Book is described as being so meagre in companion with them that it is a wonder how it could have been derived from such rich and varied sources. Nor is this an isolated sentence. In another passage, he says, “In this respect it is impossible to deny that our existing Communion Office is open to grave exception.” The one object of the whole paper, indeed, is to give such evidence of the inferiority of our existing Liturgy as may induce the Bishops to give permission (which, of course, they have no power to do) for the substitution under certain circumstances of another book. It is of no use, therefore, any longer to maintain the delusion that the movements of the English Church Union are prompted by any love for the English Prayer Book. That book is condemned as “meagre,” and “open to grave exceptions.” The preference is given to the unreformed services, and especially to the Use of Sarum; and it must be plainly understood that if anything is suggested as a _via media_ or a _modus vivendi_, the two parties between whom it must be a _via media_ are on the one hand those who avow their preference for the Use of Sarum, and on the other those who with their whole heart delight in the reformed worship of our dear old Church of England. But I have heard it said that the Use of Sarum was itself a reformed service, and free from many of the abuses of Rome. Thus Mr. Wood calls it “The great English rite of S. Osmund.” But surely he was mistaken in that expression, for, though used in England, it was not an English rite. Osmund was a Norman Count, and having fought in the army of William the Conqueror, was, as a reward for his services, first created Earl of Dorset, and then appointed Bishop of Salisbury. At the time of his appointment there was great religious dissension in the country occasioned by the introduction of the Gallican liturgy by William the Conqueror, which was resisted by the English; and Osmund compiled the Use of Sarum in order, if possible, to harmonize all parties. His chief work, therefore, was to introduce, as far as possible, the Gallican element; and in no sense whatever can that use be called “The great English rite of S. Osmund.” But its origin is of little importance as compared with its contents. The great question is, “What is the real character of the book which is thus preferred to our ‘meagre’ English Prayer Book?” And it would be an important contribution to the present controversy if any of those who exalt its excellence would inform us of any one particular in which it differs in principle from the Romish Missal and Breviary. There is not space in such a paper as this for the investigation of its identity in all important points with the liturgies of Rome; but it would be extremely interesting to know in what that richness consists of which we heard so high an encomium at the Derby Church Congress. Three things may be briefly mentioned: