This eBook is a reproduction by the State Library of New South Wales from source material that we believe is not currently covered by copyright. The original physical edition is available from the State Library of New South Wales.

The original publication details are as follows:

Title: How shall we conform to the liturgy of the Church of England? / by James Craigie Robertson.

Author: Robertson, James Craigie, 1813-1882,.

Published: William Pickering, London, 1843

Digitised under the State Library of NSW's Digital Excellence Program. Due to the nature of the original material or digitisation process there may be instances where the digital copies are not exact matches of the originals. If you have any questions or would like to provide feedback, please email collections.library@sl.nsw.gov.au

HOW SHALL WE "CONFORM TO THE LITURGY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?"

"NOTHINGothing is more reasonable, in questions concrning- the interpretation of a law, than to enquire how the practice of people was in times ygone; because what they did when the reason and sense of the law were best perceived, and what the lawgiver allowed them to do in the obedience of it, may best be supposed to be that which he intended."—Bishop Taylor, Ductor Dubitantium, iii. 6. 6. (Works, vol. xiv. p. 268.)

HOW SHALL WE "CONFORM TO THE

LITURGY OF THE CHURCH

OF ENGLAND?"

BY JAMES CRAIGIE ROBERTSON M. A.

OF TRINITY COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

CURATE OF BOXLEY

LONDON

WILLIAM PICKERING

1843

ADVERTISEMENT.

WHERE passages are marked as quo tations, it is believed that the very words will be met with in the original. Considerable liberties have been taken in the way of abridgment; but the writer trusts that the sense is fairly given in all cases, both where the words are quoted, and where he has endeavoured to express it in language of his own.

BOXLEY, MAIDSTONE,

April 22, 1843.

CONTENTS.

HOW SHALL WE CONFORM TO THE
LITURGY OF THE CHURCH
OF ENGLAND?
PART I.

INTRODUCTION.

AMONG the consequences of the late Theological movement has been the manifestation of a feeling, more energetic, at least, if not stronger, than any that had before been general, as to the obligations of the clergy in matters of ritual observance.

We hear daily of the revival of practices, which, from long disuse, have come to be now regarded as novelties; such revivals are often met with violent repugnance on the part of persons who have hitherto been accustomed to a different system; while their advocates allege in favour of them, sometimes the laws of our national church, sometimes the remoter sanction of antiquity; and, if it be urged that it would be well to proceed soberly and gradually in attempting to restore what has long been neglected, they are found, perhaps, to reply, that they have no choice in the matter; that caution and a consideration of circumstances are not within their power; that they have bound themselves by pledges which shut out the exercise of their own judgment, and can only be fulfilled by an exact obedience to orders.

There are others — and among these the great majority of the clergy may, probably, be reckoned— who, without going so far, at least in practice, have felt the impulse of the time, and wish to do their duty in this respect to the best of their ability; while this wish is accompanied by some perplexing uncertainty as to what their duty really is.

And it is impossible to shut our eyes to the existence of a third class; the members of which, however zealous they may be in the discharge of some part of their pastoral functions, appear to act much as if in ritual matters they hardly recognized any authority, or held themselves bound by any engagements. ¹ To such persons it would be useless to address myself; but in the hope that my labour may not be unprofitable to some of those who wish to perform their duty faithfully, in obedience to the ritual directions of the Church, I purpose to examine, in the following pages, the real amount of our obligations.

Every parochial clergyman of the English Church is bound by subscription to the following Article of the XXXVIth Canon:—"That the Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God, and that it may lawfully so be used; and that he himself will use the form in the said Book prescribed, in Public Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and none other."

He has also subscribed this declaration:—

"I, A. B. do declare that I will conform to the Liturgy of the United Church of England and Ireland, as it is now by law established."

And a pledge to the same effect is exacted of Priests at their Ordination, in these words:—

"Will you give your faithful diligence, always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and Realm hath received the same, according to the commandments of God; so that you may teach the people committed to your cure and charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?"

Answer. "I will so do, by the help of the Lord."

Such are the engagements of the clergy; and very strong language is often used as to their stringency. It appears to be the opinion of many interpreters, that we are tied to an exact observance of everything set down in the Prayer-Book; an observance with which no outward circumstances may lawfully be allowed to interfere.

Thus, we find Archdeacon Sharp, in the middle of the last century, writing as follows, in his work on the Rubric and Canons (p. 5.);—"We have by [repeated engagements which he enumerates] tied ourselves down to a regular, constant, conscientious performance of all and every thing prescribed in and by the Book of Common Prayerand, since this is ex anitno, "how frivolous is it for any of us to say that the connivance or presumed consent of our Ordinary, or the private conveniency of ourselves or families, or the obliging of any of our parishioners, or the apparent inexpediency of adhering to the letter in some few cases, will dissolve this our obligation."

So the Bishop of London, in his late Charge, repeats words which he had formerly addressed to the Clergy of the Diocese of Chester:—"We are no more at liberty to vary the mode of performing any part of public worship, than we are to preach doctrines at variance with the Articles of Religion;" —and makes other observations to the same effect.

And a Divine whose character deserves the highest respect, Dr. Hook, tells us in the first edition of his Church-Dictionary, (which is perhaps not the most valuable of his works,) that a clergyman must "perjure himself" by omitting to comply with a Rubric;2 and again, that "any clergyman who wilfully and knowingly transgresses [the Rubrics] must be void of all religion, since one of the first duties of religion is to keep our vows."³

It is not easy to understand how a body of men stained with perjury can be fit for the office of spiritual pastors and teachers; but if we compare the letter of the Prayer-Book with the general practice of these days, it must be very plain that there are considerable variations; and consequently, that, if there be truth in Dr. Hook's opinions, as expressed in the passages here referred to—the second of which, however, he has not repeated in his later editions—the great mass of the clergy are guilty of this shocking sin, and "void of all religion."

To speak only of such things as are not uncommonly done by those who are accounted among the more regular of the clergy—perhaps most of us have to charge ourselves with having, at some time or other, deviated from the Prayer-Book in some of the following particulars:—Omitting the performance of daily service; omitting that part of the Communion-office which is appointed to follow the sermon when there is no administration; celebrating the Holy Communion without setting two lights on the Altar; omitting to give notice of Holy-days and Fasting-days; allowing the use of metrical Psalms in our Churches; wearing gowns in preaching; preaching at times for which no sermon is prescribed; infrequency in public catechizing; using collects in the pulpit, before and after sermon; reading the whole of the marriage-service at the Lord's Table, whereas it ought to be begun in the Body of the Church; marrying otherwise than in time of Divine Service.

Some of these practices are against the plain letter of the Rubric; others are against what it is said to involve. And in mentioning these instances, (to which others might easily be added) I have perhaps said enough to prove that almost all the present race of clergy are liable to be accused of inconformity; that the exact obedience, which is sometimes spoken of as necessary,⁴ is, at the least, extremely rare.

And to this universal inconformity it is to be attributed, that while such language as that already quoted is held in various quarters, we find that the same authorities, when they come to speak in the way of practical direction, are disposed to make considerable allowances. Thus, Sharp in many places admits of dispensations, for various causes. The Bishop of London, instead of enforcing complete and immediate conformity, contents himself with recommending a gradual approximation.

"It may," his Lordship says, "call for the exercise of a sound discretion in certain cases, as to the time and mode of bringing about an entire conformity of your practice in this respect to the letter of the law; but I cannot, as it appears to me, consistently with my duty, interpose any obstacle, nor offer any objection to its being done."

Dr. Hook, too, even in his Church-Dictionary, is sometimes rather milder than in the sentences which have been quoted; and in his "Call to Union," published two or three years earlier, after describing two classes of interpreters, he thus speaks—"A third party are of opinion, to which I myself incline, that they act in perfect consistency with their pledges, if they take things as they find them, merely guarding against further innovations; and if, as occasion offers, they return more nearly to the practice of the Reformers, which, they rejoice to think, is the practice also of the primitive church." (Ed. 1. p. 38.)

I have no means of knowing whether Dr. Hook would wish us to look on his later declarations as capable of being reconciled with the earlier, or as a retractation of them. To any one who should first have taken up his notions from the "Dictionary," the principle just quoted would probably seem to require some proof of its lawfulness, before he could think it safe to act on.

The Bishop of London appears to feel a difficulty in giving directions, and to doubt whether the power vested in his office extends to the authorizing any deviation:—"Far from questioning the right of the clergy to observe the Rubric, I know it to be their duty; and the only question is—how far are we [the Bishops] justified in not enforcing such observance in every instance?"

Another Right Reverend Prelate, however, who has also lately published a Charge, has no doubt as to the fulness of his authority. The responsibility for variations from the order of the Prayer-Book lies, according to the Bishop of Worcester, not on the parochial clergy, but on the Bishops, who, being aware that such variations have obtained, may be held to have sanctioned them by their silence; and his Lordship thus expresses anew in his Charge, sentiments which had been previously published in a letter to a clergyman of his diocese;⁵—"When you sign a declaration that you will conform to the Book of Common Prayer, and to everything contained therein, you bind yourselves to use in general that form— rather than the Missal of the Roman Catholics on the one hand, or the Directory of the Puritans on the other; and not that you will with more than Chinese exactness make a point of conscience to adopt every expression, and implicitly to follow every direction therein contained, notwithstanding any changes which altered habits of life, or altered modes of thinking, may have rendered expedient." (p. 9.)

Again, at p. 36, Paley's argument about the meaning of subscription to Articles is thus applied by his Lordship to the case under consideration:— "No one who reads the history of those times with attention can doubt that the object of the legislature, who imposed upon the clergy a subscription to the above declarations, was the substitution of the Book of Common Prayer for the Missal of the Roman Catholics, or the Directory of the Puritans."

It is not easy, on this principle, to account for the repeated and very careful revisions which have been bestowed on our Service-book; as it would seem that any one fashion of the reformed Liturgy would have sufficiently and permanently answered the purpose which the Bishop of Worcester speaks of as the mind of the imposers. But indeed his Lordship's words seem to admit of deviations from the formulary to an extent of which it is difficult to understand the limits; certainly far beyond what would be considered safe by many whose opinions as to the duty of conformity are of no extreme strictness. And whereas, in this Charge, it is taught that the silence of a Diocesan is sufficient to authorize any notorious variation from the prescribed order, we find it more commonly held by writers of name, that "where the Rubrics are plain and express, the Ordinary has no authority to release any minister from that obedience which he owes the Church in what she commands in her Rubrics."⁶

In this state of things, it appears desirable that the question of conformity should be deliberately considered, with a view to a right understanding of our engagements; and the writer will here state the conclusion to which he has been led by a careful investigation.

It is this;—that the Book of Common Prayer expresses, what is for the present the ideal of the Anglican system, rather than anything which has ever been generally realized; that, while a conscientious clergyman will strive after the realizing of it, he is not bound to put everything in practice at once, if there be difficulties in the way from the circumstances of the time, from prevailing notions and tempers, but is at liberty to go to work gradually and cautiously; and, that those who are over us in the Lord, have, an authority—(different, it is conceived, from that contemplated in the last-quoted Charge, but yet)—sufficient to warrant us in any such variations as do not contradict the spirit of the Prayer Book, and proceed, not from any unwillingness to conform, but from a desire to work prudently and effectually towards a conformity entire, general, and lasting.

A notion to this effect had grown up in his mind almost insensibly, in consequence of what he met with, while reading without any view to forming an opinion on the present question—which, indeed, he never felt himself called on to consider for the especial direction of his own practice, as it has never been his duty to order the manner of public worship in a congregation. It then occurred to him that he might do well, and even might be of service to others, by enquiring into the history of the manner in which the orders of the Prayer-Book had been obeyed;⁸ and before proceeding far, he was much pleased to meet with the sentence printed in the title-page, and which shall here be repeated, as giving the sanction of a great divine and casuist to the course which he has pursued: —"Nothing," says Bishop Taylor, "is more reasonable, in questions concerning the interpretation of a law, than to enquire how the practice of people was in times bygone; because, what they did when the reason and sense of the law were best perceived, and what the lawgiver allowed them to do in the obedience of it, may best be supposed to be that which he intended."

It is on evidence such as Bishop Taylor speaks of in this passage, that the argument to be maintained in the following pages is built.

People who talk and write now-a-days are much in the habit of assuming, that at the time of its compilation, and of the revisions which it afterwards underwent, the Prayer-Book was at once fully put in force; as if there were no hindrances from prejudices or any other circumstances, or as if, at least, no allowance were made for such impediments; as if the simple issuing of a book forthwith established in every place of worship throughout the land, all the order and beauty which the system of our Church prescribes or allows. A glance at the Church's history will show that such an assumption is somewhat rash; and this general view may serve as a preparation for the consideration of details which is to follow.

I. The first English Prayer-Book was set forth in 1549; the second in 1552. This latter, as is well known, was more agreeable than the earlier to the principles of the foreign Reformed, and of those who afterwards became known at home as Puritans. Among the changes were the omission of some vestments which had been retained before, and the substitution of the surplice as the only attire to be worn by priests and deacons in their public ministration.

We find, however, that while the first book was still in force, the copes, which were vestments prescribed by it to be used at the administration of the Holy Communion, were taken away from Westminster Abbey by an order of the Council (Strype, Eccl. Mem. ii. 239); and that during Edward's reign, the offices of the Church, including the celebration of the Lord s Supper, were very commonly performed by ministers who wore only their ordinary dress.⁹ No one, of course, would wish to bring back such a state of matters; but it is plain from these circumstances, that the first compilers of our book allowed people to do things very inconsistent with that rigid interpretation of the ordination-vow which some would now force upon us. For be it observed, that the pledge already quoted was in our Ordinal from the first.

II. The English Liturgy was suppressed during the reign of Queen Mary, which ended in November, 1558. On the Feast of St. John the Baptist in the following year, a new Service-book, somewhat less unlike than that of 1552 to the first Liturgy of King Edward, came into force by Act of Parliament. In it was the following Rubric, which is still found in our Prayer-Book:

"Such ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by authority of an Act of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI."

This seemed to revive the obligation of the second and third orders of clergy to wear copes, vestments, and albes, and to make it the duty of every Bishop,

"Whensoever he should celebrate the Holy Communion, or execute any other public ministration,"—to "have upon him, besides his rochette, a surplice or albe, and a cope or vestment, and also his pastoral staff in his hand, or else borne or holden by his chaplain."—(Edward the Sixth's Liturgies, ed. Cardwell. p. 397.)

Let us see, then, how the revivers of this law set about observing it in their own persons.

In December, Parker, one of the chief revisers of the Prayer-Book, was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury. No pastoral staff was delivered to him;¹⁰ and it is very doubtful whether any eyes from that day to this have been more fortunate than Dr. Hook's, who "does not remember to have seen an English Bishop attired as this Rubric directs¹¹."— (Ch. Diet. Art. Crosier). And further, one of the consecrators, Coverdale, wore only "a long cloth gown," (Strype's Parker); which inconformity, although his poverty, and his resolution not again to undertake episcopal duties may be pleaded for it, seems in truth to have been the result of a Puritanical principle, and yet to have been for some reason borne with by the new Primate.

Parker, although his name has lately been taken by a society in which Puritanical opinions strongly predominate, was the person to whom, above all other human instruments, the preservation of our Church from Puritanism is due. With very little support, for the most part, either from the ministers of state¹² or from his brother-bishops, he toiled vigorously to keep down the spirit of nonconformity; and his whole life was made unhappy by continual contests with the "Germanical natures" of those whose notions had been formed, whether at home or in exile, after the model of foreign Confessions.

That the system of the Prayer-Book could have been fully carried out in those days, will not be imagined by any one who will consider the great lack of clergymen, which led to the ordination of many illiterate persons,¹³ to the allowing the service to be read by laymen, and the frequent union of several parishes under one "principal incumbent," who was represented in each by deacons or lay readers. (Strype, Parker, 65). Deacons were then allowed to hold cure of souls, although the commission given to that order of ministers was of no greater extent than it now is. (Zouch, on Walton's Lives, ed. 1. p. 362). Bishops were often either strongly Puritanical themselves, or inclined to encourage Puritans.¹⁴ Beza, Bullinger, Martyr, and other foreigners, were looked to by many eminent English Churchmen as the highest theological authorities, and indeed were generally less immoderate in their judgment than those who appealed to them. Great irregularities were everywhere committed; and the Archbishop was content to press for a very partial obedience to the laws of the Church, with but little success in obtaining even that.

III. His successor, Grindal, (1575-1583,) had been an exile in Mary's reign, and leant decidedly towards Puritanism. The Puritanical party now felt itself greatly strengthened by having a friend in the most eminent place among the Bishops, which had hitherto been held by a formidable enemy; and, of course, entire conformity was more distant than ever.

IV. Under Whitgift, things took another turn. He pressed the subscription of the article, afterwards incorporated in our xxxvith Canon, which was quoted in the beginning of this Essay; he exacted conformity with a strictness before unknown—unknown, i. e. while the framers of the Service-book themselves governed the Church; and in this course he was followed by his successor, Bancroft, (1604,) to whom is ascribed the chief share in drawing up the Canons of 1603. (Collier, ii. 687.) "Bancroft's unrelenting strictness," writes Collier, "gave a new face to religion; the Liturgy was more solemnly officiated; the fasts and festivals were better observed; the use of copes was revived, and the surplice generally worn, and all things in a manner recovered to the first settlement under Queen Elizabeth [i. e. the practice was brought near to the theory of that system.] Some who had formerly subscribed in a loose reserved sense, were now called upon to sign their conformity in more close unevasive terms. For now the XXXVIth Canon obliged them to declare that they did 'willingly et ex animo subscribe the three Articles,¹⁵ and all things contained in the same,' so that now there was no room left for scruples and different persuasion."

We shall, however, see reason to think that the conformity of Bancroft's time was a good deal short of what some now insist on.

V. Archbishop Bancroft died in 1610; and "with him," says Heylyn, "died the uniformity of the Church of England." The character of Archbishop Abbott's government (1611-1633) may be traced in the history of his successor, Laud, and other Bishops of Charles the First's reign. While their attempts at a reform drew on them violent charges of innovation, they were able to appeal to Rubrics, Canons, and ancient custom; but they found against them the custom of many later years—the fruit of Abbott's long inattention to discipline and order.

It is not, however, to be denied that Archbishop Laud's system was in some respects different from the letter of that prescribed in Queen Elizabeth's Prayer-Book,—far as that letter exceeded the actual practice of the time which had elapsed since its first publication; and this difference was not a thing of sudden growth, but the result of a gradual change. The great work of Hooker, published in the last years of the preceding century, was a vast advance in Church principle on the Theology of the earlier Reformers, in which he had been trained up; it appears that the illustrious writer's views became more developed in the direction opposite to Puritanism, even while he was engaged on the "Ecclesiastical Polity (See Keble, Pref. p. lxxi.) and we cannot know how much further he may have gone in that last part of his labours which has unhappily been lost; still less, to what he might have gone on, had he not been removed from the Church on earth at the age of forty-six.

The most eminent Divine of the time between Hooker's death and Laud's ascendancy was Andrewes. His elevation to the primacy was confidently looked for by many on the death of Bancroft; and to the preference of Abbott has been attributed that growth of nonconformity which led to the Great Rebellion. (Clarendon, ed. 1839, p. 38. Heylyn's Laud, p. 59.) Laud always professed to take Andrewes for his model; Wren, who, on account of his strictness in pressing conformity, was the most unpopular of the Archbishop's coadjutors, had served under Andrewes as chaplain.

It is to this eminent prelate, chiefly, that we must trace those ideas of ritual propriety which met with so much opposition, when in Laud's primacy an attempt was made to act on them; his Notes on the Common Prayer¹⁶ contain directions for a worship more ceremonious than that which was made matter of outcry against the Bishops of Charles the First's time; his form for the consecration of a Church17 was followed with very little (if any) alteration in those ceremonies which became the occasion of so much slander and complaint against Laud; and to his influence are referred the rules for the celebration of Divine Service during Prince Charles's residence at Madrid, (1623,) of which a part may be here quoted.

"That there be one convenient room appointed for prayer; the said room to be employed, during their abode, to no other use.

"That it be decently adorned chapel-wise, with an altar, fonts,¹⁸ palls, linen coverings, demy-carpets, four surplices, candlesticks, tapers, chalices, patens, a fine towel for the Prince, other towels for the household, a traverse of waters for the Communion, a bason and flagons, and two copes.

"That prayers be duly kept twice a-day; that all reverence be used by every one present, being uncovered, kneeling at due times, standing up at the Creeds and Gospel, bowing at the Name of Jesus.

"That the Communion be celebrated in due form, with an oblation of every communicant, and admixing water with the wine; the Communion to be as often used as it shall please the Prince to set down; smooth wafers to be used for the bread."¹⁹

Laud and Wren, in fact, do not appear to have had any notions more extreme than those of Andrewes; but there can be little doubt that, if that wise Bishop had been raised to the primacy when Laud was, he would have taken a different way of bringing the face of the Church to agree with his ideas from that pursued by his less discreet admirers. It by no means follows, from his having drawn up the rules just quoted, with a view of producing an opinion favourable to the English Church among a people devotedly attached to the Romish worship, ceremonious even in their common life, and prejudiced against our Reformation by the most extravagant fables,²⁰—that he would have attempted to establish a similar form of worship as general in a land where the wiser heads had come to understand the indifferency of some things, while the prejudices of the multitude were all in favour of Puritanism. Nay, it will rather appear likely that he may have erred in an opposite direction, if we may believe what is stated of him by Fuller, (Ch. Hist. Book xi. p. 127) that—"Wheresoever he was, a Parson, a Dean, or a Bishop, he never troubled parish, college, or diocese, with pressing other ceremonies on them than such which he found used there before his coming thither." Indeed, Laud himself seems to have been exceeded by some of his friends. "The compliancy of many, to curry favour," says Bishop Hackett, "did outrun the Archbishop's intentions, if my opinion deceive me not." (Life of Williams, p. 100.) And he himself tells us (Troubles, p. 345), that his own Articles of enquiry were not excepted against, while he was treated as if accountable for those of Bishops Wren and Montagu.

The chief points objected to in the reforms of Laud and his associates—(besides doctrinal and political offences, which are foreign to the present inquiry)— were such as these: The placing the Communion Table, which had before stood in the body of the Church, or in the middle of the Chancel, close to the east wall, with its ends north and south, "altarwise adorning it with various furniture which was supposed to savour of popery; guarding it by placing a rail in front; ordering that the elements for consecration should be set on by the priest's own hands; meddling with the height and disposition of the pews; ordering the part of the Communion-service which is appointed for times when there is no administration, to be read at the Altar, and not in the desk; using and enforcing reverences and gestures which appeared novel; enforcement of the surplice as the garment to be used in preaching; restraint of Pulpit-prayers, and diminution of sermons. I do not inquire at present, whether the conduct of those who endured persecution for having adopted such measures, was in all things wise, and a fit model for our imitation; but shall only observe, that here, where there certainly was something of what Fuller calls sesquiconformity²¹—here, if anywhere, we might expect to find the example of that exact conformity which is now spoken of as necessary, if we would not "perjure" ourselves; and that I believe it is not to be found here; not even in the practice of Montagu and Wren, much less in Laud's.

In the year 1637, an unsuccessful attempt was made to introduce the Liturgy into Scotland. It was thought desirable, as an acknowledgment of the northern Church's independence, that the Service-book should be somewhat different from that of England; and in the variations we may see, partly the wishes of those who thought with Laud, whether English or Scottish; partly the tradition of England as to the manner of Divine Service, expressly set down in a book intended for a country where there was no tradition to direct the Clergy in their use of the Liturgy.

Before leaving this part of the history, we may notice a remarkable phenomenon of the time—unique, perhaps, in our Church since the Reformation. Nicholas Ferrar, born in 1593, after having studied at Cambridge, having travelled much, and distinguished himself by his share in the management of the great Virginian Company, retired, about the thirty-second year of his age, to Little Gidding, in Huntingdonshire; where thenceforward he devoted himself, along with his mother and other relations, to the service of God, in prayers, works of mercy, and other holy exercises. Although it does not appear that Ferrar was connected with the school of Laud,²² beyond having been ordained Deacon by him in 1626, at the recommendation of a common friend, the circumstances of his life and character have made him a favourite with many who represent themselves as disciples of that school; and for this reason, we shall sometimes refer to his practice.

VI. If our obligations to conformity be such as some writers would have us believe, it is plain that no circumstances could warrant us in consenting to suppress any part of the Liturgy, or to use any other form. Should the sins of this country draw on us the judgment of an ordinance, issued by successful rebels or invaders, for the abolition of the Book, it would be our duty still to read it as before, to incur all penalties rather than vary from it, to prefer a daily use or remembrance of it in a prison to the opportunity of ministering at liberty to our brethren without, on condition of using a different order of prayer.

The Divines of Charles the First's day judged otherwise. Sanderson, the most eminent casuist of the age, has left us a tract on "Submission to Usurpers," in which he gives an account of his own practice during the ascendancy of the sectaries, and justifies it by argument. We learn from this tract, that he varied from the exact form of the Prayer-Book. When accused to the authorities, he resolved to forbear the use of it so as to satisfy the letter of the ordinance against it, rather than forsake his station. He used some things, e. g. the Te Deum, "only when I think my auditory will bear it," (p. 9.) —"if I like my auditory," (p. 10.) Laws, he holds, are not to be observed when the observance would do more harm than good (p. 16.); obedience may, in some circumstances, be dispensed with, extra casum scandali et contemptus, (p. 19, and Pref. to Sermons, p. 72.) The public good is the object to be considered; private interest, only as consistent with this. By suffering for overnice scruples, he tells us, "we lose much of that comfort which a Christian confessor may take in his sufferings, when they are laid upon him."²³ One of the objections discussed by him is,— that scandal may be given by his forbearing; and his answer to this might suffice for us, if, in our case, the scandal were not risked rather by insisting on exact conformity than by forbearance. His four rules as to scandal deserve serious attention, and are so apposite to our subject, that I shall quote them:

1. "Do nothing that is evil for fear of giving scandal.

2. "Do nothing, good or evil, with an intention to give scandal.

3. "Do nothing, that may be reasonably forborne, whereat scandal will be taken.

4. "Order the doing of that which may not be well left undone, in such sort that no scandal (so far as you can help it), may be taken thereat." (pp. 30— 34.)

Bishop Taylor, in the same evil days, drew up a set of offices, intended to serve instead of the forbidden Liturgy. (See his Works, vol. xv.) Of Hammond, we read (Eccl. Biog. iv. 343.) that although "no consideration that terminated in himself" could "have persuaded him at all to regard that tyrannous injunction," yet "charity to the family where he was made him content to admit of an expedient that secured all real duties." A similar compliance was adopted by Bishop Bull, who was ordained during the usurpation (Life, p. 33); and it would seem, from Bishop Patrick's Autobiography, (pp. 23 and 39), that Bishop Hall in those days conferred holy orders without requiring a pledge that the receiver would use any particular form of service.

VII. At the restoration of the royal family, the Liturgy was again reviewed; and in the commission entrusted with this work, we find the names of Cosin, Sanderson, Heylyn, Gunning, Pearson, Sparrow, and Thorndike,—men whom even our most extravagant writers have not yet ventured to sneer at as Puritan, Latitudinarian, or Erastian in their principles; and under some of whose names they would earnestly desire to shelter themselves. Bishop Wren, too, took a prominent part in the proceedings of the Convocation respecting the Book.²⁴

We owe to these last revisers a debt of thanks for restoring many things which had long been wanting, and for prescribing by express rule some which had before rested only on the sanction of custom; and, without entering on questions which have been lately discussed with much heat, I may profess that I can see no good objection to the opinion "that if the meaning of any set of individuals is to be considered as authoritative in the interpretation" of the PrayerBook, "the Divines of 1660 surely have the fairest claim." (Pref. to Froude's Remains, vol. iii. p. xxiii.)

But while we draw this conclusion against some, who would deny the title of faithful Churchmen to persons whose opinions agree with Cosin and the others just mentioned, rather than with Cranmer and Jewel, Hooper and Pilkington, we must, as against another party, maintain the further inference, That if a committee composed in so large a degree of Divines who had borne a part in the "Developement of the Church in the seventeenth century,"²⁵ was contented with our present Book, we need not complain of it as insufficient, unless we be willing to profess ourselves advocates of a further "Developement," for which we cannot claim the sanction of their names; and that if, in that time of triumph, they held it wisdom to refrain from changes and restorations more agreeable to the first Book of Edward the Sixth, or still earlier formularies, it is pretty certain that had they lived in these days of ours they would not have advised the introduction or revival of such things.

I shall conclude this Introductory part with an observation for each of two different classes.

The one I would remind that the present state of things cannot possibly be made to appear so bad as that which Laud had to deal with on his advancement to the primacy.

To the other, I would submit a few lines from Crabbe's poem of "The Borough." They are part of the character of "The Rector," whom the Edinburgh Reviewer (quoted in the last edition, vol. iii. p. 54,) describes as "a good easy man, with no character at all."

"For sects he cared not: 'they are not of us,
Nor need we, brethren, their concerns discuss;
But 'tis the change, the schism at home I feel,
Ills few perceive, and none have skill to heal;
Not at the altar our young brethren read,
(Facing their flock), the Decalogue and Creed;
But at their duty in their desks they stand,
With naked surplice, lacking hood and band.'

Habit with him was all the test of truth;
'It must be right; I've done it from my youth
Questions he answer'd in as brief a way;
'It must be wrong; it was of yesterday.'"

Hence it appears, that the slovenly practices which people of a like character now cherish as the most venerable traditions, were shuddered at seventy years ago as unprecedented innovations,—the truth being, that both the more and the less reverent ways have been followed by different parties, and revived from time to time, ever since the Reformation.

We may now go on to consider in detail a few of the points as to ritual which are at present subjects of controversy; not confining ourselves to the Prayer-Book, but taking a view also of some matters which are insisted on by some Churchmen as having other authority of a nature to oblige us. And if any reader should be disposed to wonder at our bestowing time and pains on things so utterly trifling as some of those which are to be discussed, or at the gravity with which they are treated, let him remember that there are persons whose profoundest hearts are stirred by questions of vesture and gesture, that even the Governors of the Church have found it necessary to give some directions for the sake of easing the consciences of such persons, and that no labour, however humble, can be misapplied which tends to clear the ground for worthier things by doing away with what are felt, whether rightly or wrongly, to be hindrances.

¹ See, for example, the strange state of things indicated by the Bishop of St. David's, in his late Charge (pp. 19—26), as existing in the diocese over which he has been called to preside.

² Article Athanasian Creed. "Some congregations say, they will quit the Church, if this Creed is ever read; forgetting, that, they thus call upon their minister to perjure himself, since he solemnly vows to conform to the Liturgy." Let it be observed that the perjury is said to be incurred, not by unfaithfulness to the doctrine of the Creed, but by breach of the Rubric.

³ Art. Rubric.

⁴ I may further refer to Mr. Crosthwaite's Communio Fidelium, pp. 3 and 16; Mr. Perceval's Collection of Papers, p. 101; and the Bishop of Down and Connor's late Charges.

⁵ The Rev. Joseph Oldknow.

