BX 5148 .G66 1851 
 Goode, William, 1801-1868 
 Aids for determining some 
 disputed points in the 
 
Digitized by the Internet Arcliive 
 in 2015 
 
 littps://arcli ive.org/details/aidsfordeterminiOOgood 
 
AIDS 
 
 FOR DETERMINING 
 
 SOME DISPUTED POINTS 
 IN 
 
 Clje Ceremontal 
 
 OF 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 HY 
 
 WILLIAM GOODE, MA., P.SA., 
 
 BBCTOB or ALLHAI.LOWS TUB "B«*T 
 
 ^t(oiit) icliitton. 
 LONDON : 
 
 THOMAS HATCHARD, 187 PICCADILLY. 
 1851. 
 
LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED BY C. F. HODGSON, 1, GOUGH SQUARE, FLEET STREET. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 Introduction i 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 The Principle on which the Legality of Church Ornaments, Vestures, 
 
 Ceremonies, and Gestures is to be determined 3 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 The Meaning of the Rubric on Ornaments at the Commencement of the 
 
 Prayer Book 1 1 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 General Power of the Bishop in regulating the Mode of conducting the 
 
 Service 15 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 Place and Position of the Minister. 
 
 (1 .) Place where the Common Prayers and Lessons are to be read .... 16 
 
 (2.) Place where the Litany is to be said or sung 17 
 
 (3.) Place where the former part of the Communion Service is to be 
 
 read, when there is no Communion 17 
 
 (4.) The Position of the Minister at the Prayer of Consecration in the 
 
 Holy Communion 18 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 On the manner in which that part of the Service that is directed to be 
 
 " read," or " said," is to be uttered 20 
 
iv 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 Gestures and Postures, such as Crossing, &c 24 
 
 SECTION VII. 
 
 Vestures 
 
 (1 ) Vestures for Reading Prayers, or Ministering the Sacraments. ... 29 
 (2.) The Dress for Preaching 39 
 
 SECTION VIII. 
 
 Images — that is, Statues or Pictures of Saints, Crucifixes, and Crosses — in 
 
 Churches 49 
 
 SECTION IX. 
 
 Lights on the Communion Tahle 76 
 
 SECTION X. 
 
 Furniture of the Communion Table 82 
 
 SECTION XI. 
 
 On mixing Water with the Wine used at the Holy Communion 87 
 
 SECTION XII. 
 
 On the Mode of delivering the Bread and Wine to the Communicants 69 
 
 SECTION XIII. 
 
 On the Sermon being preceded and followed by a Pr.iyer 91 
 
AIDS FOR DETERMINING, 
 
 ETC., ETC. 
 
 INTllODUCTION. 
 
 The present cirriunst;inccs of the Church of England h;n e 
 induced me to eNiiaiid some notes, made seveial years ago, 
 upon certain mattei-s of Ceremonial order in our Church, 
 and place the result before the Public. I have limited myself 
 to those points which, from the efforts made in some 
 quarters to re-intro(luc(^ among ns pi'actices more suitable 
 to the doctrines and worship of the Church of Rome than 
 to those of our own Church, have lately become subjects of 
 public interest. And my object has been, to state fairly and 
 imi)artially the evidericc we possess for the determination of 
 the questions here discussed ; as it should ever be recollected 
 in the eonsideratiou of such matters, (in wliieli there are ten- 
 dencies to l)oth extremes among us,) that they are questions 
 of fact, to l)e determined without any regard to theological 
 prepossessions. 
 
 I have not noticed the subject of " Altars," having published 
 long ago on that point,* and the question having been since 
 (letei-niincd by an elaborate Judgment of the Court of Arches. 
 It is now a settled point, that our Church allows ordy of Com- 
 munion Tables, and prohibits both x\ltars and Credence Tables, 
 ;md has carefully expunged even the word " altar" from the 
 liook of Common Prayer. 
 
 I cannot conclude these prefatory reniaiks without express- 
 ing my regret (a feeling shared with me, I suppose, by many 
 
 * Altars proliihitcd by tho Church of Eiighuni. Two Parts. 8vo. 
 11 
 
2 
 
 others) at the unsatisfactory state in which many of these 
 points of ceremonial order remain in our Church. 
 
 So far, indeed, as concerns doubtful points of ceremonial 
 order, the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer clearly gives 
 a power to the Bishops and Archbishops to determine them upon 
 a])peal, as I shall show hereafter. But unfortunately such a de- 
 termiiiatinn is not & permoncnt settlement of the question even 
 in the particular case in which it is given ; and such Episcopal 
 detenninatious might introduce any thing but uniformity 
 among us. But our 80th Canon distinctly recognizes the 
 power of the Crown to explain such points, when it directs 
 Parishes to get the Prayer Book of James I. "lately ex- 
 plained in some few points by his Majesty's authority, accord- 
 ing to the laws and his Hiffhness's preroffafive in that behalf." 
 And this was said of " explanations" that added the most 
 important docti inal part of the Catechism. I am no advocate 
 for making the prerogative extend so far as that, especially in 
 a matter settled by Act of Parliament. But for explanations of 
 doubtfnl points of order, with the proper ecclesiastical advice, 
 the Church might, I think, be thankful. And I will add my 
 humble conviction, that it would have reason to be thankful, 
 if a similar power of dealing with the Rubric were given to 
 Her ]\Iajesty to that which was conferred upon Queen Eliza- 
 beth by the Act of Uniformity of 1559. No man, who knows 
 anything of the history of our Reformed Church, could object 
 to the exercise of such a power by the Crown, as opposed to 
 the principles of our Church. The authority of the Sovereign 
 in points of ceremonial order, was the constant argument of 
 the earlier Bishops against the Puritans. 
 
 But on this subject I shall not here enlarge. 
 
3 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 THE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH THE LEGALITY OF CHURCH OR- 
 NAMENTS, VESTURES, CEREilONIES, AND GESTURES, IS TO 
 BE DETERMINED. 
 
 By the Preface prefixed to all the Common Prayer Books is- 
 sued in this country by public authorityfrom the first ofEdw. VI. 
 inclusive, wc arc informed tliat some of the ci rcinonics that 
 had been previously in use in our Church wen- " (i/i(,lis/ied :" 
 and reasons are given "why soiuc of tlic accustomed cere- 
 monies ha piif. away, and some retained and kept still." No 
 enumeration is made of those so " ahulishrd " and "put away ;" 
 and, consequently, the only sure guide wc have as to those that 
 are retained, consists of the positive directions to be found in 
 the Rubrics and other authoritative documents of our Church, 
 as to the rites, ceremonies, and gestures to be used in the 
 public services of the Church. In fact, the Act of Uniformity, 
 authorizing the first Book of Edw. VI., expressly limits the 
 things retained to " those things which be retained in the 
 said Book ;" and extols the advantages which would " ensue 
 upon the one and uniform rite and order in such common 
 prayer, and rites, and external ceremonies." (§ 1.) 
 
 It is obvious, then, that under these circumstances, — that is, 
 the tacit " abolition " of various ceremonies in use here before 
 the Reformation, — the absence of an express prohibition of any 
 rite or ceremony is no justification for its use by a Clergyman of 
 our Church in conducting public worship. 
 
 Still further, any rite or ceremony not expressly appointed 
 by the Book of Common Prayer, is, by the Acts of Uniformity, 
 directly forbidden in the public services of the Church. 
 These Acts are 2 and 3 Edw. VI. c. 1, applying oiiginalhj to 
 the first Prayer Book of Edw. VI., which was confirmed and 
 made to apply to the second Prayer Book of Edw. VI. by 5 and 
 6 Edw. VI. e. 1. This Act having been repealed by Mai'y, was 
 revived by Queen Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity, 1 Eliz. c. 2. 
 1} 2 
 
4 
 
 The last Act of Uoifonnity is tliat of 13 and 14 Car, II. c. 4, 
 
 by which (§ 24) the provisions and penalties of the former Acts 
 of Uniformitij were revived with reference to the Book of 
 Common Prayer thereby established. Now the Act 2 and 3 
 Edw. VI. c. 1, expressly enacts, that all Ministers "be bounden 
 " to say and use the matins, even-song, celebration of the 
 " Lord's Supper, commonly called the IMass, and Administra- 
 " tion of each of the Sacraments, and all their common and open 
 " prayer, in such order and/om as is mentioned in the same 
 " book, and none other or otherwise" (§1). And so in Queen 
 Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity it is enacted, that if any "refuse 
 " to use the said Common Prayers, or to minister the Sacra- 
 " ments .... in such order or form as they be mentioned and 
 " set forth in the said book, or shall, wilfully or obstinately 
 " standing in the same, use any other rite, ceremony, order, 
 " form, or manner of celebrating of the Lord's Supper, openly 
 or privily, or matins, even-song, administration of the Sacra- 
 " ments, or other open prayers, than is mentioned and set forth 
 " in the said book," they are to be punished as there directed. 
 (§ 4). And it should be observed, that the punishment of one 
 convicted of this " by the verdict of twelve men, or by his own 
 confession, or by the notorious evidence of the fact," is the for- 
 feit of one year's income of the benefice to the Sovereign, and 
 six months' imprisonment; and for a second offence, after 
 such conviction, imprisonment for a year, and deprivation of 
 " all his spiritual promotions and this may be inflicted by 
 a temporal court. Justices of the Peace may carry out this Act. 
 
 The consequence is, thnt it is as much in the power of the 
 laity as of the Bishop to jircvcnt the introducrion of rites and 
 ceremonies in the public Services of (he Church, contrary to, 
 or not sanctioned by, the Prayer Book.* 
 
 And hence Queen Elizabeth, in her " Proclamation against 
 the despis. vs or breakers of the Orders prescribed in the Book 
 of Connnon Prayer," in 1573, orders "all Archbishops and 
 1 " Bisliops, and all Jitslic-s < f Assises, and ' Oyer and Terminer 
 " and (til Mat/nrs, h,'iiil iifricers of cities and towns corporate, 
 
 * Tt is pcihajis worth imiitioning here, that, as it respects psalms 
 or prnyers, there is a iiioviso in the first Act of Uniformity 7,) 
 authorizing the uddition of " anv |)s;ihiis or praver taken out of the 
 Bible." 
 
5 
 
 " and all other who have any authorilij, to put in execution 
 " the Act for the Uuiforuiity of Common Prayer," &c. 
 
 This " Proclamation" was sent to each Bishop, with a letter 
 from the Council stating, — " We, at her Majesty's command- 
 " ment straightly made unto us, are therefore to require you 
 " to take a uiorc viuilaiit eye to this Uniformity, and to the 
 " keeping of the orders allowed by the said Parliament, and 
 " by her Majesty's Injunctions, throughout yoi r diocese; and 
 " cither by yourself, wliich were most Ht, or by ) uur Arch- 
 " deacons, or other able and wise men, personally to visit, and 
 " see that in no one Church of your diocese there be any 
 " dilFormity or difference used for those prescribed orders 
 
 " The which except ye did wink at and dissemble, 
 
 " there needed not these new proelaiuations and straight 
 " callings upon." &c. (\yilk. Cone. iv. ,278, 279.) 
 
 And what is understood by this prohibition is clear i'rom 
 Royal and Episcopal Visitation Articles, dafinu fiom the jieriod 
 of the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. F,.r m l\ riain Articles 
 issued by iioyal Authority, just after the lirst Prayer Book of 
 Edw. VI. was put forth, we find the following as the second ; — 
 
 " Item for an Uniformitjr, that no Minister do counterfeit the 
 " Popish Mass, as to kiss the Lord's Table, washing his fiu- 
 " gers at every time in the communion ; blessing his eyes with 
 " the paten or sudary; or crossing his head with the paten ; 
 " shifting of the book from one place to another ; laying down 
 " and licking the chalice of the communion ; holding up his 
 " fingers, hands, or thumbs joined towards his temples ; 
 " breathing upon the bread or chalice; slicwing the sacrament 
 " openly before the distribution of the eouuuunion ; ringing or 
 " [of] sacryiug bells ; or setting any ligld upon tlu'LurcVs board 
 " at any time ; and finally, to use no other cekemonies 
 
 " THAN ARE APPOINTED IN THE KiNG's BoOK. OF Co.MMON 
 
 " Prayers, or kneeling otherwise than is in the said 
 " Book." (Wilkins. ConcU. iv . 32, from Burnet's Hist, of Rcf. 
 ii. App. 165; or Cardwell's Doe. Ann. i. (53, 64.) 
 
 And so in Bishop Ridley's Injunctions in his Visitation of 
 his Diocese of Loudon in 1550, after jjiohibiting in one of 
 them the ceremonies laentioned in the Article just (juoti d, he 
 adds, — "And finally, that the Minister, in time oj the holy com- 
 
6 
 
 " miinion, do use only f/ip ceremonies and gestures appointed 
 " hij the Book of Common Prayer, and none other, so that 
 " there do not appear in them any counterfeiting of the Popish 
 " Mass." (Burnet's Hist, of the Reform. II. ii. 292, or Card- 
 well's Doc. Ann. 1. 81, 82.) And in his Articles of Inquiry at 
 the same time, he asks, — "Whether any minister useth 
 wilfully and obstinately any other rite, ceremoiiy, order, 
 form, or manner of coninninion, matins, or even-song, minis- 
 tration of sacraments, or tipen prayers, than is set forth in the 
 Book of Common Prayer." (W ilk. Cone. iv. 61 ; Cardw. 
 Doc. Ann. i. 80.) 
 
 Again, in Queen Elizabeth's time, Archbishop Parker, in 
 his Articles for the Diocese of Canterbury in 1569, inquii'es, 
 " Whether they [i.e. your priests, curates, or ministers] do 
 use all rites and orders prescribed in the Book of Common 
 Prayer, and none other." Art. 3. (VVilk. Cone. iv. 258; Cardw. 
 Doc. Ann. i. 321.) 
 
 So also Archbishop Grindal, in his Injunctions issued 
 \n his Metropolitical Visitation of the Province of York 
 in 1571, orders, — "Ye shall not deliver the communion- 
 " bread unto the ])eople into their mouths, but into 
 " their hands ; nor shall use at the ministration of the 
 " Communion any gestures, rites, or ceremonies, not ap- 
 " pointed by the Book of Common Prayer, as crossing 
 " or breathing over the sacramental bread and wine, uor any 
 " shewing or lifting up of the same to the people, to be by 
 " them \vor;sliii)]ud and adored, nor any such like," &e. 
 (Works, ]). 124.) And in his Metropolitical Visitation of 
 the Province of Canterbury in 1576, the Seventh Article of 
 Inquiry asks, whether the clergy " use at the ministration of 
 tlu! Connnuiiion any gestures," &:c., in exactly the same 
 terms. {Ih. ]). 159.) 
 
 And Aiclibishoj) ^Vlutgift, in his Metro})olitical A'isitation 
 of Chichester ni 1585, inquires, — "Whether your minister 
 " have used any other form or manner of Public Prayers, [and] 
 " administration of Sacraments, or any other rites, ceremonies, 
 " or orders, than are prescribed by the Book uf Common Prayer ; 
 " or hath he altered them, or any of them, how, and in what 
 " manner V (Wilk. Cone. iv. 318 ; Cardw. Doc. Ann. ii. 4.) 
 
7 
 
 And it is expressly enjoined also by the 14tli Canon of 1604, 
 that " all ministers shall observe the orders, rites, and cere- 
 " monies prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, as well 
 "in reading the Holy Seripturcs, and saying of Prayers, as in 
 " administration of the Sacraments, without cither diminishing 
 " in regard of preaching, or in any other respect, or uddiiuj 
 " anijthing in the matter or f una thereof." 
 
 AVith these authorities before us, we may judge of the rea- 
 sonableness of a notion lately put forth among us, that where 
 no direct prohibition occurs in the rubric or elsewhere, there 
 the minister may inti'oduce any of the ancient usages of the 
 Church. I will only say that it is a notion likely to cost a 
 clergyman who acts upon it dear, if any one chooses to put the 
 Act of Uniforiiiity in turce against him. And with this remark 
 I dismiss the consideration of it. 
 
 The language of the Acts of Uniformity, and of the Canon, 
 clearly shews, that the minister, when engaged in the public 
 services of the Church, is prohibited from adding any cereuio- 
 uial observances to those prescribed by the Book of Common 
 Prayer. One great object in view in putting forth the Book 
 of Common Prayer was unifurmity, not merely in the matter 
 of the Services used, but in the inuile MxA funn and ceremonial 
 of public worship; and this would be destroyed, if the minister 
 had the liberty to introduce unauthorized additions of bow ings 
 and crossings, &c., which have a tendency to gi\ e a dillVrent 
 character to the Service. Nor can they be defended on the 
 ground of their being things of little moment, because they 
 confessedly belong to duit class of usages of which many were 
 "abolished" and "put away" at the luformatiou, as tending 
 to encourage superstition. And the jM rtinaeity with winch 
 such usages are persevered in as niatti rs of luoiiu-nt, anil the 
 teaching with which they are ciMau ctcil, ilrmouMratL- tliaL they 
 are felt to be, by those who introduce them, no unimj)ortant 
 additions, but intended to produce an effect on the mind of 
 the worshippers. 
 
 And it must be observed, that all these remarks apply, and 
 a])ply exclusively, to our present Book of Conniion Prayer. 
 The previous Books of Common Prayer (with the cxei iilion of 
 the directions about ornaments in the first Book of Edw. 
 
8 
 
 are as much superseded as the Romish Missals and Breviaries, 
 the Act of Uniformity binding us strictly to the lust revision. 
 Consequently, the references we sometimes meet with to the 
 first Prayer Book of Edw. VI. as justifying a rite or practice, 
 are entire] ij inralid ; and it is difficult to understand how they 
 can have been put forward by a clergyman of our Chui'ch as 
 of any authority. 
 
 To this principle, however, there is one exception, — and that 
 IS, where a custom is sanctioned by any Canon of the Church. 
 But this exception can be pleaded only for one ceremony, that of 
 bowing at the name of the Lord Jesus, as 1 shall presently show. 
 
 Whatever sanction may be derived from precedent for other 
 ceremonies, such as bowmg to the East or the Communion 
 Table, and turning to the East when the Creed is recited, such 
 ceremonies clearly have not, in parochial churches or chapels, 
 any legal foundation to rest u])ou ; and the prohibitory terms 
 of the Acts of Uniformity and the Canon are agamst their use. 
 
 It must be observed, however, that these remarks apply only 
 to ))a!()eliiai churches and cliapels. Cathedral and Collegiate 
 bodies Law ])eeuliar statutes of their own, in some of which 
 cei taiu Lisai:( s oi this kind are prescribed j and it appears that 
 from tlic first, exceptions were made in some matters of this 
 kind in favour of Cathedral and Collegiate churches.* And it 
 is obvious to any intelligent and imjiartial uiquirer into such 
 matters, that it was the ])ermitted continuance of certain usages 
 in the Cathedral and Collegiate churches (not to mention 
 Royal and Private eliajiels), — where their statutes, and the 
 terms of tlieir eiid(jwnients, and (it may be added) the different 
 circumstances of the case, afforded some ground for such a pri- 
 vilege, — that led to their partial retention in some parochial 
 churches. And it A\ as an example of which Archbishop Laud 
 and his party aljui.ilantly availed themselves, when they laboured 
 to introduce a new tone of ecclesiastical feelings and views in 
 our Church. 
 
 * llerce, in Arclil;islii>|i Patk. I's Artalts, uhout the year 1569, we find 
 
 for LafhediaJs ibe ii,qiili_\, ■• \\ lieilj^.!' your ])iviin.- Service be used 
 
 ill all pt>ints :ii.-coidii.y in llu- slaliitts nt your Clmrch, not being repugnant 
 to any uf tbe Qacou't- .uajc.^ij'b luus and uijiiuctions," but for parochial 
 churrhes. onU . wh. tbi-r it Is "as it is set forth by the laws of this realm, 
 without any kind of vai iatioii." (Wilk.Conc. iv. 253 and 257.) 
 
9 
 
 We need take, however, but a very superfieial view of the his- 
 toiy of our Church to be couviiiced,that cvidcnicc of the existence 
 of certain usages and practices in various elimclics at different 
 periods since the Retbrniation, particularly at the Laudian era, 
 is no proof of their legality. I mention this with especial re- 
 ference to certain works that have lately appeared among us, 
 which seem to proceed upon the notion that usages and prac- 
 tices so sanctioned are in consequence lawful. 
 
 There is cue more remark which I cannot refrain from 
 making before I pass on. And that is, that it seems not a 
 little surprising, that those who arc now so prominently put- 
 ting forward the plea of cunscieiice for strictly abiding by the 
 Rubric as the rule which they have undertaken to follow, 
 should be the very parties who most violate it h\ their un- 
 authorized additions, and would be the most opjiosed to its 
 being consistently obeyed. 
 
 Our professedly strict Rubricians and Canonists are sadly 
 inconsistent with their professed principle, and would be very 
 sorry to be compelled to curry it out ; for, instead of having 
 the Coamiunion Table placed pentuutcnthj, as it now is, at the 
 east end of the church, which euabk s tlicm to make it wear 
 the aj)pearanec of an Altar, they would liave to move it, when 
 the Conniumion was administered, so as W(<ul(l take away this 
 appearance. For the llubric directs that at the Conununion time 
 it "shall stand in the body ot the; church, or in the chancel, 
 where mornhuj and ereniiiy prayer are aj pina'.ed to he said." 
 And Canon 82 orders that at the Conununion time it "shall 
 " be j)laced in so good sort within tlie eluueh or chancel, 
 " as thereby the minister may be more conveniently heard of 
 " the communicauts in his prayer and nilnistration, and the 
 " comnuinicants also more conveniently, and in more number, 
 " may communicate with the said minister." And in Queen 
 Elizabeth's Injunctions it was directed, "that the Holy Table 
 " in every church be decently made, and set in the place 
 " where the Altar stood, and there tonunonly covered, as 
 " thereto belongeth, and as shall be appointed by the Visitors, 
 " and so to stand, saving when the C<jiiiinun.ioii uf the Sacra- 
 " ment is to be distributed; at ir/iich lime the same shall be so 
 
10 
 
 " placed in good sort within the chancel, as whereby the 
 " minister may be more couvcnieutly heard of the communi- 
 " cants in his prayer and ministration, and the communicants 
 " also more conveniently and in more number communicate 
 " with the said minister. And after the Communion done, 
 " from time to time the same Holy Table to be placed where it 
 " stood before." (Wilk. Concil. iv. 188.) And such was the 
 custom for a long period. But Archbishop Laud, — seizing with 
 characteristic sagacity upon an accidental circumstance of the 
 bread being once carried off by a dog from the Table, — in his 
 Metr( (political Visitation in 1635, ordered the Table to be 
 surrounded by low rails as it stood at the east end of the 
 church, which of course had the effect of leaving it perma- 
 nently " in the place where the Altar stood," which was one 
 step gained towards its recognition as an " Altar." Now, as 
 it is not impossible to keep dogs out of the church, and low 
 rails are not a very effectual guard against a hungry dog, 
 some people thought that the order had a much higher object 
 in view than the prevention of such occurrences ; and, as might 
 have been expected, many stoutly refused compliance. And it is 
 clear from Laud's own expressions,* that he felt he had no right 
 to insist upon such an order being obeyed. It was in fact 
 directly against the Rubric. But with the High Commission 
 Court to back him, nothing (so to speak) was impossible to him 
 in matters of that kind, and so the custom gradually prevailed. 
 
 Now I should be very sorry to disturb such an arrange- 
 ment, after it has existed so long, and people have become ac- 
 customed to it. But when we hear so much about conscience 
 compelling a man to abide strictly in every respect by the 
 Rubric, and the laws of the Church, and see the Church 
 thrown into confusion for the sake of reviving some practices 
 that have been long disused, (to say nothing now of practices 
 directly illegal) we may be permitted to ask, how it is that 
 these tender consciences have never thought of reviving the 
 practice prescribed by law in this matter. 
 
 * Hist, of Troubles, &c. of VV. Laud, by Wliartou, vol. i. p. 543. 
 
11 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 THE MEANING OF THE RUBRIC ON ORNAMENTS AT 
 THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PRAYER BOOK. 
 
 At tlic comnicnccuiont of the Book of Common Prayer occurs 
 tlic following Rubric, — "And here is to be noted that such 
 "oniaiiu nts (if tlic Church and of the ministers thereof, at all 
 " times of thcii' ministration, shall be retained and be in use 
 " as were in this Church of England by the authority of Par- 
 " liamcnt, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the 
 "Sixth." 
 
 The question, then, arises here. How are we to ascertain 
 what ornaments had " the authority of Parliament " in 2 
 Edw. VI. ? It may be well, therefore, before we proceed further, 
 to determine this point. 
 
 It must be observed, that the Rubric requires the ex- 
 press " authority of Parliament " for the ornaments sanc- 
 tioned by it. Now, what ornaments had sucli au liority ? 
 Those only that were mentiuncd in //w Jirst Cuiinnon Prayer 
 Book of Edward VI., and were couscnjucntly autliorizcd by the 
 Act of Uniformity, 2 Edward VI. Tliis is an iiiiportant point; 
 but, as it is impossible to prove a negatix c, it rests with those 
 who arc disposed to deny it, to shew what other Act of Parlia- 
 ment thei'c was, authorizing such ornaments. 
 
 The chief argument adduced against this conclusion is, 
 that as by the Act 31 Henry VIII. c. S., cuniirmed by 
 34, 35 Henry VIII. c. 23, Proclamations issued by the King 
 for the time being, with the advice of his Privy Council, or 
 the major ])art, were to be oljtyed and kept as though they 
 were made by Act of Parliament, llu refore the " lujuiution.s" 
 issued by Edw. VI. in 1547, are to lie considered as ecpiivalent 
 to an Act of Parliament, and what was ordered thereby as 
 having " the authority of Parliament." 
 
12 
 
 But in the first ])lace, the words of the Rubric require the 
 express " authority of Parhameiit " for any ornament, and are 
 not satisfied by an order issued only by the Crown, though it 
 be admitted that ParUament had given the Crown power to 
 issue orders uf the kind. The words of the Rubric clearly 
 require that Parliament should have given its sanction directly 
 and expressly to any ornament, the use of which is contended 
 for. 
 
 And secondly, if this were not the case, the " Injunctions " 
 were issued by the King as " the Supreme Head " of the 
 Church, not as a Proclamation coming under the meaning of 
 the Act 31 Henry YIII. c. 8. And such was the view of Bishop 
 Gardiner at the time.* And Collier, in his Ecclesiastical 
 History, supports this view, and shews (what determines the 
 question) that the Injunctions were not put forth in the way 
 the Act directs Proclamations to be jmblished, to (/ive them 
 the force of an Act of ParUament. (ii. 228.) f And the Injunc- 
 tions are mentioned in State documents as distinct from the 
 Proclamations. (See Lett, of Priv. Counc. in 1548 in Cardw. 
 Doc. Ann. i. 53.) 
 
 Consequently, the argument altogether fails. J 
 
 The only other objection I have met with is, that, as by 25 
 Hen. VIII. c. 19. all the Provincial Canons and Constitutions 
 (not opposed to tlic King's Preroprativc, &c.) were to be in force 
 until a llcfoiiiiution of tlie Ecck ^iastical Laws was agreed to; 
 therefore all tlie ornaments prescribed by them are enjoined by 
 this Rubric. I will venture to leave this argument to its fate, 
 humbly indulging the hope that it proves too much. 
 
 I will only add, that Dr. Nicholls (Comment on Comm. 
 Pr.), meatly (Illust. of Comm. Pr. p. 102, 6th cd.). Palmer 
 (Orig. Liturg. ii. 39G, 4th ed.), all, icithout question, interpret 
 
 * Collier Eccl. Hist. ii. 228. 
 
 t In the simif \e;ir, a tVn months after the Injunctions were issued, 
 the Act .il Heiii\ \ lil. c. S. and the Act confirming it, 34, 35 Ileniy 
 VIII. c. 2;i, ^^,■lv"lV|.^a^■,l h\ 1 E(hv. VI. c. 12. § 5. 
 
 X Ml'- H(i1ki tMiu";. Niatrinint. tlu iefoie, that these Injunctions have 
 the iiuthoiit\ pl' \,m. is c Iraily a nnstake. (See his " How shall we 
 Conform to the Liturj;) ?" 2iitl cil. p. 71' and 151.) 
 
13 
 
 the words " authority of Parliament," as referring to the Act 
 of Uniformity, 2 Edw. VI., and consequently the " ornaments" 
 as those sanctioned by the Book of Common Prayer authorized 
 by that Act. Dr Bennet also says, "it is notorious," that by 
 the ornaments in this Rubric " we are to understand such as 
 were prescribed by the first Common Prayer Book" of Edward 
 VI. (Paraphrase with Annot. on Bk. of C. P. 2d. ed. 1709. 
 p. 3.) 
 
 It may be said, V^Tiat direction is there in the first Prayer 
 Book ofEdw. VI. for "ornaments of the Church?" Now, 
 first, the absence of such direction proves nothinji-. He who 
 contends for the legality of any " ornament of the Church" 
 on the ground of this Rubric, must show " the authority of 
 Parliament" for it. If he cannot shew this, he proves nothing. 
 And, secondly, it is to be observed, that the corresponding- 
 Rubric in the Prayer Books of 1559 and 1604 ran thus, 
 — " And here is to be noted that tlie minister at the time of 
 "the Communion, and at nil dthir times in his ministration, 
 "shall use such ornaments in the Cliitrch, as were in use by au- 
 " thority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King 
 " Edward the Sixth, according to the Act of Parliament set in 
 " the beginning of this Book" [i. e. the Act of Uniformity of 
 1559.] Here we find only a notice of the ornaments to be 
 used in the Church by the minister (respecting which there 
 were specific directions given in the first Prayer Book of Edw. 
 VI.), but no notice of " ornaments of the Church." And the 
 difi^eroicc is the more remarkable, because the words of the 
 Act of Uniformity of 1559 (§ 25) correspond with those of our 
 present Prayer Book. Now this Rubric, as it refers to the 
 Act, must have been drawn up suhseqnent to the Act, and in- 
 serted in the Book, on its publication, on the authority of 
 § 25 of the Act ; and it would seem that the Ecclesiastical au- 
 thorities, who had the charge of publishing the book, worded the 
 direction about ornaments more correctly than the Act, knowing 
 that there was no direct order about "ornaments of the Church" 
 in Edward's first Book. Tlic only " ornaments of tlic Church" 
 recognized in King Edward's first Book are some few things. 
 
14 
 
 such as the vessels required for the Holy Communion, inciden- 
 tally mentioned in the Ruhi'ie. 
 
 It may be worthy of notice, on this head, that when this 
 Rubric was first introduced in the Prayer Book of 1559, it 
 seems to have been intended as only a temporary direction. 
 For the Act of Uniformity authoi-izing this Book enacts as 
 follows, — " Provided always, and be it enacted, That such 
 " ornaments of the Church and of the ministers thereof shall 
 " be retained and be in use, as was in this Church of England 
 " by authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign 
 " of King Edward the Sixth, until other order shall be therein 
 " taken by the authority of the Queen's Majesty, with the 
 " advice of her eonmiissioncrs appointed and authorized under 
 " the Great Seal of England for causes ecclesiastical, or of the 
 " Metropolitan of this realm." And, as I shall shew here- 
 after, it has been held by many, that " other order" was taken 
 afterwards, in the way here required, respecting these oraa- 
 mcnts, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. 
 
 But the form in which the Rubric has been re\ived in our 
 present Book of Common Prayei', certainly seems to throw us 
 back to the directions of the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. 
 respecting " ornaments." ^Vhether the Canons of 1604 are to 
 be considered as at all modifying the requirements of the 
 Rubric, is a point which I shall consider when I come to speak 
 on the subject of Vestures. 
 
15 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 GENERAL POWER OF THE BISHOP IN REGULATING THE 
 MODE OF CONDUCTING THE SERVICE. 
 
 Before proceeding to the consideration of the jwrticular 
 points now in question, relating to the mode of conducting the 
 Services of our Chiu'ch, it is desirable to notice the general, 
 power given to the Ordinary on this subject in the Preface to 
 the Book of Common Prayer. That Preface provides that, — 
 
 "Forasnuich as nothing can be so ])lainly set forth, but 
 " doubts may arise in the use and practice of the same, to 
 " appease all such diversity (if any arise), and for the resolu- 
 " tion of all doubts, concerning the manner how to understand, 
 " do, and execute the things contained in this Book, the 
 " parties that so doubt, or diversely take any thing, shall 
 " alway resort to the Bishop of the Diocese, who by his dis- 
 " cretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of 
 " the same ; so that the same order be not contrary to any 
 " thing contained in this Book. And if the Bishop of the 
 " Diocese be in doubt, then he may send for the resolution 
 " thereof to the Archbishop." 
 
 In cases, therefore, where the Rubi'ic is doubtful, ov diver selij 
 understood, there the Bishop, on being ap])ealed to, may de- 
 cide the question, and thus " appease" the diversity ; and the 
 parties appealing are bound by his sentence, unless it is " con- 
 trary to" any thing contained in the Book of Common Prayer. 
 And the words " appeasing diversity," " quieting and ajjpeas- 
 ing" &c., shew that this direction is intended to apply to 
 cases where there are disputes between a minister and his pa- 
 rishioners on the subject. 
 
 This general power clearly enables the Ordinary to determine 
 many particular points eounected with the mode of conducting 
 Public Service, when ap|iealcd to. Its applicabdity to some of 
 the points here considered, 1 shall notice when I come to them. 
 
16 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 PLACE AND POSITION OF TUE MINISTER. 
 
 ( 1 .) Place where the Common Prayers and Lessons are to be read. 
 
 The Rubric and 14th Canon of 1604 clearly leave this at 
 the discretion of the Ordinary. 
 
 The Rubric, at the commencement of the Book of Common 
 Prayer, directs that, — " The Morning and Evening Prayers 
 " shall be used in the accustomed place of the Church, Chapel, 
 " or Chancel ; except it shall be otherwise determined by the 
 " Ordinanj of t/w place." 
 
 And the 14th Canon directs that, — " The Common Prayer 
 " shall be said or snng . . . in such place of every church 
 " as the Bish'ip of the Diocese, or Ecclesiastical Ordinary of 
 " the place, shrill think meet for the largeness or straitness 
 " of the same, so as the people maj' be most edified." 
 
 There cannot be any doubt as to the meaning of these Rubrics. 
 
 If a question arises as to the position of the minister in the 
 place assigned to him ; that is, whether he is to turn towards 
 the people or towards the East ; the decision of this question 
 rests with the Ordinary, by the general ])ower given to him in 
 1 the Preface. The older Episcopal Injunctions, however, are 
 clearly in favour of his turning towai-ds the people. See, for 
 instance, Grindal's Injunctions for the Province of York in 
 1571 ; (Works, p. 123 and 132) ; and his Articles for the Pro- 
 vince of Canterbury in 1576. (lb. p. 157.) 
 
 And the Rubric respecting the Lessons is, — " He that 
 " readeth so standing and turning himself as he may best be 
 " heard of all such as are present." 
 
 Of this, of course, if there is a diversity of opinion, the 
 Ordinary is to be tlie judge, according to the general power 
 given to him in the Preface. 
 
17 
 
 Much might be addjd on this and some other points lierc 
 discussed, illustrative of the directions given in former times 
 on the subject from ancient Episcopal Injunctions and Articles, 
 and other similar sources; but to do so would extend this 
 work beyond the object I have in view.* After all that could 
 be said, the power of ordering the matter would clearly rest 
 with the Ordinary. 
 
 (2.) Place where the Litcmy is tu he said or sung. 
 
 For this we have an express direction in the 15th Canon 
 of 1604 ; namely, that it is to be " in some convenient place, 
 " according to the discretion of the Bishop of the diocese, or 
 " Ecclesiastical Ordinary of the place." 
 
 (3.) Place where the former part of the Coiumuniun Service is 
 to be read when there is no Conunnniun. 
 
 The Rubric appears to me clearly to rctiuire that this portion 
 of the Service be i-ead at the Coinmuni!)n Table. It is true 
 that the direction given in th(^ Rubric for the priest to stand at 
 the North side of the Table, is accompanied by a statement 
 which seems to contemplate an administration of the Commu- 
 nion. But it should be observed that, after the directions for 
 reading the former part of the Service at the Table, we have, 
 before the Prayer for the Church Militant, the following Rubric: 
 — " And when there is a Communion, the priest shall then place 
 upon the Table" &c. This seems to show that the former 
 Rubrics apply even when there is to be no Communion. And 
 otherwise, no direction would exist on the subject. 
 
 That the language used in the first Rubric should imply 
 preparedness for an administration of the Communion, is not, 
 I think, to be wondered at ; because I believe it to have been 
 the desire of our Church to shew a readiness to administer 
 
 * I vvoukl here observe, that a good deal of useful information on 
 most of the ])oiiit.s here considered is to he foiiml in Mr. Robertson's 
 work, "How shall we conform to the Lilur^i,;. ?" (2ud ed. 1841, 8vo.) 
 c 
 
18 
 
 the Communion on all such occasions^ if a sufficient number 
 of persons signified a desire to communicate.* 
 
 In the practice on this point, there appears to have been 
 some discrepancy from the earliest period. 
 
 (4.) The position of the Minister at the Prayer of Consecration 
 in the Holy Communion. 
 
 It will hardly be denied, that the usual ])lace occupied by the 
 minister at the Praj'er of Consecration, is the North side or 
 end of the Table. But it is urged that the Rubric preceding 
 the Prayer of Consecration, inserted at the last Review in 
 1662, directs, "'\Micn the Priest, sfandinrj before the Table, hath 
 so ordered the Bread and Wine, that he may with the more 
 readiness and decency break the Bread before the people, and 
 take the cup into his hands, he shall say the Prayer of Con- 
 secration as followeth and therefore that the proper place of 
 the priest at the Prayer of Consecration is "standing before 
 the Taljlc,'' of course witli his back to the people, on account 
 of the position of the Table, which is now (whether according 
 to the direction of the original Rubric still remaining before 
 the Service, or not) placed against the wall at Communion 
 time, as well as other times. 
 
 Now the Divines who introduced this Rubric in 1 662, pro- 
 bably contemplated the Table being in the position in which 
 it is now ordinarily placed, and the Table being so placed, the 
 priest, " standing before the Table," must stand with his face 
 towards the Eastern wall, and his back to the people. And the 
 Rubric clearly directs the priest to assume this position while 
 " ordering tlie Bread and Yrinc." But the question is, whether 
 the Rubric contemplates his remaining in that position, after he 
 has ordered the bread and wine so that he can conveniently 
 
 * I may be pardoned for oljservino; here, in reply to tnuch now said 
 on the subject, that it is no part of what are incorrectly nicknamed 
 " Low Church" princij)lcs to have iiifrcqiieiit Comiininions. For nearly 
 the hitter half of the last century, and sixteen years of the present, one 
 of the very few churches in the kinsrdimi in which there was a weekly 
 Communion, was that of tiie Rev. W. Roinaine, and his successor, my 
 late venerated ])arent. 
 
19 
 
 reach tlicni, ami during the Prayer of Consecration. Doubt- 
 less the words of the Rubric arc not such as to determine the 
 question. But the balance is certainly in favour of the usual 
 practice, not merely from its being the mnal practice, but 
 from the words of the Rubric itself. For if the priest is to 
 stand before the Table during the Prayer of Consecration, 
 there is no necessity for " ordering the ]5rcad and Wiuc" afresh 
 so as to enable him to reach it ; whereas if he is to stand at 
 the North end, at which there is a cushion to reach over, the 
 Bread and Wine must be placed close up at that end of the 
 Table, and thei-efore he must so " order " it before the Prayer 
 of Consecration, that he may reach it, as requii'ed, in the prayer. 
 And again, how is he to break the bread " before the people," 
 as required by the Rubric, if he does it while standing with his 
 back towards the people ? 
 
 Surely then this is a case in which, to say the least, no one 
 is justified in introducing the novel practice in our Church, of 
 standing before the Table with the back to the people during 
 the Prayer of Consecration, without the sanction of the Bishop, 
 to whom in doubtful matters, and where there is a diversity of 
 opinion, the appeal is ordered by our Prayer Book to be made 
 for direction. At any rate, the judgment of t'je Bishop upon 
 a novel practice of this kind, ought to be decisive of the 
 question. 
 
20 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 ON THE MANNER IN WHICH THAT PART OF THE SERVICE 
 THAT IS DIRECTED TO BE " READ" OR " SAID," IS TO BE 
 UTTERED. 
 
 It will hardly be denied, that where the Rubric directs any 
 portion of the Sernce to be " read," the ordinary interpreta- 
 tion of the word is not in favour of what is called plain song, 
 or a monotonous recitative (sometimes called " intoning 
 but of what is commonly understood by reading. It appears 
 also, that the word " said," which is used occasionally in the 
 Rubrics, is used as equivalent to " read ;" for while the Atha- 
 nasian Creed and the Litany are directed to be "said or sung," 
 the Rubric before the Apostles' Ci-eed speaks of " such days as 
 the Creed of St. Athanasius is appointed to be read," and the 
 Rubric after the third Collect uses the words " except when 
 the Litany is read." 
 
 Now that, as a general rule, these words were intended to 
 be understood in their ordinary acceptation, seems clear from 
 the 53rd of Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions in 1559, published 
 just after her Prayer Bo()k was issued, Avhich directs, "That all 
 ministers and readers of public prayers, chapters, and homi- 
 lies, shall be charged to read leisurely, plainly, and distinctly." 
 (Wilk. Cone. iv. 188; Cardw. Doc. Ann. i. 199.) And the 
 last of Queen Elizabeth's Visitation Articles of the same year 
 is, — " Whether the curates and ministers do leisurely, plainly, 
 and distinctly read the public prayers, chapters, and homilies, 
 as they ought to do." (Wilk. Cone. iv. 191 ; Cardw. Doc. 
 Ann. i. "16.) 
 
 And in the " Injunctions" of the Bishop of Norwich 
 (Farkhurst), in May 1561, we find the following interrogato- 
 ries, — 
 
21 
 
 " I. Whctber the parson, viciir, curate, or reader, doth 
 " read the common Service with a loud, distinct, and ti-eat.alde 
 " voice." 
 
 " 2. Whetlicr tlie Lessons, Epistles, and Gospels be 7-ead or 
 " sung so as they iiiiiy he plainly heard of the people." 
 
 This clearly slicws wliat was then consitlered to be the 
 meaning of the Rubric in ordinary cases ; the Rubric, at that 
 time, allowing ths Lessons, Epistles, and Gospels to be " read or 
 sung." 
 
 But it appears by the Queen's Lijunctions, that the Queen 
 permitted some churches, for particular reasons, to use a plaiu 
 song for the Prayers. For one (the 49th) of those Injunctions 
 is as follows, — " Item, because in divers Collegiate and also 
 " some Parish churches, heretofore, tlu rc have been livings 
 " appointed for the maintenance of men and cluldrcu to use 
 " singing iu the church, by means whereof tlic laiulal)le service 
 " of music hath been had in estimation, and ])ieserved in 
 "knowledge; the Queen's Majesty, neither meaning in anj^- 
 " wise the decay of any thing that might conveniently tend to 
 " the use and continuance of the said science, neither to have 
 " the same in any part so abused in the church, that thereby 
 " the Common Prayer should be the worse understanded of the 
 " hearers, willeth and commandeth, that first no alterations 
 "be made of such assignments of living, as heretofore hath 
 " been appointed to the use of singing or music in the church, 
 " but that the same so remain. And that there be a modest 
 " and distinct song so used in all parts of the Common 
 " Prayers in the church, that the same may be as plainly 
 " understanded, as if it were read without singing ; and yet 
 " nevertheless for the comforting of such that delight in 
 " music, it may be permitted, that in the beginning, or in the 
 " end of the Common Prayers, either at morning or evening, 
 " there may be sung an hymn, or such like song, to the praise 
 " of Almighty God, in the best sort of melody and uuisic that 
 " may be conveniently devised, having respect that the sentence 
 " of the hyniTi may be understanded and perceived." (Wilk. 
 Cone iv. 187 ; Cardw. ib. 196.) 
 
22 
 
 It wiW be observed, therefore, that the use of a plain song 
 for the Prayers was aprivileffe conceded only to some churches, 
 from a consideration of the peculiar circumstances of the case, 
 and was not intended to be generally permitted. That in such 
 churches (if any such remain) custom may now have estab- 
 lished a sort of right to its continuance, is not to be denied. 
 
 The distinction between these and the ordinary churches, 
 we see pointed out in the Rubrics of the Books of Common 
 Prayer preceding the last, that give directions for the Lessons. 
 The first direction is, — " Then shall be read two Lessons dis- 
 tinctly with a loud voice that the people may hear," &c. And 
 then it is added, " And to the end the people may the better 
 " hear, in such places where they do sing, there shall the Lessons 
 " be sung in a plain tune, after the manner of distinct read- 
 " ing : and likewise the Epistle and Gospel." 
 
 In the last revision of the Liturgy, in 1662, this second 
 direction was omitted; and consequently we now hear the 
 Lessons, Epistle, and Gospel (as far as I can find) everywhere 
 read. 
 
 In these Injunctions we may observe, that no notice is taken 
 of Cathedral churches ; and the reason probably is, that they 
 have peculiar Statutes of their own, and generally endowments 
 for a Choral Service. And this makes their case one from which 
 no argument can fairly be derived for the usages of Parochial 
 churches ; a fact which seems to have been too often forgotten. 
 Hence, though they ai e bound by the Acts of Uniformity to con- 
 form to the Prayer Book, there may he a reason why in their 
 case the words reading and saying should not be strictly in- 
 sisted on, but that they should be allowed to use, what is 
 called in a Rubric just quoted, " a plain tune after the manner 
 of distinct reading." 
 
 And Bishop Burnet tells us, that their case was distinguished 
 from that of Parish churches immediately after the introduc- 
 tion of the first Reformed Prayer Book, that is, the first of 
 Edward VI. He says, that in the Visitation which took place 
 immediately after the first Act of Uniformity, " there were 
 " two things much complained of ; the one was, that the 
 
23 
 
 " priests read the prayers generally with the same tone of 
 " voice that they had used formerly in tlie Latin Service; so 
 " that it was said^ the people did not understand it much 
 " better than they had done the Latin formerly. This I have 
 " seen represented in many letters ; and it was very seriously 
 " laid before Craumcr by Martin Bucer. The course taken 
 " in it was, that in all Parish churches the Services should be 
 " read in a plain audible voice ; but that the former way 
 " should remain in Cathedrals, where there were great Choirs, 
 " who were well acquainted with that tone, and where it 
 " agreed better with the music that was used in the Anthems. 
 " Yet even there, many thought it no proper way in the 
 " Litany, where the greatest gravity was more agreeable to 
 " such humble addresses than such a modulation of tlic voice, 
 " which to those unacquainted with it seemed light, and for 
 " others that were more accustomed to it, it seemed to be 
 " I'ather use that had reconciled them to it, than the natural 
 " decency of the thing, or any fitness in it to advance the 
 " devotion of their prayers. But this was a thing judged of 
 " less importance ; it was said, that those who had been ac- 
 " customed to read in that voice could not easily alter it : but 
 " as those dropped off and died, others would be put in their 
 " places, who would officiate in a plainer voice." (Burnet's 
 Hist, of Reform. ; Part 2. Bk. 1., under year 1549. Nares's 
 ed. ii. 16.2.) 
 
 When, therefore, the 14th Canon of 1604 directs, — ."The 
 " Common Prayer sliall be said or sunc/ distinctly and reve- 
 " rently upon such days as are appointed," &c., it must be 
 remembered that the Canon is s])eaking of Cathedral and 
 Collegiate as well as Parochial churches ; and, therefore, that 
 the words do not imply a liberty in every parochial minister to 
 say or sing the Prayers at his discretion. 
 
 Plain-song or "intoning," therefore, is in Parochial churches 
 contrary to the directions of our Chtireh. And, at any rate, 
 if this is doubted, the general power vested in the Bishop 
 (described in § 3. p. 15 above) authorizes him to forbid the _ 
 practice. 
 
24 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 GESTURES ANl) POSTURES, SUCH AS CROSSING, &C. 
 
 For the lawfulness of certain acts of this kind not sanc- 
 tioned by the present Book of Common Prayer, we are referred 
 to the following Rubric in the first Prayer Book of Edward 
 VI.: "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." 
 (Rubric at end of Commiuation Service.) 
 
 That such a reference should be made, is a matter for sur- 
 piise and regret. We might almost as well be referred to the 
 old Breviaries and IMissals that were in use in Roman Catholic 
 times. For the first Prayer Book of Edw-ard VI. was as much 
 superseded by those that came after it, as the old Breviaries 
 and JMissals were by that Book ; except in the single point 
 of " ornaments," for which, no doubt, our present Prayer 
 Book refers us to those which had the authority of Par- 
 liament in the sanction it gave to that Book. And among 
 the other alterations made in the subsei^uent Prayer Books, 
 this Rubric was ondtted ; and consequently the sanction 
 which it gave to such ccrciuonies and gestures deliberately 
 taken away. The occurreuce, thei-efore, of this Rubric 
 in the first Prayer Book of Edward VI., coupled with its 
 omission in all the subsequent Prayer Books, and the stringent 
 language of the Acts of Uniformity, only makes the case 
 stronger ajjainst the use of the ceremonies and gestures per- 
 mitted by it. Ftir it is clear, as I have already shown in § 1, 
 fiom the " Prel'ace of Ceremonies" prefixed to the Book of 
 Common Prayer, and from all the Acts of Uniformity, as well 
 as tlie 14th Canon, sujiporled by Articles in Royal and Epis- 
 coj)al Visitations, that it was intended that all ceremonies not 
 
25 
 
 sanctioned by the Book of Common Prayer sliould be, as far 
 as concerns public worship, considered to be taken away. And, 
 a fortiori, ceremonies sanctioned by tlie first reformed Prayer 
 Book, and such sanction deliberately withdrawn in the subse- 
 quent Books, must be held to be abolished. 
 
 To the rule prescribed by the Prayer Book there is, I believe, 
 but one addition sanctioned by authority, namely, that which was 
 inserted in Queen Ehzabeth^s Injunctions issued in 1559, shortly 
 after the Prayer Book of that period, and which is now required 
 by the 18th Canon,* namely, that "when in time of Divine 
 
 Service the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned, due and lowly 
 " reverence shall be done by all pei-sons present." 
 
 The custom of bowing, on entering the church, towards the 
 East, or the Communion Table, may no doubt plead various 
 precedents in its favour, but certainly no authoritative sanction ; 
 for the Canons of 1640, into which Laud introduced it, are of 
 no authority. And I think most will be disposed to agree 
 with Bishop Burnet, that " all bowings to the altar have at least 
 an ill appearance, and are of no use." (Own Time, ii. 636 ; or 
 vi. 176, Oxf. ed.) 
 
 And in opposition to the testimony of Laud and his party 
 in favour of the practice, we have that of Archbishop Wil- 
 liams, an equally good witness, on the contrary side. For 
 in his Articles of Inquiry, when Bishop of Lincoln in 1641, 
 he inquires, — " Do you know of any parson, vicar, or curate, 
 " that hath introduced any offensive rites or ceremonies into 
 " the Church, not established by the laws of the land ; as, 
 " namely, that make three courtesies towards the Communion 
 " Table ; that call the said Table an Altar ; that enjoin the 
 " people at their coming into the chuich to bow towards the 
 " East, or towards the Communion Table ? " (Articles to be 
 
 * It a])pears from a ^IS. of AiThbisho|) Sancroft, given by AVilkius 
 (Iv. .SJo I, that a Canon lespt'ctiiig- rcveriau-i; in cIuutIics, including ji 
 (liifftion on this head, was passed in Convocation on i\Iay 12, 1()()2, 
 and Dr. Cardwell ( Doc Ann. ii. 25;j.) interprets this MS. as as.serting 
 that the Canon uas altei u^irds eoulirnied hv .\ct of liameut ; u hieii u 
 repeated, on Ur. C.'s imlhonly, l>y -Mr. Koln rlson. I shouhl railier con- 
 ceive that what is there given is old) the draft ol' a proposed Act, not 
 passed. 
 
26 
 
 Inquired of in the Diocese of Lincoln, Lond. 16 il, 4to.) 
 So the House of Lords' Committee, in 164-1, called it an 
 innovation. (See Cardw. Conf. 2nd ed. p. 272.) 
 
 The practice of turning to the East when the Creed is 
 recited, is equally without authoritjf ; and was called an inno- 
 vation by the House of Lords' Committee in 1611.* 
 
 But both these customs having been apparently allowed to 
 be retained in Cathedral and Collegiate churches and chapels 
 (and, in some, required by Laud's Statutes), and in a measure 
 tolerated in many Parochial churches, there is a species of 
 sanction from custom, which might be sufficient to protect 
 their use in parish churches, in an Ecclesiastical Court. The 
 exception, more or less directly sanctioned by authority in 
 Queen Elizabeth's time, in favour of the Koyal chapels, and 
 Cathedral and Collegiate churches and chapels, as well as 
 private chapels, as to some of these observances, laid the 
 foundation for much of the discordancy found in the usages of 
 Parochial churches, and was one great argument of which Laud 
 availed himself in his directions respecting Parish churches. 
 
 For a defence of the practice of making the sign of the Cross, 
 we are referred to its use in Baptism, as required by the Book 
 of Common Prayer, and particularly as defended in Canon 30. 
 But the language of Canon 30 clearly tends in the contraiy 
 direction, l)ccausc it ccmtincs its defence of the use of the sign 
 of the Cross to its use in Baptism, and admits that "the sign 
 of the Cross w as greatly abused in the Church of Rome." It 
 gives no sanction to its use except in Baptism, which tacitly 
 implies that it is not to be used on other occasions, at any rate 
 in tha public Service of the Church by its ministers. 
 
 It can hardly be denied, Avhcn we recollect that one great 
 object of the Eeioruiation was to abolish a mass of ceremonies 
 of this kind, tliat it needs some dh-ect authority and exp?-ess 
 sanction for a miuister of our Church, when performing pub- 
 lic Service, to introduce such practices. 
 
 And on the subject of crossing, we have various direct tes- 
 timonies to its disallowance by our Church except in Ba])tism. 
 * Sec Cardvvtirs Conf. I'uil cd. p. 27i, 273. 
 
27 
 
 I have already, in Sect. 1, given some extracts from the 
 Injunctions of Archbishop Grindal, bearing on this point. I 
 will here add another from the Injunctions of Parkhurst, 
 Bishop of Norwich, in 1561, — 
 
 " Item, that they neither suflFer the Lord's Table to be 
 " hanged and decked like an Altar, neither use any gestures 
 " of the Popish Mass in the time of ministration of the Com- 
 " munion, as shifting of the book, washing, breathing, cross- 
 " ing, or such like." (Inj. 4.) 
 
 And the prohibition is extended in the Injunctions of 
 Archbishop Grindal to the laity, one of them ordaining among 
 other things, — " nor superstitiously shall make upon them- 
 " selves the sign of the cross when they tirst enter into any 
 " church to pray." (Works, p. 140.) 
 
 And finallj', we have this decisive testimony as to the rule 
 of our Chm-ch on the subject from the pen of Archbishop 
 Whitgift. After observing respecting the use of the sign of 
 the Cross in Baptism, — " I see no cause why it may not be 
 " used in Baptism, in that manner and form, as it is in this 
 " Church of England," &c., he adds,—" A.s for Papists, we 
 " are far enough off from them, for they pictured the sign of 
 " the cross and did worship it, so do not we : they used it to 
 " drive away spirits and devils, so do not we : they attributed 
 " power and virtue unto it, so do not we : they had it in their 
 " churches, so have not we : they used it daily and nightly 
 " for religion sake, ice oxly in Baptism, for a si-u and 
 " token, as I have said before : so that their abusing of it is 
 " sufficiently corrected." (AVhitgift's Def. of Ausw. to Aduion. 
 1574, fol. p. 016.) 
 
 It will be recollected, that Archbishop Whitgift was the 
 great opponent of the Puritans ; and with this remark I leave 
 the passage to sjieak for itself. 
 
 It ought not to be forgotten, that if these additional cere- 
 monies are to be allowed in the public ministrations of the 
 Chui'ch, because they are not expressly forbidden, other cere- 
 monies must be permitted on the same ground. For instance, 
 in the ministration of the Sacrament of Baptism, the use of 
 
28 
 
 oil, tapers, spittle, and other Popish ceremonies, may be 
 introduced, and defended on the same grounds as those we 
 have been considering. The absence of any direct prohibition 
 may be pleaded for the one as well as the other. And so, in 
 short, almost the whole mass of Popish ceremonies that were 
 intended to be " abolished," by the appointment of one uniform 
 order of prayers, rites, and ceremonies, to which all were to 
 be bound, may be re-introduced into our Church by the 
 Romanizing party that have lately sprung up among us. 
 And I am not here speaking of any thing unlikely to occur, 
 for we find that even in 1571 Archbishop Griudal had to 
 forbid, in his Injunctions issued in his Mctropolitical Visitation 
 of the Province of York, the use of " any oil or chrism, 
 " tapers, spittle, or any other Popish ceremony, in the minis- 
 " tration of the Sacrament of Ba])tism (GrindaPs Works, 
 p. 124.) and to make a similar inquiry in his Visitation of the 
 Province of Canterbury in 1576. (lb. p. 160.) 
 
 And if ceremonies not forbidden may be introduced, prayers 
 not forbidden may be introduced ; and all semblance of unifor- 
 mity be destroyed. 
 
29 
 
 SECTION VII. 
 
 VESTURES. 
 
 (1.) Vestures for Reading Prayers or Ministering the Sacra- 
 ments. 
 
 My object in tliis work, as I have already stated, is to point 
 cut fairly and impartially the law of our Church on the sub- 
 jects here discussed. I shall at once, therefore, admit my 
 conviction, that the Rubric on ornaments, at the commence- 
 ment of the Prayer Book, (quoted, p. 11 above), legalizes the 
 ornaments sanctioned by the first Prayer Book of Edward the 
 Sixth. I have already, in Sect. 2 (p. 14), endeavoured to shew, 
 that this direction, first given in Queen Elizabeth's Act of 
 Uniformity in 1559, and then inserted with some alteration 
 in the Book of Common Prayer of that year, was probably 
 not intended to be a permanent one. But this of course 
 does not affect the question of its validity as found in our 
 present Prayer Book, which is sanctioned by an Act of Par- 
 liament. 
 
 It is remarkable, however, and is certainly a proof of the 
 unsatisfactory state in which some questions of this kind arc 
 left in our Chui-ch, that the direction given in the 58th 
 Canon of 1604 (the Code of Canons now in force) is incon- 
 sistent with that contained in this Rubric. At the same 
 time, it must be admitted, that a Rubric sanctioned both by 
 Convocation and Parliament in 1662, cannot be invalidated 
 by a Canon that had the sanction of Convocation only in 
 1604. Glad, therefore, as I should be to take the ground 
 suggested by Mr. Robertson, that " it is not to be supposed, 
 that those who [in 1662] re-enacted it [the Rubric], in- 
 
30 
 
 tended to contradict and abrogate the 58th Canon," I 
 cannot in fairness do so, because we have nothing to do 
 with their intentions, or, in fact, with any thing but the law 
 as it stands. Neither can I adopt the view of those who 
 wish to throw a veil over such matters. I believe it to be for 
 the interests of peace as well as truth, in the end, that the 
 true state of the case should be clearly understood. 
 
 I now proceed, tlien, to point out what are the Vestui'es 
 required by the first I'raycr Book of Edward the Sixth. 
 
 The following liuln'ie occurs in that Book before the Com- 
 munion Ser\dee. 
 
 " Upon the day, and at the time appointed for the minis- 
 " tration of the Holy Communion, the Priest that shall exe- 
 " cute the holy ministry, shall put upon him the vesture 
 " appointed for that ministration ; that is to say, — a white 
 " albe plain, with a vestment or cope. And where there be 
 " many priests or deacons, there so many shall be ready to 
 " help the priest, in the ministration, as shall be requisite : 
 " and shall have upon them likewise the vestures appointed 
 " for their ministry, that is to say, albes with tunicles." 
 
 And at the end of the Communion Service we find the 
 following Rubric, — 
 
 " And though there be none to communicate with the 
 " Priest, yet these days (after the Litany ended) the Priest 
 " shall put upon him a plain albe or surplice, with a cope, and 
 " say all things," &c. 
 
 Such are the vestures required by that Book for those who 
 minister in the Communion Service. By the second Book of 
 Edward, published in 1552, those vestures were expressly for- 
 bidden, and it was ordered that the minister, " being a Priest 
 or Deacon, shall have and wear a sui-plice only." But in all 
 the subsequent Books this direction has been withdrawn, and 
 we are enjoined to use the ornaments required by King Edward's 
 first Book. 
 
 It is quite unnecessary here to give any particular descrip- 
 tion of these vestures, as it is so easily obtainable from various 
 works on the subject. 
 
31 
 
 The other Rubrics in this Book on tlie subject of ornaments 
 occur at the end of it, and arc as follow, — 
 
 " In the saying or singing of ]\Iutins and Even-song, Bap- 
 " tizing and Burying, the minister in parish churches, and 
 " chapels annexed to tlic same, shall use a surplice. And in all 
 " Cathedral churches and Colleges, the Archdeacons, Deans, 
 " Provosts, Masters, Prebendaries, and Fellows, being gradu- 
 " ates, may use in the quire, beside their surplices, such hood 
 " as pertaineth to tlicir several degrees, which they have taken 
 " in any University within this realm. 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 jjreach, shall 
 " use such hoods as pertaineth to their several degrees.'' 
 
 " And whensoever the Bishop shall celebrate the holy com- 
 " munion iu the Church, or execute any other public minis- 
 " tration, he shall have upon him, besides his rochctte, a sur- 
 " plice or albe, and a cope or vestment, and also his pastoral 
 " staff in his hand, or else borue or lioldcn by his chaplain." 
 
 The Rubric respecting the dress of Bishops it is unnecessary 
 to notice here. 
 
 The Rubric respecting the use of the surplice and hood 
 prescribes nothing that varies from the present well-under- 
 stood law and universal custom, except in requiring the use 
 of the hood in preaching, which is not ordinarily the practice 
 among us when the gown is used in preaching; but, as I 
 suppose no one either among the clergy or laity would have 
 any objection to its use, if any one chose to wear it, or 
 was required to wear it, it is a point not worth further 
 notice. 
 
 So far, then, as the parochial clergy are concerned, the 
 only " ornaments" required by the Rubric at the commence- 
 ment of the Prayer Book, in addition to the surplice and 
 hood now in use, are these, — that the chief ministering priest 
 at the holy communion shall wear a white albe phiin (instead 
 of the surplice), with a vestment or cope; and his assistant or 
 assistants an albe with a tunicle. The " vestment'' is con- 
 sidered to be what is called the chasuble, the " tunicle" what 
 
32 
 
 is sometimes called the dalmatic. And I admit that these 
 things are enjoined by the Rubric. So far as the letter of 
 the law is concerned, the matter seems clear. And I must 
 add, that at the time the direction in this Rubric was first 
 given, it seems to have been, at least as respects the cope, 
 acted upon. For in the " Interpretations and further Con- 
 siderations" of Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions of J 559, drawn 
 up by Archbishop Parker, and other Bishops, we find the fol- 
 lowing : " That there be used only but one apparel ; as the 
 " cope in the ministration of the Lord's Supper, and the 
 " surplice in all other ministrations." (Cardw. Doc. Ann. i. 205.) 
 
 But it is worth consideration, what may be alleged from 
 other sources to shew the reasonableness of our present 
 usage, and the probability of its being nearer the intentions 
 of our Chui-ch than the strict letter of the above Rubric. It 
 will be recollected, that Queen Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity 
 sanctioned the " ornaments" prescribed in King Edward's first 
 Prayer Booli, " until other order shall be therein taken by the 
 
 authority of the Queen's ]\Iajesty, with the advice of her 
 " Commissioners appointed and authorized under the Great 
 " Seal of England for causes Ecclesiastical, or of the Metro- 
 " politan of this realm." 
 
 Now in January, 156i — 5, were issued " Advertisements 
 " partly for due order in the public administration of common 
 " prayers, and using the holy sacraments, and partly for the 
 " upparel of all persons ecclesiastical, by virtue of the Queen's 
 Majesty's letters commanding the same," the Preface to which 
 tells us, that the Orders therein were drawn up and prescribed 
 by the Metropolitan and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 
 in obedience to the Queen's letters directing them to publish 
 such orders. Whether they received the Queen's sanction 
 after they were drawn up, is a point which seems doubtful. 
 And consequently there is a question whether they came 
 under the meaning of the clause in the Act above quoted. 
 I humbly conceive that they did so ; and the way in which 
 they are referred to in Art. 1 and 4 of Abp. Parker's " Articles 
 of Inquiry," in 1569 (Wilk. Cone. iv. 257, 258; or Cardw. Doc. 
 
33 
 
 Ann. i. 321), and Art. 4 of Archbishop Whitgift's "Articles 
 touching Preachers," &c. in 1584 (Wilk. Cone. iv. 307 ; or 
 Card. Doc. Ann. i. 413), and Canon 24 of the Canons of ] 604, 
 seems to me strongly confirmatory of that view. I may also add, 
 that all the directions given subsequently respecting the dress 
 of ministers in the public sei'vices of the Church, in Injunc- 
 tions, Articles, and Canons, seem to correspond with those 
 we find in these " Advertisements." 
 
 And in a Puritan work, entitled " Certain Considerations 
 drawn from the Canons, &c.," published in 1605, there is a 
 passage which strongly implies that the Bishops did rely upon 
 these " Advertisements," as satisfying the provisions of the Act; 
 for when speaking about the order for " ornaments" in the Act, 
 it remarks, " By the Advertisements, whereupon, as it seemeth, 
 they [i. e. the Archbishops and Bishops] did principally rebj, 
 and by authoritu whereof they did chiefly proceed, it is appa- 
 rent," &c. (p. 35.) 
 
 For later authorities, I would observe, that Bishop Sparrow, 
 in his " Rationale," quotes the directions of the " Advertise- 
 ments," without question, as showing how the Rubric is to be 
 followed (6th ed. 1722, p. 248, 249) : that Dr. Beunet, in his 
 " Paraphrase with Annotations on the Book of Common 
 Prayer," takes the same view (2nd ed. 1709, p. 5) ; as also 
 Archdeacon Sharp, in his Visitation Charges on the Rubric 
 and Camms, 1753, 8vo.p. 80, 81. 
 
 In these " Advertisements," then, we have the following 
 directions : — " Item, in the ministration of the holy com- 
 " niunion in Cathedral and Collegiate churches, the principal 
 " minister shall use a cope with gospeller and epistoler agree- 
 "ably ; and at all other prayers to be said at that communion- 
 " table, to use no copes but surplices. 
 
 " Item, 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. 
 
 " Item, that every minister saying any public prayers, or 
 " ministering the sacraments or other rites of the Church, 
 " shall wear a cowe/y wp/ice with sleeves, to be provided at 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 "the charges of the parish." (Wilk. iv. 248; Cardw. Doc, 
 Ann. i. 291, 292.) 
 
 Here the albe seems given up, and the use of the cope, &c., 
 confined to Cathedral and Collegiate churches, and only the 
 surplice required in Parochial churches. 
 
 And such seems to be the intention of subsequent directions 
 from the authorities of the Church. For instance, in xirch- 
 bishop Parker's Articles of Inquiry in 1569, the first has the 
 inquiry, — " Whether the holy sacraments be likewise minis- 
 " tercd reverently in such manner as by the laws of this realm, 
 " and by the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions, and by the Adver- 
 " tisements set forth by public authority, is appointed and 
 " prescribed ;" and the third, — " "WTiether your priests, cu- 
 " rates, or ministers do use, in the time of the celebration of 
 " Divine Service, to wear a surplice, prescribed by the Queen's 
 " Majesty's Injunctions and the Book of Common Prayer." 
 (Wilk. iv. 257, 258 ; Cardw. Doc. Ann. i. 320, 321.) 
 
 And no other inquiry occurs respecting dress in these 
 Articles. 
 
 Again, in the Canons of 1571 we find the following order, 
 " Nullus nec Decanus, nee Archidiaconus, nec Residentiarius, 
 " nec Prrcpositus, nee Gustos, nec Prsefectus, alicujus Collegii, 
 " aut Ecelesiae Cathcdralis, nec Prseses, nec Rector, nec quis- 
 " quam ex illo ordine, quocunque nomine censeatur, utetur 
 " posthac amictu illo quem appellant Graium amicium, aut 
 " alia ulla vcste simili superstitione contaminata. Sed in 
 " Ecclesiis quisque suis utentur tantum linea ilia veste, quae 
 " adhue Regio mandate retinetur, et Scholastica Epomide, 
 " quaj suo cujusque Scholastico gradui et loco conveniat." 
 (Wilk. Cone. iv. 264; Cardw. Synod, i. 115, 116.) That is, 
 according to the authorized translation published at the time, 
 — " No Dean, nor Archdeacon, nor Resideutiarie, nor Master, 
 " nor AVarden, nor Head of any College or Cathedi-al Church, 
 " neither President, nor Rector, nor any of that order, by 
 " what name soever they be called, shall hereafter wear the 
 " Graye Amice, or any other garment which hath been defiled 
 " with the like superstition. But every one of them shall 
 
35 
 
 " wear only that linen garment which is as yet retained 
 " by the Queen's commandment^ and also his scholar's hood, 
 " according to eveiy man's calling and degree in school." (A 
 Book of certain Canons, &c. Lond. 1571. p. 7.) The Latin 
 shows that after the words " every one of them," ought to be 
 added, " in his own church." This direction was not meant, 
 I conceive, to exclude the cope, the use of which in cathedral 
 churches was continued and prescribed after this, but only to 
 make the surphce the ministering dress, (excluding, of course, 
 the albe,) whatever might be worn over it. Nor does it ex- 
 clude the gown for preaching, because in the Canon concerning 
 preachers, in the same Book of Canons, the gown is pi-escribed 
 for preachers, as I shall show presently.* 
 
 Again, in Archbishop Whitgift's " Articles touching Preach- 
 ers," &c., in 1584, it is ordered, (Art 4), "That all preachers, 
 " and others in ecclesiastical orders, do at all times wear, and 
 " use such kind of apparel, as is prescribed unto them by the 
 " Book of Advertisements, and her Majesty's Injunctions 
 "'anno primo.-"' (Wilk. iv. 307; Cardw. Doc. Ann. i. 413.) 
 This, I conceive, includes the directions given for their dress in 
 their public^ministrations. f 
 
 And in an account given to the foreign Reformers by P. 
 
 * It may be worth while quoting here, for the historical information 
 it ^ives on the subject, a passage from a Letter of the Puritan Robert 
 Johnson to Dr. Sandys, when the latter was Bishop of London in 1573 
 (whom he scurrilously styles " Superintendent of Popish corruptions in 
 the Diocese of London "). He says, — " You must yield some reasons 
 why the shaven crown is despised, and the square cap received : why the 
 tippet is commanded, and the stole forbidden: why the vestment is put 
 away, and the cope retained : why the albe is laid aside, and the surplice 
 is used : or why the chalice is forbidden in the Bishop of Canterbury's 
 Articles : or the gray amice by the Canon, more than the rest. What 
 have they offended, or what impiety is in them more than the rest ncvvr 
 commanded?" (A Part of a Register, 4to., p. 104.) 
 
 f The " Injunction" to which reference is made in this Article of 
 Whitgift, and in those quoted above of Archbishop Parker, must be the 
 .3()th of the Injunctions of 1559 (published soon after the Book of 
 Common Prayer and the Act of Uniformity), by which the prelates and 
 clergy were ordered, " both in the church and without," to " use and 
 wear such seemly habits, garments, and such square caps, as were most 
 commonly and orderly received in the latter year of the reign of King 
 Edward the Sixth." (Wilk. Cone. iv. 186 ; Cardw. Doc. Ann. i. 193.) 
 D 2 
 
36 
 
 Wybuni (a witness who certainly would not have concealed the 
 fact of this Rubric being carried out^) of the " State of the 
 Church of England" in the early part of Queen Elizabeth's 
 reign, we find hiin stating the case thus : " In every church 
 " throughout England, during prayers, the minister must 
 " wear a linen garment, which we call a surplice. And in the 
 " larger churches, at the administration of the Lord's Supper, 
 " the chief minister must wear a silk garment, which they 
 " call a cope, and two other ministers, formerly called the 
 " deacon and sub-deacon, must assist him to read the Epistle 
 " and Gospel." (Zurich Lett. Ser.ii. p. 361.) 
 
 Hence it would seem, that the Rubric of 1559 was con- 
 sidered as superseded by subsequent directions ; and we know, 
 from a Letter of Sandys to P. Martyr, in April 1, 1560, that 
 it was the wish of at least some of our Reformers at that period 
 tliat it should be. He says, — " Tantum manent in Ecclesia 
 " nostra vestimenta ilia papi.stica, (copas intellige,) quas diu 
 " non duraturas speramus." (Zurich Lett. Ser. i., Ep. 31^ 
 p. 43.) And it appears from a Letter of George Wither to 
 Lord Burleigh in 1583, that some of the Bishops at that time 
 signified their dissatisfaction with some things of this kind in 
 the Prayer Book, to the foreign Reformers, and ui-ged as an 
 excuse their not being of the Parliament when the Book passed. 
 He writes, — " The which things, [private baptism, and com- 
 " munion with one sick person,] with some others, in the be- 
 " ginning of her Majesty's i-eign, some of the Bishops then being 
 " were charged with by the learned of foreign churches. Vi\o 
 " in this wise excused themselves, as I myself saw in their letters 
 " of answer, which by Mr. BuUiuger and Gualter were showed me 
 " at Zurich a. 1567 ; namely, that they, nor none of them, were 
 " of the Parliament House at the passing of the Book; and 
 " that therefore they had no voice in making of the law : but 
 " after it was past, they being chosen to be bishops must 
 " cither content themselves to take their jjlaces as things were, 
 " or else leave them to Papists, or to them which are not much 
 '' better, that is, to Lu/herans. But in the mean space they 
 " both promised not to urge their brethren to those doctrines ; 
 
37 
 
 " and also, wlu-n opportunity should serve, to seek reforma- 
 " tion of thein." (Strype's Ann. III. ii. 270.)* 
 
 And consequently in Archbishop Grindal's Articles of Inquiry 
 for Parish Churches, in his Metropolitical Visitation of the 
 Province of Canterbury in 1576, we find in the 6th an inquiry, 
 "vrhether all vestments, albes, tunicles, stoles," &c., be destroyed; 
 and in the 7th, "Whether your parson, vicar, curate, or 
 minister do wear any cope in your parish church or chapel." 
 (Works, p. 159.) 
 
 But what are, of course, of far higher authority in the matter, 
 are thedirections given in theCanonsof 1604, which are these: — 
 
 Can. 24. "Copes to be worn in Cathedral Churches by those that 
 " administer the Communion. In all Cathedral and Collegiate 
 " churches the holycouimunion shall be administered uponprin- 
 " cipal feast-days, sometimes by the Bisho]), if he be present, 
 " and sometimes bv the Dean, and at some times by a Canon 
 " or Prebendary, the principal minister using a decent cope, and 
 " being assisted with the Gospeller and Epistler agreeably ac- 
 " cording to the Advertisements published anno 7 Eliz." 
 
 Can. 25. " Surplices and hoods to be worn in Cathedral 
 " Churches, when there is no Communion. In the time of Di- 
 " vine Service and Prayers in all Cathedral and Collegiate 
 " churches, when there is no Commvmion, it shall be sufficient 
 " to wear surplices ; saving that all Deans, Masters and Heads 
 " of Collegiate churches, Canons and Prebendaries, being gra- 
 " duates, shall daily, at the times both of prayer and preach- 
 " ing, wear with their surplices such hoods as are agreeable to 
 " their degrees." 
 
 Can. 58. "Ministers reading Divine Service, and admi- 
 
 * A passage follows in this Letter, so appropriate to the present times, 
 that (though it is on a different subject) I cannot refrain from quoting 
 it. He says, — •" The second sort of things, being taken out of the 
 Portutse, and translated into the Book of Common Prayer, the Papists 
 urge in that sense in the which they were used by themselves, from whom 
 they were taken. And these expositions which we now give, they say, 
 they are violent, and wrested from the true, nutivt , natural, and ordinary 
 sense. Whereby they make the ignorant believe that the Bonk fiivnurcth 
 divers of their errors. Which weapon I wish were pulled out of their 
 hands." 
 
38 
 
 " nistering the Sacraments, to wear surplices, and graduates 
 " therewithal hoods. Every minister saying the public pray- 
 " ers, or ministering the sacraments, or other rites of the 
 " Church, shall wear a decent and comely surplice with 
 " sleeves, to be provided at the charge of the parish. And if 
 " any question arise touching the matter, decency, or comeli- 
 " ness thereof, the same shall be decided by the discretion of 
 " the Ordinary. Furthermore, such ministers as are graduates 
 " shall wear upon their surplices, at such times, such hoods 
 " as by the orders of the Universities are agreeable to their 
 " degrees, which no minister shall wear (being no graduate) 
 " under pain of suspension. Notwithstanding, it shall be 
 " lawful for such ministers as are not gi-aduates to wear upon 
 " their surplices, instead oi hoods, some decent tippets of black, 
 " so it be not silk." 
 
 These Canons having been passed in Convocation, and rati- 
 fied by the Crown, clearly show the intentions of our Eccle- 
 siastical authorities at that period ; while, nevertheless, the 
 Rubric of Queen Elizabeth's Prayer Book was still at that veiy 
 time in the Book of Common Prayer as then authorized. 
 
 And as a proof that the directions of the Advertisements and 
 Canons had beyond question practically superseded the Rubric, 
 I would observe, that in all the Parochial Articles of Inquiry 
 I have seen, even of Archbishop Laud and the Bishops of his 
 party, I find no inquiry as to albes, vestments, copes, or 
 tunicles. I will give one specimen of the Inquiries on this 
 head from Mouutagu's Articles at Chichester in 1637. The 
 12th of the " Articles concerning Ministers," &c. is, — " Doth 
 " your minister always and at every time, both morning and 
 " evening, reading Divine Service, and administering the Sacra- 
 " ments and other rites of the Church, wear the surplice accord- 
 " ing to the Canons, and doth he never omit wearing of the 
 " same at such times V (Articles to be enquired of, &c., Lond. 
 1637, 4to.) 
 
 I must add, that both Dr. Bennet, in his " Paraphrase with 
 Annotations on the Book of Common Prayer," (2d cd. 1709, 
 pp. 5 — 7j) and Archdeacon Sharp, in his Visitation Charges 
 
39 
 
 respecting the Rubric and Canons (1753, 8vo, pp. 80, 81,) 
 hold that our pi-csent Rubric also is to be limited by the " Ad- 
 vertisements " and the Canons of 1604. 
 
 Much, therefore, is to be said in favour of the reasonableness 
 of following, even now, the course sanctioned by these Canons 
 in the matter of Vestures. 
 
 And previous to the Prayer Book of 1663, it might perhaps 
 fairly have been held, that the Rubric of the Prayer Book 
 (which referred for its authority to the Act of Uniformity, that 
 authorized orders on the subject given by the authority of the 
 Queen, with the advice of the High Commissioners or the 
 Metropolitan), was superseded by the directions of the "Ad- 
 vertisements " and Canons. But I admit that our present 
 Rubric, which leaves out the reference to Queen Elizabeth's 
 Act of Uniformity, and expressly enjoins the ornaments of 
 King Edward's First Book, cannot be thus got rid of. 
 
 It will be observed, that the last quoted Canon requires 
 gi'aduates, in all their public ministrations, to wear over the 
 surplice their appropriate hoods ; and permits those who are 
 not gi-aduates to wear, instead of the hood, a tippet of black, 
 " so it be not silk." I leave the question, as to what shape 
 this "tippet" is to be, to those who are fond of such inquiries. 
 Mr. Robertson thinks it to be the same with the stole or scarf 
 now worn, but I doubt the correctness of this supposition. 
 
 Such are the directions that have been given in our Church 
 on the subject of dress for the clergy in the public services of 
 the Church. And it must be admitted that the matter is left 
 in a very unsatisfactory state. 
 
 (2.) The Dress for Preaching. 
 
 Unfortunately, no specific directions occur in the Rubric or 
 Code of Canons now in force on this subject, and consequently 
 great uncertainty has been felt as to what is the legal dress 
 for preaching. My conclusion, from the various authorities 
 that have come under my notice, is, that it was not intended 
 by our Church at any time that surplices should be required 
 
40 
 
 to be worn in ])rcacliing-,* nor that those who had not pi'e- 
 viously put it on for those ministrations in which it was required, 
 should ever put it on expressly for preaching ; but nevertheless, 
 that from the period of the Reformation it has been the custom 
 in many places for it to be worn in preaching by those who 
 have been wearing it in the previous part of the Ser\dce in 
 which the sermon occurs ; and this custom has at times been 
 sanctioned by the authority of individual Bishops. I am 
 speaking of course more particulai'ly of parochial churches ; 
 but I believe that the same remark applies to the case of 
 Cathedral Churches, when the preacher is not one of the clergy 
 of the Cathedi-al. It must also, I think, be added, that from 
 the want of any clear direction on the subject, it is one of those 
 things that, in case of dispute, fall under the power cf the 
 Ordinarj' to determine in any particular case, according to the 
 principle laid down in Section III. above, and this power has been 
 exercised by various Bishops. It is much to be desired, how- 
 ever, that such a question should be set at rest by some defi- 
 nite direction of universal obligation. 
 
 I now proceed to give the authorities on which the above 
 view of the subject is founded. 
 
 That the surplice was not intended by our Reformers to be 
 required to be ivorn in preaching, seems a necessary inference from 
 the fullowing passacjes. 
 
 Archbishop Parker, in a Letter to the Secretary of State in 
 1566, writes, that "whereas he had sent divers days three or 
 " four of his chaplains to serve in the greatest parishes, what for 
 " lack of surplice and wafer-bread, they did mostly but preach." 
 (Strype's Parker, 225, or i. 449.) The lack of surplice, there- 
 fore, was of no consequence for preaching. 
 
 Again, in a Letter from John Abel to H. Bullinger, dated 
 June 6, 1566, we find the following passage, — "So rigid are 
 
 * I speak only of llie surplice, because it seems generally agreed that 
 tlie use of the <iihc, tiioupli prcscriljetl by Kiug Edward's First Prayer 
 Book, was iicvir levivvd in our Cliurcli after that Book had been super- 
 sedeil ill 15.)L', iiotuirlisruiiilHj}; the Rubne on oi iiauieuts. According to 
 that Uuhiic, howcM v, il tin.- jiiOHclier is t{) ue:;)- the same dress in preach- 
 ing lis \n readiug the ('oniniuinon Service, the proper vesture is the 
 albt. 
 
41 
 
 " thev in their opinion, that they have altogether given up their 
 " ecclesiastical vocation, and are therefore deposed from their 
 " ministry : which is greatly to be regretted, especially as they 
 '•' need not put on a surplice when preaching." (Zurich Lett. Ser. 
 2, p. 118.) 
 
 Mr. Robertson also has pointed out a passage in Strype 
 from a letter written by the Puritan Anthony Gilby in 1570, 
 that clearly supports this view. He complains that the 
 Bishops " do make such a diversity between Christ's word and 
 " his Sacraments, that they can think the word of God to be 
 " safely enough preached, and honourably enough handled, 
 " without cap, cope, or surplice, but that the sacraments, the 
 " marrying, the burying, the churching of women, and other 
 " church-service, as they call it, must needs be declared with 
 " crossing, with coping, with surplicing, with kneeling," &c. 
 (Annals II. G, or II. i. 8, Oxf. cd. The Letter is taken from the 
 work called A Part of a Register," p. 12. I have adopted 
 Mr. Robertson's verbal emendation of Stry}3e's text in putting 
 " can" for "cannot," which, he justly observes, is required by 
 the sense. I have not had an opportunity of consulting the 
 original text in " A Part of a Register," my own copy of that 
 very rare work having a favf leaves missing just at the part 
 where this Letter occurs.) 
 
 But that the surplice has been worn in preaching bg many 
 (and with the sanction of the ecclesiastical authorities), from the 
 first pjeriod of the establishment of our Reformed Church at the 
 accession of Queen Elizabeth, seems clear from the following 
 passages. 
 
 In a Letter of Dr. Guest, afterwards Bishop of Rochester, 
 to Sir W. Cecil, the Queen's Secretary, sent with his revision 
 of the Prayer Book in 1559, previous to its being confirmed 
 by Parliament, we find him thus speaking, — " Because it is 
 " sufficient to use but a surplice in baptizing, reading, preach- 
 " ing, and praying ; therefore, it is enough also for the cele- 
 " brating the Communion." (Strypc's Ann. I. App. xiv., or 
 I. ii. 4G1, Oxf. ed.) 
 
 Again, Cavtwright, in his Reply to Whitgift's Answer to the 
 
42 
 
 Admonition in 1573, observes, — "A man may rather reason, 
 " that, forasmuch as they which preach with surplice, &c. 
 "edify . . . if they preached without wearing any such thing, 
 " they should edify much more." (Reply to an Answer, &c. 
 p. 78, 2d. cd.) 
 
 To this Whitgift replies thus,—" The laws of the Church 
 " have prescribed this apparel to the ministers of the Word, as 
 " decent, orderly, and comely : the same laws have inhibited 
 " those to preach that refuse to submit themselves unto such 
 " orders : wherefore, seeing they be appointed as fit garments 
 " for preachers, and none may preach except he receive them, 
 " they do edify," &c. (Defence of the Answer to the Admo- 
 nition 1574, fol. p. 288.) 
 
 These words of Whitgift must be understood as having 
 reference to the garments generally, otherwise they would 
 contradict the Canon passed just before in the Convocation of 
 1571. The explanation I believe to be, that the words are not 
 to be interpreted as implying that the surplice only was ad- 
 missible in preaching, but that the garments prescribed must 
 be worn. Either surplices or gowns were to be worn in 
 preaching, and the Puritans disliked the prescribed gown as 
 much as the surpUce,* and it is very probable that, for con- 
 venience sake and economy, surplices were very commonly 
 worn in preaching, by those who had to officiate in the church 
 just before in that dress. Hence the sui-plice more par- 
 ticularly was spoken of as the prescribed dress. The Puritans 
 wished to preach without either, as we learn from Cartwright's 
 Second Reply to Whitgift, where he says, — "Within the 
 " Church would not the Priest's gown suffice, without the 
 " sui-phce ? His surplice without the cope ? His preaching, 
 " and other ministerial function, without them all ?" (The Rest 
 of the Second Reply, &c. 1577, 4to, p. 252.) 
 
 Again, in a Puritan work entitled " A Full and Plain De- 
 claration of Ecclesiastical DiscipUne," &c., written probably 
 by Walter Travers, we have the following passage, — "And 
 
 * Mr. Robertson says, — " the gowu was abhorred by the Genevating 
 party, little, if at all, less thau the surphce itself." (p. 117.) 
 
43 
 
 " whereas they allege also order and decency for their sur- 
 " plice, I would know why it should seem more comely and 
 " decent for a minister, that he should preach or pray in a 
 " surplice than in a gown. In white raiment than in black 
 " apparel." (1574, 4to, p. 130.) 
 
 This may be taken as some evidence that the surplice was 
 frequently used for preaching, but not to the exclusion of all 
 gowns, because that would contradict the Canon of 1571, 
 prescribing a dress for preaching, which I shall quote presently. 
 As far only as one of the points mentioned, that is, prayer, is 
 concerned, can the words be taken quite literally. 
 
 The same remark applies to the passage sometimes quoted 
 from Hooker's Fifth Book of Ecclesiastical Polity, first pub- 
 lished in 1597, where he represents the Puritans as thus com- 
 plaining to their congregations : — " Rather than that [i. e. 
 " our pastoral charge"] shall be taken from us, we are resolved 
 " to take this filth \i. e. the surplice] , and to put it on, al- 
 " though we judge it to be so unfit and inconvenient, that as 
 " oft as ever we pray or preach so arrayed before you, we do 
 " as much as in us lieth to cast away your souls that are 
 " weakminded, and to bring you unto endless perdition." 
 (Bk. 5. ch. 29. § 7.) 
 
 And we may observe, that when Hooker speaks of it him- 
 self, he calls it, — " that Church attire which with us for the 
 most part is usual in public prayer" (lb. § 5.) 
 
 Another passage has been quoted in favour of the notion 
 that sui-plices were required in preaching, from the examination 
 of some Pui-itans before Grindal and other Commissioners, 
 which states, — " When some of the Commissioners had urged 
 " that they held the Reformation in King Edward's days, one 
 " of them said, ' They in King Edward's days never came so 
 " far as to make a law that none should preach or minister 
 " without these garments.'" (Strype's Life of Grindal, p. 119, 
 or p. 176, Oxf. ed.) And this is made to refer to a notice in 
 the previous page of the surplice and cope as worn by Grindal 
 in St. Paid's. But this is clearly a mistake, because by the 
 " Advertisements" the cope was only to be worn in cathedrals ; 
 
44 
 
 and by the account of the Examination, it is e\-ident, that the 
 objections made, were to the prescribed garments generally. 
 The account of the Examination is to be found in "A Part of 
 a Register," p. 23 ct seq. And we find that when one of 
 the Puritans complained, that the Pope's canon law and the 
 will of the Prince were "preferred before the word and ordi- 
 nance of Christ," and he was asked "what is so preferred," 
 he i-eplied, " Why that which is upon your head [the square 
 " cap] and upon your back [the gown,] your copes, and your 
 " surplices, and your laws, and ministers, because you will 
 " suffer none to preach, nor minister, except he wear them, or 
 " subscribe to them." (p. 27.) 
 
 And in the next tract in this Collection, entitled " Certain 
 Questions &c. against the Reasons for the A])parel and Cere- 
 monies urged," we have the following passage : — " For the 
 " Bishops' gowns without sleeves, and these ivide gowns with 
 " large sleeves, and surplices, were invented by the Pope, and 
 " pressed on the Roman Clergy, Clem. 3, lib. 10. Therefore 
 " he should worship God in vain, that should teach the wearing 
 " of such garments." (p. 38.) 
 
 Again, in the "View ef Antichrist, his Laws and Ceremo- 
 nies in our English Church unreformed," in the same Col- 
 lection, one of the " gross points of Popery evident to all men," 
 (No. 21 of a list of 50) is " the great wide-sleeved goivn com- 
 " manded to the ministers, and the charge to wear those sleeves 
 " upon the arms, be the weather never so hot." (p. 63.) 
 
 It is evident, that this is the vei-y gown now commonly 
 known by the traditional name of the preaching gown. And, 
 certainly, on a warm day that gown might palliate the Puritan 
 exclamation, " be the weather never so hot." 
 
 The following passage also from a Puritan work of 1605 
 might be thought, at first sight, to prove that the sui'plice was 
 necessary for preaching : — 
 
 " We again demand, what reason your Lordships can yield 
 " out of holy writ, that the ministers of the Gospel, when they 
 " approach to pray, to preach the word, and to administer the 
 " Sacraments, which are things for the people under the Gos- 
 
45 
 
 " pel, sliould put upon them ministerial linen garments." 
 (Certain Demands with their Grounds, drawn out of Holy Writ. 
 1605. 4to. p. 9. And see p. 10.) 
 
 This might seem to imply, that a surplice was required in 
 preaching, but the same work mentions copes, &c. in a similar 
 way, the use of which we know was not required in the paro- 
 chial clergy. And we cannot ai-gue, from the loose complaints 
 we find in these works, as to what the law was. 
 
 With respect to all these passages, it must be remembered, 
 that the Puritans complained in these matters, not merely so 
 far as concerned what they themselves were compelled to do, 
 but as it respected what was allowed to be done by others. 
 
 And there can be no doubt, that individual Bishops have at 
 various times, from an early period in our Reformed Church, 
 availed themselves of their power as Ordinaries, in matters not 
 precisely determined by the Church, to order the Surplice to 
 be worn in preaching. It is clear from his own statement in 
 his Answer to the Articles of Impeachment against him in 1641, 
 that Bp. Wren did this in his Diocese. (See Parentalia 1750, 
 pp. 91, 92.) Dr. J. Towers, Bishop of Peterborough, also, issued 
 an order in 1639, for the preacher at a Wednesday Lecture 
 in St. James's Chapel, Brackley, in his Diocese, to " go up into 
 the pulpit in his surplice and hood." (Prynne's Canterbury's 
 Doom, p. 379.) 
 
 Bp. Cosin made a similar order for the whole of his diocese 
 of Durham, and the practice was continued for many years; 
 and it is noticed by Archdeacon Sharp, in the middle of the 
 last century, as a peculiarity of custom belonging to that dio- 
 cese, that there pi-cvailed in it " the constant use of the surplice 
 by all preachers in their jjulpits," which he traces to Bishop 
 Cosin 's order. (Visitation Charges on the Hubric and Canons 
 1753, 8vo. p. 246.) The Archdeacon's own opinion, how- 
 ever, is, that the order was a mistaken one. He thinks that 
 " there is something in both [the Rubric and Canons] which 
 would discourage, if not forbid, such a ])racticc." (lb.) 
 
 Bat a gown was a common dress fur preachers from the first. 
 
 For among the Articles proposed in the Lower House of 
 
46 
 
 Convocation in 1562 was the following, — "That the use of 
 copes and surplices may be taken away ; so that all ministers 
 in their ministry use a grave, comely, and side garment, as com- 
 monly they do in preaching." (Wilk. Cone. iv. 239.) It has 
 been hinted, that this may refer to the case of preaching when 
 the Common Prayer was not read. But the words are so ge- 
 neral, that I see not how it is possible to limit them to that 
 sense. 
 
 And the only directions that are to be found respecting the 
 dress of the parochial clergy when preaching, in Canons or Epis- 
 copal Injunctions, with the exception of those of some of the Lau- 
 dian Bishops in the 17 th century, order the gown to be worn. 
 
 Thus in the Canons of 1571, it is ordered, — "Inter con- 
 " cionandum utentur veste quam maxime modesta et gravi, quae 
 " deceat, atque ornet ministrum Dei, qualisque in libello Ad- 
 " monitionum descripta est." De Concionat. (Wilk. iv. 267 ; 
 Cardw. Synod, i. 127.) That is, according to the authorized 
 translation published at the time, — " In preaching they shall 
 wear a very modest and grave garment, which may become 
 and set forth the minister of God, and such as is prescribed in 
 the Book of Advertisements," (A Book of certain Canons, &c., 
 pp. 23, 24.)* The order in the " Book of Advertisements " 
 which is here referred to, must be that which is given in the 
 part called " Articles for outward apparel of persons ecclesias- 
 tical," which prescribes a gown, varying only in some unim- 
 portant particulars according to the condition of the party. 
 
 Again, in 1629 we have an order, that Lecturers, after having 
 read Divine Service in surplice and hood, ai-e to preach in 
 gowns. For in certain " Instructions" sent by Charles I. to 
 the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in that year, the 
 second is, — " That every Bishop ordain in his diocese. That 
 " every Lectui-er do read Divine Service, according to the 
 " Liturgy printed by authority, in his surplice and hood 
 " before the Lectui-e ;" and the third dii-ects, " That where a 
 
 * Mr. Robertson (p. 109) speaks of this Canon as if it referred only to 
 " preachers hcensed to itinerate." This is not thecase, as the commence- 
 ment of the Canon shows. 
 
47 
 
 " Lecture is set up in a Market Town, it may be read by a 
 " company of grave and orthodox divines near adjoining and 
 " in the same diocese, and that they preach in gowns, and not 
 " in cloaks, as too many do use." (Rushworth's Histor. Collect. 
 Vol. i. Pt. 2, p. 30.) Here, then, is an express direction for 
 a gown in preaching, even where the preacher has just before 
 been ministering in his surplice. Instructions of the same 
 kind were again issued by Charles I. in 1633, during the 
 primacy of Laud ; the only difference being, that instead of 
 the word " gowns," was used the phrase " such seemly habits 
 as belong to their degrees." (Wilk. Cone. iv. 480 ; Cardw. 
 Doc. Ann. ii. 178.) 
 
 Again, in the Articles issued by Archbishop Laud in his Me- 
 tropolitical Visitation of several dioceses in 1635, the second 
 Article of those headed " Concerning the Clergy^' is, — "Whe- 
 ther have you any Lecturer in your Parish, who hath preached 
 in his cloak, and not in his gown." I quote this from the 
 Articles sent to the dioceses of Worcester and Chichester. 
 
 A still more important authority, as being one that relates 
 to the Parochial Clergy, is to be found in the Visitation 
 Articles of Dr. Brian Duppa, Bishop of Chichester, in 1638. 
 In the Articles " concerning the Clergy," the tenth is, — 
 "Doth he p. e. your minister], in celebration of Divine 
 " Service, use such vestments as are enjoined by authority ; 
 " doth he constantly, in performing that duty, wear a surplice, 
 " and an hood (if he be a gTaduate) suitable to his degi-ee V 
 And the twelfth is, — " Doth he preach in such a solemn habit 
 as becomes him, in a long gown and cassock, not in a riding or 
 ambulatory cloak ?" (Articles to be inquired of, &c. Lond. 
 1638, 4to.)* This is clear and decisive as far as the authority 
 of this document goes, and Bishop Duppa is a very good 
 authority on the subject. 
 
 * From these and similar Articles we may observe the mistake of 
 some who have interpreted the phrase. Divine Service, as necessarily in- 
 cluding the Sermon, (as for instance, lilshop Wren, in his Answ. to the 
 Art. of Impeachment), and have thereby obtained an argument for 
 preaching in the surplice. Mr. Robertson (p. 113) points out several 
 instances where the Sermon is spoken of as distinct from " ministration" 
 or " Divine Service." 
 
48 
 
 A similar direction may, perhaps, have been intended in the 
 following Article in Bishop Mountagu's Articles for the Dio- 
 cese of Norwich in 1638: — "Doth your minister officiate 
 " Divine Service in due place, upon set times, in the robes, 
 " habit, and apparel of his order, with a sui-plice, an hood, a 
 " gown, a tippet, not in a cloak or sleeveless jacket," &c. Tit. 
 5. Art. 16. (Articles of Enquiry and Direction for the Diocese 
 of Norwich. Lond. 1638, 4to.) But the words are ambiguous. 
 
 It must be added, that by the Rubric on " ornaments," by 
 which the directions of King Edward's first Prayer Book are 
 sanctioned, the ministers of Parochial chui'chcs, as well as 
 Cathedral, come under the rule of that Book of King Edward, 
 that " it is seemly, that graduates, when they do pi'each, 
 should use such hoods as pertaineth to their several degrees." 
 
 In Cathedral churches. Canon 25, of the Canons of 1604, 
 appears to require the use of the surplice in preaching in the 
 Clergy belonging to the Cathedral, and in Masters and Heads 
 of Collegiate churches. (See the Canon, p. 37 above.) It would 
 seem, however, that even in Laud's time this was not univer- 
 sally observed, for Bishop Wren, in his Answer to the Articles 
 of Impeachment, exhibited against him in 1641, only says, — 
 " In Colleges also, and in the Cathedi-al and Collegiate 
 " chuj'ches, the Fellows, Canons, and Prebends do ordinarily 
 " preach in their surplices." (Parentalia, 1750. p. 91.) 
 
49 
 
 SECTION VIII, 
 
 -THAT IS, STATUES OR PICTURES OF SAINTS, 
 FIXES, AND CROSSES IN CHURCHES. 
 
 That all these are forbidden in our churches, the following 
 authorities abundantly prove ; and they are forbidden on the 
 ground that they have been worshipped, and that they have a 
 tendency to lead to superstition and idolatry. 
 
 The first authority I shall quote is a Statute now in force, 
 namely, the Act of 3 and 4Edw. VI. c. 10, entitled "An Act 
 for the abolishing and putting away of divers Books and 
 Images/' put forth soon after the Act of Uniformity.* This 
 Act clearly (from the language used) supposes that Images had 
 been already pretty nearly removed from the Churches ; as no 
 doubt they had been, in consequence of the Injunctions, and 
 the King's letter for removing them. But, in § 2, it enacts, 
 that " if any person or persons. . . . that now have, or hereafter 
 " shall have, in his, her, or their custody, any the books or 
 " writings of the sorts aforesaid, or any images of stone, 
 " timber, alabaster, or earth, graven, carved, or painted, 
 " which heretofore have been taken out of any church or 
 " chapel, or yet stand in any church or chapel, and do not 
 " before the last day of June next ensuing deface and destroy, 
 
 * It will be observed, that no argument can be brought against this 
 testimony from the Rubric on ornaments in our present Prayer Book, 
 because we have already proved, that that Rubric only refers to the orna- 
 ments mentioned in the first Prayer Book of Edw. VI. 
 
 £ 
 
50 
 
 " or cause to be defaced and destroyed, the same images and 
 " every of them," &c., they are to forfeit twenty shillings for the 
 first offence, four pounds for the second, and to be imprisoned 
 during the King's pleasure for the third. And the only limi- 
 tation of this is the following Proviso in the last clause, — 
 " Provided always, that this Act, or any thing therein con- 
 " tained, shall not extend to any imofie or jnciure set or 
 " graven upon any tomb in any church, chapel, or church- 
 " yard, only for a monument of any king, prince, nobleman, 
 " or other dead person, wliich hath not been commonly re- 
 " puted and taken for a saint, but that such pictures and 
 " tillages may stand and continue," &c. 
 
 This Act was repealed in the first year of Queen Mar)''s 
 reign, but the repealing Statute of Mary was itself repealed by 
 Stat. 1 Jac. I., c. 25, § 48, and the above Act revived ; and, as 
 our learned Bishop T. Barlow remarks, in a little treatise on 
 this very subject, " so remains still obligatory."* 
 
 And it must be observed, that the Act extends to pictures as 
 well as statues, under the name of images. But the Proviso 
 in the last clause certainly indicates, that the prohibition, so 
 far as concerns the images of persons, was more especially 
 directed against the images of those who have been reputed 
 and worshipped as saints. Of course, the Crucifix was in- 
 cluded in the prohibition ; and also the Cross, as having been 
 the object of worship and adoration. The letter of Dr. Cox, 
 Bishop of Ely, to Peter Martyr, written about Dec. 1559, shows 
 that both were reckoned by our Reformers among the images 
 that ought to be removed from churches. He says, — " By the 
 " blessing of God, all those leading points of religion are re- 
 " stored to us, which we held in the time of King Edward. 
 " Only we are compelled to tolerate in our churches, to our 
 " great grief, the image of the Cross and of the Crucifix. The 
 " Lord must be entreated that this stumbling-block may at 
 
 * The Case of setting up Images in Churches, a tract to be found in 
 Cases of Conscience resolved by Dr. T. Barlow, late Lord Bishop of 
 Lincoln. Lond. 1692. 8vo. 
 
51 
 
 " length be taken away."* This was written at the com- 
 mencement of Queen Eh'zabeth's reign, and before she had 
 consented to authorize the removal of these images from the 
 churches ; which, however, she was very soon induced to do. 
 And the words certainly imply that they had been removed 
 in King Edward's time. 
 
 Another prohibition of images, graven or painted, in our 
 churches, obligatory upon us at the present time, is to be 
 found in the Homily " Against Peril of Idolatry," in the Second 
 Book of Homilies, published by authority in the year 1562> 
 and enforced by the 35th of the XXXIX Articles. 
 
 The following extracts from this Homily will sufficiently 
 show the mind of oiir Church in this matter.f 
 
 "Though some, to blind men's eyes, have heretofore craftily 
 gcgae about to make them \i. e. idol and image,] to be taken for 
 words of divers significations in matters of religion, and have there- 
 fore usually named the likeness or similitude of a thing set up 
 amongst the heathen in their temples or other places, to be wor- 
 • shipped, an idol. But the I'ke similitude with us, set up in the 
 church, the place of worshipping, they call an image, as though 
 these two words {idol and image) in Scripture, did differ in pro- 
 priety and sense, which (as is aforesaid) differ only in sound and 
 language, and in meaning be indeed all one, specially in the 
 Scriptures and matters of religion. And our images also have 
 been, and be, and if they be publicly suffered in churches and 
 temples, ever will be also worshipped, and so idolatry committed 
 to them, as in the last part of this Homily shall at large be 
 declared and proved. Wherefore our images in temples and 
 churches be indeed none other but idols, as unto the which idolatry 
 hath been, is, and ever will be committed." (p. 189.) 
 
 " Therefore, although it is now commonly said, that they be the 
 
 * Reddita sunt nobis Dei beneficio omnia ilia religionis capita, quae 
 D. Edvardi tempore tenuimus. Tantiim crucis crucifixique imaginem 
 in templis tolerare cogimur, cum magno animorura nostrorum cruciatu. 
 Rogandus est Dominus ut hoc demum scandalum auferatur." (Zurich 
 Lett. Ser. i. Ep. 28, p. 38.; 
 
 t I quote from the Christian Knowledge Society's edition of 1833. 
 E 2 
 
52 
 
 laymen's books, yet we see they teach no good esson, neither of 
 God, nor godliness, but all error and wickedness. Therefore God 
 by His word, as He forbiddeth any idols or images to be made or 
 set up, so doth He conimaiid such as we find made and set up, to 
 be pulled down, broken, and destroyed." (p. 196.) 
 
 " Epiphanius, Bishop of Salaniine in Cyprus, a very holy and 
 learned man, who Hved in Theodosius the Emperor's time, about 
 390 years after our Saviour Christ's ascension, writeth thus to 
 John, Patriarch of Jerusalem ; ' I entered (saith Epiphanius) into a 
 certain church to pray; I found there a linen cloth hanging in the 
 church-door, painted, and having in it the imacje of Christ, as it 
 were, or of some other saint ; (for I remember not well whose 
 image it was ;) therefore, when I did see the image of a man 
 hanging in the Church of Christ, contrary to the authority of the 
 Scriptures, I did tear it, and gave counsel to the keepers of the 
 church, that they should wind a poor man that was dead in the 
 said cloth, and so bury him.' And afterwards the same Epipha- 
 nius, sending another unpainted cloth, for that painted one which 
 he had torn, to the said patriarch, writeth thus : ' I pray you, will 
 the elders of that place to receive this cloth which I have sent by 
 this bearer, and command them that from henceforth no such 
 painted cloths, contrary to our religion, be hanged in the Church 
 of Christ. For it becometh your goodness rather to have this care, 
 that you take away such scrupulosity, which is unfitting for the 
 Church of Christ, and otl'ensive to the people committed to your 
 charge.' And this epistle, as worthy to be read of many, did St. 
 
 Jerome himself translate into the Latin tongue Thus you see 
 
 what authority St. Jerome, and that most antient history, give 
 unto the holy and learned Bishop Epiphanius, whose judgment of 
 images in churches and temples, then beginning by stealth to creep 
 in, is worthy to be noted. First, he judged it contrary to Chris- 
 tian religion, and the authority of the Scriptures, to have any 
 images in Christ's Church. Secondly, he rejected not only carved, 
 graven, and molten images, but also painted images out of Christ's 
 Church. Thirdly, that he regarded not whether it were the image 
 of Christ or of any other saint; but being an image, would not 
 suffer it in the Church. Fourthly, that he did not onlv remove it 
 out of tl.e Church, but with a vehement zeal tare it in sunder, and 
 exhorted that a corpse should be wrapped and buried in it, judging 
 
53 
 
 it meet for nothing but to rot in the earth, following herein the 
 example of the good king Hezekiah, who brake the brazen serpent 
 to pieces, and burned it to ashes, for that idolatry was committed 
 to it. Last of all, that Epiphanius thinketh it the duty of vigilant 
 Bishops to be careful that no images be permitted in the church, 
 for that they be occasion of scruple and offence to the people com- 
 mitted to their charge. Now whereas neither St. Jerome, who 
 did translate the same epistle, nor the authors of that most antient 
 History Ecclesiastical Tripartite, (who do most highly commend 
 Epiphanius, as is aforesaid;, nor any other godly or learned Bishop 
 at that time, or shortly after, have written anything against Epi- 
 phanius s judgment concerning images; it is an evident proof, that 
 in those days, which were about 400 years after our Saviour Christ, 
 there were no images publicly used and received in the Church of 
 Christ, which was then much less corrupt and more pure than now 
 it is. And whereas images began at that time secretly and by 
 stealth to creep out of private men's liouses into the churches, and 
 that first in painted cloths and walls, such Bishops as were godly 
 and vigilant, when they spied them, removed them away, as un- 
 lawful and contrary to Christian religion, as did here Epiphanius," 
 &c. (pp. 205-207.) 
 
 " As the Jews. . . . did by the example of the Gentiles or heathen 
 people that dwelt about them, fall to the making of images and 
 worshipping of them. ... so some of the Christians in old time, 
 which were converted from worshipping of idols and false gods 
 unto the true living God, and to our Saviour Jesus Christ, did of a 
 certain blind zeal (and as men long accustomed to images), j;az«< or 
 carve images of our Saviour Christ, his mother Mary, and of the 
 Apostles, thinking that this was a point of gratitude and kindness 
 towards those by whom they had received the true knowledge of 
 God and the doctrine of the Gospel. But these pictures or images 
 came not yet into churches, nor were worshipped of a long time 
 after." (pp. 210, 211.) 
 
 " A man may most justly wonder of images, so directly against 
 God's holy word and strict commandment, how they should enter 
 in. But imnges were not yet worshipped in Eusebius's time, nor 
 publicly set up in churches and temples ; and they who privately 
 had them did err of a certain zeal, and not by malice : but after- 
 wards they crept out of private houses into churches, and so bred 
 
54 
 
 first superstition, and last of all idolatry amongst Christians, as 
 hereafter shall appear." (p. 212.) 
 
 And after pointing out that the first paintings in churches 
 were historical^ it adds, — 
 
 " A process of a story, painted with the gestures and actions of 
 many persons, and commonly the sum of the story written witheJ, 
 hath another use in it, than one dumb doll or image standing by 
 itself. But from learning by painted stories, it came by little and 
 little to idolatry. Which when godly men (as well emperors and 
 learned bishops as others) perceived, they commanded that such 
 pictures, images, or idols, should be used no more." (p. 213.) 
 
 The Homily then proceeds to give the history of the rise 
 and progress of image-worship in the Christian worship, and 
 remarks, 
 
 " So hard is it, and indeed impossible, any long time to have 
 images publicly in churches and temples without idolatry, as by 
 the space of little more than 1 00 years betwixt Gregory I. for- 
 bidding most strictly the worshipping of images, and Gregory III., 
 Paul and Leo III., Bishops of Rome, with this Council command- 
 ing and decreeing that images should be worshipped, most c viilently 
 appeareth." (p. 222.) 
 
 "The images of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, 
 either severally, or the images of the Trinity, which we had in 
 every church, be by the Scriptures expressly and directly forbidden 
 and condemned." (p. 232.) 
 
 " To this they [the Romanists] reply, that, this reason notwith- 
 standing, images of Christ may be made, for that He took upon 
 
 him flesh, and became man And yet it appeareth that no 
 
 image can be made of Christ, but a lying image, (as the Scripture 
 peculiarly calleth images lies), for Christ is God and man. (Rom. 
 i.) Seeing, therefore, that of the Godhead, which is the most ex- 
 cellent part, no images can be made, it is falsely called the image 
 of Christ. Wherefore images of Christ be not only defects, but 
 also lies. Which reason serveth also for the images of Saints, 
 whose souls, the more excellent parts of them, can by no images 
 be represented and expressed. Wherefore they be no images of 
 
55 
 
 saints, whose souls reign in joy with God, but of the bodies of 
 
 saints, which as yet lie putrified in the graves Wherefore, 
 
 seeing that religion ought to be grounded upon truth, i ages, 
 which cannot be without lies, ought not to be made, or put to any 
 use of religion, or to be placed in churches and temples, places 
 peculiarly appointed to true religion and service of God. And 
 thus much, that no true image of God, our Saviour Chiist, or His 
 saints, can be made : wherewithal is also confuted that their allega- 
 tion, that images be the laymen's books. For it is evident, by 
 that which is afore rehearsed, that they teach no things of God, of 
 our Saviour Christ, and of His saints, but lies and errors. Where- 
 fore, either they be no books, or, if they be, they be false and lying 
 books, the teachers of all error. And now if it should be admitted 
 and granted, that an image of Christ should truly be made, yet it 
 is unlawful that it should be made, yea, or that the image of any 
 saint should be made, specially to be iet up in temples, to the great 
 and unavoidable danger of idolatry." (pp. 234 — 236.) 
 
 *' We would admit and grant them, that images used for no reli- 
 gion, or superstition rather, we mean images of none worshipped, 
 nor in danger to he ivorskipped of any, may be suffered. But 
 images placed publicly in temples cannot possibly be without 
 danger of worshipping and idolatry ; wherefore they are not pub- 
 licly to be had or suff'ered in temples and churches." (p. 240.) 
 
 "Where they say that images, so they be not worsliipped, as things 
 indifferent may be tolerated in temples and churches ; we infer and 
 say for the adversative, that all our images of God, our Saviour 
 Christ, and His saints, publicly set up in churches and temples, 
 places peculiarly appointed to the true worshipping of God, be not 
 things indifferent, nor tolerable, but against God's law and com- 
 mandment, taking their own interpretation and exposition of it. 
 First, for that all images, so set up publicly, have been worshipped 
 of the unlearned and simple sort shortly after they have been 
 publicly so set up, and in conclusion, of the wise and learned also. 
 Secondly, for that they are worshipped in sundry places now in our 
 time also. And thirdly, for that it is inipo^sihle tlmt i;,.;'L;-i-s of 
 God, of Christ, or II s saints, can be sniTt-recl (s'liecially in t..-:rplc's 
 and churches) any while or space, without worshipping of them ; 
 and that idolatry, which is most abominable before God, cannot 
 possibly be escaped and avoided, without the abolishing and de- 
 
56 
 
 struction of images and pictures in temples and churclies, for that 
 idolatry is to images, specially in temples and churches, an inse- 
 liarable accident (as they term it) ; so that images in churches and 
 idolatry go always both together, and that, therefore, the one cannot 
 be avoided, except the other, specially in all public places, be des- 
 troyed Whereupon it followeth, that our images in churches 
 
 have been, be, and ever will be, none other but abominable idols, 
 and be therefore no things mdiiferent." (pp. 241, 242.) 
 
 " If answer be yet made, that this oifence may be taken away by 
 diligent and sincere doctrine and preaching of God's word, as by 
 other means ; and that images in churches and temples therefore be 
 not things absolutely evil to all men, although dangerous to some ; 
 and therefore that it were to be holden, that the public having of 
 them in churches and temples is not expedient, as a thing perilous, 
 rather than unlawful, as a thing utterly wicked ; then followeth the 
 third article to be proved, which is this ; That it is not possible, 
 if images be suffered in churches and temples, either by preaching 
 of God's word, or by any other means, to keep the people from 
 worshipping of them, and so to avoid idolatry." (p. 258.) 
 
 " Notwithstanding Gregory's writing, and the preaching of 
 others, images being once publicly set up in temples and churches, 
 simple men and women shortly after fell on heaps to worshij;ping 
 of them j and at the last the learned also were carried away with 
 the public error, as with a violent stream or flood," <kc. (p. 261.) 
 
 " To this end is come that beginning of setting up of images in 
 churches, then judged harmless, in experience proved not only 
 harmful, but exitious and pestilent, and to the destruction and 
 subversion of all good religion universally. So that I conclude, as 
 it may be possible in some one city, or little country, to have images 
 set up in temples and churches, and yet idolatry, by earnest and 
 continual preaching of God's true word, and the sincere Gospel of 
 our Saviour Christ, may be kept away for a short time ; so it is 
 impossible that (images once set up and suffered in temples and 
 churches) any great countries, much less the whole world, can any 
 long time be kept from idolatiy. And the godly will respect, not 
 only their own city, country, and time, and the health of men of their 
 age, but be careful for all places and times, and the salvation of 
 men of all ages. At the least, they will not lay such stumbling- 
 blocks and snares for the feet of other countrymen and ages, which 
 
57 
 
 experience huth alrea ly proved to have been the ruin of the 
 world." (p. 262.) 
 
 " Nowr, whereas they yet allege, that howsoever the people, 
 princes, learned and wise, of old time, have fallen into idolatry by 
 occasion of images, that yet in our time the most part, specially the 
 learned and wise, of any authority, take no hurt nor offence by 
 idols and images, neither do run into far countries to them and 
 worship them ; and that they know well what an idol or image is, 
 and how to be used ; and that therefore it followeth, images in 
 churches and temples to be an indifferent thing, as the which of 
 some is not abused, and thwt therefore they may justly hold (as 
 was in the beginning of this part by them alleged), that it is not 
 unlawful or wicked absolutely to have images in churches and 
 temples, though it may, for the danger of the simple sort, seem to 
 be not altogether expedient .... [After urging in reply the case of 
 Solomon and the example of Hezekiah breaking tlie brazen serpent, 
 it concludes]. Wherefore, they which thus reason, though it be not 
 expedient, yet it is lawful to have images publicly, and do prove 
 that lawfulness by a few picked and chosen men ; if they object 
 that indiff'erently to all men, which a very few can have without 
 hurt and offence, they seem to take the multitude for vile souls, 
 (as he saith in Virgil,) of whose loss and safeguard no reputation is 
 to be had, for whom yet Christ paid as dearly, as for the mightiest 
 prince, or the wisest and best learned in the earth .... Besides 
 this, if they be bishops, or parsons, or otherwise having charge of 
 men's consciences, that thus reason, — It is lawful to have images 
 publicly, though it be not expedient, — what manner of pastors show 
 they themselves to be to their flock, which thrust unto them that 
 which they themselves confess not to be expedient for them, but 
 to the utter ruin of the souls committed to their charge, for whom 
 they shall give a strict account before the Prince of pastors at the 
 ast day. For ^indeed, to object to the weak, and ready to fall of 
 themselves, such stumbling-blocks, is a thing not only not expe- 
 dient, but unlawful, yea and most wicked also." (pp. 271 — 274.) 
 
 So in the second part of the Homily on the right use of the 
 Church, it is said of 2 Cor. vi. 15, 16,— 
 
 " It enforceth that no ungodliness, specially of images or idols, 
 may be suffered in tlie temple of God, which is the place of 
 
5S 
 
 worshipping God ; and, therefore, can no more be suffered to stand 
 there, than light can agree with darkness, or Christ with Belial." 
 (p. 179.) 
 
 These few extracts will suffice to show, what the doctrine of 
 our Church, as delivered in her Homilies, is on this subject. 
 And it must be remembered, that, as far as concerns the general 
 doctrine delivered in the Homilies, they are recognized by the 
 35th Article as containing a " godly and wholesome" doctrine, 
 and consequently are so far of equal authority and force with 
 the Articles themselves ; and therefore all the clergy have, in 
 their subscription to the Ai-ticles, (a subscription required both 
 by Canon and Statute law,) personally pledged their assent to 
 the doctrine contained in them as "godly and wholesome," 
 and promised to teach it to the people. 
 
 He, then, who maintains a contrary doctrine in our 
 Church, maintains what is repugnant to the Articles he has 
 subscribed, and is liable to excommunication by the 5th 
 Canon, and to deprivation, if beneficed, by the Statute 13 
 Eliz. c. 12. 
 
 I need hardly observe, that although the Cross, as dis- 
 tinguished from the Crucifix, is not here specially named, it is 
 included in the argument of the Homily, on account of the 
 worship that has been rendered to it.* 
 
 Having thus shown what is the doctrine of our Church 
 upon the subject, as set forth both by the Statute and Canon 
 Law noM' in force, I proceed to point out how this doctrine has 
 been enforced by Royal and Episcopal Injunctions and Visi- 
 tation Articles from the first year of Edwai-d VI. 
 
 In the Injunctions set forth by Edward VI. in 1547, soon 
 after his accession to the throne, the thii-d is, — 
 
 " That such images as they know in any of their cures to be or 
 
 * 1 would observe here, that I conceive there is a marked distinction 
 between the cross as used on the exterior of a church as an ecclesias- 
 tical emblem, or otherwise in places or under circumstances where it is 
 not likely to be the object of Tvorship, and as placed on the communion- 
 table or elsewhere within a church, in an isolated form, for the evident 
 purpose of its being made an object of rehgious reverence, or, to those 
 so disposed, of adoration. 
 
59 
 
 to have been abused with pilgrimage or offering of any thing made 
 thereunto, or shall be hereafter censed unto, they (and none other 
 private persons) shall for the avoiding of that most detestable of- 
 fence of idolatry, forthwith take down, or cause to be taken down, 
 and destroy the same," &c. (Wilk. iv. 4 ; Cardw. Doc. Ann. i. 7.) 
 And another is, — " That they shall take away, utterly extinct, and 
 destroy all shrines, covering of shrines, all tables, candlesticks, 
 trindles or rolls of wax, pictures, jjaintings, and all other monu- 
 ments of feigned miracles, pilgrimages, idolatry, and superstition ; 
 so that there remain no memory of the same in walls, (jlass windows, 
 or elsewhere within their churches or houses. And they shall 
 exhort all their parishioners to do the like within their several 
 houses." (Wilk. iv. 7 ; Cardw. ib. 17.) 
 
 This limited order for the abolition of images gave rise to 
 much discussion and dissension in some places as to what 
 images were to be removedj and what were to remain. Accord- 
 ingly, in the latter part of the same year, the King, with the 
 advice of his Council, sent a letter to the Archbishop to be 
 transmitted to the Bishops, directing all images to be removed, 
 in the following terms : — 
 
 " Where now of late in the King's Majesty's Visitation, among 
 other godly injunctions commanded to be generally observed 
 through all parts of this his Highness' realm, one was set forth, for 
 the taking down of all such images as had at any time been abused 
 with pilgrimages, offerings, or censings ; albeit that this said in- 
 junction hath in many parts of the realm been well and quietly 
 obeyed and executed, yet in many other places much strife and 
 contention hath risen, and daily riseth, and more and more in- 
 
 creaseth, about the execution of the same considering, 
 
 therefore, that almost in no places of this realm is any sure quiet- 
 ness, but where all images be wholly taken away and pulled down 
 already, to the intent that all contention in every part of this realm 
 for this matter may be clearly taken away, ... we have thouo-ht 
 good to signify unto you, that his Highness' pleasure, with the 
 advice and consent of us the Lord Protector and the rest of the 
 Council, is, that immediately upon the sight hereof, with as con- 
 venient diligence as you may, you shall not only give order, that 
 all the images remaining in any church or chapel within your 
 
60 
 
 diocese be removed and taken away, but also by your letters sig- 
 nify uuto the rest of the Bishops withia your province his Highness' 
 pleasure for the like order to be given by them, and every of them, 
 within their several dioceses," &c. (Wilk. iv. 22 ; Cardw, Doc. 
 Ann. i. 39—41.) 
 
 The date of the Archbishop's letter to the Bishops enclosing 
 this letter is Feb. 4, 1547, (new style 1548). 
 
 Hence, in Archbishop Cranmer's Visitation Articles for his 
 diocese in the same year, one is, — 
 
 " Whether they have not removed, taken away, and utterly ex- 
 tincted and destroyed in their churches, chapels, and houses, all 
 images, all shrines, coverings of shrines, all tables, candlesticks, 
 trindles or rolls of jnclnres, paintirtffs, and all other monu- 
 ments of feigned miracles, pilgrimages, idolatry, and superstition, 
 so that there remain no memory of the same in walls, glass windows, 
 or elsewhere." (Wilk. iv. 23 ; Cardw. Doc. Ann. i. 42.) 
 
 A special prohibition of the Cross at funerals occurs in the 
 Articles of 1549 of Edward VI. as follows,— 
 
 " Item, To receive no corpse but at the Churchyard, without 
 bell or cross." Art. 6. (Wilk. iv. 32 ; Cardw. Doc. Ann. i. 64.) 
 
 Then came the Act of Parliament (just quoted) requiring 
 all images that might remain in churches to be removed and 
 destroyed. 
 
 And we find Bishop Ridley inquiring in his Visitation of 
 the diocese of London in 1550, — "Whether there be any 
 images in your church, tabernacles, shrines," &c. (Wilk. iv. 
 61 ; Cardw. Doc. Ann. i. 80.) 
 
 These testimonies sufficiently show what was ordered and 
 done in this matter in our Church in the time of Edward VI. 
 
 During the succeeding reign of Mary images were of course 
 restored in the churches ; and the Act of Parliament pro- 
 hibiting them was repealed. So that on the accession of 
 Queen Elizabeth this matter had again to be settled. 
 
 In the Injunctions issued by Queen Elizabeth in the first 
 year of her reign we find no direct order for the removal of 
 images from the churches, but only the following order as 
 to superstitious pictures, &c. ; — 
 
61 
 
 " 23. Also, That they sliall take away, utterly extinct and de- 
 stroy all shrines, coverings of shrines, all tables, candlesticks, 
 trindals and rolls of wax, pictures, paintings, and all other monu- 
 ments of feigned miracles, pilgrimages, idolatry and superstition, 
 so that there remain no memory of the same in walls, glass 
 windows, or elsewhere within their churches and houses ; preserv- 
 ing nevertheless or repairing both the walls and glass windows ; 
 and they shall exhort all their parishioners to do the like within 
 their several houses." (Wilk. iv. 185 ; Cardw. Doc. Ann. i. 189.) 
 
 But nevertheless in the Visitation Articles of Queen Eliza- 
 beth, issued at the Visitation in the summer of 1559, we find 
 the inquiry, — 
 
 " Item, Whether in their churches and chapels all images, 
 shrines, all tables, candlesticks, trindals and rolls of wax, pictures, 
 paintings, and all other monuments of feigned and fulse miracles, 
 pilgrimages, idolatry, and superstition, be removed, abolished, and 
 destroyed.'" (Wilk. iv. 1 89 ; Cardw. Doc. Ann. i. 210.) 
 
 The discrepancy may perhaps be accounted for by the fact, 
 that Queen Elizabeth was not, at first, altogether disposed to 
 remove all images from the churches ; and at the close of this 
 year there was a discussion between the Queen and the Bishops, 
 whether it should be required that all should be removed, as I 
 shall presently show. It may seem strange, this being the 
 case, that the Visitation Article should be so express on the 
 subject. But it is cleai-, from a Letter of Dr. Sandys to P. 
 Martyr, in April 1560, that the Article was enforced in respect 
 to images. For when giving an account in this Letter of the 
 controversy they had recently had with the Queen on the 
 subject, he says : 
 
 " Some of us thought far otherwise [_i.e. than the Queen], and 
 more especially as all images of every kind were at our last 
 Visitation not only removed, but also burnt, and that by public 
 authority."* 
 
 Bythe same Letter we learn, that he was one of the Visitors for 
 
 * " Quidam ex nobis longe aliter judicabant [i e. quam Regia Ma- 
 jestas] praesertim cum omncs otnnis generis imagines in proxima nostra 
 visitatione, idque publica auctoritate, non solum sublatae, varum etiam 
 combustK erant." (Zur. Lett. Ser. i. Ep. 31, p. 42, hat.) 
 
62 
 
 the northern parts of England in the previous August, and was 
 employed in the Visitation till the beginning of November. 
 
 And in the account of the Royal Visitation at St. Paul's in 
 August 1559, in the original Register, we are told that "the 
 Visitors also enjoined them, [i. e. the Dean and Chapter], 
 that they should take care, that the Cathedral church should 
 be purged and freed from all and singular their images, idols, 
 and altars."* 
 
 But notwithstanding what was done at this Visitation, it is 
 certain, that, towards the close of the year, the leaders of the 
 Reformed party feared, that the Queen intended to permit 
 some images to remain in the churches, and accordingly they 
 presented an address to her " against the use of images," in 
 which they say : — 
 
 " Inasmuch as we have heretofore at sundry times made petition 
 to your Majesty concerning the matter of images, but at no time 
 exhibited any reasons for the removing of the same ; now, lest 
 we should seem to say much and prove little, to allege consciences 
 without the warrant of God, and unreasonably require that for the 
 which we can give no reason, we have at this time put in writing, 
 and do most humbly exhibit to your gracious consideration, those 
 authorities of the Scriptures, reasons, and pithy jjersuasions, 
 which, as they have moved all such our bretliren as now 
 bear the office of bishops, to think and affirm images not expedient 
 for the Church of Christ, so will they not sufer us, without 
 the great offending of God, and grievous wounding of our own 
 consciences (which God deliver us from), to consent to the erecting 
 or retaining of the same in the place of worshipping; and we 
 trust, and most earnestly ask it of God, that they may also per- 
 suade your Majesty, by your royal authority, and in the zeal of 
 God, utterly to remove this offensive evil out of the Church of 
 England, to God's great glory and our great comfort. . . . [And 
 then, giving their arguments on the subject, they add] : We most 
 humbly beseech your Majesty to consider, that, besides weighty 
 causes in policy, which we leave to the wisdom of the honourable 
 Councillors, the establishing of images by your authority shall 
 not only utterly discredit our ministries, as builders of the thing 
 * Strype's Ann. I. 169 ; or I. i. 251. 
 
63 
 
 which we have destroyed, but also blemish the fame of your most 
 godly brother, and such notable fathers, as have given their lives 
 for the testimony of God's truth, who by public law removed all 
 imaffes." (Wilk. iv. 196, 197 ; Cardw. Doc. Ann. i. 237, 241.) 
 
 The precise date of this address is not known, but it could 
 not have been earlier than the latter end of December, as it 
 speaks of those who "now bear the office of bishops," and 
 Parker was not consecrated till December 17, 1559, but pro- 
 bably it was not much later, as the controversy was decided 
 soon after that, as I shall presently show. 
 
 About the same period* a remarkable Letter was sent by 
 Cox, Bishop of Ely, to Queen Elizabeth, on the same subject, 
 preserved to us by Strype ; from which I give the following 
 extracts : — 
 
 "Most gracious Sovereign, Whom I, above other, divers ways 
 am bound most dearly to love and honour, sith God by your 
 Majesty hath placed me, and placed me to monish, to exhort, and 
 to call upon, opportune, impoi-tune. In the trembling fear of God, 
 in the bond of duty toward your highness, in the zeal of God's 
 truth, which burdeneth and bindeth my conscience, I most humbly 
 sue unto your like godly zeal, prostrate, and with wet eyes, that ye 
 will vouchsafe to peruse the considerations, which move that 
 I dare not minister in your Grace's chapel, the lights and 
 cross remaining. The Scripture saith, in the place where God 
 gave His commandments. He suffered no similitude, nor likeness 
 of anything to be seen. And in his second commandment He 
 forbade both the making of images, and the worshipping them also, 
 and that upon a grievous plague. How durst man, dust and 
 ashes, for any respect set up an image in the temple of God } 
 Your Majesty's learned and godly clergy of your realm do think 
 
 this commandment of God indispensable Tender my suit, 
 
 I beseech you, in visceribus Jesu Christi, my dear sovereign and 
 most gracious queen Elizabeth. 
 
