranmer, whose handwriting it shows in the corrections and additions. Appendix ii. is the scheme for a new Breviary in Latin, with the old Canonical hours, Mattins, Lauds, Prime, &c. retained. It shows a very great likeness to the reformed Roman Breviary of Cardinal Quignon, and the author of the scheme is, in our opinion, clearly much indebted both to the first and to the second text of Quignon,2 and for 1 British Museum, MS. Reg. 7. B. iv.

2 It is important, however, to remark that no copies of either text

1

the sake of brevity in speaking of these two texts we may use the symbols Q.1 and Q2. The notes give an elaborate comparison of the scheme with the Sarum Breviary and with Q'. And we would stop for a moment to congratulate the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press upon the great use which has clearly been made of their two recent reprints of the Sarum Breviary and of the first text of Quignon. Without an intimate acquaintance with both of these it would have been almost impossible to have traced out the history of Cranmer's schemes, and the providing of these handy editions has evidently been welcomed by the editors of these documents, who have known how to make a good use of the instruments which the Syndics have placed in their hands.

For some reason, perhaps from difficulty of access, the same use has not been made of Q.2 as of Q.1, and yet Cranmer's scheme bears indications of his acquaintance with Q2. For example, there are no anthems in Q.', but in Q.2 they have been restored; and in a particular way. The psalms at Lauds and Vespers are included under one anthem with Benedictus and Magnificat. Now the same thing has been done in Cranmer's scheme and it becomes very likely that this feature was borrowed from Q2. Further, in the choice of the lessons we find again a borrowing from Q2. Cranmer's first lesson for Twelfth Day is the same as the second lesson in Q2. Two lessons on Sherethursday are very nearly the same in both; on Easter Day, Cranmer's second lesson is the same as the first of Q.2, and so also on Holy Thursday 2 and Whit Sunday.

In comparing S. with Q. it is very justly remarked that both lay aside Te Deum during Lent, but that Q. in place of Te Deum recites Miserere. For this substitution it would seem to be suggested that there is no early authority. Yet

have hitherto been identified as having belonged to Cranmer, though he must unquestionably have known and handled them.

1 We will follow the editor and use the symbol S. for the Sarum Breviary.

2 By Holy Thursday an Englishman has hitherto always understood one day in the year, that is, Ascension Day. This was the English practice in the middle ages, during the sixteenth century, and after the Restoration. Some have nowadays (even our authors, p. 338, note 17, who in general show no liking for novelties) begun to use the term Holy Thursday as a name for the Thursday before Easter, which in old English is called Sherethursday or Maundy Thursday. This new expression is a mere borrowing from the Romance tongues, and is a cause of much confusion, for when one speaks nowadays of Holy Thursday we are forced to consider what is meant, and it is not always possible to tell from the context.