⁶ Sharp, quoted in Bishop Mant's Prayer-Book, on the following words of the Preface—"For the resolution of all doubts concerning the manner how to understand, do, and execute the things contained in this book, the parties shall resort to the Bishop of the diocese, who by his discretion, shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same; so that the same order be not contrary to anything contained in this book."

7 I say for the present, because the Church herself, in the Commination-service, acknowledges a want of discipline, and expresses a wish for its restoration. And this may be considered as a kind of sanction to my argument, that we are not bound, because something appears desirable in itself, to establish it forthwith, without regard to any consideration of circumstances.

⁸ This enquiry was begun before any of the late Charges had appeared.

9 Sampson and Humphrey to Bullinger, July, 1566. (Zurich Letters, published by the Parker Society, No. 71.) "Quod addis, rem vestiariam ab initio reformationis non fuisse abolitam, . . . in eo nostri minimè vera retulerunt. Multis enim in locis, serenissimi regis Edwardi temporibus, absque superpelliceo ccena Domini purè celebrabatur."—See too Neal, edit. 1. vol. i. p. 245.

¹⁰ Cardwell, Doc. Ann. i. 246.

¹¹ Nicholla says in his Commentary, that the staff has never been used since Queen Mary's reign.

¹² In fact some, as Leicester and Knolles, were bitterly opposed to his views; Cecil and Walsingham often discouraged him. (Keble, Pref. to Hooker, p. lvii.) He writes to Cecil, just before his death, that "the Puritans had a strong party at court; that the Queen was almost the only person that stood firm to the Church," &c. (Collier, ii. 548.)

¹³ E. g. Protestation to be subscribed by Ministers, 1559. (Strype, Ann. i. 152.) "I shall not covetously use open mechanical labour or occupation, if my living be twenty nobles ayear." Archdeacons are to set texts for curates to learn, and to hear them at visitations. A Catechism is to be made "for the erudition of simple curates."—Cardw. Doc. Ann. i. 204. Lever writes to Bullinger, Aug. 20, 1562. (Zurich Letters, No. 53.) "Ex illis valde paucis qui per magnam banc regionem sacramenta administrant, ne centesimus quidem verbum Dei prsedicare potest et vult; sed tantum legere quod in libris [the Prayer-Book and Homilies] prsescribitur omnes coguntur."

¹⁴ See, for example, Bishop Scambler's orders for Northampton, 1571, in Strype, Annals, ii. 90. See too Bishop Pilkington's Works, published by the Parker Society, and Collier's account of him, ii. 494.

¹⁵ These were, 1. An acknowledgment of the royal Supremacy; 2. That quoted in p. 2; 3. Profession of belief agreeable to the XXXIX Articles of Religion.

¹⁶ Published in the Appendix to Nicholls's Commentary.

¹⁷ See Sparrow's Collection, or the late edition of his Rationale. Laud denies the use of those superstitious ceremonies which make so great a figure in the popular histories. (Troubles, 340.) That they are prescribed in the Roman Pontifical, may perhaps account sufficiently for his being charged with them by his enemies. He also employed in consecration of plate for his Altar a form drawn up and used by Andrewes. (Ib. 315.) Sancroft, at a later day, incurred much obloquy by consecrating plate. (Life of Kettlewell, p. 56.) Among the earlier Reformed, Laud shews (Troubles, 341-465) that Parker disapproved only of Romish superstitions used at consecration of Churches, not of the rite itself; and Ridley's words (p. 55, ed. Parker Society) seem capable of a like construction. Pilkington is thoroughly puritanical on the subject, (p. 64.) I need hardly refer to Hooker, v. 12.

¹⁸ This is the word in the late edition of Collier, and also in Dr. Hook's "Call to Union," Note S. But perhaps we ought rather to read fronts. "Parafronts and suffronts" were among the altar-furniture objected to as novelties of Laud's introducing.

¹⁹ Collier, ii. 726. Mr. Hallam tells us (Hist. Eng. Ed. 4. i. 405) that "It is said by Howell, who was then on the spot, that the Prince never used the service of the Church of England while he was at Madrid." At p. 140, to which Mr. Hallam refers, there is nothing on this subject in the 4th edition of Howell, (the only one within my reach;) but at p. 124 is the following passage: "The Prince hath no public exercise of devotion, but only bedchamber prayers, and some think that his lodging in the King's house is like to prove a disadvantage to the main business; for, whereas most sorts of people here hardly hold us to be Christians, if the Prince had had a palace of his own, and been permitted to have used a room for an open Chapel to exercise the Liturgy of the Church of England, it would have brought them to have a better opinion of us; and to this end there were some of our best Church plate and vestments brought here, but never used." I suspect that Mr. Hallam's statement is founded on a misapprehension of this passage. Howell regrets that, in consequence of being lodged in the King's palace, Charles was unable to comply with the rules for celebrating Divine service publicly, and with outward magnificence; but it is expressly stated that he had "bedchamber prayers," i. e. the English offices used regularly, day by day, in his own apartment. Such was the practice of pious persons at home, when hindered from joining in the public service; and Chamberlain tells us (Angliœ Notitia, 1669, p. 231) that the Court chaplains in waiting, "have to read Divine Service before the King out of Chapel daily twice, in the King's private oratory." Although we may guess that the idea of this private reading before Charles II. was little more than a fiction devised to account for his absence from the public service, no such notion is admissible as to his father, whom Bishop Hall (Dedication of "Hard Texts") speaks of as "the great pattern of devotion, twice a-day, even in public view, busied in the Book of God." Wren was one of the Chaplains at Madrid.

²⁰ See, for instances of foreign prejudices, Heylyn's Laud, p. 105; and Hackett's Account of Archbishop Williams entertaining an ambassador. For a Spanish view of the history, Calderon's Play "La Cisma de Inglaterra." (No. 85 in Keil's edition).

²¹ "Worthies," Gloucestershire, p. 360.

²² He "professed that he did as verily believe the Pope to be Anti-Christ as any article of his Creed." Wordsw. Eccl. Biog. iv. 245. An opposite opinion was charged on the Archbishop's friends as a novelty. See Laud, "Troubles," p. 389. Ferrar appears to have been on good terms with his diocesan, Williams, Laud's great rival; and varied from Laud's order as to some of his Church-furniture. See the Life, by Peckard, in Dr. Wordsworth's Collection.

²³ This observation may be commended to some persons in our day, if they should feel an inclination to run themselves into trouble. Those, at least, cannot reasonably complain of it who are so particular as to allowing the honours of martyrdom, that they deny the title of Martyrs to Cranmer, Ridley, and others, who suffered under Queen Mary; because, Mr. F. W. Faber seems to say, (Introduction to Laud's Autobiography, xxv. xxvi.) one branch of the Catholic Church cannot make Martyrs in another; or, according to another writer (Brit. Crit. for July 1841, p. 14.), because it cannot be said, that that for which they suffered was " the Truth It may be worth while to produce a few testimonies on the other side, which have very lately fallen in my way. Laud speaks of the "Bishops, and other Divines" of the preceding century as having "suffered, some of them to martyrdom, for the truth of Christ." (Three Speeches, p. 10.) Sanderson, (Pref. p. 77.) "sundry of them martyred in the cause." Heylyn, (Hist. Ref. Preface), "the effusion of the blood of so many Martyrs." Bishop Taylor (Works, vii. 291), "the holy Martyrs and confessors in Queen Mary's time;" "our Liturgy," he says, "was purified in the Martyrs' fires." Charles the First, (in Hammond, i. 353.) "The book of Common Prayer was confirmed with the martyrdom of many;" and in the Preface to the Canons of 1640, "those learned and godly Divines, divers of which suffered martyrdom." Hammond, (i. 355.) "The Liturgy of the Church of England was at first, as it were, written in blood, at the last sealed and delivered down to us by the martyrdom of the compilers." The like language is used in the Oxford Reasons against the Covenant,—"the cause which our godly Bishops and Martyrs, and all our learned Divines, ever since the Reformation, have, both by their writings and sufferings, maintained." Bull, (iv. 459.) speaks of Latimer as "sanctissimus Collier, in his comparison of Mary and Elizabeth, which drew on him vehement charges of popery, says that the former "made Martyrs." (ii. 670.) And it is satisfactory to conclude with the following language from the eighty-first "Tract for the Times," which we are authorized by another Tract (87, p. 98.) to ascribe to Dr. Pusey. "Ridley, the great upholder of Catholic Truth, received his Martyr's crown," (p. 22.) "God, for His own Name's sake, rescued His servant Cranmer, and gave him the crown of Martyrdom," (p. 26.) So far were the Divines of the seventeenth century from using the language of our extreme Churchmen, as to this subject, that they delighted to refer to the sufferings of the Martyrs as a reason for loving the formulary which these had bequeathed to them. Hooker was of a different mind from the British Critic. (See Eccl. Pol. iii. 1. 11.) The question is well discussed by Dr. Wordsworth, Eccl. Biog. iii. 91. It may be some comfort to Mr. Faber to know, that, although Divines think otherwise, a celebrated lay Theologian of the seventeenth century—whose high eminence as a brother-poet must give his opinion great weight with the author of "The Cherwell Water-lily,"—agrees in his estimate of Cranmer and the rest. See Milton's Prose Works, ed. Fletcher, p. 3. If unmixed purity of cause and motives be required before one can be a Martyr, perhaps these gentlemen might find some difficulties in the case of their favourite hero, " St. Thomas, of Canterbury," or, as one of them calls him, "St. Thomas, the Martyr." (Brit. Crit. July 1841, p. 198.) Perhaps this writer forgot that our Calendar mentions another Martyr of the name; who was also one of our Lord's Apostles.

24 Cardwell, Conferences, c. 8. It appears from p. 388, that some things on which our extreme churchmen most insist, were absolutely rejected by the Convocation.

²⁵ This is the title of an article in the British Critic for October, 1842, which is meant as a reply to the Quarterly Review for March. In order to understand how far this paper is from fairly meeting the argument against which it is directed, it must be carefully compared with the Quarterly. It is to be regretted, however, that the very able writer of the earlier article has not guarded himself against misapprehension and misrepresentation from various quarters, by expressly distinguishing between the "Tracts for the Times" (in the doctrines of which on the whole he, or, at least, the Quarterly Review, had before expressed an agreement), and the extravagant writings which he reprobates.

PART II.
THE QUESTION IN DETAIL.

I.
Daily Service.

IT is ordered in the Preface to the Prayer-Book that "All priests and deacons are to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer, either privately or openly, not being let by sickness, or some other urgent cause;

"And the Curate that ministereth in every Parish-church or Chapel, being at home, and not being otherwise reasonably hindered, shall say the same in the Parish-church or Chapel where he ministereth, and shall cause a bell to be tolled, that the people may come to hear God's word, and to pray with him."

One of the Tracts for the Times (No. 84) is devoted to an inquiry " whether a clergyman of the Church of England be now bound to have morning and evening Prayers daily in his Church?" It would seem that the writer intended an affirmative answer; he does not, however, expressly give it himself, and the passages collected by him point rather, in my opinion, to an answer in the negative. His tone generally, and many of his observations, are excellent.

There are, however, other zealous persons who do not hesitate to say boldly that we are bound; and there are also those who hold very opposite views. Thus Mr. Bickersteth, in his sermon preached before the Protestant Association, Nov. 5, 1842, appears to be of opinion that it is better to shun the revival of daily service, lest it should encourage formalism; and that the family prayers of these days are more than a sufficient substitute for the public prayers prescribed in the sixteenth century, when the idea of household devotion was a thing unknown.

One is not, of course, expected to argue here against Mr. Bickersteth on the subject of formalism; which, according to that gentleman, and those who think with him, is equally sure to corrupt public devotions, and to spare those of a household. But, even granting that family prayer was not used in the age of the Reformation, (which is not so very certain,) it may be observed, that if we must choose between the two kinds, the daily public service is commended to us by the Church, and would therefore, if for no other reason, seem the better to dutiful Churchmen; and further, that the one kind need by no means exclude the other.¹

Another reason for dispensing with the daily service is given in the late Worcester Charge. It was, we are here told, prescribed at the Reformation, on account of the ignorance of the clergy, "that they might thereby acquire a competent knowledge of Holy Scripture," and as this purpose is now attained by other means, we may fairly discard those which the Reformers ordained. The purpose here spoken of was certainly sometimes named in the sixteenth century, (although, perhaps, not till after the time of those whom we style the Reformers,) as a reason for reading the daily offices;² but it seems to be forgotten in this argument, that the Prayer-Book has since passed through the hands of revisers, who would probably have expunged this direction, as a witness to a bygone discreditable state of things, had they not seen in the daily service some advantage besides that of improving the minister's familiarity with the Scriptures. And when the Bishop of Worcester argues further, that "The Preface directs that all priests and deacons are to say daily the morning and evening prayer, either privately or openly; it is clear, therefore, that the option is afforded them we are forced to suppose that his Lordship must have overlooked that part of the Preface which relates to Curates, i. e. clergymen having cure of souls.

Let me state clearly that I am fully convinced of the desirableness of daily public prayer, and rejoice to think that our people are becoming prepared for it, and that it is growing more general. In what follows, I only wish to establish on historical evidence the principle that we are at liberty to use caution and consult expediency in striving after the fulfilment of our Church's intentions in this respect.

Daily Prayer was, indeed, once far more common than it now is. The list of services in the London Churches a century ago, (printed in Tract 84,) is enough to shame our days greatly; and in reading of former times, we often meet incidentally with notices which shew that the daily service was used in many places where it has since been discontinued. Too much, however, is sometimes concluded from these facts.

Mr. Paget writes as follows, in his Preface to Bishop Patrick on Prayer: (p. xi.) "One great error of a former age was, that the neglect of ordinances was spoken of as if it were the sin of the people only; but surely we of the clergy ought not to have closed our Churches because there was no congregation."

There is truth in this, if applied to places where there formerly was daily service; but it is, as I hope to shew, a mere imagination to suppose that daily service was ever general in England, or that in the times of our most revered Divines, service was performed in Churches without a congregation.

First, let us look at the practice of eminent men who belonged to the class of parochial clergy.

Of Hooker, Walton only tells that on fasting-days he "retired into the Church, and locked himself up many hours." (Eccl. Biog. iii. 518.)

Herbert read service morning and evening in Bemerton Chapel. Twice a week he went to Salisbury Cathedral, when his curate from Fulston officiated at Bemerton. (Ib. iv. 38.) The service at Fulston, the Parish-church, therefore, was not so frequent as at the Chapel; unless we adopt the very improbable supposition that the Curate read each service twice a-day on these occasions.

Ferrar, before his ordination, procured the Minister of Steeple Gidding to read prayers at Little Gidding daily at eight and four, and (by the Bishop's special leave) the Litany at eleven. (Ib. iv. 173.) Hence we learn, with the same degree of probability as in the last case, that at Steeple Gidding there was no daily service. Ferrar's observances after ordination are not to be thought of as a pattern for clergymen in ordinary circumstances.

Sanderson. The Bishop of Down and Connor (Charges, p. 39) infers from Walton's language about "the reading of the Church-prayers," and "the decent and regular service of God," that Sanderson, while incumbent of Boothby Pagnell, used daily service. As the custom of the time was otherwise, and Walton has spoken distinctly in other cases, the general nature of his words here seems rather to warrant an opposite conclusion. And this is confirmed by Sanderson's own language in his "Judgement on Submission to Usurpers."

Hammond had prayers in his Church twice on holy-days and their eves, and on Saturdays; once on other days. (Eccl. Biog. iv. 322.)

Heylyn "read the Common Prayers in his Church every morning; that gave great content to the parish (Alresford), being a populous market-town." (Life, prefixed to Miscell. Tracts.)

Bull took his family to Church on holy-days, and tried to bring- his people to observe Good-Friday, by having "a sermon, besides the service of the Church." (Life, 54.) (Hence we learn that he did not usually preach on holy-days). When a Bishop, he brought the Wednesday and Friday service at Brecknock to service daily; and the daily morning service at Caer-marthen to service twice a day. (Ib. 307.)

Kettlewell "had prayers both on holy-days and their eves, and also upon Saturdays in the afternoon." (Life, p. 24.)

It may be observed generally with respect to these pious men, that, with the exception of Herbert and Ferrai^ they fell short of what is now said to be the plain duty of every clergyman having cure of souls; and, nevertheless, their biographers (who, it is worthy of remark, all lived in the seventeenth century,) put forward their practice as something uncommon, and especially deserving of our admiration.

We may next look at the general state of things.

In the Book of 1549, we find a declaration that no man shall be bound to say Matins and Evensong but such as shall serve a congregation. (Edward the Sixth's Liturgies, p. 3.) The parochial clergy would seem to have been as much bound then as now.

In the same year, the King's Injunctions ordered, "that the Common Prayer upon Wednesdays and Fridays be diligently kept(Cardwell, Doc. Ann. i. 64,) and Ridley, in his Injunctions, directed that this be observed "in every Church." If such a measure of compliance with the Rubric was held enough for the diocese of London, under him whom Dr. Hook ("Call," p. 60,) styles " that unflinching high churchman Bishop Ridley," we may fairly guess that matters were at least no better elsewhere.

1550. The Council complains to Ridley of workday sermons in Essex, and prays him to "take order that they preach the holy-days only; and the workdays to use those prayers that are prescribed," (lb. p. 88). After what we have just seen, this cannot be supposed to imply that daily service was common.

1552. An Act for attendance at Church, orders it only on Sundays and holy-days. (Clay on the Common Prayer, Append. 4.) In the new Book of this year, the obligation of using the service was extended to all priests and deacons, unless sufficiently hindered.³

1559. Elizabeth's Injunctions order the Litany on Wednesdays and Fridays, not being holy-days. D. A. i. 196.

1501. Bishop Davies, of St. Asaph, orders, "That the parsons, vicars, and curates, or one of them in every of their Churches, do come together on Wednesdays and Fridays, being not holy-days, and there devoutly sing and say the Litany, and exhort the people to come with devotion to hear the same, with other prayers, at hours and times convenient and accustomed." Wilkins, Concilia, iv. 229.

1571. A Canon orders service "omnibus Dominicis et festis diebus." Cardw. Synod. 120.

1584. Bishops answer to a Furitan petition, "It taketh away daily service used in these [Cathedral and Collegiate] Churches." (Cardvv. D. A. i. 435.) It would seem hence that daily service was not usual elsewhere.

1585. "Orders for the increase of learning in the unlearned sort of ministers," printed by Wilkins, "E libro Instrum. Episc. Lincoln."

"The order appointed in the Preface of the Common Book concerning the daily reading of public prayer shall be duly observed, to the end they may be the better acquainted with the phrase and history of the Scriptures." Doc. Ann. ii. 1.

If we should wonder that public prayers were ordered as means for the individual improvement ot the unlearned ministers, the explanation may probably be, that it was not held safe to leave the matter to the private consciences of this class. Dr. Card well observes on the whole paper of orders—"It does not appear, nor is it probable, that they were adopted generally."

1590. On account of war and dearth, " on Wednesdays and Fridays, the ministers in every parish were enjoined to say Divine Service morning and evening; at which service one of every house to be present." Strype. Whitgift, 360.

1596. During a dearth it is ordered "that public prayers be on all Wednesdays and Fridays hereafter devoutly used."

1603. Canon xiv, orders prayer "upon such days as are appointed to be kept holy by the Book of Common Prayer, and their eves."—(the title has "Sundays and holy-days.") Canon xv, "that the Litany be used on Wednesdays and Fridays, although not holy-days; and that one of each household within half a mile attend."

1622. When the Spanish match was in view, Bishop Williams proposed, among other things,

1. "That Common Prayer be duly performed in all Churches and Chapels on Wednesdays and Fridays, and two of every family be present."

4. "That private prayers shall no day be omitted in the family of him that is of the degree of an esquire; else not to be so named or reputed." Life, p. 122.

A stronof sanction this!

1627. A Mr. Blucknall left a salary to the curate of Abingdon, for reading prayers daily (considering, apparently, a special engagement necessary). Hey-lyn, Laud, p. 162.

1636. Scotch Prayer-Book. It is directed that "all Presbyters" shall say the prayers daily, as in the Rubric quoted at the beginning of this section; if cause of not saying the prayers publicly be frequently pretended, "they are to make the Bishop or Archbishop the judge and allower." (Keeling's Liturgies, p. xvii.) It is very remarkable, that about the same time with the book there came out a royal order, in which the obligation of daily morning and evening service is limited to Bishops in their families, and to Colleges. (Gordon, Scots Affairs, ii. 59. Collier, ii. 768.) This is important for the present argument, as showing that in Scotland there was issued, together with the Rubric and by the same authority, that commentary in express words which I am endeavouring by historical evidence, reaching through a number of years, to prove admissible in the English Church.

1636. Bishop Wren's Injunctions for Norwich. "That the Litany be never omitted on Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays." D. A. i. 202.

1638. Bishop Montagu, in the same diocese. "Doth [your minister] upon Wednesdays and Fridays ordinarily, and at other extraordinary times appointed by the ordinary, read and pray the Litany?"*

Wren and Montagu, it will be remembered, were the strictest of the Bishops at that day. The state of things then generally prevailing may be understood from what follows:—

1641. The Committee appointed by the House of Lords, Archbishop Williams being president, asks (Cardw. Conf. 274.) "Whether the curate should be bound to read morning and evening prayers every day in the Church, and why not only on Wednesday and Friday morning, and in the afternoon on Saturday, with holy-day eves?" This Heylyn (Laud 444) notes, as a specimen of "passages observed impertinently, and not worth the altering;" i. e. the Committee wished to alter the rule, so that it should explicitly sanction the usual practice of the time; which Heylyn supposed to be not inconsistent with the rule as it stood.

Hammond (Preface to View of the Directory) looks on the suppression of the Liturgy as a judgment drawn down by the neglect of it—"our want of diligence in assembling ourselves together (the too ordinary fault of too many of the best among us); our general, scandalous, inexcusable disobedience to the commands of our Church, which requires that service to be used constantly in public every day." Let it be understood, that I quote this merely as evidence of the fact.

Fuller, Ch. Hist. xi. p. 149, (written during the Usurpation.) "We are concerned now more strictly to observe the Lord s Day than ever before. Holydays are not, and holy-eves are not; and Wednesday and Friday Litanies are not."

Bishop Taylor, (after the Restoration of Charles the Second.) Rules and Advices to his Clergy, No. 77. Every minister is bound to read the Common Prayer morning and evening; "in great towns, and populous places, conveniently inhabited, it must be read in Churches."

1688. Archbishop Sancroft desires Bishops to urge their clergy "that they perform the daily office publicly in all market and other great towns, and even in villages and less populous places bring people to public prayers as frequently as may be; especially on holy-days and their eves, on Ember and Rogation-days, on Wednesdays and Fridays in each week, especially in Advent and Lent." D. A. ii. 323.

1688. Bishop Ken writes to his clergy, with a view to the observance of Lent, "Be sure and offer up every day the morning and evening prayers; offer it up in your family, at least, or rather, as far as your circumstances may possibly permit, offer it up in the Church, especially if you live in a great town."

1689. Commissioners offer, with a view to comprehension of dissenters, "That the order to ministers to say prayers daily be changed into an exhortation to the people to frequent the same." (Cardw. Conf. 429.)

Having thus collected notices from the Reformation to the Revolution, I shall only refer, for later times, to Bishop Sprat, (Clergyman's Instructor, p. 242;) Bishop Beveridge, (Sermons, fol. ii. 216, and Tracts for the Times, No. 25;) the original preface to Bishop Patrick on Prayer, (p. xvii. ed. Paget;) Nicholls and Wheatley's Commentaries; Bingham, (Works, vol. ii. p. 757;) and Bishop Butler's Charge at Durham, 1751. These writers agree generally in representing the attendance at daily service in their days as thin; in country places, they hardly contemplate such service at all; they consider that want of a congregation⁵ sufficiently excuses a clergyman from officiating publicly, and that he is bound in that case to use the service in his family or by himself.

A few of the elder Divines may be quoted as agreeing in, or approaching to, the stricter notions now held by some. Thus Cosin (in Nicholls, App. p. 67) doubts "whether anything but sickness or necessary absence" may pass as an excuse, and would have an explanation to this effect added. Sparrow writes (Ration. 309) that the service is to be said daily in Church; if there be no Church,⁶ but not otherwise, the priest is to say it at home; if no company can be got, by himself. And Comber (quoted in the London Charge, and in Tract 84) will not allow smallness of the congregation to be any excuse.

On the whole, however, I think we may conclude that daily service was never general in parish-churches, not even before the Reformation; that on Wednesdays and Fridays the Litany was commonly read, in the times which we have been reviewing, (apparently without the morning prayers;) that service on the eves of Sundays and holy-days was also common; that the want of a congregation was held an excuse for the clergy; and that altogether, according to the notions of earlier times, our Bishops have a right to order in the matter according to their discretion.

It also appears that the clergy, if they do not use the prayers in public, are bound to read them in private.⁷

And whether we be prepared or not in the present state of things to act on Mr. Gresley's opinion, (Bernard Leslie, p. 95,) that "a clergyman has clearly as much right to close his Church on the Sunday as on one of the Saints' Days, for which an express service is appointed," we must see that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the observation of holy-days by public service was held to be universally binding.⁸

¹ Archbishop Leighton, in his Charge, 1662, recommends daily prayers, both public and in families. The fact that the Scottish Church in those days did not use a set form of service, in no way affects the present question. A book of family prayers, intended to preserve the Church's tone, and yet not to interfere with her offices, has been published by the Rev. W. K. Hamilton.

² See below, under A.D. 1585.

³ I may here quote Bishop Bonner's Articles of 1554, for the purpose of undeceiving such persons as may fancy that an establishment of" foreign Catholicism" as the religion of this country would at once produce seven services daily in every place of worship throughout the land. The Bishop asks, "whether the curate do the best he can to minister in Divine Service, chiefly upon Sundays, and holy-days, and procession-days" (i. e. Litany-days). And in a book presented to Convocation in 1539, by Gardiner's party, we find this:—"The service used in the Church daily in some places, or upon the Sundays and other feasts in all places." (Strype, Eccl. Mem. i. Append, p. 284). I may also mention here, as indicating the state of things before the English PrayerBook was issued, that in King Edward's first year, (1547,) an order of prayer for victory and peace was set forth, with an injunction that it should "be used every Sunday and holy-day in the Common Prayer."—Wilkins, Concilia, iv. 26.

⁴ Bishop Montagu's Articles were reprinted at Cambridge, 1841, with an Introduction and Notes.

⁵ As the Rubric speaks of "the people" coming to Church, it is very questionable whether the framers would have encouraged the performance of service without their attendance. Compare the Rubric as to the number of communicants. The Bishop of London infers from the mention of a bell, that they "did not intend to insist upon an uninterrupted daily performance." According to the strict letter, the bell is as necessary as the service.

⁶ His work was first published during- the Usurpation.

⁷ The Tract has excellent observations as to this, p. 37.

⁸ By an Act passed A.D. 1551, (Gibson, Codex, i. 278,) working on holy-days was allowed only "in harvest, or at any other times in the year when necessity shall require."

II.
The Place of Reading⁹ the Prayers, and the
Position of the Minister.

RUBRIC:—"The Morning and Evening Prayer shall be used in the accustomed place of the Church, Chapel, or Chancel, except it shall be otherwise determined by the ordinary of the place."

The Bishop of London speaks as follows: "I do not consider it to be the intention of our Church, that the officiating minister, in reading prayers, should turn his face to the east, with his back to the congregation. Bishop Sparrow thinks that anciently10 the reading-desk was so placed that the minister looked to the east, away from the people, to whom he is directed to turn in reading the lessons. But the reading-desk was unknown in the early years of the Reformation. It is not mentioned in the Injunctions of Edward VI. nor in those of Queen Elizabeth, nor in any Canons or Visitation-articles before the Canon of 1603.¹¹ The first rule in King Edward's Book orders that the minister so turn in reading prayers as that the people may best hear him; and as the customary place for reading the prayers was then the Chancel, at the Communion-table, it is clear that he could not have faced the east."

It will be convenient to follow his Lordship in connecting the two subjects here spoken of,—the place and the position of the minister.

The passage to which he refers in King Edward's Book is as follows:—

"The Morning and Evening prayer shall be used in such place of the Church, Chapel, or Chancel, and the minister shall so turn him, as that the people may best hear."

This, however, is only to be found in the second Book; in the others before and after it is ordered that the minister shall so turn himself in reading the lessons that the people may best hear; but there is no such rule for the prayers. Moreover, it would seem that when the minister was ordered to turn himself to the people throughout, the custom of reading at the Communion-table was also suspended.

The words "accustomed place," which are first found in Elizabeth's Book, certainly meant the altar. (See Wheatley, and L'Estrange, p. 222.) Wheatley suggests that the revisers of 1662, in retaining this Rubric, (unless they did so from inadvertence,) may have intended the reading-desk, which had in the meantime come into general use.

Let us now look at some passages connected with the history.

The Puritans at Frankfort, in Queen Mary's time, complain of other exiles for turning eastward. (Strype, Ann. i. 178.)

1559. The Romanist Bishop Scott reckons praying eastward among things which the proposed Book of Queen Elizabeth "taketh away, either in part or clearly." (Cardw. Conf. 110.)

1562. The Convocation rejects a Puritanical proposal, "that in all parish-churches the minister turn his face towards the people." (Strype, Ann. i. 299.)

1564. Cecil complains that "some say the service in the Chancel; others, in the body of the Church; some officiate in a seat; some in the pulpit, with their faces to the people." (Collier, ii. 493.)

1564. Advertisements by the Bishops. "That the Common-Prayer be said or sung decently and distinctly, in such place as the ordinary shall think meet for the largeness and streightness of the quire, so that the people may be most edified." (D. A. i. 291.)

1564. At Canterbury Cathedral, "The Common Prayer daily is sung at the Communion-table, standing north and south; the minister standing on the east side of the Table, with his face towards the "people." (Strype, Parker, 183.) The Bishop of London appears to suppose that this arrangement was usual at the time. I have not, however, seen any notice of it, save on this occasion at Canterbury; where the extent of the choir, and the remarkable elevation of the altar might render it necessary that the minister should turn his face to the people, although the practice elsewhere were to face the east.

1564. A clergyman near Bocking appeals against an order from the Dean. "His Church was small, and his voice might be heard. The Litany he said in the Body of the Church, and when he said the service, he kept the Chancel, and turned his face to the east." Strype, Parker, 152.

1569. Parkhurst, Bishop of Norwich, orders for great Churches "a decent and convenient seat in the Body of the Church for the minister in smaller Churches, "some convenient seat outside the Chancel door." This, says Dr. Hook, (Ch. Diet.—Art. Pew,) "is the first mention that we find made of a reading-pew."

1569. Archbishop Parker inquires in his Visitation-articles, "whether they do celebrate Divine Service in the Chancel or in the Church?" D. A. i. 321.

1571. Archbishop Grindal, at York, orders that in prayer "every minister shall stand in a pulpit, to be erected for that purpose, and turn his face to the people. When the Churches are small, it shall suffice that the minister stand in his accustomed stall in the quire; so that a convenient desk or lettern, with a room to turn his face toward the people, be provided." Strype, Grindal, 165.

1571. Scambler, Bishop of Peterborough, orders that at Northampton "the Common Prayer accustomed to be said [in the quire be] brought down into the Body of the Church, among the people, before whom the same shall be used according to the Queen's Book," (i. e. the Advertisements of 1564.) Strype, Ann. ii. 90.

