VIII. The Church has never authoritatively formulated Declaration what she has received to hold concerning the scope and on Inspiration. limits of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture; and it may even be said that there has not been a complete unanimity of view among her accredited teachers in regard to some points connected with that scope and those limits; but the undersigned believe that at least so much as these theses express has been held "everywhere, always, and by all."

GEORGE BODY, M.A., D.D., Canon-residentiary of Durham.

H. R. BRAMLEY, M.A., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford,
Prebendary of Lincoln, and Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of

Lincoln.

WILLIAM BRIGHT, D.D., Canon of Christ Church, and Regius
Professor of Ecclesiastical History.

T. T. CARTER, M.A., Hon. Canon of Christ Church, and Warden of
the House of Mercy, Clewer.

W. M. G. DUCAT, M.A., Principal of Cuddesdon, and Rural Dean.
C. W. FURSE, M.A., Canon of Westminster.

DAVID GREIG, M.A., Rector of Cottenham.

CHARLES EDWARD HAMMOND, M.A., Vicar of Menheniot, and Rural
Dean, Hon. Canon of Truro.

W. H. HUTCHINGS, M.A., Rector of Kirby Misperton, and Rural
Dean.

J. O. JOHNSTON, M.A., Theological Lecturer of Merton College,
Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Oxford, and Vicar of All
Saints', Oxford.

E. C. Lowe, D.D., Provost of St. Nicholas College, and Canon of
Ely.

P. G. MEDD, M.A., Rector of North Cerney, and Examining
Chaplain to the Bishop of St. Alban's.

W. C. E. NEWBOLT, M.A., Canon and Chancellor of St. Paul's, and
Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Ely.

F. W. PULLER, M.A., of the Society of St. John the Evangelist,
Cowley.

B. W. RANDOLPH, M.A., Principal of Ely Theological College, Hon.
Canon of Ely, and Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Ely.
DARWELL STONE, M.A., Principal of Dorchester Missionary College.
R. J. WILSON, D.D., Warden of Keble College, and Hon. Fellow of
Merton College.

A. J. WORLLEDGE, M.A., Canon-residentiary and Chancellor of Truro
Cathedral, Proctor for the Chapter, and Examining Chaplain to the
Bishop of Truro.

Memorandum agreed upon at a Meeting of
Clergy held in London, May 2, 1898

Memorandum 'In view of the grave anxiety occasioned by certain developments of worship in the Church of England, we

etc.

desire to draw the attention of our brethren to the following statement.

There are certain principles, adherence to which, as we think, will alone enable us to maintain what has been gained in the late revival of religion, and to secure healthy conditions of future progress. The chief difficulties with which we have had to contend hitherto have been in securing those Catholic privileges which, while they obviously and certainly belonged to us, had been overlaid and forgotten in past years of apathy and neglect. In the recovery of these we gratefully acknowledge the part which individual action has played, where men have had the courage to act and to suffer in order to secure their undoubted rights as churchmen. We recognize that such action arose chiefly from a desire to be united with other parts of the Church in witness to Catholic doctrine, but it was limited to the securing of what seemed fairly within the bounds of the authoritative sanctions and traditions of the English Church. On the other hand, our chief difficulties at the present time arise out of a return to certain practices which were explicitly or by implication abolished at the Reformation, or out of a resort to certain foreign developments which never had any footing in the English Church.

'I. This being so, we wish in the first place, without expressing an opinion as to the desirableness or the contrary of all or any such revivals and adaptations, to declare that in our view developments of this kind cannot be rightly introduced except by, or under the sanction of, authority. And in saying this we are only asserting the fundamental truth, that subjection to authority is a first principle of Catholicism.

'II. We wish therefore in the second place to set forth Memorandum what we hold to be the authority by which we are bound in etc. respect of rites and ceremonies which are lawfully variable, and the organs through which that authority finds expression.

1. The immediate authority with which, as English churchmen, we have to do is that of the English Church, not that of the Roman or the Gallican or any other Church. However warm may be our interest in those Churches, as individual English Catholics we no more look, or ought to look, to the authority of the Roman or of the Gallican Church, than an Italian or a French Catholic looks, or ought to look, to the authority of the English Church.

2. It follows that nothing can have valid ecclesiastical authority for English churchmen which the English Church has never received or authorized.

