tii t ii sedetibegdedadcined iiddtieatsigadaid Mesisdtegedasectsicatases af THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY From the Library of the Diocese of Springfield Protestant Episcopal Church Presented 1917 264.03 .O [14th thot oe into * the ' 1: . s Theft, ™Utilation, and underlining of books are reasons | for discip inary action and may result in dismissq] from the University, To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8409 L161_0.1096 = AN HISTORICAL INQUIRY INTO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION OF THE Rubrics IN THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, RESPECTING THE SERMON AND THE COMMUNION SERVICE. BY THE REV. BENJAMIN HARRISON, M.A. STUDENT OF CHRIST CHURCH ; DOMESTIC CHAPLAIN TO HIS GRACE THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, LONDON: FRANCIS & JOHN RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL’S CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE. 1845. 4 .* 4 i ot) ee Oe Ni in > : “Tie | : ey . . ‘ ° 5 Pi a vi ‘ as | . ee a4 ws Ho Ose UN, "y hail a3 GILBERT & RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, 3 ee 1‘ _--§T. JOHN’S SQUARE. pF is ; oe a eyevereetr ag ye ft x i” ¢ ‘ i , fp ee MA or erer Ate THe ens Ca ered AT a } ‘ t® Sain i Uap eo SET | : i at) oe 6 ahs 5 Se ' ele ke by if i i. Bea my i, ial ao TO THE MOST REVEREND WILLIAM, LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, PRIMATE OF ALL ENGLAND AND METROPOLITAN. My Lorp,-: In requesting permission to inscribe these pages to your Grace, [ have not been influenced simply -by the desire of tendering to your Grace, if in this way it might be allowed, some slight expres- sion of that reverence and affection, which must be felt peculiarly by those who have the privilege of nearer access to your Grace’s person. The apo- logy to be pleaded for that request, no less than for the attempt on which I have ventured in the following pages, must mainly rest upon the consi- deration which weighed the most with me in en- tering upon the inquiry. It was seen that, in the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer, the reso- lution of the doubts which may “arise in the use or practice” of “things contained in” that Book was, in the last resort, referred to the Archbishop of the Province; and it seemed to me that it could not be unbefitting one in your Grace’s immediate service, to undertake the task of collecting together what might possibly be serviceable as a digest of the evidence on which, if occasion should arise, such A 2 4 L LBS iv Dentratton. doubts might be resolvible. I well knew that it was, the desire of many, and specially of your Grace, that the questions which lately excited so much feeling amongst us, should be fully examined and calmly considered; and in the absence of any other attempt to supply what appeared to be wanting to full inquiry, [ have endeavoured to put together, as time and opportunity would allow, the historical facts and documents which seemed to bear most closely upon the questions which have been raised. But, in thus laying before your Grace the labours in which I have been engaged, I beg most respect- . fully to assure your Grace, that nothing could induce me to solicit the honour of dedicating them to your Grace, if I could be thought thereby, in any way, to claim the sanction of your Grace’s name and au- thority for deductions for which I must be solely responsible. I trust, however, that it will be a pledge of the scrupulous fidelity which it has been my endeavour to observe. The weight to be at- tached to the conclusions which may be drawn from the data which the following pages supply, must depend upon the care and impartiality with which the investigation has been conducted. An anxiety lest any thing should be omitted that was at all es- sential to a clear and dispassionate view of the points in question, may, I fear, have betrayed me into incon- venient length; but it has been some satisfaction to me to have traced out, in the course of the inquiry, ~ several instances in which, in the words in which your Grace has expressed the result of your own consideration of these matters, it has appeared that Dedtratton, Vv “the meaning which occurs at first sight is not always the most correct.” The plan which I have followed throughout has been, to give such full and complete citations from the documents which relate to the subjects in controversy, as may enable those before whom the case is thus laid to form their own judgment upon the data pupplied; adding so much only of commentary as may serve to connect the several documents with each other, and to shew the bearing of each upon the question in hand. IT am not without hope that, beyond the imme- diate occasion which has suggested these collections, they may serve to illustrate some not unimportant points connected with the history of our Church and its Liturgical Formularies. At all events I trust I may feel sure, that there is nothing con-— tained in these pages that will tend otherwise than to the removal of some misapprehension and doubt, the prevention of mutual distrust, and the further- ance, if it may be permitted in some humble de- gree, of that which your Grace has so deeply at heart, the cause of unity and peace in the Church of God. With feelings of the deepest respect and attach- ment, I have the honour to remain, My Lord, Your Grace’s faithful and dutiful servant, BENJAMIN HARRISON. July 17, 1845. on Sucrose dias OHBTIOAS: ‘i . rf a nye ; bs its a 4 j rue wa et : . ay r j oi ie ete : a’ ; ts ri 5 \ { via ’ “bas. oe we { €. ‘ | | ~ * a" “ o ” ~ “ez bh » ay — * / ; 7 ; [ F .” 7 +a Rie eh Oe ‘ #2 = ’ af iviin g : ; 4 : : ; ‘ ' 7} t : 1) rie : + , ¢ 7. : ‘ey - 4 + * abe, : i» T° «ofa ; rape Se Areerett ‘ . ‘ ; een tt a? ees a a i e, 4 | 7 * 7 ‘ ; 7 tte 5 | , +z 4 794 = f yen a [ ’ ‘ ~ ee : , | 4 as i" * . > 4 cy % ‘ ; P F : : ‘ a i | | f Fee . ge a2, _ ‘ , ; a - ~ va z a ; ae + aL: ¢ 7 ‘ i fit aie - f ' a P 7 ' ta ’ . | ba J ty 3 F 4 . ‘ ; “ Ay ; t 2 , iis icy 7 a ee ; 2 b¢ ) P 4 - is as es she i? : ¥ ~ PS DRS 49 ae t 4 3 fe ei ae © . ° > ba 1's aS ee ee ane, primal ahi > a on oa Pa a’ . . a ~ S $ - a 6 ia . \% Ay shes Se ae Leah St ie 2 PAIK? ot , ghce > ‘ nd : : + : g ' eg q : i. 7 , * r 4 x L a ‘) } a ’ ed WA | », PREFACE. THe Author trusts he shall not be presuming unduly upon the patient attention of the reader, in having entered so fully as he has done in the follow- ing pages, into the questions proposed for conside- ration. He would gladly have compressed his mate- rials within narrower limits, but that he feared the effect would be to make the discussion less likely to lead to a satisfactory result. And if the reader has felt, as the writer has done, the weariness of finding conflicting authorities cited in. controversial discus- sion, with little means of ascertaining the weight to be attached to each, or the place which it occupies -in the history, he will not be indisposed to dwell somewhat more leisurely upon the examination of the documents which appear to be of chief au- thority in the resolution of the questions in de- bate. The impression derived from a_ particular order or direction, is often essentially modified by a comparison of the context in which it stands, or of the whole document of which it forms part; and it is, in many cases, only by such comparison, or by reference to other contemporary testimonies, that it can be clearly ascertained whether the particular order in question may be taken as a viii Pretace. witness to the general practice of the time, or is rather an evidence to the contrary. It has been the desire of the Author to give, in the form of extracts from original sources, such a general view of the order of things at the time when the several Rubrics were drawn up, and of the cir- cumstances which they presupposed, as may servé to guard the interpretation of them from the mis- apprehensions to which they are liable, if considered simply in their letter, without regard to the origin and history of each. And in some cases, the fuller discussion of the points immediately concerned seemed to throw light upon others of perhaps greater importance and interest, connected with our Book of Common Prayer and with the general history of our Church. In regard particularly to the first head in the following inquiry, which may appear to have had a space allotted to it beyond its re- lative importance, the Author would wish to ob- serve, that it was found impossible to examine pro- perly the question respecting the dress of the preacher without entering upon the subject of vest- ments generally; and in the course of the inquiry some questions arose which seemed to require in- vestigation, in regard to the present rule of the Church in these matters. It seemed also desirable, under the same head, in noticing the successive forms in which our Prayer Book has been put forth at several times, to mark the peculiar authority on which it rested in each case; as tending specially to suggest some considerations which are not unimportant at the present time. CONTENTS. PCC THON eT Mero y res A Slee ge ace ogee gk THE DRESS OF THE PREACHER. Present practice—Rubric respecting the Ornaments of the Minister referring us back to the order of 1549—this order generally presumed to be still in foree—Rubrics of 1549—Question respecting the dress of the preacher, whether the albe and cope, or the gown—Argument as to vestments provided by the parish—Special Rubric concerning preachers in the Prayer Book of 1549—Archdeacon Sharp’s comment upon it— Bishop Cosin’s opinion—his notes—Reference to previous practice of the Church—no sufficient guide—Change of dress for Sermon—The preach- ing gown and the academic—Conclusion to be drawn from Rubric of 1549, in regard to the dress of the preacher. . . . . . . . £31 History of Preaching prior to the Reformation—Saxon times—Archbishops Peckham and Arundell—Preachers at the era of the Reformation— orders respecting preachers. . . - . . . d1—44 Publication of the Prayer Book of 1549—Rarity of Srauee ubtier of 1549 and of 1552—Bishop Ridley’s Articles of Visitation, Injunctions, and Letter respecting preachers—Conclusion as to Rubrics of 1549 and 1552, as to the dress of the preacher. . . . . . . . 4482 Queen Elizabeth’s Prayer Book of 1559—Question about vestments—Pro- viso in the Act of Uniformity—questions respecting it—Guest’s letter to Cecil—Injunctions of Queen ea ire ga shea of the word “ministration”. . . . » » » 52—63 Petition to the Convocation We {h62=ePRisesdin pat in ins Convocation— Sermon—Dress of the preacher—Papers prepared for the Convocation —Debate— Diversity of success in regard to matters of doctrine and of discipline—State of the question of vestments as left by the Convoca- Rate, ot Sa ae AC rane oh eh re a a ak Gee 29 Question whether the Rubric of 1549 be simply the rule still in foree—Pro- vision in the Act of 1559 for ‘ other order’ to be taken—Was such order ever taken ?—Clause in the Act examined—its two parts—the second acted upon in 1560—the question respecting the former. . . 80—87 x Contents. The history resumed from 1564—Varieties in usage complained of, though none in regard to the preaching dress—inference thence drawn—Attacks made by some preachers on the conforming clergy—the Queen’s letter to the Archbishop—proceedings upon it—difficulties—the Book of Advertisements— question whether they were ever sanctioned by the Queen or not—the history of them completed from Strype—compared with the Canons of 1571, in regard to form and authority—Preface to the Advertisements—the authority on which they rested. . . 88—115 Contents of the Advertisements—Preaching and preachers—new order as to vestments for the Communion—Conclusion as to the Advertisements— Other orders contained in the Book—Articles for apparel, illustrating the question as to dress of the preacher. . . . . . . . 115—122 Determination of the question as to the date of publication of the Advertise- ments— Bishop Grindal’s letter—Reference to them in Visitation Articles of Archbishop Parker—Archbishop Whitgift—Canons of 1571—Canons of 1603, grounded on the Advertisements—directions in the Canons in regard to preaching, &c., compared with the Advertisements—Further references to them—note of Bishop Andrewes—Bishop Sparrow—The argument summed up in quotations from Dr. Bennet and Archdeacon Sharp—Order taken in the Book of Advertisements acted upon by Arch- bishop Grindal, in contravention of previous order of 1559—Conclusion as to the proviso in the Act of 1559, in regard to vestments—state _of the question meanwhile, as to the dress of the preacher—Letter _ of Anthony Gilby—other authorities examined—Hooker—use of the word ‘ministration’ in documents of Queen Elizabeth’s reign gene- WALL Yes. co, es ie} yas jong migyaity he Ausable abate oie Reign of James I. Hampton Court Conference—Commission for revision of Common Prayer, and Proclamation establishing it—recognized by the Convocation—Canons of 1603—arguments drawn from the usage in Cathedrals as ordered by the Canon—the Canons and the Rubric recon- ciled by the previous order of the Advertisements . . . . 145—155 Reign of Charles I. Notes by Bishop Overall’s chaplain—Laud’s ‘ Consi- derations’ and the King’s Injunctions respecting lecturers—Articles of Bishop Montagu—of Bishop Wren—his order for preaching in the surplice—his defence—Bishop Juxon’s Articles. . . . . 155—169 Rubric as framed at the last Review—how to be interpreted—Argument in regard to the preaching dress from Bishop Cosin’s directions—Arti- cles of Bishops Wren and Gunning, Bishop Nicholson, Archbishop Frewen, &c.—Questions raised on two points determined—Conclu- SGI. 5 UUs” Bok sti is Was hax Be Peer gash ie hit be Petar hdl oy ils tl Cn PRAYER BEFORE SERMON. Question stated—opinion of Bishop Sparrow—his reference to Sermons of Latimer, Gardiner—these compared with Forms put forth by authority in 1547—and previously in the reign of Henry VII1.—order of 1534 and of 1536—and earlier form, from L’Estrange . . . . . . 190—202 Outline of history of bidding of prayers traced from former times. . 204—206 Form put forth in Queen Elizabeth’s Injunctions—Place of the bidding of prayer relatively to the Sermon—Instances in Dean Colet’s Sermon— Contents; xi in Sermons delivered at Paul’s Cross, &c., in the reign of Elizabeth— . Necessity found for restriction on preachers in regard to prayers before Sermon—Canon of 1603—Cartwright—Bishop Wren’s order—Bishop Cosin’s practice—Sancroft’s Consecration Sermon—Bishop Cosin’s notes —history brought down to the time of the last Review. . . 207—224 Question respecting Collect with the Lord’s prayer—Archbishop Tenison’s Letter—Directions issued by King George I.—Conclusion. . 224—228 PRAYER FOR THE CHURCH MILITANT. Doubt which has been raised—The Rubrics not at variance—Rubric traced historically—interpreted by Bishop Beveridge—Rubric of 1549—of 1552 and 1559, compared with the former—Rubric as settled at the last Review—evidence as to its intention—Corroborative argument drawn from the Occasional Forms of Prayer, &e.. . . . . . . 229—251 Difficulty raised, as to the intention at the last Review, grounded on the length of the Service—Examination of Forms of Prayer put forth then and since—Hooker’s answer to the Puritans’ objection—earlier Forms —tThe supposition as to the union, in our present practice, of three Services intended to be distinct, examined—how far distinct, and how to be united—Bishops Bull and Gibson—Conelusion . . . 251—276 THE OFFERTORY. Questions stated respecting the Offertory, the reading of the Sentences and the Collection—The Rubrics traced historically—The origin of alms and oblations traced from earlier times—restored in our Liturgy—Tertullian —Justin Martyr—St. Chrysostom—the text in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians considered. . . . . et Ss 277-289 Legislative measures at the era of the Heforination™ illustra the order of the Injunctions of 1547, and the Rubric of 1549—Archbishop Her- man’s Consultation—EHarlier Acts of the Legislature—Acts of 1535—of 1547—Prayer Book of 1549—Bishop Ridley’s Injunctions. . 289—308 Act of 1552, illustrating Rubric of the revised Prayer Book of the same year —order appointed by that Book—Bucer’s Censura, and De Regno Christi—Reformatio Legum— Robertson’s ‘“‘ How shall ing, says Mr. Jebb, ‘‘ was also, we conform to the Liturgy ?” in the time of Bishop Horsley, p-. 102. common in the diocese of Ro- ° Bishop of Exeter’s Pastoral chester.”—Choral Service, p. Letter. Thesurplice in preach- 221, note. Dress of the Preacher. 5 It has, however, of late been maintained by high authorities, that the only rubrical dress for the preacher, at least in the Morning or Communion Service, is the surplice; the ultimate authority appealed to being the Rubric, or note, which imme- diately precedes the Order for Morning Prayer, and which is as follows :— ** And here it is to be noted, that such Ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers thereof, at all Times of their Ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of Eng- land, by the Authority of Parliament, in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth.” With regard, then, to the ornaments recognized by this Rubric, “to know what they are,” says Wheatly, whose statement may be taken as represent- ing the view of the majority of our modern ritualists, “we must have recourse to the Act of Parliament here mentioned, viz. in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth; which enacts, That ‘all and singular Ministers, in any Cathedral or Parish Church, &e. shall, after the Feast of Pentecost next coming, be bounden to say the Mattens, Evening Song, &e., and the administration of the Sacraments, and all the common and open Prayer, in such order and form as is mentioned in the said book (viz. first book of Edward VI.), and not other or otherwise.’ So that by this Act we are again referred to the first Common Prayer Book of King Edward VI. for the habits in which ministers are to officiate; where there are two Rubrics relating to them, one pre- scribing what habits shall be worn zm all publick ministrations whatsoever“, the other relating only to the habits that are to be used at the Communion. 4 [This, we shall observe, is not quite an accurate statement. | 6 Iaress of the preacher. The first is in the last leaf of the Book’, and runs thus :— ‘In the saying or singing of Mattins and Evensong, Baptizing and Burying, the Minister, in parish churches and chapels annexed to the same, shall use aSurplice. And in all Cathedral Churches and Colleges, the Archdeacons, Deans, Provosts, Masters, Pre- bendaries, and Fellows, being Graduates, may use in the quire, besides their Surplices, such hoods as pertaineth to their 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 preach, should use such hoods as pertaineth to their several degrees. ‘And whensoever the Bishop shall celebrate the holy Com- munion in the Church, or execute any other publick ministration, he shall have upon him, beside his rochette, a Surplice, or albe, and a cope or vestment; and also his pastoral staff in his hand, or else borne or holden by his chaplain.’ “The other Rubrick, that relates to the habits that are to be worn by the Minister at the Com- munion, is at the beginning of that Office, and runs thus :— ‘ Upon the day, and at the time appointed for the ministration of the holy Communion, the Priest that shall execute 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.’ “These are the Ministerial Ornaments enjoined by our present Rubrick ".” © [These Rubrics are headed, Keeling’s ‘Liturgizee Britan- ‘Certain notes for the more nice,” pp. 856, 357. ‘* Thetwo plain explication and decent Liturgies of Edward VI.,” ed. ministration of things contained Parker Society, p. 157. ] in this Book.” The first in or- f Wheatly, chap. i. s. 4. der is that here referred to. See -(corrected by the original. ) ress of the Preacher. 7 Such is the view taken by Wheatly, and others, especially of our later ritualists; and it seems plain and unquestionable’, especially when the history of the Prayer Book is taken into account, as thus stated by the Bishop of Exeter, in his recent Judgment in the Helston case. “The Rubric....says, ‘That such ornaments,’ &c. ...in other words, ‘a white albe plain, with a vestment or cope.’ These were forbidden in King Edward’s Second Book, which ordered that ‘The minister at the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use neither Albe, Vestment, nor Cope; but being Archbishop or Bishop, he shall have and wear a rochet; and being a priest or deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice only.’ This was a triumph of the party most opposed to the Church of Rome, and most anxious to carry Reformation to the very furthest point. But their triumph was brief—within a few months Mary restored Popery—and when the accession of Queen Elizabeth brought back the Reformation, she, and the Convocation", and the Parliament, deliberately rejected the simpler direction of Edward’s Second Book, and revived the ornaments of the First. This decision was followed again by the Crown, Convocation, and Parliament, at the restora- tion of Charles II., when the existing Act of Uniformity esta- go ® “¢ Nothing can well be more precise than this language,” entire, and punctual observation of the Rubrics in others, has says Mr. Benson, in his recent pamphlet, (‘‘Rubrics and Ca- nons of the Church of England considered,” pp. 17, 18), speak- ing of this ‘‘ the very first Ru- brie which occurs in our Prayer Book”; ‘‘ and,” he continues, ‘‘ we are under no necessity of supposing, because we can clearly show what these minis- terial ornaments were. For a very slight inspection of the Communion Service of Edward the Sixth’s first Liturgy will bring to our view a variety of vestments, which no one, how- ever clamorous for the strict, ever yet, I believe, been bold enough, in his own person, to put on. ... . Now here,” he continues, ‘‘ are Rybrics which are universally neglected, nor do I believe, that in any ser- vice, except that for the Coro- nation, a cope 1s ever worn, either by Bishop or Priest, nor albes with tunicles by the as- sistant ministers.” h The Convocation was not consulted: the review of the Prayer Book being made, as will appear, by a Committee of Divines with no formal autho- rity. 8 ress of the Preacher. blished the Book of Common Prayer, with its rubrics, in the form in which they now stand.” The order, then, of Edward’s First Book, in regard to ornaments, would seem, as far as appears at present, to be of sole authority. What, then, was the order prescribed by that Book in regard to the Sermon ¢ It would appear, at once, that whatever be the dress intended for the preacher by the Rubrics of that Book, it cannot be the surplice. Not, at least, on the hypothesis that “the Sermon is part of the Communion Service,” and that therefore “ whatever be the proper garb of the minister in the one part of the service, the same ought to be worn by him throughout ;” for “ the rubric and canons,” we are told, “recognize no difference whatever’” On this hypothesis, the Sermon must be preached, not in the surplice, but in the albe, and vestment or cope“. If the Rubrics of the Second Book of Edward had been retained by Queen Elizabeth, which ordered the surplice to be used by the minister “at the time of the Communion,” as well as “at all other times in his ministration,” then the argument would certainly have been, prima facie, in favour of the surplice to be worn throughout the whole ministration, inclu- ding, on ythe hypothesis, the Sermon. But by the First Book of Edward there was a special “ vesture appointed for that ministration,” viz. “a white albe plain, with a vestment or cope ;” and in this, there- ' Bp. of Exeter’s Judgment. k Mr. Benson arrives at the same conclusion, after a minute examination of the Rubrics of King Edward’s First Book. He says, (p. 44,) “It seems tolerably clear, therefore, that if the sermon be a part of the Communion Service, and if the same garb ought to be worn by the minister throughout, an albe with a cope is the proper vestment to preach in, and not the surplice alone.”’ Dress of the Preacher, 9 fore, and not in the surplice', the priest must preach, unless we are to suppose that for the Sermon he was to resume the dress which he had worn during the Morning. Prayer and Litany: for which suppo- sition, it is scarcely necessary to say, there is no ground whatever ™. ' It has been said that the albe and surplice are, in the view of the Rubric, identical ; and in proof of it, reference has been made to another Rubric of Edward’s First Book, which orders, for the Litany days, that ‘‘ though there be none to communicate with the Priest, yet these days, after the Litany ended, the Priest shall put on him a plain albe or surplice, with a cope, and say all things at the Altar, &c... until after the Offertory,”&c. ‘Andthesame order shall be used all other days, whensoever the people be customably assembled to pray, and none disposed to commu- nicate with the Priest.” But it is evident that the option was given to use indifferently the albe or the surplice on these oc- casions, because there was not to be the actual celebration of the Communion, for which the albe, with tight sleeves, and girded close to the body, was thought the more convenient dress. On the Sundays and Holydays,when the Communion was to be ad- ministered, and the Sermon was to form part of the service, the dress worn by all the ministers at the altar was not the surplice, but the albe, with the vestment or cope worn over it by the principal minister, the tunicle by the assistants. The albe and surplice were clearly treated as distinct dresses. The preaching dress, if it was m Mr. Benson imagines this to be assumed in the statement respecting the proper dress for preaching, contained in the Bishop of London’s Charge, 1842. ‘It must be taken for granted,’ says Mr. Benson, ** that the Communion Service is a part of the matins, or, at any rate, that the two are so far connected, that the Com- munion Service should be read in the same habitas the matins.”’ Which hypothesis he takes some pains to refute. It would ap- pear, however, rather that his Lordship’s view of the matter was grounded on the one Ru- bric, of King Edward’s First Book, which regarded the or- dinary ministration, neglecting those which enjoined a parti- cular dress for the Communion. His Lordship’s statement is as follows :—‘‘ It is doubted, whe- ther a Clergyman, when preach- ing, should wear a surplice or a gown. I appreliend that for some time after the Reform- ation, when sermons’ were preached only in the morning as part of the Communion Ser- vice, the preacher always wore a surplice, a custom which has been retained in Cathedral Churches and College Chapels. The injunction at the end of King Edward’s First Service- book, requires the surplice to be used, in all Churches and Chapels, in the saying or sing- 10 DMress of the Preacher. to be the same that was to be used in the Com- munion Service, must have been the albe, with the vestment or cope worn over it. And this, indeed, is freely admitted. “The sur- plice,” it is allowed, “may be objected to with some reason ;” but on this ground, “ because the law re- quires the albe, and the vestment or the cope. Why then,” it is asked, “ have these been disused? Be- cause the parishioners,—that is, the churchwardens, who represent the parishioners,—have neglected to provide them; for such is the duty of the parish- ioners, by the plain and express canon law of Eng- land. (Gibson, 200.)” The costliness of the duty thus laid upon them, it has been suggested farther, is the “reason, most probably,” why “churchwardens have neglected it, and archdeacons have connived at the neglect.” But if the churchwardens of any parish should “perform this duty, at the charge of the parish, providing an albe, a vestment, and a cope, —as they might in strictness,” it is maintained, “be required to do, (Gibson, 201,)’—the Ordinary, on this hypothesis, might, and would in strict duty be bound to, “ enjoin the minister to use them. But until these ornaments are provided by the parish- loners, it is the duty of the minister,” as thus laid down, “to use the garment actually provided by them for him, which is the surplice’.”. The gown, ing of matins and evensong, baptizing and burying. And the present Rubric enacts, that Benson raises the doubt, “ first, whether the Constitution of Abp. Winchilsea,”’ (referred’ to all the ornaments of Ministers, at all times of their ministra- tion, shall be the same as they were by authority of Parliament in the second year of King Ed- ward VI.” ® Upon this Judgment, Mr. in Gibson, ) ‘‘ which relates,” as Mr. Benson says, ‘‘ to Popish garments, as they were used more than two hundred years before the Reformation, could be enforced upon churchwar- dens, in the present day, by Mress of the Preacher. 11 at all events, it is ruled, is out of the question. “The parishioners,” we are reminded, “never provide a gown, nor, if they did, would” the minister “have processof law.” (Onthis point we shall see more hereafter.) He then notices the Canon of 1603, which, “in making re- gulations for the provision of ‘ things appertaining to Church- es,’ never alludes to the neces- sity for the provision of any such vestments as albes and copes. Therefore,” he argues, ‘those vestments need no long- er, perhaps, be provided for the minister by the churchwardens, whose duty in that respect is, henceforth, confined to furnish- ing a surplice, the only habit mentioned in the 58th Canon.” In opposition to this, however, it is contended that the Canon ‘cannot controul the Act of Uniformity, which established the present Rubric.” ‘‘ But be that as it may,” Mr. Benson continues, “‘ suppose the church- wardens in duty bound to pro- vide a cope for the Parish Church, and to have hitherto neglected the duty. What, in such a case, is the course the minister ought to follow? Is it to be content with the want of this legally prescribed garb, and quietly use the surplice until the cope actually appears? Suppose the surplice were not furnished, would he think him- self authorized to remain thus passive, and read the prayers and administer the sacraments in, or without, a gown, until a surplice should actually appear? Would he not feel himself obliged in this latter instance— and is he not, therefore, equally obliged in the former—to re- present the matter to the pro- per authorities, and request their interference to obtain for him what he wants? This, surely, is what common sense dictates; and, if the interference of the proper authorities did not or could not obtain what he wants, would he, even then, be at liberty to go on with the surplice alone? Is not his pro- mise to conform to all things prescribed in the Book of Com- mon Prayer positive and un- conditional ? Is it not, conse- quently, binding upon him, whether the robes he requires are, as they ought to be, fur- nished or no? Neglect of their duty by the churchwardens does not excuse the minister’s neglect of his, unless, from ab- solute poverty, or other un- avoidable circumstances, he finds it impracticable to pro- cure the cope he is enjoined to wear. For a while he may, perhaps, be allowed to wait, until the parishioners have had sufficient time and opportunity granted to answer the call made upon them according to law. But the permanent disuse of the cope, or any other enjoined vestment, can scarce be gene- rally justified by such an ex- cuse.” With these feelings at work in men’s minds, it can hardly be anticipated but that, in some instance or other, if the case really stand as is commonly ima- gined, some difficulty may arise from imprudent attempts to re- pair a.supposed past neglect. 12 Dress of the Preacher, a right to wear it in any part of his ministrations. For the gown is nowhere mentioned, nor alluded to in any of the rubrics. Neither is it included, as the albe, the cope, and three surplices, expressly are, among ‘the furniture and ornaments proper for Divine Service,’ to be provided by the parishioners of every parish. (Gibson, wbi supra.)” We are further reminded, that “the 58th Canon of 1604 (which, however,” it is added, “cannot control the Act of Uniformity of 1662) enjoins that ‘every minister, saying the public prayers, or ministering the sacra- ments, or other rites of the Church, shall wear a decent and comely surplice, with sleeves, &c., to be provided at the charge of the parish. For the things required for the Common prayer of the parish were, and are, to be provided by the parish. If a gown were required, it would be to be provided by the parish °.” Upon this view of the case, then, the surplice is to be worn in preaching, but simply, as it would appear, on the ground that it is the only dress the minister can use, the parishioners having neglected to provide those which in strict law they ought to have pro- vided. The surplice, therefore, after all would be worn only on the principle, as it were, of the cy pres, or, as the dress now commonly worn, instead of the albe and vestment, in the administration of the Com- munion ; presuming, meanwhile, the hypothesis to be well founded, that the same dress was intended to be © worn in preaching as in the service at the Commu- nion. The proper dress for the sermon would, on this theory, still be the albe, with cope or vestment’”. ° Bishop of Exeter’s Judg- seems to anticipate no incon- ment. venience from this view of the P The Bishop of Exeter question, inasmuch as he states, Dress of the Preacher. 8 But while arguments are thus drawn from the general Rubric of Kdward’s First Book, in regard to the Communion Service, it seems to have escaped that “it is not desired by any, that” the use of these ‘more costly garments” ‘‘ should be revived among us.” But with regard to the cope, we are in- formed by Mr. Robertson, (p.102,)that while ‘‘ Dr. Hook, in his call to Union, (p. 158,) and even in his Dictionary, seems to think that the cope may be dispensed with,” ‘the Christian Remembrancer for December, 1842, tells us, that ‘English churchmen cannot much longer dispense with it.’ ” And Mr. Jebb, in his work on ‘The Choral Service,” con- sidering the cope or the vestment to be “specially pre- scribed to be used by the clergy administering the Holy Com- munion by the regulation re- ferred to in the Rubric, and ex- pressly ordered to be used in the Cathedral Churches by the twenty-fourth canon,” observes that ‘“‘the vestment and cope were ignorantly objected to by many after the Reformation, as Popish ornaments,” but that “it is sufficiently well-known that these, as well as the other ecclesiastical garments retained or enjoined by our Church, were common also to. the Eastern Church, and were as ancient as any ritual record now extant ; that they are Catho- lic and Anglican, and therefore ought to be retained. I must honestly acknowledge,” he con- tinues, ‘that I can find no ar- gument to justify the disuse of these ancient vestments, so ex- pressly enjoined by authorities to which all Clergymen profess obedience, except that rule of charity, which, as Bishop Be- veridge expressed it, [ or rather Tillotson to Beveridge, |isabove rubrics ; that loving regard for the edification of the people, to which every rite and ceremony should tend. This,” he adds, “TI say, is the only argument; because I wish most carefully to exclude all private and indi- vidual notions of propriety.” He states strongly the duty of mak- ing no restorations of things ob- solete, without due explanation and preparation of the minds of the people, especially in re- gard to ‘“‘the resumption of an outward decoration, long lost sight of, unheard of by the mul- titude, and mentioned, though decidedly, yet only by implica- tion in the Prayer Book.” “ But,” he adds, ‘‘if obedient compli- ance be earnestly desired, (as it is to be hoped it is,) with all our Church’s regulations, how- ever obsolete; then surely it is the duty of the Clergy not to stifle, for the sake of a selfish quietness, all consideration of matters apparently minute ; but to remember that her rules, however subordinate some may be, are all important, because enjoined by her grave authori- ty; and by anxious delibera- tion, and reference to their ec- clesiastical superiors, to the Bi- shops, without which nothing should be done, and, above all, nothing implying the exercise of deliberative wisdom, to seek the restoration of every part of her reformed, but most Catho- lic system.” — pp. 216 —219. 14 ress of the Preacher. observation, that there is in the other more general Rubric, already quoted, of the same Book, a particular direction respecting the Sermon which does, in fact, if I mistake not, go far to settle the question respect- ing the dress of the preacher. After directing that, in the ordinary ministration in parish churches and chapels, the surplice shall be used, and that in Cathedral Churches and Colleges, the dignitaries or fellows, “being graduates, may use in the quire, beside their surplices, such hoods as pertaineth to their several degrees, which they have taken in any Uni- versity within this realm,” the Rubric, it will be observed, goes on to say, that “in all other places, every minister shall be at liberty to use a surplice or no ;” and then adds finally, “It is also seemly, that Graduates, when they do preach, should use such hoods as pertaineth to their several degrees.” It is not said, be it observed, as in the former sentence respecting the dress of members of Ca- thedral Churches and Colleges in the quire, that Graduates, when they do preach, should use, “beside their surplices,” their academical hoods;—the varia- tion between the two cases is observable. And, moreover, the direction in regard to preachers, it is to be remarked, follows directly upon the inter- mediate sentence which gives permission to “ every minister in all other places,” i.e. as I conceive, all other, except the Church or Chapel, “to use a surplice or no.” And indeed, as we shall see, at the period when our Book of Common Prayer was com- piled, preaching seems to have been, to a great ex- tent, disconnected in men’s minds from the ordinary ministration of the Priest in the Church, certainly altogether from the administration of the Communion, or, as it was then, the celebration of Mass: the office Dress of the Preacher, 15 of the preacher was identified, rather, with the ordinary dress or habit of the friar, or Doctor, or Master of Arts. The Sermon in the University pulpit, or at Paul’s Cross, or at any other like place, was preached not in the surplice, but in the gown or habit. And so also in regard to Sermons preached in Churches: as the friar would come in his proper habit, so would the preacher in his University habit, or gown, with his hood; both alike being part of his own proper dress, and therefore not provided by the parish. For the hood was not provided by the parish, and yet the preacher was desired to appear in it, if he were a Graduate ; no argument, therefore, can be drawn from this circumstance against the use of the gown. The gown or habit being presumed, it was in this Rubric only further directed, as a thing “seemly,” that Graduates, when they preached, should use their proper academical hoods, obviously as marking them to be learned men‘, duly qualified to be expounders of God’s Word. And so Archdeacon Sharp understands this Rubric, and argues from it against the strict propriety of a usage which he notices as a matter of “ peculiar con- sideration to” the clergy whom he was addressing, of the diocese of Durham’, “in whicl:” diocese “alone,” he says, “it is to be met with,” viz. “the constant use of the surplice by all preachers in their pulpits.” 4 Erasmus, in one of his Col- r Archdeacon Sharp has been loquies, (IIrwyomdotawn, Fran- ciscani,) speaks of ‘‘ Epomides, reliquaque sapientum insignia.” The note explains the word “‘ Epomis,” which, in our Uni- versity Statutes, is the desig- nation of the hood. ‘ Epomis, cuculla genus, que suffulta pellibus aut serico, Magistris nostris ab humeris dependet.”’ quoted by the author of the Re- ply to the Quarterly Review, (“C. I. H.”), as giving ‘tes- timony that in his time the use of the surplice in the province of York was all but universal.” Third edition, Appendix, p. 8. The diocese of Durham has been mistaken for the province of York. 16 ress of the Preacher. He mentions it as a “remarkable instance of the prevalence of custom in these sorts of usages, under the approbation of the ordinary ;” the custom in that diocese being “said to have taken rise from an opinion of Bishop Cosins,” who, after the Restoration, filled that see. “One cannot,” he says, “speak otherwise, than with reverence and respect of so great a ritualist as Bishop Cosins was; yet it is mani- fest,” he continues, “ there 7s nothing in our rubrics that doth directly authorize this usage, or in our canons that doth countenance it; nay, there is something in both which would discourage, if not forbid, such a practice. The canons limit the use of the surplice to the ‘public prayers, and ‘ ministering the sacra- ments and other rites of the church; so doth our rubric concerning habits, if it be strictly interpreted of King Edwards order in the second year of his reign ; for there the surplice is only to be used at ‘mattins, evensong, in baptizing and burying, in parish churches. And then there immediately follows this permission, that, ‘in all other places,’ every minister shall be at liberty to use any surplice or no; and also a recommendation to such as are graduates, ‘that when they preach, they should use such hoods as pertained to their several degrees.’ Here then,” he continues, “is saficient warrant for using a hood without a surplice, as is done to this day at the Universities, but no appearance of authority for the use of surplices in the pulpit'.” ‘ Sharp on the Rubric, pp. 206, 207. Mr. Jebb tells us, ** Archdeacon Sharp, in one of his well-known Charges, vindi- cates the custom of preaching in the surplice, then common with- in his jurisdiction, on the ground that it is the privilege of the Clergy; the surplice being, of course, a garment of superior dignity to the gown.” —Choral Service of the Church of Eng- land, pp. 221, 222. It appears to me that Archdeacon Sharp does anything but ‘‘vindicate”’ the custom; nor do I find the ress of the Preacher. 17 And this, I think, will commend itself to any one as the natural and obvious interpretation of the Rubric in question. Indeed, the mention of the academic hood would at once imply the academic gown, to which in fact the hood properly belongs, forming, as it does, no part of the priestly attire, properly so called. And it can never be supposed by any one who knows what the cope is, that it could have been intended that the academic hood should be worn over it. Beside the ecclesiastical incongruity, it would altogether interfere with the ornamental cha- racter which the cope commonly assumed,—the cross, or picture, or richly embroidered work wrought upon it. With regard to the opinion of Bishop Cosin to which Archdeacon Sharp refers, that it was grounded upon the Rubric at the beginning of the Book of Common Prayer, which is the main sub- ject of our present enquiry. Bishop Cosin’s opinion is represented to have been, “that as surplices were to be worn ‘at all times of the ministration,’ and preaching was properly ‘the ministration of the word of God, therefore surplices were to be worn in the pulpit, as well as in the desk, or on other occasions of the ministry”.” The argument, as grounded on the precise words thus quoted, belongs to the Rubric of 1662, which will be considered in remark here referred to re- specting the ‘‘ privilege of the Clergy,” in regard to the use of the surplice. What he says in summing up is,.“ All, then, that I would observe upon this cus- tom of preaching in surplices is, that none of us are obliged to it; though at the same time I intend no censure of the prac- tice. For it is certainly decent, and with us without exception, though it be nowhere autho- rized, otherwise than by a pre- scription within this Diocese.”’ (p. 208.) " Sharp, p. 206. C 18 ress of the Preacher, its proper place: in the Rubrie of Elizabeth’s Book, with which we are at present concerned, and to which the question now before us must, strictly speaking, be limited,—for the first point is to ascertain, what were the ornaments enacted by the First Book of Ed- ward the Sixth, and revived by Queen Elizabeth’s— the words, “‘and at all other times in his ministra- tion,’ which had first appeared in Edward’s Second Book, were evidently used in contradistinction from “the time of the Communion,” which before had its appropriate vesture ; the words, therefore, “and at all other times in his ministration,” referred to those other acts of ministration specified in the First Book, “the saying or singing of Mattins and Evensong,” &c.; they cannot properly be made to extend wider, especially when we find clear evidences of a distine- tion, made in the documents of those times, as will be shown presently, between “ministration” and “ preaching.” The grounds of Bishop Cosin’s opinion, in relation to Queen Elizabeth's Rubric, will appear from his MS. notes printed in the Appendix to Nichols on the Common Prayer. ‘The notes were evidently written before the Restoration, being comments on the Prayer Book of Elizabeth and James. They were probably written when Cosin was Prebendary of Dur- ham, in the time of Charles I. In a note on the Preface “ Of Ceremonies abolished and retained,” he refers to the rules before quoted from Edward’s First Book, and which in that Book fol- lowed this “Discourse of Ceremonies.” But he quotes them thus inaccurately :— ‘1. That the Minister, at all times of his ministration, at Matt., Evensong, Bapt., Bur., &c., shall wear a surplice Dress of the Preacher. 19 -in the Parish Church; and in Cathedral and Collegiate Places that they also shall wear their ornaments and ensigns of their several degrees and dignities. 2. That in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the Priest shall wear, besides his Surplice or Alb, a Vestment or Cope; and being a Bishop, he shall also have his Pastoral Staff. 3. In all other places it shall be at the Minis- ter’s choice, whether he will wear the Surplice or no. 4. As for vy? kneeling, crossing, &c. It will be observed with how little accuracy Cosin quotes the Rubrics referred to; and also how the inser- tion of the words, “at all times of his ministration,” and also of the “ &c.” after the words “ Bapt., Bur.,” entirely alters the force of the Rubric in question. And, it will be observed further, he passes over altogether the clause respecting preaching in the hood; though he gives the whole of the Rubric be- side,—inaccurately, indeed, throughout, yet enume- rating all particulars. In another note, indeed, on the words, “at the time of the Communion,” in the Rubric at the beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s Prayer Book, as it then stood, [ “ And here it is to be noted, that the Minister at the time of the Communion, &c.”] he quotes, with only slight verbal inaccuracies, “the rules and orders” re- specting the celebration of the holy Communion in Edward’s First Book; and then upon the words, “and at all other times of his ministration,” he says, ** That is, (as is set forth in the first Liturgy of King Edward before mentioned) in the saying or singing of Mattens and Even- song, Baptizing and Burying, the Minister in Parish Churches and Chapels annexed, shall use a Surplice. And in all Cathedral Churches and Colleges the Deans, &c. .. . may use in the Choir, besides the Surplices, such hoods appertaining to their several degrees which they have taken in any University within Vv Nichols, Additional Notes, p. 7. ec 2 a 20 ress of the Prearher. this realm”. And when they do preach, it is seemly also that they should wear their hoods belonging to their degrees.” In this citation, which is otherwise generally accu- rate, the omission of the clause which leaves the minister at liberty “in all other places” to wear a surplice, gives a somewhat different effect to the last clause, which follows it, respecting the dress in preaching. In another note on the same Rubric, he again quotes as inaccurately, and with the same omissions as before. He says, “In that year,” [i. e. the second year of King Edward VI., | “by the authority of Parliament, was this Order set forth in the end of the Service Book then appointed. ‘ At Morning and Evening Prayer, the Administration of Baptism, the Burial of the Dead, &c., in Parish Churches, the Minister shall put upon him a Surplice; in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, and in Col- leges, the Archdeacons, Deans, Presidents, and Masters, may use the ornaments also belonging to their degrees and dignities. But in all other places it shall be free for them, whether they will use any Surplice or no. The Bishop administering the Lord’s Supper, &c.,....And before the Communion, upon the day appointed, wor vi. er “‘These Ornaments and Vestures of the Ministers were so displeasing to Calvin and Bucer, that the one in his Letters to the Protector, and the other in his Censure of the Liturgy, sent to Archbishop Cranmer, urged very vehemently to have them taken away, not thinking it tolerable that we should have anything common with the Papists, but shew forth our Christian liberty in the simplicity of the Gospel. ‘“‘ Hereupon, when a Parliament was called in the Fifth Year of King Edward, they altered the former book, and made another Order, Wc. 2 e. “‘ By the Act of Uniformity,” [that is, 1 Eliz.] ‘the Parlia- ment thought fit not to continue this last Order, but to restore the First again; which since that time was never altered by any other law, and therefore it is still in force at this day. ‘‘And both Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, that knowingly “. Nichols, Additional Notes, p. 17. Dress of the Preacher. 21 and wilfully break this Order, are as hardly censured in the Pre- face to this Book concerning Ceremonies, as ever Calvin and Bucer censured the Ceremonies themselves *.” In another note, on the words “In the Second Year of the reign,” &c. after giving an account of the two Liturgies of Edward VI., and the difference between them in this point, he says, “* By authority of Parliament in the first year of Q. Elizabeth, albeit it was thought most meet to follow and continue the Order of Divine Service in Psalms, Lessons, Hymns, and Prayers, (a few of them only varied) which was set forth in the fifth year of King Edward; yet for the Ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers thereof, the Order appointed in the Second Year of his reign was retained; and the same we are bound still to observe; which is a Note, wherewith those men are not so well acquainted as they should be, who inveigh against our present Ornaments in the Church, and think them to be Innovations, introduced lately by an arbitrary power against Law ; whereas, indeed, they are appointed by the law itself. And this Judge Yelverton acknowledged and confessed to me (when I had de- clared the matter to him as I here set it forth) in his circuit at Durham, not long before his death, having been of another mind before ¥.” These notes of Bishop Cosin, from which I have thought it well thus fully to quote, put us in posses- sion of his view in regard to the authority of the First Book of Edward in the matter of Ornaments, and of the interpretation which he gave to the words on which, as we find from Archdeacon Sharp, he grounded his “opinion” respecting the use of the surplice in preaching,—the words, I mean, in the Rubric as he quoted them, directing what is to be the dress of the Minister, “at all times of his minis- tration.” The all but entire omission of any notice of the direction that preachers should wear their * Ibid. ¥ Ibid. p. 18. 22 Wress of the Yrearher. hoods, however unintentional that omission may have been on his part, is important and worthy of remark, as strengthening the conclusion which, on inde- pendent grounds, we had derived from the mention there made of the hood, and also from the particular place which the sentence in which it is mentioned occupies in the Rubric of which it forms part’. But here we must consider the suggestion of a sensible and well-informed writer, who observes that this Rubric “is intended to apply to those portions only of the public offices which are expressly named in it; and that the rule for other portions is to be sought elsewhere.” In particular, that “for the vestures to be used at marrying and churching, and for that which is to be worn under the hood -in preaching, the rules of the Communion Service are to be consulted*” “On looking, then, to the rubrics of the Communion,” he says, “we find, that the celebrant is to wear a white albe, with a vest- ment or cope; that the assistant ministers are to wear albes, with tunicles; but there is no special order as to the dress which is to be worn in preach- ing. In these circumstances,” he says, “I believe it to have been the intention of the compilers that the previous practice of the Church should be a guide. As to this,” he continues, “we learn, that sometimes 2 In justice, however, to Bishop Cosin it must be borne in mind, that the Notes pub- lished by Nichols were taken from the margin of a Prayer Book in which the Bishop had written them, and a MS. book of notes, which probably were never intended, much less pre- pared, for publication. But they show plainly what were the ac- tual grounds of his opinion upon the point in question. a “ For in the Book of 1549,” as Mr. Robertson observes (pp. 104, 105), ‘ the holy Commu- nion is made (not, as now, an optional, but) a necessary part of the marriage rite,” and “ the same sacrament is connected with ‘the purification of wo- men,’ ” Dress of the Preacher. 23 the celebrant preached from the altar, in which case he retained the chasuble (the vestment of King Edward’s rubric); if he ascended the pulpit, the chasuble was laid aside for the time; if another than the celebrant preached, the dress was a surplice with a stole (Gavanti, Thes. i. 209; ii. 105). Applying these rules to the English service,” he proceeds to say, “we may gather that, under the First Book of Edward, the dress of the preacher was an albe,—a close-sleeved vesture, resembling the surplice’. And,” he adds, “it is worth observing—since arguments are now sometimes built on what is supposed to be the unprecedented nature of any such practice— that, where the celebrant was also the preacher, a change of dress took place on ascending and leaving the pulpit °.” But the fact is, that the previous practice of the Church will not altogether act as a guide in this matter; for according to the order of the Missal, there was no Sermon in the Communion Service, whether we look to the Roman Missal, or to the use of Sarum, Bangor, York, or Hereford“. As Bishop Cosin has remarked, in a Note on the Rubric respecting the Sermon, “This is one difference from the Mass- Book, where there is no Sermon there appointed ; for they commonly have their Sermons in the After- noon. But the Church of England hath restored the Sermon into the due place of it, after the reading of the Epistle and Gospel, which in the Ancient Church was the subject of the Sermon which followed *.” We cannot, therefore, derive the light which we > Thealbe, not the surplice, is, 4 See Maskell’s ‘ Ancient as Mr, Robertsonremarks, “the Liturgy of the Church of Eng- under-vesture appointed for al/ land,” pp. 20, 21. the clergy at communion.” € Additional Notes in Ni- © Robertson, pp. 104, 105. chols, Appendix, p. 40. 24 ress of the Preacher. might expect, from the previous practice of the Church, though it may be found to give us some assistance as to the dress of the preacher. We must therefore primarily consult the Rubric itself; and from the recommendation it contains, that “gradu- ates, when they do preach, should use such hoods as pertaineth to their several degrees,” I cannot doubt but that it was contemplated that the preacher would wear his gown—his proper “habit.” And with regard to the change of dress for the Sermon, we have positive evidence that it did take place. Strype, in his Annals, under the year 1565, tells us of a book which, he says, came forth about that time, having been “supprest for some years, upon hopes of reformation” (that is, “of things by them,’—he is speaking of the “refusers of the habits,’—“ supposed amiss in the Church”), “ but now, after many ministers were deposed for their non-compliance with the orders of the Church, the Author set forth his book, bitter enough, and full of scoffs and taunts, bearing this title-—‘ A pleasant Dialogue between a Soldier of Berwick and an English Chaplain; wherein are largely handled and laid open such reasons as are brought f The present rule of the Roman Church, as given in the ‘* Rubricee generales Missalis,” tit. vi. § 6, and quoted in the re- cent controversy, is as follows— ‘* Si autem sit predicandum, Concionator finito Evangelio preedicet, et sermone sive con- cione expleta, dicatur ‘ Credo,’ vel, si non sit dicendum, can- tetur Offertorium.” This, we are told, is the Roman custom, ‘‘when a Sermon is preached during the mass (the exception in practice rather the rule).” Christian Remembrancer, Apr. 1845. How completely the exception was the rule at the time of the Reformation, we have evidence in Haddon’s letter to Osorius, as quoted by Strype, Annals, vol. i. p. 427. (I. ul. 77),—“ All.exhortations out of” the Gospel ‘ were wholly silent,” &c. The Roman Rubrics of later days donot sup- ply therefore the authoritative decision, inregard tothe Sermon and the dress of the preacher, for which they are appealed to. Dress of the Preacher. 25 for maintenance of Popish traditions in our English Gliurch, Se... The book,” says Strype, “be- gins in this sareastical strain; where Miles the Soldier speaks thus to Bernard the Priest, ‘ But, Bernard, I pray thee, tell me, of thine honesty, what was the cause that thou hast been in so many changes of apparel this forenoon, now black, now white, now in silk and gold, and now at length in this swouping black gown, and this sarcenet flaunting tippet®,” &c. We have here, clearly, the officiating minister represented first as in his clerical attire, then in the surplice for Morning Prayer and Litany, then in the cope for the Com- munion Service, then in the preaching gown and tippet. This testimony seems conclusive as to the change of dress; and the person here described is evidently one who duly adopted the full and regular attire appointed for each part of the Service; as we may infer from his wearing the cope, described here as “silk and gold.” And here it may be proper to say something respecting the form of the gown as worn in preach- ing. The “swouping black gown” spoken of in the 8 Strype’s Annals, vol. i. p. 488. fol. (1. ii, 168, 169. 