 * It is not dated ; but as it is directed not merely against the reten- 
 tion of such things in her Majesty's chapel, (where they were retained 
 for several years), but also agamst their retention in churches, it must 
 have been written about this time. 
 
61 
 
 " Certain considerations, which move me that I cannot yield to 
 have images set vp in churches. 
 
 " I. The second commandment containeth two prohibitions: The 
 one, ' Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image, &c.,* 
 The second, ' Thou shalt not adore them, nor worship them.' And 
 this second appeareth to be the cause of the first : for images are 
 forbidden for fear of adoration. And to the intent we should 
 understand the law thus to be meant, and to have no images in the 
 church, where God is chiefly to be honoured, God himself saith 
 (Deut. 4.), 'When ye were gathered together to honour me and 
 to learn my laws in the Mount Sinai, ye saw no image, nor like- 
 ness of any thing, lest being deceived ye should have worshipped 
 them.' Which giveth me to understand, that in place of worship- 
 ping there should be no images." 
 
 And then, after having added some other reasons, he 
 says, — 
 
 " I therefore, a miserable man, dust and clay, having these and 
 such like considerations before mine eyes, cannot, without offence 
 of God and conscience, yield to the setting up of images in the 
 temple of my God and Creator," &c. &c.* 
 
 The progress of this matter will be best understood from 
 the following extracts from letters sent by our Reformers here 
 to their friends abroad. 
 
 The first is a passage (already quoted) in a letter from 
 Bishop Cox to Peter Martyr, written about Dec. 1559.t 
 
 " By the blessing of God, all those heads of religion are restored 
 to us which we held in the time of King Edward. Only we are 
 compelled, to our great grief, to tolerate in our churches the image 
 of the cross and of the crucifix. The Lord must be entreated 
 that this stuml)ling-block may at length be taken away." J 
 
 On the following Jan. 6, 1559 (n. s. 1560), we find T. Samp- 
 son writing to P. Martyr in similar terms. He says — 
 
 " Oh ! my father, what can I hope for, when the ministry of 
 
 * Strype's Ann. I. Append. No. 22, p. .59 et seq., or I. ii. p. 600 
 et seq. Oxf. ed. 
 
 t It is not dated, but it could not have been wTitten before Dec. 21, 
 1559, because Cox was not consecrated bishop of Ely till that time. 
 X For the Latin, see p. 51, above. 
 
6o 
 
 Christ is banished from the Court, but the image of the crucifix is 
 admitted with lights burning. The altars indeed are removed, and 
 the images, throughout the whole kingdom ; in the Court alone the 
 image of the crucifix with candles is retained ; and the wretched 
 multitude not only willingly hears that such is the case, but will 
 of their own accord imitate it. What can I hope, when three of 
 our new bishops, one as priest, another as deacon, a third as sub- 
 deacon, are to stand at the table of the Lord, before an image of 
 the crucifix, or at least within a short distance of the idol, with 
 candles, adorned with the golden garments of the Papacy, and 
 thus minister the Holy Supper of the Lord without any sermon 
 
 I will propose this single question for your resolution : I 
 
 wish, my father, to use you as my medium of communication 
 with M. Bullinger and M. Bernardine. It is this — whether an 
 image of a crucifix placed upon the table of the Lord with 
 candles lighted, whether, I say, this is to be reckoned among 
 things hidifFerent. If it is not, but is to be considered a thing 
 unlawful and wicked, then I ask : if the Prince should enjoin all 
 bishops and pastors either to admit into their churches an image 
 with candles, or to give up their Christian ministry, what ought 
 in such a case to be done V* 
 
 I qtiote this, of course, merely as historical evidence of the 
 facts of the case. 
 
 In the following month (Feb. 1559, n.s. 1560) a public dispu- 
 tation was appointed to be held on the subject, as we learn 
 
 * O mi pater ! quid ego sperem, cum exulet ex aula Christi minis- 
 terium, adraittatur autem crucifix! imago cum accensis luminaribus? 
 Altaria quidem sunt diremta at imagines per totum regnum : in sola 
 aula crucifixi imago cum candelis retinetur ; et miser popellus id non 
 solum libenter audit, sed etiam sponte imitabitur. Quid ego sperem, 
 ubi tres ex novitiis nostris episcopis, unus veluti sacer minister, secundus 
 loco diaconi, tertius subdiaconi loco, mensae Domini astabunt, coram 
 imagine crucifixi, vel certe non procul sito idolo, cum candelis, ornati 
 aureis vestibus papisticis, sicqne sacram Domini ccenam porrigent sine 
 ulla concione? .... Unicam banc a vobis quaestionem proponam 
 solvendam : mi pater, te volo uti mediatore apud D. Bullingerum et 
 D. Bernardinum. Haec est, num imago crucifixi cum candelis accensis 
 in mensa Domini posita, num, inquam, sit inter adiaphora ponenda? 
 Si non sit, sed pro re illicita et nefaria ducenda, turn hoc quaero : si 
 princeps ita injungat omnibus episcopis et pastorib js, ut vel admittant 
 in suas ecclesias imaginem cum candelis, vel ministerio Christi cedant, 
 quid hie faciendum sit ? (Zur. Lett. Ser. i. Ep. 27, p. 36.) 
 
66 
 
 from the following passage in a letter of Bishop Jewell to 
 P. Martyr. 
 
 " The controversy about the cross is now raging. You would 
 scarcely believe to what a degree of madness men who seemed to 
 possess some wisdom are carried in this foolish business. There is 
 none of them whom you know except Cox. The disputation on 
 this matter will commence to-morrow. The moderators will be 
 certain men selected out of the Council. The disputants on one 
 side will be the Archbishop of Canterbuiy and Cox ;* on the 
 other, Grindal, Bishop of London, and myself. The decision rests 
 with the judges. But I smile when I think, with what grave and 
 solid reasons they will defend their httle cross. But whatever it 
 shall be, I will write hereafter more fully ; for the controversy 
 is now in the hands of the judge : yet, as far as I can foresee, 
 I shall not write to you hereafter as a Bishop. For things have 
 come to that pass, that either the silver and tin crosses, which we 
 have everywhere broken to pieces, must be restored, or our bishop- 
 rics relinquished. "t 
 
 The result, however, of this disputation was diflPerent fi-om 
 what Bishop J ewell had feared it might be. For in a Letter of 
 Bishop Sandys to P. Martyr, written on April 1, 1560, we 
 find the following passage : — 
 
 "There was lately some controversy respecting images. The 
 Queen considered it would be not contrary to the word of God, 
 
 * From Cox's Letter to the Queen, quoted above, and also liis Letter 
 to P. Martyr, written after Dec. 21, 155I>, it is clear, that these disputants 
 were not selected as being advocates of the use of the cross and crueilis, 
 but merely as learned men, to say what could be said in favour of the 
 practice, in order that the matter might be thoroughly discussed. 
 
 t Nunc ardet lis ilia crucularia. Vix credas in re fatua quantum 
 homines, qui aliquid sapere videbantur, insaoiant. Ex illis, quos 
 quidem tu noris, prseter Coxura nuUus est. Crastino die instituetur de 
 ea re disputatio. Arbitri erunt ex senatu selecti quidam viri. Actores 
 inde Cantuariensis et Coxus ; hinc Grindallus Londinensis episcopus et 
 ego. Eventus iv Kpnoiv yovvaai Kelrai. Kideo tamen, cum cogito, 
 quibus illi et quam gravibns et solidis rationibus defensuri sint suam 
 rrucidam. Sed quicquid erit, scribam posthac pluribus ; nunc enim sub 
 judice lis est : tamen quantum auguror, non scribam posthac ad te epis- 
 copus. Eo enim jam res pervenit, ut aut cruces argenteae et stanneae, 
 quas nos ubique confregimus, restituendse sint, aut episco])atus rehn- 
 quendi." (Zur. Lett. Ser. i. ; Ep. 29. p. 39.) 
 
67 
 
 nay, for the benefit of the Church, if the image of Christ crucified, 
 together with Mary and John, should be put, as used to be the 
 custom, in a prominent part of the church, where it might be 
 most easily seen by all the people. Some of us though* far other- 
 wise, especially since all images of every kind were, in our last 
 Visitation, not only removed, but also burnt, and that by public 
 authority ; and because to this idol beyond the rest adoration is 
 accustomed to be offered by the ignorant and superstitious multi- 
 tude. I, because I was very vehement in the matter, and would 
 not by any means consent that an occasion of stumbling should be 
 afforded to the Church of Christ, was near being removed from 
 my office, and incurring the displeasure of my sovereign ; but 
 God, in whose hand are the hearts of kings, gave us peace instead 
 of trouble, and delivered the Church of England from stumbling- 
 blocks of this kind. There oidy remain in our Church those 
 Popish garments (I mean copes), which we hope will not continue 
 long."* 
 
 Thus terminated the controversy respecting the use of the 
 crucifix and cross, so far as the public churches of the 
 kingdom were concerned ; though it appears that the Queen 
 still retained the crucifix in her own chapel. And this is the 
 conclusion to which our careful and laborious ecclesiastical 
 historian, Strype, came. "It is certain," he says, "these 
 crucifixes and roods [crosses] were taken down by authority 
 in all the churches, yet the crucifix remained in the Queen's 
 chapel afterwards." (Ann. I. 176; or I. i. 262.) 
 
 * De imagiiiibus jam pridem nonnihil erat controversiae. Regia 
 Majestas non alienum esse a verbo Dei, irao in comraodum Ecclesia; fore 
 putabat, si imago Christi crucifixi una cum Maria et Johanne, ut solet, 
 in celebriori ecclesia; loco poneretur, ubi ab omni populo facillime 
 conspiceretur. Quidam ex nobis longe aliter judicabant, praesertim cutu 
 omnes omuis generis imagines in proxima nostra visitatione, idque pub- 
 lica auctoritate, non solum sublatae, verum etiam combustse erant ; 
 cumque huic idolo prse caeteris ab ignara et superstitiosa plebe adoratio 
 solet adhiberi. Ego, quia vehementior eram in ista re, nec ullo modo 
 consentire poteram, ut lapsus oecasio Ecclesia; Christi daretur, non 
 multum aberat quin et ab officio amoverer, et principis indignationem 
 incurrerem : at Deus, in cujus manu corda sunt regum, pro tempestate 
 tranquillitatem dedit, et Ecclesiam Anglicanam ab hujusmodi otfendiculis 
 liberavit. Tantum manent in Ecclesia nostra vestimenta ilia Papistica 
 (copas intellige) quas diu non diu-aturas speramus. (Zur. Lett. Ser. i., 
 Ep. 31, p. 42, 43.) 
 
 r 2 
 
68 
 
 The use of the crucifix was retained by the Queen for 
 several years ; and to this one exception probably it is owning 
 that the crucifix, or at least the cross, stealthily maintained its 
 ground in a few churches, and was afterwards revived in 
 various churches by the Laudian party in the next century. 
 
 To the removal of the cross from the churches we have the 
 testimony of Dr. J. Calf hill,* in his Answer to Martial's Treatise 
 of the Cross. Martial, a student in divinity at Louvain, pre- 
 suming upon the Queen's retention of the crucifix in her 
 chapel, dedicated a book called " A Treatise of the Cross," to 
 her. Hence Dr. Calfhill, in the Epistle prefixed to his 
 " Answer," observes : — 
 
 " As for her private doings, neither are they to be drawn as a 
 precedent for all ; nor any ought to creep into the Piince's bosom, 
 of every fact to judge an affection. This can the world well witness 
 with me, that neither her Grace and Wisdom hath such afl5ance in 
 the Cross as you do fondly teach ; neither takes it expedient her sub- 
 jects should have that which she herself (she thinketh) may keep with- 
 out offence. For the multitude is easily, through ignorance, abused : 
 her Majesty, too well instructed for her own person to fall into 
 Popish error and idolatry. Now for that which foUoweth, if ye 
 were so good a subject as you ought, and framed yourself to hve 
 according to the laws, ye should see and consider how good order 
 is taken ' by public authority, not privy suggestions,' that Roods 
 and Images should be removed, according to God's law, out of 
 churches, chapels, and oratories." f 
 
 The view of Dr. Calfhill himself on the subject is briefly 
 expressed in the following passage of his Treatise, — 
 
 " Let the sign of the Cross be cast out of the Church, and the 
 Cross itself be preached simply : lest, by suffering the sign of the 
 Cross to stand, the Son of God crucified be contemned ; and we 
 fall to worshipping of a cross material, which in the next 
 article shall be proved damnable."J 
 
 In the year 1569 we have the following article of inquiry 
 
 * He was Archdeacon of Colchester, and nominated in 1570 to the 
 Bishopric of Worcester, hut died before consecration. 
 
 t pp. 7, 8, Parker Societv's Edition, 1846. J p. 365. 
 
69 
 
 among those of Archbishop Parker in his Visitation of the 
 Diocese of Canterbury in that year : — 
 
 *' VI. Item, Whether images, aud all other monuments of ido- 
 latry and superstition, be destroyed and abolished in your several 
 parishes." (Wilk. Cone. iv. 258; Cardw. Doc. Ann, i. 321.) 
 
 And the Archbishop did what he could to prevent the 
 crucifix being admitted by the Queen into her chapel, for under 
 the year 1570 Strype gives the following account : — 
 
 " The crucifix, which had been before removed out of the Queen's 
 chapel, was now of late brought in again ; which gave great dis- 
 gust among the people, and caused much discourse. And this was 
 presently laid to the charge of the Archbishop, as though he had 
 been the Queen's counsellor herein. Which report was made, it 
 seems, by some noblemen. Though the good Prelate, but some 
 years before, had earnestly, with some other bishops, persuaded her 
 Majesty not to alloiv that image in her chapel. By which means it 
 seems to have been then removed thence. This report coming to 
 his ears, he writ thus to the Secretary, complaining, ' That any 
 nobleman in England should impute it to his doing, that the cross 
 was brought into the chapel again. So that I perceive (saith he) 
 they will load me with envy. But certainly I never knew of it : 
 nor yet, in good faith, I think it expedient it should be restored."* 
 
 The reluctance of some parties to destroy things of this 
 kind, and the care of the Bishops aud Royal Commissioners to 
 effect their destruction, may be illustrated by a letter of Horn, 
 Bishop of Winchester, dated July 19, 1570, to Trinity College, 
 Oxford, ordering "the removal of superstitious ornaments 
 from the chapel," in which he says, — 
 
 " Whereas I am informed that certain monuments tending to 
 idolatry and Popish or Devil's service, as Crosses, Censers, and 
 such like filthy stuff used in the idolatrous temple, more meeter for 
 the same than for the house of God, remaineth in your College as 
 yet undefaced, I am moved thereby to judge great want of good 
 will in some of you, and no less negligence in other some, as 
 in being so remiss to perform your duties towards God and obedience 
 
 * Strype's Parker, .310, or ii. 35, 36, Oxf. ed. 
 
70 
 
 unto the Prince." And then he proceeds to order them imme- 
 diately " to deface all manner such trash," " and further to have in 
 mind the motion made by the grand commissioners."* 
 
 These last words refer to a letter, dated June 28, from the 
 Royal Commissioners to the College on the same subject, 
 ordering them to " cause to be defaced all the church plate 
 " and church stuflF belonging to your College, in such sort 
 " that it never may be used again as it hath been." The 
 names of the Commissioners are T. Cooper, afterwards Bishop 
 of Winchester; L. Humphrie, President of Magdalene; H. 
 Westphalinge, afterwards Bishop of Hereford, and W. Cole.f 
 
 In the Canons of 1571, also, we find the following among 
 other directions given to Churchwardens : — 
 
 " Moreover they shall see, that all roodlofts, in which wooden 
 o-osses stood, and all other relics of superstition, be clean taken 
 away, that the walls of the churches be new whited, and decked 
 with chosen sentences of the Holy Scripture, that by the reading 
 and warning thereof, the people may be moved to godliness,"^ 
 
 In the same year, among the Injunctions given by Arch- 
 bishop Grindal, in his Metropolitical Visitation of the Province 
 of York, we find the following among those to the Laity : — 
 
 " 7. Item, That the churchwardens and minister shall see .... 
 that all vestments, albes .... censers, chrismatories, crosses, 
 candlesticks, holy water stocks, or fat images, and all other relics 
 and monuments of superstition and idolatry, be utterly defaced, 
 broken, and destroyed." (Works, pp. 135, 136.) 
 
 And again the same Prelate, when Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury, in his Metropolitical Visitation of the Province of Can- 
 terbm-y in 1576, inquires, — 
 
 " Whether all vestments, albes .... censers, chrismatories, 
 crosses, candlesticks, holy-water stocks, images, and such other 
 
 * See Wavton's Life of Sir T. Pope, Lend. 1/72. 8vo. Append. No. 
 xix. p. 333. 
 
 + See the Letter, ibid. No. x.\. p. 337. 
 
 J A Book of certain Canons, &c. Lond. lo71. 4to. p. 1!). For the 
 Latin, see Wilk. Cone. iv. 2()(), or Canhv. ijynod. i. 123. 
 
71 
 
 relics and monuments of superstition and idolatry, be utterly 
 defaced, broken, and destroyed." (Works, p. 159.) 
 
 Further, the testimonies of Bishop Jewell and Archbishop 
 Whitgift are quite decisive as to the doctrine and practice of 
 our Church on this subject, for many years after its settlement 
 under Queen Elizabeth, 
 
 Bishop Jewell, in his " Apology," (a work which. Bishop 
 Randolph says, " was always understood to speak the sense of 
 the whole Church in whose name it is written,")* quotes against 
 the Papists the testimonies of the Council of Eliberis (Elvira) 
 and Epiphanius as follows, — "The old Council Eliberine 
 " made a decree, that nothing that is honoured of the people 
 " should be painted in the churches. The old father Epi- 
 " phanius saith : ' It is a horrible wickedness, and a sin not 
 " to be suffered, for any man to set up any picture in the 
 " church of the Christians, yea though it were the picture of 
 " Christ himself.^ " And enlarging upon this passage in the 
 Defence of the Apology, he remarks, — " If the image of 
 " Christ may not be suffered in the church of Christ, what 
 " image then may be suflFered ? " f 
 
 Again, in his Reply to Harding, (first published in 1565) 
 in which he takes up expressly the subject of images, we find 
 the following passages : — 
 
 " I grant, images were erected in some churches within six 
 hundred years after Christ, albeit neither so rathe, as it is pre- 
 tended, nor without much repining of (jodly men. and great conten- 
 tion." X 
 
 " By these Fathers' judgment it is plain, that by setting up 
 of images God's commandment is broken. "§ 
 
 "Notwithstanding it were sufferable to have images in the 
 Church of God, without breach of God's Law, yet when they be 
 abused, and made idols, as they are throughout the whole Church 
 of Rome, it is the duty of godly magistrates to pull them down."|l 
 
 And in reply to Harding's reference to the sign of the 
 
 * Preface to his Enchiridion Theolog. vol. i. 
 
 t Defence of Apol. pp. 446—8, in Works, 1611, fol 
 
 X Reply to Harding, &c. p. 386. In his Works, 1611 . 
 
 § lb. II lb. p. 3/0. 
 
72 
 
 Cross that appeared to Constantiiie, and the way in which that 
 sign was used in banners, &c., he replies, — 
 
 " Notwithstanding all this long discourse, and great ado, yet is 
 it not hitherto any way proved, either that this cross was an image, 
 or that it was set up in any church, or that it was adored of the 
 
 people Seeing therefore none of all these crosses that M. 
 
 Harding hath here found out, either had any image hanging on it, 
 or was erected in any chuich, or adored of the people, how can all 
 these words stand him in stead to serve his purpose ?"* 
 
 " The first and chief cause and end of images is, as it is here 
 pretended, that the people by the sight thereof may attain know- 
 ledge Howbeit, this seemeth to be no very handsome way to 
 
 teach the people And although perhaps the people may 
 
 happily learn somewhat by these means, yet is not this^ the ordi- 
 nary way whereby God hath appointed the people to attain know- 
 ledge. St. Paul saith : FiiJes ex avditu : ' Faith cometh (not by 
 seeing or gazing, but) by hearing.' There were many simple, rude, 
 and unlearned lay men among the Jews : yet God never set up 
 any such books for them to read : but contrariwise evermore forbad 
 them, and cried against them, and would not suffer them. If this 
 be so speedy and so ready a way to teach the people, how hap- 
 peneth it, that where as is greatest store of such schoolmasters, 
 there the people is evermore most ignorant, most superstitious, 
 and most subject to idolatry ? But to conclude ; the prophets Ha- 
 bakkuk and Jeremiah say: Cortfatile est demonstratio mendacii : 
 Lignum est doctrina vanitatis; (Hab. ii., Jer. x.) : A molten idol 
 is a lesson of lies : and(M. Harding's) wooden image is a doctrine 
 of vanity 
 
 " Every thing that may delight or move the mind is not there- 
 fore meet for the Church of God. God's house is a house of prayer, 
 and not of gazing. "J 
 
 "The best remedy in this behalf, [i. e. to prevent the idolatrous 
 worship of images] and most agreeable with God's word, is utterly 
 to abolish the cause of the ill. So the godly king Ezechias took 
 down and brake in pieces the brazen serpent, notwithstanding 
 Moses himself, by God's special commandment, had erected it ; not- 
 withstanding it were an express figure of Christ hanging upon the 
 cross ; notwithstanding it had continued so many years ; notwith- 
 
 * lb. p. 372. 
 
 t lb p. 378. 
 
 : lb. p. 379. 
 
73 
 
 standing God by it had wrought so many miracles. So the godly 
 bishop Epiphanius rent in sunder the image of Christ painted in a 
 cloth, and said, ft was against God's commandment, a thing super- 
 stitious, and unmeet for the church and people o God ; notwith- 
 standing it were the iniaee of Chri>t. So the godly Emperor Theo- 
 dosius made his proclamation over all his dominions in this sort : — 
 Sigman Servatoris nostri, quocunque loco reperitur, toUi jubemus : 
 Westraitly command, that the image of our Saviour be tahen down, 
 in what place soever it shall be Jound ; notwithstanding it were the 
 image of our Saviour. So it is decreed in the late Council of 
 Mens, that, when images hajipen to be abused by the people, they 
 be either notably altered, or utterly abolished. Neither doth God 
 throughout all his Holy Scriptures anywhere condemn image- 
 breakers; but expressly and everywhere he condemneth image- 
 worshippers and image-makers. God saith. They are snares to 
 catch the ignorant. He knoweth the inclination of the heart of 
 man. And therefore he saith. Accursed be he, that leadeth the 
 blind out of his way : and. Accursed be he, that layeth a stumbling- 
 block to overthrew the blind."* 
 
 Similar sentiments may be found in his sermon on Hagg. 
 i. 2 — 4. (Serm. p. J.74 in his Works.) 
 
 Thus also speaks Archbishop Whitgift in 1574 ; in a passage 
 already quoted in p. 27, above. 
 
 " As for Papists, we are far enough off from them, for they 
 pictured the sign of the cross and did worship it, so do not we : . . . . 
 they had it in their churches, so have not we." 
 
 And elsewhere in the same work, he says, — • 
 " As there is great difference betwixt the painting of an image, 
 to set forth a history, and placing of it in the church to be worship- 
 ped, so is there also as great difference, or more, betwixt crossing a 
 child in the forehead at the time of baptism, with expressing the 
 cause and use of it, and the placing of crosses in churches or 
 highways and streets. The crossing of the child's forehead is but 
 for a moment, the cross of wood and stone remaineth and con- 
 tinueth : the cross in the child's forehead is not made to be adored 
 and worshipped, neither was ever any man so mad, as to imagine 
 
 • lb. p. 38.1. 
 
74 
 
 any such thing of it : but the crosses in churches, streets, and high- 
 ways, of metal and wood, were erected to be worshipped, and were 
 so accordingly, and therefore there is no like peril in the one as 
 
 THERE IS IN THE OTHER."* 
 
 Another decisive testimony is that of King James I., in 
 the Hampton Court Conference in 1603. Addressing the 
 Puritans on the subject of the cross in baptism, he remarks : — 
 
 " Fourthly, you see that the material crosses, which in time of 
 Popery were made for men to fall down before them, as they passed 
 by them, to worship them, (as the idolatrous Jews did the brazen 
 serpent) are demolished, as you DESiRE."t 
 
 The last testimony I shall quote, is the admission of a 
 zealous Puritan (who filled a folio volume with his arguments 
 against our Church's use of the cross in baptism), that 
 material crosses were removed from the churches. 
 
 He represents his opponents as speaking of " God's com- 
 mandment being satisfied by the pulling down of altars, 
 shrines, images, crucifixes, and material crosses, with which we 
 would content ourselves (say our opposites) if there were any 
 reason in us, sith the idolatry of the Papists is by these 
 means sufficiently disgraced." J And the removal of these 
 crosses he admits ; observing, among other remarks: "What 
 though the material crosses done away hij our Church, were every 
 way worse? To remove the material cross, and to leave the 
 mystical behind in God's service, is to break the hand of 
 Dagon, not the head."§ And again : " Whereas the abolishing 
 of the cross material is thought to throw disgrace sufficient upon 
 the mystical cross of Popery, we are most humbly to intreat 
 our godly governors," &c.|| 
 
 The fact of their removal and abolition, then, by our 
 Church, can hardly be denied, when it is admitted by such a 
 writer. 
 
 * Whitgift's Defence of the Answer to the Admonition, p. 619. 
 
 t Dr. Barlow's Account of the Conference iu Cardw. Conf. p. 200. 
 
 t Pai-ker's Scholastical Discourse agaiust Symbolizing with AntU 
 Christ in ceremonies, especially in the sign of the Cross. Loud. 160/. 
 fob, p. 46. 
 
 § lb. p. 48. !1 lb. p. 4!). 
 
75 
 
 The doctrine of our Church on this subject, therefore, is 
 beyond question. Nor does the attempt of the Laudian 
 bishops in the middle of the 1 7th century to revive the use of 
 crosses, &c., in our churches, (which was defended greatly by 
 the example set in the Royal chapel, and other privileged places) 
 at all shake the argument against it grounded upon the autho- 
 rities and testimonies given above ; and therefore of their pro- 
 ceedings no notice need be taken. 
 
 Much might easily be added on this head. But I will only 
 adduce one more testimony of modern date, shewing how 
 decided has been the feeling in our Church on the subject, 
 even mthin a comparatively recent period, and in the case of 
 those whom no one will accuse of being inclined to Puritanism. 
 In the year 1773, some of the Royal Academicians offered 
 their services for the decoration of St. PauFs Cathedral with 
 paintings representing Scripture histories. 
 
 " But the trustees of the fabric, the Archbishop of Canterbury 
 [Fred. Cornwallis] and the Bishop of London [Terrick] disapproved 
 the measure. Bishop Terrick, both as trustee of the fabric and 
 as Bishop of the diocese, strenuously opposed it ; whether he took 
 it amiss that the proposal was not first made to him, and by him 
 the intelligence conveyed to his Majesty, [a somewhat unfair sug- 
 gestion from an adverse party, especially as the Archbishop took 
 the same view] , or whether he was really afraid, as he said, that it 
 would occasion a great noise and clamour against it as an artful 
 introduction of Popery. Whatever were his reasons, it must be 
 acknowledged, that some other serious persons disapproved the setting 
 up of pictures in churches."* 
 
 If such was the feeling with respect to historical pictures, 
 there needs no proof what would have been the reception given 
 to an attempt to restore anything that had been in Popish 
 times an object of worship. 
 
 • Life of Bishop T. Newton, p. 10/ in his Works, 1782. 4to. vol. i. 
 
76 
 
 SECTION IX. 
 
 LIGHTS ON THE COMMUNION TABLE. 
 
 A NOTION appears to prevail in some quarters, that our 
 Church sanctions, if not enjoins, the practice of having two 
 lights upon the Communion Table at the time of the adminis- 
 tration of the Holy Communion. The authority for this notion 
 is the Rubric at the commencement of the Book of Common 
 Prayer, the meaning and extent of which I have already 
 pointed out in Section II. above, and shown that it sanctions 
 only those ornaments that were prescribed by the first Common 
 Prayer Book of Edward VI. Consequently, lights upon the 
 Communion Table not being among the ornaments sanc- 
 tioned by that Book, are not included in those enjoined by the 
 Rubric ; and this Rubric being the only authority for them, 
 the question respecting the legahty of the practice is at once 
 determined. 
 
 But it is desii-able to enter into the matter a little more 
 fully. 
 
 The practice is derived from one of the Injunctions issued 
 by Edward VI. in 1547, which orders that all " ecclesiastical 
 persons " " shall suffer from henceforth no torches, nor 
 " 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 stiU." 
 (Wilk. Cone. iv. 4; Cardw. Doc. Ann. i. 7.) And in Cran- 
 mer's Articles of Visitation, set forth in the same year, there 
 is the inquiry, " Whether they suffer any torches, candles, 
 " tapers, or any other lights to be in your churches, but only 
 
77 
 
 " two lights upon the high altar." (Wilk. Cone. iv. 23 ; Cardw. 
 Doc. Ann. i. 43.) 
 
 Now I will not stop to discuss the question whether the practice 
 here sanctioned is precisely that for which some are now con- 
 tending. Into that question it is unnecessary to enter,* be- 
 cause the Injunction has not in any way, directly or indirectly, 
 any force at the present day ; and, in fact, retained its force for 
 a very brief period, as I shall proceed to shew. 
 
 The argument for the Injunction being still obligatory is, 
 that these Injunctions were equivalent to an Act of Parliament, 
 as Proclamations coming under the provisions of the Act 
 31 Henr. VIII. c. 8, and consequently had the " authority of 
 Parliament " in the second year of Edw. VI. ; and, therefore, 
 what is ordered in them has the sanction of the Rubric at the 
 commencement of the Book of Common Prayer.f I have 
 already shewn (p. 12 above) that these Injunctions never were 
 equivalent to an Act of Parliament ; nor had they in any way 
 the sanction of Parliament. Consequently, their directions 
 can derive no authority from the Rubric in question, and are 
 therefore altogether destitute of force at the present day. 
 Nor can the practice be defended on the ground of custom, 
 
 * Mr. Robertson (1. c. p. 80) supposes that these lights were lights 
 placed before the nyx in which the sacrament was reserved, and had 
 nothing to do with the consecration of the sacrament. I cannot consider 
 this to be the meaning of the direction, inasmuch as the order would hardly 
 have been for more tlian one hp;ht in that ease, the Romanists themselves 
 scarcely ever using more for that purpose. At any rate, the order seems 
 to include the period of the consecration of the sacrament. 
 
 t VVheatley, in his " Rational Illustration of the Book of Common 
 Prayer," (p. lOf), 6th ed.) has made the singular mistake of maintaining 
 the authority of the Injunctions on the ground that they were ratified 
 by the same Act of Parliament that authorized the Prayer Book. But 
 of this the Act itself is the best refutation. He has also entirely misap- 
 prehended the direction itself ; for he speaks of their being used in 
 cathedrals when " divine service is performed by candle light," and that 
 they " ought to be used in all parish churches and chapels at the same 
 times." But the direction was, that they were to be " before the sacra- 
 ment,'' and the sacrament is ordinarily administered by daylight. And 
 it is this religious, or rather superstitious, use of them in connexion witii 
 the sacrament, which is ol)jectionahle. No one, I suppose, would object 
 to any number of lights being placed upon the communion table for the 
 purpose of lighting the church, when " divine service is performed by 
 candle light." 
 
78 
 
 because the Acts of Uniformity limit us to the observances laid 
 down in the Book of Common Prayer. (See Sect. I. above.) 
 
 And further, with respect to this particular practice, we have 
 express testimony, that it was one of those ceremonies which, 
 even under the first Book of Common Prayer of Edw. VI., 
 were " abolished'' and " put away." 
 
 For in one of the Visitation Articles issued by Royal autho- 
 rity, just after this Prayer Book was put forth (which I have 
 quoted in full, p. 5 above), we find the practice expressly for- 
 bidden, and forbidden as one of those not appointed in the 
 Book of Common Prayer ; the Ai-ticle running thus : " Item 
 " for an Uniformity, That no minister do counterfeit the 
 " Popish mass, as to kiss the Lord's table, washing his fingers 
 " . . . . [enumerating various practices] .... or setting any 
 " light upon the Lord's board at any time ; and finally, to 
 " use no other ceremonies than are appointed in the King's 
 " Buck of Common Prayers, or kneeling otherwise than is in 
 " the said Book." (VVilk. iv. 32, from Burnet H. R. ii. App. 
 165 ; or CardwelFs Doc. Ann. i. 63, 64.) Here we have a 
 clear proof, that it was held at the time, that " setting any light 
 upon the Lord's board at any time," was a ceremony not 
 appointed by this Book of Common Prayer authorized by 
 Parliament 2 Edw. VI., and was therefore by the terms of the 
 Act not to be used. And accordingly in the first of these 
 Articles it is ordered, " That all parsons, vicars, and curates 
 " omit in the reading of the Injunctions all such as make 
 " mention of the Popish mass, of chantries, of candles upon 
 " the altar, or any other such like thing." (lb.) 
 