Cartwright, (in Hooker, ed. Keble. v. 30. 3) "On the words that the minister shall stand 'in the accustomed place,' he sitteth in the Chancel with his back to the people."

1603. Canon xiv is to the same effect as the passage above given from the Advertisements of 1564. Canon LXXXIT, "That a convenient seat be made for the minister to read service in."

Herbert and Ferrar caused the pulpit and the desk in their Churches to be made of the same height; rather, however, two desks than two pulpits, the height of Herbert's being seven feet four inches. (Zouch's Walton.)

1636. Bishop Wren's Articles. "That the minister's reading-desk do not stand with the back towards the Chancel, nor too remote or far from it." D. A. ii. 205.¹²

1638. Bishop Montagu. "Have you a comely and convenient pew of wainscot for the minister to read Divine Service in, and another to preach in? Doth it stand in the face of the cono-ree-ation as much as conveniently may be, so that they may behold and understand the minister in what he readeth, preacheth, or prayeth?"

1641. The Committee appointed by the House of Lords charges as innovations, the turning eastward in Creeds and prayers, and "reading the Litany in the midst of the Body of the Church in many parochial Churches." (Cardw. Conf. 272-3.)

L'Estrange, (Alliance, 72-3) shews from authorities that "the Bishops lately enjoining service to be said at the Holy Table, or in the Chancel, did not innovate."¹³

Heylyn (Tracts, 159,) proves that the minister formerly looked eastward, and complains that desks were "of late all or most part so placed that the minister faced his congregation."

Bishop Cosin (in Nicholls, 60,) writes that "the pulpit was wont of old to be so placed and joined to the front of the Chancel (next to the Body of the Church), that the priest might ascend up into it from his own stall below, where he read the service." Elsewhere (p. 16) he says, that "accustomed place" meant the Chancel; and that in most Churches the ordinaries had used the authority reserved to them in the Rubric, by ordering things otherwise.

From what has been brought together we may conclude, that the present Rubric was originally understood to fix the Chancel as ordinarily the place in which the service should be read. In some cases it was said at the Holy Table, but it seems to have more generally crept down into a lower part of the Chancel, where was constructed a stall, which ere long grew into a pew. The stricter churchmen turned eastward; which position, as well as the place of service, the Puritans vehemently objected to, as a hindrance to hearing and understanding; Puritan ministers, if we may believe Bishop Wren's "Answer," often factiously affecting to be inaudible, when tied down to the observance of the rules. The governors¹⁴ of the Church, although they did not think fit to humour the Puritans, always wished that the service should be read distinctly and audibly,¹⁵ and ordered things with a view to this, according to the circumstances of particular places.

The Canon of 1603 gave a general order for the erection of desks, which had before been introduced into many Churches with the sanction of individual Bishops. During the primacy of Abbott the earlier customs wore out, so that the Bishops of Charles the First's time were charged with innovation when they attempted to revive them.

Although it was held desirable that the minister should look eastward, this was evidently not insisted on when it could really interfere with the edification of the people. Wren denies having pressed it; Montagu's Inquiries seem even to discourage it.

Perhaps where a new desk is to be constructed, the best plan for the present is that approved by the Bishop of London, by which the minister looks to the west in the Lessons, and to the south at other times. It is desirable that prayer-pulpits should be got rid of at the earliest opportunity.

The Litany was formerly read at a low stool in the Body of the Church, as it still is in some Cathedrals. The wisdom of reviving this custom where it has fallen into disuse is at this time very questionable.¹⁶

The Rubric expressly leaves the settlement of these points to the ordinary.

⁹ Some persons think it necessary to speak of "saying prayers," and tell us that this is the Prayer-Book expression. The words read and say, however, appear to be used indifferently. Compare the Rubrics before the Apostles' Creed and after the third Morning' Collect, with those before the Athanasian Creed and the Litany. Our elder Divines had no superstition on this point. The phrase "to say prayers" sounds affected in this sense, and is less expressive than the other.

¹⁰ Bishop Sparrow (Rationale, p. 35) speaks of the arrangement in question as prevailing "in many parish-churches of late," i. e. during Laud's primacy. His words seems to mean, not that the desks were ancient, but that the fashion of them agreed with the ancient custom implied in the Rubric relating to the Lessons.

¹¹ His Lordship has here been led into a slight inaccuracy by L'Estrange, to whom he refers. See below.

¹² In his answer when impeached, Wren denies having violently enforced turning eastward, and, for proof that such was the custom after the Reformation, refers to "the ancient form of their [seemingly the ministers'] seats in many Churches," to Cartwright, as quoted above, and to the Rubric for turning at the Lessons. See Parentalia.

¹³ See below, Sect. 6.

¹⁴ I do not here speak of such as Grindal, Scambler, and Park-hurst, who were Puritanically affected.

¹⁵ Very little need be said about a wonderful sort of recitative, in which it appears that some clergymen have lately thought it their duty to utter the service. "Plain-song," with which it is identified, was appointed only for " quires and places where they sing." (See Burnet, Hist. Ref. ii. 101. Cardwell, D. A. i. 196, &c.; Synodalia, 120; Strype, Annals, i. 152.) Our best divines, when occasion offers, shew that they considered good reading (which, however, is very different from theatrical declamation) a matter of importance. See Herbert, Country Parson, c. 6; Bull (Works, ii. 19, and Nelson's Life of him, pp. 46-48.) Kettlewell's Life, last pages; and Bishop Jebb (Pastoral Instructions, 203), who declares, " whatever might be their qualifications in other respects, those who are not qualified to perform Divine Service in a devout, clear, and edifying manner, shall never be ordained by my authority."

III.
Ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers.

RUBRIC:—"Such ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI."

Very great importance has been attached to the question of ornaments. The Puritans held those prescribed by the Church's rulers to be unlawful for Christians; the rulers enforced them, not apparently so much for the sake of the things themselves as because the principle of obedience was involved; and there was very good reason to suppose that from yielding they could hope for nothing but to be assailed with further demands. It is to be observed, however, that no attempt was ever made to enforce (at least on the parochial clergy,) those ornaments by the disuse of which our common practice seems to fall short of the Rubric.¹⁷ Copes, albes, lights on the altar, were never, I believe, prescribed by any ordinary for parish churches; the subjects of dispute were commonly things as to which all the clergy of the English Church appear to be at present in perfect agreement.

The word "retained" had reference originally to the state of things at the accession of Elizabeth, when this Rubric was made. Some of the ornaments used under Queen Mary were to be retained; the rest, to be discarded. It is not so clear in what meaning the revisers of 1662 wished the word to be understood; we may, however, be sure that they could not mean to enforce generally the use of ornaments which had not been so used from the time of the revision under Elizabeth, and had been expressly dispensed with by Injunctions and Canons;—although these, it must be allowed, were more or less wanting in the full authority of Church and State.

Strong feelings are at the present day entertained by various parties as to the importance of ornaments. For an example on the part of those who object to an excess, let the following extract from an account of Bishop Alexander's visit to Bethlehem serve instead of a multitude which might easily be collected: —"I observed to the Greek Bishop that the Armenians and the Greeks do not differ much in their religious opinions; upon which he replied, 'Oh yes, look at their altar; you see all those vases of flowers¹⁸ on it which they consider a decoration; we have nothing of the kind on our altars." (Eccl. Gazette Aug. 1842, p. 24.) The Bishop who made this speech appears to be followed by the Rev. F. C. Ewald, who reports it, and the London Society for the Conversion of the Jews, which has sent it forth to the public, in considering that some important difference of belief is involved in the difference of usage as to flowers; and if the mere decoration be held of so much importance, where both parties acknowledge an altar, we may well believe that the feeling will be far stronger where one party considers the "name and thing" of altar to be altogether intolerable.

An instance of opposite character may be brought from Mr. F. W. Faber's "Sights and Thoughts." This gentleman represents himself as having, somewhere in the south of France, been favoured with a manifestation of a remarkable personage, a "man of the middle ages." They discuss the religious condition of times past and present; and so well are they pleased with each other, that Mr. Faber accompanies his "mediæval" friend on an expedition to the Ægean; the Boswell to a sage of his own imagining. I do not profess to have read the whole narrative of their Tour to the Eastern Islands, which fills upwards of six hundred and forty octavo pages; but the last words on the last page are these,— uttered by the airy oracle "in a solemn voice, somewhat tremulous from deep emotion," after a survey of modern England:—"You have led me through a land of closed Churches and hushed bells, of unlighted altars and unstoled priests. Is England under an interdict?"

In other words, Mr. Faber chooses, as most favourable for letting his curtain drop with an imposing effect, a moment in which he is seen listening deferentially to this "projection of his own mind," (if I may borrow a phrase from some other late writer) and allowing himself to be told without contradiction, that because, 1. Our Churches are seldom open; 2. We have little bell-ringing altogether, and perhaps because we do not use bells at the Holy Communion; 3. Our altars have no lighted candles on them; 4. Our clergy do not universally wear tippets,—England has put herself into a state in which religious minds of the middle ages would have seen an entire withdrawal of the outward means of grace!

While I regret the existence of the first ground, I trust that the evil is not so great as Mr. Faber supposes; (and be it remembered that before the Reformation daily service was not universal;) but I am as little able to enter into the feelings of one who would bring forward the other items in such a manner, as into those of the Greek Bishop at Bethlehem and the retailers of his speech.

On questions of this kind, then, I do not speak as an adherent of any party.

(a.) Lights on the Altar.

These are the only ornaments of the Church, as to which much is said nowadays; the "parafronts, suffronts, palls, &c." with which Laud embellished some altars have not been revived, or, if revived in any quarter, have been allowed to pass in silence, so far as my knowledge extends.

Two pamphlets on the Lights have lately appeared; the one anonymous,¹⁹ the other by the Rev. G. A. Poole, of Leeds. I have read the latter with great astonishment; so strange is the contrast between the author's vehemence and the apparent unimportance of his subject; between the scornful confidence of his tone and the weakness of his argument. I have not taken the trouble to get the earlier pamphlet, as it appears that Mr. Poole had the advantage of using it.

The Bishop of London "sees no objection to" candles on the altar, "provided that they are not burning, except when the Church is lighted up for evening service." The order, however, is for lights; Fuller argues on the word, that "these being termed lights, shows they were not lumina cceca, but burning," (Ch. Hist. vii. 374); and we have abundant proof that they were burning. Indeed Mr. Poole, while he properly "resents the assertion" that he "has burnt candles at midday," "suspects that it may be found to be the real intention of the Church in the Rubric." The false stories which idle and malicious people have told of him are, in fact, false— only because he has not fully conformed to the supposed law. To have candles without lighting them is but half-conformity; indeed, it appears to take away the symbolical meaning for which the lights are said to be prescribed—"the signification that Christ is the very true light of the world."

The argument for lights runs thus:—By an act of parliament in Henry the Eighth's reign, the authority of law was given to his proclamations, and those which should be issued in the minority of his son. While this act was in force, Injunctions were published in Edward the Sixth's name, (1547,) whereby it was ordered that the clergy " shall suffer from henceforth no torches or candles, tapers or images of wax, to be set afore any image or picture, but only two lights upon the high altar before the sacrament, which, for the signification that Christ is the very true light of the world, they shall suffer to remain still." (Cardw. D. A. i. 7.) This, it is said, was law in the second year of Edward; the Rubric, therefore, we are told, now binds us to adorn our altars with the lights here sanctioned.

It is remarkable that Mr. Poole lias all but given the answer to his own argument. He writes:— "Though the letter of the law [under Henry VIII.] might enjoin the light by the roodloft, the light before the sacrament of the altar, and the light about the sepulchre, yet, as the roodloft and the sepulchre are now taken away, we are saved from the possibility of returning to these additional lights." (p. 9.) Here this writer stops; but Mr. Beaven (Brit. Mag. October, 1841) goes on a step further; "The sacrament," too, he shews, is now taken away; for by this term was meant the consecrated wafer, suspended in a pyx over the altar;²⁰ its attendant candles, therefore, have now no more authority than those which were the accompaniments of the roodloft and the sepulchre.

I shall now give in order some passages relating to the history of this ornament.

1547. Archbishop Cranmer, in his Articles of Enquiry, which were later than the royal Injunctions already quoted, and founded on them, asks, " Whether [the clergy] suffer any lights to be in Churches, but only two lights on the high altar?" (D. A. i. 43.) "Whether they had upon Good Friday last past the sepulchres with their lights, having the sacrament therein?" (Ib. 48.) The exhibition of "the sacrament" seems to have been now confined to the high altar.

1548. (2 Edward VI.) "There had been an Injunction that the pyx should no more hang in a string over the altar." (Strype, Eccl. Mem. ii. 116.) I have not seen this Injunction, but take Strype's word for it, and the date of its being issued. The date, however, is immaterial with respect to the present question, as the removal of the lights is involved in that of the pyx, of which they were appendages.

1549. Royal Injunctions. (Cardw. D. A. i. 63.) "That all parsons omit in the reading of the Injunctions [which it was their duty to read in Churches periodically] such as make mention of.... candles upon the altar." This is itself of no force under our present Rubric, because later than 2 Edward VI; but it is founded on the order about the pyx, given before the Prayer-Book of that year was ratified.

1550. Bishop Ridley, Articles for London. (Ib. 80.) "Whether there be any images in your Church .... candles, &c." "That there be no reading of such Injunctions as extolleth and setteth forth candles." "That no minister do counterfeit the popish mass in setting any light upon the Lord's board."

This last sentence relates, not to the use of lights as allowed in 1547, but to candles lighted at consecration.

1552. Articles of Religion, No. XXIX. "The sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not commanded by Christ's ordinance to be kept, carried about, lifted up, nor worshipped." This is now in our XXVIIIth Article, and is a condemnation of the practice with which the lights are connected by the Injunction of 1547.

1553. Aug. 21. "Mass began [after Edward's death] at St. Nicholas Cole-Abbey, and tapers set on the altar, and a cross." (Strype, Ecc. Mem. iii. 22.²¹)

1555. Cardinal Pole, Archbishop of Canterbury, orders "ut in qualibet ecclesiâ parochiali fiat tabernaculum decens et honestum, cum serâ et clavi, quod in altum elevatum in medio summi altaris affisratur," ... and, where it can be afforded," ut perpetuo lampas vel cereus coram sanctissimo hoc Sacramento ardeat." (Doc. Ann. i. 146.)

1557. The Cardinal enquires "Whether there do burn a lamp or a candle before the sacrament?"

In these two passages last quoted, we have the very phrase of King Edward's Injunction.

1559. Fecknam, a Romanist, (in Cardwell, Conf. 103,) contrasting Queen Mary's days with those since her death:—"There was no most blasphemously treading of the sacrament under their feet, and hanging: up the knave of clubs²² instead thereof."

1560. Jan. 6. Sampson, who had been an exile in Mary's time, and had taken up strong opinions as to the unlawfulness of some rites and ceremonies, writes thus to Peter Martyr of the prospect under Elizabet!):—"Quid ego sperem, cum exulet ex aula Christi ministerium, admittatur autem Crucifixi imago cum accensis luminaribus? Altaria quidem sunt diremta, et imagines per totum regnum; in sola aula Crucifixi imago cum candelis retinetur." He puts the case:— "Si princeps ita injungat omnibus episcopis et pastoribus, ut vel admittant in suas ecclesias imaginem cum candelis, vel ministerio Christi cedant, quid hie faciendum sit?"²³ No such measure had as yet been adopted, nor were this writer and those who thought with him put to the trial here contemplated at any later time.

1560. Bishop Jewel, in his Challenge at St. Paul's Cross, defies the Romanists to shew "that the sacrament was [in the first 600 years] or ought to be now, hanged up under a canopy." (Doc. Ann. i. 255.)

1562. The passage from the XXIXth of King Edward's Articles, again published in the XXVIIIth of the Thirty-nine.

1562. Bishop Parkhurst to Bullinger, Aug. 20. "Evangelium ad me adfertur, crucem scilicet, et candelabra in capella Reginae esse comminuta, et, ut quidam retulit, in cinerem redacta." (Zurich Letters, No. 53.) This seems to relate to the exploit of the Queen's fool, who broke the Crucifix at the instigation of Sir Francis Knolles.

1563. The same to the same, April 26. "Scripsi ad te, crucem, cereos, candelabra, e Reginse capella abducta; sed paullo post sunt reducta, magno piorum moerore. Cerei antea quotidie incendebantur; nunc minime." (Ib. Letter 57.)

1563. Bishops Grindal and Horn write to Gualter, "Accensos cereos et ejus generis alia, ex legum præscripto nunquam revocanda, penitus amisit ecclesia Anglicana." (Zurich Letters, No. 75.)

1606. Andrew Melvin, the noted Presbyterian, was sent to the Tower, "where," says Walton in the Life of Herbert, "he remained very angry for three years." One of his offences was the having written satirical verses on the ornaments of the Chapel-royal, among which verses was this:—

"Lumina cæca duo, pollubra sicca duo."

1623. Tapers are ordered for the Prince's Chapel at Madrid, as we have seen.

1628. Among Ferrar's furniture at Little Gidding are mentioned, "two large waxlights on the altar." There were other candles, "not for superstition, but for use, the hours requiring them." (Eccl. Biog. iv. 176-249.

1633. At Charles the First's Coronation at Edinburgh, "It is marked that there was a four-nooked tassil, in manner of ane altar, standing within the Kirk, having standing thereupon two books,²⁴ at least resembling clasped books, called blind books, with two chandlers and two wax candles, which were on light, and a bason wherein there was nothing; at the back of the altar there was ane rich tapestry, wherein the Crucifix was curiously wrought, and as thir [i. e. these] Bishops who were in service past by this Crucifix, they were seen to bow the knee and beck, which, with their habit [copes] was noted, and bred great fear of inbringing of popery." (Spalding, Troubles in Scotland, ed. 1829, p. 16.)

Archbishop Laud, making statutes for Cathedrals, found the altar rightly placed at Canterbury, and recommended "candlesticks, bason, and carpet." (Heylyn, 275.) He was accused at his trial of" administering the sacrament with some more solemnities than in ordinary parish-churches, though constantly observed in His Majesty's Chapels." (Ib. 455.)

1641. The Lords' sub-committee is to inquire into "advancing candlesticks in many Churches, on the altar, so-called." (Cardw. Conf. 272.) The Commons soon after ordered their removal. (Heylyn, Laud, 442.)

Although the use of candles in parish-churches seems to be here meant, it does not appear that it ever was enjoined by any Bishop. There is nothing of the kind in the Norwich articles of Wren and Montagu, nor is the former prelate charged with any such order in his impeachment, where we may be very sure that nothing would have been omitted which could have given the slightest pretext for an accusation. I have also looked into some of the venomous little pamphlets of charges against parochial clergymen of the Laudian school, without observing any mention of candles; whence we may conclude that the use of them was not universal in parish-churches, even among the most ceremonial of the clergy, if indeed it was practised at all. Puritans never complain of being obliged to set up candles; they are not enjoined or enquired after by any Bishop whose articles have fallen in my way, from Parker to Ken, although so many other ornaments and articles of furniture25 are mentioned, that these could not have been omitted if they were held necessary. Nor are they enumerated among the Church-furniture in the collection of poems entitled "The Synagogue," usually printed with Herbert's Temple.

Bishop Cosin, indeed, (in Nicholls, App. p. 34,) prescribes that at Communion-time, "two wax candles are to be set on;" but it is most likely that he had in view the celebration in a Cathedral; and his note (probably written before he was a Bishop) is no Injunction.²⁶

Mr. Poole assumes that the lights were in general use until removed by the Puritans in the Great Rebellion. Enough, I trust, has been said to shew that this assumption is quite gratuitous. It would appear rather, that they have never been restored in parishchurches²⁷ since their removal under Edward VI; that they were re-established in the royal Chapels by Elizabeth, not from any authority of the Church, but because of her own personal tastes; that they have been ever since continued in royal Chapels, and, after that model, were adopted in many private Chapels of Bishops and lay Noblemen. They seem to have been wanting in most or all Cathedrals until the time of Laud, and to have been generally retained in Churches of this class since the Restoration of Charles II.

I believe, then, that there is no authority for placing lights on the altar in parochial Churches; although, if our people could be brought to look on them rationally, and they could be introduced without affectation, or superstitiously insisting on them as necessary, I should, as a matter of taste, be very willing to see them in general use.

A few words may be added as to the lighting of the candles. This is certainly meant in the Injunction of 1547; Queen Elizabeth's lights were burning when she first exhibited the obnoxious ornaments; and although a change was soon made in this respect, and Melvin found the candles in her successor's Chapel lumina cœca, the honest northern chronicler who describes the Edinburgh Coronation of 1633, tells us that the candles used at that ceremony were "on light." It is remarkable that I have nowhere seen any express statement as to lighting the candles in the charges against Laud, except, indeed, that Baillie speaks of "lighted tapers and burning incense." (The Canterburians' Self-conviction, ed. 3, p. 86.) This writer, however, was just the man to improve a story maliciously; his general assertion might perhaps have no better foundation than the fact that tapers were once lighted at Edinburgh,— a fact more likely to be known to him than to the Puritans of England; indeed, without even this, the existence of an order for lights in some Romish books would probably have been enough for him. I do not profess to have formed any decided opinion as to the practice of Laud in this respect; but, as has been said already, whoever may think himself bound by the Rubric to set candles on the altar, ought also to consider himself bound to light them.

In this section, I have confined myself to the question of fact; some observations as to the spirit and purpose of the Injunction which has given rise to the enquiry will be found in another place.²⁸

(b.) Ornaments of the Minister generally.

The authority for these is different from that which is brought for lights on the altar; being the Rubric of the Prayer-Book which in the second year of King Edward was sanctioned by Act of Parliament.

Of the ornaments there prescribed, the rochette and staff belong to Bishops only, and therefore do not fall within the limits of the present enquiry; and as to the vestment, the tunicle, and the albe, it need only be said that they were done away with at a later time in Edward s reign, and do not appear to have been used since the Rubric of 1559 authorized their revival.

The surplice has always been prescribed, and is now universally used, as the dress to be generally worn in public service. The only questions with respect to it are,—whether it may be worn at the celebration of the Holy Communion instead of the cope? and—whether it must be worn in preaching, to the exclusion of the gown?²⁹

(c.) The Dress for Ministering at the Altar.

1549. A Rubric orders that the chief officiating Priest

"shall at the time appointed for the ministration of the Holy Communion, put on him a white albe, plain, with a vestment or cope."

The assistant ministers

"shall wear albes with tunicles."³⁰

1552. The second Book forbids the use of

"albe, vestment, and cope,"

and orders for priests and deacons

"a surplice only."

1559. Guest, afterwards Bishop of Rochester, writes to Cecil about the proposed Book of Elizabeth, disallowing any difference of habit at Communion. (Cardw. Conf. 51.) In the Book, however, when published, our present Rubric appeared. The insertion is ascribed to the Queen herself. (Ib. 21.)

1559. Bishops' Interpretations of the Queen's Injunctions. "That there be used only but one apparel; as the cope in the ministration of the Lord's Supper, and the surplice at all other ministrations." (D. A. i. 205.)

Sandys to P. Martyr, April 1, 1560. "Tantum manent vestimenta ilia papistica, capas intellige, quas diu non duraturas speramus." (Burnet, H. R. iii. App. 296. Zurich Letters, No. 31.)

1564. Advertisements issued by Bishops prescribe a surplice at Communion in parish-churches; a cope in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches; where, however, a surplice was to be worn "at all other prayers to be said at the Communion-table." (D. A. i. 291.) The same year at Canterbury, "the priest which ministereth, the pistoler and gospeller, wear copes." (Strype, Parker, 183.)

It is needless to produce any of the other instances as to parish-churches during Elizabeth's reign which I have noted, as it is very clear that in her time the parochial clergy neither wore copes, nor were held bound to wear them.

These vestments soon fell into disuse, even in Cathedrals. Thus at Canterbury, 1573, "they still had a great many old copes, which were to be disposed of." The Dean was charged with "having made away with the copes; which he confessed, because it had been agreed by the Chapter that all the copes should be made away, and that he had two of them, and paid £15 for the same." (Strype, Parker, 444.) The copes at King's College, Cambridge, too, were sold before 1576. (Strype, Annals, ii. 421.)

1603. Heylyn, Life of Laud, p. 6. "This vestment having been discontinued (I know not by what fatal negligence) many years together, it pleased the Convocation to pass a Canon." By this Canon, which is the xxiv th of our present code, it is ordered that "in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, the Holy Communion shall be administered upon principal feast-days, the principal minister using a decent cope, and being assisted by the Gospeller and Epistler agreeably, according to Advertisements published anno 7 Eliz."

At the same time, the LVIIIth Canon gave order for "ministers reading Divine service, and administering the sacraments, to wear surplices."

Under Archbishop Bancroft, "the use of copes was revived, and the surplice generally worn." (Collier, ii. 687.) It is, of course, to be understood that the copes were worn according to the limitations of the late Canons; these having been chiefly drawn up by the Archbishop himself while Bishop of London. He prescribes for his own Cathedral, 1608, that the Epistle and Gospel be read in copes every Sunday and holy-day; (Wilkins, iv. 436;) but although he enquires about habits at Wells Cathedral in 1605, there is no mention of the cope in his Articles on that occasion. (Ib. 415.)

The cope fell again into disuse in Cathedrals during Abbott's primacy, although probably retained in the royal Chapels. Laud prescribed its restoration in Cathedrals, but did not give any such direction for Parish Churches. Even for St. Mary's at Oxford he is content to order a surplice. (Autob. 215-6.) And although the Lords' sub-committee of 1641 and the Presbyterians of 1660 find fault with our Rubric as seeming to order copes, it is evident that no such vestment had ever been used within their knowledge in parochial Churches. The Bishops in their reply to the Presbyterians, while they do not agree to an alteration, give no other reason for the refusal than a reference to their general defence of ceremonies, in which there is nothing, so far as I have observed, that can throw any light on this subject. (See Cardw. Conf. 314-351.)

1681. Thoresby (quoted by Dr. Hook, "Call to Union," Note S.) saw "rich embroidered copes" at Durham Cathedral; where the full splendour of the ritual had been restored by Bishop Cosin, who held the see from 1661 to 1671. (See Pref. to the late edition of his Devotions, p. vi.)

I have not met with any later notice of the cope, except as used at Coronations.

The Rubric under consideration is repeated in the Act of Uniformity, 1 Eliz., where it is declared that the ornaments shall be retained "until other order shall be therein taken by the authority of the Queen's Majesty, with the advice of her commissioners appointed and authorized under the great seal for causes ecclesiastical, or of the Metropolitan of this realm." On this, Burn (Eccl. Law, Art. Public Worship) says that no other order ever was taken, and therefore the LVinth Canon, by which surplices are ordered to be worn at the administration of the sacraments in parish-churches, is void, as opposed to the Act. It is to be observed, however, that if no alterations were made by the Queen in the way here provided for, yet an alteration was made by the Advertisements of 1564, which, although issued on the authority of the Bishops, (see Cardw. D. A. i. 287.) were popularly known as "The Queen's Book." And when the Rubric was re-enacted in 1662, it is not to be supposed that those who re-enacted it intended to contradict and abrogate the LVinth Canon, any more than we suppose the framers of the Canons of 1603 to have intended self-contradiction when they ordered in the xivth that the Prayer-Book be strictly complied with, and in the LViuth,that a surplice should be worn where the Prayer-Book in strictness prescribed a cope. Sparrow quotes the Advertisements of 1564 as an unquestioned interpretation of the Rubric. (Rationale, 311.) Laud speaks of copes not as commanded by the Rubric, but as allowed or warranted by the Canon. (Troubles, 313-326.)

Dr. Hook, in his Call, (Note S.) and even in his Dictionary, seems to think that the cope may be dispensed with. The Christian Remembrancer for Dec. 1842, however, tells us that "English Churchmen cannot much longer dispense with it." (p. 619.)

I do not profess to discuss the obligations of the Cathedral clergy in this respect.³¹

(d.) The Preaching-dress.

A Surplice has been usually worn by preachers in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches; and also very commonly by the poor clergy of remote districts, such as Wales and Cumberland. In Churches of an intermediate kind, a gown has long been the pulpit dress, worn by clergymen of all opinions, and not supposed to be any badge of a party. Such was the authority of this custom, that we find the late respected Bishop Jebb (whom, notwithstanding certain connexions, and his share in certain speculations, no one would consider either a Puritan or a latitudinarian) making it "a particular request that every member of his diocese provide himself with a decent black gownand this because "the senses and imagination are to be enlisted in the service of religion." (Charge, 1823.)

Of late, however, we have heard very different opinions; the gown has been decried as a "relic of Puritanism," a "Genevan rag," utterly unauthorized, and unknown in our pulpits until the times of the Great Rebellion.

On some of these assertions it may be observed, before going further, that gowns are authorized as a part of the ordinary clerical dress, and are still worn out of doors in the Universities; at the worst, therefore, they become Puritanical and Genevan rags only when worn in the pulpit.

In the following notices will be found some helps towards determining whether even there they be intolerable, and tokens or relics of Puritanism.

1549. Edward the Sixth's first Book. "In the saying of Matins and Evensong, baptizing and burying, the minister in Parish Churches and Chapels annexed to the same shall use a surplice; but in all other places, every minister shall be at liberty to use any surplice or no. It is also seemly that graduates, when they do preach, should use such hoods as pertaineth to their several degrees."

This is the rule revived by our present Rubric. The Bishop of London appears to think (p. 53) that it prescribes the surplice for preaching. According to Sharp's view of it, on the contrary, the ordinary clerical dress is to be worn in preaching, graduates wearing hoods in addition. Burn (Art. Public Worship) points out that the surplice is not required in marrying and churching.

1559. Guest to Cecil. "Because it is thought sufficient to use but a surplice in baptizing, reading, preaching, and praying, therefore it is enough also for the Communion." (Cardw. Conf. 50.)

This was brought forward as an argument against the use of copes.

1559. Bishops' Interpretations. "The surplice in all other ministrations" [but the Communion.] (D. A. i. 205.)

1562. Requests to Convocation by Nowell and others. (Strype, Ann. i. 298.) "That the use of copes and surplices may be taken away, and that all ministers in their ministration use a grave, comely, and side [i. e. long] garment, as commonly they do in preaching," [" i. e. I conceive," says the Bishop of London, p. 74, "when sermons were preached without the reading of the Common-Prayer." The writer is still inclined to think, as before seeing his Lordship's Charge, that ordinary preaching may also be meant.] "That the ministers be not compelled to wear such gowns and caps as the enemies of Christ's Gospel have chosen to be the special array of their priesthood." Hence the preaching-garment approved by the Puritans would seem not to have been the ordinary Canonical dress.³²

1564. Advertisements. "That the Dean and Prebendaries wear a surplice with a silk hood in the quire; and when they preach in the Cathedral or Collegiate Church, to wear their hood." (D. A. i. 291.) It would seem to be intended that the sermons should not be in the quire of Cathedrals, but, as is usual abroad, in the nave;³³ and there is ground here for supposing that the surplice was not worn by dignitaries when preaching.