8vo.) Respecting the date and author, something will be said presently. Compare the “ Se- cond Admonition to the Par- liament”’ (pp. 32, 33). ‘ Butif they carry away the praise of the people for their learning, or for some merry tales they have told, or such like pageants to please itching ears withal, such a fellow must have the bene- fices, the prebends, the arch- deaconries, and such like loiter- er’s preferments, especially if he can make low curtesie to my lords, and know his manners to every degree of them, or can creep into some nobleman’s fa- vour to bear the name of his chaplain, this is he that shall bear the preferments away from all other, and to flaunt it out in his long large gown, and his tippet,” &c. And in like man- ner in ‘‘ An Answere for the tyme to the Examination put in print,” &c. (entitled, ‘‘ A Brief Examination of a certain Decla- ration in Defence of the Minis- ters refusing,” &c.) where ‘the Answerer” says, “‘ If we had as large consciences as you have gown-sleeves, perhaps we need not fear,” &c. (p. 144.) 26 ress of the Preacher. passage just quoted is, evidently, what is still gene- rally called the ‘preaching gown,’ full-sleeved. It is very commonly said that this gown is of Genevan origin, and the mere court dress of the clergy; but, in both respects, I believe, the statement is incorrect. In the description above quoted, it is evidently worn by the clergyman whose dress is in conformity with the established order; and it is, moreover, contrary to what we should naturally expect to find, that the Genevan, or Puritan, should be the court dress. And the very reverse would seem to be the fact. “The canon,” Mr. Jebb observes, “prescribes the use of either of two sorts of gowns; that of the academical degree, or one peculiar to the Clergy. As to the academical gown, custom has almost exclu- sively adopted that which is the proper distinction of the Master of Arts, even though the wearer may be a Bachelor or Doctor of Laws. The clerical gown is described in the canon as having a ‘standing collar,’ that is, not falling back in a lappet, like the Civilian’s gown, and ‘strait at the hands,’ that is, with a narrow wristband; modern custom having, however, tucked up the full sleeve to the elbow, the narrow wrist- band no longer appearing. This gown,” Mr. Jebb continues, “has been objected to as not so regular a dress as the other; as adopted from the Puritans, and as less distinctive, since dissenting teachers use it. But in reality, it is more regular, as marking the Clerical order, which the academical gowns do not. It is not adopted from the Puritans, since the Geneva gown or cloak was, in fashion, altogether different : and the dissenters may rather be regarded as having usurped an ancient Clerical dress. Old pictures, &e. will fully bear out these observations. It is always worn at the Court of the Sovereign.” To these ress of the Preacher. 27 facts which he adduces, Mr. Jebb adds the observa- tion, that “the whole tendency of our times has been, especially at the Universities, to mark the academical rank, rather than the order in the Church ".” We may observe, however, in reference to this last remark, that it may be pleaded, in defence of the academical gown, that it marks the preacher, as has been already said, to be a learned man, qualified by regular education to be an expounder of the Word of God, his clerical character being implied in the authority, or license, given him to preach. But undoubtedly if it be a question which is, formally and distinctively, the clerical dress of the preacher, it is the full-sleeved gown. And for an illustration of this, we may refer to the engraved title-page of “The Workes of John Boyes, Doctor in Divinitie and Dean of Canterbury,” published in 1622, and dedicated to King James I., in which, in a medallion at the top, is represented the priest on his knees in prayer, dressed in his ordinary Master of Arts’ gown, with the motto under it, “In eo sumus et scimus;” in two other medallions, on either side, he is repre- sented writing at his desk, and meditating in his study, with his book on his knees, in each case wearing the same dress, the mottos being, respectively, “ Scriba doctus in regno coelorum,” and “Consiliarii mei ;” while in a larger medallion, at the bottom, between the arms of the see of Canterbury, and of the Dean and Chapter, we see him in the pulpit, in the full- sleeved gown, as above described, with the narrow wristband, and wearing his hood, with the motto under, “Opportuné Importuné.” So entirely un- founded, and indeed the very reverse of the fact, is the common notion on the subject. h Choral Service of the Church, pp. 222, 223. 28 Mress of the Preacher. Nay, if the learned Anthony a Wood may be taken as an authority in these matters, it would seem that that which is now commonly supposed to be the ancient Academical gown is, in reality, the Genevan, and the supposed Genevan gown the an- cient Academical, or nearly resembling it. Having spoken of Academical Degrees, Anthony a Wood proceeds to say, ‘The next distinction for Scholars, besides Degrees, are Habits and Formalities, which have been used in this University from the day of King Alfred (if not before) to these times. For when literature was restored by certam Benedictine Monks (as tis before showed) whom that king appointed to read in Oxford, the scholars did from that time, as we may suppose, take their fashions', that is to say, ocreze, and vestes, vel habitus de pulla chimera, 1. e. boots, and garments, or habits of a black colour or resemblance. As for other formalities which they did wear, as cap and hood, I am not certain whether the Scholars followed the fashions of them or not, but, as far as I can yet understand, they did. Joh. Wolfius, in speaking of the Order and Habit of the Benedictine Monks *, saith thus—‘ In vestitu veteres usi fuerunt cuculla, tunica, et scapulari; cuculla est cappa supra tunicam inferiorem quam Meloten quidam appellant: 4 nonnullis Tax dicitur : scapulare etiam a scapulis, quod scapulas tegit, &c.’ Which hood, coat, and scapular (the last being a narrow piece of cloth hanging down before and behind), were used (though since much enlarged) by our old Scholars, as I have seen it on ancient glass windows, seals, &c. ‘““ Gown, wide-sleeved, for such in several foregoing ages was, and is still, the Benedictine habit, and was anciently used by the generality of Scholars. At first when it was used, was no more than an ordinary coat (Tunica, as Wolfius hath told you), and reached but a little lower than the knees. The shoulders were but a little or not at all gathered, neither were the sleeves much wider than an ordinary coat, though since by degrees much en- * “Yn quodam Tractatu de rabilium et reconditarum, Cent. prerogativis Ord. S. Bened. ut vi. p. 160. Isidori [Orig. sive supra MS.” Etymol. ] lib. xix. cap. 24.” “Tn libro lectionum memo- ress of the Preacher. 29 larged. From the said form the Surplices (Dalmatice, first worked in Dalmatia, and therefore so called)! received their fashion also, very scanty and slender at first, but afterwards wider than Gowns. When degrees became a little frequent among us in the reigns of Richard I. and K. John, other fashions were invented for distinction sake not only in relation to Degrees, but faculties, yet the wide sleeves are still worn by Bachelaurs, and by such undergraduates that receive maintenance in Colleges by the allowance of their respective Founders, worn at first black, then in several colours, and at length, when Dr. Laud was Chan- cellor, black again by every Scholar, unless the sons of Noblemen, who may wear any colour. To conclude, though there was a common distinction ‘in vestitu’ made between the Masters or Doctors of Theology, Medicine, Law, and Arts, yet in solemn assemblies and perambulations, or processions of the University, the fashions of their ‘ vestitus’ were all the same, only differenced by colour; as for example, the fashion that Masters or Doctors or Professors of Theology used, was a scarlet gown with wide sleeves (not of a light red as now, but red with blue or purple mixt with it), faced with certain beast skins furred, both costly and precious. Over that a Habit of the same, viz. half a gown without sleeves, close before, and over all a Hood lined with the same matter that the gown is faced with. The fashion of a Doctor or Professor of Law, or Medicine, was the same with Theologists, only distinguished by the facing and lining of another colour; but that of Artists was commonly black, as their Habits also were, but faced and lined with furs or minever. As _ for Bachelaurs of Arts, Law, and Physic, their Gowns, which were of various colours, as russet, violet, tawny, blue, &c. were also wide-sleeved, but not faced, and their Hoods (for they had no Habits) of the same colour with their Gowns, but not lined, only edged with lamb or cony skin. The Gown that a Doctor of Divinity now wears, as also that by a Master of Arts, or such that are in holy Orders, hath no cape, only long sleeves with a cross slit to put the arms through. Which Gown is not ancient, and never known to be worn by any before the time of John Calvin, who, as it is said, was the first that wore it, but had the slit longways, and facing lined with fur ™.” 1 Huguitio Pisanus in ™ Hist. and Antiq. of the Magnis Derivationibus, MS. ut University of Oxford, vol. i. supra.” pp- 68, 69. 30 ress of the Prearher. The gown here described may be seen in the engraved portraits of Calvin, Diodati, and others. In the records of Archbishop Laud’s Chancellorship of the University of Oxford, we find, in 1638, an order made by the heads of houses, that the doctors who were to attend the King at Woodstock, “should all go in wide-sleeved scarlet gowns (not in habit and hood), save only the preacher, who during his sermon should wear his hood also; and further, that both the proctors should go in their wide-sleeved gowns too *.” In the following year, he writes thus to his Vice-Chancellor on the subject of academical dress, from “Lambeth, Feb. 20, 1638-9.” “Iam like- wise told that divers of the younger sort, and some Masters, begin again to leave the wide-sleeved gown apace, and take up that which they call the lawyer's gown °.” He had written, the year before, from Croydon, Aug. 17, 1638, thanking the Vice-Chan- cellor for his “care to make a present stop of the use of prohibited gowns among the younger sort °.” It would appear, then, not only that the dress of the preacher, as recognized by the Rubric of Kdward’s First Book, (if we are to look to that as our rule,) was in reality the academic gown, but also. that that gown was anciently and properly none other than that, or nearly resembling it, which has been generally supposed of late years to be the modern Genevan, or the mere court dress, viz. the wide-sleeved, or, as it is commonly called, the preach- ing gown. And if one dress or the other, the gown ” Laud’s Remains, vol. ii. gown resembled the Civilian’s, p. 171. falling back in a lappet. ° Ibid. p. 172. Calvin's P Ibid. p. 154. Saress of the Vrearcher, 31 or the surplice, as used in the pulpit, must needs be associated with ideas of Popery, the stigma would attach rather to the gown, as having been derived originally, it would appear, from the monastic orders, or as a remembrance of the days when, through the influence of Papal corruptions, and the ignorance which too generally prevailed, the function of preach- ing had, to so great a degree, lost its place among the duties of the parochial clergy, and had passed into the hands of a distinct order of preachers. But we must enter a little more fully into this subject, if we would form a correct view of the state of things at the time when our First Book of Common Prayer was compiled, and understand fully the lan- guage of its Rubric. And here it will be necessary to sketch summarily the history of preaching in the ages preceding the Reformation; which may be done in a brief extract from Mr. Palmer’s learned and accurate work, the “Origines Liturgice.” “In the primitive ages,” he observes, “the bishop chiefly taught in the cathedral church, and the pres- byters in lesser or parish churches. Here they instructed the people in all the branches of religion, and adopted all those methods of reasoning, persua- sion, encouragement, or rebuke, which they esteemed best calculated to benefit the souls of the faithful. When the barbarians of the north had overrun the civilized portion of the world, and, for a lengthened period, the arts and sciences were almost extinct, it became difficult, from the extreme ignorance of the times, to find clergy qualified to preach. Hence, in several churches, homilies were selected from the writings of orthodox divines, and appointed by public 32 Dress of the Preacher. authority to be read to the people. In England, about the year 957, Elfric, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, required the priest in each parish to ex- plain the gospel of the day, the creed, and the Lord’s Prayer, on Sundays and holydays. The same person afterwards compiled homilies in the Anglo-Saxon language, which for some time continued to be read in the English church. At length these homilies probably became either unpopular or obsolete; so that in the year 1281 preaching seems to have been generally omitted *.” “Sermons, we know, were very seldom delivered in the Roman church; and during the dark ages, when that church had a great influ- ence in the western churches, the incapacity of the clergy to deliver Sermons may have been encouraged by the example of the see of Rome. At length in England it became necessary for those that were in authority, to remedy the evils which arose from the ignorance of the clergy, and in 1281 John Peckham, archbishop of Canterbury, in a council held at Lam- beth, made a constitution, instructing the priest of every parish how to teach the people, once every quarter of the year, the meaning of the Creed, the commandments of the law and the Gospel, the good works to be done, the sins to be avoided, the prin- cipal Christian virtues, and the doctrine of the Sacraments. In 1408 archbishop Arundell renewed this constitution ’.” “It does not appear that any great alteration took place for some time after the Constitution of archbishop Arundell; however, in a book entitled the Liber Festivalis, published in the reign of Henry the Highth*, we find a series of 1 Origines Liturgice, vol. ii. § “ Liber Festivalis, London, pp. 64, 65. 1511; printed before in 1497.” t Ibid. pp. 61, 62. | ress of the Preacher. oc homilies for all the holydays of the year, followed by the ‘quatuor sermones, as directed by archbishop Peckham, and all in the English language. This book, however, does not appear to have been pub- lished by authority, and was probably not much in use. “ By the injunctions of king Edward the Sixth, in 1547, it was ordered that every Sunday, when there was no sermon, the Lord’s Prayer, Apostles Creed, and ‘T'’en Commandments, should be recited from the pulpit for the instruction of the people‘. This was, in fact, little more than a renewal of the Constitu- tions of the archbishops of Canterbury. The sub- sequent composition and publication of homilies by authority is so well known that I need not dwell on it. Nor is it necessary to speak of the gradual in- crease of knowledge and education, which have in later times completely restored the ancient custom of preaching, which had so long been desired by the Christian church *.” So “completely,” indeed, as Mr. Palmer truly states, has “the ancient custom of preaching” been “restored” in the reformed Church of England, that it is difficult for us now to realize the state of things at the time when the First Book of Common Prayer was established; and we are consequently liable to considerable misapprehension in looking upon its rubrics under the influence of impressions derived from our own days. To illustrate, however, still further the condition of things in the times referred to, it may be well to cite a few passages from the Constitutions of Archbishop Peckham. The ninth t * Sparrow’s Collection, &c. " Palmer’s Origines Litur- p. 4.” gicee, vol. 11. pp. 64, 65. D 34 Wress of the Preacher. Constitution, that above mentioned, begins thus, as translated by Johnson * :— ‘‘9, The ignorance of priests plunges the people into error ; and the stupidness of clerks, who are commanded to instruct the faithful in the Catholic faith, does rather mislead than teach them. Some who preach™ to others do not visit the places which most of all want light, as the Prophet says, ‘ The little ones asked bread, and there was no man to break it to them’; and another cries, ‘the poor and needy seek water, their tongue is dry for thirst.’ * As a remedy for these mischiefs we ordain and enjoin, that every priest who presides over a people do four times in the year, that is, once a quarter, on some one or more solemn days, by himself, or by some other, expound to the people in the vulgar tongue, without any fantastical affectation of subtilty, the fourteen Arti- cles of Faith, the ten Commandments of the Decalogue, the two precepts of the Gospel, or of love to God and man, the seven works of mercy, the seven capital sins, with their progeny, the seven principal virtues, and the seven sacraments of grace. And that ignorance may be no man’s excuse, though all ministers of the Church are bound to know them, we have here briefly summed them up. Ye are to know then,” &c.... **11. Whereas the holy Scripture declares, that pastors are bound ‘ to feed the flocks committed to them’, and ‘ the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn is not to be muzzled’; we ordain that rectors who do not corporally reside on their churches, and have no vicars, do by their stewards keep hospitality, accord- ing to the value of the church; so far, at least, as to relieve the extreme necessities of the poor, and that they who travel there, and preach the word of God, may receive necessary food, lest the churches be justly deserted by the preachers through the violence of their wantsY; for the labourer is worthy of his meat, and no man is bound to bear arms at his own cost ”.” Y For the originals, see Wil- kins’ Concilia, vol. ii. pp. 51, sq. W More literally, ‘‘ Moreover some blind preachers,” &c. ** Quidam etiam czci preedi- cantes non semper loca visitant quz magis constat veritatis Jumine indigere,” &c. x Lam. iv. 4; Isa. xli. 17. y “ Kt ut qui ibidem trans- euntes praedicant verbum Dei reciplant necessarla corporis alimenta, ne ecclesiz eorum inopie violentia a preedicanti- bus merito deseratur.”’ [ ‘* dese- rantur,’’ qu. | 2 Johnson’s Collection of Ecclesiastical Laws, vol. ii. (anno MCCLXXXI.) ress of the Preacher. 35 Johnson’s note upon this is, “This constitution was made by Archbishop Peckham in favor of his own brethren* the Friars, who travelled under pretence of preaching. L.[ Lyndewoode] here bears hard upon them, for sauntering up and down in the parishes where they preached, and begging the peo- ple’s alms, after they had received what was sufficient at the parsonage house.” But, however they may have taken undue advantage, and made a gain, as doubtless they did, many of them at least, of those to whom they preached, it is evident to how great an extent,—how entirely, indeed, we may almost say,—the country was dependent upon these “preachers” ° for instruction from the pulpit at a time when it was, comparatively speaking, a rare thing for Sermons to be preached at all. And, in connexion with our immediate subject, it will be recollected that those among them who were specially devoted to this function, were those who, as Bishop Tanner tells us, “were called Dominicans, from their founder; Preaching friars, from their office to preach and convert heretics; and Black friars, from their garments*.” And thus a black dress would be that 4 In the Preface to Arch- bishop Peckham’s Constitu- tions of MccLxx1x.,Johnson tells us, “‘ Friars were now in great reputation. Robert Kilwardby was of the Black sort ; he suc- ceeded Boniface in the arch- bishopric of Canterbury, and founded the house of Black Friars, London. Upon this Ro- bert’s resignation, John Peck~- ham, a Grey or Franciscan Friar, was his successor by virtue of the Pope’s provision, D who made Kilwardby Cardinal, and Bishop of Porto, and then placed Peckham in his room at Canterbury.” Archbishop Peckham, he further tells us, ~ ‘Cever styled himself, ‘ Friar John.’ ” b The reference in Johnson’s Index is, ‘‘ Preachers, that is, strouling Friars, to be enter- tained by Rectors.” ¢ Tanner’s Notitia Monas- tica, Preface, p. xxi. ‘‘ At first they used the same habit with e) — 36 ress of the Preacher. which was, in those days, specially associated in men’s minds with the office of the preacher. Archbishop Arundel’s Constitutions, already re- ferred to as re-establishing, or endeavouring to re- establish, the orders of Archbishop Peckham, are worthy of being cited still further, for the illustration they afford of the state of preaching in those times °. His first Constitution is :— 1. ‘ We enact, decree, and ordain, that no secular ° or regular, unless authorized by the written law, or by special privilege, take to himself the office of preaching the word of God, or do in any wise preach to the people or clergy, in Latin, or in the vulgar tongue, within a Church or without it‘, unless he present himself to the Diocesan of the place in which he attempts to preach, and be examined; and then being found qualified both by manners and learning, let him be sent by the Diocesan to preach to some certain parish or parishes, as to the same Ordinary shall seem expedient, in respect to the qualifications of the man. And let none of the aforesaid presume to preach, unless assurance be first given, in proper form, of their being sent and authorized; so as that he who is authorized ® by written law, do come according to the form therein limited; and that they who say they come by the Austin canons.” (viz. “a long black cassock with a white rochet over it, and over that a black cloak and hood.” Ibid. p- xviii.) ‘* But about a.p. 1219, they took another, viz. a white cassock, with a white hood over it; and when they go abroad, a black cloak with a black hood over their white vestments.” 2 On the subject of preach- ing at this period, and the history of preaching licenses generally, vide Sharp on the Rubric, pp. 144, sq. © «Supply ‘ Priest’; for none but a priest may preach, except a deacon be curate: for then he may preach to his own sub- jects.” L. [Lyndewood’s note, in Johnson. | f« Friars might preach in church-yards or streets.” L. [Id.] s ‘“* By the Canon Law, the Pope isallowed to preach every- where; the Bishop in his own diocese, or in any other where he is not expressly prohibited by the proper Bishop. A Mas- ter, or Doctor in Divinity, or any preacher licensed to any parish or parishes, may be ad- initted to preach, by any Curate in transitu. Friars, Preachers and Minors, [or, Dominicans and Franciscans,| may preach anywhere of common night, though of old this was a _ privi- Dress of the Wreacher. 37 special privilege ", do really show that privilege to the rector or vicar of the place where they preach; and that they who pre- tend to be sent by the Diocesans of the places, do show the letters of that Diocesan, drawn for that purpose under his great seal. But we take a perpetual curate! to be sent by law to the place and people of his cure. . . . But let parish priests and tem- porary vicars (not perpetual) who are not sent in form aforesaid, only simply preach those things which are expressly contained in the Provincial Constitution (together with the usual Prayers‘), which was well and piously published by John of good memory, our Predecessor, as a supply to ‘the ignorance of priests,’ with And we will that this be had in every ~ parish Church of our province of Canterbury within three months which words it begins. after the publication of these presents. .. . 2. ‘Farther, let not the Clergy or people of any parish or place whatsoever in our province, admit any one to preach in churches, church-yards, or any other places, unless full assurance be first given of his being authorized, privileged, or sent, according to the form aforesaid ; otherwise, let the church, church-yard, or other place whatever, where the preaching was, be ipso facto laid under ecclesiastical interdict, and so remain till they who admitted or permitted him to preach, have made satisfaction, and have pro- cured a relaxation of the interdict in due form of law to be made by the Diocesan or other superior. Farther, as the good husband- man sows his seed on such ground as is most fit to produce corn, we will and command that the preacher of God’s word, coming in form aforesaid, do observe a decorum as to the subject-matter in his preaching to the clergy or people, so that the seed be fitted to the auditory under him, by preaching to the clergy chiefly of those vices that are growing up among them, and to the laymen of the sins most rife among them, and not otherwise. Else let lege specially granted by the Pope.” 'L. This would suggest the re- mark, that to the Curate of a parish and his people, the Mas- ter of Arts, or the Doctor’s gown, which the preacher wore, was as it were the warrant of his right to preach. h «These were Augustinian and Carmelite Friars, who had no Decretal inserted into the Corp. Jur. Can., whereby to grant them a general license, as the Preachers and Minors had.” Johnson. i «That is, the Rector, Vicar, or whoever had a_ perpetual title to the cure of souls in any Church.” Johnson. i “The bidding of the beads is here evidently meant...” &c. Johnson. Of which, more will be said hereafter. 38 gress of the Prearher. him that preacheth be canonically and sharply punished by the Ordinary of the place, according to the quality of the offence *.” These Constitutions of Archbishop Arundel were put forth in a Convocation of the whole Clergy of his province, celebrated at Oxford, in 1408; the strin- gent regulations respecting preachers being occa- sioned by the prevalence of “ Wiclevism” and “Lollardism,” especially in that University. “By the continuance of the Papal Provisions before men- tioned,” says Anthony a Wood, in his Annals under the year 1405, “(whereby preaching became rare, because of the ignorance and unfitness of incum- bents,) the Wyclevists took advantage to spread their doctrine the farther in populous and poor towns, which were scarce able to maintain a chaplain or priest. The inconvenience and danger of this being notoriously known, it gave occasion for the enacting of a certain Statute about these times (2 Hen. IV., as I remember), disenabling all such from preaching publicly and privately that had not license from the Diocesan.” The Annalist then refers to Archbishop Arundel’s Provincial Constitution, made “about the same time,” “that none not privi- leged should preach to the people without license obtained from the Bishop of the diocese (afterward not procured without great favour and cost) ;” and tells us how it wag “sorrowfully taken by certain persons,” in that he “had tied up the tongues as it were of all preachers, only because of certain here- tics, who then were suspended from preaching.” But, under the same year, Anthony 4 Wood tells us, that “this year” [1405] “general license was granted by the Bishop of Lincoln (Philip Repyngdon) to the * Johnson’s —_ Ecclesiastical Compare Wilkins’ Concilia, Laws, vol. ii., anno mccccviu. vol. iii. pp. 315, 316. Dress of the Preacher. 39 graduate and non-graduate Theologists of Oxon, and to the Masters and Bachelaurs of Arts that were in Orders, to preach and exercise their gifts in Divinity in any part of his diocese. By virtue of which, those that were not suspected of heresy had this license freely confirmed upon them, but those that were, were by no means suffered. So that, in some respects, preaching, which was best performed by | heretics (as they were now called), did in some i Sb manner decrease’. The above extracts may suffice to show what was the real condition of things, in regard to preaching, in the times preceding the Reformation, and to explain the exact position which preaching seems to occupy in the order of our first reformed Prayer Book ;—its apparent disconnection, in some degree, from the ordinary ministrations of the parish priest ; the absence of any regulation as to the dress, or rather, (if the Rubric has been interpreted rightly) the presumption that the preacher would be in his regular habit or Academic gown, if he were a graduate of the University, and therefore directed to wear with it his proper Academic hood. Of the matter and manner of preaching at the era of the Reformation, and of the successive mea- sures which were taken with a view to its regulation, we have many specimens and instances recorded by Strype and others, all tending to show in whose hands the preaching was, for the most part, at the period in question, and also the occasion that was found for the restrictions and inhibitions which, as 1 Hist. and Antiq., vol. i. Hzeretico comburendo.’”’ Vid. pp- 541, 542. The Act 2 Hen. Sharp, p. 146. IV. is ‘the famous Act ‘de 40 ress of the Preacher, will appear, were the most rigid at the precise date when the First Book of Edward was in prepa- ration. Thus, in 1553, the papal party, as Strype tells us, “seeing how the king’s proceedings tended, not only to the abating, but destroying the Pope’s authority and sway here in England, it sore grieved them; and they did what they could to keep it up among the people. .... For this purpose they now privately procured several Doctors of the Univer- sities, such as were the most popular and ready preachers, to be in the nature of the ztineraries, to ride about the countries, and to preach up from place to place the Pope’s power over kings; extol- ling the Bishop of Rome, and diminishing the power of secular princes. One of these,’ whom Strype mentions, “was Dr. Wilson of Cambridge, a north countryman,” of whom he tells us, that “about this time he travelled into the countries about Beverley in Holderness; and from thence he went a progress, by some private appointment, through Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cheshire, and so toward the west parts, to Bristow. Another was an old divine of Oxford, named Hubbardin, a great strayer about the realm in all quarters,” but particularly “employed in the west country. He ordinarily rode,” as Strype tells us, “in a long gown down to the horse’s heels, all bedirted like a sloven, as though he were a man of contemplation, little regarding the things belong- m 99 ing to the body”. ™ Strype goes on to tell us, of this father Hubbardin, that ‘he would dance and hop and leap, and use histrionical ges- tures in the pulpit; at which he was once so violent, stamp- ing so much, that the pulpit, wherein he was, broke, and he fell down, and broke his legs, whereof he died.” Fox had said, ‘‘he so brake his leg that he never came in pulpit more, and died not long after the same.”’ See Fox’s account of ress of the Yreacher. | “ Another of these emissaries,” says Strype, “ was Dr. Powel, who once preached before the mayor of Bristow, extolling the Pope with abundance of zeal.” And then he goes on to speak “ of Latimer, whom,” he says, “Bishop Ridley called ‘nostre gentis Anglican verum Apostolum,’ ‘the very Apostle of England” He was now,” says Strype, “parson of West Kington, in the county of Wilts; a great and useful preacher in those parts, and who took fre- quent occasion to declaim against the superstitions of the Church. Sometimes he was procured to preach in the populous city of Bristow, whose ser- mons, as they gave great satisfaction unto many good people there, so no little disgust to the papists ".” The year to which these notices in Strype belong (1533), is the same in which Cranmer was made Archbishop of Canterbury. One of his first acts “looked,” as Strype says, “as if he was not like to prove any great friend to a reformation; for he forbad all preaching throughout his diocese, and warned all the rest of the bishops throughout Eng- land to do the same. .... But this was only for a time, till orders for preachers and the beads could be finished; it being thought convenient that preach- ing at this juncture should be restrained, because now the matters of sermons chiefly consisted in tossing about the king’s marriage with the Lady Ann, and condemning so publicly and boldly his doings against Queen Katharine °.” In the following year (1534), was issued the this strange Sermon (p. 1688), Strype’s Eccles. Memorials, quoted by Mr. Haweis, in his vol. i. pp. 159—161. fol. (I. i. ‘Sketches of the Reformation 244—248. ed. Oxon.) from the Contemporary Pul- ° Strype’s Cranmer, Book I. mt. ip. 87.) ch. 5. (7 30.) 42 ress of the Preacher. “order, hinted before.” Among other things, it was enjoined, “that there should be no open con- tention in pulpits; several doctrines not to be touched at in sermons for a year; that preachers should preach the Word of God sincerely, without mixing it with human inventions, and divers other injunctions’.” And in the year following, in the visitation of the houses of the friars, we find among the orders given to the visitors, *‘ That diligent inquisition be made, how many preachers be in every monastery, and who. Then that all the sermons of each be severely examined; whether they be catholic and orthodox, and worthy of a truly Christian preacher, or no: if they shall be found Catholic and orthodox, then he shall be admitted a preacher; and his sermons approved. But otherwise they shall be burnt forthwith 4.” Early in the following reign, amid the eager move- ment in the way of reformation, we find it ordered, in a proclamation issued by King Edward, Feb. 6th, 1548, “that none should preach without licence from the king, or his visitors, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the bishop of the diocese (except it were a bishop, a parson, a vicar, a curate, a dean, or a provost in their own cure), upon pain of imprison- ment and other punishments".” But seeing “much harm” was still “done in disaffecting the people by seditious and contentious preaching,” “to prevent the further hurt thereof,” the king, by a proclamation, April 24th, charged and commanded, ‘“‘ That no man hereafter should be permitted to preach (how- ever, they might read the Homilies) except he were licensed by the King, the Lord Protector, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, under their seals. And the same license to be showed to the parson or curate, and two honest men of the parish beside, before P Strype’s Eccles. Mem., Culbidevoloat, p. 165. 1k vol. i. p. 169. (I. i. 259, 260.) i. 130, 131.) a Ibid. p. 207. (I. i. 320.) Saress of the Preacher; 43 his preaching, upon pain of imprisonment, both of the preacher, and of the curate that suffered him to preach without license. And a charge was given to all justices to look to this diligently. So that now no Bishop (except the Archbishop of Canterbury) might license any to preach in his own diocese; nay, nor might preach himself without license; and I have seen,” says Strype, ‘licenses to preach granted to the Bishop of Exeter, an. 1551, and to the Bishops of Lincoln and Chichester, an. 1552.” In the course, however, of the same year (1548), we are told, ** Notwithstanding the care used in licensing fit preachers, the sermons now preached gave much offence. For several who had preaching licenses, either from the King, the Lord Protector, or the Archbishop (for none else might give them out), and who, at the receiving those licenses, had good advice given them for their discreet using them, yet had abused this their authority, and behaved themselves irreverently, and without good order in their preaching, contrary to such good instructions and advertisements as were suggested to them. Whereby much contention and dis- order was in danger of arising in the realm. Wherefore the King, by a proclamation, Sept. 23, inhibited all preachers for a time, and gave notice of a public Form of Service ere long to be ex- pected. He told his subjects, ‘that minding to see very shortly one uniform order throughout his realm, and to put an end to all controversies in religion, so far as God should give him grace (for which cause, at that time, as he added, certain Bishops and notable learned men by his commandment were congregate), he thought fit to inhibit for a time, till that order should be set forth, as well the said preachers so before licensed, as all manner of persons whosoever they were, to preach in open audience in the pulpit, or elsewhere. To the end that the whole clergy, in this mean space, might apply themselves to prayer to Almighty God for the better achieving of the said most godly intent and pur- pose. Not doubting, but his loving subjects, in the mean time, would occupy themselves, to God’s honour, with due prayer in the Church, and patient hearing of godly homilies, heretofore set forth by his injunctions. And so endeavour themselves, that they might be the more ready, with thankful obedience, to receive * Ibid. vol. ii. p. 90. (II. 1. 141, 142.) 44 ress of the Preacher. a most quiet, godly, and uniform order, to be had throughout all his realms and dominions t.” And thus the pulpits continued silent, so far as preaching was concerned, until, in the month of May in the following year (1549), the Book of Com- mon Prayer was published, having passed the Convo- cation and both houses of Parliament in the January preceding. Such had been the progress of things in regard to preaching, and such were the associations connected in the public mind with the preacher’s function, when the First Prayer Book of Edward, restoring the sermon to its primitive place in the order of pub- lic service, made it to form once more an integral part of that service; though the prospect was at that time doubtless very remote of a condition of the Church, in which the parochial clergy generally would, in their several cures, supply the place of the preachers on whom the people were at that time, to so great an extent, dependent for instruction from the pulpit’. And the review which we have taken of the history will, I think, confirm the conclusion which we had drawn, on independent grounds, from the wording of the Rubric of Edward's First Book, respecting the dress of the preacher. And indeed, whatever might be the Church’s aim and desire, how rare a thing, comparatively speaking, the sermon was in those days expected to be, we might infer from the last of those Notes, or Rubrics, at the end of the Prayer Book in question, among which is that which t Ibid. vol. ii. pp. 117,118. says: ‘Some had not four (II. i. 183, 184.) sermons in sixteen years, since " “Gilpin, speaking of the the Friars ceased their limita- northern Churches, in his ser- tions.’”? Haweis, Sketches of mon preached at Greenwich, the Reformation, p. 86. ress of the Preacher. 45 we have been considering, respecting the vestments of the minister and the preacher. The last Rubric is, “ If there be a sermon, or for other great cause, the curate, by his discretion, may leave out the Litany, Gloria in Excelsis, the Creed, the Homily, and the Exhortation to the Communion.” And we have further evidence to the same point in King Edward’s Injunctions, put forth in 1547, of which “The first is, that... all ecclesiastical persons, having cure of souls, shall, to the uttermost of their wit, knowledge, and learn- ing, purely, sincerely, and without any colour or dissimulation, manifest and open, fowr times every year at the least’, in their sermons and other collations, that the bishop of Rome’s usurped power and jurisdiction, having no establishment nor ground by the laws of God, was of most just causes taken away and abolished. . . .” “Item, That they, the persons above rehearsed, shall make, or cause to be made in their churches, and every other cure they have, one Sermon every quarter of the year at the least, wherein they shall purely and sincerely declare the word of God; and in the same, exhort their hearers to the works of faith, mercy, and charity, specially prescribed and commanded in Scripture... .” “Item, That every holyday throughout the year, when they have no Sermon, they shall, immediately after the Gospel, openly and plainly recite to their parishioners in the pulpit the ‘ Pater Noster,’ the ‘ Credo,’ and the ‘Ten Commandments, in English, to the intent the people may learn the same by heart... .”’ ** Also, Because through lack of preachers in many places of the King’s realms and dominions, the people continue in igno- rance and blindness, all parsons, vicars, and curates, shall read in the Churches every Sunday one of the homilies, which are and shall be set forth for the same purpose by the King’s authority, in such sort as they shall be appointed to do in the preface of the same™.”’ Still further indications of the same kind are sup- plied in another Injunction, which orders, that ’ Compare Archbishop Peck- “ Cardwell’s Documentary ham’s Constitutions, sup. cit. Annals, vol. i. pp. 5, 6, 7. 19. 46 ress of the Preacher. ‘“‘ In the time of the litany, of the mass, of the sermon*, and when the priest readeth the Scripture to the parishioners, no manner of persons, without a just and urgent cause, shall depart out of the church; and all ringing and knolling of bells shall be utterly forborne at that time, except one bell, in convenient time, to be rung or knolled before the SermonY.” This order stands precisely in the same terms, omitting only the words “of the mass,” in Queen Elizabeth’s Injunctions of 15597; and the Sermon, as will appear hereafter, occupied the same place as it does now in the Service,—the place which was marked out for it by the Rubric of Edward’s Book. With regard to the ringing of the bell here spoken of, the following passage from L’Estrange’s “ Alliance of Divine Offices” may throw light upon the estab- lished order of things at the period referred to. He Says, «This bell was usually rung in the time of the Second Service, viz. the Litany 2, to give notice to the people; not that the Com- munion Service, as hath been supposed, but that the Sermon was then coming on..... In reference to the Sermon only it was rung, called therefore the ‘Sermon Bell,’ so that, when there was to be no Sermon, the bell was not rung; and Sermons were rare, very rare, in those days, in some places but once a quarter, and perhaps not then, had not authority strictly enjoined them: which usage of Sermon bells hath been practised, and is still, if I mistake not, in some parts of Germany; in Scotland I am sure, or the reverend Bishop of Galloway deceives me”. pursued his narrative through all the divisions of that Church’s first Service, at length he adds [‘ You hear the third bell ringing, and in this space the reader ceaseth, and at the end of the bell ce 99 ringing, the Preacher will come.’ |°. Having x “The Sermon,” it will be observed, is mentioned sepa- rately from ‘‘ the mass.” y Cardwell’s Documentary Annals, vol. i. p. 15. “ Ibid. p. 187. @ The Litany, it will be ob- served, was, by Edward’s and Elizabeth’s Injunctions, to pre- cede immediately the Com- munion Service. > « Bishop Cooper, his Se- venth day’s Conference.” © Alliance of Divine Offices, pp. 162, 163. ress of the Preacher. 47 This was the actual condition of things to which the Rubrics of Edward’s First Prayer Book had regard; so different from that which is tacitly pre- supposed, when from the bare wording of the Rubric, without reference to the circumstances of the time when it was drawn up, it is argued, that the supposi- tion of any change of dress is absolutely excluded by the words, “ Zhen shall follow the Sermon,” &c. It is observable, moreover, that, until the last Review, the wording of the Rubric did not appear to imply that the Sermon would be delivered by the same person who was to officiate as the Priest in the Communion Service. Our present Rubrics, it will be recollected, stand thus: q| ‘‘ Then the Curate shall declare unto the people what Holy- days, or Fasting days, are in the Week following to be observed, &e. q ‘“‘Then shall follow the Sermon, or one of the Homilies already set forth, or hereafter to be set forth, by authority. q ‘‘ Then shall the Priest return to the Lord’s Table, and begin the Offertory,” &c. This would seem to convey the idea, that the same person is the preacher and the minister officiating in the service for the Communion; but in the First Book of Edward, the Rubrics are these— **__A fter the Gospel ended, the Priest shall begin, I believe in one God, &c. ** After the Creed ended, shall follow the Sermon or Homily, or some portion of one of the Homilies, as they shall be hereafter divided ; wherein if the people be not exhorted to the worthy receiving of the holy Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, then shall the Curate give this Exhortation to those that be minded to receive the same, Dearly beloved in the Lord,” &c. ‘‘ Then shall follow for the Offertory one or more of these Sentences,” &c. In King Edward’s Second Book, and in Queen Elizabeth’s, the Rubrics stood thus,— 48 Dress of the Preacher. “ After the Creed, if there be no Sermon, shall follow one of the Homilies already set forth, or hereafter to be set forth, by common authority. ‘“* After such Sermon, Homily, or Exhortation, the Curate shall declare unto the people whether there be any holydays or fasting days the week following ; and earnestly exhort them to remember the poor, saying one or more of these sentences following, as he thinketh most convenient by his discretion.” It will be observed that, until the last Review, there is nothing to imply that the officiating “Priest,” or “ Minister,” or “Curate,” is the preacher ;—“ the Sermon” is simply spoken of. The slight alteration made in Edward the Second’s Book, by the substi- tution of the words “ After the Creed, if there be no Sermon,” &c., for, “ After the Creed endéd shall fol- low the Sermon,” &c., would seem to indicate the rarity of the Sermon, especially when we compare this Rubric with the wording of the injunction above cited respecting the holydays “when they have no Sermon.” And the Articles of Enquiry at Bishop Ridley’s Visitation of the diocese of London, issued in 1550°, during the interval between the putting forth of the First Book of Common Prayer and the Second, show clearly how matters stood in regard to preachers at this time. Among these Articles are the following,— ‘Whether every dean, archdeacon, and prebendary, being priest, doth personally by himself preach twice every year at the time before the 28th of June. 4 «*'There was nothing else done of moment this year” [1550], says Strype, ‘in rela- tion to the Church, save the visitation made of the diocese of London by Ridley, their new bishop. But the exact time of it is not set down in the Register. It was, according to King Edward’s Journal, some . So the visitation must have been about the beginning of June.’ Burnet, H. R. v. ii. p- 325. P. 1. p. 24." Comp. Strype, Mem. vol. 1. P. i. p. 355. Collier, vol. i. p. 304.” Cardwell, Doc. Ann. vol. i. p. 77, note. ress of the Preacher. 49 least, either where he is entitled, or where he hath jurisdiction, or in some place united or appropriate to the same ? “* Whether your minister, having license thereunto, doth use to preach; or, not licensed, doth diligently procure other to preach that are licensed ; or whether he refuseth those offering themselves that are licensed; or absenteth himself, or causeth other to be away from Sermon, or else admitteth any to preach that are not licensed © ?”’ And among the Injunctions given by Bishop Ridley, at the same Visitation, we find this,— “Item, That the Homilies be read orderly, without omission of any part thereof f.” Meanwhile some “preachers” were, at this time, in the same diocese of London preaching on other days beside Sundays and Holy days; as we find from “the Council’s letter to the Bishop of London against weekly lectures, with the Bishop of London’s letter for the execution of it to the Archdeacon of Colchester.” It appears’ from what Strype tells us, that “there was information sent to the court in June this year [1550] of another sort in Essex [beside cer- tain “sectaries” whom he had mentioned]; but they, as it seems, more harmless; namely, certain that came together on other days besides Sundays and holy days, to hear Sermons, who had preachers that then preached to them.” The letter from the Council ® dated June 23, prays Bishop Ridley “to take order that they preach the Holy days only, as they have been accustomed to do. And the work days to use those prayers that are prescribed unto them.” Bishop ® Doc. Ann., vol. i. pp. 78, 19. f Tbid. p. 83. 8 ‘“ Being advertised,” as the letter states, ‘“‘from the Lord Chancellor [Rich], that divers preachers, &c. .... whereas some inconveniences may grow. Thinking not convenient that the preachers should have liber- ty so to do, because at this pre- sent it may increase the peo- ple’s idleness, who of themselves are so much disposed to it, &c. We therefore pray you to take order,” &c. Ibid. pp. 84, 85. E 50 ress of the Prearher. Ridley’s letter to the Archdeacon of Colchester, dated June 25, desires him, “ with convenient expedition, not only to give warning to all cwrates within” his “archdeaconry, that they suffer no preach- img upon work days in their churches, but also to send for all and singular preachers authorized within” his “said archdeaconry, and to admonish them of the same; charging them in the king’s highness’ name, that from henceforth they do not preach but only upon Sundays and Holy days, and none other days, except it be at any burial or marriage °.” We have now sufficiently before us the whole case in regard to preaching, in the days of King Edward VI., to enable us to arrive at a satisfactory conclu- sion respecting the true interpretation of the Rubrics then made. And I think there can be little doubt what was at that time the ordinary dress of the preacher: that, as the Friar in preaching wore his habit, so the “preacher” of the Church, as now re- formed, would wear /zs,—the dress of the clerical order, or the gown of the Master of Arts, or of the * Doc. Ann., i. pp. 85, 86. This letter shows how far from accurate 1s the statement made in a recent article, before re- ant—character, that of the ser- mon during the Liturgy.” ‘The theory of this latter species of sermon,” we are told, “is dis- ferred to, (p. 24, note,) that, at the time of the Reformation, the itinerant preachers ‘‘ were sent about from parish to parish to preach on the week-days, and as they could get congre- gations:” though it is admitted at the same time, that “‘ with all this abnormal and merely oc- easional preaching, the Re- formers did not altogether de- prive the sermon of its other, equally—perhaps more import- tinct from that of the others. Its object is different and higher. Its place is either after the Creed or the Gospel.” But it was this very ‘‘Sermon during the Liturgy,” which our Church sought to restore, at a time when it had become _practi- cally obsolete. Most of Bishop Latimer’s ordinary Sermons, it may be observed, are on the Gospel for the Sunday. Mress of the Preacher. 51 Doctor of Divinity; with the hood worn over it, according to evident propriety and the express re- commendation of the Rubric, agreeably to the usage in the University. This, as I have said, would be the ordinary and regular dress of the “preacher” as such: although, indeed, in what was then the less frequent case, where the parish priest was himself the preacher, he would not improbably preach in the same dress in which he would read the Homily when there was no Sermon, viz. the albe, during the short period that the First Book of Edward remained in force (from 1549 to 1552), and afterwards the sur- plice. The people were not unaccustomed to the use of the albe or the surplice in the pulpit, previously to the First Book of Edward, so far.as regarded the read- ing of the Epistle and Gospel ; it having been ordered by the Injunctions of 1547, that “in the time of high mass, within every church, he that saith or sing- eth the same, shall read or cause to be read the Epistle and Gospel of that mass in English, and not in Latin, in the pulpit, or in such convenient place as the people may hear the same.” And in the Rubric of Edward’s First Book it was ordered that “the Collects ended, the Priest, or he that is ap- pointed, shall read the Epistle, in a place assigned for the purpose’.”. And no express direction had i Doc. Ann., i. pp. 13, 14. j There were not at that time, it will be recollected, reading- desks in the churches ; the mi- nister read the service from his seat, or stall in the quire. With regard to ‘“‘the pulpit,” the article referred to in a pre- ceding note, after quoting King Edward’s Injunction from Dr. Cardwell’s Doc. Annals, says, ‘The pulpit—a word meaning any high place—here alluded to, is the rood loft, which seems very reluctantly to have given way to the present pulpit. There are no Elizabethan pulpits :” and even Grindal only issues injunctions to alter, not to de- stroy, the rood lofts.” But the writer seems to have over- looked that King Edward’s Injunctions themselves suffici- ently explain what is meant E 2 52 Baress of the Preacher. been given by the Rubric of that Book respecting the dress to be worn by the preacher; although the circumstances of the Church at the period in ques- tion, in regard to preaching, as shewn in the facts and documents which have now been brought for- ward, would certainly seem to confirm the impression which, as we saw, would be derived from the wording of the Rubric itself, that the gown was the recognized and distinctive dress of the preacher. But we must now proceed to say a few words respecting the Order of Common Prayer adopted on the accession of Queen Elizabeth. It has been stated, as we have seen, that the direc- tions of Edward’s Second Book were “deliberately rejected *,” and the ornaments of the First revived. by the word “ pulpit” here. For they expressly order, a little further on, (Doc. Ann., 1. p. 17.) ‘That the church- wardens, at the common charge of the parishioners, in every church, shall provide a comely and honest pulpit, to be set in a convenient place within the same, for the preaching of God’s Word.” And the In- junctions of Elizabeth simply repeat the order of Edward’s, inserting only, instead of the last clause, the following, ‘‘ and to be there seemly kept for the preaching of God’s Word.” With regard to Grindal’s In- junctions, it will appear, on referring to Strype’s Life of Grindal, pp. 164, 165. (244, 245. 8vo.) that they were ‘for the pulling down and de- molishing [‘ad deponenda et diruenda,’ vid. Remains, p. 154] those ‘sustentacula’ commonly called rood lofts, placed at the door of the choir of every parish church, as footsteps of the old idolatry and supersti- tion, [for it seems those rood lofts, at least in many churches, were yet remaining in these northern parts.|” The order of the Queen’s Commissioners of 1561, sent with these Injunc- tions, did indeed speak of alter- ing, but to what that altering amounted will be seen in ex- amining the Orders in question. (Remains, ibid. note.) * It has been already ob- served, (p. 7, note,) that the matter was not brought before the Convocation, nor does there appear to have been any dis- cussion in Parliament on the particular point in question. In the House of Commons, in- deed, there seems to have been no discussion at all on the bill; the Commons simply accepted Zoress of the Preacher. 53 Upon this point, however, it should here be noticed, some difference seems to have existed between the Committee of Divines employed in the Review’, and the Crown. It would appear from a letter of Dr. Guest “to Sir William Cecyl, the Queen’s Secretary, concerning the Service Book, newly pre- pared for the Parliament to be confirmed, and certain ceremonies and usages of the Church,” that the Committee of Divines had agreed upon adopting the order of Kdward’s Second Book, in regard to the vestments for the Communion. For Guest thus writes in defence of the order proposed. He says, under the head “Of Vestments,” ‘“ Because it is thought sufficient to use but a surplice in baptiz- ing, reading, preaching, and praying, therefore it is enough also for the celebration of the Communion,” &c. And he ends his paper, which goes through all the points which had been discussed, by saying, “Thus, as I think, I have showed good cause why the service is set forth in such sort as it is. God, for his mercy in Christ, cause the Parliament with one occupied by Romanists,” says the Book, as it was laid before Dr. Cardwell, ‘‘no assistance them; and in the House of Lords the opposition made was to the whole Book, on the part of those who disapproved of the Reformation altogether, and would have retained the Romish service books. 1 «¢ A Committee of Divines had been instructed ‘to review the Book of Common Prayer, and Order of Ceremonies and service in the Church,’ with the design that their report should be laid before the Queen, and receive her approval before it should be submitted to Parlia- ment. At a time when the benefices of the Church were could be obtained from a Con- vocation for such an under- taking ;. and accordingly no questions of the kind were laid before them. It does not even appear that the Committee of Divines had any authority given to' them under the great seal, ‘being merely a private assem- bly, meeting at the house of Sir Thomas Smith, a doctor of civil law, and under his presi- dency, with the power of call- ing in other men of learning and gravity to assist them.”— Cardwell, Conferences, pp. 19, 20. 54 Dress of the Preacher. voice to enact it, and the realm with true heart to receive it™.” Before it finally passed, however, there was this alteration made in regard to the vestments, that the order of Edward’s /irst Book, and not the Second, was adopted. And that it was from the Queen, and not from the Parliament, that the alteration pro- eeeded*, might be gathered from a letter of Dr. Sandys to Parker, in which he says :— m Cardwell, Conferences, p. 00. n Mr. Benson’s statement of the matter (p. 22) will, I think, appear not quite correct. He says, ‘* We find, that upon the appointment, after the return of the exiles, of a Committee of Divines for the review of the Book of Common Prayer and Order of Ceremonies in the Church, it was their advice, that as to the robes worn by the Clergy in the time of their ministrations, no distinction should be made ‘between the celebration of the Communion and the other services of the Church.’ (See Cardwell’s Con- ferences, pp. 21, 22.) In other words, the Clergy, could they have had their own way, would have adhered, in this matter, to the second Liturgy of Ed- ward, and not the first. But the Queen and her Couneil, or the Parliament, would not con- sent to their wishes, and the new Book of Common Prayer appeared with the first Rubric, requiring the Minister to use such ornaments in the Chureh as were in use, by authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI. Thus the voice of the State prevailed over that of the Clergy, and we owe the origin of this enactment not, as some have said in their anxiety to establish its importance, to the piety and wisdom either of the early or the Elizabethan re- formers of our Church, but to the interference and authority of one or both the civil branches of the legislature. It is essen- tially a lay Rubric.” Upon this I would observe, that, even if we grant that the Committee of eight Divines, selected from the two chief parties in the Church, may be taken to represent the opinions generally of “the Clergy,” it was undoubtedly the Queen, and not the Parliament, that contended for the ornaments of the First Book: not ‘the State,” not ‘the interference or authority of either one or both of the civil branches of the legislature,” but the Queen in her ecclesiastical capacity, in which she was to have the report of the Committee of Divines laid before her to re- ceive her approval, before it went to the Parliament, for their consent in order to its fmal enactment by her ¢emporal authority. ‘* What shall be the manner of dong it?” was one of the Jaress of the Preacher. 55 “The last Book of Service is gone through, with a proviso to retain the ornaments which were used in the Ist and 2nd year of King Edward, until it please the Queen to take other order for them: our gloss upon this text is, that we shall not be forced to use them, but that others in the mean time shall not convey them away, but that they may remain for the Queen °.”’ The proviso in question was as follows, forming part of one of the clauses in the Act of Uniformity, which was passed on the 28th of April (1559). ** 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 were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI., until other order shall be therein taken by the authority of the Queen’s Majesty, with the advice of her Commissioners, appointed and authorized under the great seal of England for causes eccle- siastical, or of the Metropolitan of this realm ?.” And accordingly in the Prayer Book the follow- ing note was inserted, immediately before the Order for Morning Prayer. ** And here it is to be noted that the Minister at the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his Ministration, shall use such ornaments in the Church, as were in use by authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the questions in the paper contain- In another place Mr. Benson ing the ‘* Device for alteration of religion in the first year of Queen Elizabeth,” supposed to be drawn up by Sir Thos. Smith: and the answer is, ‘The consultation is to be re- ferred to such learned men as be meet to show their minds herein ; and to bring a plat or book hereof, ready drawn, to her Highness. Which, being approved of by her Majesty, may be so put into the Parlia- ment house.’’ (Cardwell, Conf., p. 47.) says undoubtingly, respecting copes (p. 39), “ The divines, in framing our Liturgy, left them out, the Queen and her Council afterwards putting some of them in again.” I cannot find any evidence that the Council had any influence in this matter. ° Cardwell, Conf., p. 36, note, referring to Strype, Ann., vol. 1. P. 1. p. 122. Burnet, H. R., vol. i1..P. 2, p. 465. P Sparrow, p. 81. 56 ress of the Prearher. Sixth, according to the Act of Parliament set in the beginning of this book 4.” Upon this arrangement and the proceedings con- nected with it, Dr. Cardwell thus remarks :— “The Rubric of 1559, that restored the ornaments and vest- ments of the second year of King Edward, was extremely galling to the exiles, and would probably have prevented the greater number of them from becoming ministers of the Church, had not the Act of Uniformity furnished them with a plea for complying’. It had been enacted * that the queen, with the advice of her commissioners or the metropolitan, might make such changes in The re- formers" therefore were not without some reason for hoping, that the rubrics as might afterwards be found requisite *. 4 The Rubric of Edward’s Second Book, which was super- seded by this of Queen Eliza- beth’s, it will be recollected, ran thus: ‘And here it is to be noted that the Minister, &c.,.. . shall use neither alb, vestment, nor cope; but being Archbishop or Bishop, he shall have and wear a rochet; and being a priest or deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice only.” * It is hardly a fair repre- sentation, I think, of Dr. Sandys’ letter, above quoted, to say, as Mr, Benson does (p. 22), that Sandys, “* probably with many others, expressed an intention of non-conformity, which, as they had neither to subscribe the 34th Canon, nor to make the declarations prescribed by Charles the Second’s Act of Uniformity, amounted only to a resolution of running the risk of being informed against, and punished for disobedience.”’ It would seem to me rather as if he fully understood the real state of the case, and felt con- vinced that the order thus em- bodied in the new Prayer Book would, nevertheless, mn prac- tice, not be acted upon or en- forced ; in which expectation, in fact, he was not mistaken. ‘““No attempt was ever made,” as Mr. Robertson observes (p. 74), and I believe, quite cor- rectly, ‘‘to enforce (at least on the parochial Clergy) those or- naments by the disuse of which our present practice” [as theirs also, wemay add | ‘‘seems to fall short of the Rubric”’ [ of Edw.’s First Book]. ‘‘Copes, &c. . . were never, I believe, prescribed by any ordinary for parish churches.” And not only were these ornaments never enforced, but, as the same writer states (p. 295), and I believe with equal correctness, no record is found of their having been “‘ever worn by the parochial clergy.” Dr. Sandys, it is to be borne in mind, had been one of the Committee of Divines. * 1 Eliz. c, 2.:$ 25,7263 t [The power reserved to the Crown by these clauses is stated here, surely, somewhat too broadly. | " {Dr. Cardwell quotes, in a note, the passage given above from Sandys’ letter to Parker. | Dress of the Preacher; 57 their brethren who might be advanced to high stations in the church, would retain their present spirit of moderation, and exer- cise a salutary influence on the future proceedings of the court. But the clauses in question, however available for such purposes, were probably introduced with very different designs. It appears that they were added to the bill at the express direction of the queen, and were intended to assist her in carrying forward the high views of doctrine and authority which she was known to entertain *.”’ The correctness, however, of this last observation I must venture to question. The clause referred to, I cannot doubt, was introduced as a compromise between the opposing views of the Committee of Divines and the Sovereign, and as the best method which offered itself of avoiding what might otherwise have caused an immediate breach. There was, in- deed, another clause (or, rather, another part of the same clause) which empowered the Queen to make alteration in that direction which would have been congenial to her own feelings”; but the former proviso was certainly a balance against the conces- sion which had been made to the Queen’s wishes; and we shall find, if I mistake not, in the sequel, that the power thus reserved was used, when occa- sion arose, in the very spirit which Sandys seems confidently to have anticipated would not be want- Y Conferences, pp. 36, 37. “ The remainder of the clause is as follows: ‘‘ And also that if there shall happen any con- tempt or irreverence, to be used in the ceremonies or rites of the Church, by the misusing of the orders appointed in this Book, the Queen’s Majesty may, by the like advice of the said Commissioners, or Metro- politan, ordain and _ publish such further ceremonies, or rites, as may be most for the advancement of God’s glory, the edifying of his Church, and the due reverence of Christ's holy mysteries and Sacra- ments.” ‘But for which law, her Highness would not have agreed to divers orders of the Book ;” as she signified to Archbishop Parker, when she ‘‘ talked with” him ‘once or twice on that point.” See a letter of his to Secretary Cecil, written in 1569 or 1570, and given by Strype in his Life, p. 809. (IL. 34.) 58 Dress of the Preacher. ing in the rulers of the Church, when he wrote as we have seen to Doctor, or (as he soon afterwards be- came) Archbishop Parker. But we must first notice one or two points, more immediately connected with the question respecting the dress worn in preaching at the beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s reign. It will have been ob- served, that in Dr. Guest’s letter to Cecil, already quoted, mention is made of the surplice as that which, according to the order already established, it was “thought sufficient to use in baptizing, reading, preaching, and praying ;” from which manner of speaking it has been inferred, that the surplice was, at the time in question, the usual * dress in preach- ing. But let us observe what the argument is in the passage in which it occurs. Dr. Guest is vindicating the giving up of the cope or vestment as the pecu- liar vesture appointed for the Communion ; and his argument is this—A surplice is thought sufficient for every other ministration; a cope or a vestment is not required for those other services, and why then for this (which in his view was not to be regarded as of higher dignity than they)? The passage is a clear proof, if proof were needed, that the Sermon was never preached, at that time, in cope or vestment? ; * Mr. Benson observes, more correctly, (p. 48), “It would seem to imply, that as in bap- tizing, so in preaching, the sur- plice was then used.” Thus much it certainly would imply, as, it will be seen, is admitted in the remarks made above. y And consequently, the hypothesis that the same dress was to be used in the Sermon as in the Communion Service, is not tenable. Mr. Benson, whose pamphlet has appeared since the above was written, deduces the same conclusion from consideration of ‘ the grounds upon which the use of the cope was enjomed and ob- jected to, as the vestment to be used exclusively in the Com- munion Service.” ‘Much of the force of the objection made to it would,” as he observes, “have been removed in the eyes of those who made it, had they known or thought that the cope was to be carried from Mress of the Preacher: 59 but it will hardly prove that the surplice was the usual preaching dress:—it would certainly imply that it was used in some places, or on some occa- sions, In preaching; and, as we have already seen, it was so used in the quire of Cathedral and Collegiate Churches by members of the Cathedral or Collegiate body, and may, not improbably, have been used also, as we have seen reason to suppose, by parish priests, although there were comparatively few of these who at that time were preachers. We have already had occasion to refer to the Injunctions put forth by Queen Elizabeth in the same year (1559), the first of her reign. It is in- teresting to compare them with King Edward’s of 1547, upon which they are grounded:—we may trace in them an advance in regard to the require- ment of preaching from the parochial Clergy, but nevertheless the same recognition, clearly marked, of the “preachers” as specially licensed to that function. The third of these Injunctions is :— ‘That they, the parsons above rehearsed, [ viz. ‘all ecclesiasti- the Communion table to the pulpit.” For undoubtedly, as he remarks, ‘‘they could no longer have urged, that the appointment of a peculiar and more pompous vestment for the administration of the holy Communion gave to it a dan- gerous and improper distinc- tion, likely to lead, if not actually intended to counte- nance, superstitious notions of its nature and effects. The answer to all such objections would, in that case, have been obvious. ‘The Sermon,’ the defenders of the injunction would have said, ‘is preached in a cope, as well as the holy Communion administered in it; and, consequently, by the use of this habit, in the way in which it is prescribed, we afford no more encouragement to su- perstitious notions of the altar, than of the pulpit.’” (pp. 46, 47.) But, indeed, it seems pretty well ascertained that the vest- ment or cope would, in any case, be laid aside for preach- ing: the only question that remains is, whether the further change took place of the sur- plice for the gown; and of this, we have already seen there is not wanting good evidence. 60 Dress of the Preacher: cal persons having cure of souls’] shall preach in their churches, and every other cure they have, one Sermon every month of the year at the least, wherein they shall purely and sincerely declare the word of God’,” &c... “4, Item, That they, the parsons above rehearsed, shall preach in their own persons once in every quarter of the year at least one Sermon, being licensed especially thereunto, as is specified hereafter ; or else shall read some Homily prescribed to be used by the Queen’s authority every Sunday at the least, unless some other preacher, sufficiently licensed, chance to come to the parish for the same purpose of preaching 3.” **8. Also that they shall admit no man to preach within any their cures, but such as shall appear unto them to be sufficiently licensed thereunto by the» queen’s majesty or the archbishop of Canterbury or York, in either of their provinces, or by the bishop 2 Cardwell, Doc. Ann., vol. i. p. 180. In the corresponding injunction of Edward VI., (cf. sup. p. 45.) it stands thus, “That they, the persons above rehearsed, shall make or cause to be made in their churches, . one sermon every quar- ter of the year at the least, wherein,” &c. ‘‘In Dr. Cardwell’s notes on Queen Elizabeth’s Injunctions (Doc. Ann., vol. i. p. 204, sq.) will be found the ‘ Interpreta- tions and further Considera- tions’ of these Injunctions for the better direction of the clergy, which” were drawn up shortly afterwards, in 1560, by the archbishop and bishops, and which ‘are preserved in Arch- bishop Parker’s papers (vol. entitled ‘Synodalia’) at Cam- bridge, and are published by Strype, as follows :— «To the third injunction the interpretation is, That if the person be able, he shall preach in his own person every month ; or else shall preach by another, so that his absence be approved by the ordinary, in respect of sickness, service, or study at the universities. Nevertheless, for want of able preachers and parsons, to tolerate them with- out. penalty, so they preach in their own persons, or by a learned substitute, once in every three months of the year.’” Comp. Strype, who says, upon this paper of ‘‘ Interpretations,”’ ‘‘Tt was framed, as it seems to me, by the pen of Cox, bishop of Ely, and revised by the Archbishop.”” Annals, vol. 1. p. 213. (I. i. 318.) 4 Ibid. pp. 180, 181.—The 5th Injunction, respecting the holydays, ‘‘ when they have no Sermon,” is the same verbatim with King Edward’s, sup. cit. PD. 40. > In King Edward’s Injunc- tions it is—‘‘by the King’s majesty, the lord protector’s grace, the archbishop of Can- terbury, the archbishop of York in his province, or the bishop of the diocese; and such, &c.. without resistance or contra- diction.” The clause that fol- lows, appears first in the In- junctions of Queen Elizabeth. Dress of the Preacher. 61 of the diocese, or by the queen’s majesty’s visitors. And such as shall be so licensed, they shall gladly receive to declare the word of God without resistance or contradiction. And that no other be suffered to preach out of his own cure or parish, than such as shall be licensed, as is above expressed °.”’ “97. Also, because through lack of preachers in many places of the queen’s realms and dominions the people continue in igno- rance and blindness, all parsons, vicars, and curates, shall read in their churches every Sunday one of the homilies 4,” &c. The following Injunction respecting the ordinary dress of the Clergy appears for the first time in the Injunctions of Elizabeth, there being nothing cor- responding to it in King Edward’s. ** 30. Item, Her majesty being desirous to have the prelacy and clergy of this realm to be had as well in outward reverence, as otherwise regarded for the worthiness of their ministries, and thinking it necessary to have them known in all places and assem- blies, both in the church and without, and thereby to receive the honor and estimation due to the special messengers and ministers of Almighty God, willeth and commandeth that all archbishops and bishops, and all other that be called or admitted to preaching or ministry of the Sacraments, or that be admitted into vocation ecclesiastical, or into any society of learning in either of the universities, or elsewhere, shall 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®; not thereby meaning to attribute any holiness or © Ibid. pp. 182, 1838. * Ibid. p. 191.—Compare the Injunction of Edward with which this agrees verbatim, and which is cited above, p. 45. ¢ This Injunction is thus quoted, with strange looseness and inaccuracy, by the writer of the reply to the Quarterly Review (C. 1. H.”’). He cites as a testimony to the use of the surplice, ‘In 1564,” [lege 1559 | * Queen’s Injunctions, 30. In which ‘all who are admitted to preaching or ministry of the sacraments are enjoined to use the same dress in the Church as was ordered in Edward’s Second Book, 1. e. surplice.’”’ To which he adds the ‘‘ Query, was preaching in the Church ?”' But the words on which so much stress is laid (the italics are the writer’s own) do not exist in the Injunction ; and the Injunction evidently has regard chiefly to the ‘‘extern apparel”’ of the Clergy ; and the ‘“seemly ha- bits, garments,” which it speaks of in connexion with the ‘square 62 Dress of the Prearher. special worthiness to the said garments, but as St. Paul writeth ; ‘Omnia decenter et secundum ordinem fiant.’ 1 Cor. xiv. cap.f” These passages, from the Injunctions of 1559, will serve not merely to illustrate the relation in which the “preachers” stood at that time to the parochial clergy, as a body, but also to supply a commen- tary on the wording of the Rubric in the new Prayer Book of the same year, respecting the ornaments of the Minister “at the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his ministration.” It has already been observed, in reference to the notes of Bishop Cosin, that the latter words must evidently be under- stood in relation to the former order of Kdward’s First Book, the new Rubric having regard to the distinction of dress which had been made in that Book between “the time of Communion” and the other “times of ministration,” viz. “the saying or singing of mattens, baptizing, and burying.” And among the “ Interpretations” of the Injunctions already referred to, as drawn up in 1560, is the following. “Concerning the book of service. First, 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 ®.” caps,’ are evidently not sur- plices, but gowns; so that if the Injunction proved any thing, it would prove the very reverse of what it is quoted to prove. “For if this Injunction is to be taken as referring to the dress ‘in templo’ as well as ‘in usu externo,’ of Edward’s last year (which there is ground to think it must),”—I quote “C. I. H.’s” words, (p. 18)—it proves the use of the gown in the church, for it is certainly the gown that is here spoken of. And this removes the difficulty which has been found in re- conciling the interpretation with the Injunction, and with the order of the Rubric, respecting the use of the cope. Nothing is said in the Injunction about ‘¢ Edward’s Second Book.” f Ibid. p. 193. & Doc. Ann., vol. i. p. 205, note. Mr. Benson thinks, (p. 48,) “It is difficult not to re- gard preaching as a ministra- tion ;” and adds, “If it be so, the above rule holds, with all Saress of the Preacher. 63 Of the distinction, before alluded to, as disco- verable in documents of this period, between the “preacher” and the “minister,” we have sufficient evidence in these Injunctions. The distinction is, perhaps, most clearly marked in the 36th: ** That no man shall willingly let or disturb the preacher in the time of his Sermon, or let or discourage any curate or minister to sing or say the divine Service now set forth; nor mock or jest at the ministers of such service ».”’ I conceive, then, that the term “ministration” being thus limited, in common usage at the time, to liturgical offices, the established order, in regard to the dress of the preacher, remained as before, and as, in fact, it had continued unaltered through the change made from Edward’s First Book to the Second, and from that to Hlizabeth’s, in regard to the special vestments appointed for the celebration of the Communion. The “preacher,” properly so called, wore, doubtless, the same dress throughout, viz. the gown with the hood over it, if he conformed himself strictly to the rule of Edward’s First Book. And that the gown was at this time the ordinary habit of the preacher, is, I think, placed beyond all doubt by the petition made to the Convocation of the authority of the Bishops of | that time, that the sermon ought to be delivered in a sur- plice.” At the same time he says, ‘“‘the putting forth the rule leads us to suppose, that uniformity of apparel was not generally maintained, and consequently might have not been hitherto observed in preaching.”’ I think, however, it will appear clear, on the evidence derived from the In- junctions themselves, and from other documents, that preaching was not included in the “ mi- nistrations”’ spoken of. 4 Doc. Ann., vol. 1. p. 194. Comp. Inj. 58, in which men- tion is made of ‘‘ ministers and readers of public prayers, chap- ters, and homilies.’” Compare also Bishop Bonner’s Injunc- tions, (Burnet, Book iii. App. No. 26,) ‘ in time of Divine Service and preaching the word of God ”’—‘‘in time of Divine Service or Sermon time.” 64 ress of the Preacher. 1562’, by “ certain members of the Lower House, with their names underwritten (to the number of thirty-three), concerning such things,” says Strype, “as that house, nevertheless, agreed not to by com- mon consent.” One of these was, ‘‘ 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 commonly they do in preaching *.” i Mr. Benson refers to this (p. 48), speaking of it as “‘a paper presented by thirty-three members to the lower house of Convocation in 1564 [lege 1562 |, which demanded: ‘That copes and surplices be laid aside, and that the habit of the desk and the pulpit be the same.’”’ He refers for this quotation to Collier, vol. 11. p. 486, and then proceeds thus to point out the obvious inference from it. *‘ As they required,” he says, ‘‘ the discontinuance of the surplice, the habit of the desk, they could not have meant that the habit of the desk should be made that of the pulpit, but that the habit of the pulpit should be made that of the desk. What the habit of the pulpit, which they wished to make general, could be, unless it were a gown, I know not; and if it was the gown, it shows that the surplice was not then universally em- ployed in preaching.”” Collier, to whom Mr. Benson refers as his authority, is responsible for the very inaccurate quotation, which, however, Mr. Benson does not quote quite accurately from him; itis in Collier, ‘‘'That the copes and surplices may be laid aside, and that the habit of the desk and the pulpit may be the same.”’ The quotation, _ meant.” as made by Collier, shows at least what was the impression which he derived from the do- cument in question, in regard to preaching in Churches gene- rally. k Strype’s Annals, vol. i. p. 336. (1. 1. 501.) The Bishop of London quotes this in a note to his Charge of 1842 (p. 74), adding —‘‘i. e., [conceive, when Sermons were preached with- out the reading of the Com- mon Prayer.” Upon which Mr. Robertson remarks (p. 107), ‘Although it would seem that Sermons were delivered under such circumstances by the ‘ li- censed preachers,’ and conse- quently were far more common in that age than now, I am still inclined to think, as before see- ing his Lordship’s Charge, that ordinary preaching may also be This impression, I think, would certainly be con- firmed by what we have seen of the documents of this period, and of the place which preach- ing generally occupied in the order then established or rather restored, as forming part of the Sunday service, in which, in the absence of a Sermon, a homily was to be read, in the appointed place in the Service after the Creed. Mr. Robert- son elsewhere says (p. 251), ress of the Preacher. 65 The word “ministry,” it will be observed, is used here in the same sense in which we have interpreted it in the Rubric of Queen Elizabeth’s Prayer Book : it stands here in clear contradistinction to “ preach- ing.” The article above quoted is followed imme- diately by another, to this effect, ‘** That the ministers of the word and sacraments be not com- pelled to wear such gowns and caps, as the enemies of Christ’s Gospel have chosen to be the special array of their priesthood.” This article, compared with the preceding, would suggest that there was some difference between that which they described as the usual preaching dress, and the gown which had been worn with the cap by the unreformed Clergy. But such difference would be easily explained by the help of Anthony a Wood’s statement, respecting the ancient Academical and the Genevan gown. At the head of the names subscribed to this paper was that of Nowel, dean of St. Paul’s, prolocutor; and after giving the whole paper, with the signatures, Strype remarks, “ By the foregoing articles we may plainly perceive, how much biassed these divines were (most of which seem to ‘“‘we may safely conclude, that of Prayer set forth during Eli- the licensed preachers who were sent through the kingdom in those times, did not confine their preaching to the mornings of Sundays and holydays.” But we have seen how promptly the check was given to this practice, in the diocese of London, by Bishop Ridley, in conformity with the desire of the Council, and how strictly he limited ser- mons to the appointed times. ** Sermon or homily on Wednes- days and Fridays is, indeed, mentioned,” as Mr. Robertson observes, ‘in various orders zabeth’s reign on occasion of public calamities,—e. g. the plague of 1563 (Grindal, Rem. 84), and the earthquake of 1580 (Clay on the Common Prayer, 190).” But then it is to be observed, in these cases the Sermon formed part of the Service. Nor am I aware of any authoritative recognition, at this time, of the Sermon apart from the regular service. And the ‘‘ preaching,” mentioned in the paper laid before Convo- cation in 1562, must, I. con- ceive, be so understood. F 66 ress of the Preacher. have been exiles) towards those platforms which were received in the reformed churches where they had a little before sojourned.” It may be well to observe, that one of the seven artieles in the paper of requests above referred to was, “That in the 33rd article,” [in the Book of Articles just adopted and subscribed, | “‘ of doctrine concerning ceremonies, these words may be miti- gated: ‘Is, ut qui peccat in publicum ordinem ecclesix, quique ledit authoritatem magistratus, et qui infirmorum fratrum conscientias vulnerat, pub- licé, ut ceeteri timeant, arguendus est.’” It is needless to observe that no change was made; but the pro- position itself may serve as an indication of the variance between the feelings and sentiments of the petitioners and that of those by whom our Articles were drawn up. The Article in question, it may be remarked, had been taken, without alteration, from the earlier Book of Articles of Edward VI. The proposition for modification in the 35rd, or rather the 34th Article, reveals the working, not yet fully developed, of the spirit of insubordination which was destined to involve the Church in so long and sad a conflict. It will be recollected that the object of censure,—censure, surely, it must be allowed, very temperately expressed,—in the Article, the latter part of which it was thus desired might be “ miti- gated,” was only he “whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly, and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be approved and ordained by common authority ;” and of such an one it simply declares, in the words ex- cepted against, that he “ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear todo the like,)as he that offendeth ress of the Preacher. 67 against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.” The Convocation here referred to, the reader will hardly need to be reminded, was, to use Strype’s language, “that famous Convocation of the Clergy, in which were framed and agreed upon the Thirty- nine Articles of Religion, the professed doctrine of the Church of England, and many other matters consulted and debated for the establishment of true religion, order of the clergy, and the decent and edifying worship of God in this church ™.” “* This memorable convocation of the clergy of the province of Canterbury,” says our Annalist, ‘‘ wherein the matters of the Church were to be debated and settled for the future regular service of God, and establishment of orthodox doctrine, was called together in the chapter-house of St. Paul’s, on the 12th of January, the day also of the parliament’s first meeting. . . . Janu- ary the 13th, being the second session, the archbishop came himself in person into the cathedral of St. Paul’s, being attended thither from the water-side by the doctors, and the other officers and ministers of his court of Canterbury, with great honour and reverence, agreeable to his high place in the English church. After he and the rest of the bishops of his province were placed in the choir, the Litany in English being said, and Veni Creator sung, Mr. William Day, B.D., provost of Eton, preached upon 1 Pet. v. 2. ‘ Feed the flock of God which is among you,’ &c. and after sermon the first psalm sung in English ; then the bishop of London administered the Communion to the archbishop and 93 bishops ". It may be asked, as we are upon the subject of the preaching dress, in what dress the Sermon was preached on this occasion. The records of the Con- vocation will give us full information of the vest- m Annals, vol. 1. p. 315. 0 Ibid. pp. 315, 316. (I. i. (I. i. 470.) 471, 472. Bee 68 ress of the Preacher. ments worn by all who were engaged in the service and duties of the day °. “Die Mercurii, viz. 18° die Januarii anno Domini juxta computationem ecclesiz Anglicanz millesimo quingentesimo sexagesimo secundo, reverendissimus in Christo pater dominus Mattheeus, archiepiscopus Cantuariensis, &c. mane circa horam octavam ante meridiem dicti diei, Lambetha solvens in navicula sua, vulgo nuncupata a barge, ad ripam vocatam Paul’s Wharf, comitante ewm reverendo patre domino Nicholao Lincoln. episcopo, applicuit, ibique ab advocatis et procuratoribus et czeteris minis- tris curiz suze Cantuariensis acceptus, pedibus ambulans, deductus fuit ad foras australes ecclesize cathedralis divi Pauli London, ibique ad ostium australe ejusdem, decanus, canonici, et czteri ministri ejusdem ecclesize superpelliteis induti eum prestola- bantur, ac ad vestiarium ejusdem ecclesia perduxerunt ; ibique amictu et habitu suis vestitus, ac chorum ipsius ecclesize (comi- tantibus eum episcopis suffraganeis provinciz suze Cantuariensis similibus habitibus indutis) ingressus, in stallo decani collocatus fuit, caeteris episcopis suffraganeis provinciz Cantuariensis habi- tibus suis in hujusmodi negotio convocationis solitis, indutis, im stallis preebendariorum ex utraque parte chori sedentibus; ac consequenter decantata fuit per ministros ecclesiz Letania, in sermone vulgari, (juxta morem et ritum in libro nuncupato ‘The Book of Common Prayers,’ etc. descriptum.) Qua finita, ° In his Life of Parker, order to be observed by his Strype tells us how all had been duly arranged beforehand. ** And first,” he says, ‘‘ that it might be entered upon in a synodal way with the greater order and solemnity, according to antique practice, the Arch- bishop himself, or some of his officers by his direction (as it seems), drew up a directory in Latin. It is printed both in ‘The rights and powers of an English Convocation,’ and in the ‘Synodus Anglicana,’ in the Appendix to each book. And therefore I shall not here repeat it. But the sum of it in English, taken out of the acts of 1562, pointing out the Grace the first day of the Convocation, was as followeth, Vi7t tok “Item. At the said southe doore of Paules, the Dean of Residenciaries, with al other the ministers of the said Church to wait for his Grace within the said doore. ... Item... the ministers of the Church to sing first the Litany, and after- wards the hymne ‘ Veni Cre- ator,’ in English. Item, the Litanye and hymne being so songe, the Preacher to enter the pulpit, and to preach in Latin.” Strype’s Parker, p. 120. (I. 238.) Dress of the Preacher, 69 ac hymno Veni Creator, etc. per ministros ejusdem ecclesia, in vulgari solenniter decantato, magister Wilhelmus Daye, sacre theologize baccalaureus, przepositus collegii Regalis de Eaton, habitu baccalaurei in theologia indutus, suggestum in medio chori positum ingressus fuit, ac ibidem concionem Latinam stilo venusto ad patres et clerum ac populum presentes habuit?,” &c. We have here an illustration of the distinction to be observed between “ministration” and “ preaching,” and of the difference made in the order of the First Book of Common Prayer between cathedral and col- legiate churches and others. ‘That order presumes that the members of the cathedral or collegiate ehurch will, in the choir, be in their surplices, be- cause they are al] “ministers” of the church, per- forming its liturgical service: not so the preacher, in his office of preacher, even when he preaches within. the choir, unless he be a member of the cathedral body, and as such, being in the choir, wears his surplice *. P Cardwell’s Synodalia, vol. i. pp. 497, 498. Compare Strype’s Life of Parker, p. 121. (I. 239, 240.) 4 And that this is the true view of the case, will appear further from comparing with the records of the Convocation of 1562, those of 1640, in which the proceedings are recorded with equal fulness of detail, and, for the most part, in nearly the same words. ‘* Die Martis, decimo quarto viz. die mensis Aprilis anno _ Domini, &c. . . . reverendissi-* mus in Christo pater, &c. ... mane inter horas octavam et nonam ante meridiem ejusdem diei, a manerio suo de Lambe- hith in naviculo suo &c.... ad ripam dictam &c. . . . applicuit, ibidemque ab advocatis &c.... . . . acceptus, in curru sive ve- hiculo ad palatium episcopale London. venit. Ac paulo post, idem reverendissimus _ pater amictu et habitu suis vestitus, ab advocatis, &c. ... ad os- tium boreale ecclesize Pauline juxta palatium episcopale Lon- don. antedictum. .. . ductus fuit. Ibique venerabiles viri Thomas Wynnyff, sacree theo- logize professor, decanus, &c. ... ceeterique ministri eyusdem ecclesia, superpelliceis induti, eum preestolabantur, &c. ... ac consequenter decantato per ministros chori preedicti hymno, ‘Te Deum laudamus,’ &c. in sermone Anglicano; venerabilis vir Thomas ‘Turner, sacrze theo- logize professor, canonicus re- sidentiarius dictz ecclesiz ca- thedralis sancti Pauli London. 70 ress of the Preacher. But to proceed with the acts of the Convocation which bear on the question in hand. “To prepare matter for the synod,” says Strype, “the archbishop had it beforehand in his serious thoughts; and set others also on work, no doubt, upon it. There is a notable paper to this purpose,” he continues, “ which I will begin withal; adding the marginal notes, some writ by the archbishop himself, some by others. But who the composer of this paper was, I cannot say. It was entitled, *** General notes of matters to be moved by the clergy im the next Parliament and synod.’ ‘‘T, A certain form of doctrine to be conceived in Articles, and after to be published and authorized. ‘TT. Matters worthy of reformation, concerning certain rites, &c. in the Book of Common Prayer. ‘III. Ecclesiastical laws and discipline to be drawn’.” &c. . . Under the second head we find :— ‘“‘First, That the use of vestments, copes, and surplices, be from henceforth taken away.” Under the third head :— “Item, That the apparel of ministers may be uniform and limited, of what fashion it shall be, touching the cap and upper garment.” Upon this there is a marginal note, “No adversary may wear the same. Deliberetur ’*.” suggestum in medio chori posi- tum ingressus fuit. Ac ibidem concionem,” &c. (Cardwell’s Synodalia, vol. 11. pp. 593— 595.) In this instance nothing is said of the dress of the preacher ; it being implied by the men- tion of him as a canon residen- tiary of the cathedral, that he was in his surplice. * Strype’s Annals, vol. i. p. 317. (I. i. 478, 474.) s Another article is, ** That none be abled in law to receive any benefice, or other spiritual promotion, exceeding the yearly value of 380/. unless he be a preacher before he receive the same.”” And the explana- tion is added, “* By a preacher is meant such an one as hath preached before his ordinary, and hath his approbation under seal to be a preacher.” Strype’s Annals, vol. i. pp. 319, 320. (I..i. 475—477.) ress of the Preacher. 71 “'The synod being met,” says Strype, ““seemed to guide themselves by the former method, and began with the Articles of Religion '.”. . . “The matters of doctrine, to be believed and owned as the faith of the church of England, being thus despatched, according to the former method, the convocation proceeded to the reformation of rites and ceremonies, and other matters on the public liturgy. And here,” says. Strype, “bishop Sandys brought in his paper;”’ which, it appears, contained a proposal for obtaining certain omissions“ to be made in the Book of Common Prayer, “with her majesty’ authority, with the assistance of the archbishop of Canterbury, according to the limita- tion of the Act provided in that behalf’.” Though nothing came of it, the proposal is worthy of notice, as a recognition of the clause already referred to in the Act of Uniformity, and of which we shall have occasion to speak further. Besides Bishop Sandys’ paper, “there was put in also the petition, already referred to, of certain members of the lower house ”. * Strype’s Annals, vol. i. p. 325. (I. i. 484.) "One of these was, that there ‘“‘might be taken out of the Book of Common Prayer private baptism, which hath respect unto women who, by the word of God, cannot be ministers of the sacraments, or any one of them.” ‘The other was, that ‘‘ the collect for cross- ing the infant in the forehead may be blotted out: as it seems very superstitious, so it is not needful.” Y Collier seems to have mis- apprehended altogether the re- ference to the Act, when he says (vol. li. p. 485), “ This matter the Bishop would have governed by the direction of an Act of Parliament to be made for that purpose.” And again, ‘‘ That the making the Cross, &c., might be razed out of the office, and the rasure confirmed by the secular autho- rity above-mentioned.” w One article in this petition embodied the two points re- ferred to in Bishop Sandys’ paper, viz., baptism by any but ministers only, and the sign of the Cross used in bap- tism. Annals, vol. i. p. 335. (I. i. 499—501.) 72 ress of the Preacher. But at a later period in the session of the same Convocation, there was a formal proposition for alteration in several points of liturgical order, of which Strype gives the following account :— ‘¢On February the 13th, there was a notable matter brought into the lower house ; the determination of which matter depended For on the day afore- said these articles were read, to be approved or rejected.” . . . upon a narrow scrutiny of the members. Strype then enumerates the Articles, which were six In number, and one of which was :— “©3, That it be sufficient for the minister, in time of saying divine service, and ministering of the sacraments, to use a sur- plice; and that no minister say Service, or minister the Sacra- ments, but in a comely garment or habit *.” “Upon this arose a great contest in the house; some saying, they approved of these articles, others not; and others moving that the allowing or not allowing them should be left to the arch- bishop of Canterbury and the prelates ; and very many protesting that they would not by any means consent, that any thing con- tained in those articles should be approved, as they did any ways vary from the book of common Service, received before in this kingdom by authority of Parliament, [i. e. in the first of the queen, when the book of Service and administration of the Sacra- ments used in king Edward the Sixth’s time was established, and all other forms and rights [rites] forbidden. ] Nor that any change should be made against the orders, rites, and other appointments, in the said book. ‘Then they proceeded particularly to disputa- tions upon the fourth article’. *‘ And in fine, they went to the suffrage in the afternoon, and such of the house as were against the six articles before men- tioned, and protested as above, carried it (though with difficulty) against those that were for them. These, among whom were the dean of Westminster, and the chaplains of the archbishop, Robin- * One of these Articles the discretion of the ordinary was for the abrogation of all holydays except the Sundays and principal feasts of Christ; another for the omission of the sign of the Cross in Bap- tism; another for leaving to the kneeling at the Commu- nion; another for the removal of the use of organs, &c. y [As to kneeling at the Communion. | Dress of the Preacher. 73 son, Byckley, (who were afterwards bishops,) Peerson, and Ithel, had a great deference for the reformation of religion as it was settled under king Edward, and so were for a strict and unalter- able observation of the liturgy and orders of it, as it then stood. But those that were for alterations, and for stripping the English church of her ceremonies and usages then retained and used, were such (as I find,” says Strype, “by their names subscribed) as had lately lived abroad in the reformed churches of Geneva, Switzerland, or Germany; and so, out of partiality to them, endeavoured to accommodate this church of England to this model. But the divines on the other side reckoned the wisdom, learning, and piety of Cranmer, Ridley, and the other reformers of this church, to be equal every way with those of the foreign reformers; and knew, that what those venerable men did in the settlement of this church was accompanied with great delibera- tion, and a resolution of reducing it in doctrine and worship to the platform of the primitive churches, as they found it in the ancient ecclesiastical writers ; and had consulted also in this great work with the most learned foreigners: and some of them had sealed it with their blood 2. With this account of the matter Mr. Benson’s hypothe- sis does not quite agree. Re- garding the second Liturgy of Edward VI. as_ containing ‘‘the last and maturest senti- ments of the leading Reformers, both fereign and English, upon the subject of the priestly habi- liments, (for,” he adds, ‘‘ though the former may have suggested, there is no proof that their suggestions were not willingly adopted and cordially approved by the latter,’’) he observes, that ‘‘the persecution unto death of Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley, must of itself have served to make this, their final work of public devotion, more dear to the fugitive Protestants ; whilst the places in which they took refuge, and the persons with whom they became con- versant, would serve to heighten Add to which, that these that thus their dislike of every peculiar vestment which the persecuting Church they were now sepa- rated from had used. For,”’ as he goes on to say, “they lived principally among the Reformed Communions of Ger- many and Switzerland, and in intimate intercourse with di- vines who were anxious for as simple a form of public wor- ship as was consistent with decent piety. When, therefore, they returned, upon the acces- sion of Elizabeth, to their na- tive country again, many of the most eminent for learning and character returned, with an earnest desire to establish a similar simplicity in the Church of England, and with such a reverence for the martyrs, as had confirmed, if not increased, their dislike for the very gar- ments which a_ persecuting 74 ress of the Preacher. stood for King Edward’s reformation without changes, did prudently consider the present constitution of the Church and nation, and the Queen’s disposition and education @.” Strype adds a ‘‘ Note, that many absented this afternoon, appearing neither in person nor proxy, to give their voices in this debate. **On the part of those that approved the six articles above- mentioned, were forty-three persons, who with their proxies made fifty-eight voices. ... ‘“‘ The names of those that approved not of the six articles, Clergy so much prized; which appeared calculated to conti- nue among an ignorant people the superstition they had so long accompanied, and the use of which it had been one of the last acts of those revered mar- tyrs to abolish. A similar dis- like of the Popish vestments in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper,” he says, ‘‘also pre- vailed, for some of the same reasons, among many of the Protestant Clergy who had re- mained, in continual peril of their lives, in England.” (pp. 21, 22.) But, in fact, the feel- ing of those who had been liv- ing among the foreign Protest- ants was a feeling of “dislike of every peculiar vestment,” as Mr. Benson himself correctly expresses it, “‘ which the per- secuting Church they were now separated from had used,” not merely cope, but surplice and tippet, and cap and gown, such “‘as the enemies of Christ’s Gospel had chosen to be the special array of their priest- hood,” as appears from the proceedings of the very Con- vocation of which we are treat- ing. They would, if possible, have had “the use of copes and surplices,” both alike, ‘taken away ;” but if there was no prospect of this, then the next thing was to have the surplice declared ‘‘ sufficient,” and at the same time to have it ordered that the ministration of the service and sacraments should be ‘‘in a comely garment or habit and nothing more.” They had no special regard for the Second Book of Edward, except as a step to something further: and meanwhile, as appears from Strype’s account, the feeling of reverence for our own Reformers and martyrs told the other way. 4 Mr. Benson says, speaking of thismatter (p. 23), “It seems probable that some voted against it, not because they approved the cope and other enjoined habits of the Clergy, but be- cause they were unwilling to oppose the wishes and autho- rity of the Queen, who was anxious to retain them, jealous of the smallest interference with her prerogative, and who, though she had the means of altering the Rubrics, had not thought proper to carry them into effect.” From Strype’s account it would appear that, though consideration of the Queen’s feeling entered into the view taken of the question by members of the convocation, it was not the chief considera- tion with them. Dress of the Preacher. 75 nor of any change in the Book of Common Prayer, were thirty- five, who made with their proxies fifty-nine voices ».” There was at this time, as appears from the above account, a singular balance of parties in Convoca- tion; and all the variety of opinion, we find, which might be anticipated under such circumstances as to the mode in which matters should be arranged. And in particular the proposal of alteration was encoun- tered by a strong feeling in defence of what had been by such high and sacred authority established. And by the majority of one against the proposition for change, things remained as they were. To the full account, however, which the Annalist has given of the proceedings of this memorable Con- vocation, he has added “some more papers that were prepared for this synod, either by the archbishop or [by] other bishops, drawn up first by some one of them, and then laid before the whole consessus, to be weighed and considered by them; and after mature deliberation being corrected and perfected, to be offered, some to the queen, and some to the parliament, to be confirmed and ratified. The rough draft of some of these papers, [ have met with,” says Strype, “which I shall here lay into this history, as I have before done others, being very instructive of the manner and method of the proceedings then used, for the reformation and settlement of true reli- gion in this kingdom. “The first paper I shall present is, the bishop of Exon’s° judgment for doctrine and discipline, with b Annals, vol. i. pp. 337, neither in person nor proxy,” 338. (1.1. 502—505.) Strype andwhowere innumbertwenty- gives the list of those who seven. voted on each side, and also °[Wm. Alley, consecrated “the names of those that ap- Bishop of Exeter, July 14th, peared not at this concertation, 1560. | 76 ress of the Preacher, his hand wrote on the top of the paper thus, W. Exon. “* For doctrine. “‘ Inprimis, I judge in my simple opinion, that it were very expedient and necessary, that one kind of doctrine should be preached and taught by all that be authorized to preach, and not to inveigh one against another, either in matters contained in the holy Scriptures, or else in matters ecclesiastical, which be adia- phorous, i. e. indifferent ; and that some special penalties be in- flicted upon the transgressors thereof. *‘ First, For matter of Scripture; namely, for this place, which is written in the epistle of St. Peter, that ‘Christ in spirit went down to hell, and preached to the souls that were in prison.’ There have been in my diocese great invectives between the preachers, one against the other, and also partakers with them ; some holding, &c.... Others say, &c.... Finally, others preach, &c.... And all these sayings they ground upon Eras- mus and the Germans, and especially upon the authority of Mr. Calvin and Mr. Bullinger. ‘The contrary side bring for them the universal consent, and all the fathers of both churches, both of the Greeks and the Latins; for of the Latin fathers they bring in St. Austin, St. Ambrose, &c.... Of the Greek fathers they allege Chrysostom, Eusebius, &c.... with others; which all, both Latins and Grecians, do plainly affirm, &c. ... which they all, with one universal consent, have assertively written from time to time, by the space of 1100 years, not one of them varying from another. ‘Thus, my right honourable good lords, your wisdoms may perceive, what tragedies and dissensions may arise for consenting to, or dissenting from, this article: wherefore your grave, wise, and godly learning might do well and charitably, to set some certainty concerning this doctrine ; and chiefly because all dissen- sions, contentions, and strifes may be removed from the godly affected preachers ¢.” Upon this first article it is interesting to observe what was done. In the true spirit of moderation, which has characterized the Church of England, the point of doctrine and the interpretation of the text in question, not seeming essential, were left undeter- * Annals, vol. i. pp. 347, 348. (I. i. 518, 519.) ress of the Preacher. 77 mined, and the cause of dissension was thus “charita- bly” removed. “The third of our Articles,” as Bishop Burnet observes, “ was much fuller when the Articles were at first prepared and published in King Kd- ward’s reign ; for these words were added to it, ‘That the body of Christ lay in the grave until his resur- rection; but his spirit, which he gave up, was with the spirits which were detained in prison, or hell, and preached to them, as the place in St. Peter testifieth. Thus,” says Bishop Burnet, “a deter- mined sense was put upon this article, which is now left more at large, and is conceived in words of a more general signification.” And this alteration is traced by Strype to Archbishop Parker’s own hand. He tells us, the ** Articles, when they were framed and finished, and decreed, were mostwhat the same with those made and instituted by the synod under King Edward, in the year 1552, which may be seen in Bishop Sparrow’s Collection, and elsewhere. In a volume in the Bene’t college library, there is a very fair draught of these King Edward’s Articles, having been accurately writ out for the use and serious consideration of the archbishop. I observed there strokes drawn in many places, sometimes through words, and sometimes through whole lines, by a red-lead pen, which the archbishop commonly used for noting, as he read any book. I will relate a few things which I took notice of in the perusal of this MS. of the Articles. Some of these Articles are wholly superseded by the archbishop’s minium, and divers others of them shortened; dashing that through, which he was minded to have omitted. ‘* As in the third article, where these words are struck out, after descendisse, ‘Nam corpus usque ad resurrectionem in sepulchro jacuit: spiritus ab illo emissus cum spiritibus, qui in earcere, sive in inferno detinebantur, fuit; illisque preedicavit, quemadmodum testatur Petri locus °.’ ”’ By the omission of this sentence, the interpreta- tion of the passage in St. Peter was left an open ¢ Annals, vol. 1. p. 325. (I. 1. 485.) 78 ress of the Preacher. question, rather than attempt to “set some cer- tainty concerning” the “doctrine” contained in it, where such certainty did not seem necessary: “a determined sense” was no longer put upon it, and it was “left more at large.” And thus the matter of “ doctrine,” specified in “the Bishop of Exon’s judg- ment,” was dealt with. The other particular, of “matters ecclesiastical,” “adiaphorous” though they were, was more difficult to dispose of. This particular stands thus in the Bishop’s paper: “ Matters Ecclesiastical. ‘“‘ Secondly, For matters ecclesiastical which be indifferent, there be some preachers, which cannot abide them, but do murmur, spurn, kick, and very sharply do inveigh against them, naming them things of iniquity, devilish, and papistical; namely, { know one preacher, not of the basest sort nor estimation, which did glory and boast that he made eight sermons in London against surplices, rochets, tippets, and caps, counting them not to be perfect that do wear them. And although it be all one in effect to wear either round caps, square caps, or bottomed caps, yet it is thought very meet that we, being of one profession, and in one ministry, should not vary and jangle one against the other for matters indifferent; which are made politic by the prescribed order of the prince. Therefore, if your honourable wisdoms do not take some way, that either they may go as we go in apparel, or else that we may go as they do, it will be a thing, as it is already, both odious and scandalous unto no small number £.” But, practically, it was more difficult in this matter than in that of doctrine to remove the cause of strife, and, without offending prejudice, to secure that uniformity which was so greatly to be desired. “ Another paper of this nature” is given by Strype %, which, he tells us, “was drawn up for the same use,” and “which had this title: ‘Certain Articles in sub- * Annals, vol. i. pp. 348, 8 Ibid. pp. 350, sq. (1. 522, 349. (I. i. 520.) ee ress of the Preacher. 79 stance desired to be granted by the queen’s majesty.’ This,” he informs us, “ was composed by a secretary of the archbishop’s, and were [ was] mended and added to in some places by the archbishop’s own hand, and in some places by bishop Grindal’s.” Among the arti- cles contained in it was the following : “‘ Item, That ministers may be enjoined to wear one grave, prescribed form in extern apparel ; and such as have ecclesiastical living, not agreeing to the same, to be discharged upon three monitions of the ordinary.” On the word “apparel” there is a note, as Strype tells us, in “ Grindal’s hand,” to this effect : “Having difference, although not altogether the form used in the popish time.” These various documents may serve to illustrate the state of feeling at the critical period in question, the several objects in view among the different par- ties, and the difficulties which hindered the attain- ment of that uniformity in all things, in outward order as well as in doctrine, which was felt to be so desirable. “ And thus,” in the words of the Annalist, “we take leave of this famous Synod, wherein we may take notice how much pains was taken, and yet how little’—at least, we may say, on these latter points,—‘“‘was established and brought to perfection;” and this from causes which operated then, much as they do now, and will continue to do, while human nature is what it is. As regards the state in which the question of vest- ments was left by the Synod of 1562, it would seem to have been precisely this, that the surplice was the recognized dress for the performance of Divine Ser- vice, and the gown for preaching. For the adminis- tration of the Communion, the cope was the strictly 80 Dress of the Preacher, rubrical dress ; but the strict rule, it would appear, was never observed, at least not in parish churches, nor enforced. And thus, if the Rule of King Kd- ward’s First Book Jde still the law of the Church, we are precisely in the same situation, and not worse, than when the Convocation of 1562 was sit- ting or had just broken up ;—a situation which is often spoken of as though it were the consequence of our not possessing an effective ecclesiastical legis- lature, and the existence of which seems to some persons to call for active measures to remedy so great an evil. If, so far as the lower house of Con- vocation was concerned, it was by one vote that the apparent anomaly was perpetuated, as regarded the rule respecting the vestments of the Minister, it is evident that either to abrogate, or to enforce, would at that time have run the risk of offending one half, or at least a considerable portion of the Church. And though the inconvenience which arose from want of uniformity was not unfelt, it was regarded, pro- bably, as the lesser evil of the two, and would have caused no serious inconvenience had there but pre- vailed, universally, the spirit which breathed in the formularies of our Church—had there been none who, through their “ private judgment,” would “ willingly and purposely” both “ openly break” her “ traditions and ceremonies,” and teach men so. But the further progress of that temper and spirit which showed itself in the preachers of whom Bishop Alley com- plained, we shall have occasion to trace as we follow the course of the history. We have proceeded thus far on the hypothesis, that the Rubric of King Edward’s First Book is the rule still in fall force, and have investigated its meaning ress of the Preacher, 81 accordingly, as illustrated by historical records. We must now turn our attention to that clause which has been already mentioned, in Queen Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity, and to which, as we have seen, Bishop Sandys referred in the paper which he presented to the Convocation,—the clause, I mean, by which it was provided, that “such ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers thereof, shall be retained and be in use as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward VL, until other order shall be therein taken by the authority of the Queen's Maesty, with the advice of her Commissioners appointed and authorized under the great seal of England for causes ecclesiastical, or of the Metropolitan of this Realm.” The limitation contained in this clause seems to have been very generally overlooked by writers on the subject under discussion, who have spoken of the Order of Edward’s First Book, in respect to orna- ments, as though it had been simply, and without reservation, re-established by the Act of Elizabeth. The question, however, at once arises upon this clause, Was such “other order” as is here provided for, ever taken? Most of our writers suppose that it was not. But this, I think, it will appear, is not so certain. For the better investigation of the matter, however, let us here complete the clause as it stands in the Act, as printed in the Statutes, and in Nichols °. The remainder of the clause, already quoted (p. 57, note), stands thus :— ‘‘ And also, that if there shall happen any contempt or irre- » In Sparrow and Gibson, &c., the latter part is printed as a distinct clause, numbered § 26. G 82 wress of the Preacher. verence to be used in the Ceremonies or Rites of the Church, by the misusing of the orders appointed in this Book, the Queen’s Majesty may, by the like advice of the said Commissioners or Metropolitan, ordain and publish such further Ceremonies or Rites, as may be most for the advancement of God’s glory, the edifying of his Church, and the due reverence of Christ’s holy mysteries and Sacraments.”’ Now, in comparing together the two parts of this clause, it may be observed that the former much more distinctly than the latter contemplates, and provides for, the exercise of the power thus re- served. The retaining of the ornaments prescribed by Edward’s First Book would seem to be evidently, and on the face of it, a temporary arrangement— “until other order shall be therein taken by the autho- rity of the Queen’s Majesty,” &c.; while in the latter case, the queen might, zf there should “happen any contempt or irreverence to be used in the cere- monies or rites of the Church, by the misusing of the Orders appointed in this Book,” ordain and publish further ceremonies or rites, with the advice of the same parties in both cases, viz., of the Com- missioners for causes ecclesiastical, or of the Metro- politan of the realm. Now the power thus reserved in this latter case was exercised in the course of the very next year (1560) :-— ‘“* The Archbishop,” says Strype, ‘ sitting with the rest of the ecclesiastical Commission, which was now on footi, found some chapters appointed to be read in the ordinary course of the Com- mon Prayer, to be less profitable for vulgar auditors ; and there- fore thought fit they should be changed for others tending more to edification. He found also great neglect in many churches, and especially chancels, n keeping them decent; which betrayed much want of reverence towards the places where God was ' [The Court of High Commission had been established by phe Act l Welz. coal} ress of the Preacher. 83 served. Many of the churches also were sadly out of repair, and ran into decay, and were kept slovenly, with unseemly Com- munion tables, and foul cloths for the Communion, and want of ornaments for the place of prayer. Now for the amendment of these disorders and inconveniences, the Archbishop procured letters under the Queen’s Great Seal, dated January 22, to the Commissioners for their greater authority ; and particularly to himself, with the Bishop of London, Dr. Bill, the Queen’s Almoner, and Dr. Haddon, or any two of them, for the redress- ing and correcting of these matters ; viz. to peruse the Order of the Lessons throughout the whole year, and to cause new calen- dars to be printed, and to take some remedies about decays of churches, and the unseemly keeping of chancels, and for the comely adorning of the east part of the churches, and that the Tables of the Commandments be set or hung up at the east end of the chancels; and to prescribe some good order for col- legiate churches, in the use of the Latin service, that the Queen’s allowance thereof might not be abused; and that their order and reformation of these things should be of one sort and fashion, that, as near as might be, one form and manner might be observed every where. A commandment was added to the Archbishop, to see these things, so ordered, to be put in execution through his province ; and he with the Commissioners were to prescribe the same to the Archbishop of York ; and finally to do all quietly, without any shew of innovation *.” This Letter, as given in Strype’s Appendix (Book II. No. xv.)', refers expressly to the clause in ques- tion, in the Act of Uniformity. It runs thus: ** By the Queen. Most reverend Father in God, right trusty and right welbeloved, right reverend Father in God, right * Life of Archbishop Parker, pp. 82, 83. (I. 164, 165.) Strype adds, ‘A draught of this letter was written by the Archbishop’s Secretary, as I meet with it among his papers : which makes me conclude it of the Archbishop’s own in- diting, and recommended by him to Secretary Cecil, to get it made authentic, and of autho- rity by the Queen’s seal. This her Majesty’s Letter may be found in the Appendix, as I meet with it in the Bene’t Col- lege Library, and is also re- corded in the Archbishop’s re- gister.”’ ! Dr. Cardwell prints the copy of the same document ‘Ex Reg. Parker, fol. 215, a.” (Doc. Annals, vol. i. p. 260.) eZ 84 ress of the Preacher. trusty and welbeloved, trusty and right welbeloved, and trusty and welbeloved, we greet you wel. Letting you to understand, that where it is provided by act of Parliament holden in the first year of our reign, that whensoever we shall se cause to take further order in any rite or ceremony, appointed in the Book of Common Prayer, and our pleasure known therin, either to our Commis- sioners for causes ecclesiastical or to the Metropolitan, that then eftsones consideration should be had therein; we therefore under- standing &c.... have thought good to require you, our Com- missioners, so authorized by our Great Seal for causes ecclesias- tical, or four of you, whereof we wil you, Matthew, Archbishop of Canterbury, Edmund, Bishop of London, William Bil, our Almoner, and Walter Haddon, one of the Masters of our Re- quests, to be always two, to peruse the order of the said Lessons throughout the whole year, and to cause some new calendars to beamprinted.: .\. ‘¢ And further also, to consider, as become the foresaid great disorders in the decays of churches, &c.... and diligently to provide that, whatsoever ye shal devise in this disorder, that the order and reformation be of one sort and fashion; and that the things prescribed may accord in one form as nigh as ye may. Specially, that in al collegiate and cathedral churches, where cost may be more probably allowed, one maner to be used: and in all parish churches also, either the same, or at least the like, and one maner throughout our realm... . ‘“¢ And for the publication of that which you shal order, we wil and require you, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to se the same put in execution throughout your province ; and that you, with the rest of our Commissioners before mentioned, prescribe the same to the Archbishop, now in nomination, of York, to be in like maner set forth in that province. And that the alteration of anything hereby ensuing be quietly done, without shew of any innovation in the church. And these our letters shal be your sufficient warrant in this behalf. Given under our signet at our palace of Westminster, the 22d of January, the third year of our reign.” Thus, then, it would appear, was the power exer- cised which had been reserved by the second” part m Burn notices the Commis- part of the clause) in the Act sion in question, but speaks of of Uniformity. (Eccles. Law, it has having been issued by vol. iii. p. 414, ed. Phillimore.) virtue of the former clause (or The Archbishop’s mandate Wress of the Preacher, 85 of the clause under consideration in the Act of Uni- formity, 1 Elizabeth, c. 2, and with a direct view, it will be observed, to the object aimed at in that Act, and in the Act 2 Edward VL. authorizing the First Book", viz. uniformity throughout the realm, and that “quietly” obtained, “without show of any inno- vation.” The power had been given to the Queen to take order in these matters, with advice of her Commissioners, “07 the Metropolitan of the realm.” The Metropolitan, in order, as it would seem pro- bable, to strengthen his own hands, obtained that the other three Commissioners here named should be associated with him in the Letter, while he, by his own authority as Metropolitan of the realm, was to carry into execution the measures that were to be taken. It might have been thought, that the altera- tion of the calendar of lessons was not strictly within the limits of the authority reserved by the Act; but it was evidently regarded as within the sperzt of it: and the altered Calendar rested entirely on this authority until the time of the last Review. Yet no one then ever raised. a question or felt a scruple as to the authority. It would seem to have been universally considered as fully equal to that of the Act of Uniformity, on which it rested. It is singular that Gibson ° speaks of the Commis- sion in question as having been granted “ pursuant to” the clause, which he marks as the twenty-sixth, in the Act of Uniformity, 1 Eliz.; though it is evident, forth in the Parliament of Eng- to the Bishop of London to publish the Queen’s Letters through the province of Can- terbury, which Strype also gives (p. 83, fol. I. 166, 167), refers, in like manner, to ‘‘ the tenor of a certain statute set land, holden at Westminster in the first year of the reign of our said Queen.” » Compare that Act. % Voloiurps 20. 86 ress of the Preacher. from the document in Strype to which Gibson him- self refers’, that it was the clause which he marks as the twenty-fifth, on which the Commission was grounded. And, under a subsequent head‘, Gibson himself refers it correctly to this clause’. To proceed, however, to the question respecting the former clause, or part of the clause (j 25), which question, however, will have been somewhat cleared by what we have seen respecting the /atter. The former part, with which we are now immediately concerned, is cited again in Gibson *, where, upon the words, “Until other order be taken,” &c., he says, “ Which other order (at least in the method prescribed by this Act) was never yet made; and, therefore, legally, the ornaments of Ministers in performing Divine Service, are the same now as they were in 2 Edw. VI.'” And we find Burn says the same“. And so also Nichols be- P * Stryp. Vit. Park. App. D2. q ‘“ Uniformity.” cap. ll. p. 271. r Johnson, in his Clergy- man’s Vade Mecum (vol i. p. 23), takes notice of the power given to the Queen by the Act of Uniformity, and says, ‘‘Some have attempted to prove, that she did take such order, but there is no certain proof of it ; nay, it is evident enough she did take no such order: for the Rubric enjoining the same ornaments that were used in the first Book of Edward, still continued through her reign, and the two following.” This, however, is no conclusive argu- ment; the Rubric in the Prayer Book might remain unaltered, even though the order contem- plated were taken, according to the provision of the Act of Pita. Uniformity which was printed with Queen Elizabeth’s Prayer Book. The argument which Johnson draws from the subse- quent Act of Uniformity, 14 Charles II., which established the use of our present Book, will be examined in its place. e Tit. xii. cap. fl pose under the head of ‘“‘ Habit of minister officiating.” * Johnson quotes this from Gibson, who, he tells us, ‘truly says, Lecauty, the or- naments,” &c. ‘* Yet,” says Johnson, “he marks this Ru- bric of Edward VI. as obsolete, p: 472,” yet “does not,’ he goes on to say, ‘‘so mark the Rubric in our present Liturgy, p. 363; and yet it is certain they are both in force, or neither of them so.” " Vol. iii. p. 437. ed. Phil- limore. ress of the Preacher, 87 fore him”. This, then, is the point now to be enquired into. And it is of some importance in regard to the general question which has been raised respecting the vestments required by the Rubric, as compared with those now worn, besides its particular bearing on the question immediately before us. In entering upon this enquiry, we must take up the history two years subsequently to the period Y Nichols says, ‘‘’This clause [of the Act, 1 Eliz.] as to or- naments, seems to be restrained to the person of Queen Eliza- beth, and she making no altera- tion in them, they remained at her death the same as they were in the Ynd of Edward VI. See the Rubric immediately pre- ceding the Morning Service in the Common Prayer Book, con- firmed by 14 Car. II. c. 4, where the ornaments appointed for that service are enjoyned as they were in the 2nd of Edward VI.” He adds in a paren- thesis ‘(Qu. If the ancient ornaments, and no other, ought not to be used at this day?)” But it will appear that, as mat- ter of fact, so far as usage was concerned, they did not remain at the time of Queen Eliza- beth’s death the same as they were in the 2nd of Edward VI. The point, then, which remains to be ascertained is, whether the Queen did, or did not, her- self take such order as was here provided for. Mr. Ben- son asserts undoubtingly (p. 26), “Thus the case stood until the death of Elizabeth, and with her died the Sovereign’s privi- lege of altering the Rubrics. For it was not granted to the Queen, her heirs, and lawful successors, but to the Queen’s Majesty alone.” It is not, how- ever, so worded. And Eliza- beth’s immediate heir and law- ful successor certainly was otherwise advised, in regard to the intent and meaning of the Act. (Vid. inf.) But our im- mediate question is, whether Queen Elizabeth herself exer- cised, or not, the power left with her in this matter. “ Burn, after quoting the 58th canon, by which the mi- nister is ordered to wear a sur- plice in “ministering the sacra- ments,” as well as in ‘saying the public prayers,” adds, “But this Canon (which is somewhat observable) is in part destroy- ed by the statute law, and by the Rubric before the present Prayer Book. For by the 1st Eliz. c. 2, § 25, it is provided that such ornaments, &c.... until other order shall be therein taken, &c. Which other order as to this matter was never taken. And by the Rubric be- fore the Common Prayer of the 13th and 14th Car. II., ‘It is to be noted,’ &c. .... There- fore it is necessary to recur in this matter to the Common Prayer established by Act of Parliament in the second year of King Edward the Sixth,” &c. 88 ress of the Vrearcher. where we left it, at the Convocation of 1562. After giving the statement of the order made in the Queen’s Injunctions and in the Act of Uniformity, Bishop Burnet proceeds to tell us: ‘The matter being thus settled, there followed a great diver- sity In practice: many conforming themselves in all points to the law ; while others did not use either the surplice, or the square caps, and hoods according to their degree. This visible difference began to give great offence, and to state two parties in the Church. The people observed it, and run into parties upon it. Many for- sook their churches, of both sides; some because those habits were used, and some because they were not used. It is likewise suggested, that the papists insulted, upon this division among the protestants; and said it was impossible it should be otherwise, till all returned under one absolute obedience. ** Upon this, the Queen, in January, 1564-5, wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury ‘reflecting (not without some acrimony of style) on these diversities ; as if they were the effect of some remissness in him and in the other bishops; requiring him that, with the assistance of other bishops, commissioned for causes ecclesiastical, he should give strict orders that all diversities and varieties, both among the clergy and people, might be reformed and repressed; and that all should be brought to one manner of uniformity, through the whole kingdom, that so the people might quietly honour and serve God *.’” Bishop Burnet proceeds to give some account of the articles agreed upon by the Bishops who thus met, of which more hereafter. He says: “The pro- ceedings here in England are fully collected by Mr. Strype; so, as to these, I refer my reader to the account given by him, which is both full and impar- tial.” And the account given by Strype brings to light the influences by which the troubles which now arose were mainly caused or greatly aggravated, and which are the more worthy of our attention, inas- * Burnet, H. R., P. in. b. vi. vol. i. p. 306, ress of the Preacher, 89 much as they are closely connected with our imme- diate subject, viz. that of preaching. In his life of Archbishop Parker, under the year 1564, Strype tells us how the Archbishop that year, “being returned back to Lambeth, entered upon a new and troublesome work, which cost him much pains and sorrow” during the remainder of his life, viz. “his endeavour to oblige Ministers to an uni- formity, and agreement in their attendances upon the services of God.” For the Queen had taken great offence at many of the Clergy, having information how remiss they were, both in the University and out of it, especially in the City of London, in wear- ing the habits appointed for the Clergy to use in time of ministration, and at other times, chiefly the square cap, the tippet, and the surplice.” It is to be observed here what was the attire which was now the subject of attack;—not the albe and cope, the vestment and tunicle, but “ chiefly the square cap, the tippet” (or scarf, as it would be termed now’), “and the surplice ;” and the Bishops’ rochets;—the vestments, in short, not of King Edward’s First Book, but of the Second Book, and the “seemly habits, garments, and square caps,” which “ were most commonly and orderly received in the /atter year of the reign” of that king’. And they were the same objects of abhorrence which Bishop Alley had spoken of in his paper drawn up at the time of the Convocation of 1562—“surplices, rochets, tippets, and caps*:” and the same persons were leading on the attack, viz. the preachers, who evidently therefore themselves did not, in preaching, Y Vid. Robertson, pp. 120 _ beth, sup. cit. p. 61. oof SR a Vid. sup. p. 78. * Injunctions of Queen Eliza- 90 ress of the Preacher, wear the surplice. And amidst all the varieties of usage that were complained of, there are no indica- tions of any in respect of the dress worn in preach- ing. And had there been any, it could scarcely have failed to be spoken of. But that there was no such diversity in regard to preaching, appears clearly from a paper which Strype proceeds to notice, and which he tells his readers he thinks “worth transcribing for the illustration of our present history.” It was a paper which he “found among the Secretary’s MSS., dated Feb. 14, 1564, which,” as he observes, “was a month before the Articles for Uniformity, afterwards mentioned, were devised by the Archbishop and other Bishops.” It is headed—* Varieties in the Service and Ad- ministration used,” and is drawn up in a tabular form under these heads, “Service and Prayer,” “ Table,” “ Administration of the Communion,” “Receiving,” “ Baptizing,” and “Apparel.” Under the first head, “Service and Prayer,” among other varieties noted is this, “Some say with a surplice others without a surplice.” Under the third head, of “ Administration of the Communion ”—“ Some with surplice and cap; some with surplice alone; others with none.” Under the head of “Baptizing’—“Some minister in a surplice, others without.” And under the head of “ Apparel” —“ Some with a square cap; some with a round cap; some with a button cap; some with a hat. Some in scholars’ clothes, some in others”.” It will be observed here that nothing is said of preaching, or of varieties in the dress worn in the pulpit: and that the usual dress in preaching was the gown, and not the surplice, would rather b Life of Parker, p. 152. (I. 302.) Jaress of the Preacher. 91 appear as well from other evidence already given respecting the preachers of this period, as from the following, which Strype goes on to cite as an ex- ample of the general state of things at this conjunc- ture *. ‘An application,” he says, “‘ made this year to our Archbishop by one of his clergy, for his advice, will further declare these matters, and show how the clergy in the countries about this time behaved themselves in their ministration. The Archbishop had placed one Richard Kechyn in some benefice near Bock- ing in Essex, which seemed to be one of his peculiars; and upon his admission had charged him to follow the orders and rules © It will be observed also in the paper above quoted, that the vestments of Edward’s First Book, though rubrically in force, were practically not only not enforced, but virtually su- perseded : not a word is said of albe or vestment, cope or tunicle. ‘The diversity in re- gard to dress in time of minis- tration was simply that of sur- plice or no surplice, cap or no cap. And so Hooker tells us (E. P., Preface, ii. 10. Works, vol.ji. p. 175. ed. Keble), “* Under the happy reign of her Majesty which now is, the greatest matter awhile contend- ed for was, the wearing of the cap and surplice, till there came Admonitions directed unto the high court of Parlia- ment,” &e. (viz. in 1571.) And Bishop Cooper, in his ‘“‘Admo- nition to the people of Eng- land,” p. 160, quoted by Mr. Keble in a note on this passage of Hooker, ‘‘ takes the follow- ing view of the gradual advance of Puritanism. ‘ At the begin- ning, some learned and godly preachers, for private respects in themselves, made strange to wear the surplice, cap, or tip- pet; but yet so that they de- clared themselves to think the thing indifferent,and not tojudge evil of such as did use them.’ (He seems to mean Grindal, Sandys, Parkhurst, Nowel, and others, 1562.) ‘Shortly after rose up other,’ (Sampson, Hum- frey, Lever, Whittingham, &c.) ‘defending that they were not things indifferent, but distained with anti-Christian idolatry, and therefore not to be suffered in the Church. Not long after came another sort,’ (Cartwright, Travers, Field, &c.) ‘affirming that those matters touching ap- parel were but trifles, and not worthy contention in the Church, but that there were greater things far, of more weight and importance, and indeed touch- ing faith and religion, and there- fore meet to be altered in a Church rightly reformed; as the Book of Common Prayer, the administration of the Sacra- ment, the election of ministers, and a number of other like. Fourthly, now break out an- other sort’”’ (the Brownists), &e. 92 ress of the Preacher: appointed and established by law, and to make no variation, what- soever others should or might do, or persuade him to the con- trary. But now this year in his ministerial course he met with many rubs and checks by one, a neighbouring preacher (or Eng- lish doctor, as they loved then to call themselves) who came into his pulpit, being a licensed preacher, and there openly condemned him, the incumbent, for certain things. We must know that Kechyn had in the Rogation week gone the perambulation with his parishioners; and according to the old custom, and the Queen’s Injunctions °, had said certain offices in certain places of 4 The reference to the old custom of perambulation in Herbert’s ‘“‘ Country Parson,” will recur to the recollection of some readers. (Vid. chap. 35. ‘The parson condescend- ing.”) ‘The country parson is a lover of old customs, if they be good and harmless, and the rather, because country people are much addicted to them, so that to favour them therein is to win their hearts, and to oppose them therein is to deject them. If there be any ill in the custom, which may be severed from the good, he pares the apple, and gives them the clean to feed on. Particularly he loves proces- sion, and maintains it, because there are contained therein four manifest advantages. First, a blessing of God for the fruits of the field, &c. . . . Fourthly, mercy in relieving the poor by a liberal distribution and lar- gess, which at that time is or ought to be used. Wherefore he exacts of all to be present at the perambulation; and those that withdraw and sever them- selves from it, he mislikes and reproves as uncharitable and unneighbourly; and if they will not reform, presents them. Nay, he is so far from condemning such assemblies, that he rather procures them to be often, as knowing that absence breeds strangeness, but presence love.” That they were ‘‘old customs,” which in these and other mat- ters the Puritans objected to, is to be borne in mind in read- ing of these times, and judging of the proceedings of the differ- ent parties concerned: it should be specially borne in mind by those who naturally and rightly feel how much tenderness is due to the attachment which the common people, especially, have to what they have been accustomed to. It will be re- collected, too, how Walton re- cords it in his Life of Hooker, that “he would by no means omit the customary time of procession, persuading all, both rich and poor, if they desired the preservation of love, and their parish rights and liberties, to accompany him in his pe- rambulation, and most did so.” — Works, ed. Keble, vol. i. p. 102. © The 19th of the Queen’s Injunctions provided, ‘ That the curate, in their said com- mon perambulations, used here- tofore in the days of rogations, at certain convenient places shall admonish the people to Mress of the Preacher, 93 the parish. And several women of the parish accompanied as was wont, and joined in the prayers that were said. And all was ended in a good friendly dinner ; others that attended were refreshed and relieved. wherein such poor women and Kechyn had also upon occasion shewed his mind concerning preaching in ordinary assemblies upon predestination ; and that he thought that learned point were better be let alone, to be argued and dis- coursed among the learned. He also constantly wore the surplice in his ministration, and in reading the divine service turned his face to the east f. give thanks to God, in the be- holding of God’s benefits, for the increase and abundance of his fruits upon the face of the earth, with the saying of the 103rd Psalm, ‘ Benedic anima mea,’ &c. At which time also the same minister shall incul- cate these or such sentences . ‘Cursed be he, which trans- lateth the bounds and doles of his neighbour.’ Or such other order of prayers as shall be hereafter appointed.”” (Doe. Ann. vol. i. pp. 187, 188.) And for these occasions had been prepared in the 2nd book of Homilies, put forth in 1562, the Homily (in three parts) for ‘the | three | Days of Rogation Week,” and the ‘‘ Exhortation to be spoken to such parishes where they use their perambu- lation in Rogation Week ; for the oversight of the bounds and limits of their town.” f On this point, also, it may be well to recall to mind Hooker’s judgment. After discussing the question of the “ attire belong- ing to the service of God” (E. P., Book v. c. 29), he goes on in the next chapter (c. 30), “Having thus disputed whe- ther the surplice be a fit gar- ment to be used in the service of God, the next question whereunto we are drawn is, whether it be a thing allowable or no, that the minister should say service in the chancel, or turn his face at any time from the people. . . . By them which trouble us with these doubts we would more willingly be resolved of a greater doubt ; whether it be not a kind of taking God’s name in vain to debase religion with such fri- volous disputes, a sin to bestow time and labour upon them. Things of so mean regard and quality, although necessary to be ordered, are notwithstand- ing very unsavoury when they come to be disputed of; be- cause disputation presupposeth some difficulty in the matter which is argued, whereas in things of this nature, they must be Sie very simple or very froward who need to be taught by disputation what is meet... Some parts of our Liturgy... are uttered as from the people, some as with them unto God, some as from God unto them, all as before His sight whom we fear, and whose presence to offend with any the least un- seemliness we would be surely as loth as they who most repre- hend or deride what we do.”’ I have not thought these few notes out of place, in their bear- ing on some points, incidental 94 soress of the Preacher. “This one Holland, curate of Bocking, thought fit to check this man for. And the Sunday next following the Rogation week, coming to preach at his parish, his Sermon went on two arguments only, viz. of predestination, and of women’s walking the peram- bulation in Rogation week. ... ‘The Dean of Bocking (who, I think, was Mr. Cole) having some jurisdiction over Kechyn and some other ministers there- abouts, had charged him and the rest not to turn their faces to the high altar in service-saying, which was a new charge, and not given before. But this Dean in his Visitation usually gave new articles every year. And lastly, offence was taken against him that he used the surplice. ‘‘ Upon this occasion the said minister thought convenient to acquaint Peerson’, the Archbishop’s almoner and chaplain, with these things, to impart them to the Archbishop, that he might have his counsel and direction. He told the almoner in a letter to him, what his practice was, that though he turned his face upward, as he had done hitherto, yet his church was small, and his voice might be heard. That the Litany he said in the body of the church; and when he said the service he kept the chancel, and turned his face to the east; and that he was not zealous in setting forth predestination. And for these matters they were much offended with him. He beseeched the almoner therefore, to let him understand his Grace’s mind in the opinions above rehearsed. For though the cause was flat, as he had before reported to him, yet he had, he said, taken in hand to disclose or confute openly in the Church any of these matters, wherein these English doctors had been and were wrestling at this day. That he would do nothing against his lawful ordinary’s mind. ‘That if he wished him to leave off the surplice, as others did, he was ready; to forbid the women to pray in Rogation as they may appear of a narra- tive which it seemed necessary to give entire, in order to put the reader in full possession of the actual state of things at the time in question; and Hooker’s name is so justly reverenced, and so identified with the prin- ciples of the Church of Eng- land, that it were to be wished that many who would fain per- suade themselves that they are true champions of the Church of England, her Catholicism or her Protestantism, would more thoroughly take counsel of ‘‘ the judicious Hooker,” and_ test their opinions, in regard to past times or to the present, by a comparison with his. & [Mentioned before in the account of the Convocation of 1562. Vid. sup. p. 73. | ress of the Preacher. 95 week he was also ready. That in such cases he depended upon them that had authority to alter ceremonies; and not upon the new brethren that seemed and would be thought to have autho- rity but had none. Further, that he would gladly learn what articles his Grace caused to be enquired of in his visitation; because the Dean, their visitor, had every year a new scroll of articles. And this, of charging all not to tum their faces to the high altar, was one; which he called a ‘new charge.’ That, for his suffering the women to pray in the fields in Rogation week, he said, that the poorer women (as God knew) that lacked work the last week, were glad of the relief that was customably provided for them; and that the substantial men took part with them in it. ‘Then Kechyn took the liberty to acquaint the Archbishop’s chaplain with some character of this Holland, that took so much upon him in his pulpit, and with the practices now brought in in the churches. That though this man had called these peram- bulation feasts, feasts of Bacchus, shewing his skill in poetry, yet if one should have asked him how to decline Bacchus, he would have been put to his shifts: however, he would appear to be seen in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. He cried out, that the Schoolmen had infected all the country with superstition, as he termed this going of the women. ‘That in his sermons he used much Latin, and took great pleasure in pronouncing it much like the good fellows that went about with foot plays. He asked, if this were not at length a fit learned man to preach predestination in such presumption: and added, that he mar- velled much that his Grace permitted him by his licence to preach out of his cure, or any proud English Doctor of them all, as the good man, raised into some passion, expressed himself. But that now, he is no English Doctor with us, as he proceeded, that hath not some singular opinion to inflame the multitude withal against those that live under laws and obedience. That, in short, by means of these, learning was had in derision of most men. That he was sorry to have occasion to pen these matters for his reading, and might think he spake of affec- tion, but he assured him he did but write as other men talked, and that he thought much of the sauciness of these bold rude English preachers and doctors"; he wished it by punishment and penalties to be reformed. For he knew his h “The Puritans affected that title from Eph. iv. 11.” 96 Dress of the Preacher. Grace had taken order for such in some points; but that they were no more regarded. And he wished that he (to whom he wrote) might see where the fault was. “‘ And lastly he shewed him the liberty that was commonly used among the clergy there, in varying from the appointments of the church. How that some conferred baptism in basons, some in dishes (rejecting the use of the Font) as he himself had seen... Some took down the font, and painted a great bowl, and caused to be written on the outside BAP|TIS|ME, as was notably known... Some detested the surplice in ministration. And that in Bocking it had been laid awater (as he expressed i”? it) by Holland the curate there for many a day '. From this history, taken in connexion with the non-appearance of diversity, at the period in question, in regard to the dress worn in the pulpit, it would appear, I think, that the surplice was not the preach- ing dress, but worn only “in ministration,” or not worn, according as the spirit prevailed of quiet obedience to appointed order, in conformity with the principle laid down in the 33rd Article, or of disobedience to it; the leaders in the attack now made on those who quietly governed themselves by law being none other than the licensed “ preachers,” who certainly did not wear the surplice when they preached. ‘“‘ Thus by this letter,”’ Strype continues, ‘‘ shewing the state of the Church service, and the ministers thereof, in one part of the nation, may be guessed how it was every where else ; and had it not been for the great disturbances in the Church, occasioned by these varieties, and the common omission of what was prescribed by the Queen’s Injunctions ; and for the rude and insolent beha- viour of some that refused the habits towards those that quietly used them, and conformed themselves to orders (as in the case of Kechyn aforesaid), probably the urging of them so strictly after- wards would not have been. And had the scrupling brethren peaceably and silently used their liberty in the omission of some few things which their consciences scrupled, it might not have i Life of Parker, pp. 152—154. (I. 302—306.) ress of the Preacher, 97 been with such rigor afterwards restrained. For hitherto, as far as I find, they were indulged and connived at by the Bishops, as much as they might without giving offence to the Queen, or dis- paraging her Injunctions... . “These practices, therefore,’ Strype goes on to say, “being so contrary to the Queen’s Injunctions, set out in the year 1559, and begetting so much dissension, difference, and disorder among Christians of the same profession “, redounding so much to the * Compare Annals, vol. i. pp. 459, 460 (I. i1. 126), where Strype tells us, “These charges and accusations of the habits enjoined, as they caused great wrangling and breach of peace among the clergy themselves, so the lay people were growing into an abhorrence of those that wore them, and of the service of God ministered by them. In- somuch that, soon after, num- bers of them refused to come to the churches or sermons, or to keep the ministers company, or to salute them; nay, as Whit- gift in his Defence writes, they spit in their faces, reviled them in the streets, and showed such like rude behaviour towards them; and that only because of their apparel. ‘*'The queen understood these quarrels, and was much offended at this disobedience to her In- junctions, and the great dis- orders among the ministers on this occasion. Whereupon she wrote a letter,” &c. It will be seen, however, on examining the passage of Whitgift, and which is quoted elsewhere by Strype himself, that it was not the people, but the Puritan non-conforming mi- nisters, who thus treated their brethren who conformed to the appointed orders. ‘‘ This party of men,” says Strype (Annals, volvin- pe Ge [laid7938), {that thus divided and distinguished themselves by this schism, were observed also to divide from the rest in their behaviour, in their tempers and qualities, and in their strangeness and aver- sion from their Christian breth- ren who adhered to the estab- lished Church. For this is their character that Dr. Whitgift gave of them about this time [1570]; comparing them unto the Pha- risees; ‘That when they walked in the streets, they hung down their heads, looked austerely, and in company sighed much, and seldom or never laughed ; their temper was, that they sought the commendation of the people; they thought it an heinous offence to wear a cap or surplice; but they slandered and backbit their brethren, railed on them by libels, con- temned superiors, discredited such as were in authority ; in short, disquieted the Church and state. And as for their religion, they separated them- selves from the congregation, and would not communicate with those that went to church neither in prayer, hearing the word, nor sacraments; they H 98 ress of the Preacher. disparagement of the reformed religion among the enemies thereof, the Queen directed her letter this year, 1564, in the month of January, to her Arch- bishop, requiring him, with other Bishops in the com- mission for causes ecclestastical, that orders might be taken, whereby all diversities and varieties among the Clergy and Laity, as breeding nothing but contention and breach of good charity, and against the laws and good usage and ordinances of the realm, might be reformed and repressed, and brought to one manner of uniformity throughout the realm. .’” Strype, ‘‘of these Articles, and not fully digested, that he published afterwards under the name of Advertisements, and of the opposition they met with at Court. They were nothing but such as had been before agreed upon by the Queen’s Commis- sioners, only now reviewed and corrected, and some things added. And thus the book with the alterations and addi- tions, partly interlined, and partly in paper fastened on, was sent by the Archbishop to the Secretary, being the first view, might peruse it and give his judgment, andso return it back ; that so it might be fair written, and presented to the Council. . . After the Secretary had seen this foul copy, which had been thus sent to him by the Arch- bishop, March the 3rd, he soon returned it. For, five days after, the Archbishop sent the fair copy thereof, signed by the Bishops and himself,” &c. > Strype’s Parker, p. (I. 315—817.) 159. Strype adds 106 ress of the Preacher. But “at length, it seems,” in Strype’s words already quoted, “the Arehbishop’s patience and per- sistance prevailed.” But it was not till a twelve- month afterwards—to go on to the sequel of the history, as given by Strype in his 3rd book, ch. viii. ° —where he tells us, “The Archbishop, in the beginning of March [1565] began again to try if his book of Articles for ministers’ apparel would find any better success at court, than it had done the year be- fore; when, though the Queen’s Majesty’s letters to him had been very general for uniformity, yet he and the rest in com- mission consulted and agreed upon some particularities in apparel only. And because by statute they were inhibited to set out any constitution without license obtained of the Prince, he sent the Articles to the Secretary to be presented, as was said before. But they could not then be allowed: of what meaning, the Archbishop said, he could not tell.” I will interrupt the quotation only to observe, that from the statement it contains respecting the limitation of the power of the commissioners, it is impossible to suppose the Advertisements to have been put forth at all until they finally obtained the royal sanction. “¢ Now he sent them again,” Strype continues, ‘together with a letter to the queen; praying the Secretary that, if not all, yet so many as might be thought good, might be returned with some authority, at least for particular apparel. Otherwise he told the Secretary, that he and the rest of the ecclesiastical com- missioners should not be able to do so much as the Queen’s Majesty expected of them to be done”... Strype proceeds to give a summary of the Arch- bishop’s letter to the Secretary, dated March 12th, some further instances of “the Court by divers of the great ’ Queen’s neglect,” and how ones there, who did what they ‘the Bishops and Divines could to prejudice the Queen themselves had but little com- against them.” tenance given them at the ¢ Thid. p. 212. (1. 423.) Dress of the Preacher. 107 enclosing his letter to the Queen, and in which he tells the Secretary “why he stayed pressing unifor- mity for a while,” viz., “upon the political considera- tions which they who were the secret friends to non- conformity urged *.” * But now at last,” says Strype, a little afterwards *, “ upon the late address of our Archbishop to the Queen and Secretary, she forthwith issued out her proclamation, publishing her will and pleasure in print, peremptorily requiring uniformity by virtue thereof. So that now the wearing of the apparel, and obedience to the usages of the Church, became absolutely enjoined ; and that upon pain of deprivation and prohibition of preaching : the Queen hereby by her own authority confirm- ing and ratifying that book of Articles that he had a little before sent to the Secretary, or at least so much of it as related to apparel.” And further on again‘ we are told, the Archbishop ** Revived the Book of Advertisements, but with some amend- ments, and some omissions of things that before had given offence, and were the cause, at least pretended, of stopping it; as some matters of doctrine, this book being intended only for order: and the Articles of religion, agreed upon in the year 1562, being sufli- cient for that. And such passages also were omitted as might seem to render the book contrary to the laws of the land. And so with the Queen’s letters to him, he had these corrected Advertisements printed ; but not yet published, till he had sent a copy thereof to the Secretary to peruse with his pen, and to give him his advice. Telling him in his letter, dated March 28th, ‘ That ‘he had weeded out of these Articles all such matters of doc- ‘trine, &c., which peradventure stayed the book before from ‘the Queen’s Majesty’s approbation; and that he had put in but ‘ things advouchable, and, as he took them, against the law of the ‘realm.’ After the Secretary had done with them, he sent them to the Bishop of London, and so had them published. ‘ For he ‘was fully bent,’ he said, ‘to prosecute that order, and to delay ‘no longer. And this he was the more resolute in, because the ‘Queen’s Highness would needs have him assay with his own d Strype’s Parker pp. 213, ; Ibid. p. 214. (I. 427.) 214. (I. 423, 424.) ) Ibid. p. 216. (I. 430.) 108 ress of the Preacher. ‘authority what he could do for order. But he trusted,’ he said, ‘he should not be stayed hereafter, [as he had been formerly, | ‘and prayed the Secretary to have his advice, to do that more ‘ prudently in the common cause, which there was a necessity to ‘be done 8.’ ” It was evidently most important,—indeed, abso- lutely necessary,—that these orders should come out with full authority: and it is quite evident that till this authority, the authority of the Queen herself, was at last given to them, they were not, and could not be published. And when they were published, though they bore the less absolute and peremptory name of “Advertisements” — which the circum- stances of the times will sufficiently explain—they carried in the very title of them, I cannot but think, the appearance of full authority. The title was as follows: ‘* Advertisements partly for due order in the Publick Adminis- tration of the Holy Sacraments, And partly for the apparel of all persons Ecclesiastical, by vertue of the Queen’s Majesties Letters commanding the same; the 25. day of January, in the seventh year of the reign of our Soveraign Lady Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, France and Ireland Queen, defender of the Faith, &c. Londini, Cum privilegio ad impri- Anno Dom. 1564. Anno 7. Eliz. R."” It may be well to compare with this, the title of the Canons of 1571, which Dr. Cardwell speaks of mendum solum. & Ibid. p. 216. (I. 480,431.) ker endeavoured to establish The view of the matter to which I have been led by a careful examination of the history as given by Strype, followed up to its completion, I find briefly stated in a note by Mr. Keble, in his edition of Hooker, Pre- face (ii. -10), vol.'i, p. 175. “In 1564,” he says, ‘“‘ com- plaints having been made, from different quarters, of positive molestation given by the non- conformists, Archbishop Par- conformity, but was checked by the interest of the Puritans with Lord Leicester; so that he could not obtain the royal sanc- tion for the ‘ Advertisements’ then issued (Str., Parker, I. 300—345. Ann. I. 125—175,) until the following year ; when they occasioned several depri- vations in the diocese of Lon- don. (Parker, I. 420—460. Grind. 142—146).” h Sparrow, p. 86. ress of the Preacher, 109 as, on the hypothesis which he adopts from Strype, a parallel case, viz. of orders resting on the mere authority of the bishops acting in their several dioceses. Those Canons are entitled, “Liber Quo- rundam Canonum Discipline Ecclesie Anglican. Anno 1571. De Episcopis &c. ... Londini, Apud Johannem Day. 1571.” The heading is as follows: ‘ Sequuntur in hoc libello certi quidam articuli de sacro minis- terlo, et procuratione Ecclesiarum, in quos plene consensum est in Synodo a Domino Mathzo Archiepis. Cantuar. et totius Angliz Primate et Metropolitano, et reliquis omnibus ejus Provincie Episcopis, partim personaliter preesentibus, partim procuratoria manu subscribentibus in synodo inchoata Londini in ede Divi Pauli, tertio die Aprilis, 1571.” It is worth while to observe the marked difference, in the degree of authority, between these Canons and the Book of Advertisements. In regard to this Book of Canons of 1571, Strype informs us, that ‘The Archbishop laboured to get the Queen’s allowance to it; but had it not: she often declining to give her license to their Orders and Constitutions, reckoning that her Bishops’ power and jurisdiction alone, having their authority derived from her, was sufficient. In the month of July or August, the Archbishop sent this book to Grindal, Archbishop of York, recommending it to the observation of the clergy in his province, and for his judgment of it. “‘ What that Archbishop’s thoughts of it was,” Strype con- tinues, “is worth observing; which appears from his answer he sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury, as follows: ‘ He thanked his Grace for the Book of Articles, and Discipline. But he stood in doubt, whether they had “vigorem legis,’ unless they had either been concluded upon in Synod, and after ratified by her Majesty’s royal assent in Scriptis; (fine words, added he, fly away as wind : and will not serve us, if we were empleaded in a case of premunire) or else were confirmed by Act of Parlia- ment. He said, he liked this Book very well: and that if here- after he should doubt in any point, or wish it enlarged in any 110 ‘Bress of the Prearher. respect, he would signify to his Grace hereafter. And if there were at present want of sufficient authority; yet it was well that the Book was ready, and might receive more authority at the next Parliament,’ yet we see, he and his provincial Bishop signed it. “‘ Let me add here,” says Strype, ‘‘ what I find our Archbishop further speaking concerning the Book, when he was about putting it into print: that he did it for further instruction; and if it pleased not, Faciat Deus quod bonum est in oculis suis. And that for his part, he was at a point in these worldly respects. And yet should be ready to hear, Quid in me loquatur Dominus. “But notwithstanding these doubts and suspicions, which did not without reason arise in the minds of these, and other of the Bishops (knowing what watchful back-friends they had) yet they proceeded according to the above-said Book of Discipline; especially in what concerned their Clergy in their respective mee Dioceses 1. The difference between this Book of Canons and the earlier Book of Advertisements, in regard to the authority which they respectively claimed, is sufficiently marked. The one rested on the authority of the several Bishops in their respective dioceses: in the other case, the authority was that of “the (Jueen’s Majesty's Letters, commanding the same,” addressed to the Metropolitan, assisted by, and in conference with, other Bishops joined with him in the Court of High Commission *. The peculiar cha- racter, however, of the authority in the case of these Advertisements will appear more fully from the Preface prefixed to them. We have seen how, as the Archbishop reminded the Secretary, “the Queen’s Highness would needs have him assay with his own authority what he could do for order,” that is, as ' Parker, pp. 322, 323. kK And this distinction is marked in the “Second Admo- nition to the Parliament,”’ which speaks of ‘the laws of the land, the Book of Common Prayer, the Queen’s Injunctions, the Commissioners’ Advertise- ments, the Bishops’ late Canons (1571), Lindwood’s Provin- cials, every Bishop’s Articles in his Diocese,” &e. ress of the Preacher. 111 Metropolitan, aided by the powers of the Commis- sion. ‘The Preface runs thus: “The Queen’s Majesty, of her godly zeal, calling to remem- brance how necessary it is to the advancement of God’s glory, and to the establishment of Christ’s pure religion, for all her loving subjects, especially the state ecclesiastical, to be knit together in one perfect unity of doctrine, and to be conjoined in one uniformity of rites and manners in the ministration of God’s holy Word, in open prayer and ministration of Sacraments, as also to be of one decent behaviour in their outward apparel, to be known partly by their distinct habits to be of that vocation (who should be reverenced the rather in their offices as Ministers of the holy things whereto they be called), hath by her letters directed unto the Archbishop of Canterbury and Metropolitan, required, enjoyned, and straightly charged, that with assistance and conference had with other Bishops, namely, such as be in Commission for causes ecclesiastical, some orders might be taken, whereby all diversities and varieties among them of the Clergy and the people, (as breeding nothing but contention, offence, and breach of common charity, and be against the laws, good usage and ordinances of the realm,) might be reformed and repressed, and brought to one manner of uniformity throughout the whole realm, that the people may thereby quietly honour and serve Almighty God in truth, concord, unity, peace and quietness, as by her Majesty’s said Letters more at large doth appear. Where- upon by diligent conference and communication in the same, and at last by assent and consent of the persons aforesaid, these Orders and Rules ensuing have been thought meet and conve- nient to be used and followed!: not yet prescribing these Rules 1 Mr. Benson quotes this orders framed and now issued passage, together with the sen- tence preceding, and observes upon them, that ‘ there is evi- dently no royal authority or sanction claimed for these par- ticular Advertisements in the above passages. The first,”’ he says, ‘‘only states that the Queen had charged the Me- tropolitan and others to take some orders to repress diversi- ties. It does not add that the had been agreed to by the Queen, as the orders which ought to be taken for that pur- pose.” But surely this is tm- plied :—a book of Articles put forth, with such a Royal Letter as this at the head of them, must be regarded as claiming, on the face of them, that autho- rity; much more when the book had such a title-page as we have seen this had, setting We Dress of the Preacher. as laws equivalent with the eternal Word of God, and as of necessity to bind the consciences of her subjects in the nature of them considered in themselves™: Or as they should add any forth these ‘*‘ Advertisements ”’ as being “by virtue of the Queen’s Majesty’s Letters, com- manding the same.” But ‘in the second passage,” Mr. Ben- son says further, “‘there is a most careful abstinence from any mention of the Sovereign, or her authority. The rules . are not even ventured to be put forth as binding at all. It is merely declared that they are such as were thought meet and convenient; not such as are necessary to be used and followed; not as_ possessing any legal force. ‘This meetness and convenience, also, are made to rest upon the assent and con- sent only of those who were appointed to draw up some re- gulations, and the Queen’s in- dispensable name, so studiously mentioned as originating, is never alluded to as having sanctioned, the orders to which the Commissioners had agreed.” But all this might be very con- sistent with the supposition of the Articles in question having such authority notwithstanding : it might be that the absolute authority was kept, in some degree, in the background, the better to commend what was desired, to willing acceptance : those who were empowered to proceed by ‘‘ order, injunction, or censure,’ might choose to put forth their ‘‘ordinances”’ rather in the form of “ adver- tisements.”” And we find, as matter of fact, that the manner and tone adopted did practi- cally thus operate. We find Bullinger, writing to Humphrey and Sampson from Zurich, May 1, 1566, in answer to the ques- tion, ‘*‘ Whether is it allowable to have a habit in common with papists?” argues with them, that ‘ the use of the habits was never set aside from the begin- ning of the Reformation,” and that it was ‘still retained not by any popish enactment, but by virtue of the royal edict, as a matter of indifference and of civil order.” (Zurich Letters, p- 348.) From other passages in the same letter, (vid. pp. 353, 854) it is quite clear that the orders in question were re- cognized as ‘‘ prescribed by the sovereign,” “‘confirmed by law,” (‘‘ratum,’’) &c., established“‘ by a public ordinance” (“ publico decreto”’), &c. m 'The intention of this clause was certainly not to disclaim legal authority for the Adver- tisements, but to meet a scruple of conscience. We find, after the proceedings with the Lon- don ministers, archbishop Par- ker writes to the Secretary that “some of them, he doubted not, were moved in a conscience ; which he laboured by some ad- vertisements to pacify,” (p. 215. I. 429.) And Strype has pre- served ‘‘a paper of the Arch- bishop’s, which seems,” as he says, ‘‘to be the result of much deliberation. It runneth thus, ‘Propositio Episcoporum. Mi- nistri in Ecclesia Anglicana, in qua Dei beneficio pura Christi doctrina, et fidei Evangelice preedicatio jam viget, queeque manifestam detestationem Anti- christianismi publice profitetur, ress of the Preacher. 113 efficacy, or more holiness to the virtue of public prayer and to the Sacraments", but as temporal orders® mere ecclesiastical, without any vain superstition, and as rules, in some part, of dis- cipline P concerning decency, distinction, and order for the time.” Strype has preserved, in his Appendix‘, the original draft of these Advertisements, as first framed by the Archbishop, in which form, however, as we have seen, according to the endorsement in Cecil’s hand-writing, they “were not authorized nor pub- lished.” Strype has noticed certain variations in the Preface, between the MS. copy and the printed book, and adds, ‘“‘ T have also diligently compared the printed book with the aforesaid MS. copy, and find them different in many places, and sundry things are left out which are in the copy; the Arch- bishop thinking fit in that manner to publish them, because of their want of authority to oblige persons to the observance of them. This hath inclined me to put it into the Appendix as I find it, being sent from the Archbishop to the Secretary; thinking it worthy the retrieving such acts of the governors of the Church, the better to enlighten our ecclesiastical history.” It is not very easy to understand to what pre- cise stage in the proceedings we are to refer, upon Strype’s hypothesis, the one printed edition of the Advertisements. sine impietate uti possunt ves- tium discrimine, publica autho- ritate jam prescripto, tum in administratione sacra, tum in usu externo, modo omnis cultus et necessitatis opinio amoveatur.’ —This was subscribed to by Canterbury, London, Winches- ter, and Ely, Bishops, &c.” p. 173. (I. 343, 344.) The principle here expressed was embodied in the Preface to the Advertisements, and fully ex- plains the language there used. It is evident, however, " Compare the Injunctions of 1559, sup. cit. pp. 61, 62. ° In the original MS., as Strype observes, p. 158. (I. 315), it was ‘constitutions,’ here changed into ‘temporal orders.’ P In the original MS. “ posi- tive laws in discipline,” ibid. In both cases, it will be ob- served, a more qualified ex- pression is adopted. 9 Book ii. No. 28. t Life of Parker, |. ¢. I 114 ress of the Preacher. from his own account of the matter, and still more from a comparison of the two documents with each other, taken in connexion with Archbishop Parker's subsequent statement to Cecil of the omissions he had made in them, that the MS. copy was the orzg7- nal and the printed the final and authorized form. In the Preface there is this variation, noticed by Strype. In the MS. it began thus : “The Queen’s Majesty &c.... hath by the assent of the Metropolitan, and with certain other her commissioners in causes ecclesiastical, decreed certain Rules and Orders to be used, as hereafter followeth.”’ This was changed to— “The Queen’s Majesty &c. ... hath by her letters, directed unto the Archbishop of Canterbury and Metropolitan, required, enjoyned, and straitly charged, that with assistance and con- ference had with other Bishops, namely, such as be in commis- sion for causes ecclesiastical, some orders might be taken, whereby; 8ic.! 2"): It would appear as if a doubt had arisen, which of the two courses here marked out should be adopted; and it will be borne in mind that they correspond essentially with the two modes of pro- ceeding provided for in the Act of Uniformity °. In the former instance, of 1560, the Queen made known her pleasure in a letter to the Metropolitan with certain other her commissioners‘; in this case, * Vid. sup. pp. 81, 85. t We do not find that, in that instance, the actual changes made or regulations adopted, were expressly specified and authorized by the Queen: though, in that case, the word- ing of the Act might have seemed to require it (‘the Queen’s Majesty may, &c., or- dain and publish such further rites and ceremonies,” &c.), whereas, it appears, she only gave the original authority to the commissioners to take such order, &c. In the present case, order was to be taken, simply “by the authority of the Queen’s Majesty,” &c.; it was not necessary that the ordaining and publishing should be her act. ress of the Preacher. 115 to the Metropolitan singly, though assisted by, and in conference with, other Bishops in that com- mission; in both cases the object being the same, the carrying out the great design of the Act which made such provision, viz. the quiet estab- lishing of “one manner of uniformity throughout the whole realm.” And thus, then, there was com- petent authority for the further order taken in this Book of Advertisements", in regard to the ornaments of the minister, superseding, though silently, that of Kdward’s First Book. For such change was really made by these Advertisements; and if our argument is correct, it was done by proper autho- rity . Let us now look to these Advertisements them- “ Strype observes, in his Annals, [ vol. i. p. 463. (I. ii. p- 131.) ] that ‘‘these Orders. . . if the queen had established them, would have had _ the strength of law, by a proviso in the ‘Act for the Uniformity of the Common Prayer and Ser- vice,’ viz. That if there should appear any contempt, &c. or irreverence, &c. ... By virtue of this clause, I suppose it was,’ says Strype, ‘ the metro- politan framed these orders, in expectation of the queen’s in- terposing her authority to or- dain them; which, without it, proved afterwards but weak and languid.”” Strype’s remark as to the authority which these orders would have, if the Queen gave them her sanction, is very important for our purpose ; the more so from his supposition as to the actual putting forth of these articles. He should, how- ever, have referred to the for- mer, rather than to the latter part of the clause in the Act of Uniformity. v Mr. Robertson, referring to Burn’s statement “‘ that no other order ever was taken,” observes that “if no alterations were made by the Queen in the very way here provided, yet an alter- ation was made by the Adver- tisements of 1565, which, al- though issued on the authority of the Bishops,’’—he refers to Dr. Cardwell, — ‘‘ were popularly known as‘ The Queen’s Book.’” But, indeed, the alteration was made, as it appears to me, in the very way provided; unless it is to be considered a departure from it, that the course actually taken was with the advice of the Commissioners as weil as of the Metropolitan, and not merely of the one or the other. pe 116 ress of the Preacher, selves. The first head contains “ Articles for doe: trine and preachinge.” Among these are, ‘“‘ First, that all they which shall be admitted to preach, shall be diligently examined for their conformity in unity of doc- trine,”’ &c. “Item, That all licenses for preaching, granted out by the Archbishop and Bishops within the province of Canterbury, bearing date before the first day of March, 1564, be void and of none effect, and nevertheless, all such as shall be thought meet for the office, to be admitted again without difficulty or charge, paying no more but ii pence for the writing, parchment, and wax.” “Item, That they are not to exact or receive unreasonable rewards or poenes of the poor pastors, coming to their cures to their preach,” &c... | “Item, That if the parson be able, he shall preach in his own person every three months, or else shall preach by another.” These Articles, it will be observed, distinctly recog- nize preachers under that name: in one of them it is said, “If any preacher or parson, vicare or curate so licensed,” &c. Under the next head are “ Articles for adminis- tration of prayer and sacraments.” Among these are the following: ‘Item, In the ministration of the holy communion in Cathe- dral and collegiate churches, the principall minister” shall use a cope with gospeller and epistoler agreably; and at all other prayers to be sayde at that communion table, to use no copes but surplesses. Item, That the deane and prebendaries weare a surplesse with a silk hoode in the quyer ; and when they preache in the cathe- dral or collegiate churche *, to weare their hoode. ‘Item, That every minister sayinge any publique prayers, “ In the original draft it but surplesses.’’ Strype’s Ap- was, “the executor with Piste- pendix, Book i. No. 28. ler and Gospeller, mynyster the * In the original draft it same in coopes; andat all other is simply, ‘‘in the Cathedral praiers to be said at the Com- Church.” munion table, to have no coopes ress of the Vreacher. 117 or ministringe the sacramentes or other rites of the churche, shall weare a comely surples with sleeves, to be provided at the charges of the parishe .” . . Let us compare these orders with the rubries of the First Book of Edward VI., and we shall both see clearly the changes now silently made, and obtain also some illustration of the rubrics of that Book, and some confirmation, if I mistake not, of the conclusions we have already drawn respecting them. As regards the administration of the Communion, then, the albes, vestments, and tunicles, of the for- mer Rubric are superseded by the surplice, with the cope to be worn over it, no longer (as before) in parish churches, but only by the principal minis- ter, and the epistoler, and gospeller, in’ cathedral and collegiate churches. The direction, that, “at all other prayers to be sayde at that communion table,” they are “to use no copes but surplices,” was in- tended, it would appear, to apply to that part of the Communion Office which was read in the ordinary Sunday morning service, when the Communion was not administered. The copes were ‘to be put on only for the actual administration*: In the same churches, cathedral and collegiate, the dean and prebendaries are ordered to wear a surplice with a silk hood in the quire, this having been only permis- sive in the former rubric; and here, as before, it is expressly specified, “in the quire,” while in regard to the sermon, preached “in the cathedral or colle- giate church,” i. e. the nave, as it would seem, in contra-distinction from the quire *, the hood is to yY Sparrow, pp. 87, 88. with the canons of 1603 Cardwell’s Doc. Ann., vol. i. (canon 25) will show that this pp. 289—292. was the meaning. z Vid. inf. where a compa- 4 Mr. Robertson has ob- rison of the Advertisements served that this order of the 118 Iaress of the Preacher, be worn, nothing being said respecting the surplice ”. And this would certainly strengthen the conclusion which we drew from the rubric of Edward’s First Book, which speaks of the hood as proper to be Advertisements ‘ought to be compared with the rubric of 1549. It would appear to be intended,’”’ he remarks, ‘‘ that the sermons should not be in the choir of Cathedrals, but, as is usual abroad, in the nave; and,” he observes accordingly, ‘‘ there is ground here for sup- posing that the surplice was not worn by dignitaries when preaching,” (p. 108.) And ‘* this,” he observes, ‘‘is con- firmed by ArchbishopBancroft’s order for Canterbury Cathedral, 1608, (Wilkins, Conc. iv. 436.) ‘That upon solemn feast days the Sermon be made before the Communion:: the moveable pulpit being placed either in the presbytery [the space be- tween the stalls and the altar, Jebb, p. 196] or choir; and every afternoon of such days there be a Sermon for the city in the ordinary place.’ The ordinary place at Canterbury was the chapter-house (Doc. Ann., i. 847. Jebb, 494),” [or Sermon house, as it is still called. | “The Sermon at Ely is still in the nave. (Jebb, 196.)” Robertson, |. c. It was so for- merly also at Exeter and Bris- tol. (Vid. Jebb, pp. 493, 494.) “C. 1. H.” (Appendix, p.18. ) refers to Mr. Robertson’s infer- ence, that the surplice was not worn by dignitaries when preaching. ‘‘ But this,” he says, ‘is not admissible in the face of Canon 25, which is but a repetition, in 1603, of this Ad- vertisement of 1564.” Upon the precise order given in the Canon, something will be said in its proper place. Meanwhile, it must not be taken for granted that the Canon was “but a repetition of this Advertise- ment.” b> Mr. Benson has noticed the special mention made in this Advertisement of ‘* the quire,” and observes upon it (p. 49), ‘the quire is the place where usually the pulpit stands and the sermon is_ preached, in cathedral and _ collegiate churches ; and there, conse- quently, and then, the surplice is worn. But it is remarkable that the latter part of this same Advertisement, when speaking expressly of the sermon, only enjoins, that ‘ when they preach in the cathedral or collegiate church, they do wear their hood.’ The hood, as well as the surplice, had been men- tioned just before. But here the hood only is mentioned as to be worn in preaching, and whether the surplice or the habit of their academical degree was to be worn together with the hood, is not declared. This might be left undetermined, because the place of preaching would determine it to be, if in the quire, in the surplice, ac- cording to the rule already laid down; if in any other part of the church, in the gown, or academical habit.” This seems to me the natural and obvious interpretation of the language of this Advertisement. ress of the Preacher. 119 worn by graduates when they preached, seeming to imply that the preacher would ordinarily wear, not the surplice, but his academic gown. Meanwhile in “saying any public prayers, or ministering the sacraments or other rites of the Church,” and not only, as in the former Rubric, “in the saying or singing of Matins and Evensong, Baptizing and Burying,” the “Minister,” in parish churches or chapels, both “in the administration of the Com- munion, and at all other times in his ministration,” to use the language of the then Rubric, would wear the surplice only; which thus from henceforth stood in the place of the various vestments which it was in former times the duty of the parish to supply. Thus, then, according to the provision of the Act of Uniformity, “other order” was “taken,” in regard to the ornaments of the minister, “by the authority of the Queen’s Majesty, with the advice of the Episcopal members of the commission ap- pointed and authorized under the great seal of England for causes ecclesiastical,” and specially and immediately “of the Metropolitan of this Realm.” But we must notice further some of the “ Articles for outwarde apparell of persons ecclesiasticall,” con- tained in the same Book °. within brackets. The Canon is headed ‘‘ Decency of Apparel ¢ It may be well to compare with these Articles the 74th canon of 1603, which, it will appear, is grounded upon them, and follows them closely. The first sentence is formed upon the 30th of Queen Elizabeth’s In- junctions, already referred to (pp. 61, 62); the words incorpo- rated from it are here inclosed enjoined to Ministers,” and runs thus :— “(The true, ancient, and flourishing Churches of Christ, being] ever [desirous] that their [Prelacy and clergy | might be {had as well in out- ward reverence, as otherwise 120 ress of the Preacher. ‘“‘ Firste, That all archebysshoppes and bysshoppes do use and contineue their accustomed apparell. ‘““Ttem, That all deanes of cathedrall churches, masters of colledges, all archedeacons, and other dignities in cathedrall churches, doctors, bachelers of divinitye and lawe, having any ecclesiasticall livinge, shall weare in their common apparell abrode a syde gowne with sleeves streyght at the hand, without any cuttes in the same; and that also without any fallinge cape; and to weare? typpets of sarcenet, as is lawful for them by thact of parliament, anno xxiv. Hen. octavi. “Item, That all doctors of physicke, or of any other facultye, regarded for the worthiness of their ministry, | did think it fit by a prescript form of decent and comely apparel, [to have them known to the people, | [and thereby to receive the honour and estimation due to the special messengers and ministers of Almighty God ; | we therefore following their grave judgment, and hoping that in time newfangledness of apparel in some factious persons will die of itself, do constitute and appoint, That the arch- bishops and bishops shall not intermit to use the accustomed apparel of their degrees. Like- wise all deans, masters of col- leges, archdeacons, and pre- bendaries in cathedral and collegiate churches (being priests or deacons), doctors in divinity, law, and physic, bache- lors in divinity, masters of arts, and bachelors of law, having any ecclesiastical living, shall usually wear gowns with stand- ing collars, and sleeves strait at the hands, or wide sleeves, as is used in the Universities, with hoods or tippets of silk or sarcenet, and square caps. And that all other ministers, admitted or to be admitted into that function, shall also usually wear the like apparel as is aforesaid, except tippets only. We do further in lke manner ordain, That all the said ecclesiastical —_ persons above mentioned shall usually wear in their journeys cloaks with sleeves, commonly called priests’ cloaks, without guards, welts, long buttons, or cuts. And no ecclesiastical person shall wear any coif or wrought night cap, but only plain night caps of black silk, satin, or vel- vet. In all which particulars concerning the apparel here prescribed, our meaning is not to attribute any holiness or special worthiness to the said garments, but for decency, gravity, and order, as is before specified.” [Compare Injunc- tions of Queen Elizabeth above referred to. | ‘‘In private houses and in their studies, the said per- sons ecclesiastical may use any comely and scholarlike apparel, provided that it be not cut and pinkt, &c.... Likewise poor beneficed men and curates (not being able to provide them- selves long gowns) may go in short gowns of the fashion afore- said.” ¢ In the original draft ‘a tippet of silk.” ress of the Preacher. 121 having any livinge ecclesiasticall, or any other that may dispende by the churche one hundred markes, so to be estemed by the fruites or tenthes of their promotions, and all prebendaries, whose promotions be valued at twenty pound or upward, weare the like apparell. “Item, That they and all ecclesiastical persons or other, havinge any ecclesiasticall livinge, doe weare the cappe appointed by the injunctions®. And they to weare no hattes but in their journeinge. “Item, That they in their journeinge do weare theire clokes with sleeves put on, and lyke in fashion to their gownes without gards, welts, or cuts. “Item, That in their private houses and studies they use their owne liberty of comely apparrell. “Item, That all inferior ecclesiasticall persons shall wear longe gownes of the fashion aforesayde, and cappes as before is prescribed. ‘Item, That all poore persons, vicars, and curates do endevor themselves to conforme theire apparrell in like sorte so soone and as convenientley as their abilitye will serve to the same. Pro- vided that their abilitye bee judged by the bysshop of the dioces. And yf theire abilitye will not suffer to buye them longe gownes of the forme afore prescribed, that then they shall weare their shorte gownes agreable to the forme before expressed.” These last “ Articles of outwarde apparell for per- sons ecclesiasticall,” will fully explain in what dress the preacher’ would appear, not wearing the surplice. He would, as in the University, wear his ordinary Academical, or clerical attire, and, according to the usage there, he would put on, for preaching, being a graduate, the hood belonging to his degree. And these orders also meet the argument in favour of preaching in the surplice, which has been grounded on the fact that the parishioners never provide a € In the original draft— dently, Collier speaks of these “except that for urgent cause latter articles as ‘ regulations or necessity they do obtain the for the pulpit, touching the Prince’s toleration, or other- habit in which the clergy were wise,’ to officiate.” Vol. u. p. 495. f With this impression, evi- 122 ress of the Preacher, gown, and, moreover, that “the gown is nowhere mentioned or alluded to in any of the rubrics,” nor “included among the furniture and ornaments proper for divine service *.” The parish, as has been already remarked, do not provide the gown, because it is the personal private dress of the clergyman; and it is nowhere mentioned in the rubrics, though it zs in the advertisements, canons, &c., which have given regulations on such matters. That the Book of Advertisements was not pub- lished in any form until it had finally obtained the Royal assent, is evident from the Letter of “the Arch- bishop to the Bishop of London upon sending him the book of Orders *.” The letter is dated March 28, 1566°. It refers to “her Highnes letters,” “addrest” to the Archbishop, “now a year past and more,” ‘“‘ The contents wherof, I sent unto your Lordship in her name and authority .... and so I doubt not but your Lordship have distributed the same unto others of our brethren within this pro- vince of Canterbury: whereupon hath ensued, in the most part & Vid. sup. pp. 10—12. h Strype’s Parker, Appendix, Book iii. No. 48. i “The Archbishop, as was said before, sent the book to the bishop of London, March 28th, enjoining him to send and disperse copies thereof to all the bishops with his letter to them, to see them duly ex- ecuted .s. Strype, sp. 216, (I. 431.) “The same 28th of March, the Archbishop sent these books of orders to the several Deans of his own peculiar jurisdiction, with his letter to this purport to the rest, as he wrote to the Dean of Bocking ; ‘ That... he sent him a book of certain orders, agreed upon by him and his brethren of the province of Canterbury, and hitherto not published: willing him to call before him, and to publish to them the said orders prescribed in that book, &c....’ ‘‘A like letter was writ to Mr. Denne, Commissary of Canterbury ; to the Bishop of Chichester, Commissary of the peculiar jurisdiction of South Malling, Pagham, and Terring ; and to Mr. Dr. Weston, Dean of the Arches, Shoram, and Croy- don, with several of the books above mentioned — enclosed therein.” Ibid. pp. 216, 217. (I. 481, 482.) Dress of the Preacher. 123 of the realm, an humble and obedient conformity: and yet some few persons, I fear more scrupulous than godly prudent, have not conformed themselves ; peradventure some of them, for lack of particular description of Orders to be followed, which, as your Lordship doth know, were agreed upon among us long ago, and yet in certain respects not published. *“‘ Now, for the speedy reformation of the same, as the Queen’s Highnes hath expressly charged both you and me of late, being therfore called to her presence, to se her laws executed, and good Orders decreed and observed ; I can no less do of my obedience to Almighty God, and of my allegiance to her princely state, and of sincere zeal to the Church, and promotion of Christian reli- gion now established, but require and charge you, as you will answer to God and her Majesty, to see her Majesties laws and injunctions performed within your dioces, and also these our con- venient orders, described in these books, at this present sent unto your Lordship. And further, to transmit the same books with your letters, according as hath been heretofore used, unto al other our brethren within this province; to cause the same to be performed in their several jurisdictions and charges *.” Thus, then, this Book of Advertisements finally went forth with full authority'; and in Archbishop Parker’s Articles of Enquiry within the diocese of Canterbury, three years afterwards (1569), it is thus referred to. The first enquiry is, *‘ Inprimis, Whether Divine Service be sayde or songe by your minister or ministers in your several Churches duly and reverently, as it is set forth by the laws of this realme, without any kind of variation. And whether the holy Sacraments be like- wise ministered reverently in such manner as by the laws of this realm, and by the Queen’s Majesty’s Injunctions, and by the K Comp. Strype’s Grindal, pp. 104, 105. 1 «These Advertisements,”’ says Strype, “‘ came now abroad so well strengthened with autho- rity and menace of animad- versions upon disobedience ; and this with the fresh pro- ceedings against the London ministers; as did mightily awaken and terrify such as would not comply ; as appeared by a letter that Laurence Hum- frey wrote from Oxon, in April, to the Secretary on this occa- sion, with his earnest desire to him to procure the stopping the execution, and laying aside the book,” &c. Life of Parker, p: 217. (I. 432.) 124 Dress of the Preacher. ‘ Advertisements set forth by public authority™,’ is appointed and prescribed °.”’ And, in like manner, in Archbishop Whitgift’s “ Articles, touching preachers and other orders for the Church,” issued in 1583, one article is,— ‘* Fourthly, That all preachers, or 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 °.” And in the Articles of Enquiry in the Visitation of the Diocese of Chichester (sede vacante), by the authority of the Archbishop, in the following year (1584), is this: ‘¢ Fifthly, Whether doth your Minister in public prayer wear a surplice; and go abroad apparelled as by her Majestie’s Injunc- tions and Advertisements is prescribed P ?” ™ Dr. Cardwell observes that “the way in which the arch- bishop speaks of the Advertise- ments in” these ‘articles of enquiry. . . certainly assigns to them ‘public authority,’ but clearly distinct from that of the Crown.” (Doc. Ann., vol. i. p. 288, note.) The words used would seem to me very appro- priately to designate the pecu- liar authority by which these Advertisements were set forth, as provided by the Act. The ‘“‘Injunctions” had been put forth in a different way ; they had been simply “ given by the Queen’s Majesty,” according to the heading of them, or, in the words of the preamble, by “‘the Queen’s most royal majesty, by the advice of her most honour- able privy council.” If the Advertisements had merely rested on the authority of the several bishops in their respec- tive dioceses, they could never have been described as “set forth by public authority.” Compare, in contrast, the title of the Canons of 1571, already referred to. " Cardwell, Doc. Ann., i. 320. The third enquiry is,— “III. Item, whether your prestes, curates, or ministers do use in the time of the cele- bration of divine service to wear a surples, prescribed by the Queen’s Majesty’s Injunctions and the Boke of Common Prayer, ; ° Doc. Ann., i. 411. Strype’s Whitgift, p. 115. (I. 229.) P Strype’s Whitgift, p. 243. (I. 462.) App., B. iii. No. 29. In the ‘ Articles to be enquired of in the ordinary Visitation of the Lord Archbishop of Can- terbury, within the diocese of Sarum,” 1588, it is asked, ‘9, Item. Whether your minis- ter doth reverently say service, and minister the sacraments, ress of the Preacher. 125 Meanwhile in the Canons of 1571, the book of Ad- vertisements had been thus referred to. Under the head of “Concionatores,” it is ordered %, | “Inter concionandum utentur veste quammaxime modesta et gravi, que deceat atq. ornet ministrum Dei, qualisque in libello admonitionum* descripta est.” From what follows immediately, it would appear, that by “preachers” were meant specially the preachers licensed by the Queen, the Archbishop of the province, or the Bishop of the diocese, and who preached in different churches throughout the country, as we have already seen. For it goes on: “‘ Nec pecuniam pro concione, aut mercedem ullam exigent ; sed victu tantum et simplici apparatu, et unius noctu hospitio, contenti erunt.”’ But the orders here given respecting preachers, were clearly intended to apply to preachers generally ; for the first of them is, ‘“* Nemo, nisi ab episcopo permissus, in parochia sua publice preedicabit, nec posthac audebit concionari extra ministerium, et ecclesiam suam, nisi potestatem ita concionandi acceperit vel a according to the Book of Com- mon Prayers, and whether doth he use, in his ministration, the ornaments appointed by the laws now in force?’ Wilkins’ Con- cilia, vol. iv. p. 337. Com- pare the Articles of Enquiry for the dioceses of Canterbury and Rochester, and other pecu- liar jurisdictions, in 1589. Strype’s Whitgift, pp. 309, 310. (I. 594.) 4 Cardwell’s Synodalia, vol. i. p. 126. Sparrow, &c. r Dr. Cardwell’s note ex- plains the reference to be to ‘The celebrated Advertise- ments of the year 1564, which, acting on the same principle as in the case of these canons, the Queen,” he proceeds to say, ‘refused to put forth with her sanction, although she had re- quired the Bishops in commis- sion to draw them up, and afterwards ordered that they should be rigorously enforced.” This hypothesis, adopted from Strype, we have already ex- amined. But the remark which Dr. Cardwell goes on to make, is fully borne out by fact, viz., that ‘‘by this and by other Synods, they (the Advertise- ments) seem to have been con- sidered as having the most per- fect authority.” 126 waress of the Preacher. regia majestate per omnes regni partes, vel ab archiepiscopo per provinciam, vel ab episcopo per dicecesim.” And the distinct recognition of preachers as such, in this and other documents, only confirms the argument which has been maintained as to the ordinary use of the gown as the preacher’s dress *. For, as has been already remarked, we find no variety of practice spoken of in this respect. But the point mainly in view now is the refer- ence, in successive acts of the Church‘, to these Advertisements as of the most perfect and un- questioned authority. We will proceed, therefore, to the Canons of 1603, where they are thus referred to. In Canon 24, it is ordered that “‘In all cathedral and collegiate churches, the holy commu- nion shall be administered upon principal feast days, sometimes by the bishop, if he be present, and sometimes by the dean, and at some times by a canon or prebendary, the principal minister using § Or, in other words, that the dress of the preacher was his ordinary clerical dress, i. e. the gown. For, as Mr. Robert- son observes (pp. 109, 110), ‘*the only passage” in the Advertisements “that can be meant, is that which orders for ministers that ‘in their common apparel abroad,’ their gowns be ‘syde, with sleeves strait at the hand,“ cn 5.2), t There is a reference to the Advertisements in the Articles agreed upon by the Convoca- tion of 1575, as they originally stood. In the 8th Article, in reference to the renewal of licenses for preaching, provision is made for “all such as shall be thought meet for that office, to be admitted again without difficulty or charge, paying nothing for the same.”’ (Card- well, Synodalia, vol. i. p. 136.) This last clause, as Dr. Card- well informs us, had originally stood thus, ‘‘ paying not above four pence for the seal, parch- ment, writing and wax for the same, according to an article of the Advertisements in that be- half.” Dr. Cardwell thinks that, ‘“‘ by inserting this clause, the bishops might have wished to obtain indirectly the Queen’s confirmation of the Advertise- ments.”’ The necessity for this not very probable supposition is removed, if our argument respecting the Advertisements be admitted to be sound :— and the subsequent omission of the reference in these arti- cles to the Advertisements is accounted for by the alteration made in the clause itself. ress of the Preacher. 127 a decent cope, and being assisted with the gospeller and epistler agreeably, according to the Advertisements published anno 7 Eliz.” And the following Canon (25) orders, that ** In the time of Divine Service and prayers, in all cathedral and collegiate churches, when there is no Communion, it shall be sufficient to wear surplices‘; saving that all deans, masters, and heads of collegiate churches, canons, and prebendaries, being graduates, shall daily, at the times both of prayer and preach- ing, wear with their surplices such hoods as are agreeable to their degrees “.”’ On comparing these Canons with the Book of Advertisements, it will be seen that those Advertise- ments were the very ground-work of these Canons; and it will be borne in mind, that the limitation of the use of copes to the principal minister, the gos- peller, and the epistler, in cathedral and collegiate churches, superseding meanwhile these vestments by the surplice so far as parish churches were con- cerned, was the very departure made in the Adver- tisements from the Rubric of Edward’s First Book. In regard to the times of preaching, as well as of prayer, it is presumed by the Canon, varying herein from the Advertisements, that the surplice will be worn; but only, it will be observed, by the members of cathedral and collegiate churches. The varia- tion here discoverable would confirm the conclusion which was drawn from the Advertisements, that there was a distinction intended in them between the usage in “the guire,” and in “the church,” i. e. as it would seem, the body of* the cathedral. It is not improbable that, in the forty years between " Compare Advertisements, (ibid.) |. c. (second head, No.1.) Sup. p. “ Comp. Advertisements, 116. (No. 2,) ibid. Y Comp. Advertisements, 128 ress of the Preacher. 1564 and 1604, sermons having become less the special attraction than in the days of Paul’s Cross and the early times of the Reformation, the sermons were now more generally preached in the guzre of the cathedral. Or if it is to be inferred from the Canon, that the place of preaching was different from that of prayer, it is then to be regarded as merely an order that on all such occasions the deans, and canons or prebendaries, should appear in their proper dress as members of the cathedral or colle- giate body. But to proceed. In the 58th Canon we have another instance of a direction following closely that of the Advertisements, from which in fact, like those just cited, it is taken, in this case almost ver- batim. It runs thus: ‘“‘ Every minister, saying the public prayers, 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 comeliness thereof, the same shall be decided by the discre- tion of the Ordinary. Furthermore, such ministers as are gra- duates 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, ) * Comp. Advertisements, rish.” For we find the surplice (No. 3,) sup. pp. 116, 117. y This requirement of the hood to be worn by graduates seems to throw some doubt upon the dictum, as stated in its widest application, that, since ‘‘the things requiréd for the common prayer of the parish were and are to be pro- vided by the parish,” it may be inferred that “if a gown were required in any part of the public ministration, it would be to be provided by the pa- by this canon is ‘‘to be pro- vided at the charge of the pa- rish.”” But not so the hood, which yet the minister, if he be a graduate, is to wear. But the solution is easy : the hood being in fact, as has been already stated, a part of the clergyman’s own Academical dress; as is also the gown with which, as we have seen in the Advertise- ments of 1564, he was required to provide himself. Bress of the Preacher. 129 under pain of suspension. Notwithstanding it shall be lawful for such ministers as are not graduates to wear upon their surplices, instead of hoods, some decent tippet of black, so it be not silk.” This direction to graduates to wear their hoods, with the permission given to non-graduates to wear tippets, upon their surplices, in ordinary parish churches, is not grounded on the Advertisements, and is altogether new. And this, then, is the only point which we have yet come to, in regard to which there is discoverable any diversity between the canons of 1603, or our present practice, and the Rubric estab- lished by the Act of Elizabeth, interpreted and ex- tended by the clause which provided for further order in regard to ornaments. If that Rubric, so explained and qualified, be our rule, the only question that can be raised is that to which this canon gives rise, viz. whether the hood, in parish churches, may be law- fully worn over the surplice, not being one of the ornaments in use in the second year of Edward VI. This is the entire amount of doubtfulness which can be found in the whole question of vestments. Over the gown, in preaching, the hood certainly may, and ought in strict propriety to be worn, if we are to follow the direction of that Rubric. Of the Canons it remains only to notice the 74th, headed, “Decency in apparel enjoined to Ministers,” which, although it does not expressly refer to the Advertisements, is evidently throughout grounded upon them’ And in regard to this parti- cular point, of apparel, it will be recollected that the Canons of 1571 expressly referred to the Adver- tisements for directions. To proceed, however, with the testimonies to the * Vid. sup. p. 119, note. 130 Baress of the Preacher. authority of the Book of Advertisements,—we find it thus recognized by Bishop Andrewes, and that distinctly on the ground on which it has now been argued, viz. the Act of Uniformity of Elizabeth, and its reserving clause. On the Rubric in the Com- munion Service, “Immediately after the Collect the Priest shall read the Epistle,” Bishop Andrewes’ note is: ‘In parish Churches the Epistler is seldom a priest; and therefore as this Rubric was ordained generally for all England, most places having but one Priest to serve it, so for Cathedral Churches it was ordained by the Advertisements, in Queen Eliza- beth’s time, (that authority being reserved, notwithstanding this Book, by an Act of Parliament,) that there should be an Epistler and a Gospeller, besides the Priest, for the more solemn perform- ance of the Service ?.” So fully did Bishop Andrewes recognize the autho- rity of these Advertisements, as of force even to modify the Rubric of the Prayer Book established by the Act of Uniformity of Elizabeth. And in the next generation’, Sparrow, who pub- lished his Rationale in 1657, quotes the Advertise- ments as an authoritative interpretation of the Rubric of the same Book. In his note upon the Rubric, “The Minister, in time of his Ministration, shall use such ornaments as were in use in the 2nd of Edward VI. Rubric 2,” he says, “‘ Viz. a surplice in the ordinary ministration, and a cope in time of ministration of the holy Communion in Cathedral and @ Appendix to Nichols on Common Prayer, pp. 38, 39. Mr. Robertson correctly ob- serves (p. 101), ‘‘ Andrewes appears to consider that the Advertisements fulfil the con- dition of the Act, and that, con- sequently, they have the full authority of law.” b As an intermediate testi- mony, we may mention that, in Bishop Juxon’s Visitation Arti- cles for the diocese of London, in 1640, reference is made, in regard to the observance of the Rogation days, to the “ Injunc- tions and Advertisements of Queen Elizabeth.” Saress of the Preacher. 131 Collegiate Churches, Qu. Eliz. Articl. set forth the 7th year of her reign°.” Such was the view consistently and uniformly taken of the law of the Church, from the time when the Advertisements were put forth down to Bishop Andrewes days. And before we return to notice ques- tions which were afterwards raised, as we have already seen in examining Bishop Cosin’s notes, I will sum up the argument respecting the modification of the Act of Uniformity of Elizabeth by the Advertisements in the words of Dr. Bennet and of Archdeacon Sharp, who alone of later writers seem to have taken the view now maintained, and have put it very clearly. Upon the second Rubric in the Introduction to the Common Prayer, Dr. Bennet observes : **°*Tis notorious that by those Ornaments of the Church, and the Ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, which were in this Church of England, by the Authority of Parliament, in the 2nd Year of King Edward the Sixth, we are to understand such as were prescribed by the first Common Prayer Book of that Prince.... Now in Queen Elizabeth’s time, before the Order for Morning and Evening Prayer were these words, viz. ‘And here it is to be noted, &c. ... according to the Act of Parliament set in the beginning of this Book.’ And thus the Rubric stood till the Restoration of King Charles the Second, after which it was altered to what it now is. ** From hence it seems to follow, that the present Rubric and that of Queen Elizabeth, which are in effect the very same, do restore those Ornaments which were abolished by King Edward’s Second? Book, and which indeed have been disused ever since that time. But it must be considered, that in the latter part of the Act of Uniformity, 1 Eliz., there is this clause, viz. ‘ Provided always, &c. ... And also if there shall happen any contempt,’ &c.... “This clause explains Queen Elizabeth’s Rubric, and conse- quently the present one, which is in reality the same. So that those Ornaments of the Church and its ministry, which were _ © Sparrow’s Rationale, p. ¢ Misprinted “‘ King Edward Fee the Second’s Book.” KZ a2 ress of the Preacher. required in the second year of King Edward, were to be retained till the Queen (and consequently any of her successors), with the advice before specified, should take other Order. | “Now such other order was accordingly taken by the Queen in the year 1564, which was the seventh of her reign. Jor she did then, with the advice of her Ecclesiastical Commissioners, particularly the then Metropolitan, Dr. Matthew Parker, publish certain Advertisements, wherein are the following Directions. ‘Item, In the Ministration, &c.’... “‘ From hence it is plain, that the parish priests (and I take no notice of the case of others) are obliged to no other ornaments but surplices and hoods. For these are authentic limitations of the Rubric which seems to require ali such ornaments as were in use in the second year of King Edward’s reign °.” Archdeacon Sharp, in like manner, quotes the Note at the beginning of the Common Prayer as an instance of one class of rubrics which “require to be understood with limitations.” He observes, ‘‘ There was one sentence, at the end of this Rubric, left out at the Restoration, which would have explained it more fully. The words were these: ‘ according to the Act of parliament set in the beginning of the book.’ “* And these words will lead us to the proper limitation of this rubric. For, if we look into the first Act of Uniformity by Queen Elizabeth, we shall find the words of this rubric taken verbatim from that Act, and to be only a part of a clause whereby she expressly reserved to herself a power of ordering both the orna- ments of the church and of the ministers thereof otherwise hereafter ; which power she did afterwards actually make use of, though not, perhaps, just in the method prescribed in that act £, yet so effectually, that our habits at the times of our ministration stand regulated by her injunctions to this day. ‘** Now putting these things together, that the rubric hath an immediate reference to the act; and that the act is made with an express reservation to the queen’s future appointments ; and © Bennet’s Paraphrase and amined (8vo. Lond. 1737), as Annotations on the Common _ taking precisely the same view. Prayer. Sharp (p. 204, note) f But on this point, vid. sup. refers to Dr. Bennet, and to pp. 114, 115, and note *. the author of the Rubric ex- Dress of the Preacher. 133 that the queen, pursuant to this power given her, did, in the year 1564, publish her Advertisements (as they are called) £ concerning the Habit of Ministers to be worn by them in time of Divine Service ; it will appear that her injunctions thus set forth are authentic limitations" of this Rubric. “It is true some disputes have been made concerning this power given her, whether it was only during her life, (as her powers in some other statutes of the same year are expressly limited,) or derivable upon her successors, and annexed to the crown. But this makes little difference in our present question. Her injunctions have the sanction of that parliament which granted her the said power, and the sanction too of the Act of Uniformity, after the Restoration’, which, by this Rubric now under consideration, refers, according to the explanation now given of it, to her injunctions *.” To return, however, to the records of the times of Queen Elizabeth, it may be observed further, that so fully recognized was the authority of the book of Advertisements, that we find Archbishop Grindal, who, as we have seen, was so exceedingly cautious 8 Mr. Benson says, ‘* This is clearly a mistake. They were published by the Bishops, as their Advertisements.” (p. 25, note.) I must venture, however, to think that this is very clearly a mistake. - They were published by the Metro- politan and the Queen’s Com- missioners as their Advertise- ments ; and by virtue of the Queen’s authority under which they acted, the Advertisements were often, as we have already seen, ‘‘called her Advertise- ments.”’ h Mr. Benson’s comment on this expression of Archdeacon Sharp is, ‘‘ What he means by ‘authentic,’ I know not. Cer- tainly he did not, and could not, mean legal; for he had just before been compelled re- luctantly to allow, that, though she did make use of the power entrusted to her, it was ‘ not, perhaps, just in the manner prescribed in that Act’ of Uni- formity, but only ‘so effectually, that our habits at the times of ministration, stand regulated by her to this day.’ As a fact,” says Mr. Benson, ‘‘this is true; but,” he adds, ‘‘we are not legally justified in doing so.” (Ibid.) When once, however, it is proved that the Queen did ultimately give her sanction to the Advertisements, they be- come, in the strict and legal sense of the term, *‘ authentic limitations of the Rubric.” ' On this point, vid. inf. * Sharp on the Rubric, pp. 65, 66. Comp. p. 204, note, 134. Jaress of the Preacher. in regard to canons not expressly and avowedly sanctioned by the Queen’s authority, giving, in the very same year in which the canons referred to were passed (1571), injunctions “in his Metropolitan Visi- tation of the Province of York, as well to the Clergy as to the Laity of the same Province,” among which are the following, “T. For the Clergy. ... ‘4, Item, That at all times when ye minister the Holy Sacra- ments, and upon Sundays and other holy days, when ye say the Common Prayer, and other divine service in your parish churches and chapels, and likewise at all marriages and burials, ye shall, when ye minister, wear a clean and decent surplice with large sleeves.... Ll” For the Dati 0.0, “4, Item, That the churchwardens in every parish shall at the cost and charges of the parish, provide (if the same be not already provided) all things necessary and requisite for com- mon prayer and administration of the holy Sacraments, on this side the 20th day of ———— next ensuing, specially ...a decent large surplice with sleeves. ... ‘*7, That the churchwardens and minister shall see that antiphoners!, mass books, grailes, portesses, processionals, manu- ! The editor of Archbishop Grindal’s Remains, in a note (p. 159,) on the Visitation Ar- ticles, similar to these, issued in 1576, for the province of Canterbury, and noticed in the text (infra), observes, that we ‘find most of these articles of Church furniture enjoined by a previous Archbishop of Can- terbury, to be provided by the parishioners.” He then quotes from Archbishop Winchelsea’s Constitutions, which are the same already referred to (sup. p- 10), as enumerating ‘“ ‘the furniture and ornaments proper for divine service,’ to be pro- vided by the parishioners of every parish. (Gibson, 201.) ‘In ecclesiis parochialibus omnis supellex rei divine aut parochiali opportuna hic anno- tata reperiatur. “Ut parochiani ecclesiarum singularum nostre Cantuari- ensis provincize sint de czetero certiores de defectibus ipsos contingentibus, ne inter rectores et ipsos ambiguitas generetur temporibus successivis, Volu- mus de cetero et preecipimus, quod teneantur invenire omnia inferius notata; videlicet, legen- dam, antiphonarium, gradale. . . missale, manuale, calicem, vesti- Dress of the Preacher. 135 ales, legendaries, and all other books of late belonging to their church or chapel, which for the superstitious Latin service, be utterly defaced, rent, and abolished. And that all vestments, albes, tunicles, stoles, phanons, pixes, paxes, hand-bells, sacring- bells, censers, chrismatories, crosses, candlesticks, holy-water- stocks, or fat (sic) images, and all other relics and monuments of superstition and idolatry, be utterly defaced, broken, and de- stroyed; and if they cannot come by any of the same, they shall present to the ordinary what they cannot come by, and in whose custody the same is, to the intent further order may be taken for the defacing thereof ™.” The vestments, albes, and tunicles, it will be recol- lected, were at this time required by the Act of Uni- formity, except so far as the order recognized in that Act had been altered by the Advertisements, upon which Grindal, as Archbishop of York, thus undoubt- ingly acted. And among the Articles issued by him to each of his four Archdeacons, and also to the Bishop of Sodor and Man, commanding and enjoining them “to be put in execution... with speed and effect” for taking down roodlofts, &c....is the following, in the exact words of the Advertisements. “ Item, That every minister saying any public prayers, or ministering the sacraments, or other rites of the church, shall wear a comely surplice with sleeves.” Very similar enquiries are made in the “ Articles for the Province of Canterbury,” which the same Archbishop, who meanwhile had been removed to mentum principale cum casula, dalmatica, tunica et cum capa in choro cum omnibus suis appendiciis, . . . tria superpel- licia, unum rochetum, crucem processionalem, crucem pro mortuis, thuribulum, lucernam, tintinnabulum ad_ deferen- dum coram corpore Christi in visitatione infirmorum, pixidem pro corpore Christi, honestum velum, quadragesimale [lege, honestum velum quadragesi- male]... vas pro aqua bene- dictd, osculatorium, candela- brum cum cereo paschali, . imagines in ecclesia, &c.... Lyndewode, Provinciale, Lib. xiii. tit. de Ecclesiis Atdifican- dis, fo. 137.” And compare Johnson’s Eccles. Laws, vol. ii. anno MCCCY. ™ Grindal’s 135, 136. Remains, pp. 136 ress of the Preacher. that see from York, issued in 1576 for his Metro- political visitation. He makes enquiry, ‘©2, Whether you have in your parish churches and chapels all things necessary and requisite for Common Prayer, and ad- ministration of the Sacraments, specially the Book of Common Prayer with the new Kalendar...a decent large surplice with SlECDES 2)» ‘¢6, Whether all and every antiphoners, mass-books, &c... . And whether all vestments, albs, tunicles®, &c.... be utterly defaced, broken, and destroyed ; and if not, where, and in whose custody they remain ? ‘7, Whether your parson, vicar, curate, or minister, do wear any cope in any parish church or chapel °.” . We find, in like manner, Piers, Archbishop of York, Grindal’s immediate successor in that see, enquiring in his Visitation Articles, in 1590, . and such like reliques of popish superstition and idolatry, be utterly defaced and destroyed.” ‘“‘ Whether all copes, vestments, albes, tunicles, . . “From these extracts,” says Mr. Robertson’, after quoting these articles, together with Whitgift’s of 1584, “it will appear that, after the publication of the Advertisements, the use of copes in parish churches was regarded, not only as no duty, but, by some prelates, at least, as an offence against autho- rity.” Thus, then, in regard to the ornaments of the minister, the further order contemplated by the Act » As in the former Arti- lege “‘holy-water-stocks or fats, cles; except that instead of ‘or fat images,” it stands sim- ply ‘‘images.” Upon the words ‘“‘fat images,” the editor of Grindal’s Remains (pp. 135, 136) gives this note, ‘Solid images, as distinguished from pictures.” But gu. for “‘holy- water-stocks, or fat images,” images,” &c. For an explana- tion of the terms ‘‘ holy-water- stock,” ‘‘ holy-water-vat,”’ or, as otherwise written in some ancient parish accounts, “‘holy- water-fatte,”’ vid. Glossary of Architecture, vol. i. p. 202. ° Grindal’s Rem. p. 159. P Pages 97, 98. ress of the Preacher. 137 of Uniformity had been taken, and was universally recognized as of absolute legal authority; and the change had been effected according to the intention with which, as we have seen, that provision had been made, 2. e. “quietly and without any shew of novelty.” The rubric still continued as it was, viz., “that the minister, at the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use such ornaments in the church as were in use by authority of Parliament in the 2nd year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth, according to the Act of Parliament set in the beginning of this book ;” but the order subsequently taken, not avowedly, but virtually and really, in conformity with the provi- sions of that Act, entirely satisfied, it would seem, the consciences of Churchmen in the times of Hooker, Andrewes, and other their contemporaries, wise and well informed men, and whom we justly look up to as patterns of high principle and sound judgment. And though, a few years later, a different view was taken by one or two persons, in themselves of high authority, but living at a period of much excite- ment, and when the same calm exercise of judg- ment was somewhat hindered by the feelings then called forth, yet afterwards again men like Sparrow and his contemporaries viewed the matter in the same light as those of an earlier generation, recog- nizing fully the authority by which the Rubric still in force had been qualified and explained *. a It has given me much satis- faction to find in Mr. Benson’s pamphlet, which has appeared since the above was written, so clear a statement as the follow- ing upon the subject of the Advertisements, and the im- portance, inits bearing on our re- cent controversies, of the proof, (if it could be satisfactorily made out, as I trust I have proved it can, ) that those Advertisements did really obtain Royal sanc- tion. After noticing the proviso in the Act of Uniformity, he goes on to say (p. 24): “If 138 Dress of the Preacher. But while thus “quietly” the change referred to had been effected as to the ornaments of the minis- ter “at the time of Communion and at all other times in his ministration,” properly so called, no change that is discoverable had been made as to the preaching dress. We have seen that, in 1562, the gown (described as “a grave, comely, and side garment,”) is spoken of as that which was “ com- monly used in preaching ;” and in 1570, “a puritan writes", 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, surplicing, &c.'’” This last passage seems decisive as to the use of the gown at this time as the established dress for preaching, in contradistinction from the “chureh then the above-named Articles had been issued by the autho- rity of the Queen, as well as with the approbation of the Metropolitan and her ecclesias- tical Commissioners, the ques- tion as to the present validity of the first Rubric about the habits of the Clergy, would at once have been settled. That Rubric would no longer have been in force, and every paro- chial Minister would have been empowered to discontinue the use of the cope, thus bringing the rubrical and canonical re- gulations as nearly as possible to agree.” ‘This statement is important as showing how, in Mr. Benson’s view, the case would be clear, if only the Advertisements had full autho- rity; which, I hope, has now been satisfactorily made out. “ Strype, Annals, 11.°6.” S For so, as Mr. Robertson observes, it must be read, though it is printed “ cannot.” t Robertson, pp. 108, 109. The beginning of the passage, as it stands in Strype, is not very intelligible. He tells us, the author ‘thus expresseth himself: ‘I wot not by what devilish cup they [the bishops | do make such a diversity,’ ” &c. The sentence in the ori- ginal is—‘‘ Wherein our ene- mies and _ persecutours are strangely bewitched, I wote not by what develishe cuppe ; that they do make,” &c. ress of the Preacher. 139 service,” and moreover as that which was supposed fully to satisfy the rule of the Church, as interpreted and enforced by her bishops. The passage above referred to is quoted by Strype from “a very hot and bitter letter,’ which, as he tells us, “a brother of this party, Mr. A. G. [An- thony Gilby, I suppose ",]” did “write to several reverend divines, that had been exiles for the Gospel, and returned upon queen Elizabeth’s access to the crown; exciting them with all their might against the bishops, for imposing the habits to be worn by ministers in their ministration; and rather to lay down their ministry than comply. It was directed ‘To his [my] reverend fathers and brethren in Christ, Mr. Coverdale, Mr. Turner, Mr. Whitting- ham, Mr. Sampson, Mr. D. Humfrey, Mr. Leaver, Mr. Crowly, and others, that labour to root out the weeds of popery; grace, and peace.” The letter was prefixed to a book already referred to, as mentioned, and quoted from, by Strype, in an earlier chapter of his Annals *. u «Pass we on now to the fierce (not to say furious) stick- lers against Church discipline, and begin with Anthony Gilby, born in Lincolnshire, bred in Christ’s College in Cambridge. How fierce he was against the ceremonies, take it from his own pen [page 150]. They are ‘known liveries of Antichrist, accursed leaven of the blas- phemous priesthood, cursed patches of Popery and idola- try,” &c.... Fuller’s Church History, book ix. p. 76. v “ A pleasant Dialogue,” &c. (vid. sup. p. 24.) In men- tioning the book in his Annals, vol. i. p. 488, (I. 11. 168, 169) One or two passages of under the year 1565, Strype had noticed that it was “ pre- faced with”’ this Letter. He there speaks of the book as published ‘‘near about this time (1565), having been sup- prest for some years.” In the passage now before us, which is found in the second volume of the Annals, (which was pub- lished many years after the first,) Strype, under the year 1570, speaks of this Letter as written ‘‘this year, if it were not before.” ‘There is a copy of this ‘‘ Dialogue”’ in the Lam- beth Library, with this letter prefixed, printed in 1581; and I find no trace in Herbert of 140 ress of the Preacher. the book are worth noticing, because, while they contain some expressions which might seem to be in favour of the surplice as the preaching dress, and which have been appealed to accordingly, (as quoted if not from this, at least from other similar docu- ments,) yet when taken together, and in connexion with the evidence already adduced from other sources, they will be found to be decidedly on the other side, and put the question, if | mistake not, as to the general usage in the time of Elizabeth, beyond all doubt. The letter says, speaking of the authorities in Church and state, “Their policy is, that the priests shall wear white zm the churches... and when they go forth of the church, they must wear black gowns,” &c. Again, in the dialogue, it is said in reference to the gown, “If he wear this secular weed,” (speaking of it thus in contradistinction to the dress of a “regular,”) “men have hitherto counted him a secular priest, for this was the plain difference amongst them, that their secular priests forth of the church should wear this apparel that you do, and in the church, at the least, they should wear a surplice also, as you do.” It has been observed further in proof of the surplice as the preaching dress, that “in 1566,” (the same year,) “Humphrey and Sampson speak of the cap and gown as enjoined ‘extra templum, and the surplice ‘in templo.’” And so also, we are told, Grindal and Horn, speak “of the one as prescribed ‘in usu externo, the other ‘in administratione sacra’ (Zurich Letters, any earlier edition. The Epis- tle dedicatory is dated ‘* From London the x of May, 1566.” And to the title, which follows, of the Dialogue itself, is sub- joined the statement that ‘‘ This Dialogue was written almost seven years ago,” &c. (Comp. sup. p. 24.) It would seem, therefore, that the book was first written, and not first pub- lished, in 1566. ress of the Preacher. 141 71, 75); whence it has been argued, that “in the church at all times, and therefore in the time of preaching, as well as of common prayer, the surplice was to be used”.” And it is argued further, that when, in 1564, “the bishop’s chancellor directed the metropolitan clergy, in the name of the ecclesias- tical commission, ‘to keep unity of apparel, like to this man,’ pointing to one of them canonically habited, adding, ‘7 the church you must wear a surplice, &c.,*’ it is not easy to conceive that the time Bie Agee bel hl.) ApPeLicIN, Te 7. The quotations here made are not quite correct. Hum- phrey and Sampson say, “5. In coené Dominica” (not “in templo” | ‘“ sacre vestes, nempe copa et supelliceum, ad- hibentur...” ‘6, Extra tem- plum, et ministris in universum singulis, vestes papistice pree- scribuntur.” (Zurich Letters, App. p. 97.) And what Bishops Grindal and Horn say is, ‘‘ nos tenemus ministros ecclesize An- glicanee sine impietate uti posse vestium discrimine, publica authoritate jam preescripto, tum in administratione sacra, tum in usu externo.” (Ibid. p. 105.) * Or, as it is precisely in Strype’s Grindal, p. 98, (145. 8vo,) ‘*a square cap, a scho- lar’s gown priestlike, a tippet, and in the church a linen sur- plice.” Shortly before, at the Archdeacon’s visitation, by the Bishop’s commission, at St. Se- pulchre’s Church, the London clergy were “‘ prayed in a gen- tle manner, to take on them the cap, with the tippet to wear about their necks, and the gown.... and to wear in the ministry of the Church the sur- plice only ;” meaning thereby, I conceive, ‘the surplice only,”’ and nothing more, not albe, vestment, or cope. Ibid. p. 97. (144. 8vo.) “On the 24th of March fol- lowing,” as Strype goes on tosay, *‘ this reformation in Ministers’ habits began, when the use of the scholar’s gown and cap was enjoined from that day forward: the surplice to be worn at all divine administrations.” It was on that occasion that the order above quoted was given, to wear “‘in the church” the sur- plice. These passages seem to give the explanation of the order. And in the letter which Bishop Grindal wrote some time after (in 1566) to Zanchius, as translated by Strype, he told him that ‘“‘ Ministers were required to wear commonly a long gown, a square cap, and a tippet, &e.... Ln the public prayers and in every holy administra- tion, they were to use a linen garment, called a ‘surplice,’”’ p. 107. (158. 8vo.) Compare the original in Strype’s Appendix, Book 1. No. 12, and in the Zu- rich Letters, 70. ‘‘ Jn publicis precibus, omnique administra- tione sacra, preter ista com- munia, lineum quoddam indu- 142 ress of the Preacher. of the sermon in the church—the morning sermon in particular—was excepted from these rules’.” But the book from which we have been quoting speaks precisely in the same way ; and yet, as we have before seen’, it describes the preaching gown as the dress for the sermon, and specifically the morn- ing sermon, the morning prayer and litany having been duly said in the surplice, and the Communion service in the cope. And in the list which is subjoined to this dialogue, of “An hundred points of Poperie, yet remaining, which deforme the Eng- lish Reformation,” are enumerated, “The great wide sleeved gown, commanded to the Ministers, and the charge to wear those sleeves upon the arms, be the weather never so hot,’ “The surplice in little churches,” “The cope in great churches,” “ Silken hoods in their quires, upon a surplice,” &c.; and then, under the head of “The church service, and chief shew of holiness,” refering to the common prayers, litany, &c., one article is, “ All these church prayers and sacraments are tied to a popish surplice.” It is clear, I think, on the evidence of these passages, taken together, that not even the mention of the surplice as required to be worn “ in the church,” proves that it was required in preach- ing: what I conceive was intended to be marked was, that it was only in the church, and in sacred ministrations to be performed there, that the use of the surplice was enforced, in addition to the “extern apparel” generally. The strongest. evidence adduced on the other side seems to be that of a passage in Hooker, which, as mentum, quod novo vocabulo _ ecclesiastica jubet disciplina.”’ superpelliceum dici solet, mi- TC Abe phe. nistrantibus ut accommodetur, 4 Vid. sup. p. 25. Wress of the Preacher. 143 we shall see, supplied the single argument which Bishop Wren, in the next century, could derive from preceding practice in favour of the surplice being worn in preaching. “ Hooker,” it appears, “ repre- sents Puritans as saying, ‘ We judge it unfit, as oft as ever we pray or preach, so arrayed*.” This,” it is argued, “seems to intimate that the same dress was used in preaching as in prayer”.”. Now this argu- ment would certainly be a very strong one against any hypothesis which maintained that the surplice, at the time in question, was never used in preaching ; but, considering that members of cathedral and collegiate churches were required to preach “so arrayed,” when they preached in the choir, such expressions might well be put by Hooker into the mouth of the Puritan. The evidence deduced from this passage, in favour of the surplice as the preach- ing dress, seems to be of the same kind, and not stronger, than that which would be derived from the expressions in Guest’s letter to Cecil in 1559, already quoted °. In regard to other documents of Queen Elizabeth’s reign which have been cited as evidence that the surplice was used in preaching, it may be observed, that they all turn on the use of the word “ministra- tion” and the like, which we have seen reason to distinguish from “preaching.” It is in this more limited and defined sense, I conceive, that “the Bishops’ Interpretations* prescribe ‘the surplice in all other ministrations’ [viz. all other but the Com- munion |°;” and that, in 1564, as we have just seen, “London ministers are ‘prayed [by Grindal their @ Eccl. Pol., V. 29. 7: pp. 58, 59. » Robertson, p. 110. 4 Vid. sup. p. 62. ¢ Vid. sup. p. 53. Comp. * Robertson, p. 106. 144 ress of the Preacher. Bishop | to take on them the gown .... and to wear in the ministry of the Church a surplice only';’” again, that, in 1570, “Sandys, then Bishop of London, in his Injunctions, orders the Clergy, in all Divine Ser- vice, to wear the surplice*®;” that, in 1571, “ Grindal enjoins,—‘ That every minister saying any public prayers, or ministering the sacraments, or other rites of the church, shall wear a comely surplice',” in which order, as we have already seen’, he was merely adopting, verbatim, the rule laid down in the Book of Advertisements; or again, that “about the same time he writes to Zanchius, that the surplice is used ‘in publicis precibus, omnique administratione sacra‘ ;” or, once more, that in 1584 “ Archbishop Whitgift, in articles ex officio’, requires an answer to the follow- ing:—‘ That you have, at the time of Communion, or at all or some other times in your mznistration, used and worn only your ordinary apparel, and not the surplice, as is required™.” In all these cases we have, [ conceive, instances of the usual accepta- tion of the term “ministration” and “ministry” in those days, as referring to the Church Service, properly so called” ;—a point which it is important to have well understood, in its bearing on the inter- pretation of the Rubric in Queen Elizabeth’s Prayer Book, and also because in the canons of 1603, which, article here cited simply em- bodies the language of the then rubric “‘at the time of Communion, and at all other f Ibid. p. 107. (Vid. sup. p- 141, note.) 8 Ibid. p. 109, (referring to Strype’s Ann., ii. 29.) h Remains, p. 155. 1 Vid. sup. p. 135. * Robertson, p. 110 (refer- ring to Grindal’s Rem. p. 335.) Vid. sup. p. 141, note *. ' « Strype, Whitg. App. p. 50.” ™ Robertson, 1. c. The times in his ministration.” " Compare the canons of 1571, where we find, ‘‘ dum peragitur pars aliqua sacri ministeriil, aut habetur sacra concio.” Synod. p. 125. ap. Ro- bertson, p. 113, note. (cf. sup. p- 63.) ress of the Preacher, 145 as we have seen °, follow closely, in this matter, the wording of the Advertisements, if there is not, as Archdeacon Sharp?’ thinks there certainly is, that “which would discourage, if not forbid,” the preach- ing in the surplice, it is observed by the writer who has given the above passages, apparently as consti- tuting the evidence for the surplice, that “at least no check is given to what we know,” as he remarks, “to have been the usual practice of the time,—the use of the gown in preaching ‘.” The Canons of 1603 bring us into the reign of James I., in regard to which, however, we may ob- serve, that of the alterations made in the Book of Common Prayer after the Hampton Court Confer- ence, and which belong to the same period, none in any way affected the state of the question respecting vestments; and the regulations embodied in the Canons, following so closely the Advertisements of Queen Elizabeth, have been already noticed. We must not, however, pass unobserved the mode which was adopted of giving legal authority to the altera- tions made in the Prayer Book under King James. It shows what was the view taken, at that time, of the provisions of Queen Elizabeth’s Act of Uni- formity, and materially strengthens the argument which has been maintained respecting the SUA OF) of the Book of Advertisements. Upon the proceedings which followed the Confer- ence at Hampton Court, Dr. Cardwell observes :— ‘‘ The alterations it was determined to make in the Book of Common Prayer, were not submitted either to the Parliament or even to the convocations of the Clergy. The king required his ° Vid. sup. p. 128. 4 Robertson, |. c. P Sup. cit. p. 16. L 146 Dress of the Prearher. metropolitan and others of his commissioners for causes eccle- siastical, to make declaration of the changes agreed upon, and then issued his letters patent to ratify their Act, to provide for the publication of the liturgy in its new condition, and to enjoin the exclusive use of it in every parish of the two provinces. He probably thought it hazardous to refer considerations of so deli- cate a nature to any large assembly, whether of laymen or of clergy. He certainly believed that he possessed ample authority under the broad shield of his prerogative, and those two import- ant statutes of Queen Elizabeth which annexed the spiritual supremacy for ever to the crown, and made the use of the public liturgy binding upon his subjects. In describing the changes he had made as matters merely of exposition and explanation, he sought to shelter them under the clause introduced at the desire of Queen Elizabeth into the Act of Uniformity, which empowered him, ‘ by the advice of his commissioners or the metropolitan, to ordain and publish such further ceremonies as may be most for the advancement of God’s glory, the edifying of his Church, and the due reverence of Christ’s holy mysteries and sacraments ’. ro9) The part of the Commission with which we are * Conferences, pp. 142, 143. Dr. Cardwell refers here only to the latter part of the clause in question, and not to the en- tire clause, which was the au- thority appealed to. In regard to which clause Nichols says, ‘‘whether it be a qualification personally empowering _ this Queen, and dying with her, or declaration only of the regal power, antecedently inherent in her, and derivable upon her successors, has afforded matter of much dispute.” Nichols’s own opinion, it appears from the quotation already made from him (p. 87, note), was, that the clause in question “‘ was restramed to the person of Queen Elizabeth.” To the same effect Burn observes, (ii. 415, ed. Phillimore,) that ‘“‘ King James, in the first year of his reign, by virtue of the aforesaid proviso in the 1 Eliz. c. 2,... gave direction to the archbishop, and other high commissioners, to review the Common Prayer Book; and they did make several material alterations and enlargements of it, as in the office of private baptism, and in several rubrics and other passages, and added five or six new prayers and thanksgivings, and all that part of the catechism which contains the doctrine of the sacraments. And yet the powers specified in that proviso,” Burn con- tinues, ‘‘ seem not to extend to the queen’s heirs and succes- sors, but to be only lodged per- sonally in the queen; yet the Book of Common Prayer, so altered, stood from the first year of king James, to the fourteenth of Charles the Second.” ress of the Preacher, 147 chiefly concerned runs thus, the preceding part re- ferring to the Act which constituted the Court of High Commission : ‘“¢ And whereas also by Act of Parliament it is provided and enacted, that whenever we § shall cause to take further order for or concerning any ornaments, righte [rite], or ceremony appointed or prescribed in the booke commonly called ‘ The Book of Com- mon Prayer,’ &c. . . . and our pleasure knowne therein, either to our Commissioners, authorized under our great seal of England, for causes ecclesiastical, or to the metropolitane of this our realm of England, that then further order should be therein taken accord- ingly. “We therefore, understanding that there were in the said bocke certeyne things which might require some declaration and enlargement by way of explanation ; and in that respect, having required you our metropolitane, and you the Bishops of London and Chichester, and some others of our Commissioners, &c.... according to the intent and meaning of the said statute, and of some other statutes alsoe, and by our supreme authoritie and prerogative royall, to take some care and payns therein, have received from you the said particular thanksgivings in the said book declared, and enlarged by way of explanation, made by you our metropolitane, and the rest of our said Commissioners, in manner and forme following,” &c. * ** All which particular poynts and things in the said book, are thus by you declared and enlarged by way of exposition and explanation. Forasmuch as wee having maturely considered of them, do hold them to be very agreeable to our own severall directions, upon conference with you and others, and that they are in no part repugnant to the word of God, nor contrarie to anie thinge that is already contained in that book ; nor to any of our Jawes and statutes made for allowance and confirmation of the same; wee by virtue of the said statutes, and by our supreme authoritie and prerogative royall, doe fully approve, allowe and s It will be observed how _ ity, 1 Eliz., is implied here. undoubtingly the transmission, t Here follows an enumera- to the successors of Elizabeth, _ tion of the alterations and addi- of the power given, or rather of _ tions to be made, including the the prerogative reserved, to the latter part of the Catechism, Queen by the Act of Uniform- on the Sacraments. Lee 148 Dress of the Preacher. ratify all and every one of the said declarations and enlarge- ments by way of explanation. ‘Willing and requiryng, and withall authorising you the Archbishop of Canterbury, that forthwith you do command our printer Robert Barker, newly to print the said Communion Book, with all the said declarations and enlargements by way of expo, sition and explanation above mentioned, &c... . ‘** And these our letters patents, or the enrollement thereof, shal be your sufficient warrant for all and every the premisses contayned in them. ‘¢ Witnes our selfe at Westminster the ninth day of February. ‘“* Per ipsum regem ".” And in the “ Proclamation” issued in the follow- ing month (March 5), “for the authorizing and uniformity of the Book of Common Prayer through- out the realm,” and which was printed at the begin- ning of the new Prayer Books, the manner of pro- ceeding which had been adopted was thus set forth. After speaking of the Conference, “the success of which,” says the proclamation, “we cannot conceal ” “was such as happeneth to many other things which, moving great expectations before they be entered into, in their issue produce small effects,” it goes on to say, ‘“‘ For we found mighty and vehement informations supported with so weak and slender proofs, as it appeared unto us and our council, that there was no cause why any change should have been at all in that which was most impugned, the Book of Common Prayer. .. Notwithstanding we thought meet, with consent of the bishops and other learned men there present, that some small things might rather be explained than changed, .. . and for that purpose gave forth our commission under our great seal of England to the Archbishop of Canterbury and others, according to the form which the laws of this realm in like case prescribe to be used, to make the said explanations, and to cause the whole Book of Common Prayer, with the same explanations, to be newly printed... . ‘“* Wherefore we require all archbishops, bishops, and _ all " Cardwell’s Conferences, pp. 217—225. Dress of the Preacher. 149 other public ministers, as well ecclesiastical as civil, to do their duties in causing the same to be obeyed, and in punishing the offenders according to the laws of the realm heretofore estab- lished for the authorizing of the said Book of Common Brayer*.: “The laws referred to by this Proclamation” are, as L’ strange observes, “ First, the Act (1 Eliz. ce. 1.) which authorized the court of High Commis- sion. Secondly,” he says, “the latter end of the Act of Uniformity, where the Queen and _ conse- quently her successors are authorized, with the ad- vice of their Commissioners, or of the Metropolitan, to ordain and publish further rites and ceremonies.” And he goes on to say, ‘¢ And this helps us with an answer to an objection of Smec- tymnus, who, from the several alterations made in our Liturgy, both by Queen Elizabeth and King James, from that of the second establishment by Edward VI., infer, ‘ that the Liturgy now in use is not the Liturgy that was established by Act of Parlia- ment, and therefore that Act bindeth not to the use of. this Liturgy.’ To this we reply, that those alterations can excuse from that Act only in part, and for what is altered; as to what remaineth the same, it bindeth undoubtedly still in tanto, though not in toto. And for the alterations themselves, the first being made by Act of Parliament express, that of 1 Elizabeth, and the second by Act of Parliament reductive and implied (those afore mentioned), what gain Smectymnus by their illation that those alterations are not established by the first Act? And whereas it may be supposed that that Proclamation may lose its vigour by that King’s death, and consequently the Service Book may be conceived to be thereby in statu quo prius ; yet con-. sidering his late majesty ¥ did not null it by any express edict, that several Parliaments sitting after did not disallow it, that all subscriptions have been unanimous in reference to those changes, that the emendations were made to satisfy the litigant party, I con- ceive the Proclamation valid notwithstanding the death of that King *.” ’ Ibid. pp. 225—228. * Alliance of Divine Offices, * [King Charles I. | p. 24. 150 ress of the Preacher. It is well that we should see what the doubts were which could be raised by those who sought occasion, to impugn the authority on which the order of Common Prayer rested from the second year of Elizabeth, down to the time of the last review. And yet with the exception of such as “ Smectymnus,” there was no practical difficulty made, or scruple entertained, by churchmen in those days. Whitgift and Bancroft, and others their brethren, were parties to the proceeding adopted in this case by King James; and it was expressly recognized, and the authority of the Prayer Book so put forth fully declared, by the convocation itself of the same year. The 80th Canon (of 1603) orders that “the churchwardens or questmen of every church and chapel shall, at the charge of the parish, provide the Book of Common Prayer lately explained in some few points by his mayjesty’s authority, accord- eng to the laws and his highness’s prerogative in that behalf.’ 'The course adopted was evidently taken advisedly, with the view of avoiding the inconveni- ence of discussions, on controverted and delicate questions, in Convocation and Parliament. Convo- cation meanwhile thus ratified the procedure, and the sanction of Parliament was claimed by the prospective clause of the Act of Elizabeth. And if in the application, in this instance, of the provi- sions of the Act in question, there might have appeared to be something like an extension of its original and obvious intent, to effect changes in the Book of Common Prayer which had been estab- lished by that Act, there was nothing open to the like doubt in the earlier “order” taken by Queen Elizabeth, in a matter so strictly and immediately in the view of the proviso contained in the Act ress of the Preacher, 151 of Uniformity respecting “the ornaments of the church and the ministers thereof, in all times of their ministration.” And the Convocation of 1603 gave elsewhere, in the Canons already referred to ’, what must, I think, be regarded as an _ incidental yet full recognition of the authority of the Book of Advertisements. The Canons of 1603, as is well known, though ratified by the King, were never confirmed by Par- liament ; and hence the difficulties which have been raised in regard to particulars in which those Canons and the order established by the Rubric differ from each other’. But all this difficulty is, as has been already observed, entirely removed, if once it has been proved that the order taken in the Advertisements was taken by the authority recognized in the Act of Uniformity, and so carried with it virtually the authority of Parliament. For except in one trifling particular, already noticed *, the Advertisements of 1564, and the Canons of 1603, are, in regard to minis- terial vestments and attire, in perfect agreement ”; and our present practice is in agreement with both. y Vid. sup. pp. 104. 127. 2 Vid. sup. p. 87, note *. : Vid. sup. p. 129. “The Canons of 1603,” Mr. Benson observes (p. 26), on to say, “was unhappily frus- trated. The Canons, though they passed the ecclesiastical, were never confirmed by the civil, branch of the legislature. ** so nearly correspond with the Advertisements of 1564, upon the subject of the clerical vest- ments, that we cannot but sup- pose that they were intended to supersede legally, what the Advertisements, wanting the sanction of the Sovereign,” (as he conceives,) ‘had only vir- tually suspended, the operation, that is, so far as the Parochial clergy were concerned, of the first Rubric in the Book of Common Prayer. But this effect, like the former,” he goes Thus, the binding power still remained with the Rubric, to which both Church and State had united to give force, . . and in any contest between the two, the voice of the Statute would have naturally prevailed in point of law, whatever it might have done in point of conscience.” All this supposed conflict of rival authorities is at an end, on the admission of the fact that the Advertisements did obtain ‘‘ the sanction of the Sovereign.” 152 Jaress of the Preacher. Before, however, we leave this part of the history, we must notice one argument, which, if valid, would set aside the conclusions which have been drawn from the Canons of 1603, as compared with the Advertise- ments. It is argued, then, that the 25th Canon, prescribing, or rather presupposing, the wearing of the surplice by Deans, Canons, Prebendaries, &c., in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, was not intended for them, to the exception of parish Churches, “ but either because preaching there was constant, or be- cause it was felt to be of great importance to make the service perfect in these model churches, in all its forms, according to the intention of the Church. And inasmuch as these churches were thus the model churches of the diocese, an argument,” it is contended, may be “ fairly drawn from the prac- tice in them as to what was expected in all churches as consistent with the intention of the English Church °.” But neither of these hypotheses, I think, will stand. ‘Though provision was made that the preach- ing in Cathedrals should be constant, yet these same Canons allow® that, “in case of sickness or lawful absence, the deans, prebendaries, &c....in these churches, shall substitute such licensed preachers to supply their turns as by the bishop of the dio- cese shall be thought meet to preach in cathedral churches.” And in such cases it is, I think, quite certain from the evidence of traditionary custom in all Cathedrals, that the Sermon would be preached not in the surplice, but always in the gown. Thus er tyhte AR Ee App pigdd. 4 Canon 48. By another canon (51), ‘‘strangers”’ are not to be “admitted to preach in cathedral [or collegiate | churches without — sufficient authority :"’—viz. “‘except they be allowed by the Archbishop of the province, or by the Bishop of the same diocese, or by either of the Universities.”’ Dress of the Preacher. 153 it was not the usage of the Cathedral, as the pattern of correct practice, that ruled the point, but rather the status of the individual in regard to the Cathe- dral. Not only would it not be required that the preacher in the Cathedral, not being a member of the Cathedral body, should wear the surplice,—which would surely be the case, if it rested on considera- tions of ecclesiastical propriety,—it would not even be permitted him to wear, in preaching, this distine- tive badge of a member of the Cathedral foundation. There is not, I believe, a single Cathedral in King- land or Ireland, in which the preacher, not being a member of the Cathedral body, would be allowed to preach in the surplice, even though it were the Sermon in. the morning or Communion Service. Now at the present day, in any parochial Church in which it is the established order for the Sermon to be preached in the surplice, a clergyman, not of the parish, preaching on any occasion in such Church would, I should conceive, ordinarily, and as a matter of course, adopt the usage which he found established there, and preach in the surplice, not making any distinction on the ground of his not being the parish priest, or curate, or minister, usually officiating in that Church. A fortiori, in the case of the model Church of the diocese, we should imagine, in the absence of any counter principle, the established usage would be observed by every one admitted to preach there. But, on the contrary, we find the universal custom to be as stated; and this even on the most formal and solemn occasions. In Canterbury Cathedral, the Archbishop at his Visita- tion visits, on three successive days, the Cathedral body, and four deaneries of the diocese, two on each day. At the Visitation of the Cathedral establish- 154 Jaress of the Preacher. ment, one of the Canons always preaches, and con- sequently in his surplice: at the other two Visitations in the Cathedral, the preacher, being one of the parochial clergy of the diocese, preaches in the gown, unless he chance to be also a member of the foundation. Thus at the last Visitation, in 1844, the Sermon on the first day of Visitation was preached in the surplice, by one of the Canons; on the second day, in the gown, by one of the clergy of the city; on the third day, in the surplice, the preacher (an incumbent of a country parish) happen- ing to be also one of the Six Preachers in the Cathe- dral. In St. Paul’s Cathedral, “the Sunday morning turns, the representatives of the Cross Sermons, are assigned to whatever persons the Bishop of London may think proper to select*.” On these occasions the same rule prevails. So also in regard to Sermons at Visitations in the Cathedral, at the Festival of the Sons of the Clergy, &c. In the Cathedral of Christ Church, Oxford, the Sermon at ordinations is preached in the surplice, only when it is preached by one of the Students of the Cathedral Church (“perpetui alumni hujus Cathedralis Ecclesie”) ; when preached by a member of any other College, it is preached in the gown. And so in other Cathe- drals ‘. It is difficult to find any other solution of the facts of the case than that which is furnished by the © Jebb’s Choral Service, p. 493. f It is, therefore, an inaccu- rate statement, that ‘‘in Cathe- drals and Colleges the surplice is always worn in preaching,” (Jebb on the Choral Service, p- 221); unless it be meant simply, when the preacher is a member of the Cathedral or Collegiate body. The question which he proceeds to ask, ‘‘ Why should it be different in Parish Churches?” is answered, I conceive, by the distinction marked by the Rubrics and Canons, as noticed in the text. ress of the Preacher: 155 distinction, which in this and other respects seems to be uniformly maintained throughout the Rubrics and Canons, between the Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, so far as their own members are con- cerned, and the clergy generally, ministering or preaching elsewhere. The Cathedrals, it would seem clear, were not intended to be precisely, in al/ re- spects, “the model churches of the diocese.” Thus much respecting the Canons of 1603, which, by the help of the intermediate Advertisements on which they are so evidently founded, are, with the triflmg exception already noticed, completely recon- ciled with the order of Queen Elizabeth’s Book, which formally re-established, in regard to orna- ments, that of the First Book of Edward. We may now pass on to the reign of Charles L.; and this seems the proper place to notice the MS. notes on the Common Prayer printed in Nichols, and supposed to have been written by a Chaplain of Bishop Overall. The MS. notes of Doctor, after- wards Bishop Cosin, have been already examined. Bishop Overall’s Chaplain takes very much the same ground with Bishop Cosin, and evinces strong feeling on the subject. On the words of the Rubric, [such ornaments, &c.] “as were in use,” he says,— ** And then were in use, not a surplice and hood, as we now use’, but a plain white alb, with a vestment or cope over it; and therefore, according to the Rubric, we are still bound to albs and vestments, as have been so long time worn in the Church of God, howsoever it is neglected. For the disuse of these ornaments we £ This proves plainly how dress of the clergy in the ad- completely the use of the sur- ministration of the Communion plice, and not of the albe and at the time in question, cope, was established as the 156 ress of the Preacher. may thank them that came from Geneva, and in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, being set in places of government, suf- fered every negligent priest to do what him listed; so he would but profess a difference and opposition in all things (though never so lawful otherwise) against the Church of Rome and the Cere- monies therein used. ‘‘ If any man shall answer, that now the 58th Canon hath ap- pointed it otherwise, and that these things are alterable by the discretion of the Church wherein we live, I answer, that such matters are to be altered by the same authority wherewith they were established ; and that if that authority be the Convocation of the Clergy, as I think it is (only that), that [and, qu.] the 14th Canon commands us to observe all the Ceremonies prescribed in this Book, I would fain know how we should observe both Canons »,” The difficulties thus vehemently urged are fully met by the argument already drawn from the Act 1 Elizabeth, and the provision therein made for fur- ther order, to supersede this of the First Book of Edward. The “ Advertisements” of 1564, though they did indeed dispense with the alb and vestment, formed part, as we have already seen, of a series of measures taken “in obedience to” the “ peremptory” orders of the Queen for the enforcement of “ stricter methods of discipline and good order” to “be exercised for the future '.” And we find, as matter of fact, that the time when these Advertisements were put forth was precisely that which witnessed, as Dr. Cardwell observes, “the first open separation of the nonconformists from the Church of England.” And the Advertisements, being, as we have seen, fully recognized by the Canons, supply the connect- ing link between those canons and the earlier Act of Uniformity, and the Rubric which it established, and make the one harmonize perfectly with the other; " Nichols, App. p.18. + Cardwell, Doc. Ann. vol. i. p. 287, note. ress of the Preacher, 157 the “matters” in question having really been “altered by the same authority by which they were esta- blished,” the Act of Uniformity giving as full power to issue and enforce the Admonitions as that by which it established, in these matters, the order of Kidward’s First Book. But to proceed with the history. In 1629, we find that “Laud, Bishop of London, presents to Charles I. a paper of ‘ Considerations for the better settling of the Church-government. One of the proposed mea- sures is, that every lecturer be bound to ‘read Divine Service in his surplice before the lecture. (Rushw. ii. 7.) The King adopted the suggestions, and issued injunctions accordingly, first to Archbishop Abbot (1629), and later to Laud himself, after his elevation to the Primacy(1633). (Ibid. 30; Doe. Ann. ii. 178.)*” The order, as given in the “ Instructions” printed in the Appendix to the “ History of the Troubles and Trial of Archbishop Laud,” (p. 517,) is as fol- lows ': “© 2. That every Bishop ordain in his Diocese, that every lecturer do read Divine Service according to the Liturgy printed by authority, in his surplice and hood, before the lecture.” “ It would appear,” as has been well remarked”, “that one object of the order just quoted was, to secure conformity in the use of the surplice and hood from ministers who might have been unwilling to wear those vestments, and that this would not have been attained if the ministers were allowed to preach without officiating in prayers also; consequently, that the surplice was not used in preaching.” The * Robertson, p. 112. all lecturers do read, &c.... in 1 As issued in 1627. It their surplices and hoods, be- varied only verbally, asre-issued _ fore the lecture.” in 1684: “ That every Bishop m Robertson, I. ¢. take care in his Diocese, that 158 Dress of the Preacher. particular order would effectually tend to the general object in view, viz. to keep the lectures in question out of the hands of those who objected to the Liturgy and its appointed order, by re- quiring the lecturers first to read “Divine Service,” —* Divine Service,” as elsewhere, meaning distinc- tively the prayers. “And further light is thrown on the matter,” as Mr. Robertson observes, “by another part of the same paper",” where it is ordered, (in 1629,) “That where a 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’.” The Bishop of London, in his Charge of 1842, refers to this direction, and observes, that “the gown was probably first worn in the pulpit by the licensed preachers, and by the lecturers who preached when no part of the Communion Service was read.” It will be observed, however, that these Instructions went to enforce the gown as the proper dress for preaching, so far, at least, as the lecturer was concerned; and the two forms in which the Instructions were thus issued, compared together, confirm the view which we have taken” of the canon of 1571, respecting the grave and modest attire prescribed to preachers by the Advertisements, as referring to sermons generally in time of Divine Service. The gown is here recog- nized and required as the proper and established dress, in opposition to that which was according to the " Mr. Robertson adds, ‘‘ in in the Instructions of 1634, its later forms;” but in both ‘that they ever preach in such papers I find this order stand- _seemly habits as belong to their ing next to the preceding, as degrees, and not in cloaks.”’ No. 38. P Vid. sup. pp. 125, 126. ° The last clause stands thus “Dress of the Preacher, 159 Puritan taste, viz. the cloak*, The only difference between the order of 1629 and that of 1634 is, that the latter more markedly requires the Academical gown. And the intention of the orders thus issued is still clearer from Heylyn’s statement, “that com- bination lecturers in towns were required ‘in some places to read the second service at the Communion Table, and after the sermon to go back to the table, and there read the Service’; all which,” he says, “being to be done in their surplices, kept off the greatest part of the rigid Calvinists'’” We have here the then established usage illustrated as regards 4 So in Bishop Juxon’s Arti- cles of Enquiry for the Diocese of London, in 1640, it is asked, “Do your lecturer or lecturers preach in their gowns, and not in their cloaks, according to his Majesty’s Instructions, An. 1629?” As Mr. Robertson observes (p. 117), ‘‘the fancy of the Puritans ran not on gowns, but on cloaks and other unauthorized and unacademical garments. (Compare South, iv. 179, ed. 1823. Heylyn’s Laud, 191.) Far from being a Genevan fashion, the gown was abhorred by the Geneva- ting party, little, if at all, less than the surplice itself.” * Life of Laud, p. 243, quoted by Robertson, p. 113. It has been said (by “ C. I. H.” App. p. 13), “If this extract proves that the surplice was not used also in the pulpit, but put off, upon going into the pulpit, by the lecturer, and put on upon returning to the table, it still does only show what dress the concionator preached in, not what the curate of the parish.” And it is added, ““ What dress Heylin believed the Church to put upon her parish priests in the pulpit, is plain from the following ex- tract from the same work, p. 6: ‘And this appears plainly by the form of their ordination as presbyters, in which it is prescribed that the Bishop, put- ting the Bible into their hands, shall say, “Take thou authority to preach the word,” &c. &c. In the officiating of which acts of God’s Divine service the priest or presbyter is enjoined to wear a surplice of white linen cloth to testify the purity of doctrine, &c.’”’ The latter passage is evidence only as to what was Heylyn’s ownopinion: the order itself seems clearly to show, as matter of fact, that the sermon was not usually preached in the surplice; and no distinction is discoverable in this respect, between the lecturer and the parish priest. The only Bishop who seems to have enforced the surplice in ~ preaching, Bishop Wren, en- forced it, it would rather ap- pear, as the rule fox all. 160 Baress of the Preacher. the Communion Service; and it is clear that the Sermon was not preached in the surplice, else there had been no need of the provision thus designed; Heylyn’s words, “all which,” &c. clearly meaning the service at the Communion Table before and after the Sermon. “In the articles for the archdeaconry of Canter- bury, 1636,” as Mr. Robertson tells us, “ preaching is not mentioned as one of the things for which a surplice is required*.” And in 1638, “ Bishop Mon- tagu inquires, ‘Doth your minister officiate Divine Service in the habit and apparel of his order, with a surplice, a hood, a gown, and a tippet? not ina cloak, a sleeveless jacket, or horseman’s coat? for such have I known’ (p. 67.) He asks as to the lecturer, ‘Doth he often, and at times appointed, read Divine Service and administer the Communion in his surplice and hood of his degree?’ The habit to be worn at lecture,” it will be observed, “is not mentioned ".” We now come to that which seems, in fact, to be the first instance of the surplice being required to be worn in preaching, Bishop Wren’s orders and directions for the diocese of Norwich in 1636%. The fourth of these orders is, 8 Robertson, p. 112. ‘ Upon this it is said (‘ C. Leh vel pp. pp aels we le gown is not mentioned here as the garment for the pulpit, in- stead of the surplice, but as that which was to be under it whenever the minister was offi- ciating; the time: of preaching is not in question, but by pro- bable comprehension.”” Upon the evidence supplied by the orders just mentioned, I cannot think the time of preaching is thus to be comprehended. " Robertson, pp. 112, 113. ‘ The title under which they were issued is, ‘* Particular orders, directions, and remem- brances given in the diocese of Norwich, upon the primary Visitation of the right reverend father in God, Matthew, lord bishop of that see.” (Doc. Ann. vol. ii, p. 200.) ress of the Preacher. 161 “That the litany be never omitted on Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and that at all times the minister be in his surplice and hood, whensoever he is in public to perform any part of his ws priestly function ™. This formed one of the 24 Articles of impeach- ment brought against him by the Commons in 1641 (July 20). The 12th of these set forth that, “The more to alienate the people’s hearts from hearing of Sermons, he, in the said year [of his “first coming to be Bishop of Norwich, which was in the year 1635,’”] commanded all ministers to preach in their hood and surplice, a thing not used before in the diocese *.”.. . The grounds on which Bishop Wren rests his defence are worthy of attentive consideration, in reference to our historical enquiry and the question of rubrical authority. “To the twelfth Article this defendant answereth, and saith, that he did enquire whether their minister did preach standing, and in his gown with his surplice and hood (if he were a gradu- ate), and his head uncovered. Also, that he did direct, that the “ Among Bishop Wren’s Articles of Enquiry, which were the groundwork of the **Orders,” &c. afterwards is- sued, are the following :—“ Art. 2. Is the minister a licensed preacher, yea orno? And if he is licensed, then by whom ? Doth he preach usually in his own cure, or in some other church or chapel near adjoin- ing, where there is no preacher, once every Sunday? ... Doth he also preach standing, and in his cassock and gown (not in a cloak) with his surplice and hood also, and with his head uncovered ?” ‘Art. 9. Doth your minister and curate, at all times, as well in preaching and reading the homilies, as in read- ing the prayers and the Litany, in administering the holy Sacra- ments, solemnization of matri- mony, burying of the dead, churching of women, and all other offices of the Church, duly observe...? &c. And doth he, in performing all and every of these, wear the sur- plice duly, and never omit the wearing of the same, nor of his hood, if he be a graduate?” : It is to be observed, that there is no distinction made here between the ‘ minister ”’ preaching ‘‘in his own cure,” or in *‘some other church or chapel, where there is no preacher.” Compare the 45th canon, on which this article of enquiry is grounded. _* Wren’s Parentalia, p. 14. M 162 ress of the Preacher. minister should at all times be in his surplice and hood, when he was in public execution of any part of his priestly function ; but he denieth that this was done to alienate the people’s hearts from hearing sermons, or that it could alienate their hearts at all or could be offensive to them as a scandalous innovation, as being a thing not used before in the diocese. For this defendant knoweth that the reading of the Litany upon Sundays, Wednes- days, and Fridays; the reading of the Athanasian Creed thirteen times in the year upon festival days; the reading of the Commi- nation upon Ash-Wednesday, yea, and the reading of that part of the daily service which is called the Communion Service, were things not used before in that diocese, or not in the most places thereof; yet could not the reducing these things into due practice be (of right) offensive to any, nor ought to be re- puted as scandalous innovations. He therefore humbly con- ceiveth, that for them to have receded and varied from those rites and usages which were accustomed in the Church of Eng- land upon the Reformation established in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and since then to have arbitrarily taken up any other usages, all the innovation and scandal lay in that: but to rein- force what then at first was practised, and to reduce things back again to what they were before, this was but to remove the said scandal by a fair and regular declining of that innovation. As when the Papists call us Protestants novatores, and charge us with innovation in what we differ from them, our true answer is, that the innovation is on their part, who have brought those things into the church which were not in use in the pure and primitive times, unto which times the reformed Church of Eng- land endeavours to conform. And so alike it fares now with those which have had any recourse to the beginnings of the Reformation here, thereby to avoid some exotick customs lately brought in; the departing from which cannot now be rightly charged to be any mnovation.”’ He goes on to vindicate himself from the charge of wishing to “alienate the people’s hearts from hearing of sermons,” and then proceeds thus in his defence. ‘He therefore saith, that what was herein directed by him was done upon these grounds. ‘1, For decency and convenience; otherwise the minister Dress of the Preacher. 163 being in his surplice unto the end of the Nicene Creed, after which the Sermon is to follow, and after the Sermon being again to finish the Morning Service in his surplice: such putting of the surplice off to go to the pulpit, and putting of it on again when he comes from the pulpit, would not only create loss of time and too great pause in the Divine administra- tion, but would also beget vain surmises in the people’s minds ; neither of which could be, if he kept it still on. “2. For an uniformity to all other persons, places, and times. The reverend Bishops as well in preaching as in all other Divine offices ever have worn, and still do wear, their rochets. In Col- leges also, and in the Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, the Fellows, Canons, and Prebends, do ordinarily preach in their sur- plices ; and that in parish Churches also they did preach in them im Queen Elizabeth’s time, appears by that complaint thereof cited by Mr. Hooker [‘ We judge it unfit and inconvenient, as oft as we pray or preach so arrayed,’ p. 247], viz. with a sur- plice on. **3. For conformity to the law itself. For the Rubrick before the Morning Prayer saith, and emphatically setteth it on, which here is to be noted, That the Minister at the time of the Com- munion, and at all other times of his Ministration, shall use such ornaments in the Church as were in use in the second year of King Edward the VIth. But that the Priest was in those times to wear a surplice, appears by the Liturgy of that year. [F. 120 B.| Will they then say, that they which be permitted to admi- nister either the Word or the Sacraments, (as they are styled in Queen Elizabeth’s Injunctions, 29,) in the ministry of the Word, that is, in preaching, are not in execution of part of their ministra- tion? For if they be, then are they to wear the surplice, by the Rule above alleged. But if they say they be not, in so saying they contradict not only those which make preaching the chiefest part of their ministry, but also the whole opinion of the first Reformers. For so Bishop Cox ranks the offices of the minister [at the time of Common prayer, preaching, and other service of God. Injunct. 2. 8], which words are taken out of the Act of Uni- formity of 1 Eliz. And by our Rubrick before the Offertory the Sermon is brought in as a part of the Divine Service, no less than the Epistle or the Gospel or the Lessons were: at all which the surplice might as reasonably be put off as at the Sermon; not to say, if the Sermon be no part of the Divine Service, what does it then in the Church? especially within the time of Divine Service. M 2 164 ress of the Preacher. . They should likewise in honesty have forborn to have informed that it was a thing not used before in that diocese, whereas in Queen Elizabeth’s days it had been used in all the parish Churches (as is before shewed) ; and many yet living do remember, that Dr. Norton, the preacher at Ipswich, did ordi- narily there use it, and in some places there it still continued so, as at the Cathedral at Norwich, at Wilby, Walsingham, and sundry other places ¥.” It has been well observed’ that “the line of de- fence adopted by Wren, when his order was charged upon him as a novelty, is very remarkable. He fetches his precedents, not from the primacy of Bancroft, who is generally described as a more vigo- rous and rigid exacter of conformity than any of the preceding Archbishops, but from the reign of Queen Elizabeth; and he refers to dooks as his sole evidence with respect to the practice of her days; although only thirty-three years had passed since the Queen’s death, he himself having been eighteen years old at the date of that event, and twelve at: the publication (1597) of Hooker’s Fifth Book, which he quotes as if it were a document far be- ao yond the memory of living man“. ¥ Parentalia, pp. 91—93. been effected, was as yet un- % Robertson, p. 116. a Mr. Robertson adds, “‘ The like is done by Heylyn, in his Life of Laud (p. 6).” Mr. Ro- bertson further observes in a note, p. 117, though, perhaps, somewhat too broadly, ‘‘ The divines of Charles the First’s reign appear to have had ex- ceedingly little traditional in- formation respecting the pre- ceding century: the writings of the Reformers, with hardly the exception of Jewel, were forgotten ; the line of historical and antiquarian investigation, in which so much has since opened. ‘The earliest histories of the Reformation (after Fox) by Fuller and Heylyn; the earliest regular commentaries on the Prayer Book by Spar- row and L’Estrange; were not published until the time of the Usurpation. It seems almost necessary,” he adds, ‘‘to direct the reader’s attention to these circumstances, by way of excuse for the apparent presumption of venturing to differ on points of this nature from such autho- rities as Cosin, Wren, and Laud.”’ ress of the Prearher. 165 The argument, however, drawn from this passage of Hooker has been already examined ’, and shown to be scarcely equal to the weight laid upon it, espe- cially when we find so much evidence on the other side. It should be observed, moreover, that it is hardly to be called a “complaint” of the puritans, “cited by” Hooker, though in describing their feel- ing he uses expressions which, as has been already said, would certainly imply that some sermons were then preached in surplices; and undoubtedly such was the rule in regard to the choir of Cathedral churches. But to proceed to that further argument of Bishop Wren’s, we have already seen, that Cathe- dral and Collegiate churches formed a distinct class, and had their own proper rules °: and it was only the members of those foundations, “ the Fellows, Canons, and Prebends,” according to Bishop Wren’s own state- ment, who would preach there in the surplice. The question as regards the Rubric of Kdward’s First Book, has been already fully discussed, and the evi- dence shown to be in favour of the gown rather than the surplice. And with respect to the inter- pretation of the word: “ ministration,” which, as we have also seen“, was, in:those days, commonly taken in the more limited and special sense, not including preaching, we find even in the Injunctions such ex- pressions as these—to “declare the word of God” (Inj. 3 and 8), “the word of God read and taught” (Inj. 20), “the preaching of God’s word” (Inj. 24), “the setting forth of God’s holy word” (Inj. 28), as well as that which Bishop Wren quotes, “shall not be permitted to minister‘ either the word or the Sacra- > Vid. sup. pp. 142, 143. 143, 144. © Vid. sup. p. 127. © For so it is in the Injunc- * Vid. sup. pp. 63, 65, and — tions, not “‘ administer.” 166 ress of the Preacher. ments of the Church” (Inj. 29). And in the very next Injunction (30) to that which he cites, occurs the more usual mode of speaking, viz. to “be called or admitted to preaching or ministry of the Sacra- ments.” And again, Inj. 33 speaks of the “time of common prayer and preaching ‘;” and Inj. 38 enjoins “quiet attendance to hear, mark, and understand what is read, preached, and ministered.” So that the argument drawn from the word “ministration,” great as is the stress which Bishop Wren lays upon it, will not, I believe, be found to stand good. And the argument of the Sermon being “a part of the Dive service,’ has also been considered; and we have seen that neither does this determine the dress worn in preaching to be the same as in the administration of the Communion. And with regard to usage, though, it appears, there were some instances of the use of the surplice in preaching beside the Cathedral of Norwich, it is evident that the general usage of the diocese was the other way. And thus, then, the main argument was that which Bishop Wren puts foremost, viz. decency and convenience, as avoiding the double change of dress*; a consideration, doubt- less, very much to be regarded in the ordering of these matters, and especially important if it give facility for the observance of another Rubric re- specting the proper termination of the Service, but yet of a different character from an express direction * Inj. 86 has been quoted already, p. 63. 8 This consideration, it may be observed, seems chiefly to have inclined the Bishop of London’s judgment in favour of the wearing of the surplice in preaching in the time of morning service. ‘* When there is only one officiating clergy- man,” his Lordship says, ‘‘and the prayer for the Church mili- tant is read, it seems better that he should preach in the sur- plice than quit the church after the service for the purpose of changing his habit.” Mieeye shh! 4 oat ant Baress of the Preacher, 167 and law of the Church on the particular point in question. a Thus, then, this order of Bishop Wren stands as an insulated case,—the only instance that appears of a recommendation, or enforcement, of the surplice— for preaching, down to the times of the Civil Ware, f mel And if the argument which has been maintained in ei the preceding pages be well founded, and the facts and documents which have come before us have been rightly interpreted, Bishop Wren’s order on this point cannot be regarded as carrying a weight be- yond that of his own individual authority, an autho- rity undoubtedly high in Liturgical matters, espe- cially as regards the Liturgies of the ancient Church, but in this instance committed to a judgment re- specting our own, which can hardly be considered M to rest on the most solid grounds. mn We must notice one more document belonging to the period immediately preceding the Troubles— Bishop Juxon’s Articles of Enquiry for the Visita- tion of the Diocese of London, in 1640. From one of these Articles it would appear, at first sight, that the Sermon was intended to be included among the ministrations to be performed in the surplice. It is as follows, with a reference in the margin to the 58th Canon. ‘Have you a comely decent surplice with sleeves, for the use of your minister in saying the public prayers, or ministering the Sacraments, and other rites of the Church; together with an University hood, according to the degree of your said minister"? h Mr. Robertson observes it will modify one argument (p. 119), that the hood “ ap- pears to have been formerly reckoned among things which are to be provided at the cost of the parish.” If this be so, used above, p. 128, note 9. This, however, of Bishop Juxon’s Articles is the only instance I have met with. 168 ress of the Preacher. And doth the Parson, Vicar, or Curate use the same, as oft as he officiates God’s public service, administereth the Sacraments, or dischargeth any public duty in the Congregation ?” But among the Articles which come next, “Con- cerning the Celebration of Divine Service, the Administration of the Sacraments, &c.” we find the following :— ‘5. Doth your Parson reside upon his benefice or not? If yea, then, being a licensed Preacher, doth he preach one Sermon every Sunday in the year in his own cure, or in some Church or Chapel near adjoining, having no lawful impediment? And being not a licensed preacher, doth he offer at any time to preach or expound the Scriptures, or rather doth he procure Sermons to be preached in his cure, once every month at the least, by Preachers which be lawfully licensed '?”... ‘“‘'7, Have you in your parish, besides your Parson, Vicar, and Curate, any Lecturer or Lecturers not having cure of souls therein? Doth your Lecturer... twice at the least every year read the Divine Service on two several Sundays both in the fore- noon and afternoon, publicly and at the usual times*?”... “€8. Do your Lecturer or Lecturers preach in their gowns, and not in their cloaks, according to his Majesty’s Instructions, an. DLO fie 60 It would seem, then, that the Lecturer, though acting, at certain times, as the officiating minister or parochial clergyman, reading the Service first, and that the Sunday service “in the forenoon,’—in other words, the Communion Service,—would nevertheless, by Bishop Juxon’s Articles of Enquiry, be recognized as preaching in his gown, and not only authorized, but required so to do, in opposition to preaching in the Genevan cloak. And these Articles, accordingly, must be taken to limit and define the interpretation of the words “dischargeth any public duty in the ' Compare Canons 45, 49, of which is embodied in this and 46, which are referred to article. in the margin, and the language K Compare Canon 56. ress of the Preacher. > 169 congregation ;” so far at least, as the lecturers were concerned. At all events, there is here no specific article of enquiry, as in Bishop Wren’s, as to the use of the surplice in preaching. Thus far, then, the case seems clear, down to the period of the last Review. It was then that the Rubric under our consideration was brought into its present form, and it is evident that it underwent full deliberation on the part of the Commissioners. The Rubric in question was one of the points objected to by the Puritan divines. “As to the Morning and Evening Prayer,” we are told, “they excepted against that part of the Rubric which, speaking of ornaments to be used in the church, left room to bring back the cope, albe, and other vestments '.” On the other hand, we find, Bishop Cosin wished that the Rubric should specify the ornaments so directed to be used. In the Appendix to Nichols is a paper, drawn up by Cosin, of “ Par- ticulars to be considered, explained, and corrected in the Book of Common Prayer”.” Of these ob- servations of Bishop Cosin, one is as follows: (No. 19.) ‘In the Rubric before the Morning and Evening Prayer... ' Calamy’s Abridgment of Baxter’s Life and Times, (ch. viii.) vol. i. p. 155. The Com- mittee of 1641 had suggested “that the Rubric should be mended where all vestments are commanded which were used 2 Edw. VI.” Cardwell, Conf., p. 274. m Pr. Nichols’s note upon this paper is—‘‘ Whether or no these following observations were drawn up by Dr. Cosin before the restoration of King Charles, or afterwards upon the last review of the Common Prayer, I cannot say; but this is plain, that those Re- viewers had very great regard to these Remarks, they having altered most things according as was therein desired. And it is probable, that they were laid before the Board, Bishop Cosin being one of the principal Commissioners.” 170 Jaress of the Preacher. the Minister is appointed to use such ornaments in the Church, and at all times in his ministration, as were in use in the 2nd year of King Edward VI. according to the Act of Parliament. But what those ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers were, is not here specified, and they are so unknown by many that by most they are neglected. Wherefore it were requisite that those ornaments used in the 2nd year of King Edward should be here particularly named and set forth, that there might be no differ- ence about them.” This suggestion, however, it appears, the Com- missioners did not adopt. Nor did they, on the other hand, consent to give up the recognition of the original order established by the First Book of Edward. But they altered the Rubric thus. Hitherto it had stood in the form already quoted (pp. 55, 56). ** And here it is to be noted that the Minister at the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his Ministration, shall use such ornaments in the Church, as were in use by authority 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 *.” The clause in the Act to which reference was thus made, ran, as we have already seen (p. 55), in these words, “ That such ornaments of the Church and of the ministers thereof, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the 2nd year of the reign of King Edward VI.” &c. From this clause*®, then, and the original rubric together, was formed the Rubric as it now stands. ‘‘ And here it is to be noted, that such Ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof, at all times of their Minis- tration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the Authority of Parliament, &c. .. .” » That Act being the Act of Rubric appears to be derived Uniformity, 1 Elizabeth. from this Act, rather than ° Mr. Robertson observes from the Rubric of Elizabeth's (p. 73), that ‘our present Book.” ress of the Preacher. 