 These two Articles are repeated nearly verbatim in Bishop 
 Ridley's Injunctions in his Visitation of the Diocese of Lon- 
 don in 1550, as follows : — 
 
 " 1. That there be no reading of such Injunctions as extoUeth 
 and setteth forth the Popish mass, candles, images, chantries ; 
 neither that there be used any superaltaries, or trentals of com- 
 munions." 
 
 "Item, That no minister do counterfeit the Popish mass in 
 
79 
 
 kissing the Lord's board .... [here follows an enumeration of 
 various Popish practices] .... ringing of the sacrying bell, or 
 setting any light upon the Lord's board. And finally, that the 
 minister, in time of the holy communion, do use only the cere- 
 monies and gestures appointed hy the Book of Common Prayer, 
 and none other, so that there do not appear in them any counter- 
 feiting of the Popish mass."* 
 
 Not only, therefore, was there no " authority of Parliament " 
 for these lights in the second year of Edw. VI. (or indeed at 
 any time), but the authority of Parliament in that year excluded 
 them, by limiting the ceremonial of our Church to wluit 
 was prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer then autho- 
 rized. 
 
 The doctrine of our Church on this subject may be gathered 
 from the way in which Bishop Jewell, in his " Defence of the 
 Apology," replies to Harding's charge against our Church, 
 that " ligbts at the Gospel and Communion be not had." He 
 says, — 
 
 " Touching your lights and tapers, Beatus Rhenanus, a man of 
 great learning and judgment, doubteth not but ye borrowed the use 
 thereof from the Heathens. I grant, the Christians in old time 
 had lights in their churches when they met together at their com- 
 mon prayers. But it appeareth by the antient Fathers that the 
 same lights served to solace them against the dark, and not for any 
 use of religion. S.Augustine saith, ' Vovent alius oleum, alius 
 ceram ad luminaria noctis' ; They promise (to the Church) one oil, 
 anotherwax, for the night lights. Likewise saith Eusebius, KaSnpoi' 
 <pb)Q, oaov ii,api: aui irpoq tKXafuxbiv toiq iv)(OfxevoiQ : Ignis purus, 
 quantum satis esset ad prcebendum lumen precantibus : a clear 
 light, so much as might suffice the people at their prayers. So 
 likewise saith S. Hierome, ' Cereos non clara luce accendimus, sed 
 ut noctis tenebras hoc solatio temperemus:' We light not our 
 tapers at mid-day, but only by this confort to ease the darkness of 
 the night." \ 
 
 So the third part of the Homily against Peril of Idolatry, 
 (in the Second Book of Homilies, published in 1562) when 
 
 * Burnet's Hist. Ref. vol. 2. P. 2. p. 292 ; or Cardw. Doc. Ann. i. 
 81, 82. 
 
 t Jewell's Defence of the Apology of the Church of England, p. 21, 
 in his Works, 1611, fol. 
 
80 
 
 speaking of the Romish practice of lighting candles before 
 images, adds what is strictly applicable to the practice now 
 in question, — " For in the day it needeth not, but was ever 
 a proverb of foolishness, to light a candle at noon-time."* 
 
 It is quite true, that, like the crucifix, as noticed in the last 
 Section, the use of these lights was continued for a time by 
 Queen Elizabeth in her own chapel. But as the passages 
 quoted above (pp. 65 — 69) show, the practice even there was op- 
 posed by the leading divines of the day, and was not permitted 
 in the public churches. Speaking of the cross and two bum- 
 ing tapers in the Queen's chapel in 1559, Strype says, — 
 " The Archbishop of Canterbury performed his part, by ap- 
 plying himself honestly to the Queen for divers reasons to re- 
 move them." (Ann. I. 175 ; or I. i. 260.) 
 
 But as was the case with the crucifix, the retention of lights 
 in the Royal Chapel led to their retention in some other 
 places ; and so a precedent was left to the Landian divines in 
 the next century to introduce the practice into their own 
 cathedrals and churches. 
 
 This, however, affords no foundation for such a practice to 
 rest upon. 
 
 One remark I am compelled to add before I conclude this 
 Section : and that is, that I am unable to draw a distinction 
 between candles lighted and unlighted. The practice is con- 
 tended for as a ceremony of religious signification, and is 
 maintained solely by the authority of an Injunction that re- 
 quires " lights," and requires them for a symbolical pui-pose. 
 If then the Injunction is to be followed, the candles must be 
 lighted. If it is not to be followed, there is no authority for 
 the candles even unlighted. 
 
 No doubt, if lights are required on the communion table for 
 lighting the church when the service is performed by candle- 
 light, and unlighted candles are placed on the communion 
 table in the former part of the day, with the intent (real or 
 professed) that they may be ready for that purpose, it might 
 be hardly worth while, in ordinary cases, to notice such a prac- 
 tice. But as it is open to the supposition that there is a 
 * Christian Knowledge Society ed. 1833. p. 250. 
 
81 
 
 superstitions object in view in placing them there, it is surely 
 a wiser course, and certainly looks more honest, not to adopt 
 such a practice. And I suppose few will think it can produce 
 any good effect upon the minds of the worshippers, to have 
 unlighted candles upon the Table at the administration of the 
 Communion, or at any other time. A bad effect it may produce 
 in more ways than one ; and one certainly is, that if noticed 
 at all, it can only provoke a smile, as a palpable absurdity. 
 
 Since this work was first printed, I have seen two little 
 Tracts on the subject of Lights on the Communion Table : 
 one by the Rev. A. P. Perceval, the other by " A Layman.'" 
 The former contains some information worth notice, res])ecting 
 the origin and history of the practice, which Mr. Perceval justly 
 applies to show the incongruity of the practice with the prin- 
 ciples of our Reformed Church. I fear, however, the parties 
 whom he seeks to couviuce, are hardly accessible to such an 
 argument. The " Layman" takes up the more important point 
 of the legality of the practice, and arrives at the same conclusion 
 as myself, but on ground the safety of which I question. He 
 grants, that the Injunctions of Edward VI. were originally 
 equivalent to an Act of Pai'liament, as a Royal Proclamation, 
 (which I hope I have shown, p. 12, not to be the case) but 
 contends, that the Act giving power to the King to issue Pro. 
 clamations which should have the force of Acts, having been 
 repealed in the first year of Edward's reign, the Injunctions had 
 lost their authority in the second year of his reign. I should 
 not like to rest much on this conclusion. The repeal of an Act 
 giving power to the Sovereign to make laws, hardly seems to 
 make invalid what the Sovereign has done under the powers 
 confided to him by the Act. The cases mentioned in the Note seem 
 to me hardly of a parallel kind. Suppose an Act of Parliament 
 authorizing the Sovereign to prescribe laws for a Corporation. 
 Would the repeal of the Act giving this power invalidate the 
 laws which had been promulged by the Sovereign under that Act? 
 At any rate the matter rests, I think, on nmch surer grounds. 
 
82 
 
 SECTION X. 
 
 FURNITURE OF THE COMMUXION TABLE. 
 
 On this head I shall first notice what is prescribed by the 
 Rubric and Canons. 
 
 Besides the vessels immediately required for the ministration 
 of the Holy Communion, namely, the " paten," " cup," and 
 " chalice or flagon " containing the wine to be consecrated, 
 (mentioned in the marginal Rubric of the Prayer of Consecration), 
 the only ornament for the Communion Table, respecting which 
 there is any direction in the present Rubric, is that mentioned in 
 the following order, — "The Table, at the Communion-time, hav- 
 ing a fair ivhite linen cloth upon it, shall stand," &c. (Rubric 
 prefi_xed to Communion Service.) 
 
 This direction was first introduced in the second Prayer Book 
 of Edward VI. in 1552, and has been continued in all the sub- 
 sequent Books. No direction was given on the subject in 
 the Prayer Book of 1 549. 
 
 The order on this subject in the Canons of 1604 is, that the 
 Communion Table is to be " covered, in time of Divine Ser^nce, 
 " with a carpet of silk, or other decent stufi", thought meet by the 
 " Ordinary of the place, if any question be made of it, and with 
 " a fair linen cloth at the time of the ministration, as becometh 
 " that Table." (Can. 82.) 
 
 It will be observed here, that the covering of the Table in 
 time of Divine Service, when the Communion is not about to be 
 administered, is to be such as shall be " thought meet by the 
 Ordinary of the place, if any question be made of it and 
 consequently it is entirely in the power of the Ordinary to pre- 
 vent the use of any such tinsel trappings and Popish " altar- 
 cloths " as have been of late introduced among us. The specific 
 
83 
 
 recognition by the Canon of the power of the Ordinary in this 
 respect places this beyond doubt. 
 
 In the Injunctions of Queen EHzabeth in 1559, the only 
 direction given on this subject is, that the Communion Table is 
 to be " commonly covered, as thereto belongeth, and as shall be 
 " appointed by the Visitors." (Wilk. Cone. iv. 188 ; Cardw. 
 Doc. Ann. i. 201, 202.) 
 
 In 1561 were issued " Orders taken the x. day of October, 
 " in the third year of the reign of our Sovereign Lady EHzabeth 
 "... by virtue of her Majesty's letters addressed to her Highness' 
 " Commissioners for causes ecclesiastical in which it is 
 directed, that " the Communion Table shall stand out of the 
 " times of receiving the Communion, having thereon a fair linen 
 " cloth, with some covering of silk, buckram, or other such 
 " like, for the clean keeping of the said cloth on the Communion 
 " board, at the cost of the parish."* 
 
 This direction is repeated by Archbishop Grindal, in his In- 
 junctions for the Province nf York in 1571 (Works, p. 133), 
 and in his Articles for the Province of Canterbury in 1576. (lb. 
 157.) 
 
 In the "Advertisements " of 1564, the direction was a little 
 more precise, namely, that " 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." 
 (Wilk. Cone. iv. 248 ; Cardw. Doc. Ann. i. 292.) 
 
 In the Canons of 1571 the only direction is, that the Church- 
 wardens " shall see, there be a fair joined table, which may 
 serve for the administration of the holy Communion, and a 
 clean cloth (mundum tapetem) to cover it." (Book of certain 
 Canons, &c., 1571. 4to. p. 18. For Latin, see Wilk. Cone. iv. 
 266 ; Cardw. Synod, i. 123.) 
 
 This was succeeded by the more specific direction of our pre- 
 sent Canon ; accompanied with the grant of a discretionary 
 
 * I quote this from the original tract in my possession, which from its 
 rarity escaped the notice hoth of Wilkins and Dr. Cardvvell. Ileylin has 
 quoted it. The only other copy 1 know of, is one recently found (I am 
 told; among Archbishop Seeker's papers in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. 
 G ^ 
 
84 
 
 power to the Ordinary to determine, in case of dispute, respecting 
 the proper nature of the covering. 
 
 And I need hardly add, with respect to these coverings for 
 the Table, that images upon the cloth of the Communion Table 
 fall under the same prohibition that excludes them from the 
 other parts of the Church. 
 
 These, then, are all the ornaments for the Communion Table, 
 for which any authority can be found. 
 
 As it respects candles, and therefore candlesticks, so far as 
 any religious purpose is concerned, I trust that it has been 
 already shewn that they are prohibited. 
 
 And as to any other ornaments having a religious reference 
 or purpose, they all fall under the objection of being unautho- 
 rized, and consequently inadmissible; inasmuch as the rule 
 laid down for the preservation of uniformity excludes what it 
 does not prescribe. (See Sect. I. above.) Uniformity could be 
 maintained in no other way. 
 
 But among the earlier Injunctions and Articles of Inquiry, 
 issued when some remnants of Popish superstition still lingered, 
 though forbidden, in some of our chui-ches, we find some testi- 
 monies against other ornaments ; some of which I will now 
 quote. 
 
 Thus, in the Injunctions of Parkhurst, Bishop of Norwich, 
 in 1561, the fom-th (quoted in full p. 27 above) orders, "that 
 they neither suffer the Lord's Table to be hanged and decked 
 like an Altar, neither," &c. 
 
 And in Archbishop GrindaFs Injunctions for the Province 
 of York in 1571, we have a specification of various forbidden 
 ornaments ; where he orders " that all vestments, albes, tunicles, 
 " stoles, phanons, pixes, paxes, hand-bells, sacring-bells, censers, 
 " chrismatories, crosses, candlesticks, holy-water stocks, or fat 
 " images, and all other relics and monuments of superstition 
 " and idolatiy, be utterly defaced, broken, and destroyed." 
 (Works, pp. 135, 136.) And in his Articles of Inquiiy for the 
 Province of Canterbury in 1576, inquiry is made, in the same 
 terms, whether all these things have been destroyed. (Works, 
 p. 159.) And we find the same Prelate, when at York, issuing 
 
85 
 
 Articles of direction to his Archdeacons, in which he orders 
 " that no linen cloths, called altar-cloths, and before used about 
 " masses, be laid upon the Communion Table." (Works, 
 p. 155.) 
 
 And among the " innovations " complained of by the House 
 of Lords Committee in 1641, as having been introduced by the 
 Laudian divines, are the following : — 
 
 " 3. Advancing candlesticks in many churches upon the Altar so 
 called. 4. In making canopies over the Altar so called, with tra- 
 verses and curtains on each side and before it .... 6. In advancing 
 crucifixes and images upon the parafront, or altar-cloth, so called." 
 (Cardw. Conf. 2d ed. p. 272.) 
 
 And as to the parochial, and probably many of the cathedral, 
 churches, these things were " innovations." Not that they 
 were destitute altogether of precedent, because the Royal and 
 some private chapels supplied a pi'ecedent, though not an autho- 
 rity for their use. With respect to these ornaments, as in the 
 case of others already mentioned, an exception was made in 
 favour of the Royal chapels, which continued for many years 
 ornamented with things which had been ejected from the paro- 
 chial churches. This left an opening for similar ornaments to 
 find their way into the private chapels of the nobility and the 
 bishops, wherever an inclination for them existed. And the 
 peculiar circumstances under which Cathedrals and Collegiate 
 chapels are placed, caused some of them also to adopt some of 
 these ornaments, when their governing body happened to favour 
 such things. 
 
 But all these are peculiar cases, and do not affect the general 
 law under which the parochial churches of this kingdom are 
 placed. Cathedrals and Colleges are subject only to the super- 
 vision of their Visitors, and are not amenable to the law in the 
 same way as parochial churches ; and consequently there is much 
 scope for an indulgence of individual predilections, and the 
 admission of irregularities. 
 
 But it needs no proof, that irregularities occurring under such 
 circumstances, or even irregularities overlooked in a few paro- 
 
86 
 
 chial churches, cannot be accepted as any evidence of the law 
 of our Church on the subject.* 
 
 * In connexion with this subject, I feel it a duty to caution the reader 
 against allowing himself to be misled as to the legitimate ceremonial of 
 our Church by a work published a few years since, entitled " Hierurgia 
 Anglicana, &c., Edited by Members of the Cambridge Camden Society." 
 The work consists of extracts derived jjrincijjally from the writings of 
 violent Puritans, giving palpably exaggerated and often false statements 
 respecting the j)ractices prevailing in our Church. Of this the Editors 
 are so conscious, that in one place, where the extracts from these writers 
 charge their Laudian friends with " the adoration of saints, angels, and 
 images," they are ready enough to inform us that those passages "are, 
 in many particulars, shamelessly untrue," (p. 33) ; and yet the greater part 
 of the evidence they have collected on our ecclesiastical ceremonial, and to 
 which they point us as a proof of the recognition of various Popish usages 
 by our Church, is derived from the representations of these writers. A 
 large portion of the volume is also devoted to accounts of the ceremonies 
 and ornaments introduced by Laud and the prelates of his party into their 
 private chapels, and the Cathedrals over which, as Deans or Bishops, they 
 obtained the control. The work is a painful specimen of the unscrupulous 
 way in which the party from which it emanated have been striving to 
 inoculate the country with their views, and to represent as the legitimate 
 ceremonial of our Church practices altogether abhorrent from her known 
 and declared principles. 
 
87 
 
 SECTION XI. 
 
 ON MIXING WATER WITH THE WINE USED AT THE HOLY 
 COMMUNION. 
 
 By the first Book of Common Prayer of Edward VI., it was 
 directed, that water should be mixed with the wine at the Com- 
 munion, the Rubric of that Book enjoining as follows : — 
 
 " And putting the wine into the chalice, or else in some fair or 
 convenient cup, prepared for that use (if the chalice will not serve), 
 putting thereto a little pure and clean water &c. (Rubric at end of 
 Offertory.) 
 
 In all the subsequent Books of Common Prayer this direc- 
 tion has been vnthdrawn, and throughout the whole office we 
 find nothing mentioned but bread and wine. 
 
 This, then, is a point determined by the principle laid down 
 in Section I. The great object of the Book of Common Prayer, 
 was to produce uniformity, not merely in the prayers used in 
 public worship, but in the ceremonies practised. And as I have 
 already shewn, we are bound to the exclusive use of the prayers, 
 rites, and ceremonies there enjoined, and " none other," both by 
 Canon and Statute Law. Indeed, if any rites and ceremonies 
 not forbidden might be legally practised, it is obvious, that the 
 very end and object of the Common Prayer Book would be frus- 
 trated, for instead of uniformity we should have endless disagree- 
 ment and variety. And if ceremonies not forbidden may be in- 
 troduced, on the same principle may prayers not forbidden be 
 introduced, and our form of prayer be burthened with as many 
 intei-polations as some parties have attempted to introduce into 
 our ceremonial. 
 
88 
 
 And in the point now under consideration, the argument is 
 strengthened by the fact, that the practice was enjoined by the 
 Prayer Book of 1549, and the order for it deliberately ivithdrawn 
 in all the subsequent Books of Common Prayer. The with- 
 drawal of the order amounts, in fact, to a direct prohibition of 
 the practice, because it shews an intention to exclude it. 
 
 And so some, at least, of our gi-eatest divines have held. 
 
 Thus, for instance. Bishop Jewel, in his Reply to Harding, 
 evidently treats the practice as one not in use in our Church, 
 though he justly says, that of this custom, " the superstition only 
 excepted, no man maketh any great account."* But when he 
 charges it with superstition, he sxifficiently indicates the view he 
 took of it. 
 
 So also our learned Bishop Morton classes it among the " false 
 and novel rites of the Sacrament of the Eucharist ;"f meaning, 
 no doubt, to refer it, more especially, to the former sort, as it 
 was certainly used at an early period of the Church. 
 
 I am quite aware, that our pious and learned Bishop Andrews 
 approved of it, and practised it. And other inferior authorities 
 might be quoted for its use. But individual examples of this 
 kind cannot authorize what the law forbids. And this practice 
 is, not only by the absence of any direction for its use, but also 
 by the withdrawal of such direction existing in a former Prayer 
 Book, by implication prohibited. 
 
 * Reply to Harding, p. 26, in his Works, 1611, fol. . 
 
 t Apolog. Cathol. P. 1. c. 78. ed. Lond. 1605. 4to. pp. 237, 8. 
 
89 
 
 SECTION XII. 
 
 ON THE MODE OF DELIVERING THE BREAD AND WINE TO 
 THE COMMUNICANTS. 
 
 On this point the Rubric is so express, that it would have 
 been unnecessary to say one word on the subjectj but for the 
 circumstance of a practice having been adopted from the first 
 Prayer Book of Edw. VI., clearly opposed to what is now re- 
 quired. 
 
 The Rubric directs, — "Then shall the minister first receive the 
 " Communion in both kinds himself, and then proceed to deliver 
 " the same to the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in like manner, 
 " (if any be present) and after that to the people also in order, 
 " into their hands, all meekly kneeling." 
 
 The dii-ection is so precise, that the Communion in both kinds 
 is to be delivered " into their hands" that there is no pretext for 
 even raising a doubt on the subject. And the same direction, 
 (with the exception of the word " in " for " into") M'as given in 
 all the preceding Reformed Prayer Books, except the first of 
 Edward VI., where it was ordered, that the people should " com- 
 monly receive the Sacrament of Christ's body in their mouths at 
 the priest's hand." (Rubric at end of Communion Service.) 
 But as has been already observed, the directions on such sub- 
 jects in this Book are of no authority. The mere withdrawal of 
 directions given in this Book, in the Books of Common Prayer 
 that succeeded it, is a strong testimony adverse to the legality of 
 their being now followed. And in this case, not merely is the 
 
90 
 
 direction withdrawn, but it is succeeded by one of an opposite 
 kind. It would be a singular sort of conscientiousness, then, in 
 one who earnestly maintained the duty of following out all the 
 directions of the Prayer Book, to follow the directions of a 
 Book which has been superseded, and disobey those of the Book 
 which he has subscribed. 
 
91 
 
 SECTION XIII. 
 
 ON THE SERMON BEING PRECEDED AND FOLLOWED BY A 
 PRAYER. 
 
 The only direction, in our present Rubric, respecting the Ser- 
 mon, is as follows : — " Then [i. e. after the public notices fol- 
 " lowing the Nicene Creed] shall follow the Sermon, or one of 
 " the Homilies already set forth, or hereafter to be set forth, 
 " by authority." And immediately after follows the Rubric, 
 " Then shall the Priest return to the Lord's Table," &c. 
 
 So far as the Rubi-ic is concerned, then, there is no o)-der for 
 any prayer before or after the Sermon. The Rubric requires 
 nothing but the Sermon. But at the end of the Communion 
 Office are several Collects, to which the following Rubric is pre- 
 fixed : — " Collects to be said after the Offertory, when there is 
 " no Communion, evei-y sucli day one or more ; and the same 
 " may be said also, as often as occasion shall serve, after the 
 " Collects either of Morning or Evening Prayer, Communion, or 
 " Litany, by the discretion of the Minister." 
 
 Now certainly this Rubric is not sufficiently specific to 
 enable any one to say, that it expressly authorizes the use of 
 these Collects before and after Sermon ; but it does, I humbly 
 conceive, go far to justify their use at those times. Now the 
 Collect almost universally used after the Sermon, is one of these 
 (commencing, " Grant, we beseech thee," &c.) ; and another of 
 these Collects (commencing, " Prevent us, O Lord," &c.) is 
 very frequently the one used before the Sermon. 
 
 Custom, however, has long decided in favour of the general 
 use of the very appropriate Collect for the Second Sunday in 
 
92 
 
 Advent, before the Sermon. At the same time it must be ad- 
 mitted; that thia custom is not such as to have any legal force, 
 and therefore the use of this Collect has no authority to rest upon. 
 
 With respect to the Lord's Prayer following the Collect 
 before the Sei-mou, we have express authority for such a 
 use of it in the first Act of Uniformity, 3 & 3 Edw. VI. c. 1, 
 which enacts, (§ 7) that " it shall be lawful for all men, as well 
 " in churches, chapels, oratories, or other places, to use openly 
 " anrj psalms or prayer taken out of the Bible, at any due time, 
 " not letting or omitting thereby the service, or any part thereof, 
 " mentioned in the said Book." 
 
 From the way in which this Act is spoken of in the last Act 
 of Uniformity, 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4, § 24, I conceive that this 
 proviso is still in force. 
 
 So far, then, as the Prayer Book and the Acts of Uniformity 
 ai-e concerned, there is no definite direction on this subject, and 
 the utmost that can be gathered from them is a permissive sanc- 
 tion to the use of one of the Commimion Collects and the Lord's 
 Prayer, as just mentioned. 
 
 But for a Prayer, or Exhortation to Prayer, before the Ser- 
 mon, or rather at the beginning of the Sermon, an express di- 
 rection is given in the 55th of the Canons of 1604; and no 
 such discrepancy as has been suggested, will, upon examination, 
 be found to exist between the order in the Canon and the Ru- 
 bric of the Book of Common Prayer ; and consequently, speaking 
 legally, we are required to use the Form given in the Canon. 
 
 The 55th Canon, according to the English translation, is as 
 follows. It is entitled, " The form of a Prayer to be used by 
 all preachers before their Sermons," and enacts that, — " Before 
 " all* Sermons, Lectures, and Homilies, the Preachers and Mi- 
 " nisters shall move the people to join with them in prayer in 
 " this form, or to this eflPect, as briefly as conveniently they 
 " may : — Ye shall pray for Christ's holy Catholic Church, that 
 " is, for the whole congregation of Christian people dispersed 
 
 * The word " all " shows that the meaning of the Canon cannot be limited, 
 as has been suggested, to Sermons preached without the previous use of 
 the Common Prayers. 
 
93 
 
 " throughout the whole world, and especially for the Churches 
 
 " of England, Scotland, and Ireland : and herein, &c. &c 
 
 " always concluding with the Lord's Prayer." 
 
 It has been urged by several respectable writers, that this order 
 militates against the Acts of Uniformity, that limit us so closely 
 and exclusively to the prayers and rites contained in the Book 
 of Common Prayer ; which Book merely says, " Then shall fol- 
 low the Sermon," &c. But this is a mistake ; for the bidding 
 of prayer, followed by the Lord's Prayer, was considered a part 
 of the Sermon, and directed to be introduced into it ; and until 
 comparatively modern times was, by those who attended to such 
 matters, so used; and this course was contemplated by the 
 Canon ; for although, in the English, the words are, " before" the 
 Sermon, the Latin original shows, that this meant in the com- 
 mencement of the Sermon, for, in the Latin, the title of the Canon 
 is, " Precationis formula a concionatoribus in concionum suarum 
 irtgressu imitanda and the Canon commences, " Omnes con- 
 cionatores et ministri in aditu cuj usque suae concionis," &c. 
 (Wilk. Cone. iv. 389.) 
 
 And it is not, strictly speaking, a prayer, but an exhortation 
 to the people, a moving of the people (as the Canon expresses 
 it), to pray for certain things; that is, to lift up their hearts to 
 God for the objects mentioned ; concluding with the Lord's 
 Pi'ayer, as a summary of all their petitions. 
 
 And in this manner we find it to have been used, before as 
 well as since the Reformation, until comparatively modern 
 times. 
 
 In an order issued by authority about the year 1535, on this 
 subject, the title is,— "This is an order taken for preaching 
 and bidding of beads in all sermons to be made within this 
 realm."* 
 
 Thus also Bishop Latimer, in his Sermon at Stamford, Nov. 
 9, 1550, introduces the prayer in the commencement of his 
 Sermon in the following way : — 
 
 "And that I may, at this time, so declare them, ay may be for 
 
 * See Wheatley's Bidiling of Prayers, &c., or an Historical Vindication 
 of the 55tli Cauo'ii, 1718. 8vo. p. 18. 
 
94 
 
 God's glory, your edifying, and my discharge, I pray you all to help 
 me with your prayers. In the which prayer, &c. for the universal 
 Church of Christ through the whole world, &c., for the preservatioa 
 of our Sovereign Lord King Edward the Sixth. . . . Thirdly, I 
 commend unto you the souls departed this life in the faith of Christ, 
 that ye remember to give laud, praise, and thanks to Almighty God, 
 for his great goodness and mercy shewed unto them. . . . Pray, 
 therefore, that we may have grace to die in the same faith of Christ 
 as they did. . . . For this and grace let us say the Lord's 
 Prayer."* 
 
 So, aho, it will be found, that in each of liis seven Sermons 
 before King Edward tbe VI, in 1549, there is an exhortation to 
 prayer of this kind introduced in the commencement of the 
 Sermon .f 
 
 Sometimes this exhortation to praj^erwas given at the close of 
 the Sermon, of which we have an instance in Latimer^s Morning 
 Sermon before the Convocation on June 9, 1536, in the time of 
 Henry VIII. ;f and also in his last Sei-mon before Edward 
 VI., which (like that before the Convocation) is divided into 
 two parts, and probably preached in the morning and after- 
 noon, and the exhortation to prayer is given at the end of the 
 first part.§ 
 
 And in the Sermon of Archbishop Parker (when Vice-Chan- 
 cellor of Cambridge) on the death of Martin Bucer in 1551, we 
 find this Prayer (in the words of the form then prescribed) 
 introduced at the close of the Sermon. || And at the end of 
 this exhortation to prayer, are the words, " Hie factae sunt ta- 
 citse preces." 
 
 The same practice was continued in the time of Queen 
 Elizabeth. 
 
 Thus, in one of Bishop Jewell's Sermons (on Luke xi. 15.), 
 we find him, after delivering the text, commencing thus : 
 
 " That it may please God so to order both my utterance and your 
 
 * Works, Park. Soc. ed. vol. i. pp. 283, 284. 
 
 t See his Works, P. S. ed. vol. i. pp. 88, 112, 131, 150, 1/4, 198, 217- 
 I Works, vol. i. p. 40. § lb. p. 256. 
 
 [| See Buceri Script. Anglic, p. 898. 
 
95 
 
 understanding, that whatsoever shall be spoken or heard, may turn 
 to the glory of His holy name, and to the profit and comfort of His 
 Church, before I enter into the exposition of these words, I desire 
 you to call upon our gracious God with your earnest and hearty 
 prayer. And here I commend unto you the good estate of God's 
 holy and Catholic Church, and therein the Queen's most excellent 
 Majesty, &c. &c." (Works, 1611, Serm. and Treat, p. 202.) 
 
 And in the next (on Rom. xiii. 12.) we find, shortly after the 
 commencement of the Sermon, a notice of the introduction of 
 an exhortation to Prayer, which was probably of the same kind, 
 but which, in the report we have of the Sermon, is (as usual) 
 represented merely by an " &c.," it being needless to repeat the 
 form. The passage is this, — " But before I proceed further to 
 " declare that which is to be spoken at this present, let us turn 
 " our hearts to God, even the Father of lights, that it may 
 " please Him to open the eyes of our understanding, and to 
 " direct all our doings to His glory, &c." (lb. p. 210.) 
 
 L'Estrange tells us, that he could only find examples of the 
 use of the Bidding Prayer, during the i-eigns of Edward VI. and 
 Elizabeth, in the following six authors, — Archbishops Parker 
 and Sandys, and Bishops Gardiner, Latimer, Jewell, and 
 Andrews.* But in all probability the omission of any notice 
 of it in other sermons that remain to us, arises only from its 
 being well known as a customai-y and prescribed form, and 
 therefore not considered to require insertion. The greater 
 number of the Sermons extant of the authors in whom we find 
 it, are destitute of it, though there can be no reason assigned, 
 why it should have been inserted in the Sermons in which it 
 occurs, more than in the others of the same authors. 
 
 Wheatley adds another instance " in a Latin Sermon of Dr. 
 " Pearn, Master of Peter House in Cambridge, and Dean of 
 " Ely, preached in King's College Chapel before Queen Eliza- 
 " beth, in August, 1564, when she visited that University ."f 
 
 * Alliance of Dlv. Off. ed. 1690, p. 1/3. 
 
 t Bidding of Praj'ers, &c., an Historical Vindication of the £5th Canon. 
 171B. 8vo. p. 29. 
 
96 
 
 I have observed another in a Sermon by Dr. John Bridges, 
 (afterwards Bishoj) of Oxford) at Paul's Cross, in 1571, where, 
 after the text has been explained and divided into subjects, it 
 follows : — " Thus this whole sentence, ' So God loved the 
 " world, &c/ being contrived and divided orderly into these four 
 " parts, let us make our enti-y into the several considerations of 
 " them, with faithful and humble prayer. Precatio. You have 
 " heard," &c.* 
 
 An example of the introduction of this prayer into the Ser- 
 mon since the Canon of ISOi, occurs in the Sermon preached 
 by Dr. Sancroft (afterwards Archbishop of Canterbui-y) at the 
 consecration of seven Bishops in 1660, an occasion when, no 
 doubt, the most regular form of proceeding would be adopted. 
 After the explication and division of his text, he proceeds thus, 
 — " These are the parts. Of which that I may so speak, and 
 
 you so hear, &c., we beseech God the Father, in the name of 
 " his Son Jesus Christ, to give us the assistance of his Holy 
 " Spirit. And in these and all other our supplications, let us 
 " always remember to pray for Christ's holy Catholic Church," 
 &c. &c., proceeding to all the heads mentioned in the Canon, 
 adding the two Universities, and concluding, — " For which, and 
 for all other needful blessings, let us say together the Prayer of 
 our Lord," &c.t 
 
 It is clear, therefore, that the Prayer, or rather Exhortation 
 to Prayer, required by the Canon, has always been considered as 
 being properly part of the Sermon ; and the place where it ought 
 to be introduced, according to the Canon of 1604, is in the com- 
 mencement of the Sermon, not before the text, but before the 
 subject is formally discussed. 
 
 And it may be remarked, that traces of this practice are fre- 
 quently to be found in Sermons to the present day : a brief 
 Prayer for Divine aid and guidance being often inti-oduced in 
 that part of the Sermon. 
 
 This view is maintained by Dr. Heylin, in an elaborate 
 
 * Sermon at Paul's Cross in 1571, by John Bridges. Lend. [1571.] 
 4to. pp. 2, 3. 
 
 t D'Oyly's Life of Saueroft, vol. ii. pp. 309-311. 
 
97 
 
 Treatise on the 55tli Canon, first published in 1637,* contain- 
 ing much historical information on the subject. He says, — 
 
 " Next we may argue for the Form of Bidding Prayers, that at the 
 first, when it was introduced into the Church, it rather was a 
 part of the very Serinoii, one of the principal instructions therein 
 delivered, than any preparation to it ... . [And after quoting 
 some examples, he adds] : Nay, by the rule laid down in the 
 Queen's Injunction, it seems it was not to be used till the end of 
 the Sermon ; aud therefore no such necessary preparation to it, as 
 it is now conceived and made. For presently on the conclusion 
 of the said Form of Bidding Prcnjevf, itfolloweth thus in the Injunc- 
 tion : 'And this done, show the holy-days and fasts.' This, by our 
 present Liturgy, (confirmed in Parliament before the setting out of 
 the said Injunctions), is ordered to be done after the Homily or 
 Sermon : and might seem inconvenient, if not absurd, should it be 
 done in the middle of the Sermon, much more between the Prayer 
 and the Sermon, which aho seems to have been put to practice in 
 King Edward's time : Dr Parker not descending to the Bidding 
 of Prayers, (or to his exhortation adpreces, as it is there called), till 
 he was come to the conclusion of his matter in the close of all. 
 Now, where the Canon hath appointed, that the Form of Prayer 
 there recited be used by preachers before the Sermon — i. e.. before 
 the substance of it, (the preface and division being only a manu- 
 duction thereunto, and no part thereof), as Bishop Andrews always 
 used it, or else between the Text and Sermon, as others no less 
 eminent than he have been accustomed to do ; or if it must needs 
 be interpreted to be before them both, as the most would have it, 
 we must then think the Church was pleased to yield a little unto 
 the current of the time, in which that fashion generally had been 
 taken up ; and that the Church regarded not so much the circum- 
 stance as the main and substance, which was to lay before the people 
 some heads of Prayer, and thereby to cut off those long and tedious 
 Prayers so much used of late." (§ 18 ; Ed. in Tracts, pp. 157, 1'8.) 
 
 From this passage, we see that even at that period some were 
 in the habit of using the Form before giving out the text ; and 
 other passages of the same treatise show, that it vvas often 
 
 * A Brief Discourse touching the Form of Prayer appointed to be used 
 by Preachers before their Sermons, Can. 55. Lend. 1637- Reprinted 
 among his " Histor. and Miscell. Tracts," Lend. 1681. fol. pp. 148 et seq. 
 
 H 
 
98 
 
 tamed into a Prayer instead of a Form for bidding prayer, or 
 moving the people to pray ; to oppose whicli custom was the 
 object Dr. Heylin had in view in writing his Treatise.* His 
 doubt whether the Canon was to be interpreted as meaning the 
 Form to be used before the text, would have been cleared up 
 (as I have shown) by a reference to the Latin. 
 
 Precisely the same remarks are made on this subject (pro- 
 bably derived from this passage of Heylin) by Wheatly in his 
 Tract already cited jf but he adds, that "the words of the 
 Canon seem at first to have been interpreted to mean no more, 
 than that Prayers should be bid before the substance or main 
 scope of the Sermon ; the preface and division being only 
 accounted an Introduction to the Discourse itself." 
 
 The passages quoted above from Latimer, Jewell, and others, 
 clearly show also, that they used not a direct prayer, but an ex- 
 hortation to pray. And this is evidently what is required both 
 by our present Canon, and by the previous Injunctions on the 
 same subject, which that Canon followed. And if any one has 
 any doubt on the point, I refer him to the Treatises of Heylin 
 and Wheatley (just cited) on the 55th Canon. 
 
 There is nothing, therefore, in the direction of the Canon at 
 all opposed to the Rubric or the Acts of Uniformity. What is 
 there ordered, was intended to form part of the Sermon, and 
 therefore on that ground would not come under the pro- 
 visions of the Act ; and secondly, it is not a prayer, but an ex- 
 hortation to the people, in the Sermon, to pray for certain 
 blessings, and therefore not any thing forbidden by the Act. 
 
 In fact, the history of the Form shows, that there could have 
 been no intention to prohibit it in any of the Acts of Uni- 
 formity. 
 
 And as a short account of its history may tend to elucidate 
 the subject, I will here add a few words on that point. 
 
 It clearly derives its origin from the old Form in use here 
 
 * He tells US, indeed, that a custom in preachers to introduce apra5'er of 
 their own in the pulpit, had "found such entertainment among them also 
 who otherwise were not ill affected unto the order of the Church, that, in 
 the end, the usual Form of hidding pra\'ers was in a manner laid aside by 
 nil s-orts of men, and is now forced to plead its birthright, and seek for 
 repossession," &c. (p. 157.) 
 
 t On the 65th Canon, pp. 61—63. 
 
99 
 
 long before the Reformation, by which the people who were 
 unable to follow the Latin Sei-vice were directed to pray for the 
 Pope, the Archbishops and Bishops, the Church, the King and 
 Queen, &c. ; or (in the terms then in use) to bid their beads for 
 these parties. A Form of this kind, of the 14th century, is 
 given by L'Estrange, of which the following is a brief specimen, 
 the original being of some length. 
 
 " Ye shulle stonde up and bydde your bedys in the worshepe of 
 
 our Lord Jhesu Christ, and his moder Saint Marye Ye 
 
 shulle also bydde for the stat of Holy Cherche, for the Pope of Rome 
 
 and his Cardinalis Ye shulle bydde for the Erchebyscop of 
 
 Canturbury, for the Byscop of Worssetre, our ghostly fader and all 
 
 oder Biscopis Ye shulle bydde for the King of Engeland, for 
 
 the Quene, and for all here childryne," &c. &c.* 
 
 Another Form of a later date is given by the same author, 
 which comnicuccs thus, — 
 
 " After a laudable custom of our Mother, Holy Church, ye shall 
 kneel down, moving your hearts unto Almighty God, and making 
 your special prayers for the three Estates, concerning all Christian 
 people — i. e., for the spirituality, the temporality, and the souls 
 being in the pains of purgatory. First, for our holy father the Pope, 
 with all his Cardinals ; for all Archbishops and Bishops Se- 
 condly, ye shall pray for the unity and peace of all Christian realms, 
 and especially for the noble realm of England, for our Sovereign 
 Lord the King,"t &c. &c. 
 
 These exhortations to prayer were introduced in the Sermon, 
 and at that part of it which the discretion of the preacher 
 might select. 
 
 This Foi-m was of course one of the first things altered by 
 Henry VIIL on his rupture with Rome, and was made the 
 vehicle for requiring an acknowledgment of his new title as 
 Supreme Head of the Church of England. 
 
 In 1534 an order was issued by the King, by Proclamation 
 dated June 9, 1534, " that all and all manner of ecclesiastical 
 " persons should teach, preach, publish, and declare in all manner 
 
 * Alliance of Divine Offices, ed. 1690, p. 349. t lb. p. 171. 
 
 H 2 
 
100 
 
 " of churches, the said his just title, stile, and jurisdiction on 
 " every Sunday, and high feast throughout the year."* 
 
 And in the year 1535, the following roim was issued by 
 Royal authority. 
 
 " This is an order taken for preacLing and bidding of beads in all 
 Sermons to be made within this realm. — First, whosoever shall 
 preach in the presence of the King's Highness and the Queen's 
 Grace, shall, in the bidding of beads, pray for the whole Catholic 
 Church of Christ, as well quick as dead, and especially for the 
 Catholic Church of this realm ; and first, as we be most bounden, 
 for our Sovereign Lord, King Henry VHI., being immediately next 
 under God the only Supreme Head of this Cathohc Church of 
 England. And for the most gracious Lady Queen Anne, his wife, 
 and for the Lady Elizabeth, daughter and heir to them both. And 
 no further. 
 
 " Item, The preacher in all other places of this realm, not in the 
 presence of the King's said Highness, and the Queen's Grace, shall in 
 the biddmg of the beads pray first in manner and form, and word 
 for word, as is above ordained and limited ; adding thereto in the 
 second part, for all Archbishops and Bishops,'" Sccf 
 
 An instance of the way in which this Form was carried out, 
 we see in Bishop Latimer's Sermon before Convocation in 1536, 
 where we find that it was used after the old manner of bidding 
 the prayers of the congregation, terminating with the Lord's 
 Prayer, as a prayer for all the blessings asked. J 
 
 Immediately after the accession of Edward VL, a similar 
 
 Form was issued in his Injunctions of 1547, entitled " The 
 
 Form of bidding the Common Prayers," which commences 
 
 thus : — " You shall pray for the whole congregation of Christ's 
 
 " Church; and especially for this Church of England and 
 
 " Ireland ; wherein first I commend to your devout prayers the 
 
 " King's most excellent Majesty, Supreme Head, immediately 
 
 " under God, of the spirituality and temporality of the same 
 
 " Church," &c. &c. ;§ the whole running on in the same form. 
 
 The Book of Common Prayer not being yet issued, the only 
 
 * Heylin 1. c. pp. 150, 15L 
 
 + Heylin 1. c. p. 150. 
 
 t Latimer's Works, vol. i. p. 40; or Heyliu 1. c. p. 151. 
 
 § Willi. Cone. iv. 8; C-.mXw. Doc. Ann. i. 21. 
 
101 
 
 " Common Prayers" were those offered when this Form was 
 used, and hence the title given to it. The Popish beads were 
 then prohibited, as appeax-s from one of these Injunctions. 
 
 And notwithstanding- the publication of the Book of Common 
 Prayer in 15-19, (in which the Rubric respecting the Sermon is 
 similar to what we now liave), and the Act of Uniformity en- 
 forcing the Book, we find, from the examples given above 
 from Bishop Latimer's Sermons, that an exhortation to prayer 
 of this kind, concluding with the Lord's Prayer, was still 
 practised, even in the presence of the King ; and another in- 
 stance might have been added from a Sermon of Bishop 
 Gardiner in 1550.* 
 
 Again, immediately after the accession of Queen Elizabeth^ 
 a similar Form was issued in her Injunctions of 1559, en- 
 titled, " The Form of bidding the Prayers to be used generally 
 in this uniform sort," and commencing, — " Ye shall pray for 
 " Christ's holy Catholic Church, &c. . . . And herein I require 
 " you most specially to pray for the Queen's most excellent 
 " Majesty, our Sovereign Lady Elizabeth, Queen of England, 
 " France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, and supreme 
 " Governor of this realm, as well in causes ecclesiastical as 
 " temporal. Ye shall also pray," &c., proceeding very simi- 
 larly to the Canon of 1604. (Wilk. Cone. iv. 188, 189 ; Cardw. 
 Doc. Ann. i. 202, 203.) 
 
 In none of these Forms is it particularly directed, that it is 
 to be concluded with the Lord's Prayer ; but it is clear, from 
 the way in which they were used, that this was universally 
 understood. 
 
 Now this Injunction was issued immediately after, and almost 
 contemporaneously with, the Book of Common Prayer and Act 
 of Uniformity of Queen Elizabeth ; and therefore could hardly 
 be supposed to be opposed to them ; and the practice of Bishop 
 Jewell and others shows how it was then regarded. And we 
 have Archbishop Whitgift inquiring in 1588, (as I shall show 
 presently), whether the Injunction was observed. 
 
 And perhaps one of the strongest proofs that a prayer of this 
 kind was generally used in the Sermon in the time of Queen 
 
 * See Heylin 1. c. p. 15.5. 
 
102 
 
 Elizabeth, and that preachers were considered to be bound to 
 use it, is to be found in the reply of Robert Wright, a Puritan 
 preacher, in 1582, to a charge that " in preaching he used to say 
 prayers of his own devising," to which he answers, that " he 
 " prayed as preachers use to do in all places, and altogether in 
 " prescript words, but as the occasion feU out in some points. 
 " Yet he ever prayed for the Queen's Majesty, and for the lords 
 " of the Council, and for all ministers of God's word, and so for 
 Archbishops and Bishops, seeing they be ministers."* What- 
 ever his practice might really be, this answer shows that the 
 order of the Injunction was the i-ule. 
 
 And finally, we have another testimony to the use of the 
 Form at this period in a remark made by King James in the 
 Hampton Court Conference in 1603, where he said, " I have 
 " observed since my coming into England, that some preachers 
 " before me can be content to pray for James, King of Eng- 
 " land, Scotland, France and Ireland, defender of the faith ; 
 " but as for supreme Governor in all causes and over aU persons 
 " (as well ecclesiastical as civil) they pass that over with silence, 
 " and what cut they have been of, I after learned."t 
 
 Immediately after came the Canon of 1604, authorized by 
 the King, almost simultaneously with a Royal Proclamation 
 ordering the strict observance of the Book of Common Prayer 
 as then set forth, and in a Code of Canons of which the four- 
 teenth binds us to the exclusive use of the rites and prayers of 
 that Book. 
 
 It is impossible, therefore, to suppose, that there is any oppo- 
 sition between the direction of the Canon and the Rubrics of 
 the Prayer Book. And it will be observed, that, from the fii"st, 
 tfie Form has invariably been an exhortation to prayer, and not 
 a prayer, and has been introduced in the sermon. 
 
 Moreover, the observance of this practice has been at various 
 times (till within a comparatively recent period), strictly enforced 
 by the authorities of the Church, which would hardly have been 
 the case, if it had been opposed to the Act of Uniformity. 
 
 • Strype's Ann. III. 124, or III. i. 17^, and App. No. xxiii. 
 t End of 2d Da>'s Conf. ; See Cardw. Conf. p. 203. 
 
103 
 
 Thus, Queen Elizabeth's Injunction on the subject was enforced 
 by Archbishop Whitgift in Art. 8 of his Inquiries at his Metro- 
 political Visitation of the Diocese of Salisbury in 1588. (Wilk. 
 iv. 337 ; Cardw. Doc. Ann. ii. 14.) 
 
 And immediately after the__Canon of 1604 was passed, we have 
 the following inquiry in Bancroft's Metropolitical Visitation of 
 Wells Cathedral in 1G05 :— 
 
 " XII. Item, Whether the prebendaries and other the preachers of 
 this church, in their sermons, do use to pray for the King's Majesty, 
 the Queen, Prince, and all his highnesss issue ; and to give unto his 
 highness in their prayer, according to the late Constitutions, hib whole 
 stile, and so do pursue tiie particulars in the said Constitution appointed 
 for that end to be observed >" (Wilk. iv. 416.) 
 
 And in 1619 a strict order was issued, at the command of 
 the King, by Archbishop Abbot, for the observance of the 
 Canon throughout his Province. (Wilk. iv. 460 ; Cardw. Doc. 
 Ann. ii. 133.) 
 
 Many extracts to this effect are given, from the extant Epis- 
 copal and Archidiaconal Articles of Inquiry at Visitations, in 
 Bowtell's Defence of the 55th Canon, from whom Whcatley 
 has repeated some (in his Tract already quoted) from Dr. Wren, 
 Bishop of Norwich, in 1636, and again when Bishop of Ely, in 
 1662; Dr. Dee, Bishop of Peterborough, in 1637; Dr. Juxon, 
 Bishop of London, in his third triennial Visitation; Dr. Gun- 
 ning, Bishop of Chichester, in 1670, and at Ely in 1676 and 
 1679; the Archdeacon of Middlesex, in 1670, and the Arch- 
 deacon of Lewes, in 1671.* 
 
 I find a similar inquiry in the Articles of Inquiry of Dr. 
 Duppa, Bishop of Chichester, in 1638 : — 
 
 " Doth he [your minister] before his sermon use such Form of 
 prayers as is prescribed by the ecclesiastical Canon for the prevention 
 of the indiscreet flying out of some in their extemporary prayers ?" 
 (Art 11, concerning the Clergy.) 
 
 Thus also Dr. Warner, Bishop of Rochester, in his Articles 
 of Inquiry at his Visitation in 1638, inquires, — ■ 
 * On 55th Canon, pp. 61, 52; 69, (i(>. 
 
104. 
 
 " Whether doth your preacher in his prayer which he maketh at 
 his sermon, use to pray for his Majesty, with his whole title, for our 
 gracious Queen, the Prince, and whether doth he in like manner then 
 pray for the Archbishops and Bishops, as by Law is also appointed ?"* 
 
 A similar inquiiy occurs among the Articles of Inquiry in 
 Laud's Metropolitical Visitation Articles in 1635 ;t while a 
 previous Article specially asks, whether the Book of Common 
 Prayer has been adhered to " without any omission or addition."X 
 
 So also Bishop Mountagu, at Chichester, in 1637, — 
 
 " Doth your minister use in his prayer to pray for the King, the 
 Queen, Clergy, Council, &c., and conclude with the Lord's Prayer, 
 according to the 55th Canon ?"§ 
 
 And after the Restoration, the following Canon was agreed to 
 in Convocation, May 12, 1G62 : — "That the clergy, who per- 
 form holy duties in the church, shall use no other form of pub- 
 lic service or prayer, either before or after their sermons, than 
 what is prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, or appointed 
 and ordered by the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of the Church of 
 England." (VVilk. Cone. iv. 575.) 
 
 Again, in Archbishop Teuisou's Letter to the Bishops of his 
 Province in 1695, (subsequent to the last Act of Uuiforniity,) 
 the third direction is, — 
 
 " It seems very fit, that you require your clergy in their prayer 
 before sermon, to keep to the effect of the ooth Canon : it being 
 commonly reported, that it is the manner of some in every diocese, 
 either to use only the Lord's Prayer, (which the Canon prescribes as 
 the conclusion of the prayer, and not the whole prayer) or at least to 
 leave out the King's titles, and to forbear to i>ray for the Bishops as 
 Buch." (Cardw. Doc. Ann. ii. 3.35.) 
 
 A similar order was given by George I. in his " Directions to 
 the Archbishops and Bishops " in 1714, which runs thus : — 
 
 VI. " Whereas also we are credibly informed. That it is the man- 
 
 * Articles to be inquired of within the Diocese of Rochester, &c. Lond. 
 1638. 4to. Art. 16, couccrniug tlie Clergy. 
 
 t See Art. 8, concerning the Clergy. } lb. Art. 1. 
 
 § Articles, &c. Lond. 163". 4to. Art. 7, concerning Ministers and 
 Preachers. 
 
105 
 
 ner of poiiip in every Diocese, before their sermon, either to use a 
 Collect and the Lord's Prayer, or the Lord's Prayer only, (which the 
 55th Canon prescribes as the conclusion of the Prayer, and not the 
 whole Prayer) or at least to leave out our Titles, by the said Canon 
 required to be declared and recognised : We do further direct, That 
 you require your Clergy, in their Prayer before Sermon, that they do 
 keep strictly to the Form in the said Canon contained, or to the full 
 effect thereof." (Wilk. Cone. iv. 667.) 
 
 The law of the Church, then, (viewed strictly) clearly is, that 
 the preacher, on ascending the pulpit, should immediately give 
 out his text, and then in the commencement of his discourse in- 
 troduce an exhortation to prayer in the Form given in the Canon, 
 adding the Lord's Prayer. 
 
 If we seek to know the reason for the original introduction 
 of this exhortation to prayer in the Sermon, it is, I believe, cor- 
 rectly given by L'Estrauge in the following passage : — 
 
 " The agenda of religion in our Church, before the Reformation, 
 were performed, it is well known, in Latin, a language very lui- 
 edifying to a non-intelligent people. That so many, so much in- 
 terested and concerned in those sacred offices, should not be totally 
 excluded, as idle spectators, or fit for nothing, but now and then 
 to return an Jmen to they knew not what, this expedient was devised : 
 the people were exhorted to join in prayers, according to certain 
 heads, dictated to them by the minister in the English tongue, ob- 
 serving the method and materials of the then Prayer /o/- cill Slates, 
 so that of all the service then used, this only could properlv be 
 called C<»iimn?i-Proyer, as being the only Form wherein the whole 
 congregation did join in consort, and therefore the Title of it in the 
 Injunctions of Edward VI. anno 1547, is. The Form of Bidding the 
 Common I'rayeis. Now because it was made by Allocution, or 
 speaking to the people,, agreeing with what the Primitive Church 
 called 7rpo<70w)'(j(Ti)', it was called Bidding of Prayers.''* 
 
 The reason for its enforcement since the Reformation, when 
 there has not been the same need of it, (the Common Prayers of 
 the Church being in English) has clearly been chiefly political ; 
 namely, at first, as securing a public acknowledgment by the 
 
 * Alliance of Divine Offices, 2nd Ed., 1690, fol., pp. 1/0, 171. 
 
106 
 
 Clergy, and inculcating upon the laity, the ecclesiastical rights 
 of the Sovereign, as then recently established ; and, at a later 
 period, an acknowledgment of the rights of the reigning 
 monarch. This is evident from the passages already quoted, in 
 which its obsei'vance is enforced. 
 
 And when it was not wanted to answer either of these pur- 
 I)oses, we find that its use has been little urged, but the Clergy 
 generally left at liberty to follow their own wishes in the 
 matter. 
 
 I am no advocate for its being again enforced, the previous 
 service having anticipated almost everything it contains, and 
 the introduction of such a prayer in the Sermon, after the 
 previous service, appearing incongruous and out of place. But 
 I fear there is as much ground for it now, as there was in the 
 times succeeding the Eeformatiou ; for there seems as much 
 reluctance, in a large party among us, practically to recognize 
 the Sovereign as " Supreme Governor over all persons in all 
 causes as well ecclesiastical as temporal," as could have existed 
 among the Crypto-Papists or Puritans of those tiines. 
 
 Before I quit the consideration of this Canon, I must also 
 point out one fact connected with it, the observance of which 
 may be of importance in the present day, as shewing the doc- 
 trine of oui- Church on a point on which her views have been 
 much misrepresented. It will be observed, that the Canon de- 
 fines " Christ's holy Catholic Church" as " the whole congre- 
 gation of Christian people dispersed throughout the whole world," 
 and requii-es us to pray especially for " the Churches of England, 
 Scotland, and Ireland." Now, when this Canon was di-awTi up, 
 the Church of Scotland was Presbyterian. 
 
 On several grounds, therefore, we need not be surprised, that 
 the claims of this Canon have not yet been discovered by our 
 recent revivalists of Rubric and Canon law. 
 
 I must not, however, conclude this Section, without pointing 
 out that, ordinarily, from the very first, much latitude has been 
 allowed to preachers in the matter here discussed. The autho- 
 rities to prove this are endless. I must confine myself to a few. 
 
 The first occurs in a work by Thomas Becon, a Prebendary of 
 
107 
 
 Canterbury, who Lad been chaplain to Cranmer, entitled, " A 
 " new Postil, containing most godly and learned sermons to be 
 " read in the Church throughout the year. . . . perused and al- 
 lowed according to the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions," and pub- 
 lished in the year 1566. In this work, as Strype observes, are 
 " two Prayers, either of them to be said before Sermon, a longer 
 " and a shorter, according to the minister's discretion ; and ano- 
 " ther prayer or thanksgiving to be said after Sermon." (Strype's 
 Parker 328 ; or i. 454.) 
 
 Again, Bishop Jewell fi-equently concludes his Sermons with 
 a brief prayer^ as on Ps. Ixix. 9. " And thou, 0 most merciful 
 Father, grant that thy words be not spoken in vain," &c. (See 
 Sermons in his Works.) 
 
 I do not refer to the practice of the Puritans, because the li- 
 cence allowed in this matter was abused by them, especially in 
 the 17th century, to the introduction of long prayers before 
 their Sermons, to the disparagement of the previous Service ; and 
 this was one reason why the order in the Injunction and Canon 
 was urged upon the Clergy. But it is clear that the custom of 
 introducing a prayer, generally of the preachei-^s own composi- 
 tion, before and after the Sermon, extensively prevailed in the 
 Church, and not merely among the Puritans. 
 
 Thus, in the answer of the Bishops, in July 1660, to the Pe- 
 tition of the Nonconformists to the King, in which they say that 
 " they are satisfied concerning the lawfulness of a Liturgy," pro- 
 vided that the minister is not " so confined thereunto, but that 
 he may also make use of those gifts for prayer and exhortation 
 which Christ hath given him, for the service and edification of 
 of the Church,"* the Bishops reply, — " Nor are ministers denied 
 " the use and exercise of their gifts in praying before and after 
 " Sermon. Although such praying be but the continuance of a 
 " custom of no great antiquity, and grown into common use by 
 " sufferance only, without any other foundation in the laws or 
 " canons, and ought therefore to be used by all sober and godly 
 " men with the greatest inofFensiveness and moderation possi- 
 " ble."t 
 
 * Baxter's Life p. 234, 235. t lb. p. 245. 
 
108 
 
 It is quite true, that they wished afterwards to " suppress " 
 the custom ;* but with this we are not concerned. 
 
 We have similar testimony, also, from others whose witness 
 will not be suspected of any " Puritan" leanings. Thus, for 
 instance, Lewis, in his Tract on " The case of observing such 
 Fasts and Festivals as are proclaimed by the King's authority, 
 and of using the Prayers provided," &c., published in 1744, 
 (2nd ed.) remarks incidentally, — "So have our Bishops and 
 Clergy used Forms of prayer of their own composing, in and 
 afler their Sermons, ever since the Reformation" (pp. 16, 17) ; 
 and he adds the two following additional testimonies to the 
 same effect : 
 
 " Pulpit Prayers of private composure, besides what they have been 
 formerly or are at this time in other churches, are now allowed of by 
 our own Church." (Kettlewell, of Christian Communinn, p. 107. ed. 
 1693.) 
 
 " By the Divine permission, as well as by the custom of the 
 Church and his Majesty's allowance .... Ministers may use their own 
 gifts before and after their Sermons in prayer and praises, besides 
 the Liturgy." (Bp. Gauden's Considerations touching the Liturgy, 
 p. 39.) 
 
 I will only add, that innumerable examples of the practice 
 might easily be adduced from the works of our greatest divines 
 of all parties. 
 
 In fact, even when the observance of the Canon was strictly 
 pressed, the only thing apparently insisted on, was the recog- 
 nition in the Prayer of "the whole stile and title" of the So- 
 vereign. 
 
 It is much to be regretted, that directions more definite and 
 practical have not been laid dowTi by our Church in this matter. 
 It appears that the subject has more than once been under 
 consideration since the Canon of 1604 was passed, but nothing 
 has been done. Thus, Collier tells us, that, in the Convocation 
 of 1 640, " many of the members excepted against tying up 
 
 * See their Reply to the Exceptions of the Nonconf. to the Prayer Book 
 in Cardw. Conf. pp. 337 and 341. 
 
109 
 
 " Pi-eacbers to use the Prayer before tlie Sermon^ prescribed by 
 " the 55th Cauon. To rebeve them under this grievance, as 
 " some counted it, a short Prayer, comprehending the matter of 
 " the Canon, was drawn up. This Form, it was said, would 
 " have been well received by those who scrupled at the direction 
 " of the Canon. But the Archbishop thought it better to keep 
 " close to the old rule, than run the risk of a new experiment, 
 " and thus the motion was dropped without going further." 
 (Kccles. Hist. ii. 793.) 
 
 Again, in 1661 we find, among the Acts of the Upper House 
 of Convocation on the 9th of December, the following notice, — 
 " His peractis, dicti reverendi pati'es uuanimi consensu et 
 " assensu in votis dederunt pro unica forma precum tam ante 
 " quam post sermonem sive orationem prajdicatam usitanda et 
 " observanda per ministros intra provinc' Cant'." (Cardw. 
 Synod, vol. ii. p. 656.) But we hear no more of it ; or rather, 
 we find that on May 12, 1663, it was agreed in Convocation, 
 that the Clergy should be required to use only what was pre- 
 scribed by the Prayer Book and Canons. (See p. 104. above.) 
 
 And even Wheatley intimates his agreement with those who 
 think, that, as the whole Service is now in English, and under- 
 stood by the people, the need of the Bidding Prayer has ceased ; 
 adding, " And therefore, if ever our superiors shall think it 
 " proper to appoint a short Collect or Prayer for a blessing upon 
 " the Word, to be used instead of the Exhortation now pre- 
 " scribed by the Canon, I declare for myself, 1 foresee no im- 
 " perfection or injury that will arise to the Service by such a 
 " change. 
 
 This is exactly what custom has sanctioned, and what is now 
 the general practice in our Church ; and it is to be regretted, 
 that we should have to confess, that a usage which has so com- 
 mended itself, by its evident propriety, to general adoption, is 
 not established upon a surer foundation. 
 
 * On Canon 55, p. 15. 
 
 Prntied by C. F. Hodgson, 1, Gough Square, Fleet Street. 
 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR; 
 
 AND SOLD BY 
 
 THOMAS HATCH ARD, 187, PICCADILLY. 
 
 A MEMOIR of the late Rev. W GOODE, M.A , Rector of St. 
 Andrew, Wardrobe, and St. Ann, B!:icldVlars. Seroiirl Edilloii ; with Ap- 
 pendix of Select Letters. 8vo., price 9s. boards 
 
 Tlie MODERN CLAIMS to the POSSESSION of the EXTRAOR- 
 DINARY GU TS of the SPIRIT, stated and examined, and compar.'d with 
 the most remarkable Cases of a similar kind that have occurred in the Chris- 
 tian Church ; with some General Observations on the Subject. Second 
 Edition, with numerous Additions ; and an APPENDIX on the HERESY 
 with which the Claims are connected. 8vo., 10s. 6d. boards. 
 
 An ANSWER to a LETTER addressed lo the LORD CHANCEL- 
 LOR on the CASE of the DISSENTERS. In a Letter to the Same. By a 
 Clergyman. Second Edition. 8vo., price Is. 
 
 A REPLY to the LETTERS on the VOLUNTARY PRINCIPLE, 
 by a " QUIET LOOKER-ON." In Two Letters. By PHILALETHES. 
 8vo,, price is. 
 
 TRACTS ON CHURCH RATES ; viz , 
 
 1. A BRIEF HISTORY of CHURCH RATES; proving the liab lity 
 
 of a Parish to them to be a Common-Law Liability ; including a Reply to the 
 Statements on that subject in Sir John Campbell's Letter to the Right Hon. Lord 
 Stanley on the Law of Church Rates. Second Edition, considerably enlarged. 
 
 2. A REPLY to the ARTICLE on CHURCH RATES in the EDIN- 
 
 BURGH REVIEW, No. 143. 
 
 3. A REPLY to the ANSWER of the EDINBURGH REVIEW to 
 
 the two following Publications : 1. A Brief History of Church Rates. 2. A 
 Reply to the Article on Church Rates in the Edinburgh Review, No. 134. In 
 Two Letters to the Editor. 
 
 4. A FINAL REPLY to the ANSWER of the Author of the Articles 
 on Church Rates in the Edinburgh Review. In a Letter to the Editor. 
 
 The above Four Tracts in one vol., price 7s. 6d. boards. 
 
 The DIVINE RULE of FAITH and PRACTICE ; or, a Defence of 
 the Catholic Doctrine that Holy Scripture has been, since the times of the 
 Apostles, the Sole Divine Rule of Faith and Practice to the Church, against 
 the dangerous errors of the Authors of the Tracts for the Times and the 
 Romanists, as, particularly, that the Rule of Faith is " made up of Scripture 
 and Tradition together," &c. In which also the doctrines of the Apostolical 
 Succe ssion, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, &c., are fully discussed. In two vols. 
 8vo., price 32s. cloth. 
 
 (This last Work has been for several years out of print.) 
 
 SOME DIFFICULTIES in the LATE CHARGE of the LORD 
 BISHOP of OXFORD, respectfully pointed out in a Letter to his Lordship. 
 Second Edition. 8vo., price Is. 
 
 TWO TREATISES on the CHURCH; tlie first by THOMAS 
 JACKSON, D.D., commended by Dr. Pusey as "One of the best and great- 
 est minds our Church has nurtured;" the second by ROBERT SANDER- 
 SON, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop of Lincoln; to which is added a Letter of 
 Bishop Cosiu on the validity of the Orders of the foreign Reformed Churches. 
 Edited with Introductory Remarks. Small 8vo. 5s. cloth. 
 
THE CASE AS IT IS ; or, a Reply to the Lettor of Dr. Puspy to His 
 Grace the Archbisliop of CaiiU'rbury, including a Compendious Statement of 
 the doctrines and views of the Tractators as expressed by themselves. Third 
 Edition. 8vo., price Is. 
 
 ALTARS PROHIBITED by the CHURCH of ENGLAND. In Two 
 Parts. 8vo., price 2s. (i l. 
 
 A LETTER to a LAY FRIEND, in Answer to Inquiries respecting 
 the state of things in the Chinch, and the Course which the present Crisis de- 
 mands from those who tender its wi-Ifure. Second Edition. 8vo., Is. 
 
