The name of Sarum, once connected with a notorious case of electoral incongruity, has a more honoured place in the pages of liturgical history; for to Sarum we owe the Sarum Use, formerly the prevailing liturgy of the British Isles. Now every one knows that Sarum is Salisbury, but it may not be amiss to set down here the opinion of etymologists with respect to this curious equation. The Latin name of Salisbury was Sarisburia; but mediaeval scribes, being much addicted to abbreviation (for which we may readily forgive them, considering the immense quantity of writing that they had to do) contracted Sarisburia or Sarisburiensem to Sar, plus a sign to indicate the contraction. Subsequent scribes, it is supposed, copying the work of their predecessors, misunderstood this sign. They were familiar with the abbreviation of final um, one of those syllables which always received scant courtesy. So they deduced an original Sarum, an entirely new yet eminently satisfactory word, combining brevity with the further quality of indeclinability. Therefore we have Missals and all manner of liturgical books secundum usum Sarum, and the Missal which we are going to consider is able to write such a rubric as alia oratio non sarum... ut sequitur. The advantages of this over 'Sarisburiensis' are obvious. So much then for the name: this is the derivation suggested by the New English Dictionary.
And now for the thing which we mentioned above, the Sarum Use. In the first place the reader will note that we do not speak of the Sarum Rite. That may seem pedantic, but your liturgist insists on the terminology. For a Rite implies a distinct and independent liturgy, one of the half-dozen great original liturgies that have existed in the Christian Church. You may speak of the Byzantine Rite, or the Gallican Rite, or the Roman Rite; but you must speak of the Sarum 'Use'. And the distinction is of some historical and controversial importance. There have been liturgists who have traced the Sarum Use to a Gallican origin, and the Gallican Rite to Ephesus and the East, with a careful avoidance of Rome. [1]
Therefore many a loyal Anglican, who will have no truck with things Roman, does not scruple to appropriate whatever is marked as Sarum. Nor is the view we have alluded to without its attraction for that rather insular yet genuine spirit of independence, which delights in the home products and dislikes the foreign importation. Indeed we suspect that a good deal of the fascination which the name of Sarum still exercises over English minds, Catholic as well as Anglican, is to be ascribed to the vigorous impulse of this local patriotism.
But partisanship and patriotism must bow to the findings of liturgical science, which findings are distinctly adverse to both. For it is an established fact that the Sarum Use is not, and never was, anything else but the Roman Rite, with certain quite unimportant modifications.
There is, indeed, very little obscurity as to its genesis. When St Augustine and his companions landed in Kent in the year 597, we may assume that they brought with them their own liturgical books, the service books of the Roman Church. The British Church, or what was left of it, used a liturgy of Gallican type and origin, and St Augustine consulted Pope Gregory on this matter of liturgy as on others. The Pope gave him a free hand: he was to preserve good local usage, and for the rest to select and adapt as conditions required. He was not bidden to enforce the Roman Rite and to suppress the old.
Yet the Anglo-Saxon Church that, sprang from the teaching of St Augustine and his successors became definitely and unmistakably Roman. The peaceful penetration of the Roman missionaries with their ordered system of liturgy produced its natural result. Doubtless their pagan converts had no prepossessions; but even the sturdy opposition of the old British Church would seem to have yielded. The liturgy of this island thus became in all essentials Roman. We say 'in all essentials' because it was characteristic of those times to allow a considerable variety of local usage on minor points. Diocese differed from diocese in ritual, for bishops enjoyed and exercised large powers of selection. And this is true, not only of England, but of the whole Church of that and several subsequent centuries. Uniformity was not attempted, and perhaps was not possible, until the era of printed missals.
With the Conquest came a powerful influence from across the Channel, and the settling of Norman ecclesiastics in English sees. It was natural that they should bring with them, and introduce into England, the liturgical customs of their continental home. But on one point we should be quite clear : they did not introduce a new rite. They, no less than the Anglo-Saxon, used the Roman Rite. What then had become of the Gallican Rite? It was by this time practically extinct – Charlemagne had seen to that – and survived only, if at all, in the abundant varieties of local practice, so characteristic then as afterwards of the French Church. The Norman Conquest, therefore, brought no change of rite, but did bring many small changes of ritual. It is dangerous here to speak too definitely; but, if we said that it introduced into England the use of Rouen (the great Norman sanctuary), we should not convey a very false impression.