1564. (Strype, Grindal, 97.) London ministers are "prayed to take on them the gown, (wliich one of them describes to be a Turkey³⁴ gown with a falling cape,) and to wear in the ministry of the Church a surplice only."

1570. A Puritan writes (Strype, Annals, ii. 6,) that the Bishops "do make such a diversity between Christ's word and His sacraments, that they can35 think the word of God to be safely enough preached and honourably enough handled, without cap, cope, or surplice, but that the sacraments must needs be declared with coping, surplicing," &c.

1570. Sandys, then Bishop of London, in his Injunctions, orders the Clergy "In all Divine Service to wear the surplice." (Ib. 29.)

1571. Canon as to preachers licensed to itinerate. " Inter concionandum utentur veste quam maxime modesta et gravi, quae deceat atque ornet ministrum Dei, qualisque in libello admonitionum descripta est." (Synod. 127.) In the Advertisements of 1564, which are here referred to, (see Synod. 126), the only passage that can be meant is that which orders for ministers that "in their common apparel abroad" their gowns be "syde, with sleeves streyght at the hand, without any cuts in the same; and that also without any falling cape." (D. A. i. 296.)

1584. Archbishop Whitgift, in Articles ex officio (Strype, Whitg. App. p. 50) requires an answer to the following:—"That you have at the time of communion, or at all or some other times in your ministration, used and worn only your ordinary apparel, and not the surplice."

Hooker, v. 29, 7, (speaking in the person of a Puritan:) "We judge it unfit as often as we pray or preach so arrayed." This seems to intimate that the same dress was used in preaching as in prayer.

1603. Canon LVIII orders ministers to wear surplices in "reading Divine Service and administering the sacraments," but says nothing about preaching in this dress; whence Sharp thinks that the Canon does not sanction it. Canon LXXIV prescribes for ordinary dress, "gowns with standing collars, and sleeves strait at the hands, or wide sleeves, as is used in the universities." Canon XXV. Members of Cathedral and Collegiate Churches "beinggraduates, shall at the times both of prayer and preaching wear with their surplices such hoods as are agreeable to their degrees." This seems to be the rule by which the present practice of such Churches is governed.

1633. By the King's Instructions to Archbishop Laud, (agreeing, doubtless, with the Primate's own wishes,) lecturers are to read service "in their surplices and hoods before the lecture." (Doc. Ann. ii. 178.) It would appear that one object of this order was, to secure conformity in the use of the surplice and hood from ministers who might have been unwilling to wear these vestments; and that this would not have been attained if the ministers were allowed to preach without officiating in prayers also; consequently, that the surplice was not used in preaching. And further light is thrown on the matter by another part of the same paper, where it is ordered that clergymen combining for a lecture in a market-town, "shall ever preach in such seemly habits as belong to their degrees, and not in cloaks."

It is ordered in the Oxford Statutes, which about this time underwent a revision by the Archbishop:— "Concionatores habitu gradui suo competente induti ad ecclesiam accedant, et eodem induti conciones suas habeant."³⁶

1638. Bishop Montagu inquires, "Doth your minister officiate Divine Service in the habit and apparel of his order, with a surplice, an hood, a gown, and a tippet? not in a cloak, a sleeveless jacket, or horseman's coat? for such have I known."

Heylyn (Laud, 243) tells us that combination-lecturers in towns were required "in some places to read the second service at the Communion-table, and after the sermon to go back to the table, and there read the service; all which, being to be done in their hoods and surplices, kept off the greatest part of the rigid Calvinists."

Bishop Wren owns having ordered the surplice for preaching; 1. Because the service is afterwards to be continued in it; 2. Because it is the use of Cathedrals, and, as appears from Hooker, was in Queen Elizabeth's time used in Parish Churches; 3. Because the Rubric orders the ornaments of 1549 "at all times of ministration," in which he holds that preaching is included.³⁷

We have, I trust, seen in the passages here brought together grounds for thinking of the gown less vilely than some zealous churchmen require us to do.

It is very questionable whether we be bound by the Rubric to wear the surplice in the pulpit. I am inclined to adopt the opinion of Sharp and Burn as to the literal interpretation.

In Elizabeth's reign we meet with instances on both sides; those for the surplice predominating, yet not so as to overpower the evidence in favour of gowns. That the authorities, both then and under Charles I., saw no absolute unfitness in the gown for preaching, is evident from the directions of 1571, and the extracts under the years 1633—6—8.

In short, the enforcement of surplices (where they were enforced) seems to have been a measure of caution against popular puritan orators, who could otherwise have ascended the pulpit without ever officiating in any part of the service for which the surplice was usually required. Bishop Wren appears to have been the only prelate of Charles the First's time who prescribed this preaching-dress; and the line of defence adopted by him, when this was laid to his charge as a novelty, is very remarkable. He fetches his precedents, not from the primacy of Bancroft, who is generally described as a more vigorous and rigid exacter of conformity than any of the preceding archbishops, but from the reign of Queen Elizabeth; and he refers to books as his evidence with respect to the practice of her days; although only thirty-three years had past since the queen's death, he himself having been eighteen years old at the date of that event, and twelve at the publication (1597) of Hooker's Fifth Book, which he quotes as if it were a document relating to things remotely beyond the memory of man. The like is done by Heylyn, Life of Laud, p. 6.

It appears, then, that the surplice was not worn in preaching during the reign of James I.; it is not ordered by the Canons of 1603; and although Hooker may be admitted as a witness that it was so worn in the last years of the sixteenth century, Bishop Wren's silence as to the experience of his own boyhood in the matter, which is one that could not fail to be noticed by a boy, may be considered as sufficient proof that the custom was then by no means universal.

We find, further, that the fancy of the puritans ran, not on gowns, but on cloaks and other unauthorized and unacademical garments.³⁸ Far from being a Genevan fashion, the gown was abhorred by the Genevating party, little, if at all, less than the surplice itself.

As the clergy of our day all wear the surplice at prayers and sacraments, perhaps an order that they should never preach but in surplices would not excite much murmuring; but, as showing the indifferency of the thing, the Bishop of London's advice seems better. He would have the surplice worn in the morning, where there is but one clergyman, that the part of the service which ought to follow the sermon39 may be said without change of dress; in the afternoon, his lordship advises that his clergy preach in gowns.

In order further to make the gown seem tolerable, let me remind some persons that monks preach in the habit of their order;⁴⁰ and a gown is properly the habit of an English clergyman. The garment described in the Advertisements of 1564 appears to be what is now called the cassock. I apprehend that a graduate ought rather to use the dress of his degree than what is styled a preacher's gown.

(e.) The Hood.

This, as worn among us, is an academical distinction. The rubric of 1549 respecting it has been quoted above, (p. 70.) The LVIIIth Canon of 1603, is more stringent, and orders that appropriate hoods be worn by all graduates; while non-graduates are allowed to " wear upon their surplices, instead of hoods, some decent tippet of black, so it be not silk." When the learned Mr. Palmer says in his "Origines Liturgicse" (Append, X.) that "all our clergy are permitted to wear the hood," it would seem that he includes the tippet under this name; that, however, is identical with another of the articles described by him, as we shall presently see.

(f.) The Tippet.

Mr. Palmer does not notice either this name, or liripipium, which is the equivalent in the latin LVIIIth Canon. Burn and several dictionaries have also been looked into without any satisfactory result. The following collection of passages, however, will probably be found sufficient to determine the matter.

24 Hen. VIII. A.D. 1532. An act orders that stuff made beyond the king's dominions shall not be worn by the clergy, with some exceptions:—"It shall be lawful to all Archdeacons, Deans, Provosts, Masters, and Wardens of the Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, Prebendaries, Doctors or Bachelors of Divinity, Doctors of the one Law or the other, and also Doctors of other sciences, to wear black velvet, or black sarcenet, or black satin, in their tippets and riding-hoods or girdles. And that none of the clergy under the degrees aforesaid, other than the Masters of Art, and Bachelors of the one Law or other, or such other of the clergy as may dispend yearly £20 over all charges, shall wear in their tippets any manner of sarcenet or other silk."—Gibson, Codex. Tit. 7. c. 3.

1557 (under Mary). Articles established or proposed in convocation. (Synod. 452—476.) "Nec in epitogiis [these seem to be the tippets of the act just quoted,] quisquam prsesumat uti velveto aut sarcineto, nisi fuerit graduatus, vel beneficium assecutus ecclesiasticum."

1564. Advertisements. (D. A. i. 194—5.) Dignitaries, Doctors, &c. are ordered "in their common apparel abroad to wear tippets of sarcenet, as is lawful for them by the act of parliament, Anno xxiv. Henry VIII."

The lawfulness, we may observe, relates here to the material. It was lawful for clergymen of less mark to wear tippets of inferior stuff.

1564. Bishop Grindal desires the London clergy to wear the tippet. (Strype, Grind, p. 97.,) He uses these words, (Append, p. 22.) "Collo circumducta stola qusedam, ab utroque humero pendula, et ad talos fere demissa." Stola is rendered by Strype, (p. 117,) "a tippet."

1565. Strype, Parker, 213. "It was taken great notice of, that some had preached before her Majesty without tippet." Of orders given to the London clergy, "the fourth article related to the sarcenet tippet, that such should wear it as might by the act of parliament 24 Hen. VIII. and no other."

1560. Scotch ministers remonstrate with the English bishops—(Strype, Parker,) "If surplice, corner-cap, and tippet have been badges of idolatries, in the very act of idolatry, &c." I quote this from a multitude of puritan complaints, because it professes to give a reason.

1603. Canon LVIII. already quoted. Can. LXXIV. Dignitaries, Doctors, Bachelors in Divinity and Law, and Masters of Arts, to wear abroad "hoods or tippets of silk or sarcenet."

1638. Bishop Montagu asks, "Doth your minister officiate in the habit of his order, with a surplice, an hood, a gown, and a tippet?"

We may now proceed to inferences.

No order for wearing the tippet with the surplice appears before 1603; but we find that preachers at court in Elizabeth's reign, (when surplices were probably used by priests in preaching⁴¹) were expected to wear it.

It was an ordinary article of clerical dress, worn abroad with the gown; and puritans objected to wearing it at all, because it had been used before the Reformation "in the very act of idolatry," i. e. in the service of the mass. We must, therefore, look for it among the vestments of the earlier time; and, by Archbishop Grindal's help, we find it to be the same with the stole or scarf,⁴² described by Mr. Palmer, Origines, Appendix vi. The Canon allows a tippet of inferior material to be worn over the surplice by such as are not graduates. The tippet is also a proper appendage of the gown, and perhaps every clergyman of the present day can satisfy some one, at least, of the conditions on which the Act 24 Henry VIII. allows that it be of silk. It is commonly worn with the surplice and hood by Doctors, Dignitaries, and Chaplains;⁴³ but if the clergy generally should feel disposed to adopt it, in deference to the opinion of Mr. Faber's Projection,⁴⁴ that it is a chief note of spiritual life in a church, I should suppose that we may all be justified in wearing it, without further order, and even that it may be assumed without raising any great outcry in any quarter.

¹⁶ See Appendix F.

¹⁷ The contests about the cap, gown, &c. do not come under this head. They were articles of the ordinary dress; whereas the Rubric speaks of apparel to be worn "at times of ministration."

¹⁸ It appears that some clergymen are in the habit of adorning their altars with symbolical flowers; on which subject there was an article in the British Critic a few years ago, when the opinions of that periodical were more moderate than at a later time. Ferrar's Church was decorated with flowers; (E. B. iv. 249;) and the use of evergreens at Christmas-tide is universal; but I have not met with any example of the practice now in question.

¹⁹ "Dr. Cardwell and certain Church-Ornaments."

²⁰ We shall see that this must be meant, although formerly candles were required at the consecration of the Eucharist. Thus in Lyndewood, (p. 236, ed. 1679,) Archbishop Reynolds orders "Tempore quo missarum solemnia peraguntur, accendantur dure candelae, vel ad minus una." The comment is, "Est enim a parte juris ordinatum, quod sacerdos sine lumine ignis non celebret missam. Si tamen faciat, nihilominus conficit, licet graviter peccet."

²¹ He continues, "And here I cannot but remark upon the incumbent of the said St. Nicholas, whose name was Parson Chicken, that he sold his wife to a butcher, and Nov. 24 was carted about London."

²² Besides such deeds, readers of the history of the time will observe much abominable language as to the pyx on the part of the extreme Reformers.

²³ I have followed the copy in the Zurich Letters, (No. 27,) which differs slightly from those before published, and professes to be more accurate.

²⁴ Cosin, in Nicholls, App. 34, orders a Bible and Prayer-Book to be set on.

²⁵ E.g. The communion-table, its covering, the pulpit, the commandments, the font, the Bible, Prayer-Book, Homilies, Erasmus's Paraphrase, Foxe's Acts and Monuments, Jewel's Works, poor-box, sentences of Scripture on the walls, reading-pew, cup, flagon, pulpit-cushion, book of Canons, surplice, table of forbidden degrees, &c.

²⁶ He writes at p. 17, that by virtue of the Rubric, the lights were continued in all Queen Elizabeth's Chapels, "and so they are in all the King's, and in many Cathedral Churches, besides the Chapels of divers Noblemen, Bishops, and Colleges to this day." Bishop Cosin may possibly have had ground for saying that Edward's Injunctions were the authority for the Queen's candles; but nothing to this effect has fallen under my notice in contemporary papers. It is true that all the accounts of her ornaments, which I have seen, proceeded from the anti-ceremonialists; still, if the Injunctions were alleged, the plea would hardly have been unnoticed by the opponents of the lights. We shall probably be more correct if we refer Elizabeth's proceedings to her individual tastes. It is to be observed that Bishop Cosin does not mention parish-churches, nor give any hint of general obligation.

²⁷ "In how many parochial Churches, or whether in any, candles on the altar have been retained since the times of the Puritans, I know not." (Poole, p. 13.) In the article in Dr. Hook's Church-Dictionary, which is abridged from Mr. Poole's pamphlet, the words "or whether in any" are left out, and we find this addition, "In some they certainly have been." We require proof for the times before the Puritan ascendancy.

²⁸ See Part III.

²⁹ By the way, a passage in Hooker (iv. 4, 2) suggests a doubt whether the make of our present surplice be altogether correct. The Puritans object to the vestment, "si de formâ agitur, talaris vestis honestior." The word talaris is rendered by Hooker "down to the foot;" and is defined by a Convocation of Queen Mary's reign to mean "neque nimiâ longitudine caudam trahens, neque nimiâ brevitate crura tibiasque demonstrans." (Synodalia, 477.) According to these interpretations, the usual surplice of our days is talar, whereas that of Hooker's age was not. I leave the prosecution of the subject to those who care for such things.

³⁰ Bingham, overlooking this Rubric, and supposing one in another part of the Book to be the only order as to vestments, has wrongly charged Baxter with misrepresentation of our Church's directions in the matter. (French Church's Apology, b. iii. c. 7.)

³¹ In connexion with the subject of dress to be worn at the altar, I may mention that my eye was lately caught by the following; words in the Index to Gavantus, "Caesaries ficta, (vulgo pe rucca,) cum ea non potest celebrari missa." This may startle some of those who are disposed to pay deference to Roman authority in such matters.

³² Sampson and Humphrey complain that the clergy were required to wear when out of Church "togas longas, a papistis mutuo sumptas." (Zurich Letters, No. 71.)

³³ This is confirmed by Archbishop Bancroft's order for Canterbury Cathedral, 1608. (Wilkins, Cone. iv. 436.) "That upon solemn feastdays the sermon be made before the Communion: the moveable pulpit being placed either in the presbytery or quire; and every afternoon of such days there be a sermon for the city in the ordinary place."

³⁴ May this throw some light on the dress of the Puritan deputies at the Hampton Court Conference, "Gowns of the shape of those worn by Turkey merchants?"

³⁵ The reading in Strype is cannot. It may seem strange thus to make the evidence change sides, but the sense requires the alteration.

³⁶ For this and other information I am indebted to a friend at Oxford.

³⁷ It seems doubtful whether this interpretation is to be put on all the orders of Elizabeth's time in which such words occur.

³⁸ Comp. South, iv. 179, ed. 1823; Heylyn's Laud, 191.

³⁹ Perhaps the worst fault of the gown is that it has led to a too general neglect of this.

⁴⁰ "Si Concionator sit regularis, remanet indutus solo habitu suo regulari." (Gavanti Thes. i. 209. col. 2.) See Pepys, Diary, March 17, 1677. This reference was made some years ago. I regret that while collecting materials I have not had an opportunity of consulting the diaries of Pepys and Evelyn, from which the recollection of former reading assures me that much suitable information might have been gleaned.

⁴¹ Perhaps, however, the passage here referred to may be evidence against the use of the surplice in the pulpit. The surplice was as much objected to as the tippet, and it might seem that those who scrupled at the latter would hardly have borne to wear the former. But in truth the caprices of puritanical conscience were so various that it is impossible to argue from probabilities in such a case.

⁴² The explanation of ceremonies drawn up by Gardiner's party, 1539, declares that" the stole, as touching the mystery, signifieth the ropes or bands that Christ was bound with to the pillar; and as touching the minister, it signifieth the robe of patience." (Strype, E. M. i. App. p. 285. Collier ii. 194.)

⁴³ The reader, if acquainted with that very curious work The Life of Lady Huntingdon, will probably remember her ladyship's fancy that her rank gave her the privilege, by "bestowing her scarf on" any clergyman, of setting him free from all allegiance to the Church and the Bishops, without his suffering any loss of his standing as a minister.

⁴⁴ See p. 53.

IV.
Reverences.

IT is needless at the present day to say anything as to the grosser improprieties, such as wearing the hat in Church, of which complaints are frequent in the sermons of Andrewes, Donne, and their contemporaries. The following notices relate to acts of reverence which are not, like the uncovering of the head, now universal.

1549. Rubric.—"As touching kneeling, crossing, holding up of hands, knocking upon the breast, and other gestures, they may be used or left as every man's devotion serveth, without blame."

Later books have given positive order as to some of these points.

1571. Grindal, as Archbishop of York, forbids "superstitious crossing at entering a Church."—D. A. i. 337.

Hooker, E. P. v. 30, 3. says that "there is no man constrained to use" the "harmless ceremonies" of bowing at the name of Jesus, and the like.

Heylyn, (Hist. Ref. 296, and Life of Laud, 16,) says that the general prevalence of custom at the time of the Reformation made it needless for the Reformers to give any order about reverences; that under Elizabeth the people "made their due reverence at their first coming into Church;" and although this custom wore much out afterwards, vestiges remained in the Garter-ceremonies, and in some at Oxford. In his own youth, too, countrywomen used to make a reverence eastward before sitting down in Churches, which had come to be misinterpreted as a courtesy to the minister.

1603. Canon XVIII. "When in time of Divine Service the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned, due and lowly reverence shall be done by all persons present." The contemporary Bishop Overall's observation (in Nicholls, App. 39,) that "in reading the holy Gospel, and never else, is adoration made at the name of Jesus, for then only is it in its right exaltation," was probably earlier than this Canon.

Laud found at Canterbury "bowing used towards the altar by the appointment of the Dean and Chapter." He defended the practice on various occasions, referring, among other authorities, to Bishop Morton, Collier, ii. 769—775.

1635. He orders for Winchester school, "That such reverence be used in the Chapel as is practised in Cathedral Churches, and is not dissonant to the canons and constitutions of the Church of England. Wilkins, iv. 518.

Mr. Lenton, a visitor to Little Gidding, reports of Ferrar, that "at entering the Church he made a low obeisance; a few paces further, a lower; coming to the half-pace, he bowed to the ground, if not prostrated himself." Mr. L. tells him that at St. Paul's, Westminster, Whitehall, and elsewhere, "we do not use this threefold reverence, nor any low bowing, unless in the Chancel towards the east where an altar or some crucifix is; he answered something of the trinary number, which I did not understand, nor well hear. The Cathedrals make but one reverence, whereas they (Ferrar's household) make three." (E. B.iv.250.)

1638. Bishop Montagu asks, "whether the parishioners bow towards the Chancel?"

Bishop Wren, in answer to his impeachment, states that lie began to nse reverences after the example of Andrewes, whom he supposes to have had the tradition from the Elizabethan reformers, (Parentalia, 81.) In Andrewes' Notes on the Common Prayer, we find many obeisances prescribed for the Communion-Service.

1640. Canon vir. recommends and explains the custom of "doing reverence and obeisance both at coming in and going out of Churches, Chancels, and Chapels," but does not enforce it, and concludes as follows;—"We desire that the rule of charity prescribed by the Apostle may be observed, which is, that they which use this rite despise not them who use it not; and that they who use it not condemn not those that use it." (Comp. Hammond, "View of the Directory," Works i. 387.) The moderation of this Canon is said to have given offence to some extreme ceremonialists. (Fuller, Ch. Hist. xi. 159.)

1641. The Lords' sub-committee notes as an innovation, "bowing towards [the holy Table] or towards the east, many times with three congees, but usually in every motion, access, or recess in the Church." (Cardw. Conf. 272.)

1645. It is ordered in the Puritan "Directory," (Clay on the Common-Prayer, 207,) "Let all enter the assembly without adoration or bowing themselves towards one place or another."

1662. The Canon of 1603 was revived by the Convocation, passed with some alterations, and confirmed by act of parliament. (D. A. ii. 253; Syno dalia, 672.)

For later notices on the subject, see the author of "Love and Truth" (supposed to be Izaak Walton) in Chamberlain's "Selected Letters," 255; Archdeacon Hewetson, ib. 157; Bishop Burnet, Own Time, i. 691; ii. 636. This last writer gives it as his opinion that "all bowings to the altar have an ill effect, and are of no use."

At Oxford Cathedral, reverence is still done by the Canons on entering the Choir; (Dr. Pusey, in Brit. Mag. 1837) and we may presume that the like custom is observed in those other Cathedrals, where, as at Canterbury (Collier, ii. 762) and Dublin, (Bramhall, new ed. i. xxx.) the members are bound to it by special statutes.

The Bishop of London's judgment is, that we ought to bow at the Name of Jesus, according to the Canon of 1603-1662; that although in his opinion we are not bound by the Canons of 1640, there is no very serious objection to the additional obeisances there recommended. His Lordship points out that the Canon itself does not command them, and considers that if we bow, we must teach our people not to misunderstand our act.

V. The Communion-Table or Altar.

RUBRIC:—"The Table at the Communion-time, having a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the Body of the Church, or in the Chancel, where morning and evening prayer are appointed to be said."

This has been in our books since 1552. The altars in Churches had been taken down by virtue of an order issued in the third year of Edward VI. as their continuance was supposed to favour some superstitions. Altars were, of course, re-erected under Queen Mary; and in 1559 we find Divines requesting Queen Elizabeth again to order their removal. They argue that these "were none of those things which were established by Act of Parliament in the second year of King Edward," because, (among other reasons,) while the Prayer-Book of that year was still in force, Ridley had appealed to its expressions for a justification of his proceedings in taking down the altars.

In the Queen's Injunctions, which came out soon after, it is ordered "That the holy Table shall be set in the place where the altar stood⁴⁵, and so to stand save when the Communion is to be distributed; at which time the same shall be so placed in good sort within the Chancel, as whereby the minister may be more conveniently heard in his prayer and ministration, and the communicants also more conveniently, and in more number, communicate. And after the Communion, from time to time the same holy Table to be placed where it stood before." (Doc. Ann. i. 202.) Among the Bishops' interpretations of the Injunctions we find this:—"That the Table be removed out of the Choir into the Body of the Church, before the Chancel-door, where either the Choir seemeth to be too little, or at great feasts of receivings; and at the end of the Communion to be set up again according to the Injunctions." (lb. 205.)

1562. Among matters to be moved by a party in the Convocation, is this, "That the Table from henceforth stand no more altarwise, but stand in such place as is appointed by the Book of Common-Prayer." (Synodalia, 498.)

1564. Advertisements. "They shall decently cover with carpet, silk, or other decent covering, and with a fair linen cloth at the time of the ministration, the Communion-table, and set the ten commandments over the said Table."⁴⁶

1603. Canon LXXXII. The Table shall "stand" (in the place of the altar, doubtless,) "saving when the Holy Communion is to be administered; at which time the same shall be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancel as thereby the minister may be more conveniently heard; and that the ten commandments be set upon the east end of every Church and Chancel, where the people may best see and read the same."

While Parish Churches were regulated by the orders which have been quoted, a different custom prevailed elsewhere. The altar was retained in the royal Chapels; images, lights, and a silver crucifix were used as ornaments under Queen Elizabeth; and although some changes in these took place after-wards,⁴⁷ the altar always remained, standing in the east, with its ends north and south.

The private Chapels of Bishops were arranged in like manner; (D. A. i. 243), and the same was the case in most Cathedrals. Strype (Parker, 183, quoted above, p. 45), proves this as to Canterbury in 1564; Laud, when in 1616, on being appointed Dean of Gloucester, he removed the Table from the middle of the choir, speaks of that position as contrary to the practice of other Cathedral Churches. (Heylyn's Life, 63.)

During Abbott's primacy, that part of the Injunctions and Canons which related to the usual place of the Table in Parish Churches was generally neglected; it was left at all times in the middle of the Chancel, or in the Body of the Church; and the profanations which it underwent in consequence are forcibly stated by Pierce, Bishop of Bath and Wells, in a paper of reasons for an alteration, which will be found in Heylyn's Life of Laud, p. 272. To remedy these evils was a chief object with Laud and his school; and their attempts met with very violent opposition. The positions in the nave and at the east end had come to be looked on respectively as expressions of two opposite doctrines on the Sacrament; to remove the Table, therefore, to fence it with rails, to turn the ends north and south, were measures which raised loud outcries of popery.

In 1628, the executors of Mr. Blucknall, who had left gifts to Abingdon Church, ordered the Table to be placed in the east; and the Court of Chancery confirmed the order. (Heylyn's Laud.)

In 1633, Archbishop Abbott, usually favourable to the Puritans, gave a decision against them in the matter of Crayford Church; ordering that communicants should kneel on the two foot-paces before the Table. D. A. No. 137.

In the same year, Laud having in the meantime succeeded to the primacy, a decision was given respecting the Church of St. Gregory by St. Paul's, London. The Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral, as Ordinaries of the Church, had ordered that the Table should be placed in the east, altar-wise; the King in council confirmed the order, and, in answer to the allegation of Rubrics and Canons to the contrary, declared that the matter belonged to the jurisdiction of the Ordinary. D. A. No. 140.

The Archbishop only inquires in 1634, "Doth the Table stand in a convenient place of the Chancel or Church?" (Hackett's Williams, 209); but we find other Bishops afterwards more strict.

Thus Wren enjoins at Norwich, 1636, "That the Communion-Table in every Church do always stand close under the east wall of the Chancel, the ends thereof north and south, unless the Ordinary give particular direction otherwise, and the rail be made before it, according to the Archbishop's late injunctions, reaching cross from the north wall to the south wall; near one yard in height, so thick with pillars that dogs may not get in."⁴⁸ (D. A. ii. 202.)

Montagu, 1638, insists that the Table "be fixedly set in such convenient sort and place within the Chancel as hath been appointed by authority; i. e. at the east end of the Chancel, close to the wall, on an ascent or higher ground." He asks, if it be "removed down at any time, either for or without communion into the lower part of the Chancel, or body of the Church?"

Besides the Puritans,⁴⁹ other opponents rose up against these measures. A controversy was waged, in which Williams, then Bishop of Lincoln, and Heylyn, one of the Archbishop's chaplains, were most conspicuous. Williams allowed the Table to stand according to Laud's wishes in his Cathedral, and in his private Chapel; but affirmed that "without some new Canon it is not to stand otherwise in Parish Churches." (Hackett, 101.) He ordered that at Communion it be placed according to convenience; that at other times it stand in the east, but with its ends east and west.⁵⁰

In the VIIth Canon of 1640, the matter is declared to be of its own nature indifferent; but it is judged convenient that there be a general conformity to the practice which had been observed "in Chapels royal, most Cathedrals,and some parochial Churches, saving always the general liberty left to the Bishops by law, during the time of administration." This expresses Laud's own opinion. (Wren's Parentalia, p. 15.)

The Commons soon after ordered that the Tables should be removed into the Body of the Church.⁵¹

It is needless to pursue the history further. We may conclude, 1. That the Rubric and the Canon of 1603 favour the removal of the Holy Table at Communiontime; 2. That the usual position before Archbishop Laud's reforms was with the ends east and west; and this is countenanced by the Rubric, which speaks of the "North side," whereas the Scotch Book, drawn up in accordance with the Archbishop's views, has "North end;" 3. That whereas some of our " Ecclesiologists," who in general make much of Laud's authority, are earnest for the abolition of rails, the introduction of this protection was one of his chief measures for the ordering of churches; 4. That if we provoke puritanically-disposed churchmen by introducing unauthorized and unfamiliar ornaments and ceremonies about our altars, they may be able to give us considerable trouble by a reference to the authorities for the position of the Table at times of communion.

⁴⁵ Hence Laud argues that the ends ought to be north and south; "to set it east and west had been cross the place where the altar stood, and not in it." (Troubles, p. 262.)

⁴⁶ Bishop Wren in his "Answer" interprets this, as "directly implying that [the Table] should stand in the east, even in Communion-time." So Heylyn (Laud, p. 20). L'Estrange (Alliance, 176) concludes with more reason, from a comparison with the Canons of 1604, that" the Table placed where the Altar stood, was but supposed [seposed?] set out of the way, during only the time of non-communion."

⁴⁷ The Crucifix was broken by the Queen's fool, at the instigation of Knolles, (Heylyn. Hist. Ref. 296). It would seem, however, from Laud (Troubles, 316), that an embroidered figure of the same kind was always retained in the hangings behind the altar.

⁴⁸ There was a story of a dog entering a church, and seizing on the bread intended for consecration, there being no rail to hinder him. (Laud, Troubles, &c. p. 562. Wren's "Answer" in the Parentalia.)

⁴⁹ I have seen a pamphlet entitled "The Retractation of Mr. Charles Chancy, formerly minister of Ware, in Hertfordshire; wherein is proved the unlawfulness and danger of railing in Altars or Communion-tables,"—a curious specimen of a class. Mr. Chancy had applied to altars a different kind of railing from that approved by the Bishops; and after some star-chamber troubles, set sail for New England in 1637, bequeathing this tractate as a legacy to the hemisphere which had shown itself unworthy of his longer presence.

⁵⁰ The Table at Little Gidding was so placed, which Dr. Peckard supposes to have been done purely out of obedience to the Diocesan's orders. (Eccl. Biog. iv. 249.) I have, however, considerable doubt whether Ferrar ought to be reckoned a Laudian churchman. There is no proof that the Table stood otherwise before the orders were issued by Bishop Williams; and if Ferrar had disliked the position, he might fairly have claimed an exemption on the ground that Little Gidding could hardly be considered a parish Church, and might therefore rightly be ordered after the fashion of the Bishop's own Chapel.

⁵¹ Aug. 31, 1641. (Nalson, ii. 475). The order was published without the concurrence of the other House. The Commons had for some time before communicated in the Body of the Church at Westminster Abbey, with the willing permission of the Dean, Bp. Williams. (Ib. i. 563). I have been told, that at Dursley, in Gloucestershire, the Table to this day stands in the middle of the Chancel, with its ends east and west, and surrounded by seats.

