and misery. And surely, if words can exhibit the marks of flowing from a tender father's lips, this language bears that soft impression. These are not the accents nor anxieties which belong to one who "has pleasure in the death of him that dieth." Are they not rather like the yearnings of a parent's heart, or like the voice of the good Shepherd, who loved His sheep, and gave Himself for them?

O that men were wise-that they understood this--that they would consider their latter end! These three aspirations seem but the reiteration of the same devout and ardent wish. For to possess the wisdom from above is but another name for understanding with the heart the things of God. And what is truly to consider our latter end, but to lift our thoughts, and elevate our affections, to those celestial objects and Divine realities which will last for ever?

But to make one or two more particular applications of these emphatic words—and first of all to youth. The latter end of youth, properly speaking, is manhood: for as the one begins the other ends. Too often do young persons, as they ripen towards maturity, seem as if true manhood consisted in throwing off rather the sweet simplicity than the heedless follies of their childhood. They shoot up, like ill-trained plants, in a wrong direction, and ripen in a wrong way. Their mere animal propensities progress, and their better principles decline. They take counsel of companions headstrong and foolish as themselves, and not of God, of parents, or of good advisers. They feel as if they had risen above religion, and refuse to be bound by its silken cords. O that they were wise, and would consider that if their days are not cut short in righteous judgment, this folly must issue in a despicable and unhappy manhood. O that they would reason rightly, and thus resolve. Now is the only seed time of my life, and, with God's blessing, I will sow. My parents watched over me in infancy with tender care; and I will prepare myself to be a comfort to them, a prop and solace amidst their toils and cares. From God I have received my strength, my buoyant spirits, my opening faculties, and the energies of my youth, and to Him who gave me all I now devote them. And He will never leave me, nor forsake me. will stand by me when I most want His aid. He will be my staff and my support when I am declining in the vale of years; and will turn the last shades of evening, and the darkness of a dying hour, into the morning of a never-ending day.

He

Let all that are blessed with present health, and wealth, and prosperity, learn the important lessons of the words before us. Let them follow the bright example of Him who, amidst the glories of His transfiguration, "spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem." "The cloudy and dark day" may be near at hand, while the surrounding landscape smiles, and sunshine gladdens all the face of nature. Let us then prepare to meet it. Let us not say to our soul, "Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years;" when this very night we may cease to be inhabitants of this earth, and have taken our flight beyond the stars. Let us call to mind how soon the rich man's purple and fine linen were exchanged for the winding-sheet of death, and his glittering mansion for the dark abode of hell.

On the other hand, let the believer, when want depresses, and afflictions bow down, remember Lazarus, and how his troubles ended; how "It came to pass that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom." Let him "consider his latter end;" and this will be a medicine for all his sorrows. They may be hard to bear, but

they will soon be over. They may be grievous now, but they will be turned into joy. His light affliction, which is but for a moment, will work for him a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." H. W.

THE HISTORY AND AUTHORITY OF THE STATE-PRAYERS.

For the Christian Observer.

In our last Number, a Reverend correspondent reminded our readers that the fifth of November would occur on a Sunday; and that, in addition to the form of Prayer and Thanksgiving provided for that occasion, the Act of Parliament of James the First, enjoining the consecration of that day, was required to be read after morning prayer or preaching. We did not remark upon the controversies which have been raised respecting this service, and also those for January 30, May 29, and the King or Queen's accession to the throne; presuming that our readers are as well acquainted with the facts of the case as we can pretend to be; but as the use of the Fifth of November service last month, by some clergymen, its omission by others, and its threatened alteration by others, have led to much discussion, and the general question is raised both as to the authority and the expediency of these offices, we will endeavour to condense the chief matters which bear upon the subject, by tracing the history of the four forms.

Service for the Fifth of November.-The Act of the third year of James I. directed that all ministers in cathedrals, parish churches, and other usual places for common-prayer, shall, on the fifth of November, say morning prayer, and give thanks to God for the deliverance from the Gun-powder plot; and that all persons shall on that day resort to their accustomed place of worship, to be present at the service. No particular form of thanksgiving was mentioned; so that each clergyman, Bishop Gibson says, seems to have been left to his discretion; but this was not the case, for a form of thanksgiving was drawn up, and was set forth by the King's authority, though it was not printed with the Prayer-books and it was one of the charges urged by Burton, in the next reign, in his sermon on the Fifth of November, 1636, and in his pamphlets, that Archbishop Laud had altered that office to favour the Papists; and this accusation was not forgotten at Laud's trial, any more than the tortures which, in his revenge, he had caused to be inflicted upon Burton, and also Prynne and Bastwick. Again, in an order of the House of Lords, in the sixteenth year of Charles the First, it is directed that "the title before the Prayers for the deliverance from the Gunpowder Plot, shall be altered, and printed hereafter in these words, A Thanksgiving for the Delivery from the Gun-powder Treason;" and the printer was ordered to appear before the House, to be asked how the title, "A Thanksgiving for Peace and Victory," came to be introduced. Bishop Gibson should have considered that it is not the duty of the Legislature to draw up a form of Prayer; this is the duty of the Church.