Yet the result was not to produce a bewildering mixture of rites and ceremonies. For the Normans, masterful in all things, brought order into this region also. William the Conqueror appointed to the see of Salisbury a Norman noble, who was afterwards to be known as St Osmund. The new bishop was plainly a lover of orderliness. He set to work to organise the ritual of his diocese, and we still possess the ceremonial which he composed. This work deals with all the ecclesiastical|offces, and regulates carefully their order and ritual. Within this framework the somewhat fluid liturgy of the day was fixed and stereotyped, and the church of Sarum produced standard texts for the church offices.
Now such an example of order was bound to have its influence beyond the limits of the diocese in which it was enforced. And in fact we find that the Sarum Use quickly spread throughout England, and even to Scotland and Ireland. But it did not produce an absolute, unqualified uniformity. Other dioceses still preserved their autonomy and exercised the right of varying in detail. The more important of these varieties are represented by the churches of York and Hereford. Yet even here the Sarum Use perhaps supplied the basis and model, the variations being small and unimportant. So that the Sarum Use is thoroughly representative of the liturgy as performed in the churches of pre-Reformation England.
Now all this that has been said hitherto is merely introductory to the examination of an actual Sarum missal, a survivor from pre-Reformation times. As we examine this missal the differences that constitute the Use of Sarum will emerge of themselves, and we need not here embark on further prolegomena to expound these differences. But why, it may be asked, do we not use the Sarum missal still ? The main cause is probably to be found in the destruction of the old service books ordered under Edward VI. Then again the priests who served the English mission in penal times were trained abroad, and naturally learnt and employed the Roman missal as stereotyped by Pope Pius V (1570). So that the Use of Sarum is now extinct. The Anglican Book of Common Prayer is greatly indebted to it; traces of it are preserved in our marriage service ; but otherwise it has ceased to be more than a liturgical specimen.
The missal which we propose to examine is a survivor from Catholic times, dating as it does from some year previous to 1506. It is in the Ampleforth library; but, if we refer to it as the Ampleforth Missal, that must be taken to signify habitat and not ownership. For the missal belongs to our Cumberland mission of Warwick-Bridge. It is a folio volume on stout vellum, written entirely by hand and with very great uniformity, save for one or two unimportant additions. Externally, as now bound, the volume measures 21 by 13½ inches [53 x 33 cm] and is 4 inches [10cm] thick. Its weight is 27½lb. [12.5 kg], rather beyond the carrying power of the normal server. The average missal weighs 61bs [2.7 kg].
The writing on each page is in two columns, each 13½ inches in height and nearly 4 inches. The 'Calvary' page is the only illustration, but there is much ornate illumination besides, of which one example is given. The chief feasts of the liturgical year, such as Christmas, the Epiphany, Easter, and feasts of Our Lady, are among those which receive this special illumination. The artist's work is extremely well done, the delicate tracery, beautiful curves, and soft gradations of colour being very attractive. We confess that our first impression was of a certain sameness in the work, and a lack of freshness and vigour. Perhaps this is due to the highly conventional character which belongs to all such work. But certainly the skill of the artist and the materials used by him are excellent. The colours are as fresh now as when they were put on ; there is no sign of fading. The gold work, too, is admirable. Yet time has left its traces on the book, though it be but accidentally. A few leaves are missing from the beginning, so that there is no title-page, and the calendar begins with the month of May. The first two or three leaves have suffered somewhat from damp. p>
Besides these marks of man's negligence, the book gives evidence of positively hostile attentions. King Henry VIII issued an order that all mention of the Pope should be removed from the service books. So we find in our missal that wherever we should expect the word Papa there is an obvious erasure. This is plain in the Memento for the living, and is especially manifest in the calendar: Linus, Clement, Calixtus, &c, are left with the title of Martyr, but deprived of that of Pope. Moreover, Henry ordered that St Thomas a Becket should be treated similarly to the Pope, and our missal shows the order executed. The two feasts of St Thomas, the feast proper in December and the feast of the Translation in July, are both scored through with a pen and the name of the saint is carefully erased.