VI.
The Place for reading the "Dry Service" of
the Communion-Office.

THERE have been disputes as to the place for JL reading that part of the Communion-Office which is appointed to be used when there is no administration of the Sacrament, and which has been styled the "Dry Service."⁵² The Bishops of Charles the First s time ordered that it should be read at the Iloly Table, and were charged with innovation in consequence. (Cardw. Conf. 272.) Wren brings forward aged clergymen, to witness that such was the practice in their youth, (Parentalia, 79); Laud says, "since my own memory, it was in use in many places, as being most proper," but was gradually disused, "and in those places first, where the emissaries of this faction [the Puritans] came to preach." (Three Speeches, 374.)

In favour of this usage may be pleaded those Rubrics which speak of the Lord's Table in connexion with the portions of the Communion-Office which are read in the Dry Service; and there is certainly no ground for finding fault with the observance of it. It is not, however, as appears to me, the only allowable practice.

In the Rubric at the end of the Office, by which it is directed that certain parts of the service "shall be said if there be no communion," there is no order as to the place where they shall be said; whereas, in the Liturgy of 1549, it was expressly enjoined that the Priest should say them "at the altar." (Cardw. Liturgies, 313.)

The Rubric which directs that the Priest shall say the opening prayers "standing at the north side of the Table," plainly refers in strictness to times when the Table is prepared for a celebration; and the change which has just been mentioned appears to shew that this and the other Rubrics which suppose the Priest to be at the Altar are not necessarily to be extended to all times when a part of the Office is used. From the order in the LXXXIInd Canon of 1603, that the Table shall stand in the east, "saving when the Holy Communion is to be administered; at which time the same shall be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancel, as thereby the minister may be more conveniently heard," it is evident that the framers of the Canons did not contemplate the minister's officiating at the Table except on occasions of actual administration; and, as we have already had reason to know, the practice of that age, until Laud attempted to introduce a change, was that the Dry Service should be read from the desk.⁵³

After the Restoration, the Presbyterians desire, "that the minister be not required to rehearse any part of the Liturgy at the Communion-table save only those parts which properly belong to the Lord's Supper; and that at such times only when the said holy Supper is administered." (Cardw. Conf. 307.)

The Bishops answer (lb. 342), after alleging primitive custom—"The priest standing at the Communion-table seemeth to give us an invitation to the holy Sacrament, and minds us of our duty, viz. to receive the holy Communion, some at least every Sunday; and though we neglect our duty, it is fit the Church should keep her standing."⁵⁴ These passages of the Conference are less conclusive than they may at first sight appear. In fact, the Presbyterians pray that the orders of Archbishop Laud's time as to this point be not enforced; the Bishops justify these; but at the revision of the Liturgy which followed, the Rubric was not made imperative; and it is not to be supposed that we are bound by the words of the Conference where the Prayer-Book and Canons leave us at liberty.

My own feelings are strongly in favour of going to the Altar at all times; but I have thought it well to call attention to the true state of the case, as one among many proofs how little ground there really is for the assumptions of some persons who talk very confidently as if all authority were unquestionably with them.

The place for reading the Epistle and Gospel is not expressly prescribed in our Rubric. Anciently they were read from the Ambo; in England before the Reformation, from the pulpit. Edward the Sixth's Injunctions, 1547, order "the pulpit or some convenient place." (Palmer ii. 44—52.) Grindal, 1571, directs that they be read from the pulpit or stall, as we have seen; Andrewes (in Nicholls, Append. 38,) at the door of the Septum; and this Wren, in the Answer to his impeachment, speaks of as "usual."' Bancroft, 1608, ordered at Canterbury Cathedral, that they be read "in some place near the Communion-table." (Wilkins, iv. 436.)

⁵² Missa Sicca. See Palmer, ii. 164.

⁵³ Archbishop Grindal enjoined at York, 1571, "The prayers and other service appointed for the ministration of the holy Communion to be said and done at the Communion-table, except the Epistle and Gospel, which should be read in the said pulpit (i. e. where reading was before appointed) or stall; and also the Ten Commandments, when there was no communion." (Doc. Ann. i. 335.) I am not sure that I understand this. It would seem that Grindal wished all Scripture readings to be from the pulpit, except the Commandments when there was a Communion; and that the beginning of the order applies only to such times—the Dry Service being read in the stall.

⁵⁴ Among propositions sent by the York Convocation to that of Canterbury during the review of the Liturgy in 1661, was this— "Were it not expedient that . . . the second service should be said at the Communion-table, at least in the Cathedrals?" (Wilkin's Concil. iv. 569).

VII.
Prayer before Sermon.

RUBRIC:—"Then shall follow the Sermon or one of the Homilies."

Canon LV. "Before all sermons, lectures, and homilies, the preachers shall move the people to join with them in prayer, in this form, or to this effect, as briefly as conveniently they may:—'Ye shall pray for Christ's holy Catholic Church,' &c........... always concluding with the Lord's Prayer."

The Canon here is generally taken to be supplementary to the Rubric. Mr. Gresley, however, tells us, by the mouth of" Bernard Leslie," that they are "apparently at variance, and of the two the Rubric is decidedly the most binding." He thinks that the Canon refers to sermons delivered without the reading of service, e. g. those in the University Churches; a notion which had before been broached by a writer in the Quarterly Review for Jan. 1834, (p. 533.)

In answer to this, it may be observed that the Canon not only speaks of "all sermons," but adds "and homilies," by which name I believe that our documents mean exclusively the discourses contained in the two books set forth at the Reformation, which discourses, we may be sure, were never read except after prayers. Moreover, the form prescribed by the Canon may be regarded as an appendage of the sermon, and in that view is no more forbidden than the practices, equally unmentioned in the Rubric, of giving out a text, and concluding with a doxology. And, not to argue further, all the authorities that have fallen in my way are for the minister's saying something, and concluding with the Lord's Prayer, which the Canon requires.

But another question remains:—Are we bound to use the form appointed by the Canon, or one resembling it? What is to be said of the practice, described by Mr. Gresley as prevalent, whereby "the clergyman commences with a prayer, sometimes from the Liturgy, with or without alterations, sometimes an extemporary effusion of his own?"

In our inquiries as to this point we shall be much assisted by Heylyn's Tract, drawn up about 1637, and one published by Wheatley on an occasion to be noticed hereafter. Something is also to be learnt from Mr. Coxe's " Forms of Bidding Prayer."

In order to prepare the reader for understanding what is to be brought forward, I shall here anticipate my conclusion, viz. that the form was enjoined for political purposes.

It appears, then, that before the Reformation, "bidding the bedes" was used in connexion with sermons. The preacher, in an English form, desired the people's prayers; and afterwards they prayed in silence. Burnet, H. R. ii.30; Collier, Records, No. 54.

On the rupture with Rome, Henry VIII. put forth a form of bidding, in which he required himself to be named as "immediately next under God, supreme head of the Church of England." In his form for Ireland (Collier, Records, 40.) is embodied a discourse on the question of the supremacy.

The form in King Edward's Injunctions (D. A. i. 21.) had the same title of " supreme head." Cranmer inquires accordingly as to naming the king in prayers, and declaring his supremacy, (ib. 42.)⁵⁵

1559. Elizabeth's Injunctions, (D. A. 202, 3.) "The form of bidding prayers, to be used generally after this uniform sort." The queen is styled "Defender of the Faith, and supreme governor of this realm, as well in causes ecclesiastical as temporal." From the addition, "And this done, shew the holydays and fasting-days," Heylyn and Wheatley conclude that the bidding was then used at the end of the sermon, after which it was that the declaration of days was ordered by the Rubric.

Cartwright, the famous Puritan, was, according to Bishop Wetenhall (in Wheatley, p. 32.) the first who changed the bidding into a direct invocation. We find, however, that Foxe, about 1578, after a sermon at St. Paul's Cross, goes on—"And now let us pray as we began, making our earnest invocation, &c;" and concludes with a long direct prayer. (Strype, Annals, ii. App. 125.) And there are earlier examples. (See R. Hutchinson's Works, ed. Parker Soc.)

1603. James I. at Hampton Court, notices some Puritanical irregularities. (Cardw.Conf. 203.) "Some preachers before me can be content to pray for James, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, but as for supreme governor in all causes and over all persons, ecclesiastical as well as civil, they pass that over with silence." On this the LVth Canon was enacted, by which the king's titles and jurisdiction are prescribed to be named in the bidding.

Archbishop Bancroft inquires accordingly at Wells Cathedral, 1605, whether "his whole style" be given to the King. (Wilkins, iv. 415.)

In 1619, James had again remarked that preachers even in his own presence omitted mention of his style, and of the governors of the Church; in consequence of which Archbishop Abbott orders the general observance of the Canon. (D. A. ii. 133.)

Hilliard, who wrote a century later, accounts for the prevalence of direct prayer or invocation among the clergy of this time by supposing that they wished to confute the Puritan censures which represented them as ungifted. At all events, it became so general, that we find prayers at sermon in the works of Divines so little inclined to the popular side as Donne, Herbert, and Bishop Taylor. The Canonical practice seems to have been forsaken by all but "some ancient doctors." (Heylyn, Tracts, 152.) The enforcement of it was charged on Laud as a novelty, not only by the ignorant multitude but by the Committee of 1641. (Ib. and Cardw. Conf. 273.)

There was certainly great reason for the adoption of some measures of restraint at the time when the Archbishop revived the Canon. It was the fashion of the popular preachers not to enter the Church until the prayers appointed in the Book were ended. They then mounted the pulpit, and performed a service answering to that of the Scotch Presbyterians at this day; a service composed of a very long sermon, with long discursive prayers before and after it, and some intermixture of psalmody. These preachers were usually disaffected to the monarchy and the Church alike; and lest they should be called to an account if they vented their notions in sermons, they made it their " fashion to turn the libellous part into a prayer." (Laud, Autob. Sept. 1, 1637; Troubles, p. 383.)

1636. Bishop Wren enjoins the Canonical form, mutatis mutandis, but with no other variation, except, if the preacher wish, "the name of the two universities, and of a patron;⁵⁶ and no prayer to be used in the pulpit after sermon; but the sermon to be concluded with 'Glory be,' &c. and so come down from the pulpit."

1640. In the Convocation, "a short prayer, comprehending the matter of the Canon, was drawn up; this form, it was said, would have been well received by some who scrupled the direction of the Canon; but the Archbishop thought it better to keep close to the old rule than to run the risk of a new experiment." (Collier, ii. 793.)

After the Restoration, the Bishops "conceive the Book cannot be too strictly enjoined, especially when ministers are not denied the exercise of their gifts in praying before and after sermon; which liberty for extemporary or private compositions stands only upon a late custom, without any foundation from law or Canons; and that the common use of this practice arises only from connivance." (Cardw. Conf. 252.) In their answer to the Presbyterian exceptions, they say, "we heartily desire that great care may be taken to suppress those private conceptions of prayer before and after sermon, lest private opinions be made the matter of prayer in public, as hath and will be, if private persons take liberty to make public prayers. (Ib. 337.) It is fit that they who desire such liberty in public devotions should first give to the Church security that no private opinions should be put into their prayers." (Ib. 341.)

1661. The Convocation passed a vote "pro unica forma precum tam ante quam post sermonem usitanda;" but nothing came of this. (Synod. 656.)

Bishop Wren, 1662, and Bishop Gunning, 1670, inquire particularly as to brevity. (Wheatley.) This, let it be remarked, is required by the Canon; and the practice of Puritans made it necessary that the observance of the rule should be looked to.

1689. Among customary things for which express sanction is desired, we find "the liberty taken in prayer before sermons, and a short prayer of the minister's own composing after sermons." (Cardw. Conf. 453.)

1695. Archbishop Tenison (D. A. 11. 335) desires observance of the Canon; it being reported that some clergymen use only the Lord's Prayer, "or at least leave out the King's titles, and forbear to pray for the Bishops as such."

1714. George I. (D. A. ii. 360) desires the Bishops, because some preachers use the Lords Prayer alone, or with a Collect, or at least leave out the Royal titles, to see that their clergy "keep strictly to the form in the Canon, or to the full effect thereof."⁵⁷

From these passages it appears very clearly what was the object in enforcing such forms, viz. to secure from preachers a full and distinct recognition of the existing Sovereign's right, in opposition to other claimants; of his ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in opposition, first to the papacy, and afterwards to the nonintrusionism of the Puritans; of the episcopal polity, which Puritans denied; and perhaps, at last, of the line of Bishops who took the oaths to the Revolution government, in opposition to the Nonjurors. The other matter of the bidding is included, as many have observed, in the prayers of our Liturgy, and especially in that "for the whole state of Christ's Church but as the enumeration of titles would not agree with the proprieties of prayer, they are thrown into this form of bidding.

The reasons for which the form was enforced, then, cannot be said to have any existence among us at this day. Even if some of the clergy indulge in an "exercise of gifts" which is not desirable, it is not to be supposed that their prayers resemble those which Laud contended against, either in length or in the mischievous character of their matter; nor do any of our popular preachers now avowedly disparage or despise the Liturgy. According, then, to the principle laid down by Bishop Taylor, that, "a law made for a particular reason, when the reason wholly ceases, does no longer oblige the conscience," (Works, xiv. 251,) the observation of the Canon seems to be now needless.

The use of privately-composed prayers is objectionable on many grounds; and the practice of some, who spoil a Collect by alterations of their own, changing the tone of the prayer and the character of its language, although not so dangerous, is perhaps at least as offensive. I do not, however, see anything inadmissible in the use of a Collect as we find it. The objections made by the Bishops in Charles the Second's time against extemporal and privately-composed prayers, do not apply to the employment in this place of words which have been provided by the Church for use in some part of her service. Where such a practice has hitherto obtained, it appears to me that the clergy may continue to follow it with a safe conscience, unless their Bishops should think fit to revive the Canon by a special order.

There is, however, an objection advanced by Heylyn, and now often repeated with great pretension—that the pulpit is not the place of prayer. At this rate it must be wrong to say the Lord's Prayer⁵⁸ in the pulpit; which, however, the Canon prescribes; nor can I see any difference, in so far as this objection is concerned, between a long bidding followed by the Lord's Prayer, and a bidding in the three syllables, "Let us pray," followed by a Collect as well as that Divine form. "The bidding of the prayers," says St. Augustine, (quoted by Cosin, in Nichols p. 42) "is nothing else but the allocution to the people, extended to particulars." And I would remind some of those who talk about the proprieties of place, that "mediaeval" preachers knelt and said the Lord's Prayer in the pulpit.59 (Burnet, H. R. ii. 30.) Moreover, the Convocation of 1662, in passing its order for the composition of a prayer, doubtless, intended an invocation to be used in the pulpit. And among private doctors, I may name—Taylor, who used invocation, and prescribes a prayer of this kind in his Offices (xv. 265); Hammond, who thought it allowable, though not ordered, (i. 380); Hooker, against whom Travers objected kneeling, (apparently in the pulpit) and whose judgment as to the importance of matters which many now hold so vital was, that " to note them he should have thought a greater offence than to commit, if he did account them faults, and had heard them so curiously observed in any other than himself," (Vol. iii. p. 712.) Kettlewell also used prayers, and those of his own composition. (Life, App. 26.)

L'Estrange (p. 183) and Bingham (14. 4. 15) give ancient examples of prayers for a blessing on sermons; and we find the like in some of the specimens collected by Heylyn, Wheatley, and others, out of sermons preached by eminent men in times near the Reformation. There is a great variety in these specimens, of bidding and prayer, as to form, matter, and place in the sermon.

In England, before the Reformation, when the priest said the Lord's Prayer silently, the people did the same; in later times, the custom was, that here, as most commonly in the services, the priest said the prayer as far as the word "temptation," and the people added the rest as a response.⁶⁰ Hence, therefore, we have analogy, as well as the plainest meaning of the words, for extending to the Lord's Prayer in this place, the general Rubric, which orders that the people say it with the minister, "wheresoever it is used in Divine Service."⁶¹

⁵⁵ Mr. Gresley argues that because the Injunctions direct the omission of prime and hours when there is a sermon, the Bidding is needless when the service is said. It seems rather, that not the bidding, but the whole sermon, is regarded as the substitute for the omitted prayers.

⁵⁶ Pepys, Dec. 23, 1666. "To Church, where a vain fellow with a periwigg preached; chaplain, as by his prayer appeared, to the Earl of Carlisle."

⁵⁷ On this arose a strange instance of popular suspicion. Many preachers still kept to invocation; while those who obeyed the King's orders,—although the very object of these was to exact a pledge for the loyalty of the clergy—were commonly charged with disaffection; because (it was said) they bid the people pray for King George without praying for him themselves! Wheatley, Hilliard, and others, hereupon published pamphlets on the history of the form. Wheatley had previously used an invocation, in which he prayed for the Sovereign by name. The absurdly founded charge of disaffection appears from Sharp (p. 193) to have continued thirty years later against those who obeyed the Canon.

⁵⁸A correspondent of the British Magazine some years ago told us that the minister does not join in the prayer, but only pronounces it for the people to say, and therefore must not kneel!

⁵⁹ In Gavanti Thes. Sacrorum Rituum, i. 209, Ed. 1763, are these directions for the preacher—"Jungit manus, . . . et statim ad altare genuflexus, clara voce dicit salutationem angelicam; qua completa surgit" ... So a council held at Edinburgh, 1549, (before the Reformation of Scotland) orders—"In omnium concionum publicarum exordio, servetur vetus et receptus invocandi modus, per orationem Dominicam, cum salutatione angelica ad virginem Deiparam, pro gratia impetranda; et in earundem concionum fine oretur pro animabus defunctorum, in recepta ecclesiae consuetudine." Wijkins, Cone. iv. 58.

⁶⁰ This appears from specimens in which it is set down. See Coxe, p. 69.

⁶¹ See Appendix I. Section a.

VIII.
The Offertory.

THE Bishop of Worcester appears to think that the Offertory is quite superseded by the Poor-laws, and the sentences "have lost their pertinence." (p. 12.) Here, as in another place, already noted, his Lordship's views are not easily reconciled with the fact, that the Rubric has passed through the hands of revisers since the cessation of that state of things to which alone he supposes it applicable. There is still plenty of room for the distribution of the Church's alms even among the poor; and moreover, there are many other objects, both spiritual and temporal, for which the alms of the faithful are required, and it is according to the Church's intention that they be offered on the altar. Indeed, this notion of applying the money thus collected in the relief of bodily needs only, is altogether modern; as may be seen even from the Prayer-Book itself, where some of the sentences refer to the maintenance of the clergy, while the Rubric speaks, not only of "alms for the poor," but of "other devotions of the people."

Perhaps it is not meant that the collection is to take place every Sunday and holy-day. Hammond (Eccl. Biog. iv. 322), and Bull (Life, 53) had it in their Churches only when there was an administration of the Communion; and in the prayer for the Church, provision is made for occasions when there may "be no alms." At all events, it would be well to reintroduce it gradually.⁶²

But the revival of this usage would, doubtless, be a great mean of teaching our people some things which are now too little thought of. It would lead them to enlarge the measure of their liberality, and to consider that their gifts are given to God; a truth, from the forgetfulness of which modern almsgiving is sadly stinted and corrupted.

Much valuable information on this subject is to be found in publications connected with the parish of Harlow, by Mr. Miller (the vicar), Mr. Lebas, and Mr. Stafford.

⁶² Although there were not a general gathering, the reading of one or two sentences would always give an opportunity to any one who might especially wish to offer. Andrewes, in his Notes, speaks of a different order of offering; and Bishop Buckeridge reports of him that "he ever offered twice at the altar." (Funeral-sermon in Andrewes, v. 296, new ed.) At the consecration of Jesus Chapel he followed the Prayer-Book. The Committee of 1641 notes as an innovation the "introducing an offertory distinct from alms." (Card. Conf. 273.)

IX.
The Eucharistic Elements.

THERE was formerly much contention about the quality of the bread to be used at Communion. The Book of 1549 ordered that it should be unleavened, as before, but somewhat different in form. The Rubric of 1552 agrees with that of our present Book, in which it is said, that

"It shall suffice that the bread be such as is usual to be eaten; but the best and purest wheat bread that conveniently may be gotten."

In Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, 1559, it is ordered that the bread be the same as the "singing cakes heretofore used for private mass." (Doc. Ann. i. 202.) When some persons attempted to represent this as contrary to the Rubric, Archbishop Parker— declaring the matter indifferent, and that he wished only for peace and uniformity—wrote as follows:— "It shall suffice, I expound, where either there wanteth such fine bread, or superstition be feared in the wafer-bread, they may have the Communion in usual bread; which is rather a toleration in these two necessities than a plain ordering, as in the Injunc-tion."—Strype, Parker, B. 4, c. 3.

Wafer-bread was used by the Reformed abroad, as Peter Martyr informed Grindal. (Strype, Grin-dal, 31.) When that Archbishop urged the practice of Geneva in favour of the wafer, the Puritans replied, that although wafer-bread was used in the Parish-Churches at Geneva, yet the English congregation there used "loaf-bread." Ib. 117.

We find from Hooker (2. 6. 1) that wafer-bread was used in the last years of Elizabeth's reign; but it would seem that this custom, like some others, shortly after wore out. Thus the observance of it is noted as a singularity in Burton, the author of the "Anatomy of Melancholy," who was born in 1576, and died in 1640. (See ed. 1827, vol. i. p. xvi.)

Bishop Andrewes used and prescribes wafer-bread; it is ordered, too, in the rules for Prince Charles' Chapel at Madrid.

Archbishop Laud declares—"I never either gave or received the Communion, but in ordinary bread. At Westminster I know [wafer-bread] was sometimes used, but as a thing indifferent." Troubles, 342.

I do not know whether such bread be ever used at the present day; unless it have local tradition in its favour, the use would be a foolish superstition.

The mixture of water with the wine is a primitive usage, and was insisted on as essential by some of the Nonjurors;—not, however, until after they had left the public Communion on other accounts. It is ordered in the Book of 1549. It was practised by Bishop Andrewes at the Chapel Royal, and is expressly mentioned in his Consecration Service. It is also set down among the things to be observed in the Chapel at Madrid. Laud, when Rector of All-Hallows, Barking, introduced the practice into the Church of that parish, where it continued to be observed in the last century. (Brett on the Liturgies, ed. 1838, p. 404.)

The mixture of the Cup is no more forbidden in our Church at this day, than in the times of An-drewes and Laud (See Palmer, Origines ii. 76, and Bishop Jolly on the Eucharist); but it would be extremely unwise in any clergyman to introduce it now, unless he thought it necessary; and any one who should entertain that opinion would hardly be fit to hold office in the Anglican Church.

It must not, however, be supposed that I presume to censure those clergymen who temper the wine at early Communion, lest the receivers should not be able to bear its strength.

X.
The Yearly Number of Communions.

I TRUST it is needless for me to profess a belief that frequent Communion is exceedingly desirable.

Administration "weekly at the least" is ordered for Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches and for Colleges, "except there be a reasonable cause to the contrary." Although this Rubric was then in the Book, the Advertisements of 1564 are content to order monthly Communion in such places.

The Rubric was, however, observed in later times; and the practice seems to have passed away in consequence of the lax notions as to Ordinances which followed on the Revolution of 1688; to which notions is also attributed the disuse of weekly Communion in London Churches. (Life of Kettlewell, p. 90.)

In the rules for the Chapel at Madrid, it was ordered that the Communion be "as often as it shall please the Prince to set down." At Holy rood (1633) it was to be monthly; (Heylyn, Laud, 247;) and such was probably the custom of the Royal Chapels generally.

Bishop Andrewes speaks as follows: (Sermons, new ed. v. 67.) "We should continue in this, and the frequenting of it, if not so often as the Primitive Church did—which either thrice in the week, or at the furthest once, did communicate—yet as often as the Church doth celebrate; which, I think, should do better to celebrate more often." He does not inform us what was the usual number of celebrations at the date of this sermon, (1592,) but says as to the prevailing notions, "If it be panis annuus, once a-year received, we think our duty discharged."⁶³ Of Andrewes himself we are told by Bishop Buckeridge, in his Funeral-Sermon, (Ib. 296.) that "after he came to have an episcopal house, with a Chapel, he kept monthly Communions inviolably, yea, though himself had received at the Court the same month."

Bishop Montagu, in his Articles, seems to allow of as few as three Communions yearly. At Little Gidding, the minister of the adjoining parish administered monthly to Ferrar's household ; Ferrar himself being only a deacon. (Eccl. Biog. iv. 181.) Herbert writes, (Country Parson, c. 22,) "The parson celebrates it, if not duly once a month, yet, at the least, five or six times in the year." Hammond "reduced it to an imitation, though a distant one, of the primitive frequency, to once a month." (E. B. iv. 322.) Bull's yearly number of celebrations was seven; which, though short of his wishes, is said by his biographer, Nelson, to have been beyond the custom of small villages. (Life, 52.) Kettlewell administered " on Cliristmas-Day, Good-Friday, Easter-Day, the Sunday after, and Whitsunday; and several times of the year besides." (Life, 24.) Archbishop Sancroft (1688) orders that it be "in the greater Churches once in every month, and even in the lesser too, if communicants can be procured; or however, as oft as thev mav." (D. A. ii. 323.)

The Bishop of London says in his late Charge, "I think that in every parish there ought to be at least monthly Communion." It must be matter of great joy to every sound Churchman that the number of celebrations has generally throughout the country increased much of late. Should his Lordship's wishes be everywhere carried into effect, the instances here given will shew that in this respect, at least, we need not be spoken of as degenerate from the practice of our best Divines.⁶⁴

⁶³ It may surprise some readers to find that this idea was derived from the times before the Reformation. Roger Hutchinson writes: (1552, Works, ed. Parker Soc. p. 220.) "We may not gather that the holy Communion of Christ's honourable Body and Blood is to be resorted unto but once a-year, because [the Israelites] had but a yearly lamb, and an annual remembrance; as some Bishops of Rome have taught in times past, which would have the laity of every realm to have but an annual Communion; and as many appear to be persuaded yet, but vainly and wickedly." And the same fact is mentioned by his contemporary, Bishop Pilkington,—a credible, although very prejudiced, witness: "We [the Reformed] move the people often, and not once a-year, to receive the Holy Communion, (as the Papists do.") (Works, p. 542.)

⁶⁴ Mr. F. W. Faber, in his "Sights and Thoughts," very strongly objects to Communion on Good-Friday. The inconsistency of such a feast with the fasting of that day is not very apparent; Mr. Faber himself allows Communion on other fast-days. (See Bingham, 15. 9. 3.) We have already seen that Good-Friday was one of Kettlewell's regular days of administration; and Hammond on his death-bed communicated on that day. (E. B. iv. 385.)

XI.
Catechizing.

AVALUABLE collection of "Documents and Authorities on Public Catechizing" was published in 1840, by the Rev. John Ley, of Exeter College. His authors insist much on the importance of the exercise; they see in a right grounding by these means the best hope of building up our people in the truth, and guarding them against the errors⁶⁵ which may prevail around us; and they shew very sufficiently, (what might be abundantly confirmed from other quarters,⁶⁶) that to the ignorance arising from neglect of this solid instruction, and the lust of listening to popular oratory instead, many of the mischiefs which have afflicted this country may be traced.

And, doubtless, if we could now establish such a system of Catechizing as our Church contemplates, we might hope to do vast good; influencing our parishioners in their early years, and using the young as instruments for the instruction of others. And if it be argued that by such public Catechizing we may drive people away from our Churches, let it be considered whether we may not lose at least as many, whether to the sects or to utter ungodliness, by the neglect of it. There can be no doubt that if we could get over the first difficulties, the gain would after a few years greatly preponderate.

It is needless to dwell long on the history of Catechizing.

Edward the Sixth's first Book ordered it to be once in six weeks at least, half an hour before evensong, on some Sunday or holy-day. The Book of 1552, and all since, direct the curate to Catechize "diligently upon Sundays and holy-days." Bishop Cosin remarks (Nicholls, App. 58) that this does not prescribe it for every such day, but only according to need;—which is true;—but, as Wheatley observes, "how to reconcile the LIXth Canon to this exposition, I am at a loss;" (c. viii. s. 2.) since that Canon orders the exercise to be used on every Sunday and holy-day. The Injunctions of 1559 have "every holy-day and every second Sunday." (D. A. i. 195.)

In 1622, James I. ordered that the afternoon sermons, which had become common, should be turned into Catechizing. (See Donne, Serm. 155, ed. Alford.)

To revive the Catechetical instruction was one of Laud's chief objects; and of course the attempts at it were among the grounds of complaint against him and his brethren.

In 1662, it was ordered that the Catechizing should be introduced into the service after the second lesson; an alteration which was meant to draw the people to Catechism, but had the effect of driving them away from the prayers.⁶⁷ (Nicholls.)

As to the persons to be Catechized, it is ordered that "all fathers, mothers, masters, and dames, shall cause their children, servants, and apprentices (which have not learned their Catechism") to come to Church and be thus instructed. Nicholls tells us that before the Great Rebellion the children were catechized on Saturday, and the youth on Sunday. The present Bishop of Exeter (in Ley, p. 43) says that "the mere hearing the children say the Catechism is the business of the school, and would be a very inadequate substitute for a sermon," and describes "good and effective Catechetical instruction" as "instructing the youth by means of the Church-Catechism clearly and largely explained before the congregation." To retain the youth—those who have left school, and have begun to earn money by labour—under the influence of the Church, is one of the most desirable objects with us, and also very difficult of attainment. We should gain much, indeed, if the Catechism could be made the means of bringing this about.

It does not appear that Catechetical instruction must necessarily be uninteresting to the hearers, or a severe tax on their patience and charity.⁶⁸ Rubrics, Canons, and other documents throughout suppose something different from a mere asking the question and receiving the prescribed answers.⁶⁹ Much of an interesting kind may surely be drawn out and communicated in the course of the examination; and moreover, although the limits imposed by the nature of a catechetical lecture would considerably check the exuberances of popular eloquence, there is nothing against, but very much in favour of, such a discourse as might be both useful and sufficiently agreeable to the generality of our people. The Directions of 1622 allow in the afternoon sermons in exposition of the Catechism. (D. A. ii. 149.) To the same purpose speak—Abbott in his letter issued on that occasion, (ib. 153); Laud and Charles I. (Laud's Troubles, 562); Montagu, who allows of the treating "some common place of divinity, or the four parts of the Catechism, or some of the XXXIX Articles;" Charles II. (D. A. ii. 257); Sheldon, (ib. 286); San-croft, (ib. 323); and Tenison, (ib. 335). Herbert prescribes both questioning and exposition, (Country Parson, Sections 5 and 21). Usher ordered his biographer, Bernard, to use both, (Eccl. Biog. i. 438); and such was Kettlewell's practice.⁷⁰ (Life, 23—4). Compare, too, Towerson, in Ley, p. 25. Bishop Ken's expositions of the Catechism excited great interest, and were resorted by persons of the highest distinction.⁷¹

Perhaps we may do well to begin by examining the children occasionally, and studying to confine our afternoon sermons to subjects such as those pointed out by the authorities here referred to; or to others likely to ground our people in an understanding and love of our Church, her doctrines, government, and formularies.

