has no aptitude to have applied to himself and his relations with the Kingdom of Christ, terms which express the power his prototype exercised in the land of Egypt. In the first of the texts quoted in the tracts there is certainly a foundation for the accommodation. A Catholic priest, therefore, might point to the tabernacle on his altar and say: "Behold the tabernacle of God with man," because from the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church it appears apt to receive the accommodation. But there is nothing in the doctrine and practice of the Episcopal Church to justify one in asserting that the tabernacles which the Reformers destroyed as shrines of idolatry, but which some counter-Reformers are restoring, have any aptitude to receive from her children the application of the text under discussion. The text of Malachias, as interpreted by Protestants, gives no foundation whatever for the accommodation. Incense may be typical of prayer (Apoc. VIII. 3-4), and, according to them, it has no other sense in this passage, which they understand to foretell, not the sacrifice of the new law, but what they are pleased to call, the pure gospel-worship. It is plain from what I have said that an accommodated interpretation of Scripture has no intrinsic value, but derives all its weight from the authority of him who makes the accommodation. When I quote "Go to Joseph," to prove the dignity of the holy Foster-father of our Lord my argument draws its force, not from the text itself, but from the authority of the Church that accommodates it to him. When, therefore, the author of the tracts states in large capitals that he has taken these texts directly, not from the Scriptures, but from the Book of Common Prayer, he insinuates that he has the approval of the Prayer Book for his accommodation. The American Prayer Book uses these texts only in the introduction to Morning and Evening Prayers, which have no connection with reservation and afford no opportunity for the use of incense; and clearly does so in the ordinary Protestant sense. For the compilers of the Prayer Book and ninetynine hundredths of those who use it, "The tabernacle of God with men" is, like "His holy temple," of the first of the introductory sentences, the congregation, or the house in which they meet; and the "Incense offered" to God's name, is their prayer and praise.

Here is manifest insincerity. Texts are quoted that have no bearing on the matter. They are accommodated to it in a manner altogether inconsistent with the spirit of the Episcopal Church, and it is insinuated that the Prayer Book countenances this accommodation.

After explaining why the Blessed Sacrament is reserved and that

reservation has been the practice of the Catholic Church from earliest times, the writer of the tracts asks: "Did not the Church of England do away with it formally at the Reformation?" He answers very naively: "By no means," and gives three reasons for his denial. 1. The Prayer Book of 1549, the Latin Prayer Book of 1560, and the Scottish Prayer Book of 1718, provided for reservation. 2. Though the sec

ond Prayer Book of Edward VI. omitted the provision made by the first, yet omission is not prohibition. 3. The ornaments Rubric commands the use of pyxes, and therefore authorizes reservation.

With regard to the first reason, the books mentioned have as much to do with the matter as the Declaration of Independence or the Code Napoleon. The Latin and the Scottish books have no official authority in the Church of England, and Episcopalians have no more right to appeal to the first Book of Edward VI. than to the Ancient Missals and Pontificals. These belong to the old order. The first Book of Edward VI. to the transition order. The second Book of Edward VI. displaces both as the last result of the Reformation and the stable expression of its mind. It is the term to which the first Book was tending. It is the result of the purification of that. Book from the Roman errors that survived the first effort at reform. It alone is the official Book of Anglicanism, which clergymen from Elizabeth's day have pledged themselves to use exclusively. And it does not provide for reservation.

Omission is not Prohibition. Taken by itself it is not. Taken with its circumstances it may be much more. Prohibition implies the moral possibility of the thing forbidden. Hence a prohibition will be omitted when the circumstances are such that its matter has become morally impossible. Gaolers are not accustomed to forbid their prisoners to go beyond the prison-wall. Nevertheless a prisoner who should attempt to go abroad on the plea that nothing has been said to him. on the subject, and that omission is not prohibition, would soon find out his mistake. The height of the walls, the vigilance of the guards, the strictness of discipline makes it impossible to leave the prison; hence the formal withdrawal of the right to go abroad as one wills is unnecessary. Similarly when in the Church of England the Sacrifice of the Mass had become the bare commemoration of Christ's death, and Holy Communion nothing but a supper; when Altars had been overthrown and tabernacles destroyed, it would have been superfluous to prohibit reservation, which from the circumstances of the times was no longer feasible. Moreover, when a rite is

put forward as the revised and corrected edition of a previous one, and an obligation is imposed of using it and no other, it cannot be said that omission and prohibition are not synonymous. The whole process of correction and revision consists in omitting, inserting, and changing. What is omitted, is left out because it is no longer to form a part of the work, even though it might have been hitherto a most important one; and, indeed, the more important it was, the clearer appears its formal rejection. What is inserted, is introduced to form a part of the work, and the fact that it may not harmonize with former editions, only emphasizes the condemnation of those editions by the revisors. What is changed, is altered because its expression is displeasing; and the greater the change, the more evident is it that the expressions of former editions are condemned.