The Act enjoined that notice for the due observation of the day should be given publicly in the church the Sunday before; and that the Act itself should be read on the day, after morning prayer or preaching. The Act is couched in strong language; as where it speaks of God's "inspiring the King's most excellent Majesty with a Divine Spirit, to interpret some dark phrases of a letter beyond all ordinary construction; thereby miraculously discovering this hidden treason.' But to the CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 72.

4 Z

language of the Act, a clergyman reading it is no party. It seems to be reasonably well ascertained that Cecil had become acquainted with the plot, and that he suggested to the King the "miraculous discovery."

At the Restoration, the Convocation revised and altered the office for the Fifth of November, but it was not added to the sealed Prayer-book, and therefore is not recognized by the Act of Uniformity. It was only "annexed" by royal authority.

We are not aware that any alterations were made in this office in the reign of James the Second; but in the second year of the reign of William and Mary it was much altered, and considerable additions were made to it; chiefly to embody thanksgivings for "the happy arrival of his Majesty King William on this day, for the deliverance of our Church and nation." The chief reviser was Bishop Patrick, who composed the new prayers. We could not specify all the alterations and additions, without collating the whole service. The prefatory sentences were altered; the Scripture suffrages instead of the Venite were new ; the psalms were altered; the prayer "Accept also," and the prayer "O God whose name," were added; and of course all the passages which refer to the Revolution of 1688. Wheatly remarks (perhaps with somewhat of sarcasm), "The Gospel appointed instead of the story of Judas betraying his Master-which for some good reasons, I suppose, was then thought proper to be discontinued-is intended to correct the unruly effects of mistaken zeal for our religion; shewing us that our faith, be it ever so true, cannot warrant us to persecute or destroy those of different persuasions."

This service has not been altered since the revision of 1690; but in comparing the prefatory Rubrics, as they now stand, with a Prayerbook of the reign of Queen Anne, we find that the Rubric which directs giving notice on the preceding Sunday and reading the Act of Parliament on the day, is a modern addition. It is perhaps an unauthorised printer's interpolation, in order to remind the clergy of the directions of the Act of Parliament. We find such unauthorised, though convenient, notices in the Rubrics respecting the Marriage service, alluded to in our Number for October, p. 586. We should mention that the Prayerbook to which we have chiefly referred, is that of Dr. Nicholls, with his commentary; and he professes to give the variations accurately.

Service for January 30.-The Act of Parliament which directs the observation of January 30, was passed at the Restoration, (the twelfth of Charles the Second). No particular form of thanksgiving is mentioned; nor is it directed that the Act shall be read; or that notice of the day shall be given on the preceding Sunday.

The form as it first stood was agreed upon by Convocation at the Restoration; but it was not added to the sealed-book. It was only set forth by the King's authority.

But the service was much altered in the days of James the Second ; and then also was added the rubrical direction, that the day should be annoup pon the Lord's day next before, after the Nicene Creed.”

Service for May 29.-The Act of the twelfth of Charles the Second enjoined the solemnization of this day; and directed that the Act should be read the Sunday before, and notice given of the solemnization. Convocation agreed upon the form; but it was not in the Prayer-book recognized by the Legislature in the Act of Uniformity. The Act says that "a true and perfect copy" of the Prayer-book, attested under the hands and seals of the Commissioners, and with the great seal of England, shall be deposited in every cathedral and collegiate church, and in the Tower of London, and the Courts at Westminster; and shall be pleadable as a

good record of the Prayer-book. Very few of these copies were made. These offices are not to be found in these "true and perfect" copies.

This service was extensively altered in the days of James the Second. A Rubric was also prefixed, which is not in the original form, directing that the Act made in the twelfth, and confirmed in the thirteenth, year of Charles the Second, for the observation of the day, shall be read publicly, on the preceding Lord's-day, in all churches at Morning service, after the Nicene Creed; and notice given of the solemnity. The Act had directed the notice and the reading, only not mentioning "after the Nicene Creed." The opening sentences also were changed; the hymn "instead of Venite," was exchanged for another "hymn instead of Venite;" the psalms and lessons were altered; prayers were omitted, altered, or added; in short, the whole service was newly modified. This was done under episcopal sanction; but the revision was not submitted to Convocation; chiefly, we suppose, on account of the strong Jacobite bias of the Lower House.