It appears, that the proper place for the clergyman at examination is the desk; in lecturing on the catechism, the pulpit.⁷²

⁶⁵ "Though sermons give most sail to men's souls, catechizing layeth the best ballast in them, keeping them from being carried away with every wind of doctrine." (Fuller, Worthies, p. 97.)

⁶⁶ Leighton's Charges may be referred to in particular, as shewing the wretched state into which a people too much preached to, and not at all Catechized, may fall.

⁶⁷ See an extract in Ley, p. 41, from one of the Bishop of London's Charges.

⁶⁸ One of our ablest living prelates speaks thus of Catechizing: "It is probably never more likely to answer these ends [of benefiting the young] and at the same time to strengthen the attachment of those of riper years to the Church, than where such instruction is given, according to the intention of the Church, in the presence of the congregation. I am convinced that many of our Churches would be much better attended, if this practice were revived." Charge to the Clergy of St. David's, 1842. Mr. Beaven, in his exceedingly useful "Help to Catechizing" tells us from his own experience, that the exercise wins on the congregation by degrees; and that it is much less apt than afternoon-sermons to induce a disposition to sleep. These testimonies are very encouraging to any clergymen who may be disposed to try the system of catechizing without lecturing; but proof is given in the text that lecturing is also allowed.

⁶⁹ Bishop Wren, indeed, enjoins that the minister "catechize according to the questions of the Church catechism only,"(D. A. ii. 205); but he states in his Defence, that he wished to guard against pretended compliance, and the use of unauthorized catechisms, that he always recommended real explanation, and directed how it might be managed most to edification.—Parentalia, 85.

⁷⁰ He began to catechize in Lent, and continued several Sundays after that season. It was his practice to preach in the afternoon on texts "that should lead him in again to the same matter."—Life, 23.

⁷¹ See quotation prefixed to the "Practice of Divine Love" in his works, ed. Round, p. 208.

⁷² The following passage has been kindly communicated to me by the publisher, Mr. Pickering: "During the interregnum in the seventeenth century, a laudable custom prevailed, of insuring, by a written obligation, the bringing of children to the catechism by their parents and sponsors. I have an extract from the register of Christchurch, in Hampshire, A. D. 1651, which establishes this fact. It is couched in these words,—'We, whose names or marks are here subscribed, together with the names of our children baptized, do solemnly protest and promise, that if we and our children live together until they come to the age of nine years, we will bring, or cause our children to come to the congregation of Christchurch before our present minister, Mr. Warner, or his successors; there to renew their covenant made in baptism, and to answer and give a reason of their hope, by way of Catechism, so often as the said Mr. Warner, or his successors, shall require us so to do," (The Book of Common Prayer with Notes, by the Rev. R. Warner, Bath, 1809.) We might wish to know some circumstances connected with the curious fact which is here stated; e. g. how the minister of Christchurch got possession of his benefice, what were his principles, and what catechism he used; but the lateness of the time at which the extract reached me makes it impossible even to attempt any inquiry. It will be observed that there is no warrant in the passage from the register for the commentator's mention of sponsors, as distinct from parents. Perhaps the framer of the engagement may have been a right-minded man, who, like Saunderson and others, remained at his post during the usurpation, and endeavoured to perform his duty in as far as the circumstances of the time would allow. We have abundant proof that diligent catechizing was in general one of the last points as to which the religious system of that day might be expected to claim a superiority over the Church. I may mention, in connexion with this extract, that Cardinal Pole ordered the names of Godfathers and Godmothers to be registered, (Cardw. Doc. Ann. i. 172); a practice which it might have been well to retain.

XII.
Sermons.

A FEW more passages may here be collected, to help towards determining a question which some things under the last head bear on; viz. whether sermons be allowable except in the Communion-service, to which the Rubric is supposed by some to limit them.

1550. Bishop Ridley, by desire of the council, puts a stop to week-day lecturing in Essex, and orders that sermons be "Only upon Sundays and holydays, and none other days, except it be at any burial or marriage." (D. A. i. 86.)

By the "Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum," drawn up in Edward's reign, but never enacted, "there was to be no preaching at Cathedrals in the morning, for fear of drawing the people from their own parishes; but in the afternoon there was to be a sermon before evening prayer. In Parish Churches, there was to be a sermon or homily in the morning, and an hour spent in explaining the catechism in the afternoon." (Collier, ii. 330.) In great parishes, however, afternoon sermons also were allowed; and it is ordered that in Cathedrals there be expositions of Scripture thrice a-week. (Burnet, H. R. ii. 200.)

1562. The preface to the second book of homilies directs the clergy, "where the homily may appear too long for one reading, to divide the same, to be read part in the forenoon and part in the afternoon."

We may be pretty sure that the licensed preachers who were sent through the kingdom in these times did not confine their preaching to the mornings of Sundays and holydays.

1580. Sermon or homily on Wednesdays and Fridays is mentioned in an order of prayer on account of an earthquake. (Clay, on the C. P.)

Elizabeth heard sermons only in Lent, at which season alone preaching had been anciently used at court, (Heylyn, Laud, 126.)—"our ancestors," says Chamberlain, with apparent gravity, (Anglise Notitia, ed. 3. p. 232.) "judging that time enough to teach such an audience their duty to God and man."' The court-sermon was in the afternoon. There had been sermons at court during the queen's reign on the Wednesdays and Fridays of Lent. James I. transferred the Wednesday sermon to Tuesday, the day of the week on which he had escaped from the Gowrie conspiracy, and appointed a sermon on every Tuesday through the year. Laud restored the old order in Lent, but left the Tuesday sermon at other times. (Heylyn, Laud, 313.)

1622. In the Directions for Catechizing, exception is made in favour of funeral-sermons. (D. A. ii. 149.)

1636. Bishop Wren says that "sermons are required by the Church only upon Sundays and holy days in the forenoon, and at marriages; and are permitted at funerals." He forbids all others, unless there be express allowance; for granting of which, however, he seems to suppose his own authority sufficient. (D. A. ii. 206.)

The afternoon lecturers of this age, although it was held necessary to check them as the chief fomenters of Puritanism, were not put down, but only restrained in their range of subjects, as we have already seen.

1662. Act of Uniformity:—"At all and every time when any sermon or lecture is to be preached, the Common Prayers and Service in and by the book appointed to be read for that time of the day, shall be openly, publicly, and solemnly read." This is the act by which the authority of the State is given to our present Prayer-Book. The reader will observe that it contemplates sermons in the evening.

Bull (Life, 307,) established at Avening a sermon on Thursday, with catechizing. He also preached twice on Sundays. (Life, 48.) Kettlewell's practice we have seen already under the head of Catechizing.

On the whole, we may perhaps conclude, that the Prayer-Book was never understood to prescribe for Churches and Chapels of all kinds an uniform order of sermon in the morning of Sundays and holy-days, and peremptorily to forbid preaching at any other time; that sermons and lectures on the afternoons of such days, and at other times, are tolerable, though not commanded; and, if they treat on catechetical subjects, or be simple expositions of Scripture, without any mischief in the matter of them, sermons in the afternoon of Sundays have been held commendable by our best divines; that weddings and funerals may give an occasion for a sermon on any day;⁷³ and that the Bishop's authority has always been held sufficient to regulate the practice, so as to sanction what the Prayer-Book does not prescribe.

While, however, I maintain on such grounds the lawfulness of preaching in the evening-service, it is right to give a caution against a presumptive argument which may perhaps occur to some minds: viz. that those who in the age of" unpreaching ministers" gave order for only one sermon, would, if their lot had been cast in our days, most likely have required more. This argument appears to me unable to bear examination. The Essex case alleged under the date 1550, shews that even in the time of the Reformation a multitude of sermons was in some instances complained of; and further, the authority of Ridley and his brethren cannot well be pretended for a multiplication of sermons, if this be accompanied by a variation from their system in the diminution of prayers and communions, and the neglect of holy-days, which in their age seem to have been observed bv a cessation from labour as on the Lord's Day.

⁷³ At weddings it would be introduced in the Communion-service.

XIII.
Metrical Psalms.

TWO metrical versions of the Psalms enjoy a kind of authority among us. That by Sternhold and others professes in the title-page to be "set forth and allowed to be sung in all churches of all the people together, before and after Morning and Evening prayer, as also before and after sermons." The "New Version" was sanctioned by the Crown in William the Third's reign. "By the same authority also in the reign of Queen Anne, certain Hymns were allowed to be appended to the New Version of Psalms, and were permitted by the Queen to be used in all Churches." (Bp. of Down and Connor, Charges, p. 52.)

Besides these, it is the fashion in some Churches to use collections of Hymns, more or less multitudinous, which have no sufficient authority, which are in many cases the work of avowed Dissenters, and generally differ widely in tone and spirit from the authorized formularies of our Church. Of such Hymns it is needless to say anything further.

Let us now look at the history of Metrical Psalms.

1548. The Act which authorized the first Book of Edward VI. provides that "It shall be lawful to use any psalm or prayer taken out of the Bible at any due time, not letting or omitting thereby the service or any part of it contained in the said book." (Clay, 193.) "This proviso," writes Collier, (ii. 263,) "is thought to countenance the Psalms projected to be turned into verse; for these singing psalms, as they were called, were very much the inclination of the Reformed." Heylyn (Hist. Ref. 127,) and Collier (ii. 326) agree that the-sanction of Sternhold's version was rather a connivance than an approbation. It has no discoverable authority, other than this act, passed five years before the appearance of those psalms which were versified by Sternhold himself, the first-published portion of the collection. (Strype, Eccl. Mem. ii. 86.)

1559. Eliz. Injunction 49, allows that while plain song is to be used in the service generally where provision is made for musical performance of it, "It may be permitted that in the beginning or end of the Common Prayers, there may be sung an hymn or such like song to the praise of Almighty God, in the best sort of melody and music that may be conveniently devised." (D. A. i. 19G.) Heylyn remarks, "No mention here of singing David's Psalms in metre, though afterwards they gradually thrust out the other psalms, with Te Deum, Magnificat, &c." (II. R. 289.) Perhaps, however, we may hence infer by analogy, a liberty for metrical psalms before and after service, in places where more artificial music is not used.

In the same year we read of psalms "after the Genevan fashion," at St. Antholn's, London, long after a favourite resort of civic Puritanism.) The "Genevan fashion" consisted in the sinking of the whole congregation together, instead of keeping the antiphonal way. (Strype, Annals, i. 136.)

In the end of the year, we find that there were some troubles at Exeter on the subject of psalmody. The royal visitors, of whom Jewel was one, had given order for service at the Cathedral, according to the Prayer-Book. Soon after, some laymen and women disturbed the Church by singing metrical psalms, and complained against the authorities for interfering with them. The visitors wrote a remonstrance to the Chapter, which was followed by one from four commissioners, among whom were Parker and Grindal. The Chapter replied to the former, that the proceedings of the complainants were in breach of the Act of Uniformity. This answer was written before the receipt of the letter from the Primate and his associates; no answer to that is given by Wilkins, nor does it appear that the cause of the "Genevan fashion" was further espoused by the high personages who had been appealed to. The Chapter evidently considered the metrical psalms unauthorized. (See Wilkins, Cone. iv. 200.)

Bishop Buckeridge reports of Andrewes, that "he would be bold with himself and say, when he preached twice a-day at St. Giles' [Cripplegate, of which parish he became Vicar in 1589,] he prated once." (Andrewes' Serm. new ed. v. 295.)

1640. Cosin, then prebendary of Durham, declares in his answer to the absurd charges brought against him by Smart, another prebendary, that he "never forbade singing the metre psalms in the Church, but used to sing them himself with the people at morning prayer." (Collier, ii. 799.)

This, let it be observed, was in a Cathedral.

1641. The Lords' sub-committee at once proves the prevalence of the metrical psalms, and betrays a sense that the pretensions of Sternhold's title could not be well made out: "It is fit that the imperfections of the metre in the singing psalms be mended, and then lawful authority added unto them, that they may be sung before and after sermons." (Cardw. Conf. 277.) It would seem that the authority is desired, not only for the proposed alterations, but for the version altogether; as if it were hitherto wanting in such sanction.

It is remarkable that the Bishops of 1661 appear studiously to avoid considering the request of the Presbyterians for an amendment of the metrical psalms, or leave to use a purer version. They answer, "Singing of psalms is no part of the Liturgy, and so no part of our commission." (Cardw. Conf. 308— 342.)

Bull, in his Charge, (Works, ii. 18,) says, that he believes an interval was intended between the first and the second service in the morning, which is filled up in Cathedrals by an anthem, in London and other great churches, by psalm-singing.⁷³ Mr. Gresley (in "Bernard Leslie") supposes a metrical psalm allowed by inference after the third collect, when the congregation is not equal to the anthem there prescribed; but from what has been said it will probably appear that there is more evidence of the historical kind for such psalms elsewhere than Mr. Gresley supposes. The use of psalms while the minister is moving from one part of the Church to another may be defended by a reference to the Introits and Graduate of earlier books.⁷⁴ And, although we may fully agree with the Bishop of London when he says, "I apprehend it is not right to commence Divine Service with a psalm or hymn," if by right be meant fit or proper, yet the practice may plead considerable countenance from past times. Perhaps, however, no diminution of psalm-singing in this manner, short of an entire exclusion, and that by a clergyman much suspected of inclinations to Romanism, would now occasion any great outcry. The verses of Sternhold and Hopkins, of the later Duumvirate, and of Bishop Ken, are in no better odour with some clases than the prose psalms " pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churchesand if we deny such persons the opportunity of singing objectionable hymns, as every sound churchman must do, it will hardly be marked as an aggravation of our offence, that we suppress the psalm or hymn at the beginning of the service.

⁷³ See Dr. Hook's Call, note N. for the introduction of this fashion at Leeds, 1708.

⁷⁴ See as to Beveridge, Nelson's Life of Bull, p. 63.

PART III.

CONCLUSION.

LET me not be misunderstood as if I thought a partial conformity good in itself, or regarded it with any affection. I believe, not only that the Church's system in its fulness is better than any imperfect approach to it, but that we are bound always to keep this full system in view, and to labour that it may be realized; and it is only from a wish to work towards that end in the most effectual manner that I would recommend caution for the present, and that I have endeavoured to prove that we may be justified to our consciences in proceeding by degrees, instead of forcing everything at once on an unprepared, if not an unworthy, generation. I agree entirely in purpose with all such, among the persons against whom I have been arguing, as consider the English Church to be to us, until it shall please God to heal the breaches of His Church on earth, the organ and representative of the Holy Church Universal;— with all such as, while they feel that the English Church is not the whole of Christendom, yet do not hold it a condescension to defer to her or continue in her, nor consider their condition as members of this national Church inferior to that of "foreign Catholics" in communion with the see of Rome. Indeed, I agree even with those by whom the view which has been described is derided as PseudoAnglican, (Brit. Crit. July, 1842, p. 81,) in the grand object of desiring the union of all Churches throughout the world, and of all men to the One Holy Catholic Church; but my differences from them are meanwhile so very great that it is useless at present to speak of our agreement.

"Whatever," writes Dr. Hey, (Lectures, iii. 6. 5.) "is expressed in words lately settled, must require obedience without abatement; whatever is old becomes more indefinite, and is to be construed with greater latitude."

We do not, in the present case, need much help from this principle; for "obedience without abatement" was never required or given; neither, during the time when the first English Prayer-Book was in force, not during the shorter authority of the second; not while the Church was governed by the very men who had set forth the book of 1559, nor under the administration of Bancroft or of Laud, the most energetic of our Primates; nor lastly, in the times immediately following on the revision in the reign of Charles II.

And if we enquire into the practice of individuals, we generally find something short of perfect conformity in those divines whom we should be most ready to look to for guidance and example.

Thus, no Bishop since the days of Queen Mary lias used a pastoral staff, which yet is ordered by the Rubric; Communion on the day of marriage, prescribed until the last revision as a thing that "must" be observed, was never enforced, at least from the early part of Elizabeth's reign.¹ Andrewes preached between the prayers and Communion-service, (Notes in Nicholls, p. 49, and Form of Consecration); Bancroft established the like order at Canterbury "on solemn feastdays," (Wilkins, iv. 436,) Overall, (author of the part of our Catechism relating to the Sacraments,) transferred the prayer beginning, "O Lord and Heavenly Father," from the post-communion to the place which it had held in the Liturgy of 1549, as a prayer of oblation before communicating;² (Nicholls, App. p. 49.) The Office for Visitation of the Sick was introduced into the public service, used so by Hammond, (Eccl. Biog. iv. 384,) and in part sanctioned even by Wren, the most rubrical of Bishops (D. A. ii. 203, and Parentalia, p. 91);³ Ferrar used the Athanasian Creed at irregular times, and seems to have otherwise taken liberties with the Rubric (E. B. iv. 248); Wren orders the notice of holidays to be given at a different time from that appointed by the Prayer-Book (D. A. ii. 203); Hooker and Patrick deviate from the Rubrics of their respective ages as to the time of catechizing (E. B. iii. 518; Patrick's Autobiography, 172); Andrewes, Bull, and Kettlewell preach in the afternoon; no record is found of those prescribed vestments which are now disused, as ever worn by the parochial clergy; and, (not to mention more instances)—we find but few traces of any near approach to that frequency of public Prayer and Communion which some tell us that we are all solemnly pledged to observe, whatever be the state of things around us. And in these deviations from the strict order of the Book, it does not appear that the holy men of former days supposed themselves to be violating solemn oaths, or loading their consciences with guilt.

An exact obedience was not given or required while the Church's legislature was in full activity, and able to suit its measures to the necessities of the times, when the state concerned itself to a degree now unknown in the affairs of the Church, which was then held co-extensive with the nation; how, then, can it be thought that a stricter rule is binding upon us, now that the condition of the Church is so greatly altered from that for which our Rubrics and Canons were framed?

And in order to confirm the legitimacy of admitting tradition and example as helps towards the understanding of our engagements, let it be observed, that the current and received traditions have not all been of a diminishing character. Many things, indeed, which were before left open, and were therefore variously done, according to the taste of individuals, are expressly ordered since the last review; such as the placing of the elements on the Altar; the position of the priest in consecrating and receiving; the use of his hands in the consecration; standing at the Gospels, at the Gloria Patri in the daily service, and consequently at the psalms and hymns which follow. Under this head, too, comes the form for the publication of Banns, all but the description of the parties, which is still left to "the accustomed manner." But there yet remain some things which, though not prescribed, are generally observed; e. g. standing up at the beginning of morning and evening prayer; joining in the Tersanctus; giving out the psalms of the day; and (which has always been the most remarkable instance of this kind,) reading the psalms in the alternate manner. As to this last, there is in our Rubric no direction that the people shall join with their lips in the psalms at all; much less that they shall recite the verses alternately with the minister. Bishop Bedell, we are told, used to read the whole throughout, saying, that he found no authority for a different practice (Life, in Hone's Eminent Christians.) Yet so completely has the tradition been regarded as a rule, that we find the Puritans continually complaining of the alternate reading as a grievance inseparable from the Church without fresh legislation. A petition is presented by Nowell and others to the Convocation of 1562, praying "that the psalms be sung distinctly by the whole congregation, or said with the other prayers by the minister alone." (Strype, Annals, i. 298). And Hooker, in replying to those who found fault with the saying alternately, does not give any hint that the Church is not accountable for the custom, or that ministers are not bound to use it, but puts forth his majestic strength in defending it on its own merits. (Eccl. Pol. v. 37.⁴)

Nothing indeed can be more untenable, than the notion, that the Prayer-Book is a complete rule, which will not admit of any variation, either by exceeding or by falling short of it.

Mr. Poole tells us, in his argument for Lights, that "Cathedrals are regulated by no authority which does not equally bind the most Private Chapel, or the most remote Parish Church." Buttermere must be a mimic York-minster, Capel Curig as ceremonious as Canterbury! I cannot understand on what grounds this is said. The Rubric itself makes special provision for "quires, and places where they sing," and gives order for Communion, "Every Sunday at the least in Cathedral and CollegiateCliurches, and Colleges, where there are many Priests and Deacons." The whole body of Injunctions and Canons recognizes a distinction between Cathedral and Collegiate Churches on the one hand, and Parish Churches on the other. Nay, we often find a distinction drawn between Parish Churches in towns, and those in the country. This last is the case as to week-day services. Sermons are allowed in towns at times when the Rubric does not prescribe any, when catechizing is ordered elsewhere. Lights on the Altar are enjoined only for Cathedrals; so too are copes; until 1603, hoods were not required but in these greater Churches; Charles II. while willing to give up the surplice elsewhere, proposes that it be retained in Cathedrals and the Royal Chapels. The standing of the Holy Table differed in the different classes of Churches, until Laud attempted to establish general uniformity; "largeness and straitness of the quire" are spoken of as circumstances which are to determine in what part the minister shall officiate; Colleges in the Universities, and certain great schools, are allowed to use service in Latin, which is forbidden elsewhere; (Cardw. Doc. Ann. No. 50.) and we find a Latin office appointed for the use of these societies in Communion at funerals,⁵ at a time (1560) when the usage of celebrating the Holy Communion on such occasions was no longer provided for in our English Service Book. (Doc. Ann. No. 51.)

We find notices of peculiar traditions in various Churches, which are received as sufficient authority for practices;⁶ there are, too, special statutes by which the Chapter clergy are bound to observances not required or used elsewhere.⁷ We find, indeed, Archbishop Sheldon speaking of the Cathedrals as "the standard and rule to all parochial Churches of the solemn and decent manner of reading the Liturgy and administering the holy Sacraments." (D. A. ii. 280); but we may be very sure that when he wrote thus, in desiring that the service in the Cathedrals themselves should be decent and solemn, he did not mean that Parish Churches were to conform to the very pattern of Cathedrals, so that (after the fashion which is so offensive in foreign Churches), means which are sufficient for nothing more than a decent simplicity should be employed in such an imitation of magnificence as can only be paltry and childish.

Again, we find that the Chapels Royal had ways of their own; and if any lover of ornaments should be led by the mention of copes, and crucifix, of images and burning lights, to think of what was there done as a pattern for all other places, let him remember that there was no sermon in the Communion-Service (Burnet, H. R. iii. 299); that the Court-Sermon was in the afternoon; that in Elizabeth's time there was usually preaching only on week-days in Lent, and on festivals;⁸ and that from the beginning of James the First's reign until Laud procured an alteration from Charles the First, it was the fashion that at whatever time in the service the king might enter, prayers were broken off, the anthem began, and the preacher went into the pulpit! (Laud, Diary, Nov. 14, 1626; Howell, vol. iv. Letter 12.)

Nor, again, do we find among Divines of former days that spirit, which is now thought necessary, of curious inquiry into the warrant for things which come to us recommended by the nearest authority. Parker writes to Cecil, "Whatsoever the [Queen's] ecclesiastical prerogative is, I fear it is not so great as your pen hath given it in the Injunctions [of 1559]." (D. A. i. 178). Yet these Injunctions were received and obeyed as having sufficient authority; they, the Advertisements of 1564, and the Canons of 1571 and 1603, were never called in question as contradictory to the Prayer-Book, in points where the one rule relaxed or exceeded the other; where the Rubric seemed to order a cope, and the Advertisements or Canons prescribed a surplice, no parochial clergyman appears to have thought that it was his duty, or even that he was at liberty, to wear the more gorgeous garment. Indeed the Prayer-Book from 1559 to 1662 seems to have rested only on legal and parliamentary authority⁹ (Brett on Liturgies, new ed. p. 399); the Hampton Court alterations, on royal proclamation. What would have been said of such authority by the gentlemen who now-a-days send indignant letters to newspapers because the printers of the Prayer-Book have altered the Rubric as to the time of Banns, in compliance with an act of Parliament?

And let it be remembered that every clergyman, before he can become such, must submit to take the present oath of supremacy, which rests only on the authority of parliament, whereas another form has the full sanction of the Church as well as the State.¹⁰

Let it not be supposed that I am for any Erastian Cliurcb-government, or would advise compliance in anything which the Sovereigu or the law may require of us, if the matter of it go against our conscience as Churchmen; in such cases, our part is to endure the consequences of noncompliance; but it certainly seems very unlike the ways of our wisest forefathers, if we make scruples in things indifferent merely because we receive them from something less than the combined authority of convocation and parliament. An examination will prove to any one that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Canons and Injunctions were always supposed to be sufficient interpretations of the Rubric; adapted to the needs of the times when they were issued, and enough to justify to his own conscience any one who was bound by the Rubric, provided he did as much as they required.

And while we talk about the Church's laws, let us not forget the moderation which marked the conduct of those who made and administered them in former times; how carefully they shunned everything that might cause needless offence or alienation; how strongly they shew a sense that they were dealing, not with brute matter, but with human wills; how desirous they appear to use persuasion rather than force; how willing even to make allowance for unreasonable prejudices, so that there were no real harm in bearing with them or using them tenderly.

Thus Cranmer writes to Henry VIII. "If the honouring of the Cross, as creeping or kneeling thereto, be taken away, it shall seem to many that be ignorant, that the honour of Christ is taken away, unless some good teaching be set forth withal, to instruct them sufficiently herein." (Burnet, H. R. part II. book i. record 61.) So in Edward's reign, before the taking down of altars, an order of council was sent to the Bishops, with a collection of reasons for the step, which, with such others as they might be pleased to set forth "to persuade the weak," they were prayed to "cause to be declared to the people by some discreet ministers before the taking down of the said altars, so as both the weak consciences of others may be instructed and satisfied as much as may be." (Heylyn, H. R. 96.)

Such, too, were the counsels that prevailed at the accession of Elizabeth, greatly to the anger of more violent Reformers.¹¹ So many of the ornaments as had been used in her brother's earlier years were to be "retained;" the Chancels were to "remain as in times past;" the prayer against the Bishop of Rome was struck out of the reformed Liturgy.

When at a later time Laud found the Church overrun with Puritanism, he proceeded to take decided steps against the evil; but his own articles were very moderate; and even those Bishops who most outran him required much less than what is now called for. Even the order for sports on the Lord's Day is said by Heylyn (p. 340) to have had its origin, not (as is commonly supposed) in a wish to vex the Puritans, but in a desire to clear the English Church in the eyes of Romanists from the suspicion of Puritanism or Judaism as to the observance of the Sabbath.12 The attempt to introduce a Liturgy into Scotland was, perhaps, more incautiously managed than any other great public act of those who have governed our Church; but even there an allowance was made in a point which many now would consider vital; the black gown was allowed to be used instead of a surplice, until the people should be able to take a rational view of the matter. (Gordon, "Scots Affairs," ii. 63.¹³)

We have, indeed, been told of late, that any one who objects to insisting on gestures and other such matters, "does so in the teeth of our standard Divinity." (Brit. Crit. Oct. 1842, p. 337.) It would, however, probably be difficult to produce any "standard Divinity" which maintains such things as being of the importance with which they are now invested. Look at what may be considered to set forth Laud's own views, the Canons of 1640. Do they insist on such matters? Are they not rather full of a charity founded on a sense of their indifference in themselves? And listen to Sanderson:—"The taking away of the indifferency of anything that is indifferent, is in truth superstition; whether either of the two ways it be done; either by requiring it as necessary, or by forbidding it as unlawful." (Sermons, p. 64.) Again, (p. 545,) "Some have been blamed for bringing into the Church new forms or ceremonies; or (which is all one in the apprehensions of men that consider not much, and so is liable to the same censure) for reviving old ones, but long disused and forgotten;" and both to such, and to the opposite extreme party, lie gives solemn advice not to profess too loudly a zeal for God's glory, when less sacred motives may be mixed up in their actions. "Many a man," he writes elsewhere, (Pref. 79,) "when he thought most to make it sure, hath quite marred a good business by overdoing it." He declares (Pref. p. 70) that "no true son of the Church doteth on any ceremony;14 he maintains the ceremonies, as Parker had long before maintained the habits, (Collier, ii. 548,) for the sake of obedience. Taylor in the same spirit directs (Advices, No. 39) that no minister of a parish introduce any strange rites, and that the clergy shall explain such rites as they make use of.

As an example of the moderation which I have been speaking of, let us look at the case, already often mentioned, of lights on the altar. The Injunction ordered the clergy to take down all candles in Churches, "but only two lights upon the high altar, which for the signification that Christ is the very true Light of the world, they shall suffer to remain still;" suffer, out of consideration for the feelings of people who had been used to see lights in their Churches, to remain in places where they had previously been. I believe that the authority for the use of these lights has been entirely done away with; but if it were not, I should hold a clergyman perfectly justified in not attempting now-a-days at once to restore them. For a permission that they may remain is not an order that they shall be set up where they were not before; lighted candles are as offensive to the popular religion of this day as they were congenial to that of the year 1547, modern illumination considering them to have been fit only for "the dark ages:"—

"More proper for the cloudy night
Of Popery than gospel light."—Hudibras, iii. ii. 301.

and pleasing itself with Fuller's sentiment, (Waltham Abbey, 16,) "under the Reformation, more light and fewer candles and whereas they were suffered to remain "for the signification that Christ is the very true Light of the world," our flocks too commonly will see nothing in them for the present but badges of Popery, or in Cartwright's language, "Sacraments of Antichrist." Would it be wise then to vex people with an offensive symbol of a truth which they profess fully to believe, and which they refuse to see in the symbol?

And in fact the mystical meaning for which the liofhts were suffered to remain is now needless. For let it be observed, that when two candles were retained on the high altar, the polemical direction was not against such persons as might deny the great truth that in Christ light is come into the world, but against those who had many lighted altars, and among whom were entertained opinions inconsistent with a right belief in Him as the One Light.¹⁵

Our reformers at once soothed the people by allowing candles to remain for a time, and took away the occasion of error which the multitude of lights had furnished; and we may be sure that even if the letter of their order were still unrepealed, we should act more wisely by neglecting it, and imitating the spirit by which it was dictated. "To persist in an old observation," writes Abp. Bramhall, (new ed. ii. 185,) "when the grounds of it are quite changed, and the end for which the observation was made calleth upon us for an alteration, is not obedience but obstinacy." If this be the case, as to persisting in something which is established, what is to be said of persons who in such circumstances as the archbishop describes, attempt against a general feeling, to revive something' which has lono- been obsolete?

And it is no good reply to this, to say that the Reformers allowed too much weight to the prejudices of various parties, that they suffered the Prayer-Book to be tampered with by foreigners of low theological opinions, and bore with a degree of inconformity as to habits, &c. which we should be exceedingly sorry to see. It need be no hindrance to our acting in their spirit, that later experience has shown the vanity of some measures in which that spirit was manifested. We know very well, though they could not, that a comprehension of Dissenters and an union of all Protestants are not to be thought of,—if we and such persons are to be together, it must be by their becoming of us. Far be it from us to think that the Church should, at Dr. Chalmers' bidding, (Lectures on Establishments) "come down from her transcendental pretensions," that out of regard for any body of men, or for the hope of any possible gain, she should give up the least part of the doctrine which she has inherited, or disown her claims to be the one communion in this land which has a ministry rightly ordained and sent, and has sure authority to dispense the Word and Sacraments. As to these, let there be no concession; but it is even because of these that I would earnestly deprecate all insisting on things which are of little or no real importance. Because I wish to see people brought to believe in the Holy Catholic Church, I would entreat that nothing may be done which can unnecessarily repel persons who have grown up in uncatholic traditions; and it seems to be wanton folly, when we have before us the difficult task of converting men to a belief in the Church's unity and authority, the Apostolical commission, the virtue and necessity of the sacraments, the good of frequent prayers and communion, and other like points, to talk of copes and candles and mystically numbered obeisances; of stone altars and decorative flowers, praying eastward, and trine affusion.¹⁶

Nor can our extreme men require any bearing with them on the ground of ignorance or prejudice. To them may be addressed the words of Hooker (Pref. 4. 4.)—

"Whereas it is the error of the common multitude to consider only what hath been of old, and if the same were well, to see whether still it continue; if not, to condemn that presently which is, and never to search upon what ground or consideration the change might grow: such rudeness cannot be in you so well borne with, whom learning and judgment hath enabled much more soundly to discern how far the times of the Church and the orders thereof may alter without offence. True it is, the ancienter, the better ceremonies of religion are; howbeit, not absolutely true and without exception; but true only so far forth, as those different ages do agree in the state of those things for which at the first those rites, orders, and ceremonies were instituted."