What, we may ask, is the history of the volume, and how came it to Warwick-Bridge ? There are two fixed points for this investigation, and between these an apparently unbridgeable gulf of some three and a half centuries. At this side of the gulf is the fact that it has belonged to the mission of Warwick-Bridge from time immemorial, in the literal sense of the phrase. At the other side is a most valuable piece of evidence, written in the book itself. On the back of the richly illuminated page (reproduced), with which the Canon begins, occurs the following inscription :
Such a record is obviously of paramount importance for the determination of the date and provenance of the missal. Yet it leaves many problems. The date of the missal cannot be later than 1506, but we may not assume that it was new and just written at the date when it was given. We might indeed, on external grounds, be inclined to put its date well back into the fifteenth century. The style of the writing would, we believe, agree as well with an early date in that century as with a later. The writing of books by hand went out very rapidly once printing had established itself, as witness the experience of Gerard Eliassoen. Yet the art of the scribe may very well have been invoked again when it was desired to produce a book of greater pretensions than ordinary—and for the service of God. We must refer the point to the experts in the fifteenth-century book-hand. Then there is the donor. Who was Robert Cooke ? An industrious search in the records of Cumberland might answer this question, but we have not yet obtained access to those records. Furthermore there is the ' parish church of Cawlbek.'
A search in the County atlas offered as a likely candidate the village of Caldbeck, situated about 11 miles south of Carlisle and some 13 miles from Warwick-Bridge. A further search in a County history supplied very little beyond the information that the parish church of Caldbeck was dedicated to St Mungo or Kentigern. But the name of St Kentigern did not appear in the calendar of the Missal, so far as that remained, nor did we notice any reference to the Saint in the Sanctorale on his day. So the identification of Cawlbeck with Caldbeck was probable but not certain, when a further discovery confirmed it. At the end of the Sanctorale (November 29) the Ampleforth Missal gives the marriage service and the service for those going on a pilgrimage sive profecturi sint ierusalem, sive ad sanctum iacobum, sive ad aliam peregrinacionem." And there, on a page which was presumably left for such additions, we found the mass we had been looking for, Missa de commemoracione sancti Kentigerni, written out in sixteenth-century handwriting [3]. So the identification may be affirmed with some confidence.
But how came the missal to be transferred to Warwick Bridge ? We have nothing here but surmise to offer to our readers, and our theory is as follows: Edward VI ordered the burning of all the old service books. But the great missal (missale magnum, as is scrawled on one of the pages) was not consigned to the flames, but permitted to the keeping of some local Catholic family, which remained loyal to the old faith through the persecution times. Then when a priest appeared again in the district and it was possible to hold Catholic worship, the missal was given to the mission as to the rightful heir of the old owners. We offer this for what it is, mere conjecture.[4]
Besides this inscription there is other internal evidence, but we should require expert knowledge to determine its full significance. The style of the writing, the design of the illumination, the elaborate Calvary page (though its general plan is conventional enough): all these may convey much information to the expert. We can only note at present that the flowers of the ornamentation which surrounds the Calvary are easily recognisable: there are columbine, pinks and thistle bloom, among others, and even strawberries are summoned to do their share. The shields which stand at each corner of the foot of that same page may prove, to an heraldic eye, rich in evidential matter. [5]
The Calendar of an old missal often supplies a clue to the place of its origin. We have examined the Ampleforth missal carefully for the purpose, but have not been able to draw any definite conclusion from the facts ascertained. Comparing it with a printed Sarum Missal, which is also in the Library (Rouen 1508), we found that while the Proper for the Seasons and main body of the book, even down to the smallest rubrics were practically the same, the Proper of Saints showed some differences, chiefly by way of omission.
The Calendar was the ordinary Sarum Calendar, but the following feasts were absent: St Patrick, St Erkenwald (April 30), Translation of St Nicholas (May 9), St Saviour (May 24), The Name of Jesus (August 7), Translation of St Etheldreda (October 17), St Frideswide (October 19), Memoria of the Translation of St John of Beverley (October 25), Translation of St Erkenwald (November 14), St Osmund (December 4). For October 2nd the Missal gives St Ledger or St Thomas of Hereford with a memoria of St Ledger.
The Sponsalia or Marriage Service does not give the English forms as is commonly done in the printed missals. In one place some prayers of the Roman missal are given, apparently by mistake, for the Sarum prayers are added at the foot of the page. These facts and the differences in the Calendar may or may not suggest a Continental origin. At any rate, they make us hesitate to affirm that the missal is the work of an English scribe and an English illuminator.