 TRACT XC. HISTORICALLY REFUTED ; or, A Reply to a Work 
 by the Rev. F. U;ilt"ley, entitled, -'Tlie Subject of Tract xc. Historically Exa- 
 mined." 8vo., |;rice 5s. 
 
 A FEW REMARKS on tl.e RELIGIOUS OPINIONS RELIEF 
 
 BILL, and the OATH of SUPUE.MACY 8vo.. price 6d. 
 REMARKS on tlie "CLERGY OFFENCES BILL," as Proposed 
 
 to Parliament in 1847, and re-introduced, with a few alterations, in 1848. 
 
 Reprinted from the '• Christian Observer' for Sept. 1847 and March 1848. 
 
 8vo., price 6d. 
 
 REMARKS on ATTEMPTED RESTORATIONS of POPISH 
 PITTINGS in CHUIiCIl LS, &c. Reprinted from the " Christian Observer" 
 for April 1848 8vo., price fid. 
 
 A DEFENCE of the XXXIX ARTICLES as the Legal and Canonical 
 
 Test of Doctrine in the Church of England in all points treated of in them ; 
 being a Rc|ily to the Blsliop of Exeter's Remarks upon a Clause proposed for 
 ii s . itioii in the " Clergy ( jiVei ri s Bill." Second Edition. Svo., price Is. 
 
 A VINDICATION o( d:e "I)*'!'!: NCE of the XXXIX ARTICLES," 
 
 in l!ei)ly to the recent " i Ikul; .-' di' llie Lord Bisliop of Exeter. Second 
 Edition. To " hieh i> a Ide.l. an Appendix, containing Additional Ren,arks, 
 &c. Svo., price L's. 6(1 
 
 REMEW 01 tiK- JUDG.MEXT of SIR H. J. FUST, Kt., in the CASE 
 of GOiUIAM V the Bl.SilOP of EXETER. Reprinted from the " Chris- 
 tian ( )bserver" for December 1849. Svo.. pric- Is. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE of the CHURCH of ENGLAND as to the 
 EFFECTS of BAPTISM in the Ca^e of INFANTS. With an Appendix, 
 containing the Baptismal Services of Luther and the Nuremberg and Cologne 
 Liturgies Second Ediliun Price 15s. cloth. 
 
 AN UNPUBLISHED LETTER of PETER MARTYR, Reg. 
 Div. Prof. Oxford, to HENRY BULLINGER ; written from Oxford just after 
 the Completion of the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. ; in which he testifies 
 his satisfaction with it ; maintains at tlie same time, tliat grace is not conferred 
 by virtue of the Sacraments ; and gives an account of a Controversy at that 
 period on the subject, in our Church, which delayed the publication of the 
 Articles ; affording additional proof of the meaning of the Articles. \Yith 
 Demnrks. Price Is. 
 
 A LETTER TO THE BISHOP OF EXETER; containing an 
 
 Examination of his Letter to the ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. 
 
 Sccinlh Thousand. Price .-js. 
 
 REPLY to tlie LETTER AND DECLARATION respecting the 
 ROYAL SUPREMACY, received from Archdeacons Manning and AVilber- 
 force, and Professor Mill. Third edition, with Appendix containing the Letter 
 and Declaration replied to, and a Correspondence with Archdeacon Planning. 
 Svo. Is, 
 
 ADDRESS deUvered at A PUBLIC MEETING of the INHABI- 
 TANTS of ALLHALLOWS the GREAT and LESS, LONDON; convened 
 for the purpose of Considering the Propriety of Presenting an Address to the 
 Crown on the Recent Act of Papal Aggression, Nov. 15, 1850. Printed at the 
 request of the Parishioners. 8vo., 6d. 
 
A LIST OF BOOKS 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 THOMAS HATCHAED, 
 187, PICCADILLY, 
 
 LONDON. 
 
 BIOGRAPHY. 
 
 LETTERS and MEMOIR of the late WALTER AU- 
 GUSTUS SHIRLEY, D.D„ Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man. 
 Edited by Thomas Hill, B.D., Archdeacon of Derby. Second 
 Edition, revised. 8vo., with a Portrait, cloth, lis. 
 
 " There is a healthy tone of piety in Dr. Shirley's remains ; and no one can 
 read the Memoir without being struck with the humility and simplicity of 
 mind which characterized its suhject." — Christian Observer. 
 
 " A solid and interesting volume, containing, in addition to the biography, 
 various intelligent remarks on public affairs and theological questions, with 
 a good many descriptive sketches of scenery and mankind." — Spectator. 
 
 " It is a volume which we have read with the deepest interest, and have 
 ckised with the highest feelings of its importance." — OentUmans 3Iagazine. 
 
 MEMOIRS of the Rev. CHARLES SIMEON, M.A., late 
 
 Senior Fellow of King's College, and Minister of Trinity Church, 
 Cambridge ; containing his Autobiography, together with Selections 
 from his Writings and CoiTespondence. Edited by the Rev. Wil- 
 liam Carus, M.A., Fellow and Senior Dean of Trinity College, and 
 Minister of Trinity Chm-cli, Cambridge. Third Edition. One 
 thick Volume. 12mo. cloth, with Portrait and Fac-simile, 7s. 6d. 
 
 MEMOIRS of the LIFE of ELIZABETH FRY ; with 
 
 Extracts fi-om her Journals and Letters. Edited by Two or hek 
 Daughters. With a Portrait, and other Illustrations. Second 
 Edition. Two vols., 8vo. cloth, 24s. 
 
 MEMOIRS of the LIFE and CORRESPONDENCE of 
 
 the Rev. CHRISTIAN FREDERICK SWARTZ. To which is 
 prefixed, A Sketch of the Histoi-y of Christianity in India. By 
 Hugh Pearson, D.D. Thu-d Edition. 2 vols, post 8vo. cloth. 
 With a Portrait and Map, IGs. 
 
 MEMOIRS of JOHN HOWARD, the Christian Philan- 
 
 thi-opist: with a Detail of his Extraordinary Labours; and an Ac- 
 count of the Prisons, Schools, Lazarettos, and PubUt Institutions 
 he visited. By Thomas TA-iXOR, Esq., Author of " The Life of 
 Cowper." Second Edition. With a Portrait. 13mo., cloth, 7s. 
 
 B 
 
LIST OF BOOKS 
 
 BY THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. 
 
 I. 
 
 A PRACTICAL EXPOSITION of ST. PAUL'S EPIS- 
 TLES to the THESSALONIANS, to TIMOTHY, TITUS, 
 PHILEMON, and the HEBREWS, in the form of Lectures, in- 
 tended to assist the practice of Domestic Instruction and Devotion. 
 By John Bird, Lord Aichbishop of Canterbury. One vol., 8vo. 
 or two vols., 12mo., cloth, 9s. 
 
 II. 
 
 A PRACTICAL EXPOSITION of the NEW TESTA- 
 MENT : St. Matthew's Gospel to St. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians, 
 and the General Epistles. Eight vols. 8vo., cloth, each, 9s. 
 
 CHRISTIAN CHARITY : its Obligations and Objects, with 
 
 Reference to the Present State of Society. In a Series of Seimons. 
 Second Edition. 8vo., cloth, 9s. ; or 12mo. 6s. 
 
 IV. 
 
 APOSTOLICAL PREACHING CONSIDERD, in an 
 
 Examination of St. Paul's Epistles. Also Four Sei-mons on sub- 
 jects relating to the Clu-istian Ministiy, and preached on different 
 occasions. Ninth Edition, enlai-ged. 8vo., cloth, lOs. 6d. 
 
 V. 
 
 SERMONS on the PRINCIPAL FESTIVALS of the 
 
 CHRISTIAN CHURCH ; to which are added. Three Sennons on 
 Good Friday. Fifth Edition. 8vo., cloth, 10s. fid. 
 
 VI. 
 
 The EVIDENCES of CHRISTIANITY, deriTed from its 
 NATURE and RECEPTION. Seventh Edition. 8vo., cloth, 
 lOs. 6d. ; or foolscap, 8s. 
 
 VII. 
 
 A SERIES of SERMONS on the CHRISTIAN FAITH, 
 
 and CHARACTER. Eighth Edition. 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d. ; or 
 12mo, 6s. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 A TREATISE on the RECORDS of CREATION, and 
 
 on the MORAL ATTRIBUTES of the CREATOR. Sixth Edi- 
 tion. 8vo., cloth, IDs, Od. 
 
PUBLISHED UV T. HATCHARD. 
 
 3 
 
 SERMONS. 
 
 The BAMPTON LECTURE for 1850: the Doctrine of 
 
 the Resurrection of the Body, as taught in Holy Scripture. By 
 EinvAED Meyrick GouLiiuuN, D.C.L., Head Master of Rugby 
 School, &c. 8vo., cloth, 10s. (id. 
 
 SERMONS preached on VARIOUS OCCASIONS. By the 
 
 late Right Rev. Db. Shirley, Lord Bishoi) of Sodor and Man. 12mo. 
 cloth, Cs. 
 
 " A direct plainness of style and purpose, which had the effect of force, and a 
 sound Protestant feeling." — Spectator. 
 
 III. 
 
 SERMONS, chiefly Catechetical. By R. Drummond 
 Rawnsley, M.A., Vicar of Shiplake. 12mo. 
 
 Also by the same, 
 
 VILLAGE SERMONS, Preached in the Parish Churches 
 
 of Little Hadham, Herts, and Hartley Wespall, Hants. 12mo. 
 cloth, 6s. 
 
 " They are earnest, plain, practical sermons, Likely to be beneficial to a 
 general audience."— Speciator. 
 
 IV. 
 
 PARISH SERMONS. By the Rev. F. Jackson, Incumbent 
 
 of Parson's Drove, Isle of Ely. Foolscap. 
 
 V. 
 
 POSTHUMOUS SERMONS by the Rev. George Crabbe, 
 LL.B., Author of " The Borough," " Talcs of the Hall," &c. Edited 
 by John D. Hastings, A.M., Rector of Trowbridge, Wilts. 8vo., 
 with a Portrait, cloth, 10s. 6d. 
 
 PubUshcd towards the liquidation of the debt on Trowbridge 
 Chui-ch and Schools. 
 
 VI. 
 
 SERMONS for the SUNDAYS and PRINCIPAL HOLI- 
 DAYS throughout the YEAR. Preached in the Paiish Chm-ches of 
 Ickworth and HoiTinger. By the Rev. Lord Arthur Hervey, 
 A.M., Rector of Ickworth, and Curate of Horringer. 2 vols. 12ino., 
 cloth, 12s. 
 
 " They are plain and unaffected productions, intended for rural congrega- 
 tions, and well adapted to them." — Guardian. 
 
 VII. 
 
 LECTURE SERxMONS: preached in a Country Parish 
 
 Church. By William Nind, M.A., Vicar of Cherry Hinton. Vols. 
 I. and IL, 12mo. cloth, each Cs. 
 
 " They are readable and preachable ; and those of the second volume are 
 
 even plainer and simpler than their predecessors. We recommend both 
 
 volumes most heartily." — EnglUh Review. 
 
4 
 
 LIST OF BOOKS 
 
 VIII. 
 
 CHRIST on EARTH, in HEAVEN, and on the JUDG- 
 MENT SEAT. By the Kev. J. Garbett, Eector of Clayton, Sussejt, 
 and Professor of Poetry in the University of Oxford. 2 vols. 12mo. 
 clotli, 12s. 
 
 " No one can read these volumes without great delight and profit. The 
 sermons appear, from internal evidence, to have been preached by the Oxford 
 Poetry Professor to his country congregation, and therefore they contain the 
 excellence of reality, combined with much of his usual display of thoughtful- 
 ness and imagination, and are characterized throughout by a bold exhibition 
 of the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel." — Christian Olserver. 
 
 By the same Author. 
 PAROCHIAL SERMONS. 2 vols. 8vo. cloth, each 12s. 
 
 IX. 
 
 SERMONS: preached at the Octagon Chapel, Bath. By 
 
 the Kev. Fountain Elwin. Two vols., 12mo., cloth, each, 5s. 
 
 Bij the same, 
 
 EPHRAIM: a Course of Lectures delivered during Lent. 
 
 ]2mo., cloth, 3s. 
 
 X. 
 
 SERMONS, chiefly Practical. By Edward Bather, M.A., 
 
 Archdeacon of Salop. Vols. I. and ill., »vo., boai-ds, each 10s. 6d. 
 
 XI. 
 
 FOUR SERMONS, preached before Her Gracious Majesty 
 Queen Victoria, in 1841 and 1842. By SAiiuEL, Lord Bishop of 
 Oxford. Published by command. Thiid Edition. 12mo. cloth, 4s. 
 
 XII. 
 
 SERMONS. By the Rev. W. Howels. With a Memoir of 
 the Author, &c., by Charles Bowdler. Second Edition. Two vols. 
 Bvo., with a Portrait, 24s. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 SERMONS to a COUNTRY CONGREGATION. By 
 
 Augustus William Haee, A.M., late Fellow of New College, and 
 Rector of Alton Barnes. Seventh Edition. Two vols., 12mo. 
 cloth, 16s. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 TWELVE LECTURES preached in St. George's Chapel, 
 Old Brentford, in the Season of Lent, 1844. By the Eev. F. E. 
 
PUBLISHED BY T. HATCHARD. 
 
 5 
 
 Thompson, B.A., of Triuity College, Cambridge, aud Incumbent of 
 Old Brentford. l2mo. cloth, 5s. 
 
 " In a theological point of view the object is very successfully accomplished 
 by Mr. Thompson. In a literary sense, the plan of the writer gives purpose, 
 variety, and interest to his discourses. Biography and applied morality are 
 superadded to the general matter of a Sermon. The style is agreeable — the 
 manner rapid and impressive." — Spectator. 
 
 XV. 
 
 A COURSE of SERMONS on the SIXTH CHAPTER of 
 ISAIAH. Preached during Lent, 1845, at Wioken Chm-ch. By 
 Richard Lea Allndtt, M.A., Missionai-y to India, and late lucum- 
 bent of Wioken. 12mo. cloth, gilt edges, 2s. 6d. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 LECTURES on the SYMPATHIES, SUFFERINGS, and 
 
 RESURRECTION of the LORD JESUS CHRIST, delivered iu 
 Liverpool diu-ing the Passion Week and Easter Day. By the Rev. 
 Hugh M'Neile, D.D., Incumbent of St. Paul's, Liverpool, and 
 Hon. Canon of Chester. Thii'd Edition, 12mo., cloth, 4s. Cd. 
 
 By the Same. 
 
 SERMONS on the SECOND ADVENT of OUR LORD 
 
 JESUS CHRIST. With Notes. Fifth Edition, 12mo. cloth, 4s. (id.. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 SERMONS, DOCTRINAL and PRACTICAL, preached 
 
 in the Parish Church of Clapham, Sun-ey. By the late Venerable 
 William Dealtey, D.D., F.R.S., Rector of Clapham, Canon of 
 Winchester, and Ai'chdeacon of Sun-ey. 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d. 
 
 XVTII. 
 
 PAROCHIAL SERMONS, fiom Trinity to Advent Sunday. 
 By Henry James Hastings, M.A., Rector of Ai-elev Kinsrs, 8vo. 
 cloth, 12s. 
 
 By the same. 
 
 THE WHOLE ARMOUR of GOD. Four Sermons 
 preached before the University of Cambridge. Fcap., cloth, 3s. 6d. 
 " These are plain, sensible discourses." — English Remew. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 CHRIST OUR GOSPEL. Four Sermons preached before 
 the University of Cambridge, in the Mouth of January, 1846. By 
 the Rev. W. F. Wilkinson, M.A., of Queen's CoUege, Vicar of St. 
 Werburgh's, Derby. Fcap. cloth, 2s. 6d. 
 
6 
 
 LIST OF BOOKS 
 
 CONSOLATORY ON THE LOSS OF FRIENDS, &c. 
 
 A TRIBUTE of SYMPATHY ADDRESSED to MOURN- 
 ERS. By W.Newnhaji, Esq. Tenth Edition. Fcap. cloth, 5s. 
 
 II. 
 
 THE MUTUAL RECOGNITION and EXALTED 
 
 FELICITY of GLORIFIED SAINTS. By the Rev. Robert Meek, 
 M.A,, Rector of St. Micliael, Sutton Bonningtou, Notts. Fourth 
 Edition. Fcap. cloth, 3s. Od. 
 
 III. 
 
 CONSOLATION for MOURNERS. By the late Rev. 
 John Hill. 18mo., Is. 6d. 
 
 IV. 
 
 CHRISTIAN SYMPATHY ; a Collection of Letters, ad- 
 dressed to Mom-ners. Fourth Edition. 24mo., gUt leaves, 2s. 6d. 
 cloth. 
 
 V. 
 
 SERMONS and EXTRACTS CONSOLATORY on the 
 
 LOSS of FRIENDS. Selected from tlie Works of the most Emi- 
 nent Divines. Thii'd Edition. 8vo., 12s. cloth. 
 
 VI. 
 
 SOLACE of a MOURNER. 12mo., 4s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 By the same Author. 
 The SOLACE of an INVALID. Fourth Edition. Foolscap 
 
 8vo., 5s. Cd. cloth. 
 
 VII. 
 
 PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS TOWARDS ALLEVIAT- 
 ING the SUFFERINGS of the SICK. 
 
 Part I. Thud Edition. 12mo. cloth, 3s. 
 Part II. Foui-th Etlition. 12mo clotli, Os. Cd 
 
rUBLISHED liY T. HATCHARD. 
 
 7 
 
 BY THE AUTHOR OF "THE PEEP OF DAY." 
 
 LIGHT in the DWELLING ; or, a Harmony of the 
 
 Four Gospels. Witli very Short and Simple Eemarks, adapted to 
 Reading at Family Prayers, aiid an-anged iu 305 Sections, for every 
 Day in the Year. Revised by a Clergyman of the Church of Eng- 
 land. Fifth Thousand. Thick l-.^mo., bs. cloth. 
 
 II. 
 
 TRACTS for CHILDREN in STREETS and LANES, 
 
 HIGHWAYS and HEDGES ; or. Fifty-two Scripture Facts in Sim- 
 l)le Language. In a Packet containing 52 Tracts, each illustrated 
 with a Woodcut. 23. 4d. 
 
 III. 
 
 The NIGHT of TOIL ; or, a Familiar Account of the 
 Labours of the Fii'st Missionaries in the South Sea Islands, before 
 the period of Williams's Missionary Enterprises. Third Edition. 
 Foolscap 8vo., 5s. cloth. 
 
 IV. 
 
 The HISTORY of JOB ; iu Language adapted to Chil- 
 di-en. 18mo., Is. cloth. 
 
 V. 
 
 NEAR HOME ; or. The Countries of Europe described 
 
 to Cliildren, with Anecdotes. Illustrated with numerous Wood 
 Engravings. Sixth Thousand. Foolscap, 5s. cloth. 
 
 " It must be very interesting to children. Those to whom we have read 
 
 passages, taken at random, clap their hands with delight." — English Journal 
 
 of Education. 
 
 " A well-arranged and well-written book for children ; compiled from the 
 best writers on the various countries, and full of sound and useful information 
 pleasantly conveyed, for the most part, in the homely monosyllabic Saxon 
 which children learn from their mothers and nurses." — Athenwum. 
 
 LINE UPON LINE ; or, a Second Series of the Earliest 
 
 Religious Instruction the Infant Mind is capable of receiving ; with 
 Verses illustrative of the Subjects. Part 1. Korty-flfth Tliousand. 
 Part II. Forty-second Thousand. 18mo. cloth, each >;s. (id. 
 
8 
 
 LIST OF BOOKS 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 The HISTORY of the EARLY PURITANS, from the 
 time of the BEFORMATION to the OPENING of the CIVIL 
 WAR in 1642. By J. B. Maksden, M.A., Vicar of Great Missenden. 
 8vo., cloth, lOs. Gd. 
 
 II. 
 
 The BELOVED DISCIPLE. Reflections on the History 
 
 of St. John. By Mrs. J. B. Webb, Author of " Naomi," " Reflections 
 on the History of Noah," &c. Foolscap 8vo. cloth, 4s. 6d. 
 
 " Very scnsiblu and well written reflections. We can safely recommend 
 it." — Christian Guardian. 
 
 JII. 
 
 HINTS to PROMOTE a LIFE of FAITH ; or, the Rati- 
 fication of the Baptismal Covenant. By A Member of the Church 
 OF ENGL.4.ND. Foolscap cloth, 4s. Gd. 
 
 " This work is intended to aid inexperienced inquirers to attain a life of 
 faith. It is written in a truly pious, practical, and devotional spirit." — 
 Englisth Review. 
 
 IV. 
 
 The PORTRAIT of CHARITY. By the Rev. Francis 
 Trench, Perpetual Curate of St. .John's, Reading. Foolscap cloth, 
 3s. Gd. 
 
 V. 
 
 The GREAT SALVATION, and our SIN in NEGLECT- 
 ING IT. A Religious Essay, in Three Pai-ts. By the Rev. Robert 
 Montgomery, M.A., Oson, Author of " Luther," " The Gospel in 
 Advance of the Age," &c. kc. Foolscap cloth, 5s. 
 
 " A very able, eloquent, and excellent work." — English Review. 
 
 By the same Autlwr. 
 
 CHRIST our ALL in ALL. Third Edition. Foolscap, 
 cloth, 4s. Gd. 
 
 THOUGHTS on the CHARACTER and HISTORY of 
 
 NEHEMIAH. By the Rev. Henry Woodward, A.M., formerly of 
 Corpus Cluisti College, Oxford ; Rector of Fethard, in the Diocese 
 of Cashel. Foolscap cloth, 8s. fid. • 
 
 By the same, 
 
 SHORT READINGS for FAMILY PRAYERS, ESSAYS, 
 
 and SERMONS «vo. cloth, 12s. 
 " The most striking point in Mr. Woodward's writings, the point which 
 most excites our admiration, and we trust, improves our hearts, is the high 
 and elevated standard of holiness which he ever places before us, the deeply 
 practical tendency of all his thoughts, &r." — English Rccieu-, 
 
PUBLISHED ]iY T. HATCHAKD. 
 
 9 
 
 VII. 
 
 CHRIST OUR EXAMPLE. By the Author of " The Lis- 
 tener." Thiiteentli Thousand. Foolscap cloth, 5s. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 1. In the Object of Life. 4. In the Condition of Life. 
 
 2. In the Rule of Life. 5. In his Sorrows, 
 a. In his lutercomse with the 6. In liis Joys. 
 
 World. 7. In his Death 
 
 By the same. 
 
 DAILY READINGS, Passages of Scripture selected for 
 Social Readings, with Applications, &c. Second Edition. 12mo. 
 cloth, Cs. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 THE COTTAGE LIBRARY. By the Rev. A. Oxenden, 
 
 Rector of Pluckley. 
 Vol. I. Baptism. Cloth, Is. 6d. ; sewed. Is. 
 
 II. The Lord's Supper. Cloth, Is. 6d. ; sewed, Is. 
 
 III. A Plain Chm-ch History. Cloth, Is. 6d, ; sewed. Is. 
 
 IV. Fervent Prayer. Cloth Is. 6d. ; sewed. Is. 
 
 V. God's Message to the Poor. Being Eleven Plain Sermons; 
 Cloth, 2s. 6d. 
 
 IX. 
 
 A SERIES OF TEXTS; arranged for the use of Chris- 
 tians, in the way of Prayer and Promise, in the hope of afl'ording 
 Evidence and Consolation in seasons of Difficidty, Trial, and Afflic- 
 tion. By a Lady. Edited by the Rev. W. Sinclair, M. A., Incum- 
 bent of St. George's, Leeds. 18mo. cloth, 3s., 
 
 X. 
 
 THE BETTER COVENANT PRACTICALLY CONSI- 
 DERED, fiom Heb. viii. 6, 10—12, with Supijlemeut on Phil. ii. 
 12, 13, and Notes. By the late Rev. F. Goode, M. A., Lectui'er of 
 Clapham, &c. Fifth Edition. To which is added, a Second Edition 
 of a SERMON on Jer. xxxi. 31 — 34, by the same Author, entitled, 
 " The Better Covenant considered as the National Covenant of 
 Israel in the Latter Day." Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 7s. 
 
 XI. 
 
 SUNDAY READINGS for the FAMILY and the CLOSET. 
 
 By the Rev. J. Nor>ian Pearson, M. A., InQumbent of the Distiict 
 Chinch, Timbridge Wells. 1.2mo. cloth, 7s. 
 
 "A most valuable work." Church qf England Magazine. 
 XII. 
 
 LETTERS TO YOUNG PEOPLE. By the late Dr. 
 
 Shirley, Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man. Fcap. cloth, 3s. 6d. 
 
 " We like the general tone of them much. They are cheerful, unaffected, 
 kindly, without overweening conceit or laborious condescension. They refer, 
 too, to real incidents and events. — Athenaum. 
 
10 
 
 LIST OF BOOKS 
 
 HISTORY OF ROME : for Young Persons. By Mrs. 
 
 Hamilton Gray. In two volumes, 12mo. cloth, 12s., with N'umerous 
 Wood Engraviugs. 
 " There cannot be fitter school volumes ; they 'are simple and interesting, each 
 term and tiling clearly explained ; while there is no f{ratuitous criticism, 
 none of those learned doubts which have puzzled maturer readers of classic 
 history since the advent of Niebuhr." — Daily Nem. 
 " This is a school history of rare excellence, written in a spirited and un-dry 
 style, embellished with many useful vignettes, printed in a comfortable 
 type, (which is a great merit ;) and in short, even as a mere reading-book, 
 very interestmg and attractive." — Ouardian. 
 " A very ingenious attempt to bring the recent discoveries of the critical 
 school into working competition with the miserable Goldsmith's and Pin- 
 nock's of our youth." — Christian Rememlrancer. 
 " Here we have anything but a dry detail of names, dates, and facts, such as 
 is too often to be met with in brief compilations, &c." — Atkenaum. 
 
 By the Same. 
 
 EMPERORS of ROME, from AUGUSTUS to CON- 
 
 STANTINE. Being a Continuation of the History of Eome for 
 Young Persons. 12nio., cloth, i^-ith numerous Illustrations, 8s. 
 " The book is a very good compendium of the Imperial History, primarily 
 designed for children, but useful for all." — Spectator. 
 
 THE HISTORY of ETRURIA. 2 vols. post. 8vo., 
 
 cloth, each 12s. 
 
 " A work which we strongly recommend as certain to afford pleasure and 
 profit to every reader." — Atkenceuvi. 
 
 TOUR to the SEPULCHRES of ETRURIA in 1839. 
 
 Tliird Edition. With numerous Illustrations. Post 8to. cloth, 1/. Is. 
 
 " Mrs. Gray has won an honourable place in the large assembly of mod em 
 
 female writers." — Quarterli/ Review. 
 " We warmly recommend Mrs. Gray's most useful and interesting volume." — 
 
 Edinburgh Remew. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 PROVERBIAL PHILOSOPHY. A Book of Thoughts and 
 
 Arguments, Originally treated. By Martin Farquhar Tupper. Esq., 
 D.C.L. F.E.S., of Christ Church!^ Oxford. Seventeenth Thousand, 
 with a Portrait. Fcap. cloth, 7s. 
 
 By the Same. 
 
 PROBABILITIES an AID to FAITH. Fcap. cloth, 4s. 
 
 " It is difficult to convey by extracts the charm which is diffused over this 
 little book. There is, in the infinite variety of the subject, a continuous 
 line of thought, which fixes the attention to its progress, and leaves the 
 mind amused and edified with the perusal." — Christian Remenibramcer. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 The CHURCH HISTORY of ENGLAND, from the Intro- 
 duction of Christianity into Britain to the Present Time. By John 
 
rUDLISHEI) m T. HATCHARD. 
 
 11 
 
 A. Baxter, M.A. Dedicated by permission to the Right Rev. Lord 
 Bishop of Lichfield. Second Edition, much enlarged. 8vo. 
 cloth, 18s. 
 
 " It is a history which we regard as being at the same time seasonahle and 
 enduring : it is useful for all times, while it is peculiarly adapted to the pre- 
 sent time. And we regard its spirit and tendency as good— being sound, yet 
 intelligent— being orthodox, yet charitable— being reverent of antiquitj', yet 
 not so bigoted as to admire a thing solely because it is ancient," &c. — Church 
 of En,<]land QuarUrhj Review. 
 
 XV. 
 
 The DOCTRINE of the CHURCH of ENGLAND, as to 
 
 the EFFECTS of BAPTISM in the CASE of INFANTS ; witli an 
 ApiiciuUx, containing^the Baptismal Services of Luther and the Nu- 
 reinlierg- and Cologne Liturgies. By Williajf Goudk, M.A., F.S.A., 
 Rector of AUhallows tlie Great and Less. SecDnd Edition, bvo. 
 cloth, 1.5s. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 TRACTARIANISM TESTED by HOLY SCRIPTURE 
 
 and the CHURCH of ENGLAND : in a Series of Sermons. By 
 the Rev. Hugh Stowei.l, M.A., Incumhent of Christ Chtn-ch, Man- 
 chester, and Hon. Prebendary of Chester. Two vols. 12mo. cloth, 
 each Cs. 
 
 N.B. The object of this work is not merely nor mainly to confute * 
 Tractarianism, but rather to inform and establish the minds of 
 Churchmen on certain perplexing questions, respecting which defi- 
 nite views are much needed 
 
 BOOKS OF DEVOTION. 
 
 A FORM OF PRAYERS SELECTED and COMPOSED 
 
 for the USE of a FAMILY PRINCIPALLY CONSISTING of 
 YOUNG PERSONS. Fourteenth EcUtion. Fcap. cloth, 2s. 6d. 
 
 FAMILY PRAYERS. By the late Henry Thornton, Esq. 
 Twenty-fifth Edition. Fcap., cloth, 3s. 
 
 III. 
 
 FAMILY PRAYERS. By the late William Wilber- 
 
 FORCE, Esq. Editted by His Son. Tenth Edition. Fcap., sewed, 
 Is. 6d. 
 
 IV. 
 
 FAMILY PRAYER for every DAY of the WEEK. Se- 
 lected from various portions of the Holy Bible, with References. 
 Third Edition. 12mo., boards, 2s. Cd. 
 
 PLAIN FAMILY PRAYERS. By A Country Pastor. 
 18mo. cloth, Is, fid. 
 
1-2 LIST OF BOOKS PfBLISHEn BY T. HATCIIARD. 
 
 VI. 
 
 .SHORT PRAYERS and other HELPS to DEVOTION, 
 
 for the Use of the Scholars of a Public School. Thh-d Edition, 
 18mo., cloth, Is. 6d. 
 
 VII. 
 
 FORMS of PRAYERS, adapted for the Use of Schools and 
 Young Persons. By J. Snow. 18mo., cloth, 2s. 6d. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 HELPS to DEVOTION; Morning and Evening Prayers 
 
 for every Day in the Week. Adapted for the Use of Families. By 
 H. Tattam, D.D., Archdeacon of Bedford. 12mo., boards, 2s. 6d. ' 
 
 IX. 
 
 SHORT FAMILY PR AYERS for everj- Morning and Even- 
 ing of the Month. Selected and arranged from the Liturgy, Psalms, 
 and various eminent Writers. By William Soltau, Esq. Second 
 Edition, 12mo., cloth, 3s., 
 
 X. 
 
 FAMILY PRAYERS for every DAY in the ^VEEK. Com- 
 piled from the Authorized Formularies of the Eeformed Episcopal 
 Church of England and Ireland. By Clericus. 18mo. cloth, Is. 6d. 
 
 XI. 
 
 The CHURCHMAN'S BOOK of FAMILY PRAYER, 
 
 following the Arrangement of the Book of Common Prayer, and 
 chiefly fiamed fi-om its Services. By the Rev. J. H. Swainson, 
 M.A., Eector of Alresford. 18mo. cloth, Is. (id. 
 
 CHURCH SERVICES. 
 
 HON. Miss GRIMSTON'S ARRANGEMENT of the 
 
 COMMON PRAYER-BOOK and LESSONS. Dedicated, by per- 
 mission to Her Majesty. 
 
 The pecuhai- advantage of this an-rangement consists in having 
 the entire Morning and Evening Service piinted in a large clear 
 type, in two portable volumes, one for the Morning and the other 
 for the Evening. 
 
 The follomng are the prices :— 
 
 The second size, royal 18mo., morocco elegant . . . 1 15 0 
 Ditto plain ... 1 10 0 
 
 Ditto calf gUt leaves ..160 
 
 The small size, royal 32mo., morocco elegant ..140 
 Ditto plain ... 1 1 0 
 
 Ditto calf gilt leaves. .0160 
 
 LONDON : PNINTED BV G. J. PAL.MKR SAVOY STUEST, STRAND. 
 
1 1012 01021 8958