Mr. Faber asks triumphantly of those who object to the Roman ceremonies, as "mummeries,"—-what would a person ignorant of our customs say of certain English rites? and by way of illustration he favours us with a view of some of these taken from the ludicrous side. For my own part, I have never, even in conversation, used the word mummery with respect to the Romish worship; and, therefore, am not concerned to the full in Mr. Faber's reproof; but his illustration is not to the purpose; since his supposed spectator is a heathen, whereas the Romish ceremonies seem in many parts childish and excessive to persons who know something of their Bible, and are even not without some smattering of Christian antiquities; who are acquainted with the ideas of sacramental influence and symbolical action. He tells us elsewhere that it was long ere he became reconciled to the Romish worship, and that at last he was so by means of books; whence, of course, it will be natural for any modest reader to conclude, that whatever dislike of such worship he may feel must be the result of ignorance; that study, and an understanding of the mystical signification, would produce in him the same change of feeling as in the author of "Sights and Thoughts." That this need not be universally the case, however, is pretty clearly apparent from the following words of Bishop Cosin, in his Comment on the Preface to our Prayer-Book; (in Nicholls, App. p. 38.)

"I doubt the Scots sent him [Calvin] not the Preface to read, but described our rites to him after the most ridiculous manner that they could imagine; indeed, if we had founded ourselves upon the ridiculous Rationale of Durandus, and put any religion in them, (more than the obeying of a lawful command, given for better order and decency in the Church, was religion), he would have had the more reason to find fault with us.¹⁷ The papists, in a foolish, theatrical, and superstitious manner, have brought into the present mass many utensils, vestments, actions, motions, and winkings, to signify the mysteries of the life and death of Christ."

This is the judgment of one who had endured much slander as popishly affected, the author of a work abridged in the Tracts for the Times, a high authority in the Oxford Catenas; and it is founded, not on an ignorant bystanding at the service, but on the perusal of a famous ritualist's explanations.

It does not follow, that, because there is a very deep mystical system in Divine things, therefore, we are bound to multiply ceremonies of human devising for the sake of arbitrary symbolical meanings. Nor again, that because we profess to reverence the early Church, and to receive its witness as to matters of faith, we are bound closely to follow its example in things of a ritual kind; for, although, the British [?] Critic sets down all such opinions to insular pride, I have no hesitation in saying that the difference of national character would make a close imitation in such matters absurd in us. That there are such differences between one people and another, no one can well doubt; they appear in the various systems of heathen religion; in poetry, in art, and all literature; in the different characters of the heresies which in early ages arose in the east and in the west respectively; in many other things which might easily be mentioned, as well as in the outward manners and the habits of daily life. Why, then, should it be set down to a narrow and faulty insular pride, if we say that the difference of the English character from that of other nations may not improperly affect the manner of our showing forth a belief and a reverence which are substantially the same as theirs?¹⁸

At least, if we must have types in everything, let us be content to have them for our own edification, without forcing them on others, or charging others with want of spiritual discernment, because they cannot fully enter into the meaning, or receive the symbols as something important. Images used to be defended on the ground that they were "laymen's books but this symbolism is very hard reading even for clerks in general; and we may be sure that if an attempt were made to introduce it among the common people, there must follow a misunderstanding, a confusion of type and thing typified (Bild und Sache) which would lead to wretched superstitions.

Puritanism has always been much afraid of symbolical significations. Thus, it is said in 1565, "Popish garments may have many superstitious mystical meanings," (Neal, i. 207); again, 1605, an "argument for the unlawfulness of the ceremonies is taken from their mystical meaning." (Ib. ii. 58.) Wren is persecuted because he is supposed to have meant something mystical by his reforms in the disposition of Churches; the Scotch Presbyterians, on receiving the Liturgy, look into Durandus for an explanation of the rites, and conclude that they must have been ordained for his reasons and none other (Laud, Troubles, 116); and not to multiply instances, the reader may see in Bingham's "Apology of the French Church," Book ii. c. 6, a strong proof of the extent to which this horror was entertained by the party for whose conviction that learned writer called in the witness of foreign Protestants.

On the other hand, our Church has declared her mind in the preface "of Ceremonies, why some be abolished and some retained;" Bishop Cosin does not the less call the Romish worship "foolish, theatrical, and superstitious," because the "utensils, vestments, actions, motions, and winkings" introduced into it were intended "to signify the mysteries of the life and death of Christ," (a purpose which would be more than a justification of any ceremonies in the opinion of the rensoners with whom I am now concerned); Bishop Wren, in his answer when impeached, denies that his orders for raising Chancels and the like had any other motive than a wish to make the Eucharistic rites generally visible; Laud thus answers the Scotch Presbyterians' imputation of reasons from the Rationale—"What warrant have they for this? Why, Durand says so. Now truly, the more fool he. As for myself, I was so poorly satisfied with the first leaf I read in him, that I never meddled with him since.'¹⁹

In former times, the rage about dress and such like things was a mark of Puritanism; the objectors were the "fanatici superpelliceani et galeriani" whose "ineptias aut potius one of Cecil's correspondents complains of. (Strype, Parker, Rec. 43.) The governors of the Church enforced the habits and ceremonies as lawful for Christians, and a trial of obedience. Now, when all have long worn the surplice, when some professed dissenters of their own will adopt it, (as we hear), and probably few among them would much object to it, when the followers of our popular religion within the Church are content to kneel, and to bear with the Cross in Baptism, it is strange that we hear a cry about the essential character of dress and attitudes from an opposite quarter; from some who would represent themselves as the followers of Hooker and Sanderson, of Hammond and Taylor. Hear the first-named venerable man on the subject of gestures: "By them which trouble us with these doubts, we would willingly be resolved of a greater doubt; whether it be not a kind of taking God's name in vain to debase religion with such frivolous disputes, a sin to bestow time and labour about them." (E. P. v. 30. 1.)

If one part of the Church revive such questions, now long forgotten, the puritanical side of them will be revived too; and let it be remembered that in one thing which we should be sorry to see interfered with —the position of the Holy Table at Communion-time, the letter of the law is really with the fiercer Puritans, and against the custom which is now allowed to pass without question.

I am very well aware that a regard for the conscience of others ought not to lead us into any thing that may hurt our own; and that, after all, we must reckon on offending some; for, as Wall says (InfantBaptism, ii. 374, ed. Cotton,) "those that promote division for interest, keep their consciences, as beggars do their sores, raw and open on purpose, and would not have them healed for any money." There is grievous sin in those who invent and propagate the popular slanders, and, in truth, there is exceedingly little virtue in the practice of those who so readily catch them up, without taking the trouble of inquiry into either facts or principles; but it is our duty not to put any needless hindrance in the wav of our people's coming to a true belief of the Church's doctrines; nor to give any pretext unnecessarily to those whose delight is in lies. And as for our own consciences, let us try to have them better instructed than that they should run into what used to be the "Puritanical folly of considering all things equal in importance.

Let us, too, beware lest by any fault of character, any rashness or violence, we render the doctrines which we wish to promote more unpalatable than they would otherwise be. Laud and Wren appear to have erred in this way—the former, at least, feeling sorely and deeply regretting his own defects of temper. Let the quality of their reputation now-adays with the vulgar, and with liberals who are not vulgar, let the odium thereby cast on their opinions with persons who will not take the trouble to inquire into either their belief or their characters, be a warning to us, lest through fault of ours the Truth be evil spoken of and men be alienated from it. While we pay the martyred Archbishop high honour for his zeal, his orthodoxy, his many virtues and great sufferings, we may yet fairly doubt whether his way of pursuing his objects were always the wisest. At all events, let us not outdo him.

Most especially, let us beware of affectation and a wish to be more refined than our neighbours; for it would be fearful indeed if for such motives we should cause any one to stumble. And, if the truth may be spoken, there is much need of this caution. This is what I chiefly dread—not Romanism, or formalism, but conceit and affectation. There seems to be reason for thinking that many are now forward "Catholics" who a dozen years ago would have been Rationalists; and Romanism may have its turn next with this class; coxcombry being the true essence of their character, and any particular set of opinions only the dress. It would seem that there are some by whom "Catholicism" is adopted for the sake, not of fellowship with the Communion of Saints, but of likeness to the people of the middle ages; they seeking by religion the same end which Fashionable Youth lately strove after by the very different measures of donning antique armour, mounting barbed steeds, and, in the view of breathless Beauty, picturesquely shivering lances. What I dread is, the substitution of a poetic, romantic, "æsthetic" Something for plain duty to God and our neighbour; and, perhaps, most people who have read some late writings will agree in thinking that my apprehensions are not causeless.²⁰ And observe how persons of susceptible years and character are now dealt with. They are told that it is a mark of a "high, tender, affectionate mind," to long after splendours of worship unknown in the English Church of this day, after what Mr. Newman speaks of as in some cases "almost theatrical,"²¹ and Bishop Cosin scruples not to call outright by that name, and by others quite as unfavourable. And then, instead of being desired to keep their imaginations and feelings in check, they are actually taught to think it something creditable that these are not under the control of their judgment; and for the sake of ladies and young gentlemen thus tutored, we "cannot much longer dispense with copes," and our service must be made such as English service never has been, to the disgust of sober people, and the utter estrangement of multitudes whose unreasonableness takes an opposite direction. We hear of things as now revived and boasted of by our extreme churchmen, which we might rather have expected to find the Church's enemies dragging forth from obscurity in order to shame her.

Within the last year or two we have had to notice the rise of a new spirit among some of those who profess themselves Anglo-Catholics—a spirit sadly different from that which used to mark the character of Anglo-Catholicism. Whereas it once had for a chief principle the duty of walking by faith and not by sight, of bearing with imperfections and unpleasant circumstances, of being content to forego those excitements by which the so-called "religious world" contrives to mix up the spirit of the world with religion,—now-a-days, we hear of shows, and pomps, and playthings as necessary; of a spirit which "cannot much longer dispense with" whatever it may be pleased to set its fancy on. And as the shameful injustice which Catholic opinions have met with, has doubtless been the means of disposing many favourably, and adding to the number of those who hold them, so we may now reckon with certainty that this lately-arisen spirit will repel very many, not only from the extravagant opinions of the particular section in which it has appeared, but from the sound and sober doctrine of which these are a caricature.

A very different treatment of certain characters seems more advisable than that which has just been described. If one says to us, "I cannot pray unless I may turn my face eastward, unless I may kneel on encaustic tiles, unless the light which falls on me be tinted by the rich hues of holy figures and emblems in surrounding windows, unless two fair candles of purest wax flame in sight amid jewelled plate on a garlanded altar,"—[pardon me, reader, if I but poorly imitate the prose-run-wild which our more imaginative Catholics delight in!] surely it would be wiser, and far better for his own soul, that, instead of humouring him in such fancies, and telling him to think well of himself intellectually and morally because of them, we should desire him soberly to school himself, to strive after a mastery over this fantastical childishness, to study to learn that of which he now professes himself incapable.

Our simpler rites have their own beauty and solemnity, if instead of longing after something else we will study to profit by what we have. Holy Herbert prefers the

"Fine aspect in fit array,
Neither too mean nor yet too gay,"

(Poems, 111)

of his own spiritual Mother, to the painted looks of Rome, as well as to the neglected dress of Geneva. Our English Service may be found to have a charm in it, even although, unlike "the magnificent Latin of the Breviaries,"²² it may be understood by the bulk of our congregations. Bishop Jebb quotes "the testimony of a Roman Catholic foreigner, long habituated to the splendid Ritual of her own Communion, as exhibited on the Continent, that the most awful and impressive ceremony she ever witnessed was the Administration of the Lord's Supper to about twelve communicants, by a single minister, in a plain, retired, Irish country Church." (Pastoral Instructions, 207.) And while we see that our Church's tone is more penitential than that of foreign Communions,23 let us not teach ourselves to look on this as if it were the sins of the Church and the nation only that require it; let us consider whether the humblest words may not fit ourselves personally, better perhaps than that language of angels (in Latin) which is said²⁴ to be the characteristic of foreign Service-Books. Let it be remembered, too, that we of this day have a better Prayer-Book than that which served for the devotion of Hooker and Andrewes, and which Laud did not attempt (at least in the English Church) to alter.²⁵

Submission to authority, thankfulness for what we have, resolution to use it well, willingness to see a fault in ourselves rather than in our Church, if within her we do not speedily grow up to the highest saintly character; these become us better than impatience and complaint of deficiencies. And further, let us be assured that in Romanism there are far greater difficulties than in the Church of our own land; and if we see irreverence in the Protestantism around us, let us beware of imagining—than which nothing can be more untrue—that Romanism and reverence are identical.

If, again, we feel disposed to set about reforms in the Ritual, and restoration of practices which Laud and Andrewes used, let it be remembered what they were; men of years, of gravity and great learning, the chief rulers of the Church; that Andrewes, Laud, and Wren held in succession the Deanery of the Chapel-Royal, and there and in their own Cathedrals they first exemplified that "beauty of holiness" which they proposed for imitation in other Churches according to their means. That these men did certain things then, is no warrant for every young priest to do the like, and plead their names as his authority.

For us, who are no Bishops, the authority of those who hold the Apostolic office must be a rule. They cannot, indeed, order anything opposed to the Book of Common Prayer; this limitation is expressly put to their power; but they may in the exercise of a sound discretion interpret the Book, and, as I trust I have shewn by precedents, determine in what manner the objects for which the Rubric was made may now best be answered; whether by a literal compliance, or in some other way. It is, we may be sure, an unsound state of mind that makes men eager to quarrel with the nearest authority under pretence of allegiance to one higher but more remote. Even thus it was that the Puritans rebelled against their rulers ecclesiastical and civil, under colour of zeal for His cause from whom all earthly authority is derived.

There is, however, another difficulty—that Bishops may not be of one mind; not only may they differ in Theological opinion, but when they are agreed both in principles and in objects, they may think differently as to practical measures.²⁶ In these circumstances, it is desirable that uniform directions should be given; as the Preface to the Canons of 1640 assigns as a reason for legislation the varieties which obtained in practice, and the censures thence arising against different persons. And even if the Convocation should not meet, (which yet seems not unlikely,) may we not hope that our Fathers in God may perhaps hold it expedient to consult together, and after the precedents of 1559 and 1564, to set forth some Advertisements for our general instruction and direction?

My object has been to shew that in some things the strict letter of the Prayer-Book may be dispensed with; but there are matters in which I conceive that no consideration of circumstances ought to prevail with us for any deviation. Such is the case when the non-observance would be an irreverence, as the allowing the elements to be placed on the Altar by any other hands than the Priest's; or an absurdity, as the reading the Churching-Service in a private room; or a contradiction to the Church's mind, as the use in houses of the Form for Public Baptism, or the distribution of the holy elements without addressing the words to each communicant.²⁷ Such is a changing of the words in the Prayer-Book;²⁸ or a depriving the people in any degree of that provision which the Church has made for their instruction, and for intercession in their behalf,²⁹ as the omission of anything which is appointed to be said in any kind of Service.³⁰ If any of us have been in the habit of varying in such matters, it appears to me that he should do so no more, and need neither consult his Diocesan, nor listen to any objections from his people, or from any others. And of course, in this age when there is a great movement for the restoration of the full system of our Prayer-Book, that man's Churchmanship must be worse than doubtful who allows to drop any Church-observance which he finds established. If, for example, a clergyman find in his parish a daily service, or an observation of holy-days or Litanydays, he will incur just suspicion and blame should he substitute for these, prayers and lecture on Tuesday or Thursday evenings, or a system of household lecturing, or should he confine the Public Service in his Church to the Lord's Day.

Our duty is, not to recede in anything, nor even to rest content with what we find, but to strive that the Church's mind may be completely carried out. But in doing so, we ought to use such means as may tend most surely towards the end in view. And, whether our own good, or that of our people, be regarded, I believe that a gradual and discreet proceeding will be found the best.

Although we do not at once exhibit the full system in its working,—(which, indeed, cannot be without the concurrence of the people)—we may take pains to direct attention to the theory of the Church, and so by degrees prepare our flocks for its being completely realized. Thus may a time come—whether it be reserved for us to see it, or our office be only that of paving the way for it,—when they shall desire daily service, weekly communions, and other such things, and gladly welcome them; and surely such a course will be far better for them, than if we should tempt them to reject the system at once, by setting it before them in its entireness at a time of alarm and excitement, when they have not been trained to understand its blessings, when evil-minded persons have taught the multitude to look with suspicion even on what seems best and holiest, if it have the appearance of novelty from having been disused through some ages of irreverence.

And for ourselves, individually, it may even be an advantage that we are called to bear with imperfections, rather than to live in the full exercise of those privileges which the Church would bestow on us. Our faithfulness may be, perhaps, even better proved and nourished while we labour in the midst of disabilities and hindrances. If we may not pray twice a-day in the congregation, we may use the Church's prayers in our families or in our closets; if we may not enjoy the comfort of public worship attended with all that is possible of outward beauty and solemnity, yet there is in our circumstances much that may tend to deepen our inward feelings; and we may surely trust, that what we lack through faults not our own, will not be reckoned against us.

By quietly serving God according to the means which are allowed to us, we may hope both to save ourselves, and to help forward the salvation of others, more surely than by rashness and impatience, and unguarded measures of reform and restoration.

"Those things commanded " [in the Prayer-Book], says the excellent Author of the Tract on its history, (No. 86. p. 76.) "of course a good churchman would observe, if possible. He would also wish to restore what it implies, though it be not commanded, if fallen into disuse; and to carry out as far as possible the spirit and intention of the Church. Catholic usages and principles he will aim at, as a Christian and a Churchman; but in doing so, he will be guided by the spirit of meek wisdom, which is the marked characteristic of his own Church; remembering always the very terrible woe denounced against him who shall offend one of Christ's little ones."

¹ See Strype, Ann. ii. 37, (1571) who seems, however, to have made the mistake of putting into Elizabeth's mouth a reason founded on the Rubric of 1662; Hooker, v. 37. 8; Hammond, "Parænesis," c. 2. s. 19. Neglect of the order, however, was among the charges brought by his Protestant enemies, in Edward's reign, against Bishop Farrar, who was put to death by the Papists under Mary (Heylyn, H. R. 121); and Bishop Wren orders that persons not receiving be presented, D. A. ii. 204.

² On this Bishop Jolly remarks, that he "must have thought it no breach of the act of uniformity"—(On the Eucharist, 155); Dr. Pusey, (to whom Tract 87, p. 98, warrants us in ascribing the Introduction to Tract 81), that "perhaps his so doing implies that it had always been so done in that portion of the Church, and the Rubric not received in that Church as yet." (p. 36). With great respect for the writer, I must profess myself unable to understand this explanation.

³ It appears, from this passage, that such was the custom of Westminster. Hence, we may reckon Bishop Andrewes among the Divines who approved of it. He had held the Deanery of Westminster, and Wren had been his Chaplain.

⁴ As practices less generally observed, but having much sanction of a traditional kind, may be mentioned—the use of a doxology before, and of a thanksgiving after, the Gospel in the Communion-Service. The former was ordered in the Book of 1549; Bishop Overall (in Nicholls, p. 39,) supposes that the omission was the effect of negligence on the part of printers. Both were prescribed in the Scotch Liturgy, and are ordered by the xxixth of the present Scotch Canons. The custom of saying "Amen" at receiving the holy elements is another of the same kind. See Append. I § g.

⁵ The Collect in this form varies remarkably from the last prayer in our present Burial-Service, (of which it is otherwise a translation), in having the following' words at the end:—"Petimus ut .... in generali resurrectione, extremâ die, nos una cum hoc fratre nostro resuscitati, et receptis corporibus, regnemus una Tecum in vitâ æterna." It is curious, by the way, that the revisers of 1662, while they added the commemoration of departed saints to the prayer for the Church Militant, altered into its present form the prayer in the Burial-Office, beginning "Almighty God, with whom," &c. which previously contained these words—"that we, with this our brother, and all other departed in the true faith of Thy Holy Name, may have our perfect consummation," &c. Mr. Palmer appears to allude to this, where he argues that "a petition for the departed was not intended by the revisers of 1551; for had they designed to retain prayers for the departed, how are we to account for their omission in the Communion-Service?" Origines, ii. 95.

⁶ Wren (Parentalia, p. 91,) pleads the custom of Westminster for the use in public of Collects from the Visitation of the Sick; Andrewes speaks (in Nicholls, App. 49,) of sermon before the Communion-Service as "according to our custom," where perhaps the same Church is meant.

⁷ Thus, Archbishop Bancroft inquires at Wells Cathedral, 1605, "whether daily service be there sung, according to the foundation of this Church?" . . "How often have you sermons or lectures in the week, and by whom? and what be the statutes of this Church in that behalf?" Wilkins, Cone. iv. 415.

⁸ Some authorities do not mention the Festival Sermons.

⁹ The same is true of King Edward's second Book; which, however, is not mentioned in the text, because all the men and all the measures of that time are condemned by some of the persons against whom I am arguing; consequently, the fact is of no force in an appeal to them.

¹⁰ What is here said has reference in part to the "State-services." That for the Accession rests on the authority of Royal Proclamation alone. For the other three days, there are forms authorized by Convocation and Parliament, but these are not the forms which are commonly printed. Perhaps we shall do best by using the services as we find them, unless in anything we think them wrong, (which we are at liberty to do, as they are no part of the Prayer-Book which we assent to at ordination.) Dr. Pusey (Serm. on Nov. 5, p. 41; Append, p. 9) would prefer using the older service for the anniversary of the Gunpowder Treason, but shows how if, e.g. our Bishop should order the use of the later, we may use it, although we do not approve of the proceedings of 1688, inasmuch as the prayers relating to the Revolution express thanks for the Providential guidance of affairs, without passing judgment on the human actors. For further information on this subject, see Appendix R.

¹¹ See a letter of Jewel's about the habits. (Burnet, H. R. iii. 29i.) He afterwards viewed the matter different!}'.

¹⁸ Bishop Gibson (Codex, Tit. 10, c. 2) quotes an Act of 10 Rich. II. (1388) which orders that labourers and servants shall use only bows and arrows on Sundays, "and leave other games." Later laws in the interval before the Reformation confirmed this. (Ib.)

¹³ Mr. Lawson gives the following account of the Scottish Ritual after the re-establishment of Episcopacy under Charles II. when four Bishops for Scotland were consecrated at Westminster: "There were no fixed Communion-tables, neither the Bishops nor the clergy wore their episcopal robes and surplices during the ordinary performance of Divine Service; and it is not even certain whether the latter wore black gowns, though it appears from various contemporary portraits that the Bishops did so on ordinary occasions. As there was no Liturgy, no responses were made, or expected to be made, by the congregation. The two Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist were administered by both Episcopalians and Presbyterians nearly in the same manner, without signing with the sign of the cross in the one, or kneeling at the other. Only, when administering Baptism, the Episcopal clergy required an assent to the Apostles' Creed, as the ground of the infant's religious education," while the Presbyterians " demanded an acknowledgement of all the dogmas of the Westminster Confession, and the more violent of them even an assent to the Solemn League and Covenant." (Hist, of the Scottish Episc. Church, 1843, p. 52.)

¹⁴ I beg the reader to look well at the British Critic's observations on a quotation of these words by the Quarterly Reviewer. (Brit. Grit. Oct. 1842.)

¹⁵ Nor can it be said that we are bound by primitive authority to burn lights on our Altars. Bishop Andrewes writes, (Answer to Perron's xviiith chapter, p. 18,) that the first Christians used lights " because they met in cryptis, in caves and grots, places dark and needing light, not for any mystical meaning." When peace came, the Christians kept the lights that they might shew communion in faith by community of usages; "whereto the after ages devised meanings and significations of their own, which from the beginning were not so." St. Jerome says, that the Western Church in his time only burnt candles when it was dark, although in the East the practice was otherwise. (Bingham, xiv. 3, 11; Poole, p. 24.) It does not follow that because the Church at one time attached a particular sense to any usage, we are bound to keep up the usage for the sake of that signification. Thus Gardiner's party in 1539 gave the very same reason for "burning candles on Candlemas-day," a practice afterwards forbidden, which the Injunction of 1547 assigns for the two lights on the Altar; "It is a very good usage, in memory of Christ, the spiritual Light, of whom Symeon did prophesy, as is read in the Church that day." (Collier, ii. 197.) Mr. Poole and Dr. Hook tells us that the number two signifies our Lord's twofold nature. But in Lyndwood, after mystical explanations of the wax and the wick, we find this same sense put upon a single candle; "lumen significat ejus Divinitatem carni unitam." (Ed. 1679, p. 236. See many such things in Gavanti Thes. Sac. Rit. i. 128, ed. 1763). The advocates of lights often remind us that they are used by the Lutherans. This may be an argument with those who defer to the Lutherans as a standard, but it may also suggest some doubts as to the efficacy of the lights in preserving the truth for the sake of which our reformers suffered them to remain. In Germany they have been found no more effectual for the maintenance of orthodoxy as to the Light of the world than has the title of "Evangelical Church." Would that we could all be brought to take Luther's own view of the matter, (quoted by Cosin, in Nicholls, App. p. 18,) "Nec candelas nec thurificationes prohibemus, sed nec exigirnus; esto hoc liberum."

¹⁶ Mr. Poole writes (on Lights, p. 34)—"I suppose that trine affusion is generally practised, as it ought to be, at this day." If Mr. Poole really supposes this, a little inquiry into facts, or a reference to the Bishop of London's Charge, would undeceive him. Hooker (iv. 12. 3.) shews that the use of one or of three immersions is indifferent; each practice may be interpreted soundly, and each may be perverted so as to favour heretical opinions on the doctrine of the Trinity.

¹⁷ Calvin spoke of the Prayer-Book as containing "tolerabiles ineptias."

¹⁸ Compare with the style in which the British Critic has of late spoken on this subject, the following words of Dr. Pusey (Tract 81, p. 33.) "The peculiarity of our reformation corresponded with the place assigned to us by God's Providence, as an islandpeople, and both with God's blessing; 'This people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.'"

19 Mr. Ferrar, indeed, seems to have been a man of mystical senses, much after the liking of our moderns; the account of Mr. Lenton's visit to him reminds us somewhat at first of Christian with the Interpreter, or the Red-Cross Knight in the House of Holiness. It is very well for a time, but by and by we begin, perhaps, to feel some disposition to doubt the wisdom of the mystagogue; and a doubt in such a case is fatal to every feeling of reverence.

²⁰ It appears, by the way, that pilgrimages, for which the reviewer of Rio in the British Critic for October, 1842, is so very earnest on imaginative grounds, were not revived in England during the ascendancy of "foreign Catholicism" under Mary. Cardw. Doc. Ann. i. 180.

²¹ Tract 75, p. 13. Mr. Newman's Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 32, warrants me in connecting- his name with this Tract.

²² Brit. Crit. Oct. 1842, article on Rio, p. 274.

²³ Tract 86. Nothing that is here said is intended against that Tract.

²⁴ Faber's "Sights and Thoughts."

²⁵ Laud's own wish was, that the English Prayer-Book should be introduced into Scotland without alteration. It was only in compliance with the earnest desire of the Scottish Bishops, who represented the danger of alarming the jealousy of their countrymen, that he agreed to share in framing a new Liturgy, which, as is generally known, was drawn up in Scotland, and afterwards revised by Laud and Wren. (Collier, ii. 755-767.) Unfortunately, however, while a new Book was prepared lest the national feeling of the Scots should be offended, it does not appear to have been apprehended that their Puritanical tastes might be equally ready to take offence at the nature of the variations from the English Service.

²⁶ See e.g. the late Oxford and Exeter Charges as to the means of restoring the Daily Service.

²⁷ On this subject, Mr. Crosthwaite's Communio Fidelium proves abundantly what is the only right practice.

²⁸ The Bishop of Worcester is in favour of altering the word damnation in the Communion-Service; but although we might be glad to see this sanctioned by full authority, it seems very dangerous to make the change without such warrant. If one man may change the word damnation, what is to hinder another from substituting something for regenerate in the Baptismal Offices?

²⁹ From what has been said in the second Part, it will appear that this is not meant to apply to the non-observance of Daily Service.

³⁰ The Bishop of Worcester holds the consent of clergymen and the tacit allowance of Bishops sufficient to warrant the omission in the Marriage-Service of "certain phrases dictated by the grossness of a former age, but offensive to the refinement of the present time." But if we mutilate one office lest we should offend "refinement," others may be mutilated because they contain doctrines offensive to some persons. There is, too, reason to believe that omissions on the ground of delicacy are not the only omissions that are ever made in this Service. And is the "refinement" of a kind that the Church would encourage? If we admit it here, what shall we do with such of the appointed Lessons as the Commissioners of 1689 style "too natural?" (Cardw. Conf. 429.) Are the "causes for which matrimony was ordained" so universally understood in these days of Socialism and marriage by Superintendant Registrars, (to say nothing of wrong notions in people of a higher class,) that they need not be recited? Or do we suppose that nothing is lost by omission of the prayer for children as a blessing, and that they "may be Christianly and virtuously brought up?"

APPENDIX.

Appendix.

I PURPOSE to notice in this place some points, which, as being subjects rather of inquiry than of dispute at the present time, may be more fitly treated here than in the controversial part of the volume. It need hardly be said, that in speaking of any observance as the most correct in the particular case, I am far from meaning to recommend the immediate adoption of it wherever it may have fallen into disuse.

(A.) CONCURRENCE OF SUNDAYS WITH
OTHER FESTIVALS.

THE Bishop of London observes, "Where a Saints day falls upon a Sunday, the Collect for the Saint's day as well as that for the Sunday should be read, and the Epistle and Gospel for the Saint's day, but the Lesson for the Sunday. This, however, is a matter of opinion."

Fuller rules, derived from the Roman books, (which may very properly be consulted on such a point), are given in the British Magazine for Jan. 1837, and, (with a very unnecessary degree of pretension) in the Ecclesiastical Almanac.

Bishop Cosin expresses a wish for a rule. (Nicholls, App. 68.) As his suggestions in many cases influenced the Revisers of 1662, perhaps we may hence conclude that they did not think fit to prescribe in this matter.

Some persons are of opinion that it is not allowable to mix up the Scripture readings of Sundays and holy-days when they concur, according to the Bishop of London's suggestion. The practice, however, seems to be countenanced by one of the Rubrics before the service for May 29; the whole of which Rubric must be allowed to carry some weight, while in part it has the full authority of Church and State, having been in the office for the day as sanctioned in 1662. (See Append. Q, p. 185.)