Viewing the matter from another standpoint, one can see again that in this case omission is virtually prohibition. What rite do the High Church clergy use in administering the reserved sacramental bread to the sick? It is unlawful to have recourse to the older service books, they are not at liberty to invent one, and their own Church does not provide one. One cannot suppose that they treat what they profess to be the Body of Christ so indecently as to administer it without any rite at all. Some rite is necessarily the correlative of reservation. By the mere fact, therefore, of omitting to provide the rite, the Episcopal Church forbids reservation.

The Ornaments Rubric Prescribes Pyxes. It does nothing of the sort. This much misapplied rubric, as a careful reading of it will show, does not command a general restoration of all the ornaments of the Church and of the ministers authorized by parliament in the second year of Edward VI, but a use of them limited by the requirements of the ministrations in which the clergy engage. This is the authentic interpretation of the rubric and it is the only reasonable

one.

The contrary idea is absurd. One cannot imagine that the Revisors of 1661 intended to hand to every clergyman in England an assortment of ornaments including pyxes and censers, for which they were to make room in a service that had no place for them. If a cavalry officer who had lost an arm and a leg were commanded to appear at the President's levee in full uniform, he would not hold himself obliged to hang the gauntlet for which he has no hand around his neck and the boot for which he has no foot at his belt.

Neither would he think it necessary to get an artificial hand to wear the glove and an artificial leg to wear the boot. He would come with

his wooden stump and his pinned up sleeve, wearing but one glove and one boot, confident that this must be the President's will, as that same will, sending him on his country's service, had deprived him of the means of wearing their fellows. Unless, then, one be willing to impute a childish weakness of mind to the Revisors of 1661, he must hold that, had they intended the reintroduction of all the ornaments of the second year of Edward VI. they would have procured a return to the first Prayer Book instead of the insertion of this rubric in the second.

The Ornaments Rubric is a special favorite with Ritualists, and the argument from it reappears in the tract, "About Incense," where the author misquotes it as follows: "The English Prayer Book contains a rubric which says that such ornaments of the Church 'shall be retained and be in use, as were in the Church of England by the authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth.'' Compare this with the actual text: "And here is to be noted that such ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers thereof at all times of their Ministrations, shall be retained and be in use as were in this Church of England by the authority of Parliament in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth." Notice how the essential words I have italicized are omitted in the tract. Notice further how, apparently with the purpose of making this omission, the author puts outside the inverted commas the words, “such ornaments of the Church," which rightfully belong to the quotation. Observe his conclusion: "There is the same authority for the use of censers as there is for crosses, organs, surplices, lecterns or pulpits." This is to be denied absolutely. Crosses are lawfully used in the Anglican Church only for decorative purposes. The use of the surplice does not depend upon the Ornaments Rubric exclusively. Organs, lecterns and pulpits find a natural place in the ministrations of the Anglican Church, and therefore can be used legitimately under the Ornaments Rubric.

Here is more insincerity. Books of no authority are introduced, that draw the attention away from the one which alone has authority in the question at issue. A principle that needs much explanation and distinction is laid down as confidently as if it were a universal axiom. A rubric is misquoted and a sense read in it that it cannot bear, and the way then having been prepared, assertions are as boldly brought forward as if they were incontrovertible.

"Does not Article XXVIII. say: 'The Sacrament of the Lord's

Supper was not, by Christ's ordinance, reserved'?" The writer of the tracts asks this question and answers to his own satisfaction that the article only states the fact that reservation does not come from the ordinance of Christ, but from the custom of the Church, just as does the observance of Sunday. Since the observance of Sunday connotes the abrogation of the observance of Saturday, which was of Divine precept, it is very doubtful whether sound theologians would not prick up their ears and look askance at hearing the confident assertion that it comes merely from ecclesiastical custom. However, letting this pass, one sees that there is no parity between the reservation of the sacramental bread and the Sunday observance. In itself the observance of one day rather than of another is perfectly indifferent, and becomes morally good, and its contradictory morally bad only when ordered by competent authority. The reservation of the Holy Eu charist in the Catholic sense of reservation, that is not only to communicate the sick, but also for the purpose of adoration, is something of necessity good or bad intrinsically, and to be commanded because good, or forbidden because evil. Whether it be good or evil must depend upon the institution of Christ. If He did not constitute it His Body and Blood, no ecclesiastical custom can justify men in adoring it. If He did so constitute it, adoration is obligatory antecedent to the custom of the Church. This the authors of the articles clearly understood; and when they wrote that reservation does not come from the ordinance of Christ, they meant that, according to the nature of the sacrament as instituted by Him, reservation is something intrinsically unlawful, Bishop Faber and his followers to the contrary notwithstanding. This would plainly appear, did the author of the tract quote the part of the article to which he alludes in full. I will do it for him "The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped." Again notice the word I have italicized. The article puts the reservation, the elevation, the carrying in procession of the Blessed Sacrament in the same category with the worshipping of it. And justly, for they depend upon this as effects upon their cause. Christ, say they, did not ordain the Lord's Supper to be reserved, lifted up, or carried about, because he did not ordain it to be worshipped. And if He did not so ordain it, such acts are idolatrous, and no custom of the Church can make them lawful.

Moreover, the very name used in the article, "The Lord's Supper," shows its sense. If by Christ's ordinance, the Holy Eucharist