171 The reference to the Act of Uniformity, 1 Eliza- beth, was omitted, the new Act (14 Car. 2.) being prefixed to the revised Book. In the alteration, though apparently slight, which was thus made, the distinction, it will be observed, was silently dropped which was discoverable be- fore, between “the time of the Communion” and “all other times in” the “ministration”,” the dis- tinction of dress between the two having now been long abolished, so far as parish churches were con- cerned, by the “ Advertisements” of 1564, and the Canons of 1603. And this is important to be observed, if it should be contended that the rule of Kdward’s First Book was simply restored by the rubric as now altered, referring as it does, in its present form, solely to the order sanctioned in the Act 2 Edward VI.? For “it is not to be sup- posed,” as has been well observed’, that the Re- viewers “intended to contradict and abrogate the 58th Canon, any more than we suppose the framers of the Canons of 1604 to have intended self con- P “The change,” as Mr. Ro- bertson observes (p. 100), ‘is Prayer,’ unaccompanied by any confirmation or even mention not without significance, since, while the two forms are in themselves equivalent, the earlier appears intended to sug- gest the fact that a particular dress is prescribed for the Com- munion, which is much less likely to be suspected from the Rubric as it now stands.” 4 Mr. Benson contends (p. 27), that ‘‘ the requisition made upon every beneficed clergy- man,” at the last settlement, *‘ to declare his assent and con- sent ‘to the use of all things prescribed by the Common of the limitations allowed by the Advertisements of 1564, and the Canons of 1603, can scarcely be considered in any other light than that of restoring the Rubrics to all the force of law which they had_ before those limitations were thought of or made. ‘That the practice of the Church followed this enactment of law, is, however,” he adds, “‘ a point, the proof of which is, I apprehend, want- ing.” ‘ Robertson, pp. 101, 102. 172 Dress of the Preacher. tradiction when they ordered, in the 14th, that the Prayer Book should be strictly complied with, and, in the 58th, that a surplice should be worn where the Prayer Book in strictness prescribed a cope.” On the contrary, when we examine the matter minutely, we find that, by dropping the distinction which the former Rubric had recognized, they did virtually, though silently, sanction and establish the further “order” which had been taken in the Ad- vertisements and followed in the Canons. And it is still more evident that this was the real intention of the Reviewers, when we consider the other alteration which was made, substituting the words “such ornaments, &c.... shall be retained and be in use,” &c. instead of “ the minister, &e. ... shall use such ornaments, &e.” “The word ‘retained, ” Mr. Robertson observes (p. 74), “ was originally used, as we have seen, not in the Rubric but in the Act of Uniformity of 1559, and had reference to the state of things at the accession of Elizabeth. Some of the ornaments used under Queen Mary were to be retained, the rest to be discarded.” And those only were to be retained, we may add, which “were in use by autho- rity of Parliament in the 2nd year of King Edward VI.” We have already seen * how Dr. Sandys wrote at the time to Parker, telling him they under- stood this rubric to mean that they should “not be forced to use” the ornaments in question, “but that others in the mean time” should “not convey them away, but that they” might “remain for the Queen.” “It is not clear,’ Mr. Robertson continues *, “in what meaning the revisers of 1662, by whom * Vid. sup. pp. 54, 55. van eerie ress of the Preacher. 173 the word [ ‘retained’ | was introduced into the rubric, intended it to be understood; we may, however, be sure that they could not mean to enforce generally the use of ornaments which had not been so used from the time of the revision under Elizabeth, and had been in the interval expressly dispensed with by In- junctions [or rather ‘Advertisements’ ] and Canons.” Mr. Robertson adds,—“although these, it must be allowed, were more or less wanting in the full autho- rity of Church and State.” This admission, I should of course consider, and hope I have fully proved, to be unnecessary. And to look to facts—if any one were zealous for the ritual of Edward’s First Book, it was Bishop Cosin. And the only place, besides Westminster, where we find any trace of copes, since 1662, is at Dur- ham Cathedral; where, in 1681, “Thoresby (quoted by Dr. Hook, ‘Call to Union,’ p. 158) saw ‘rich embroidered copes’; and here the full splendour of the ritual had been restored by Bishop Cosin, who held the see from 1661 to 1671. (See his Devotions, ed. 1838, p. vi.)"” “The ancient copes, used till some time in the last century,” says Mr. Jebb, “still exist at Durham; and at Westminster, as tradition in- forms us, they were used till about the same time.” Their use at Durham is said to have been abolished through the influence of Warburton, who became prebendary in 1755. (See Brit. Mag., vi. 40°.)” Cosin, we know, before the Troubles, had been the first to bring down the storm upon himself by the observances at Durham :—he doubtless wished the ornaments which had been established there or else- where to be “retained” and be again “in use.” The " Robertson, p. 100. Vv Ibid. (Jebb, p. 216.) 174 Saress of the Preacher. word “retained” would authorize this and no more: —and it would now authorize the retaining of copes, and other ornaments of Kdward’s First Book, if they were any where still in use :—it would not so clearly warrant the restoration, or first introduction of them. But did Bishop Cosin enforce or establish the Rubric of Edward’s First Book in his diocese? For this is the question. If he restored the use of copes only in the Cathedral, he was merely following out, even there, the Advertisements of 1564 and the canon of 1603,—not the Rubric of Edward’s First Book. For doubtless what he revived was the wear- ing of copes by the epistoler and gospeller as well as by the principal minister at the Communion, as we find them worn at Canterbury in 1564 ", and revived by Bancroft in 1608*: whereas the First Book of Edward had ordered only a cope for the priest, the assistant ministers wearing albes with tunicles. And as regards the diocese of Durham generally, it was from an opinion of Bishop Cosin that, as we have seen, was derived “the constant use of the surplice by all preachers in their pulpits.”. The grounds of that opinion we have already considered’; we are at present only concerned with the manner in which he carried out in his diocese the order of the Rubrie now established; and it would appear that he did not interpret it as requiring the restoration of the ornaments of Kdward’s First Book. For in his Visi- tation Articles of 1662, with which the statement of Archdeacon Sharp, above referred to, agrees, “ Strype’s Parker, p. 183. Priest which ministereth, the (I. 365.) “The holy Commu- Pystoler and Gospeler, at that nion is ministered ordinarily time wear copes.” the first Sunday of every month * Robertson, p. 97. through the year. ... The Y Vid. sup. pp. 17-22. ress of the Preacher, 175 Bishop Cosin “requires the surplice to be worn with the habit * by the minister ‘at the reading or cele- brating any Divine office;’” and “asks whether the lecturer read service, and that in a surplice, and whether in lecturing he ‘use the ecclesiastical habit appointed for all ministers of the Church*’” But for the comment supplied by Archdeacon Sharp’s men- tion of the usage in the diocese of Durham, as de- rived from Bishop Cosin’s opinion, we should hardly have inferred from this article of enquiry, that he ruled the question in favour of the surplice as the dress to be worn “by all preachers in the pulpits.” And this indefiniteness is the more observable, inas- much as “in the same year,” it appears, “we find Bishop Wren enquiring, “ Doth [your minister] preach in his cassock and gown (not in a cloak), with his surplice, and hood also if he be a graduate °?” And in 1679, we are told, Bishop Gunning, the successor of Bishop Wren in the see of Ely, “is equally stringent with his predecessor” on this point °. It is strongly corroborative of the conclusion to which we have already come on the evidence of the preceding period, to find the same exceptions as before, viz. the two Bishops, Cosin and Wren, to what would seem to have been the general usage, and the view taken of the Rubric by the authorities of the Church generally. [That is, obviously, the gown. Comp. sup. pp. 15, 29. ] 4 Robertson, p. 114. App. p. 12. ¢ Id. Mr. Robertson ob- serves at the same time, that b Td. referring, as his autho- rity, to the pamphlet entitled, “The Prayer for the Church Militant,” &c. (‘“C. I. H.”) **Pory, Archdeacon of Mid- dlesex, does not specify preach- ing in his enquiries respecting dress.” 176 Jaress of the Preacher. Among Bishop Nicholson’s Articles of Enquiry, © at his “first Episcopal Visitation” of the Diocese of Gloucester, in 1661, we find the questions, [Sect. i.] ‘8. Doth your Minister, at the reading or cele- brating any solemn Divine office in the Church or Chapel, wear the surplice ?”’ “10. Hath your Minister been licensed to preach by the Bishop, or either of the two Universities, or by any other lawful authority? ... Doth he then... . constantly himself preach, in the Church or Chapel, one Sermon every Sunday? Or if he be not a licensed preacher, or being so licensed, be never- theless hindered by sickness or otherwise, &c. doth he, to supply that defect, procure a Sermon to be preached by some other minister, a licensed preacher? or else one of the Homilies, &c... [Sect. 11. ]|—‘‘ 6. Have you a comely large ates: for the minister to wear at the times of his public and solemn ministra- tion in the Church, &c.... In these Articles, there seems clearly a distinction between preaching and the “reading and celebrating any solemn Divine offices,’°—the public and solemn “ministration.” In like manner in Archbishop Frewen’s Articles for the Diocese and Province of York, in the year following (1662): [ Tit. i.] “5. Have you...a decent surplice, one or more, for your Parson, Vicar, Curate, or lecturer, to wear in the time of public ministration ?”’ [ Tit. ii.] “38. Doth he read the Book of Common Prayer? &c. . And doth he wear the surplice while he performs that office, or other offices mentioned in the Common Prayer Book? . “4, Doth he preach a Sermon every Sunday, or procure: a Sermon to be preached ? . “7, Doth your parish maintain a Lecturer? . . . Doth he read the whole Divine Service of Common Prayer, once a month at the least, wearing a surplice ?” ress of the Preacher, 177 These several Articles of Visitation, following thus closely upon the last Review of the Book of Common Prayer, establish, I think, satisfactorily the true interpretation of the words in the Rubric as then adopted, respecting the ornaments of the ministers “at all times of their ministration.” The words in question are clearly, I think, to be taken as referring to the several Offices of the Church contained in the Book of Common Prayer, including the Office for the Holy Communion, which had originally been distinguished from the rest by special vestments,— a distinction which was discoverable, as has been already observed “°, in the original form of this Ru- bric :—while the function of the “preacher” seems, throughout, to be treated as distinct from that of the “minister,” though united in the same person. And this is very clearly marked in the Articles of Inquiry of John Hammond, Archdeacon of Hun- tingdon, in 1670, especially when compared with those of his Diocesan, Bishop Laney, at his primary Visitation in 1662, whose Articles of Inquiry the Archdeacon’s closely follow. The Bishop had inquired :— [ Tit. iii.|] ‘*’7. Doth your Minister, at the reading or celebrat- ing any divine office in your Church or Chapel, wear the surplice, together with such other scholastical habit as is suitable to his degree®?” .’... The Archdeacon inquires :— [Tit. i.] “7. Have you ...a decent and comely surplice for the use of the minister in his publick administrations ?”’ [Tit. ii.] ‘*4. Doth he, at reading or celebrating any divine office in your Church or Chapel, constantly wear the surplice, 4 Vid. sup. p. 171. cles of Bishop Fuller, Bishop © We find the same enquiry _Laney’s successor (1674). verbatim in the Visitation Arti- N 178 Dress of the Preacher, together with such other scholastical habit as is suitable to his degree ; and in preaching doth he wear a gown ?” This inquiry, be it observed, refers distinctly not to the Lecturer, but to the “ Parson, Vicar, or Curate” of the parish; and proves, beyond all ques- tion, I think, what was the usage at the period in question, and how the Rubric was understood ‘ And of the use of the gown in preaching, and the change of dress which it involved, now that the use of the surplice was restored for the prayers, and which was not always, it would seem, managed with the greatest regard to outward seemliness by those who were unused to the surplice, we have an instance in Pepys’ Diary, in the following entry ®. ** Oct. 26, 1662.—To church, and there saw the first time Mr. Mills in a surplice ; but it seemed absurd for him to pull it over his ears, in the reading pew, after he had done, before all the people, to go up to the pulpit, to preach without it ».” The clergyman here mentioned was the rector of the parish (St. Olave, Hart-street,) in which Pepys resided. The documents which have now been referred to, of the period immediately following the last Review f The Archdeacon of Leices- mary Visitation, 1679. ter, Dr. Owtram, enquires in his Articles of 1676, [ Lite 1.)* 7isblave;yours.4. a large surplice for the use of your minister in his public administrations 2” [Lit..t.] £3.03 npand, doth he, in the reading or celebrating every office in your Church or Chapel, wear the surplice ?” In like manner Bishop Bar- low, the successor of Bishop Fuller, at Lincoln, at his Pri- [Tit. i.] “7. Have you a fair surplice for the minister to wear at all times of his public ministration, provided at the charge of the parish ?” [Tit. 1i.] “4. ... And doth he make use of the surplice when he reads divine service, or administers the Sacrament?” & Robertson, p. 114. h Pepys’ Memoirs, vol. 3. p- 172. Dress of the Preacher. 179 of the Common Prayer, will serve to clear up two points upon which some doubt may seem still to remain. The former of these is in regard to the one only difference which, as we have seen, is to be found between the Advertisements of 1564 and the Canons of 1603, viz. as to the wearing of the hood with the surplice in parochial churches. Arch- deacon Sharp * tells us that the 58th Canon, which enjoins it, “is superseded by the Rubric before the Common Prayer in 1661, which,” as he says, “is sta- tute law,” and according to which the Rubric of King Edward VI.’s First Book, “with its explanation in the Act of Uniformity by Queen Elizabeth, is the legal or statutable rule of our Church habits at this day“; and is so far from being explained by this Canon, that it rather serves to explain the Canon itself.” And since in the Rubric of Edward’s First Book “no order is given for the use of the hood with the surplice ‘in parish churches,” therefore, in the opinion of Archdeacon Sharp, the clause in question in this Canon is not strictly binding; for- asmuch as the present Rubric, which is of later date, and decisive of all questions about the habits in ministration, refers us to a rule by which the said practice is not required.” He goes on, how- ever, to say, “* But I do not mean hereby in the least degree to except against the use of graduates wearing their hoods in their several churches, for which not only a canon, but a general custom may be pleaded, any more than I would condemn the disuse of copes, albs, and tunicles, since both canon and custom may be pleaded i As also Burn, vid. sup. p. to Wheatley, Bennet, and 87, note. Nichols, all of whom have k Archdeacon Sharp refers been already referred to. N 2 180 ress of the Preacher. for that disuse also. The whole truth of the matter is, that both the use of hoods, and disuse of copes and tunicles, are now so notoriously and universally allowed of by the ordinaries, that although neither of them could in strictness be reconciled with the letter of the rubric, yet are we not bound, at this time, to make any alteration in our practice. For whatever our governors in the church do openly and constantly permit, and consequently by a fair construction approve of, whether it will be admitted as a good interpretation of ecclesiastical law or not, yet there is no doubt it is a sufficient dispensation for the continuance of the usage, till further order be taken therein; and more especially in all doubtful or disputable cases, the resolution of which is left to the ordinary !.” Sound and excellent as are the principles here laid down, and the more worthy of attention as coming from so strict a rubrician, we have no occasion to avail ourselves of them in our present enquiry, which concerns the simple question of the true and “ oood interpretation of” our “ ecclesiastical laws ;” and I would mark the case immediately before us as one which shows very clearly the only satisfactory mode of ascertaining and determining these matters. That albes, copes, and tunicles had been not merely disused, but formally and legally superseded, so far as parish churches were concerned, well nigh a hundred years before the Rubric in our Common Prayer was finally settled in its present form, has, I trust, been fully proved: and with regard to the point now before us, while the verbal argument from the /etter of our Rubric is undoubtedly, at first sight, as Archdeacon Sharp and others to whom he refers state it, the historical documents, nevertheless, which have been cited prove, I think, clearly that such was not the design and meaning of the Rubric in ques- tion; that the Reviewers of 1661 did not intend, ' Sharp, on the Rubric, pp. 203—206. ress of the Preacher. 181 and were not understood to intend, to set aside the directions of the Canons of 1603, but did in fact regard as part of the regular and appointed orna- ments of the minister, and did require and enforce accordingly, that which rested entirely on the autho- rity of those Canons, viz., the wearing of the hood with the surplice by the officiating minister in parish churches, and which from that time has been the established practice. Meanwhile, those who would maintain that the Rubric of Edward the Sixth’s First Book, unexplained or modified by any subsequent order, is the present rule of the Church, must reject the use of the hood as worn with the surplice, in the ordinary service; and if, on the cy prés principle, they admit the surplice to be used instead of the albe, or albe and cope, and are of opinion that the sermon was to be preached in it, they must adopt the hypothesis that the hood is to be put on, upon the surplice, specially and only for preaching. For how else are we to explain, on this view, the recom- mendation contained in the Rubric in question, that graduates, “ when they do preach,” should wear their hoods? On the other hand, if we simply admit —what the historical documents, [ think, clearly prove—that there was no intention, at the last Review, of superseding the Canons of 1603, but rather of adopting and enforcing them, the whole question respecting the vestments of the minister is clear. And further with regard specially to the dress of the preacher,—the point more particularly to be noticed—the documents referred to refute the notion which would so entirely separate the office of the “preacher,” as referred to and provided for in the canons and other acts of the Church, from her litur- 182 Iaress of the Preacher, gical and rubrical system, as to invalidate, if not utterly set aside the argument drawn from the one for the illustration of the other. For it has been said, that “ consideration of the different office held by the ‘concionator’ in the Church from that of the parish priest, will suffice to show why a difference in vestment might be expected;” for that “the con- cionator was not necessarily a parish priest at any time, and very generally not so in the earlier times of the Reformation ;” that “he was simply and solely a preacher, one who went about from Church to Church, preaching only—‘ licensed to itinerate’ from pulpit to pulpit;” that “he neither read prayers (exceptio probat, &c.™) nor performed any of the offices whatever of Divine Service (virtute officii), in the performance of which the sacerdotal dress was by name required ;” that “he had in short nothing to do with the Prayer Book,” but was “out of its rule, rubrical as well as devotional ;” that there were “two classes of ministers,” entirely “distinct” from each other, “the concionator and the parish priest,” and this “for the first hundred years almost of the re- formed Church ;” that “when an order of preaching arose, not contemplated by the Rubric, and in no way provided for by it, and differing in many points from the preaching of the parish priest, as to place, preacher, and time,” it is no “wonder if documents should also be framed, in their wording and requirements referring to the new order of preaching and preachers alone ;” but that “the language of such documents,” is not “therefore, to make void the meaning of the earlier orders, passed for the guidance, not of the new preacher, but of the old parish priest ;” for that m The qualifications here made must not be overlooked. Dress of the Preacher. 183 “the rubric was drawn up for the parish priest, and the concionator is not a parish priest,” &e. °. But upon this it must be observed, that the “con- cionator” or licensed preacher of the times succeeding the Reformation was not, like the “preacher” or friar of the times preceding it, of a distinct order and class from the parochial clergy; for though, in the lack of preachers, those who were licensed to preach were called upon to preach in other Churches than their own, still the majority of them, at least in the times of Elizabeth, would seem to have been parish priests °; and the Canons of King James’s reign, and the Visitation Articles of the reign of Charles IT. alike recognize a system in which those of the paro- chial Clergy who were preachers, were required to preach either in their own, or in neighbouring Churches, where the incumbents were not preachers. And the whole system was one not independent of the Prayer Book, but having specially in view the fulfilment of the order given in the Rubric for the Sermon, to follow the Nicene Creed. It may be well to give here, though it is embodied in Visitation Articles already quoted, the 45th Canon, which shows clearly what the order of things established in the times in question really was. ** Every beneficed man, allowed to be a preacher, and residing on his benefice, having no lawful impediment, shall in his own cure, or in some other church or chapel where he may conve- moe Co Th) A App. pps 9, 10, 22. ° The distinction amongst the clergy, which, in conse- quence of the evils which arose out of it, occasioned a letter from the council to Archbishop Grindal (referred to by “‘C. I. H.” p. 11), was not so much between ‘‘ the parish priest and the preacher,” as between those who were called ‘‘ reading and ministering ministers,” and those who were ‘ preachers and no-sacrament ministers,” but both, for the most part, ‘‘mi- nisters,” i.e. parochial clergy. (Vid. Doc. Ann. vol. i. p. 385.) 184 ress of the Preacher. niently, near adjoining, (where no preacher is) preach one Sermon every Sunday in the year, wherein he shall soberly and sincerely divide the Word of truth to the glory of God and to the best edification of the people.” The “ order of preaching,” moreover, to which our Canons and other documents refer, was not subse- quent to the Reformation and to our reformed ritual, but, as we have seen, long prior to it, recognized in it, and harmonising with its provisions. And with regard to the distinction between the parish priest and the preacher, which, it has been thought, is recognized in the language of the Canons of 1571”, it is to be observed that the words derived from the two roots “predicare” and “concionari” are, in certain ways, interchangeable’; that “concio” would be the proper and only term to represent the word “Sermon” in the Rubric of our Communion Office; and that in the statutes of the university of Oxford respecting the licensing of preachers, we find both terms, “concionandi” and “predicandi ver- bum Dei.” To sum up, then, the evidence respecting the dress of the preacher: it is remarkable, amidst all the dis- cussions which the question of vestments has raised in past times in the Church of England, how there is almost a total absence of authoritative direction on the subject. There is nothing in any rubric, order, or canon, positively to require the use of the surplice or the gown, or to forbid the use of either’. P “*Nemo, &c. in parochia vacet,” &c. ‘‘Similiter etiam sua predicabit, nec posthac quilibet concionator sttpendia- audebit concionari extra minis-___rius,”’ &c., referred to by “C. terium,” &c. ‘Omnis minister I. H.” App. p. 11. in beneficio collato constitutus, a4 E.g. sup. p. 24, note. licet predicationi potissimum t The rule of the Adver- Dress of the Preacher. 185 And a diversity of practice in different dioceses, such as, it appears, originated in an authority like that of Bishop Cosin in the diocese of Durham, could hardly be regarded as involving any practical incon- venience when universally observed throughout a diocese, and so unconnected with theological party °. If, however, such inconvenience were unhappily found to arise from diversity of practice in this respect, as in any way to require a resolution of the doubt by the competent authority, whatever the case may be, the documents which have now been put together will supply, I believe, as completely as may be, the data on which the question must be determined. The only positive rubrical direction on the subject, it will be borne in mind, is, as has been already stated, the recommendation in the Notes subjoined to King Edward’s First Book, to the effect simply, that “it is seemly that graduates, when they do preach, should use such hoods as pertaineth to their several de- grees.” And as to the import of this direction, taken in connexion with the rest of the Rubric of which it forms part, and illustrated by the circumstances of the time, and by the records of subsequent history, there seems to me to be very little doubt. tisements and Canons as re- gards Cathedral Churches, is fatal to Mr. Scobell’s theory (Thoughts on Church Sub- jects’), that “the Church pur- posely disrobes”’ the clergy- man before he enters the pulpit ‘in his new function, [by giv- ing him no license to appear in them] of those ornaments with which in her reading-desk and at her communion-table she had invested him by autho- rity.” s As Mr. Benson observes, ‘‘ different practices have pre- vailed in different dioceses and districts. Here the surplice, there the gown, has been the habit for the sermon, but more generally and extensively the gown; and this variety has subsisted without creating either scandal or dissension. Why, then,” he goes on to say, ‘should not the practice, as it has long been established in each place, be allowed to con- tinue unchanged ?” (p. 49.) 186 ress of the Preacher. And in reviewing the evidence on this point, it may be permitted, before we go further, to remark, that we have here an instance how, in regard to matters on which the Church has given least of a posi- tive rule, there is nevertheless to be discovered, on careful examination, sufficient evidence as to the state of things which she had in view, and, conse- quently, as to her intention and mind; still further, that what may appear prima facie the obvious or necessary interpretation of her rules, must, in many cases, be corrected by a reference to preceding acts or regulations, not distinctly recognized, yet virtually embodied and pre-supposed ; that, where there seems indeterminateness, or a liability to variety of con- struction, there is evidence, in many cases, that the matter has been so left advisedly, in the spirit of moderation and tenderness for diversities of senti- ment within her pale, and feelings strongly enlisted on opposite sides, requiring gentle treatment and every consideration that was possible consistently with public order and the maintenance of due au- thority; and again, that, where any alteration was necessary, the endeavour was to attain the object as “quietly” as possible, and avoiding, as much as might be, any “shew of innovation.” It has been already observed, that if any associa- tions of a papistical character are to be attached to the use of the one vestment or the other in the pulpit, it must be admitted that the gown is a remi- niscence of times when, owing to a departure in the medizval Church from primitive practice, sermons had come to be of rare occurrence, and the office of the preacher had passed, to a great extent, out of the hands of the parochial clergy into those of the men- dicant orders. White vestments, as has been often ress of the Preacher. 187 shown by the defenders of our appointed ritual would seem to have been the dress of those who ministered in the early Church; and when in their Services the Sermon followed immediately upon the reading of Scripture, or of the Epistle and Gospel, we have no reason to suppose that, where the presbyter preached, or made his homily to the people, any change of vesture took place. Indeed, the changes of dress in the course of Divine Service have commonly been regarded as essentially of Romish origin. But, though it were a reminiscence of Romish days, the gown of the preacher need not carry with it any thing of a Romish character; it may only serve to call forth feelings of humble thankfulness, by reminding us how far it has pleased God to bless the endeavours of His Church in this land, to restore among us “the ancient custom of preaching which had been so long desired by the Christian Church*.” And now that ‘the Sermon has come to form an essential and con- stituent part of our idea of the ministrations of the parish priest in the Sunday service, it will surely not appear a strange thing—especially considering the place which the Sermon is appointed to occupy in the order of our ritual—that it should have suggested itself to many persons of late as a question, whether the change of dress for the Sermon were requisite or even regular; a question, however, which, as we have seen, there would appear on full examination to be sufficient data for resolving. To those whose feelings on matters of this kind are apt to be unduly influenced by apprehensions: suggested by a “symbolism” which, it must be ad- t E. g. by Hooker, Eccl. " Vid. sup. p. 33. Pol., V. 29. 188 Jaress of the Preacher. mitted, easily runs into excess, though at the same time no single-minded reader of Scripture can doubt for a moment that it has, within due limits, its legi- timate place, the following passage from one of the many beeks which were called forth by the “ Vesti- arian controversy” in the days of Klizabeth, may serve to point out not amiss the distinction to be made between the use and the abuse in things of this kind; and the conclusion to which it comes may not unfitly bring to a close our present discussion of the subject of “the dress of the preacher,” and that which it has necessarily involved, viz., the general question of the vesture and ornaments of the minis- ter at all times in his ministration. The passage is taken from “The Second Part of the Anatomie of Abuses, containing the display of corruptions, &c., made dialogwise by Phillip Stubbes, 1583.” Speaking of the Romish ritualists, he says, ‘Therefore thus they say, that white doth signify holiness, innocency, and all kind of integrity, putting them in mind what they ought to be in this life, and representeth unto them the beatitude, the felicity, and happiness of the life to come... The gown, say they, doth signify the plenary power which they have to do all things. And therefore none but the Pope, or he with whom he dispenseth, may wear the same every where, be- cause none have ‘plenariam potestatem,’ plenary power in every place but the Pope. Yet the ministers, saith he, may wear them in their churches, and in their own jurisdictions, because therein they have full power from him. ‘Thus foolishly do they deceive themselves with vain shews, shadows, and imaginations, forged in the mint of their own brains to the destruction of many. But . if all things that have been abused should be removed be- cause of the abuse, then should we have nothing left to the supply of our necessities, neither meat, drink, nor cloth for our bodies, neither yet (which is more) the word of God, the spiritual food of our souls, nor any thing else almost. For what thing is there in the whole universal world, that either by one heretic or another ress of the Preacher. 189 hath not been abused? Let us therefore take the abuse away, and the things may well remain still . . . And therefore I beseech the Lord that we may all agree together in one truth, and not so divide ourselves one from another for trifles, making schisms, ruptures, breaches, and factions, in the Church of God, where we ought to nourish peace, unity, concord, brotherly love, amity, and friendship, one amongst another. And seeing we do all agree together in one truth, having all one God our Father, one Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour, one Holy Spirit of adoption, one price of redemption, one faith, one hope, one baptism, and one and the same inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, let us therefore agree together in these external shadows, ceremonies, and rites. For is it not a shame to agree about the marrow and to strive about the bone? to contend about the kernel and to vary about the shell? to agree in the truth and to brabble for the shadow? Let us consider that this contention of ours among ourselves, doth hinder the course of the Gospel from taking such deep root in the hearts of the hearers, as otherwise it would do. And thus for this time, brother Theodorus, we will break off our talk con- cerning this matter, until it please God that we may meet again. ... In the meantime let us give ourselves to fasting and prayer, most humbly beseeching His excellent Majesty to bless our noble Queen, and to keep her as the apple of His eye from all her foes, to maintain His word and Gospel amongst us, to plant unity and concord within our walls, to increase our faith, to grant us true and unfeigned repentance for our sins, and in the end eternal life in the kingdom of heaven, through the precious death, passion, blood-shedding, and obedience of Christ Jesus our Lord and only Saviour, to whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost, one true and immortal God, be all honour, praise, power, empire, and dominion, throughout all congregations for evermore.” Praper before Sermon, From the question respecting the dress of the preacher, we may now proceed to that which comes next in order, viz., whether he ought to use any prayer before Sermon, or proceed at once to give out the text and begin the Sermon. The usual practice has been, where the form of bidding prayer is not used, to say a Collect, followed by the Lord’s Prayer. A doubt, however, has been raised whether this be not contrary to the Rubric. Upon a complaint laid against a Clergyman of “the disuse of any prayer before or after the Sermon,” judgment has been pronounced that, whereas by the Act of Uniformity it is enacted, that “all ministers shall be bound to say and use the Morning prayer, celebration and administration of both the Sacra- ments, &c., in such order and form as is mentioned in the Book of Common Prayer ;” and further that no form or order of Common Prayer or administra- tion of Sacraments, &c., shall be openly used in any Church, &c., other than what is prescribed and ap- pointed to be used in and by the said Book,”—which “latter clause (2¢ 2s plain) prohibits all addition to, as the other does all diminution from, the order pre- scribed;”—it follows that, “no prayer being prescribed and appointed either before or after the Sermon, the Praper before Sermon, 191 Minister who uses no prayer, either before or after the Sermon, strictly conforms to the law of Church and State:” and further, in respect to the Canon which requires the use of the form of bidding of prayer, it has been ruled that, “if there were no authority or practice to the contrary, it must be deemed to be superseded by the Rubric, so far as concerns the Sermon, which is part of the Commu- nion Service, and could have effect only in the case of Sermons at other times, such as in the evening prayer, or in the morning prayer on days when the Communion Service is not used, or in the Univer- sities, where, by an express provision of the Act of Uniformity (sec. 23), Sermons may be had without being preceded by morning or evening prayer *.” The question here raised deserves the rather a care- ful consideration because it is one which, like the ques- tion respecting the gown or the surplice, introduces a very observable difference in the usage of different Churches and Clergymen; and if there be ground for doubt whether the Rubric thus interpreted does not supersede the Canon, it will give rise to a question whether the bidding of prayer is allowable even in Cathedrals, or at Visitations of the Clergy °, or similar occasions, on days when the Communion Service is read. And the question for consideration may be stated as simply this,—whether the words of the Rubric “Then shall follow the Sermon,” &c., 4 Judgment of the Bishop of Exeter in the Helston case. With regard to the form pre- tion of the King’s supremacy. Mr. Robertson gives the same opinion, p. 174. Comp. pp. scribed by the Canon, his Lord- ship is of opinion that it was prescribed for a political pur- pose, as containing a recogni- LET ALS: b This case occurred at the Visitation of the Archdeacon at Helston. 192 Draper before Sermon. are to be understood as forbidding the use of a Collect or prayer, and as requiring that the preacher shall at once begin the Sermon. In entering upon this question it may be well to observe first, that there has been no essential varia- tion in the Rubric since the first compilation of the Book of Common Prayer. In King Edward the Sixth’s First Book the Rubric stood thus, “ After the Creed ended, shall follow the Sermon or Homily,” &ec.; in the Second Book, and in Queen Elizabeth’s, “After the Creed, if there be no Sermon, shall follow one of the Homilies already set forth, or here- after to be set forth, by Authority:” at the last Review it was altered to the present form, “Then,” (i. e. after the notice given of Holy days, &c.) “shall follow the Sermon or one of the Homilies,” &ec. The question then is, whether this Rubric, forming part of the Prayer Book sanctioned by the Act of Uni- formity, excludes the use of a Collect or prayer before “the Sermon.” Not to stand upon the argument which might be used here, as before in regard to the surplice, that it can hardly be supposed to have been the intention at the last Review, to give an order contrary to the Canon of 1603, I would observe, that no such inten- tion certainly was entertained by Sparrow, himself one of the Reviewers, and one in respect to whom it is superfluous to say that he understood as per- fectly as any one all matters connected with the ritual of the Church. He had thus written, only a year or two before, in his Rationale, published in 1657: ‘After the Epistle and the Gospel and the confession of that Faith which is taught in Holy Writ, follows Tue Srrmon, Praper before Sermon, 193 (Ambros. ep. 33, ad Marcel. Leo 1. Ser. 2. de Pascha,) which usually was an exposition of some part of the Epistle or Gospel, or proper Lesson for the day,... “The Sermon was not above an hour long. Cyril. Catech. 13. ‘Before the Sermon no prayer is appointed but the Lord’s Prayer, the petitions being first consigned upon the people by the Preacher or Minister, who is appointed to bid the prayers, as it is in Edw. 6, and Queen Eliz. Injunctions; that is, to tell the people beforehand what they are at that time espe- cially to pray for in the Lord’s Prayer; which in the 55th Can. of the Constit., anno Dom. 1603, is called, moving the people to join with the Preacher in praying the Lord’s Prayer. Of old, nothing was said before the Sermon but Gemina Salutatio, the double Salutation. (Clem. Const. 1. 8. c. 5. Optat. 1. 7.) The Bishop or Priest never begins to speak to the people, but first in the name of God he salutes the people, and the Salutation is doubled, that is, the Preacher says, ‘The Lord be with you,’ and the people answer, ‘ And with thy spirit.’ Much after this manner was the Jews’ practice, Neh. viii. 4, & 6. ‘ Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, &c. and opened the book in the sight of all the people; and when he opened it, all the people stood up, and Ezra blessed the Lord the great God; and all the people answered, Amen, Amen, and worshipped.’ Verse 8: ‘ Then Ezra read in the book, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.’ So we see, that both amongst Jews and Christians of old, the preacher before his Sermon used only a short salutation, or blessing, to which the people having answered, the Sermon began. And though the Church of England uses not the very same form, yet in this she follows the ancient practice, prescribing only the short Prayer of our Lord: and indeed what need any more? For whatsoever we can desire is abundantly prayed for before in the Liturgy, and needs not be prayed over again immediately. And therefore there being no need of such a solemn prayer, the Church hath appointed none, but only the Lord’s Prayer: and, no other being appointed, no other should be used by the preacher. For as hath been shewn (page 1), no prayers should be used publicly, but those that are prescribed ; lest through ignorance or carelessness, any thing contrary to the faith should be uttered before God.” He proceeds to point out “how necessary such restraint of private men’s prayers in public is, and ) 194 Praper before Sermon, how good that reason is for such restraint,” which, he says, “a little experience of licentious times ”— and it will be recollected in what times he wrote —“will abundantly shew;” and then goes on to say: “‘ This form of bidding prayers is very ancient; we may see the like in St. Chrysostom, and other Liturgies, which they called mooogwrijcetc, ‘ Allocutions,’ in which the deacon speaks to the people from point to point, directing them what to pray for... . This is all the difference between them and this, that in them the people were to answer to every point severally, ‘ Lord, have mercy,’ &c.; in this they are taught to sum up all the petitions in the Lord’s Prayer, and to pray for them all together. ‘‘ This was the practice in King Edward the Sixth’s time, as appears by Bishop Latymer, Jewel, and others in those days, whose forms of bidding prayers, before Sermon, are to be seen in their writings °.”’ This passage from Bishop Sparrow has been cited thus fully, because it proves several points which are to our present purpose, viz. that in his view of the matter, (1.) the Rubric was in perfect harmony with the Canon, for he quotes the Canon in illustra- tion of the Rubric: (2.) that the use of the Lord’s Prayer was regarded as thus, in fact, “prescribed” by the Church, notwithstanding the silence of the Rubric: (8.) that the use of some short prayer before Sermon was referred for its origin to ancient use: and (4.) that Bishop Sparrow did not recog- nize in the canonical order any merely political object, such as the acknowledgment of the King’s supremacy, &c., but the exclusion of extempore prayers, in which the congregation necessarily could not join, If, however, we go back, as Bishop Sparrow directs us, to the practice of Edward the Sixth’s * Rationale, pp. 252—257. Praper before Sermon, 195 time, and look to the Sermons of Bishops Latimer, Jewel, and others, we shall find, I think, that which will sufficiently explain why it was unnecessary to say any thing in the Rubric respecting the prayer, or bidding of prayer, before Sermon. It would appear that this prayer was an inseparable adjunct, or rather, almost an integral part of the Sermon itself, and very commonly at that time introduced into the early part of it, though it sometimes formed the conclusion of the Sermon. Thus, to take in their order the Sermons of Bishop Latimer, we find him ending thus the first, or morning, part of his Sermon preached before the convocation of the clergy in 1536 (June 9). ** But lest the length of my Sermon offend you too sore, I will leave the rest of the parable [of the unjust steward], and take me to the handling of the end of it; that is, I will declare unto you how the children of this world be more witty, crafty, and subtle, than are the children of the light in their generation. Which sentence would God lay it in my poor tongue to explicate with such light of words, that I might seem rather to have painted it before your eyes, than to have spoken it; and that you might rather seem to see the thing, than to hear it! But I confess plainly this thing to be far above my power. Therefore this being only left to me, I wish for that I have not, and am sorry that that is not in me which I would so gladly have, that is, power so to handle the thing that I have in hand, that all that I say may turn to the glory of God, your souls’ health, and the edifying of Christ’s body. Wherefore I pray you all to pray with me unto God, and that in your petition you desire that these two things be vouchsafed to grant us, first, a mouth for me to speak rightly ; next, ears for you, that in hearing me ye may take profit at my hand: and that this may come to effect, you shall desire Him unto whom our master Christ bade we should pray, saying even the same prayer that He Himself did institute. Wherein ye shall pray for our most gracious Sovereign lord the King, chief and supreme head of the Church of England, under Christ, and for the most excellent, gracious, and virtuous lady queen Jane, his most lawful wife, and for all his, whether they G3 196 Praper before Sermon, be of the clergy or laity, whether they be of the nobility, or else other his grace’s subjects, not forgetting those that be departed out of this transitory life, and now sleep in the sleep of peace, faithfully, lovingly, and patiently looking for that they clearly shall see when God shall be so pleased. For all these, and for grace necessary, ye shall say unto God God’s prayer, Pater noster 4,” In the second of the Sermons preached before King Edward the Sixth, “within his Grace’s palace at Westminster, the fifteenth day of March, 1549 °,” after the introduction the preacher says, ‘ Hitherto goeth the text. That I may declare this the better, to the edifying of your souls and the glory of God, I shall desire you to pray, &c.f”’ In the last of the Sermons preached before the King, the bidding of prayer is at the end of the Sermon ®*. In the Sermon preached at Stamford, November 9, 1550, out of the Gospel for the day, after the giving out of the text there are two introductory paragraphs, the latter of which ends thus: “Thus ye may perceive it was our Saviour Christ that spake these words; and they were spoken unto the Pharisees that tempted him. But they be a doctrine unto us that are Christ’s disciples. For whose words should we delight to hear and learn, but the words and doctrine of our Saviour Christ? And that I may at this time so declare them as may be for 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 preservation of our Sove- reign Lord King Edward the Sixth, sole supreme head, under God and Christ, of the Churches of England and Ireland, &c. Secondly, * Latimer’s Sermoas (ed. © The year in which the Parker Soc.), pp. 39, 40. The First Book of Common Prayer greater part is given in Coxe’s was put forth. ‘“Forms of bidding Prayer,” f Ibid. p. 112. No. 11. 8 Ibid. p. 256. Praper before Sermon, 197 for the King’s most honourable council. 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 in that great need and conflict against the devil and sin, and that gave them at the hour of death faith in his Son’s death and passion, whereby they might conquer and overcome and get the victory. Give thanks, I say, for this; adding prayers and supplications for your- selves, that it may please God to give the like faith and grace to trust only unto the death of his dear Son, as He gave unto them. For as they be gone, so must we; and the devil will be as ready to tempt us as he was them; and our sins will light as heavy upon us as theirs did upon them; and we are as weak and unable to resist as were they. Pray therefore that we may have grace to die in the same faith of Christ as they did, and at the latter day be raised with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and be partakers with Christ in the kingdom of heaven. For this and grace let us say the Lord’s prayer.” He then enters upon the expounding of the passage of Scripture, and ends his Sermon thus: ‘** But because the time is past, I will here make an end for this forenoon; desiring you to pray God for his help : for at after- noon I purpose to begin again at this text, and to go forth as God shall give me his grace. Now let us all say together the Lord’s prayer. ‘Our Father, which art in heaven, &c.’”’? With this form of Bishop Latimer we may com- pare that used by Bishop Gardiner, preaching before King Edward in the same year: ‘‘ Most honourable audience, I purpose by the grace of God to declare some part of the Gospel that is accustomably used to be read in the Church at this day; and that because, without the special grace of God, neither I can speak any thing to your edify- ing, nor ye receive the same accordingly, I shall desire you all that we may jointly pray altogether for the assistance of his grace. “In which prayer I commend unto Almighty God your most excellent Majesty, and our Sovereign Lord, King of England, France, and Ireland, and of the Church of England and Ireland, h Ibid. pp. 283, 284. 295. Comp. Coxe, No. 17. 198 Praper before Sermon, next and immediately under God, here on earth supreme head, Queen Catherine Dowager, my Lady Mary’s grace, and my Lady Elizabeth’s grace, with all others of your most honourable Council, the spiritualty and temporalty. And I shall desire you to com- mend unto God with your prayers the souls departed unto God in Christ’s faith, and among these most especially for our late Sovereign Lord King Henry VIII., your Majesty’s most noble father ; for these and for grace necessary, I shall desire you to say io? a Pater noster, &c. These forms, compared with each other, shew plainly that it was in regard not only to the King’s supremacy, but to other doctrines also, that it would be necessary at that period to regulate the bidding of prayer at Sermon time. It will have been ob- served how great a change had been made in Bishop Latimer’s form, between 1536 and 1550, under the third head, viz., that which concerned the departed, from the language of prayer for them to that of praise - on their behalf,—a change, however, made the more easy and gentle by the wording “J commend unto you,” &c.* And how essential a part of the bidding of prayer was this third and concluding head, will ap- pear from the more ancient forms, to be cited pre- sently. Meanwhile, it may be observed that, while the place which the bidding of prayer thus occupies in the Sermon will serve to explain why it was less necessary to mention it in the Rubric, the way in which it is thus commonly introduced supplies a connecting link with the ancient form of brief prayer for Divine grace upon the minister and people. The bidding of prayer, as used thus at the time of the Reformation, seems to combine in it two charac- ' Coxe, No. 18, quoting commend unto thy mercy, O from Foxe, lil. 450 (ed. 1684). * Compare the Prayer in the Communion Service in King Edward’s First Book, ‘“ We Lord, all other thy servants, which are departed hence from us, &c. .. . and now do rest in the sleep of peace,” &c. Vraper before Sermon, 199 teristics, viz., that of a supplication for Divine assist- ance, and at the same time an intercession for the whole state of Christ’s Church. In one of Latimer’s Sermons we may observe the subject of prayer scarcely extends beyond the former: there is not the usual enumeration under the latter head. In his Sermon, preached in 1552 or 1558, on the Parable of the Marriage Feast, after the introductory para- graph, he says :— ‘“‘ Now that I may so handle these matters that it may turn to the edification of your souls, and to the discharge of my office, I will most instantly desire you to lift up your hearts unto God, and desire his divine Majesty, in the name of his only Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ, that He will give unto us his Holy Ghost : —unto me, that I may speak the word of God, and teach you to understand the same; unto you, that you may hear it fruitfully, to the edification of your souls; so that you may be edified through it, and your lives reformed and amended ; and that his honour and glory may increase daily amongst us. Wherefore I shall desire you to say with me, ‘ Our Father,’ &c.”! In the threefold division of the bidding of prayer, as used in Latimer’s Sermon of 1550, as well as in some of its expressions, especially at the close, we may trace “the Form of bidding the Common Prayers” which had been issued in King Kdward’s Injunctions of 1547, and which is important for our purpose, as having been ordered thus two years only before the publication of the First Book of Common Prayer with the Rubric of which we are concerned. The Form is as follows :— “ You shall pray for the whole congregation of Christ’s Church ; and especially for this Church of England and Ireland ; wherein first 1 commend to your devout prayers the king’s most excel- lent majesty, supreme head, immediately under God, of the spiri- tuality and temporality of the same Church; and for queen 1 Sermons, pp. 455, 456. Coxe, No. 19. 200 Vraper before Sermon, Catharine dowager, and also for my lady Mary, and my lady Elizabeth, the king’s sisters. ‘¢ Secondly, you shall pray for the lord protector’s grace, with all the rest of the king’s majesty’s council ; for all the lords of this realm, and for the clergy and commons of the same; beseeching Almighty God to give every one of them, in his degree, grace to use themselves in such wise as may be to God’s glory, the king’s honour, and the weal of this realm. ‘‘ Thirdly, ye shall pray for all them that be departed out of this world in the faith of Christ, that they with us, and we with them, at the day of judgment, may rest both body and soul, with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven™.” A form of bidding had already been put forth, some years before (in 1534)", by King Henry VIIL., in which, however, as Bishop Burnet observes, “all the change that the King made was, that the pope’s and cardinals’ names being left out, he was ordered to be mentioned with the addition of his title of Supreme Head, ... but his other titles were not mentioned. And this order was now renewed [in King Edward’s Injunctions]; only the prayer for departed souls was changed from what it had been. It was formerly [7z. e. in the intermediate form of 1536] in these words: ‘Ye shall pray for the souls that be departed, abiding the mercy of Almighty God, that it may please Him the rather at the contemplation of our prayers, to grant them the fruition of his presence’ which did imply,” says Bishop Burnet, “their being in a state where they did not enjoy the presence of God, which was avoided by the more general words now prescribed °.” The following was the “ Order taken for preaching, and bidding of the beads in all sermons to be made within this realm,” as put forth in 1534. ™ Doc. Ann. vol. i. p. 21. 61, quoted by Cardwell, Doc. n Vid. sup. p. 41. Ann. vol. i. p. 21, note. Comp. ° Burnet, H. R. vol. uu. p. Coxe, No. 8, and No. 12. Praper before Sermon, 201 ‘« First, Whosoever shall preach in the presence of the King’s Highness and the Queen’s Grace, shall, in the bidding of the beads, pray for the whole Catholic Church of Christ, as well quick as dead, and specially for the Catholic Church of this realm ; and first, as we be bounden, for our sovereign lord King Henry the VII[th, being, immediately next under God, the only and supreme head of this Catholic Church of England, and for the most gracious lady Queen Anne his wife; and for the lady Elizabeth, daughter and heir to them both, our princess—and no further. ** Item, The preacher in all other places of this realm than in the presence of the King’s said Highness and the Queen’s Grace, shall, in the bidding of the beads, pray first, in manner and form, and word for word, as is above ordained and limited ; adding thereunto, in the second part, for all archbishops and bishops, and for all the whole clergy of this realm; and specially for such as shall please the preacher to name of his devotion: and thirdly, for all dukes, earls, marquisses, and for all the whole temporalty of this realm ; and specially for such as the preacher shall name of devotion: and finally for the souls of all them that be dead, and specially of such as it shall please the preacher to name?.. .” This last particular alone would show, as has been already observed, that there were objects, besides that of declaring the King’s supremacy, which made it of importance to regulate the bidding of prayers ; though indeed, at this particular time, the acknow- ledgment of the King’s supremacy, in contradis- tinction from the mention of the pope and cardinals, &c., as had been usual, would supply the most undoubted test of opinion on the part of the preacher. But the fact would seem to be, that inasmuch as these were, as we shall see, at the period in question, “the common prayers,” properly so called, — the only prayers in English in which the people were called to join with the priest,—and as there was so much of theological doctrine embodied in the re- P Burnet, H. R. vol. iii. Letters, 101. 120. Strype’s App. B. ii. No. 29. Jenkyns’ Cranmer, p. 35. Coxe, No. 7. Cranmer, vol. iv. p. 252. vol. 1. 