Until the last review, the list of holy-days was headed by an order that "none other" should be kept; yet it did not contain either the Conversion of St. Paul, or St. Barnabas' Day, although the Prayer-Book had offices for both. Heylyn (Tracts, p. 17,) writes that the office "is observed in all Cathedrals and the Chapels Royal, where the service is read every day, and in most Parish Churches also, as often as either of them fall upon a Sunday." This passage shews that in his time it was usual to read the Saint's Day service in cases of concurrence; and it does not contradict what has been said above (p. 42,) as to the observation of holy-days in that age, since the very difference between these two and other feasts was, that St. Paul and St. Barnabas' days were not celebrated by summoning the people to church expressly in order to keep them. It may, however, throw a doubt on the generality of Wednesday and Friday service; but if it was the custom on these days of the week to read the Litany without Morning-prayer, the same rule might exclude the Communion-service in cases when the Feasts in question fell on a Litany-day.

(B.) THE ROGATION-DAYS.

BISHOP Sparrow (Rationale, p. 148) says that "the service . . . was Ps. 103 and 104, with the Litany and Suffrages, and the Homily of Thanksgiving. The two Psalms were to be said at convenient places in the common perambulation; the people thus giving thanks to God in the beholding of God's benefits, the increase and abundances of his fruits upon the earth. At their return to the Church they were to say the rest of the service."

According to Wheatley, "the three first parts" of the Homily are "to be used upon Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday; and the fourth, upon the day when the parish make their procession." It seems to be intended that the first parts should be read with the Morning-prayers; possibly the Communion-service of the preceding Sunday may be repeated, and the Homily introduced into it; and after this, on one of the three days, the perambulation should take place, and the service mentioned by Bishop Sparrow should be gone through.

For notices of the perambulation, see Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions (Cardw. D. A. i. 187); the Interpretations by the Bishops, (ib. 204); the Advertisements of 1564 (ib. 293); Archbishop Grindal, ib. 337; Bishop Wren, ib. ii. 202; Walton's Life of Hooker (Eccl. Biog. iii. 202); and Bishop Montagu's Articles.

(C.) THE HOURS OF SERVICE.

IT is ordered by the xivth Canon, that "the Common-Prayer shall be said or sung at convenient and usual times."

Bishop Cosin(Nicholls, Append, p. 69,) complains that because there is no order as to time, the services in most places begin when the morning is past, and the evening not yet come. He wishes (p. 67) that something may be prescribed. As this wish was doubtless known to his colleagues in the revision of 1662, we may conclude that they held it inexpedient to comply with it.

Walton says of Herbert, (Eccl. Biog. iv. 38,) "For the time of his appearing [in Church] it was strictly at the canonical hours of ten and four." It does not appear what Canon is here referred to.

Donne gives us to understand that in his time the sermon on Sundays was over at 11. (Works, ed. Alford. iii. 383.)

Archbishop Laud writes (Autobiog. Oct. 18, 1639.) "The Morning-service is everywhere to end by 12, at the farthest; so the vespers never begin before 3, and end by 5. And this, I take it, is universal. And the reason of it, as I conceive, is, that the prayers of the Church, howsoever different in place, might be jointly put up in all places to God at the same time."

According to Bishop Sparrow (Rationale, 195,) the usual hour for the Communion-Service "was anciently, and so should be, nine of the clock, morning; this is the Canonical hour."

Bishop Beveridge (Tracts for the Times, xxv. p. 3,) says that there is no other limitation than that matins should be before, and vespers after, noon.

It is stated as a reason for limiting the hours of marriage, that the Communion, which was intended to follow, ought to be administered before noon. This rule is generally transgressed in the practice of our day; as is also, in various ways, the principle stated by Archbishop Laud.

The changes made in the distribution of the services at the Reformation may be considered to have destroyed the force of any earlier Canons relating to this subject.

(D.) THE DOXOLOGY.

IT is to be observed that in the Doxology appointed to be used after psalms and hymns, the second part is styled Answer; by which word, wherever else it is used in our present Liturgy, and also in the older books, (where it occurred much oftener), is meant that the words shall be said by the people.

The Scotch Liturgy is express—"At the end of every psalm .... shall be repeated, 'Glory be, &c.' and the people shall answer,—'As it was in the beginning, &c.'"

It would seem, therefore, that in propriety the minister ought always to say the first part of the Doxology. The adoption of this as a general rule would reconcile some differences of practice in beginning the psalms after the first for the day.

(E.) LAY READERS.

IN the Rubric by which the reading of the Lessons is directed, the words were formerly—"the minister that readeth." The substitution of "he that readeth" by the last revisers is an authority for allowing this office to be performed by laymen, as is usual in the Universities. Any parochial clergyman who may relieve himself by using the liberty thus given, will, of course, take care that his lay substitute be a person able to read distinctly and with intelligence.

Burnet (Own Time, ii. 636,) and Wheatley complain of a practice of allowing the Litany to be read in Cathedrals by laymen. I do not know whether this unseemly custom be any where kept up at this day; but, although unseemly, it is not forbidden by the Prayer-Book. There is no limitation in the Rubric, and Bishop Sparrow,—himself one of the Commissioners who revised the Liturgy in 1662,—writes (Rationale, 78): "In the former part of the Litany, the priest hath not a part so proper but that it may be said by a deacon or other, and it useth to be sung by such in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches or Chapels."

Bishop Sparrow would interpret strictly the Rubric which restrains to priests the saying of the latter part of the Litany; but it is evident that in the early years of the Reformation, when deacons were the only resident clergymen in many parishes, the observation of this rule must have been dispensed with.

(F.) MUSIC AFTER THE LESSONS.

THE use of what is called a voluntary after the Lessons, in the times next to the Reformation, is established by the following passage of Bacon ("Pacification of the Church," Works ii. 540, ed. 1819). "After the reading of the Word, it was thought fit there should be some pause for holy meditation, before they proceeded to the rest of the service; which pause was thought fit to be filled rather with some grave sound than with a still silence; which was the reason of the playing upon the organs after the Scriptures read." It is much to be wished that the grave character here mentioned were duly preserved in some such performances.

(G.) THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

Dr. Hook tells us in his "Church-Dictionary," that "this Creed, when it is not sung by a choir, is to be said throughout by the people after the minister, who is to repeat the whole of it, in the same manner as the other Creeds."

The more usual practice, however, is sanctioned by our most eminent living Ritualist:—"The Athanasian Creed," writes Mr. Palmer (Origines, i. 234,) "was sung like the psalms in the English offices, and it was even designated by the title of The Psalm Quicunque. These circumstances account for the custom of repeating and singing the Creed in the same manner as the Psalms, which still prevails in the Christian Churches of England."

(H.) THE PLACE WHERE THE LITANY
SHALL BE SAID.

THE Litany was set forth in English before the other offices, in the first year of Edward VI. when it was enjoined that in Parish-Churches, "The priests, with other of the quire, shall kneel in the midst of the Church, and sing or say" this office, "and in Cathedral or Collegiate Churches the same shall be done in such places as our commissaries in our visitation shall appoint." (Cardw. Doc. Ann. i. 15.) Cranmer inquires accordingly in the same year, "whether they .... have said or sung the Litany in any place but upon their knees, in the midst of the Church." (Ib. 46).

In 1559, Queen Elizabeth renewed the Injunction, (ib. 187,) with an especial intention to abolish the practice against which it had been directed, viz. the saying of such forms in procession about the Church and Churchyard.

Hooker (v. 30, 4,) and the passages quoted from liis adversaries in Mr. Keble's edition, witness to the observance of this rule thirty years later.

In 1641, however, we find it charged on the Bishops as a novelty, that they introduced "reading the Litany in the midst of the body of the Church in many of the parochial churches .... pretending for their innovations the injunctions and advertisements of Queen Elizabeth, which are not in force, but by way of commentary and imposition." Cardw. Conf. 273.

Wheatley speaks of the Injunctions as still in force; but his language shews that in the practice of his time they were disregarded. Those of Edward VI. seem to have the authority of law, by virtue of the Act 31 Henry VIII. which gave that authority prospectively to royal proclamations, as has been already said, (p. 55).

The Committee of 1641 objects to the practice as novel in parochial Churches only; we may therefore suppose that in Cathedrals it had always been kept up. It is so in some Cathedrals at this day—only one priest, however, or perhaps two, going into the middle of the choir.

(I.) ON SOME POINTS IN THE COMMUNION-
OFFICE.

(a.) The Lord's Prayer.

IN the Rubric before the Lord's Prayer where it first occurs in the Prayer-Book, it is ordered that the people shall repeat it with the priest, "wheresoever it is used in Divine Service."

Many persons suppose that in the opening of the Communion-Office the people are not to accompany with their lips; but it is difficult to see how the expression "Divine Service" can be so interpreted that this office shall not fall under the meaning of it. We find, that before the last review, the Lord's Prayer was, in the course of the Church's services, said in four different ways;—(1.) by the priest and the people together, as after the Apostles' creed; (2.) partly by the priest, partly by the people, as in the Litany and elsewhere; (3.) by the priest alone, at the beginning of the Communion—which I conclude to have been the case, because the prayer was only ordered, and not printed, in that place; (4.) in the post-communion, by the people after the priest, as the confession in the daily-services is now said. The general Rubric, quoted above, was inserted in 1G62, with a view, seemingly, of establishing one uniform manner throughout the services. It may have been thought needless to alter the two Rubrics in the Communion-office, as they may both be interpreted without absolute contradiction to the general rule. There is a slight error as to this subject in Mr. Keble's notes on Hooker, (v. 36, 1,) where error is rare indeed. As to an argument which I have heard, that "up to a certain point the Communion is a sacrificial service, and therefore, the prayer ought to be said by the priest's lips only," I shall only express a hope that one may believe the Eucharistic Sacrifice rightly, without being able to understand this. The printing of the Amen in upright letters is in favour of the people's joining, as, when so printed, it is to be uttered only by the same lips with the words before it.

(b.) The Placing the Elements.

It is ordered that the Priest shall place the bread and wine on the Altar; and that between the reading of the Offertory-sentences and the prayer "for the whole state of Christ's Church." There is a restriction both as to the person and as to the time, for reasons which need not be here explained.

There was a Rubric to the same effect in the Book of 1549. It was omitted in 1552, from which time until 1662, it is to be supposed that the clergy, according to their doctrinal views and sympathies, either placed the elements themselves, or allowed them to be placed by others. "Offering of bread and wine by the hand of Churchwardens or others before the consecration," is noted as an innovation in 1641. Cardw. Conf. 272.

The Rubric was again made imperative at the last review.

(c.) The time for Approaching the Lord's Table.

There was formerly a considerable difference of opinion and practice as to the place where the Communicants should receive. Puritans wished to remain in their seats, and loudly complained of some Bishops, who required them to go into the Chancel.

The VIIth Canon of 1640 appointed that Communicants should approach the Holy Table at the words "Draw near." The practice had before been otherwise, as we learn from the observation of Andrewes, (in Lestrange, 213.) — "Forte non opus est his verbis, quia jam accesserunt."

At the last review, the matter was made clear by the insertion of a direction that the Communicants should be "conveniently placed, for receiving," before the Exhortation, and by the addition of "with faith," after the words "Draw near," which thus lost the signification of a bodily approach.

It appears that non-communicants were not excluded from the Church during the celebration. See the Homilies, Oxf. 1832, p. 404; Edward the Sixth's Liturgies, p. 285.

(d.) The Tersanctus.

It is very commonly a practice that the people begin to join in the Tersanctus at the words "Therefore with Angels."

There is no distinct order for joining at all; and Mr. Palmer (Origines Liturgicse, ii. 127,) shews from the usage of all Churches, that the Hymn itself, "Holy, Holy, Holy," &c. is the only part which ought to be said by the people.

(e.) The Priest at Consecration and in
Communicating.

It appears plain that the priest is not to stand "before the Table," except while ordering the Bread and Wine for consecration. Bishop Wren, when charged with turning his back to the people in the prayer of consecration, replied, that he did so only because "being low of stature, he could not reach over his book if he stood at the North side." Laud was for standing in front of the Altar, but only for the sake of convenience in using the hands. He speaks with great contempt of mystical reasons for such a position. (Troubles, 116.) It is to be observed that the direction for standing "before the Table" was not in the Book of that time.

The order for taking the paten and chalice into the hands at consecration was left out of Edward's second Book, at Bucer's instance. The practice, however, was traditionally observed, (Cosin, in Nicholls, App. 53,) until in 1662 the Rubric was restored.

Until the last review, there was no clear direction as to the position of the priest while communicating. Bishop Overall is for standing. (Nicholls, App. 45.) A Puritanical objection against the enforcement of kneeling on the laity was, that "the Minister stands, and why not the rest?" (Cosin, ibid. 49.) Bishop Cosin wished that an order for kneeling should be inserted, and words should be prescribed, "lest the contentious should think both needless." (Ibid. 69.) There is, too, in the Bodleian, a Prayer-Book with MS. Notes by Sancroft, who at the time of the review was Chaplain to Cosin, in which it is proposed that the priest when communicating shall say the same words for himself which he addresses to others, mutatis mutandis. (Crosthwaite, Communio Fidelium, 111.) No rule was made, however. Mr. Crosthwaite (25—28,) quotes various service-books in which words are set down for the priest to say when he receives, without any form to be addressed to the people. Altogether, it seems plain that the same words ought to be used in both cases, with the necessary change of person; and this is expressly ordered in the Scotch Liturgy.

(f.) Clerical Communion.

Until the last review it was ordered that the clergy present should receive before the laity, "that they may help the chief minister." As this reason has been removed from the Rubric, it would seem that clergymen ought now to receive first, although it be not intended that they shall assist in the distribution.

(g.) The Response AMEN at Communicating.

Bishop Andrewes (in Nicholls, App. 49,) directs "To the prayer The Blood, &. the Communicant to say Amen, and then, and not before, to take the Sacrament."

For the antiquity of this practice see Bingham, xv. 5, 8. Bishop Montagu inquires if it be observed. Bishop Cosin suggests that it be ordered in the Rubric (Nicholls, 61); and Sancroft has a note to the same purpose. (Crosthwaite, 111.) Although without such express sanction it is traditionally followed by many persons.

(h.) Singing, or Reading during Communion.

It appears from Lestrange (220) that in his time it was usual to sing Psalms while the people were communicating; for which, although it is not prescribed in our Book, he adduces ancient precedents.

The Puritanical Bishop Scambler, (1571,) would have "a minister in the pulpit, reading comfortable scriptures of the Passion or other like, pertaining to the matter in hand."

I do not know whether either of these practices be now followed anywhere; but should suppose that the people's thoughts may be sufficiently employed without such exercises.

(K.) BAPTISM.

Some of the reasons why Baptism should be administered in public are well set forth in the first Rubric before the office for infants. Our people may also be taught, that, in offering up prayers for those who are baptized, as in all intercessions and other offices of love, they do a good to their own souls. It is proper, generally, that the office should be introduced into the public service, after the second lesson, as the Rubric appoints. In populous town-parishes, the Ordinary is the best judge of this matter; but in answer to a common objection it may be observed, that unless the questions be put separately for each child,¹ the difference of time occupied will be trifling, unless the number of receivers be immoderately great.

Bishop Wren orders (Doc. Ann. II. 204,) that there be not more than three sponsors.

The XXIXth Canon requires that the sponsors shall be communicants. Sharp thinks that this must be insisted on. Archdeacon R. I. Wilberforce considers it advisable in present circumstances to begin the restoration of the discipline by requiring one communicant. (Charge, 1841.)²

The same Canon forbids the admission of fathers to answer for their own children. We are justified in making a like restriction as to mothers—at least, in endeavouring to dissuade them from offering themselves; the reason why they are not expressly excluded being manifestly, that the Baptism is supposed to take place while the mother is yet unable to leave her house.

The Rubric directs that the font be "filled with pure water." Bishop Wren enjoins "that no dishes, pails, or basons be used in it or instead of it." (Doc. Ann. ii. 204). It is, according to Canon LXXXI, to be made of stone, and "set in the ancient usual place." i. e. near the Church-door.³

The first Rubric before the office for Private Baptism is probably little observed. It certainly cannot plead Catholic sanction, as in ancient times Baptism was ordinarily administered only at a particular season in the year. Distance from the Church, coldness or wetness of weather, and many family circumstances (besides the natural desire of the mother to witness the admission of her child "into the congregation of Christ's flock,") may surely be "approved by the curate" without express application, as reasons for dispensing with the very early administration of Baptism here prescribed.

Baptism is not to be administered in private houses, unless in cases of necessity; and then only according to the form provided for such occasions. The Sarum ritual allows Chamber-Baptism in the case of royal infants. (See Fallow on the Order of Baptism).

Attempts are often made to combine the service for Public Baptism with that for receiving into the congregation infants which have been privately baptized. No combination can be made, however, without destroying the significant differences of the two offices, in which the Church's view of the sacrament is remarkably shown. Nor, again, is it desirable that each should be gone through at full length in the same service. Perhaps, therefore, the best way of managing the matter may be by arranging that children in the two states shall be brought at different times; which may easily be done if previous notice be required, as the Rubric directs.

Sharp notes (p. 30,) that in the form for hypothetical Baptism dipping only is mentioned; the child in the cases for which that form is appointed, being supposed strong enough to bear immersion.

It is to be observed, that throughout the office for Baptism of Adults, the officiating person is styled Priest; and that Deacons at their ordination receive authority only to baptize Infants, and that "in the absence of the Priest." These limitations, as well as the office for Adults, were added at the last review.

(L.) MATRIMONY.

SOME observations have been made above (p. 155,) on the subject of omissions in this office.

In answer to a question which is sometimes put, and which, when it becomes practical, may call for a very speedy determination, I can state on the highest authority, that "a clergyman is not at liberty to marry a couple during the same service in which the Banns are asked for the third time."

The LXIInd Canon orders that marriage shall be "in time of Divine Service,"—a rule which is now probably little regarded. Sharp, in bis 12th Charge, traces the neglect of this Canon to the example of Bishops in uniting parties of rank or importance, and the granting of licenses. If, it was argued, persons in higher life may be dispensed with, why not others likewise? And hence followed general disregard.

Bishop Cosin (Nicholls, App. 70,) observes that "it is not ordered at what time of the service this form of marriage shall be celebrated." Bishop Wren may perhaps be taken to express the most correct usage in ordering that after morning-prayer "the marriage be begun in the body of the Church, and finished at the Table." Doc. Ann. ii. 203.

This brings us to the consideration of place. The Rubric is in accordance with Bishop Wren s direction, the removal from the body of the Church being in the time of saying the psalm, which is to be "going⁴ to the Lord's Table." This order appears to have been observed in Hooker's time, (v. 30, 5, and the Notes.)

1638. Bishop Montagu asks, "Are there any married without a ring, joining of hands, or the fees laid down on the book?" As he does not put any question about the place of matrimony, we may conclude, either that the Rubric now under consideration was never transgressed in his day, or (which is perhaps more likely,) that he did not consider the breach of it important.

The Presbyterians after the Restoration desire that the change of place be omitted. The Bishops reply, "They go to the Lord's Table because the Communion is to follow." (Cardw. Conf. 330-360.) It would hence seem that according to the prevailing practice, —whereby the whole Service is used in one part of the Church, and the Communion is omitted,—the Nave is the more suitable of the two places. But of course no one would make such an alteration as would at once be a novelty and a breach of the literal Rubric.

There is reason to believe that the Rubrics as to place have always been observed in some Churches.

(M.) PRAYERS FOR THE SICK.

BISHOP WREN directs (Doc. Ann. ii. 203) "that when any need is, the sick by name be prayed for in the reading-desk, and nowhere else, at the close of the first Service, and in the afternoon immediately after the Creed; using only those two Collects which we [qu. be?] set down in the Service- Book for the Visitation of the Sick." In his answer when impeached, he says that this was the custom of Westminster Abbey, "and also it seemetli to be intended by James,⁵ Bishop of Winton, by his Articles, 1617. . . . . But howsoever, (as he humbly conceiveth,) it was by law left to be ordered by the discretion of the ordinary." (Parentalia, 91.)

Wren's object was to check the extravagances of the popular preachers, who used to introduce the sick (with very many other subjects) into their pulpit prayers. (See Heylyn's Tracts, p. 156.) From the mention of Westminster, we may probably conclude that Andrewes, who had been Dean of the Abbey Church, sanctioned the practice for which his former Chaplain was called in question.

Agreeably to this, it is related incidentally of Hammond, that "a neighbour lady languishing under a long weakness, he took care that the Church office for the Sick should be daily said in her behalf." This was in his own chamber, a.d. 1660, when the use of the Liturgy was not yet restored in Churches. (Eccl. Biog. iv. 384.)

The XXIIIrd of the present Scotch Canons allows the public use of Collects from the Offices for the Sick.

(N.) COMMUNION OF THE SICK.

IT was ordered in the Book of 1549, that this office should be used "before noon." This order does not appear in later Books.

It seems to be held both by the Presbyterians and by the Church-Divines of 1661, that, according to the Rubric, the minister may not refuse the Communion to a sick person. The latter say, in answer to objections, "It is not fit the minister should have the power to deny this viation, or Holy Communion, to any that humbly desire it according to the Rubric; which no man disturbed in his wits can do, and whosoever does, must in charity be presumed to be penitent, and fit to receive." (Cardw. Conf. 332-361.)

(O.) CHURCHING OF WOMEN.

IF the woman who desires to be Churched be unmarried, the Bishops of 1661 declare that "she is to do her penance before she is Churched." (Cardw. Conf. 334-362.) To the same effect, see Grindal, (Doc. Ann. i. 335,) who says, "except she before childbed had done her penance, or at her Churching did acknowledge her fault before the congregation." Also Whitgift (Ib. ii. 6) and Cosin (in Nicholls, 66.) These Divines require that the Churching and the penance in such cases be on Sunday, and in full Church. I do not know whether the law will bear us out in requiring penance, nor how it is to be performed.

The words "decently apparelled" are interpreted to mean "with a white covering or veil." Puritans complain of this usage as still prevailing in Elizabeth's time. (Burnet, H. R. iii. 335.) A prohibition was refused in the following reign to a woman who appealed against an order of the Chancellor of Norwich that she should be veiled. (Gibson, Codex, 451.) We have not, however, a legal right to enforce the veil. (Hook, Ch. Diet. Art. Canon.)

The most proper place for this service is the Altar, "where," say the Bishops in 1661, "she may be perspicuous to the whole congregation, and near the holy Table, in regard of the offering she is there to make." (Cardw. Conf. 362.) To say the Service in the desk, the woman remaining in her seat, was noted in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as Puritanical. (See Strype, Whitg. 141; Collier, ii. 624; and Montagu's Articles.) It is to be observed, however, that the Rubric of those days prescribed "some convenient place, nigh unto the place where the Table standeth," and that the priest should stand by her; whereas the present Rubric leaves the matter to custom and the ordinary's direction.

Bishop Wren orders (Doc. Ann. i. 203) "that the Churching begin as soon as the minister comes up to the Communion-Table, before the second Service, unless there be a marriage that same day," in which case the Churching was to be immediately before the Communion-Service; and Bishop Sparrow tells us that other Visitation-Articles agree in this (p. 291.) The office used formerly to be restricted to the Morning-Service. In Sharp's time it was commonly used on week-days before the General Thanksgiving; on Sundays, after the Nicene Creed, (p. 72.)

A writer in the "Christian Remembrancer" lately complained that the Offering to God at Churching has been corrupted into a fee to the Priest. If he only meant that the money ought to be offered at the altar, he is right; but it is a mistake to suppose that it is misappropriated in being given to the Priest.

The Book of 1549 ordered that the woman "must offer her Chrism, and other accustomed offerings."

The Chrism was the white vesture which had been put on the child at Baptism. When the use of this was left off in 1552, it was no longer mentioned in the Rubric; but in 1559, we find among the Bishops' Interpretations of the Royal Injunctions, the following direction:—"To avoid contention, let the curate have the value of the Chrism, not under the value of 4d. and above, as they may agree, and as the state of the parents may require." (Doc. Ann. i. 206.) This seems to be a rule for the amount of the offering at Churching.

Hooker (v. 74. 4) and Lestrange (316) are evidences that the offering belongs to the minister.

Bishop Montagu inquires "If there be a Communion, doth she then offer her accustomed offerings, and receive the Holy Communion?"

There can, of course, be no objection to the making thank-offerings on such occasions, in addition to the customary sum which belongs to the priest.

(P.) ORDINATION AND EMBER-WEEKS.

THE Church has appointed four times in the year for Ordinations, and has directed that prayer and fasting be used at these times, in behalf of the Ordaining Bishops, and of the candidates for holy orders.

The XXXIst Canon forbids ordination save at these seasons. The Preface to the Ordinal admits nothing short of "urgent occasion" as a reason for Ordaining "upon some other Sunday or holy-day." And this, Bishop Gibson tells us, (Codex, Tit. 6. c. 2,) "may not be done at the discretion of the Bishop, but must have the Archbishop's dispensation and license, as the practice hath been." Archbishop Sancroft and his suffragans agreed, in 1685, "that they will ordain no man but upon the Lord's Day, immediately following the jejunia quatuor temporum, except he have a faculty to be ordained extra tempora; and such a faculty the Archbishop declares he will not grant but upon very urgent cause." (D. A. ii. 305.)

For the importance of the observance, I shall refer to some revered Divines of former days.

Hooker "never failed on Sunday before every Ember Week to give notice of it to his parishioners; persuading them both to fast, and to double their devotions for a learned and pious clergy; and to what he persuaded others, he added his own example of fasting and prayer; and did usually every Ember Week take from the parish clerk the key of the Church door, into which place he retired every day, and locked himself up for many hours." (Walton, in Eccl. Biog. iii. 518.)

Herbert (ib. iv. 39), "took occasion to say one cure for [the] distempers [of the time in which he lived] would be, for the clergy themselves to keep the Ember-weeks strictly, and beg of their parishioners to join with them in fasting and prayers for a more religious clergy."

Hammond, ("Paranesis," c. ii. s. 24,) in reckoning up the sins by which it appeared to him that the judgments then afflicting this Church and nation had been drawn down, mentions the neglect of the Ember-weeks; for which, it is to be remarked, although the observance of them was prescribed, no prayer was at that time provided in our book.

Bishop Wilson writes, (Sac. Priv. "Friday,") "All persons being concerned in the choice of pastors, every body ought to pray for good pastors." Bishop Beveridge's third Sermon on the Church may also be referred to.

The Ember-week Prayers were added at the last review. The Rubric before them is made clearer by a reference to the Scotch Liturgy, in which they first appeared, with an order that they should be "read every day of the week, beginning on the Sunday before the day of Ordination.'

The notices of ordinations which appear in our newspapers and magazines will not allow us to doubt that some of the Bishops of this day prefer irregular times to those appointed by the Prayer-Book for conferring holy orders. Surely there is much authority against such a practice; nor can we suppose that these Right-Reverend persons do not cause something to be lost, by depriving themselves and their clergy of those intercessions which the Church desires her children to offer up, with fasting, in their behalf, at the stated seasons of ordination.

(Q.) THE "STATE SERVICES." (See p. 162.)

OFFICES for the Fifth of November, the Thirtieth of January, and the Twenty-ninth of May, were approved both by the Convocation and by the Parliament in 1662.⁶

We are told by Bishop Burnet, (Own Time, i. 184, fol.) that the present services for Jan. 30, and May 29, were drawn up by Sancroft at that time, and offered to the revisers of the Liturgy, but were not received by them. During Sancroft's primacy, in the reign of James the Second, they were put forth by royal authority, and substituted for those which had been sanctioned in 1662.

The service for November 5 was altered in 1689, so as to include a thanksgiving for the landing of the Prince of Orange, when prayers of very inferior composition were inserted. Mr. Perceval informs us that the Act of George the Second for altering the style is the only Act of Parliament in which the services are recognized; and this, by describing them as they were described in 1662, appears to withhold its sanction from the later alterations.

It appears to me, that, for the sake of obedience to the nearest authority, we may rightly use the services as we find them; provided always that there be not in them anything which we consider wrong. Most clergymen perhaps would consider Archbishop Sancroft's offices for King Charles the Martyr and the Restoration better in themselves than those which have a fuller authority.

A Rubric before the service for January 30, orders that

"If this day shall happen to be Sunday, this form of prayer shall be used and the fast kept the next day following."

This Rubric some persons, among whom are the compilers of the "Ecclesiastical Almanac" for 1842, (a very foolish and affected publication) interpret as meaning that in such cases the fasting is to be disjoined from the penitential form of prayer. That no such strange proceeding was intended, is plain from the original Rubric (in Mr. Perceval's work) by which it is directed that "this form of service shall be used the day following."

Bishop Andrewes says in 1606, that the Anniversary of the King's Accession "hath a select service, both of psalms and chapters." (v. 169.)

The Convocation of 1640, by its II nd Canon, ordered the celebration of the Accession, and a form drawn up in 1626 was then approved. The Canon was so worded as to apply only to Charles the First in particular; and "this festival was disused in the reign of King Charles the Second, upon occasion of the murder of his royal father, which changed the day into a day of sorrow and fasting." (Gibson, Codex, p. 279.) With the exception of the short time when this Canon was in force, the observation of the accession has always rested on royal authority only. The order was issued separately, until George the Third included this day in the same proclamation which commanded the other three to be kept.

¹ Archdeacon Sharp (p. 23) considers this necessary. It is not generally observed now-a-days.

² See "Sponsors for the Poor," by the Rev. M. Hawtrey, who proposes that the Communicants should form themselves into an association for undertaking the much neglected duties of Sponsorship.

³ Nicholas Ferrar's font was of brass, and set near the pulpit; "the laver of the bigness of a barber's bason." (Eccl. Biog. iv. 249.) This was agreeable to the taste of the Puritans. (See Strype, Parker, 451.)

⁴ In eundo. See Mr. Palmer's extracts from the Sarum and York services in loco.

⁵ Montagu. The Bishop Montagu more frequently mentioned in these pages was named Richard.

⁶ See Cardwell, Conferences, 383—4; and a work on these services by the Hon. and Rev. A. P. Perceval.

THE FOLLOWING CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE MAY BE FOUND USEFUL.

C. WHITTINGHAM, TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE.

CORRIGENDA.

Page 37, line 24, Add reference Doc. Ann. ii. 37.

43, line 29, For "seems," read "seem."

44, note 11, ought to stand as follows: "His Lordship refers to Lestrange as the authority for this statement. The Reader will find below some passages from episcopal Orders and Injunctions issued before 1603; which, as respects this question, are to be classed with Visitation-Articles."

53, line 5, For "under," read "beneath."

59, line 10, Add ref. Heylin, Hist. Ref. 296.

line 25,—Fuller, Ch. Hist. b. x. p. 70.

79, line 5, For "1560," read "1566."

85, line 12, Add ref. Strype, Ann. I. 164.

89, line 13, After "otherwise," add "than had been usual."

90, line 32, For "Dursley," read "Deerhurst."

122, lines 18—22. This paragraph ought to follow line 29 in p. 117.

126, line 20, For "not," read "nor."