But if the origin of the book is obscure and its history during the persecution times completely unknown, it seems that we may construct a probable account of its fortunes during the brief period of its use at Caldbeck. We have already mentioned the fact that it was mutilated in accordance with the edict of King Henry VIII. But the work is not very thoroughly done. No one would have any difficulty in reading the text still, in spite of its defacement. So that we are tempted, on this basis, to construct an imaginary parochus of Caldbeck tempore Henrici octavi, a quiet, orderly, conforming person, anxious to stand well with the law, yet careful also of his religious duty, steering a nicely-balanced course when the two loyalties conflicted, succeeding perhaps but not without much anxiety and many a scruple. Then the king dies, and his loyalty is more sorely tried. The order comes to burn the church books. But how can he burn the Great Missal ? It had been hard enough to deface its sacred pages. No, he will burn the rest. None shall say that he did not burn church books. But this he will spirit away – he knows of a safe home, among good friends – and wait for better days. And so it was done. But this is mere imagination.
However, the book remains, a standing evidence of the Reformation. There it is, the Mass-book of pre-Reformation England, first mutilated and then utterly banished. Our Ampleforth Missal lived through it all, suffered from the first squalls, harbingers of worse to follow, and then, more lucky than the vast company of its fellows, found a secure retreat and safe hiding-place, and survived the storm.[7]
Beati qui non exspectant. When he promised a second article on the Ampleforth missal the writer had a definite expectation: he hoped that some reader would be persuaded, or provoked, into contributing an illuminating criticism, or at least some relevant item of information, something that would supplement his own scanty details and vague surmises. But he has to record regretfully that no such criticism or information has reached him, and that there is nothing to be added to the history of the missal. One omission, however, may be made good. The translation of the donor's inscription, of which the Latin only was given, is as follows :
This omission supplied, the history of the missal, so far as it is ascertainable, has been set out in full; nor is there any more to be added by way of external description. It remains now to deal more intimately with it, and to attempt an analysis of its contents. This must needs be brief and cannot be adequate ; it will be sufficient, after giving a synopsis of the whole, to dwell upon a few salient points, especially on such prayers and rites as differ notably from those of the Roman missal. But with the Sarum ritual as a whole we shall not attempt to deal. On great occasions, as in Holy Week, it was remarkably elaborate and ornate. Sarum was fond of processions, of much incensing, and of an imposing array of ministers in rich vestments.[9] Sarum employed a greater variety of liturgical colours, and the colours had not the same signification as now. The rubric of the missal mentions white, red and yellow. It is known from other sources that purple,, green, brown and different shades of blue were also used. Black vestments were used for Requiems, as generally. Red was the colour for the ordinary Sunday and for Good Friday, as well as on certain other days. On great feasts the best vestments were used, no matter what their colour.
Then there was that curious instrument, the tabellum or ritual fan. There were differences also in the arrangements and furniture of the altar, chief among which was the absence of our present form of tabernacle, the Blessed Sacrament being generally reserved in a dove-shaped vessel suspended over the altar. But, however numerous these minor differences, they do not constitute any serious whole. We have not to make any great effort of the imagination in order to put ourselves into the Sarum world ; nor should we have had any difficulty in recognising the familiar Mass.
The Ampleforth missal in its present state is a book of 522 pages. There are at least four pages lost from the beginning, and probably about the same number from the end. The missal now begins with the Calendar at the month of May, and then continues as follows:
It will be plain from this synopsis that the missal is constructed on the same lines as the ordinary Roman missal.[10] The differences of arrangement are very small and will be manifest to anyone who knows the Roman missal, so that we need not emphasise them. Two items, however, need a word of explanation. The Preces are prayers inserted in the Mass between the Pater Noster and the Pax Domini on certain simple feasts and ferias. The 'Cautels' (Cautelae) correspond to the rules De defectibus of the Roman missal. In the Ampleforth missal they are given under the following title, Rubrica de casibus diversis et periculosis in missa contingentibus, and they differ considerably from the usual Sarum cautels. The printed Sarum missals do not vary on this point, and it might be of importance for the history of our missal could we trace these cautels to their source.