The Accession Service.-Though this office was not agreed upon by Convocation, or prescribed by Act of Parliament, it is in substance no novelty. "Whereas," says James the Second, "not only the pious Christian emperors in ancient times, but also of late our own most religious predecessors, kings of this realm, did cause the days on which they began their several reigns to be publicly celebrated every year, so long as they reigned, by all their subjects with solemn prayers and thanksgivings to Almighty God. . . . Our will and pleasure is, &c." We will not, however, go back farther than the days of Charles the First, when there was a form of service; but this form was not revived at the Restoration; nor did the Convocation then draw up, or the Legislature direct, any other in its place. The reason is obvious; for the day of Charles the Second's de jure accession was the melancholy January 30, which was a day of humiliation; and the day of rejoicing was therefore made to be that of his de facto accession, namely, the day of the Restoration, May 29.

In the days of James the Second, an office for the Accession was set forth by the King's authority. It was chiefly the old form revised. In the days of William and Mary, no special Accession service was used; the additions to the service for the Fifth of November being, in fact, an Accession service for that reign. In the days of Queen Anne a form was drawn up, consisting partly of that used in the days of James the Second, and partly new. This service does not quite tally with our present office. Thus the first lesson in James's reign was Joshua i.; in Anne's, Prov. viii. 13 to the end; and now Joshua i. 1-10. The "Prayer for Unity" has also been added. In Queen Anne's service the Rubric directed that notice of the celebration shall be given in the church the Sunday before; but this direction is now dropped. We know not why this should be, except on the ground that such a direction was considered superfluous; the day being a holiday, and the minister being directed in the Prayer-book to give notice of all holidays after the Nicene Creed. But then why did the Rubric direct such notice to be given for May 29; and this not casually, but as an after-thought in the revised Rubric? There is no fixed plan in these directions. The original office for May 29, omits the direction for notice; the amended form inserts it. The original office for the Accession inserts it; the amended form omits it. So in regard to January 30, Charles's Rubric omitted the giving notice, and James's added it; and in the November 5. service the old Rubric omits the notice, and our modern

Rubric supplies it. The Acts of Parliament are equally varied. The Acts for November 5 and May 29, direct that notice shall be given; that for January 30 does not; and for the Accession office there is no Act. The Act for November 5 directs that the said Act shall be read on that day: the Act for May 29, that this Act shall be read the Sunday before; the Act for January 30 does not direct the Act to be read at all; and for the Accession there is no Act. It would not appear that, without the direction of an Act of Parliament or special Rubric, a clergyman would necessarily be led to regard these days as among the "holy-days or fasting-days" directed by the Rubric after the Nicene Creed to be notified; for these days are not included in the tables of Feasts and Fasts which follow the Calendar; but are noticed by themselves as "Certain solemn days for which particular services are appointed."

The practical anomalies which arise from the facts above stated, are alluded to as follows by Wheatly, in his remarks on the service for May 29:

"And yet it is remarkable that though both these Acts (for November 5 and May 29,) together with the Act for the Thirtieth of January, appoint these several days to be solemnly observed, and both suppose and enact that proper prayers and praises shall be used on those days: yet not one of them provides for or establishes any office for the use of either one or the other of the said days: nor have our kings, by whose order and directions alone these several orders are printed, and annexed to the Book of Common Prayer, and appointed to be used on their respective days, any power or authority invested in them by King Charles the Second's Act of Uniformity, to establish or enjoin any other form than what is provided in the Book of Common Prayer, or to do anything else in relation to that book, than to alter and change from time to time the names of the King, Queen, and royal progeny. So that it might be well questioned, whether these, or any other occasional offices put out by the same order, could safely be used, were it not for the general connivance, or rather concurrence, of the two other parts of the legislative authority, the Lords and Commons, who, if sitting, are always present at the performance of such offices, and frequently address the King to order them.'

Wheatly is somewhat unfair and Erastian in expressing surprise that Acts of Parliament did not " provide for, or establish any office." This, as we before remarked, was the business of the Church; and it duly gave effect to the pious wishes of the Legislature. But the four offices under consideration do not rest upon the same authority as the Prayer-book, as it stood at the passing of the Act of Uniformity, and is now to be referred to in the sealed copies, which alone are producible as legal evidence. Indeed this is inferentially acknowledged in the Orders in Council by which these offices are "annexed to" the Prayerbook from reign to reign. The Order in Council is appended to the services in our Prayer-books: as for instance, "Victoria Reg.:-Our will and pleasure is, that these four forms be annexed to the Book of Common Prayer, &c., J. Russell."* On turning to the Order in Coun

simply "King William,” much less "his late Majesty King William," as he now is "by her Majesty's command." Sir James Graham ought even yet to have the mistake corrected. Up to the reign of Queen Victoria, the service was right. There was no fear of people going back to the days of the Conqueror or Rufus, at the name of William; for those who did not understand the references to the events of 1688, were not likely to know much about the Norman dynasty; but even had there been such