a great deal of talk with so little logic, natural or artificial, that I perceived no one much moved by anything he said. But two virtues he showed (though none took him for a magician): one was, that he was excellently well versed in Canons, Councils, and Fathers, which he remembered, when by citing of any passages we tried him. The other was, that as he was of a rustic wit and carriage, so he would endure more freedom of our discourse with him, and was more affable and familiar than the rest."

Cosin, then, whatever view may be taken of the points at issue, comes out of the Conference with an enhanced reputation. Morley, whose real goodness of heart was obscured by a vehement manner, seems to have been the most bitter and unyielding of the Bishops. Henchman, subsequently Bishop of London, was perhaps equally inflexible, but was certainly better tempered. Gunning's stiffness has been already mentioned; while Sheldon, when present (which was not often), can have added little to the conciliatory attitude of the Episcopalians. Both sides were at fault, though Hallam was, perhaps, right in deciding that the chief blame ought to fall on the Churchmen (meaning the Bishops). And yet many Churchmen, while genuinely deploring the failure of the Conference, will be inclined to challenge the word "blame." If, for the sake of conciliating a comparatively small number of Nonconformists (for there was no idea on either side of comprehending the Independents and other Separatists), the Restoration Bishops had driven into schism the thousands

of Churchmen to whom the Presbyterian proposals were intolerable, and at the same time had shattered all hope of reunion with the Roman and Eastern branches of the Catholic Church-could we have forgiven them? Can we fail to mingle with our shame at their failure in Christian courtesy a heartfelt, if incongruous, gratitude that they clung so tenaciously to the devotional forms and ceremonies which we have inherited to-day?

CHAPTER VII

THE REVISION OF THE PRAYER BOOK

"Acknowledging that our Liturgy is not absolutely perfect, and that those who most admire it would be glad if these few blemishes were removed; have we not still abundant reason to be thankful for it? Let its excellencies be fairly weighed, and its blemishes will sink into nothing ; let its excellencies be duly appreciated, and every person in the kingdom will acknowledge himself deeply indebted to those, who with so much care and piety compiled it."

CHARLES SIMEON.

"We never have, nor do we wish for any alteration in the Liturgy of our Church; we bless God that our lot has fallen in her bosom-that He has preserved in her the essentials of primitive doctrine and a Liturgy so holy; and, although I cannot but think its first form preferable, alteration is out of the question: there cannot be real alteration without a schism; and as we claim to have our own consciences respected, so, even if we had the power of changes, would we respect the consciences of others."-DR. PUSEY.

"I never called it an excellent Liturgy' in my life, and I hope I never shall. But it has helped me to see more of the love of God and of the bonds by which men are knit to each other, and to feel more hope as to those whom I should naturally regard as foes, than any other book except the Bible. It is my protection and the protection of the Church against Anglicanism and Evangelicalism and Liberalism and Romanism and Rationalism, and till these different devils cease to torment us, I will, with God's help, use this shield against them, whether other people prefer their party prayers to it or not."-FREDERICK DENISON MAURICE.

IN some notes attached to Cosin's account of a conference between the Archbishop of Spalato

and Bishop Overall, it is claimed that "he had a great part in the conference between the Bishops and episcopal divines and the Presbyterian ministers at the Savoy." But no reference is made to the part he took in the subsequent revision of the Book of Common Prayer; and yet it is in this latter connection that his biographer can claim for Cosin an outstanding place in the annals of the English Church. Never, perhaps, has devotion to a special field of inquiry been better justified than Cosin's lifelong interest in liturgical forms. As Archdeacon, he had interested himself in the question whether the clergy sufficiently studied the Prayer Book, so as to carry out aright its rubrical directions and to defend, if necessary, its doctrinal standards.1 That he had himself done this, we have tangible proof. He seems to have been first influenced in this direction by the example of his friend of Cambridge days, Hayward, nephew of Bishop Overall.'

3

There is, in the Cosin Library at Durham, an interleaved Prayer Book of 1619, containing notes in Cosin's handwriting, which Dr. Nicholls, in an appendix to his Commentary on the B.C.P. (1710), printed as Cosin's original work, although he felt some hesitation as to the

1 See p. 29, above. As Bishop, Cosin made a point of urging his clergy, and especially his ordinands, to study the Book of Common Prayer.-Granville's Letters, Part II. 109 (Surtees Society, 1865).

2 See above, p. 8.

It has been disputed that the handwriting is that of Cosin. See letters in the Guardian for September 26th, October 3rd, 17th, 24th, 1900.

correctness of that attribution. Dr. Barrow reprinted these notes in the Library of AngloCatholic Theology as decidedly Cosin's; but after reading what he says in the fifth volume of Cosin's Works (pp. xi ff.) and comparing Parker's Introduction to the Revision of the B.C.P. (pp. cccxxii ff.), the conclusion seems inevitable that this First Series of Notes was, in the main, the work of Hayward. Cosin copied them, added extracts from elsewhere (including some MS. notes lent him by Bishop Andrewes), and further annotated them from time to time. So that, although it would not be justifiable to quote all these notes as expressing Cosin's own opinions, they can certainly be cited as proofs of his early interest in the Book of Common Prayer; and they are especially important as showing that he had frankly faced the Puritan position.

66

There is, also, in the Cosin Library an interleaved Prayer Book of 1638, containing, as the catalogue drawn up under Cosin's supervision says, my own notes and observations upon it, both doctrinal and practical." These notes, too, were published by Dr. Nicholls, and, after a careful examination of the original MS., were reprinted by the editor of Cosin's Works (vol. v.), who says:

66

The extracts from the Sarum Missal carried on regularly through the series, and those from Lyndwood's Provinciale, appear to have been made soon after 1638. The very large extracts from Calixtus [Exercitatio de Sacrificio Christi semel in cruce oblato et initerabili] are, of course,