3. It follows also that, while confessedly the Church of England is bound in respect of doctrine by continuous Catholic consent and Ecumenic decrees, no variable rite or ceremony can have valid authority for English churchmen which the English Church has definitely repudiated, whether explicitly or by implication, even though it may at one time have had the authority of that Church.

4. Nor can it be claimed that disciplinary rules or usages, merely because they have for a time obtained in other parts of the Church, or in all the Churches of the West, or even throughout the whole Church, have thereby acquired for themselves the authority of the Catholic Church in such a sense that a national Church cannot set them aside for her own members.

5. Authority expresses itself, in the English Church as elsewhere, through the bishops, jointly and severally. Jointly, the English bishops speak with the authority of the Church when, after concordant legislation by the Convocations of the two provinces, a canon or other

1 We have thought it needless to refer to the case of a single province promulgating an enactment, since in England at the present time the case does

not occur.

etc.

Memorandum synodical act is promulgated. Also by the custom of the Church of England all synodical legislation requires the previous consent of the clergy through their representatives in the Lower Houses of the Convocations. Severally, the English bishops speak with the authority of the Church when, within the limits of the system of law and custom received by the Church of England, in the exercise of their pastoral charge they give instructions, directions and permissions to any or all of those under their jurisdiction.

III. Whereas doubts have been raised as to what is precisely meant by the words of the Declaration of Assent made by every priest before entering on his ministry, viz. "I assent to . . . the Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons . . . and in Public Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments I will use the form in the said Book prescribed and none other, except so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority": we desire to say that we hold that by the acceptance of the terms of this Declaration

1. We pledge ourselves to the use of the rites and ceremonies prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer as opposed to the omission of them.

2. We pledge ourselves to the use of them as the positive and sufficient rule and order of the ministrations of the Church for which they are provided, as opposed to modifications of them, whether by change, addition, or omission, except in so far as such modifications may be enjoined or allowed by lawful authority.

3. We are not debarred from using any prayers that we may desire to use for our own edification, provided that they be inaudible and be confined within the limits of the necessary and customary pauses in the rite.

In so interpreting the obligation we have accepted, we are only acknowledging that we stand in the same position as the clergy in other parts of the Catholic Church; since nowhere, so far as we are aware, is it allowed to the clergy to depart from the formularies of worship imposed by authority.

In fact, in virtue of provisions made by authority or Memorandum of sanctioned custom, the English clergy already enjoy etc. considerable liberty. We refer to the customary freedom in respect of Anthems and Hymns, and to the provisions embodied in the Act of 1872 for the Amendment of the Act of Uniformity. But with regard to the last, it may be pointed out that the liberty therein allowed is much more strictly limited than is perhaps commonly supposed, and affords no justification for the promiscuous introduction of obsolete or novel usages on the part of individuals.1 We express no opinion as to the formal spiritual validity of this Act; we only refer to it as conceding a liberty which no one will seriously challenge.

'And over and above the specific liberties which are secured by legislation, there is the right of the bishop under the limitations which the collective action of the episcopate and statute law have imposed upon him, to sanction additional services for use within his jurisdiction. 'We do not hold that the Ornaments Rubric, in enjoining "that such Ornaments of the Church, and of the

1 (1.) Modifications are permitted only in the Orders of Morning and Evening Prayer, and these only in accordance with prescribed rules.

(2.) These modifications are not allowed to be made on Sundays and the greater Holy days, except in a second additional recitation of the service.

(3.) The additional services, allowed with the approval of the Ordinary in accordance with the provisions embodied in the Act, may not include 'any portion of the Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion or anything, except anthems or hymns, which does not form part of the Holy Scriptures or the Book of Common Prayer.'

In other words, these provisions, while allowing of considerable freedom in the treatment of the Divine Service on week-days and in the use of additional services, at the same time exclude any freedom in the treatment of other services, and in particular exclude any modification of the Order for the Administration of the Holy Communion; and while confirming the customary freedom in respect of the use of anthems and hymns, at the same time do not allow of their use as interruptions of the order of the Book of Common Prayer, but only at points where the structure of that order admits of them-a limitation fully expounded, in relation to a particular hymn, in the Archbishop of Canterbury's judgment in the case of the Bishop of Lincoln.

It may be worth while to remark, that possible abuses in respect of the contents of hymns and anthems cannot be considered from the point of view of ritual, but only from that of doctrine.