The Blessing of a Pilgrim and the Mass to avert Pestilence are two items that have fallen into abeyance, though it seems that the second might well be used again.[11] The Marriage Service, or Ordo ad facienda sponsalia, does not differ much from the rite in current use, though many of the prayers— some of which are very beautiful—are different. The Ample-forth missal directs that some portions are to be said in lingua maternity i.e. in the mother tongue, but does not actually give the vernacular. This is generally done in the printed missals, and a specimen is subjoined from the 1508 missal. The forms will be recognised easily in spite of the quaint spelling. The man says:
And when putting on the ring:
The whole rite is more copious than the Roman one and is especially rich in blessings; nor was it content with the blessings of the marriage ceremony and Mass, but followed the newly-wedded pair to their home. We may pardoned for giving one out of the many prayers of blessing. This is a translation :
Turning now to the more substantive portions of the missal we must devote some space to the Temporale, or Proper of the Seasons, and to the Sanctorale or Proper of Saints. In these we note both a likeness to and difference from the corresponding sections of a Roman missal. There is the fundamental similarity of structure and often of words; there is at the same time a difference of ritual, especially at such times as Holy Week, the Sarum missal always tending to be more copious and, if we may put it so, flamboyant. We shall not attempt to illustrate the differences of ritual; but an example may be given to show the usual relation of the Sarum text to that of the Roman missal.
The Sarum Mass for the first Sunday of Advent is verbally identical with the Roman Mass, except for the Gospel. The Sarum Mass has a Sequence ; but that is a general difference of which we have already spoken. The same is true of the second Sunday in Advent, the Gospel being that which the Roman missal gives on the first Sunday. The third Sunday (Gaudete) differs in the Epistle and Gospel, the Gospel being the one given by the Roman missal for the second Sunday. The fourth Sunday differs in Introit, Epistle, Gospel, Offertory and Post-Communion; the Epistle and Gospel are those given for the third Sunday in the Roman missal. The Epistle Gaudete in Domino semper comes strangely on this Sunday. The Mass for Christmas Eve is the same except that Sarum has a lesson from the Old Testament as well as the Epistle. The same is true of the midnight Mass, the Lesson here being the familiar passage from Isaias, Populus qui ambulabat in tenebris, &c. But we may mention, as an illustration of Sarum ritual, that when Mass was sung this lesson was chanted with interpolations, being 'farced' as the term is. One of the clerics of the choir chanted a phrase of the lesson, another contributed explanatory additions. And at the Christmas Masses, as on all important days, there were special Sequences.
But further illustration is unnecessary. Enough has been said to show the sort of way in which this part of the text of the Sarum missal differs from the Roman. The differences point to a time when such things were in a comparatively fluid state, before any effort was made to secure uniformity. The Sarum missal represents a compilation that obtained wide vogue in these islands, and to some extent stereotyped their liturgy, before the liturgy of the Roman Church was finally fixed. When the Roman missal received its final form, England had ceased to be Catholic.
Of the Sanctorale and the Common of Saints we need say very little. The Calendar is somewhat different and contains of course many regional saints. It might have contained many more, if the story be true that the Normans, when they took over and reformed the Anglo-Saxon liturgy, expunged many Saxon saints from the Calendar as having names which were impossible to pronounce! The Saints of the universal Church of course occur and with much the same Masses (plus Sequences') that they have in the Roman missal. And the Sarum book is well supplied with Masses for the Feasts of Our Lady. There is for instance a different Sequence for every day of the Octave of the Assumption. Moreover, the rubrics prescribe that the words Benedictus Mariae filius qui venit should on certain days be added to the Sanctus, and interpolations in Our Lady's honour were made in the Gloria. All of which goes to prove the devotion of pre-Reformation England to Mary, and is a curious comment on the view that such devotion is exotic in this island. The Feast of the Annunciation may be called upon to give an example of that feature which is so prominent in the Sarum missal and to which we have alluded so often, viz. the Sequences. The following are the opening verses of the Sequence of that Mass:
And so on, through many more verses, with the same tripping metre. But not all the Sequences are as simple as this; some re perplexed and obscure. And one may be permitted to rejoice at the sober judgement which banished all but five from the Roman missal. The five left are the Victimae Paschali at Easter, Veni sancte Spiritus at Whitsuntide, Lauda Sion for Corpus Christi, Stabat Mater for the Seven Dolours, and the famous Dies irae in the Requiem Mass.
It remains now – if any reader has had the patience to follow thus far – to give an account of the Ordinary and Canon of the Mass. There are several small differences in the Ordinary and these commence at the very beginning. The priest says the psalm Judica (with other prayers) while vesting, and the first words which he says at the foot of the altar are the concluding words of the Paternoster.[12]
The Confiteor is a very brief one :
From this point to the Offertory the order of the Mass differs very little from the Roman order, but its length on feast-days was vastly greater. The Kyries might be elaborately farced as well as the Gloria, and the Sequence was usually of considerable length. However, the portion of the Mass which lies between the Offertory and the Preface was shorter, there being only one prayer of offering, an abbreviated Suscipe sancta Trinitas, and no Lavabo psalm. Instead of Orate fratres, &c, the priest says Orate fratres et sorores, &c, and is answered secretly, with a form quite different from the Roman form. From the Preface to the Paternoster, i.e. throughout the Canon, the Sarum text is word for word the same as the Roman. That is the important thing. The whole of the Eucharistic Prayer, the core and centre of the Mass, is identical with the Roman Canon. Whatever differences there may be in what precedes and in what follows, even though they were considerable – which they are not – the Canon is the same ; and this it is that stamps the Sarum use as Roman, as merely a variant of the great Rite of Western Christendom.
The text of the Canon and the main action are the same, but minor ceremonies differ. The priest does not genuflect, but bows profoundly instead. During the first prayer after the Consecration he holds his hands outstretched in the form of a cross, a rite that will be familiar to those who have attended a Dominican Mass. And of course the wording of the rubrics is different, even where their substance is the same. There was nothing sacrosanct about their form, and the Sarum missals themselves show a considerable diversity. The printed missals, as is natural, are much more copious in this matter than are the manuscripts. As an example of a certain intimacy which characterises the Sarum rubrics, as contrasted with the reserve of the Roman, we may take the rubric for the Memento of the Living (translated)
After the Paternoster the text begins to differ again. As has been noted already certain Preces were inserted after the Libera on some week-days and simple feasts. They consisted of three psalms, some versicles and responses, and three prayers. Then followed the Pax Domini, and at this point, if the bishop were the celebrant, he gave a solemn blessing. The rite of commingling took place after and not before the Agnus Dei. Then follow the Pax and the priest's Communion. Some of the prayers are the same as those in the Roman missal; but those which differ are so beautiful that we quote them in full. The Sarum rubric is: 'After the giving of the kiss of peace, let the priest say these prayers privately, before communicating, holding the Host in both hands'. Then follows the prayer:
Then follow two prayers which are practically the same as those in the Roman missal, the Domine Jesu Christe Fili Dei vivi and Perceptio. The prayers at the moment of Communion are as follows :
and for the Chalice :
Then, after the ablutions, follows a prayer of thanksgiving :
There is no need to emphasise the beauty and fervour of these prayers, which are plain even in a translation. English folk are expected to regard themselves as a cold, unemotional people, and to repel fervid piety as Neapolitan. It may be that Puritanism has profoundly modified the national character, and, besides spoiling the Englishman's manners (as some allege), has made his piety frigid and austere. Yet, if we examine the books of devotion that were used in pre-Reformation England, we find no such austerity. They are characterised rather by a warmth of devotion that is not afraid to express itself in the tenderest language.
After the ablutions – the ritual of which is somewhat different from the Roman – there follow the Communion and Post-Communion, just as in the Roman missal. And the priest says the same prayer Placeat after the Ite missa est, but he gives no Last Blessing. He makes the sign of the cross on himself, and then the procession moves out, the priest saying the last Gospel, In principio, as he goes.[13]
Thus ends the Sarum Mass. The Ampleforth missal gives the usual thanksgiving prayers, in which Sarum differs somewhat from Rome, the Benedicite, &c, but does not give any of the extra prayers that are contained in some of the printed missals. The two printed Sarum missals in the library give a page of instruction before Mass, ending with these words under the rubric Bernardus dicit:
And both give the following thanksgiving prayer, which is described in a later edition of the missal as : Oratio valde bona dicenda post celebrationem missae. This is a translation :
With this beautiful prayer we may take our leave of the Sarum missal. There is no mistaking the faith and devotion that found expression in such words. Strangely different from Sarum times is the England that we look out on now in this year of our Lord 1919. And yet there are not wanting signs of better things. God grant that this people may yet 'Stand in the ways and see and ask for the old paths, which is the good way, and walk therein.'