202 Praper before Sermon, ceived forms’, it was highly important, as the Reformation proceeded, to give authoritative order in this matter. For the full explanation, however, of the whole subject, we may refer to L’Estrange’s “Alliance of Divine Offices” published about the same time with Sparrow’s Rationale, viz. in 1659, only the year before the last Review of the Common Prayer. Upon the Rubric respecting the Sermon, he says; * Regularly and of course, the ancient form of bidding of prayers will here fall under cognizance, and the rather, because something like it is established by the Canons of our Church. Its original extraction claiming precedency of consideration, I shall begin with that. “ The Agenda of Religion in our Church, before the Reforma- tion, were performed, it is well known, in Latin, a language very unedifying to a non-intelligent people. That so many, so much interested and concerned in these sacred offices, should not be totally excluded as idle spectators, or fit for nothing but now and then to return an Amen 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, observing the method and materials of the then prayer ‘for all States ;’ so that, of all the service then used, this only could properly be called Common Prayer, as being the only form wherein the whole congregation did join in concert; and therefore the title of it in the Injunctions of Edward VI. 4 On account of praying [Thanet], 1434. ‘I will the for this last estate, viz., the souls in purgatory, it was, I find,” says Lewis, “‘ by some ordered in their wills, that the Rector or Vicar of the Church whereto they belong- ed should have four pence yearly perpetually to remember their souls in the dominicall prayer in the pulpitt.” He quotes the will of ‘ Richard Culmer of St. Peter’s in Tenet Vicar of the said Churche for to have iijd, of the saide rente yearely perpetual to remember the sawle of the said Richard in the dominicall prayer in the pulpitt.’ ”» See some papers of Mr. John Lewis, preserved in the Bodleian Library, and in- corporated by Mr. Coxe in his ‘‘ Forms of bidding Prayer”’ (p. 4). Praper before Sermon, 203 Anno 1547, is, ‘The form of bidding the Common Prayers.’ Now because it was made by allocution, or speaking to the people, agreeing with what the primitive Church called rpoc- gwrnoty, it was called Bidding of Prayers. Thus, in short, as to the ground of this ancient Form; will you now see the Form itself? behold it here. “«¢ 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 spiritualty, the temporalty, 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, and in special. for my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, your Metropolitan, and also for my Lord Bishop of this Diocese; and in general for all parsons, vicars, and parish priests having cure of souls, with the ministers of Christ’s Church, as well religious as not religious. Secondly, ye shall pray for the unity and peace of all Christian realms, and especially for the noble realm of England, for our Souvereign Lord the King, &c., and for all the Lords of the Council, and all other of the nobility which dwell in the countries, having protection and governance of the same; That Almighty God may send them grace so to govern and rule the land, that it may be pleasing unto Almighty God, wealth and profit to the land, and salvation to their souls. Also ye shall pray for all those that have honoured the Church with light, lamp, vestment, or bell, or with any other ornaments, by which the service of Almighty God is the better maintained and kept. Furthermore, ye shall pray for all true travellers [travailers | and tillers of the earth, that truely and duely done their duty to God and holy Church, as they be bound to do. Also ye shall pray for all manner of fruits that be done upon the ground, or shall be, that Almighty God of his great pitty and mercy may send such wedderings [ weather ], that they may come to the sustenance of man. Ye shall pray also for all those that be in debt or deadly sin, that Almighty God may give them grace to come out thereof, and the sooner by our prayer. Also ye shall pray for all those that be sick or diseased, either in body or in soul, that the Almighty would send them the thing that is most profitable as well bodily as ghostly. Also ye shall pray for all pilgrims and palmers, that have taken the way to Rome, to St. James of Jerusalem, or to any other place; That Almighty God may give them grace to go safe, and to come safe, and give 204 Praper before Sermon. us grace to have part of their prayers, and they part of ours. Also ye shall pray for the holy Cross, that is in possession and hands of unrightful people ; That God Almighty may send it into Further- more I commit unto your devout prayers all women that be in our Ladie’s bonds ; that Almighty God may send them grace, the child to receive the Sacrament of Baptism, and the mothers Puri- fication. Also ye shall pray for the good man and woman, that this day giveth bread to make the holy loaf, and for all those that For these and for all true Christian people, every man and woman say a Pater the hand of Christian people, when it pleaseth him. first began it, and them that longest continue. noster and an Ave,’ &c. | ** After this followeth a prayer for all Christian souls, reckon- ing first Archbishops and Bishops, and especially Bishops of the Diocese, then for all curates, &c., then for all Kings and Queens, &c., then for all benefactors to the Church, then for the souls in purgatory, especially for the soul of N., whose anniversary then is kept *.” Upon the subject of these ancient forms of bidding prayers, Mr. Palmer observes, “How long the pre- sent form of prayer, directed by the Canons of 1603, may have been used in the English Church, would be difficult to determine. We have memorials of these prayers as used in England in the 14th cen- tury*®. Ivo Carnotensis, who flourished about a.p. 1080, cites a Canon of a council of Orleans, which evidently alludes to a form of prayer like that of the r “6 Alliance,” pp. 170—172. Coxe, No.6. In his “Addenda,” L’ Estrange gives a more ancient form, which had been sent him by a friend from Cambridge, having been found by him ‘‘ written upon a spare parch- ment before the Summs of Gui- lielmus de Pagua, extant in the University Library.” He con- jectures it to have been written in the 14th century. It has been printed, but not very correctly, nor at full length as regards the Latin Collects, by Collier : a more accurate copy of it is to be found in Coxe, No. 1, as copied from the papers of Mr. Lewis. The form of “The Bedes on the Sonday,” given in the. ‘ Liber Festi- valis,’” 1483, is on the same model (Coxe, No. 3). And so also the ‘‘ Preces dominicis dicendze”’ from the ‘‘ Manuale sec. usum Eboracense,”’ 1509. (Coxe, No. 4.) Ss Mr. Palmer refers to the earlier form above referred to, as given by L’Estrange. Praper before Sermon. 205 Church of England. The characteristics of both are, that the preacher admonishes the people what they are to pray for; and the people being supposed to offer up a silent petition for each object that is mentioned, the preacher at the conclusion sums up their devotions in collects or the Lord’s prayer. “These prayers,” the same writer continues, “ per- haps may have passed from France into England. They were at first intended, as appears by the Canon cited by Ivo, to follow the sermon; but in the fol- lowing ages, when there were very few clergy quali- fied to preach, these prayers were recited without any sermon.” In 1408, Archbishop Arundell, when he renewed the constitution of Archbishop Peckham for sermons to be preached in every parish once in every quarter of the year, enjoined also the ‘cus- tomary prayers’ to be said at the same time”. These customary prayers,” says Mr. Palmer, “according to Lyndwood, who commented on Arundell’s Constitu- tion in a few years after it was published, were made to the people on Sundays after the offertory “; and we find from the Processional, or litany book of the church of Salisbury, that the prayers made after the t “Tyo, Decretum, pars 1. cap. 120. ‘Ex Concilio Au- relianensi, c. 38. Oportet ut, in diebus Dominicis vel festis, post sermonem missarum intra solemnia habitum, plebem sa- cerdos admoneat, ut juxta apos- tolicam admonitionem, omnes in commune pro diversis neces- sitatibus preces fundant ad Do- minum, pro rege et episcopis et rectoribus ecclesiarum, pro pace, pro peste, pro infirmis, qui in ipsa parochia lecto decumbunt, pro nuper defunctis ; in quibus singulatim precibus plebs ora- tionem Dominicam sub silentio dicat. Sacerdotes vero oratio- nes ad hoc pertinentes per singulas admonitiones solenni- ter expleant. Post hec sacra celebretur oblatio, Ait enim primum omnium fieri oratio- nes,’ &c.”’ uy... “una cum precibus consuetis.” Cf. sup. p. 37. ¥ “ Lyndwood remarks on the words ‘ precibus consuetis,’ above, ‘sc. in diebus Dominicis post offertorium solitis fieri ad populum.’ Lyndwood, Provin- ciale, p. 291.” 206 Praper before Sermon. offertory on Sundays were exactly the same as those enjoined by the council of Orleans, and which we still use ”. “From the circumstance of these prayers being found in the Processional of Sarum, of their being mentioned as customary in the church of England in 1408, and appearing to have existed long before ; it is not improbable,” Mr. Palmer further observes, “that these prayers, as now repeated before the Sermons, may have been used in our churches before, or shortly after, the Norman conquest*... In the primitive Church,” he adds, “it does not appear that it was customary to use any particular prayer before the Sermon, though many of the Fathers, either at or near the beginning of their Homilies, occasionally addressed short and devout prayers to God for his holy Spirit’. But it is evident that this was not general. The Sermons which our Saviour and his Apostles delivered in the synagogues appear to have been preceded by no prayers; but, after the Scrip- tures were read, the preacher immediately delivered Z 29 his exhortation ’”. It is interesting to observe, in the instances which w **In the processional of cessionale Sar. fol. C....” Sarum, at the beginning, the bidding prayers and _ collects are printed at full length, for the purpose of being said in cathedrals immediately before the Liturgy began, and ‘ he preces preedictee dicuntur su- pradicto modo, omnibus Domi- nicis per annum.—lIta tamen quod in ecclesiis parochialibus, non ad processionem, sed post evangelium et offertorium supra- dicto modo dicuntur ante ali- quod altare in ecclesia, vel in pulpito ad hoc constituto.’ Pro- * [ “What the use of the Church of England was in this matter,” says Mr. Lewis, ‘“‘ either in the Saxon times or presently after the conquest, is not so plain to me. In the Saxon Homily or Sermon on Easter day, published by Arch- bishop Parker, I observe no mark of any prayer at the begin- ning of it... &c.”’ Coxe, p. 1. | Y Bingham, Antiquities, book xiv. c. 4. § 18. * Origg. Liturg. vol. 11. pp. 60— 65. Praper before Sermon, 207 have been already cited from the times of the Re- formation, the union of the primitive with the medieval custom—the heads of prayer contained in the forms of the middle ages, combined with the short supplications for Divine assistance to be found in the Sermons and Homilies of the Fathers. To proceed now with the history of the period in question, we find in Queen Elizabeth’s Injunctions of 1559 the following form, which “is retained and repeated with very slight variations in the Canons of 1603.” It stands in the Injunctions thus :— ‘The form of bidding the prayers to be used generally in this uniform sort. “Ye shall pray for Christ’s holy Catholic church, that is, for the whole congregation of Christian people dispersed throughout the whole world, and especially for the church of England and Ireland. 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. **- You shall also pray for the ministers of God’s holy word and sacraments, as well archbishops and bishops, as other pastors and curates, “‘ You shall also pray for the queen’s most honourable coun- cil, and for all the nobility of this realm, that all and every of these, in their calling, may serve truly and painfully to the glory of God, and edifying of his people, remembering the account that they must make. * Also ye shall pray for the whole commons of this realm, that they may live in true faith and fear of God, in humble obedi- ence, and brotherly charity one to another, ‘Finally, let us praise God for all those that are departed out of this life in the faith of Christ, and pray unto God that we may have grace for to direct our lives after their good example, that, after this life, we with them may be made partakers of the glo- rious resurrection in the life everlasting. After this done, shew the holy-days, and fasting days *.” a Sparrow. Cardwell, Doc. Amn. vol. i. pp. 202, 203, Coxe, No. 24 208 Praper before Sermon, From this last direction it would appear, that the bidding of prayers was intended to conclude the Sermon, as, we have seen, it did occasionally accord- ing to Bishop Latimer’s usage. For by the Rubric, already quoted *, of Queen Elizabeth’s Book, as well as of the Second Book of Edward, the declaring of the holydays and fasting days was to follow imme- diately upon the Sermon or Homily. And here, too, it is important to observe, in cor- roboration of the argument respecting our present Rubric and its interpretation, that, though no men- tion was made, in the then Rubric, of the bidding of prayer, it was nevertheless contemplated and dis- tinctly ordered: it was regarded, in fact, as an inseparable adjunct of the Sermon. In Queen Elizabeth’s form, it will be observed, is introduced the change which we noticed in Bishop Latimer’s later usage; “praying for,” as L’Estrange remarks, “being changed into praising God for, the dead.” L’Kstrange continues :— *‘ Having beheld the reformation of the form, it will not be amiss to look into the practice. This, upon my best enquiry, all along the days of Edward the Sixth, and Queen Elizabeth, is ex- hibited by only six authors ;—two archbishops, Parker and Sandys; four Bishops, Gardiner, Latimer, Jewel, and Andrewes. In all these I observe it interveneth betwixt the text delivered and the Sermon °, Archbishop Parker only excepted, who concludeth his > Vid. sup. p. 48. ¢ L’Estrange’s meaning, doubtless, is, that where the bidding prayer is found, it occupies this place. Where it is not found, it was probably used before the Sermon. Thus in Archbishop Grindal’s Fune- ral Sermon for the Emperor Ferdinand, (1564,) ‘ The Prayers for the Universal Church, the Church of Eng- land and Ireland, the Queen’s Majesty, the States of the realm, &c. as is_ ordinarily accustomed, were first made.” Then follows the text. (Grin- dal’s Remains, p. 3.) In Arch- bishop Sandys’ Sermons (ed. Parker Soc.), there is no in- stance of the prayer, except (p. 35) in his ‘‘Sermon preached before the Parliament at the opening of it (1584, )” vid. Coxe, Praper before Sermon, 209 Sermon with it¢. I observe also in them all, that it terminated in the Lord’s Prayer, or Pater noster, for which reason it was stiled ‘Bidding of beads,’ beads and Pater nosters being then rela- tives. Lastly, I observe in every one of them some variation, more or less, as occasion is administered, not only from the pre- cise words, but even contents of this form °.”’ It may be well to illustrate this statement, in the first place, by a few more specimens of Sermons of the sixteenth century, shewing both the position which the bidding of prayer occupied in regard to the Sermon, and also the variety in the manner of connecting it with the Sermon into which it was thus interwoven. And as an earlier specimen than any of those mentioned by L’Estrange, we may refer to Dean Colet’s famous Sermon preached before the Con- vocation of the Clergy in 1511. The following quotation is from the “old English translation '.” He begins :— ‘Ye are come to gether to daye, fathers and ryghte wyse men, to entre councell,” &c.... Then, after a page mainly occupied with apology for himself, he proceeds thus, ‘¢ Wherefore, fathers and ryghte worthy men, I pray you, and beseche you, that this day ye wold susteyne my weakenes with your goodnes and pacience. Furthermore to help me at the begynnyng with your good prayers. And before all thynge let us pray unto God the Father Allmyghty. Fyrst remem- brynge our most holye father the pape, and all spiritual pastours with all christen people, farthermore the most reverent father herein exactly the order pre- scribed in the Injunctions ; Nos. 25 and 29. It occurs only in a few of Bishop An- drewes’ Sermons; having pro- bably, for the most part, been used at the beginning, or else not marked in the MS. 4 The Archbishop followed others followed the generally established usage. € Alliance, p. 173. f Knight’s Life of Colet, App. No. 2. P 210 Praper before Sermon, and lorde, the archebishoppe president of this councell, and al bisshops, and all the clergie, and all the people of Englande : Remembrynge fynally this youre congregation, desyrynge God to inspire your mynds so accordingly to agre to suche profyte and frute of the churche that ye seme nat after the councell fynysshed to have been gathered to gether in vayne and without cause. Lette us all saye Pater noster.”’ He then proceeds to give his text. ‘To exhorte you reverent fathers, &c. . . . I knowe not where more conveniently to take begynnyng of my tale, than of the apostle Paule in whose temple ye are gathered togther. For he writynge unto the Romanes, and under their name unto you, saith: ‘ Be you not conformed to this worlde®,’” &c.... Among Bishop Bonner’s Injunctions to the clergy of his diocese, issued in 1542, we find the follow- ing: ‘‘ That all priests shall take this order when they preach ; first, they shall not rehearse no sermons made by other men within this 200 or 300 years; but when they shall preach, they shall take the Gospel or Epistle of the day, which they shall recite and declare to the people plainly, distinctly, and sincerely, from the beginning to the end thereof, and then to desire the people to pray with them for grace, after the usage of the Church of England now used; and that done, we will that every preacher shall declare the same Gospel or Epistle®,” &c. ... Of the sermons in the reign of Edward VI., and the usual mode of introducing the bidding of prayer, we have already seen specimens from Bishop Lati- mer. A few examples shall now be given from — preachers of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. “ A Sermon preached at Pawles Crosse, on Sunday the ninth of December, 1576, by T. W. [ White, ]” begins at once thus, without any text first given: “It were highly to be wished, and heartily prayed for (honour- ® Knight’s Colet, pp. 289, h Burnet, H.R. App. Book 290. il. No. 26. Praper before Sermon, 211 able beloved in Jesus Christ) that in this and all lyke assemblies, the eyes and eares of mens mindes were but as well occupied, as the eyes and the eares of the body: and that we woulde prepare ourselves by prayer,” &c.... Then after seven pages (of small size) introducing the text from Jeremiah, “ Beholde the tyme cometh, saythe the Lorde,” &c. the preacher proceeds, “But howe perfect mans eyes are the shyning sunne doth shew, which quicklye blyndes the clearest sight; and howe brutish mans reason is without Gods spyrite, in religion, that it 1s the speciall grace of God we are not turned out of both reason and Religion. Let us therefore craue assistaunce of God’s most blessed spyrite, that with meeke harte and due reverence I maye speake, and you may heare, and we all receyue his holie woorde, to the glorie of his name, the confirmation of his truth, the confutation of error, and the everlasting comfort of all true Christians in Jesu Christ. In this prayer, let us remember his universal Church, the Churches of Englande and Irelande, the Queenes most excellent Maiestie, her Graces most honorable Councile, all inferior Magistrates, all Ministers, and all private men: that the Lorde woulde blesse us all, to keepe our fayth unto the ende. Amen.” Another sermon by the same author “Preached at Pawle’s Crosse on Sunday the thirde of Nouem- ber 1577, in the time of the plague, by T. W. Imprinted &c. 1578,” begins in like manner without any text, being headed, “ In the name of God, Amen.” After a somewhat longer introduction (nine pages), the preacher proceeds : “ Our Saviour truly sayd, The harvest is greate, and the labourers are fewe: let us follow his counsel therefore, and pray the Lorde of the haruest, to sende in more paynefull and faithfull labourers, leaste the bore of the woodde doe roote uppe the vyne, leaste the cockle doe ouergrowe the corne, leaste the Diuell make hauocke of altogether. And in this prayer let us commende unto him his universal Church, and specially England and Irelande, and herein particularly our most gracious Soueraigne Queene Elizabeth, and all hir moste honourable Counsellers, the Pee 212 Praper before Sermon, whole ministerie, and euerye priuate member of his body, pray- ing for the reste, that in his good time they may be plated in, or else supplanted out, that if they will neuer bee good, that they may yet neuer do harme unto Israel which is of God. Amen.” Then follows the text (“ Zephony 3,”) and the division of the subject. In other sermons belonging to the same period, we find the bidding of prayer before the sermon. It is thus in “ A Sermon preached at Paule’s Crosse, the 23 of Aprill, being the Lord’s day, called Son- day, 1581, by Anthonie Andreson.” Before the text stand the words, “Let us pray, &c.” And another sermon by the same author, “ A Sermon of sure Comfort, preached at the Funerall of Master Robert Keylwey, Esquire, at Exton in Rutland, the 18 of Marche, 1580, By Anthonie Anderson, Preacher, and Parson of Midburne in Leicester- shiere,” begins thus; “As we are assembled in the name of our good God, so let us pray for his Univer- sall Church, &e.” Then follows the text, and the . sermon. | So also “A Sermon preached at Paule’s Crosse on the 25 day of June, Ann. Dom. 1587, by William Granet, Bachelar of Diuinitie, and Vicar of S$. Sepulcher’s in London,” is headed thus: ‘“‘ After the praier made, according to the usuall maner, I read the text, being contained in the 16 chapter of the Gospell, written by S. Iohn, verse the last. ‘ These things have I spoken unto you,’”’ &c. In other instances the bidding of prayer follows immediately upon the text. Thus to “A Sermon preached at Greenewiche before the Quene’s Ma- ieste, by the reverende Father in God, the Bishop of Chichester, the 14 day of Marche, 1573,” (Im- printed &c. 1579,) there is prefixed a Collect, “ God Vraper before Sermon, 213 be merciful unto us and bless us &e.... that thy way &c.... among all nations, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.” Then the text, and immediately after, the preacher says, “ Before I proceede further, I shall most humbly beseech you to pray.” So also in “A verie godlie and most necessarie Sermon, &c. Preached at Ridling in the countie of Rutland, &e.... By John Deacon Minister,” [1586] there is “A secret meditation to God before the entrance,” then “the Texte,” and on the fifth page of the Sermon, after the division of the subject, the preacher says, “ That these two points may be handled to the glorie of God, and the true comfort of so many as are inwardly grieved with y° great- ness of their sins: Let us first craue the assistance of his holy Spirit by faithful and feruent praier, wherin, &c.” With thus much of variation in the preachers of Queen Elizabeth’s time, in the manner of introducing the bidding of prayer, we may observe throughout its perfect identification with the Sermon. But to proceed with our history, and at the same time with the comment on the passage of L’Estrange before quoted, we may observe that, at a time when Ser- mons were so frequently preached separately from the prayers, as at Paul’s cross, or by a preacher who only preached the Sermon, the prayers being read by another, it was obviously expedient to require that which should act asa test of freedom from Puritanical opinion, as in’ the preceding age from Papistical, on the subject of the king’s supremacy ; but at the same time the enforcement, in the Canon of 1603, of the form already prescribed by Queen Elizabeth’s Injunctions, had doubtless a more ex- tensive object, viz., the excluding the long extem- 214 Praper hefore Sermon, porary effusions, or privately composed forms, in which the Puritans were disposed to indulge. The ~ bidding of prayers, it will be observed, was by the Canon of 1603 appointed to be defore Sermon, and brevity was prescribed. ‘‘Before all Sermons, Lectures, and Homilies, Preachers and Ministers shall move the people to join with them in prayer in this form or to this effect, as briefly as conveniently they may. Ye shall pray,” &c. It was in the time of Cartwright, as we are in- formed by Bishop Wren, on the authority of Bishop Andrewes and others, that the use of the accustomed form was first forsaken. Bishop Wren says, in his defence of himself from the charge brought against him of enforcing the Canon :— ‘He [the defendant] thought it therefore meet to adhere to the ancient usage of our Church, as he found it both in the Canon prescribed, and practis’d also, not only by Latimer, but also by Bishop Jewel, whose form is extant in that book of his‘, ap- pointed to be had in all churches; the rather, because Bishop Andrews and old Dr. Montfort had often affirmed to this de- fendant and others, that till Mr. Cartwright’s time it never was otherwise in this Church. But then a dislike of the prescript form of public prayer established by law, bursting forth both in their preachings and writings, till the state begun to question them for it; and when they found it not safe to preach or print any more against the Liturgy, they betook themselves to the use of these new formed prayers in the pulpit, thereby to continue the people in a dislike and neglect of the prescribed formj,” Bp. Wren’s order—the second of the “ Particular Orders, directions,” &c. already referred to—had very strictly enforced the Canon, containing in fact, as has been observed, “a limitation to the very form of the canon,” which was “ stricter than the canon itself *.” The order was as follows :— ' (Works, ed. 1609. (Doe. ) Parentalia, p. 90. Ann. ii. 126.) Coxe, No. 20.] * Robertson, p. 179. Praper before Sermon, 215 “That the prayer before the Sermon or homily be exactly ac- cording to the LVth canon, ‘ mutatis mutandis,’ only to move the people to pray in the words there prescribed, and no otherwise, unless he desire to interpose the name of the two universities, and of a patron; and no prayer to be used in the pulpit after Sermon, but the Sermon to be concluded with, Glory be to the Father, etc. and so come down from the pulpit !.” “There was certainly,” as has been truly observed, “ oreat reason for the adoption of some measures of restraint at” this time. “It was the fashion of the popular preachers not to enter the church until the prayers appointed in the Book were ended; and, as is declared in the Vth canon of 1640, the puri- tanical laity adopted the same manner of showing their contempt for the Liturgy. ‘The preachers then mounted the pulpit, and performed a service answer- ing to that of the Scotch presbyterians at this day; a service composed of a very long Sermon, with long discursive prayers before and after it, and some in- termixture of psalmody. These preachers were usually disaffected to the monarchy and the church alike; and lest they should be called to an account if they vented their notions in Sermons, they made it their ‘fashion to turn the libellous part into a prayer. (Laud, Autob. Sept. 1, 1637; Troubles, p- 383.)"™ And the direction given in the Canon of 1603, with regard to brevity, may be illustrated by an instance of the disposition to enlarge, even where the form of bidding the prayers was adhered to. In a ! Doc. Ann. vol. ii. p. 201. (with great gravity, no doubt,) ™ Robertson, p. 178, who shall conceive a long, crude, quotes in a note South, iv. extemporary prayer, im re- 179, (ed. 1823.) ‘* They shall proach of all the prayers which come into the church when [the the Church with such admira- Common Prayer} is done, and ble prudence and discretion stepping up into the pulpit, had been making before.” 216 Praper before Sermon. Sermon preached “at S. Maries Spittle on Tuesday in Easter week, 1570,” “by Thomas Drant, Bacheler in Diuinitie,” after the giving out of the text, and some prefatory matter upon “the argument or occa- sion of ” it, the preacher continues :— ‘‘ But because this people which I speak to, is a great people, and the time that I have to occupie is long, and the matter much, let us all, ye honourable, and ye also beloved people, ioyne toge- ther in calling upon the name of God. And first to pray unto the holy Ghost, that as he is called an Ointmét ; so he will make supple and tender our hartes, and make them hartes of fieshe. That as he is called a Fire, so by him our harts may bee eaten up, and deuoured, in excesse of charitie: that as he is called the Comforter, so hee will comfort, and enable me a ma of such and so much sickenes, to beare up his name, and to speake his mani- fold prayses to the sonnes of this generation. Then let us goe forward to pray for the whole state of Christes congregation, being yet farre from her countrey, incompassed rounde about with Caines, and Esawes, and Basan Bulles, and al kindes of deadly foes, shee being sperpled as yet wide-where upon the great face of this earth. More specially let us pray for the churches of England and Ireland, and as the duety of our loue and subiection most of all requireth, let us pray for her most excellét maiesty Elizabeth, by the grace of God Queene, &c. That God’s ene- mies and her enemies, may be made his, and her footestooles. That her scepter may grow greene, and flourish like a Palme tree, well and moystly planted, and that her seate neuer totter, or nodde, but stand steady as the seat of Salomon, and fayre as the Sunne. That the dayes of her regiment may be as the dayes of heaven. Let us pray for all the Nobilitye, and gentery of this land, that they do not liue as the Gyantes or noble men before Noes floud, without raigne, or rule: lest that as those Giantes brought down upon the heades of the world a floud of water: so some of our English Giantes do bring upon us a floud of fire: That they may remember that saying of David: I sayd you are Gods, because the word is come to you. If the woorde come to them, or they to the woorde, then they are God’s Gods, and God’s gentlemen : [fit come not to them, nor they to it, then they are the Heralds Gods, and the Heraldes gentlemen. Pray for them, that they may be to theyr Prince, as Thomas was to his maister Christ : ‘ Let us go, and let us die with him.’ That they may remember Praper before Sermon. 217 that God’s booke of life, is better than the Heraldes book of armes, and that neither house, nor bloud, can saue or witholde their souls from the hand of hel, but onelie that iust bloud, of the iust man Jesus Christ. Let us hartely wishe to her maiesties most honorable Counsaile the spirite of counsell and direction, that they may be as Josephes in egypt, faythful and carefull to prouide for the necessities of the realme, specially, that men’s soules be not starued with hunger, and pine of the woorde of God. Pray for all us of Christes minestery that as we are called Lightes, so we may geue light: and as we are called Goddes, so we may continue to master the world by the word: as we are called Ambassadors, so we may be chearie to speake from God to man: as we are called dogges, we may barcke: and as we are called watchmen, so we may carke and keep : and that that voyce may ring throughe and throughe our heades: ‘O Timothie keepe that which is committed.’ Pray for both twaine the Uniuersities of Cambridge and Oxenforde, or as the Scripture calleth them, the families of the sonnes of the Prophets, that they may growe on from strength to strength in courage of spirite, and from wisedom to wisedom in plenty of iudgement, that they may be able men to teach and reproue, to plante and destroy, and that like yong Samuel, they may profite in favour with God, and man. Pray for all the whole world, that they may open the gates of their | hartes, that the prince of glory may haue entraunce in, and _ that being entred, he be not bound, and pinnioned, as sometime he was in Cayphas his entresse, but that he may be frank Christ and at liberty, and rule from one corner of our consciences unto another. Likewise for those that suffer trouble, or greevance in soule or body: but specially those that grone under the Crosse of Gog of Rome, and Magog of Constantinople, that they may be assisted with might, or deliuered with speede, and that (as Joel sayth) ‘the house of [acob may be a fire, the house of Ioseph may bee a flame, and the house of Esau may be stubble.’ Lastly let us yeld up thankes to the high throne of our heauenly Father, for those our brothers and sisters that are gone to God out of this lamentable maze of miserie. Desiring God, that the north winde may geue, and the south winde do not retaine: that the whole sheet with al y° fower corners, of beastes cleane, and unclean, may be taken up into heauen: that Christ may be king from sea, unto sea: that nations may be geuen unto his inheritance, that the holy ghost may stirre, and the Father draw, and the Sonne thrust no man out that commeth unto him: that the workemen 218 Praper before Sermon, may be many: that the nets may be full: that his will may be done in these Sayntes in earth, as in those aboue in heauen, wher doubtless nothing is done agaynst God’s will: that wee full of the feare of God, and full of fayth, may be gathered together to our forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob. For these and what so euer the holy Ghost, that best doctor, and spirite of wisedome shall prompt into our spirites, I praye you all say the Lordes prayer. ‘ Our Father,’ &c.” Then follows the repetition of the text, the divi- sion of the Sermon”, &c. This, which, it will be observed, is a paraphrase throughout of the form prescribed in Queen Eliza- beth’s Injunctions, may serve as a specimen of what it was that needed to be kept within bounds by the heading prefixed to the same form, as re-issued in the canons of 1603, requiring the preachers to bid the prayers “as briefly as conveniently they may.” The canon, as we have seen, directed that the bid- ding of prayer, according to the appointed form, should be “defore all sermons, lectures, and homi- lies;” but this, it would appear, was not intended so to define the place of the prayer as that it must necessarily precede the giving out of the text, but would include the then common use of it before the body of the Sermon. In almost every one of Bishop Cosin’s Sermons, recently published, and which “embrace a period of time extending from 1621 to 1659,—the first having been preached shortly after " In the Sermon published together with this, and which was preached by the same person ‘‘at the court at Windsor the Sonday after twelfth day, being the vilj of January, be- fore in the yeare 1569,” the preacher, after the text and introduction, says simply, “ But before I shall proceede to make further speech in this processe, I shall pray you most hartily to assist me with your deuote prayers, to be delivered up to the throne of our almighty father in heauen. In which prayer, &c.” Then follows, as in the other sermon, the repe- tition of the text, and the divi- sion of the heads, &c. Praper before Sermon. 219 his admission into Holy Orders, and the last not long before his return from his seventeen years’ exile °,”— and which are formed very much on the model of Bishop Andrewes, we find the bidding of prayer occu- pying this place, and introduced immediately after the division of the subject, in such forms as the following : “* Of these, then, or of as many of these as the time will suffer us that we may speak, to the honour of God’s most Holy Name, &e. &c. &e. *¢ T shall desire, &c.’’P “Of these, then, that we may speak that which shall be honourable to Almighty God, and profitable to ourselves, I shall desire you, &c. ‘“‘THE BIDDING OF THE COMMON PRAYERS. ** Pater Noster.” 4 ‘* Now because there is no speaking, nor hearing neither, of Him without His assistance, no discoursing of His gift of the Spirit without the Spirit itself, I shall therefore desire you to call upon God the Father, in the name and mediation of God the Son, for the aid and help of God the Holy Ghost, and that with meek heart, &c. ‘‘THE BIDDING OF THE COMMON PRAYERS OF THE CHURCH. ‘* Pater Noster, Qui es in ceelis, &c.”’* ** All which will fall out to be the head of our present dis- course. But now, before I speak any further, I shall desire you to help me with your prayers unto Almighty God for the assist- ance of His Holy Spirit, &c.”’ s ‘“¢ And that we may both hear and speak of these worthily, as we ought to do, to the honour of Almighty God, the preservation ° Preface, p. vi. P Sermon ii. (p. 47.) In Sermon ii. it is simply “Of these, &c.”’ and then ‘‘ THE Prayer.” (p. 32.) 4 Serm. iv. p. 60. Comp. Serm. v. (p. 72.) ‘* Of these then that we may speak to the honour of Almighty God, and to the edification of our own souls, I shall desire you to join with me in humble and hearty prayer,” &c. r Serm. vi. p. 90. * Fragment of a thanksgiving Sermon for peace, App. iv. p. 340. 220 Wraper before Sermon, and advancement of His true and uncorrupted religion among us, let us beseech Him to assist us with His grace and heavenly bene- diction, &c. ‘* Our Father, &c.” * In one or two of the Sermons there is a special form. Thus, in Sermon xiv., preached “At Paris, Coram Duce Jacobo, September 11, 1650,” after the division of the subject,— ‘ These are the parts. Of which that we may speak to the honour of God and the preservation of Sion", the Church, and kingdom, and His true religion amongst us, before I go any further I shall put you in mind both now and always to make your prayers, ‘“‘ For the estate of Christ’s Catholic Church, together with the peace and welfare of all Christian kings and princes, more espe- cially—as by common allegiance we are all bound, and myself with others here by more peculiar duty and service—for our sovereign lord Charles, &c. ... that God would be pleased to preserve him in his royal person, and to protect him in his royal dignities, and to restore him to his royal inheritance; for our most gracious queen M., for our most noble prince James, duke of York, and all the royal progeny, for the king’s majesty’s honourable council, and all the nobility, for the reverend the prelates and the ministers of the Church, for the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, and all the people of the realm; that they may all come together to serve God in peace, to be loyal to their king, and loving to one another. ‘¢ Rendering always, as we are likewise bound, our praise and thanksgiving for God’s favours and graces conferred upon His Church, for the blessed Fathers of our faith, the saints and servants of God, who have been the choice vessels of His grace and the shining lights of the world in their several generations before us, and for the happy departure of all other His servants, our fathers and brethren in the faith of Christ ; most humbly beseeching Him that we may continue in their holy communion and religion here, and that we may at the end be brought to their blessed communion and glory hereafter. ‘** And that, for His merits who is Christ our Lord, the Me- t Fragment, App. vi. ‘ Paris, " [The text is, Ps. cxxix. Evangelium Dominicee Quinte 5. | post Epiphaniam, 1651,” p. 350. Praper before Sermon, 221 diator and Saviour of us all ; in His name offering up that form of prayer which He hath prescribed us in His holy Gospel. “ Our Father, &c. &c.”Y In like manner, in Sermon xviii. “ Paris, April 16, 1651 [New Style], in Octava Resurrectionis,’ (p. 249) where the heads of the form used on that occasion are noted thus :— — ‘Of which that, &c. .. . we beseech, &c. .. . putting you in mind to pray, both now and always, for the good estate, &c.... more especially for the distressed estate of the kingdom and Church in, &c. . . . and therein for our sovereign lord and master, Charles, by the grace of God king of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, and in all causes over all per- sons, within his own dominions by the right and title, supreme governor. “For our gracious lady the queen, and all the royal family ; for the king’s honourable council, and all the nobility; for the reverend prelates of the Church, and all the clergy; for the universities, and all the people. ‘“¢ Rendering likewise praise for all God’s mercies and favours over us, among which favours specially to reckon this our pro- fession of His true faith and religion together, in the midst of all these adversities and temptations that are daily upon us to draw us from it; and for all those that have constantly professed the same heretofore, having been the choice vessels, &c. ‘* Our Father, &c.” And somewhat similarly in Sermon xx. “ Paris, in Festo Nativitatis Christi, 1651 [New Style], co- ram Rege Carolo :”— — ‘* Whereof that we may speak to the honour of God, and the preserving of Christ’s true light and religion among us, let us beseech Him for the assistance of His blessed Spirit. ‘“‘ Remembering our duty, and putting you all in mind to pray, both now and always, for the good estate of, &c. . . . Therein for the king’s most excellent majesty, in whose presence now we are, our sovereign master. Rendering likewise praise for all God's mercies and favours to Y Ibid. pp. 193, 194. 222 Praper before Sermon, His Church; chiefly, as we now come to acknowledge it, for the blessed incarnation of our Saviour, and for the light of grace and truth that this day shined upon the darkness of error and igno- rance; as also for all them that have been children of this light, and have cast away the works of darkness from them, and put on the armour of light, the choice vessels of His grace, and the shining lights of the world, in their several generations, before us. Most humbly beseeching Him, &c. Concluding, as we shall do now, with “ Pater Noster, &c.” * These Sermons carry us down to the eve of the Restoration; and very shortly after that event, in the “Sermon preached in St. Peter’s, Westminster, on the first Sunday in Advent,” by Sancroft on the occa- sion of the consecration of his friend and patron *, Dr. Cosin, with six others,—the first consecration of bishops which took place upon the Restoration,—we find the bidding of prayer in a similar form, occu- pying the same place in the Sermon. After the text and some introductory matter, he gives the divisions of the heads: ... “ These are the parts. “Of which that I may so speak, and you so hear, and all of us so remember, and so practise, that God’s holy name may be glorified, and we all built up in the knowledge of that truth which is according unto godliness; 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 in all other our supplications, let us always remember to pray for Christ’s holy Catholic Church,” &c. Then follows a form, grounded on that of the Canon, which it amplifies, concluding thus: . For which and for all other needful blessings, let us say together the prayer of our Lord, who hath taught us to say, Our Father, &c.”’ " Ibid. pp 277, 1278. croft, vol. i. pp. 108, 109. * See D’Oyly’s Life of San- Comp. pp. 87—90. 100—103. Praper before Sermon, 223 He then repeats his text, and enters upon the first head of his sermon ’. It is certain that Bishop Cosin did not conceive that there was any inconsistency between this bid- ding of the prayers before Sermon, and the Rubric in the Common Prayer. I say, “ before Sermon,” because, as has been already observed, and as is evi- dent from Bishop Cosin’s own notes, whether the prayer preceded the first giving out of the text, or the division of the subject, it was still looked upon as coming under that description. In one of his notes upon the Prayer for the Church Militant, he says, “‘ This prayer for the state of Christ’s Church was the prayer before the Sermon, of old time, consisting of several exhortations to the people. S. Aug. Ep. 106. So it is no new thing to bid prayers, or exhort the people to pray, as in the preface to this prayer for Christ’s Church, and in the form appointed for all preachers before their Sermons 2.” And in another note, on the words “ Let us pray for the whole state” &c. he says, “The bidding of the Common Prayers appointed before all Sermons in the Injunctions and Canons, is nothing else but this allocution to the people, extended to particulars. In the ancient Church, as appears by the eighteenth canon of the Council of Laodicea, there was an order taken for some prayers to be made dva tevcpwrvycewc, by way of speaking to the people, from pomt to point directing them what to desire of God, and the people saying afterwards, ‘ Lord have mercy,’ as with us, ‘ Our Father,’ &e...%. Therefore, in the constitutions of the Apostles, are they called only ‘ Allocutions to the people.’ Lib. 8. cap. 10. ‘Let us pray’ &c. ... And whosoever shall take notice of the particulars there related, shall receive a very ancient, if not original, pattern and use of these prayers, which have been since called Litanies, Prayers for the state of the Church, and bidding the Common Prayer before Sermons ”.” ¥ [bid. vol. ii. App. 3, pp. @ (Comp. Sparrow’s Ration- 309—311. Coxe, No. 43. ale, and Palmer, sup. cit. | 2 Nichols, App. p. 48. > App. to Nichols, ibid. 294 Draper hefore Sermon. We have thus then brought our enquiry down to the period of the last review; and it appears clearly in what light the prayer before Sermon was regarded by some of the principal and most deeply learned of the reviewers, Bishop Cosin’s annotations being, on many points, almost identical with those of Sparrow. They entertained no question as to the consistency of the accustomed bidding of Prayer with the Rubric; for among the various suggestions which Bishop Cosin made for correcting the Rubrics, or reconciling them with other rules, nothing is said on this subject. The points which Churchmen at that period had mainly to defend, were, the form of the prayer, the bidding as contrasted with direct in- vocation, and the use of a form in preference to prayers offered extempore, or of individual compo- sition. Throughout the history hitherto, the question, it will have been observed, seems to lie entirely be- tween the bidding of prayer according to the appointed form, and extempore or private prayers; but the “Directions to the Archbishops and Bishops” issued by King George I. in 1714-5, refer to that which may be considered to be the more immediate question at present, viz., between the use of the canonical form of bidding prayer, or of a collect, with the Lord’s Prayer. The King’s “ Directions,” how- ever, are, in this matter, but the following up of Archbishop Tenison’s “ Letter to the Bishops of his province” in 1695, which is evidently the basis of the Directions, as regards the article in question. In the “ Letter” it is said, “‘ Thirdly, it seems very fit, that you require your clergy, in their prayer before sermon, to keep to the effect of the 55th canon: it being reported to me, that it is the manner of some in Praper before Sermon, 225 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 pray for the bishops as such °.” The King’s direction is, ‘“ VI. Whereas also we are credibly informed, that it is the manner of some in every diocese, before their sermon either to use a collect and the Lord’s Prayer, or the Lord’s Prayer only, (which the fifty-fifth 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 4.” At the time when these “Directions” were put forth, it was, politically, of some importance to ascer- tain the loyalty of the clergy to the existing govern- ment; “unusual liberties,” as the preamble stated, “having been taken by several of the said clergy in intermeddling with the affairs of state and govern- ment, and the constitution of the realm.” And hence the enforcement of the Canon, and the prohi- bition of omissions in it. But if, on a review of the history which has been traced, we can hardly refer to merely political con- siderations the origin of the form prescribed, or rather preserved, by the Canon, nor consequently find in such considerations proof sufficient of its virtual abrogation, we do find that which may sufh- ciently account for its non-enforcement, while the use of a simple Collect with the Lord’s Prayer has gradually superseded the long “pulpit prayers” of the Puritans. We have seen that, in the ages before the Reformation, the bidding prayers were emphati- © Cardwell, Doc. Ann. ii. 4 Ibid. pp. 366, 367. 335. ie) 226 Praper before Sermon, cally the “Sunday prayers,” the only “Common prayers” in which, so far as the “a//ocutions” were concerned, the people were invited to join with the priest. The Common Prayer in English restored at the Reformation, and particularly the use of the Litany always on Sundays, with-the Prayer “for the whole state of Christ’s Church” following so close upon the Sermon, and being itself, as Bishop Cosin’s annota- tions show, formed on the same model with the bidding prayers, would naturally tend to make those prayers less necessary, where the Sermon formed part of the regular service. And with regard to the question between bidding of prayer and direct invo- cation, though the substitution of a Collect might seem to be a departure from the duly appointed order, yet when we recollect that in the bidding of the beads the people, who in some ancient forms * were directed to “kneel down,” were to be engaged in silent prayer for the objects enumerated in the bidding, and that moreover, as we have seen, Collects were part of the accustomed form, the difference is, after all, more apparent than real. Especially, if the Lord’s Prayer be introduced by the formula which is commonly used in such cases, to connect it with the Collect preceding ;—“ who hath taught us, when we pray, to say, Our Father,” &c. Bishop Mant, in his little volume, published in 1830, entitled “The Clergyman’s obligations con- sidered ‘” having condemned the use of “unautho- rized prayers, especially before and after Sermon,” proceeds to explain in a note that “by ‘unauthorized’ prayers,” he means “prayers which are not taken from the Liturgy. The common practice,” he adds, ® Ch saps pe 203, f P. 146, note. Praper before Sermon, 227 “of repeating a Collect from the Liturgy, together with the Lord’s Prayer, appears free from all reason- able objection. Of these Collects the best for the purpose, in my opinion, are those for the second or third Sunday in Advent; the second for Good Friday ; and that for St. Simon and St. Jude’s day; unless perhaps the preference be given to one of the six appended to the Communion Service, in consi- deration of the Rubric prefixed to them®.” These latter, however, it may be observed, are appropriated rather to a later place in the service, viz., after the Sermon and the Prayer for the Church militant; and the third of them, “Grant, we beseech thee,” &c., is now almost universally used after Sermon. Of 8 In the little volume re- cently published, entitled ‘“‘ Ho- ree Liturgice,” Bishop Mant questions the propriety of the use of a Collect and the Lord’s Prayer. The Bishop observes, that ‘‘extemporaneous prayer in public worship is altogether repudiated by the Church, and” that ‘“‘she allows no prayers but those of her own Liturgy. If therefore any prayer be used before the Sermon, it should be taken from the Book of Common Prayer. But I can find no authority,” says his Lordship, ‘for any prayer there, and it is my belief that not any is intended by the Church. Her silence, indeed, seems to be conclusive.” The form contained in the Canon, the Bishop observes, is “not precatory but injunctive or monitory,” and therefore ‘‘is, in fact, no authority for a prayer.” ‘If, however,” his Lordship continues, “the po- pular prepossession should be in favour of a prayer before the Sermon, and the minister should think it desirable to in- dulge such a prepossession, he might perhaps, I will not say, justify, but excuse his indul- gence on the plea of long con- tinued usage, in a case which he may deem not clearly de- fined, and where the negative is not secured by an express prohibition. Still I cannot but retam my opinion that the silence of the Church is very expressive; (for surely had she intended any prayer to be here introduced, she would have declared her intention not merely by a general order, but would have moreover or- dered what the prayer should be :) and that therefore for the Sermon to follow immediately without the intervention of a prayer, is the course agreeable to her mind and rule.” pp. 57, 58. This argument has been, it is hoped, satisfactorily met in the foregoing pages. fa oe, 228 Praper before Sermon: the former Collects specified by Bishop Mant, those for the second and third Sundays in Advent, which are perhaps the most commonly used, may be re- garded as embodying the petition “for grace neces- sary,’ which was, as we have seen, so constantly ex- pressed, in the summing up of the bidding prayer, by the preachers of the sixteenth and seventeenth cen- turies ; while the second Collect for Good Friday in- cludes also the prayers for the whole Church. This Collect, in fact, with the Lord’s Prayer introduced in the usual form, is in some sort the bidding prayer as briefly summed up as may be,—beseeching Almighty God to “receive our supplications and prayers which we offer before” Him “for all estates of men in” his “holy Church, that every member of the same in his vocation and ministry may truly and godly serve” Him, “through Jesus Christ our Lord, who hath taught us, when we pray, to say, Our Fa- ther,” &e. Praper for the Church Milttant. WE now come to the question respecting the manner of concluding the service, when, the Sermon being ended, there is no Communion. In parish Churches generally, the usage has been to conclude with a Collect and the blessing given from the pulpit; whereas the Rubrical order, which has accordingly been adopted in some places, would seem to be to conclude with the Prayer for the Church militant, and one of the Collects, with the final Blessing. This would seem to be clearly directed by the first Rubric appended to the Communion Service, which is as follows :— “Upon the Sundays and other Holy-days (if there be no Com- munion) shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion, until the end of the general Prayer [ For the whole state of Christ’s Church militant here in earth] together with one or more of these Collects last before rehearsed, concluding ‘with the Blessing.” A doubt, however, has been raised whether this Rubric does clearly direct the practice above-men- tioned; and in a Charge, addressed to Candidates for Ordination, (Dec. 1844,) the Bishop of Worcester expresses the opinion that, upon this point, “the Rubrics are certainly inconsistent.”. His Lordship observes :— “In that which immediately precedes the Prayer for the 230 =Praper for the Church Milttant. Church militant, the following words occur: ‘ And when there is a Communion, the Priest shall then place upon the table so much bread and wine as he shall think sufficient; after which done, the Priest shall say, ‘ Let us pray for the whole state of Christ’s Church militant here in earth.’ Did the rubric stand alone, there could be no doubt that the prayer for the church militant was to be read only when the sacrament was about to be administered ; but another rubric occurs, inconsistent with the above, at the conclusion of the Communion Service, where we read, that ‘upon Sundays and holy- days, if there be no Communion, shall be said,” &c.. . [as above | “It is difficult to account,” his Lordship observes, ‘‘ for these two contradictory rubrics, which appear to have been inserted at the same time, that is, at the second revision of the Prayer Book, in the reign of Edward VI.*; but as they do exist, it is not extra- ordinary that the Clergy should have felt themselves at liberty to observe which they pleased; and partly on account of the length of the service, so distressing to those who are in advanced years, partly on account of the awkwardness of being obliged again to exchange the gown for the surplice, this prayer became gradually discontinued.” There will appear, however, to be no real disere- pancy between the two Rubrics, when it is considered that the latter simply orders that, “if there be no Communion,” there “shall be said all that is ap- pointed at the Communion, until the end of the general Prayer,” &c. Had the direction been that the appointed order for the Communion should be used until, &c., or that there should be said and done all that is appointed, &c., there might have been ground for doubt, as well as an appearance of in- consistency; but as the Rubric is worded, there seems to be none: all zs “said” that is “appointed at the Communion, until the end of the general Prayer” for the Church militant; the action only being necessarily omitted, of placing upon the Table * [There seems to be some tracing the history of the ru- mistake here, as will appear in _ brics in question. | Wraper for the Church Milttant, 231 the Bread and Wine for the Communion. Or again, the like difficulty might have been found had the first mentioned Rubric been; “And the Priest shall then place,” &c. But it is expressly said that he shall do this only “when there is a Communion.” And since the Church, as we shall see, drew up her service as contemplating always that there would be a Communion, though she provided also for the other contingency, it is very intelligible that the Rubric should have assumed this form, providing for what she wished to consider as the general case. The Rubric is thus easy of explanation, on the hypo- thesis that, when there was no Communion, the prayer for the Church militant was to be read; whereas, on the supposition that the service was intended to end with the Sermon, the other Rubric becomes absolutely inexplicable, as does also the heading of the Collects. “Collects to be said after the Offertory, when there is no Communion, every such day one.” And this is especially worthy to be observed, in a question of reconciling directions supposed to be at variance. In short, putting the two Rubrics together, when the Priest is come to this part of the Service, the Offertory sentence or sentences having been read, on occasions “when there is a Com- munion, the Priest shall then place upon the Table so much Bread and Wine as he shall think sufficient. After which done, the Priest shall say, Let us pray,” &e. Whereas “if there be no Communion,” there “shall be said all that is appointed at the Com- munion, until the end of the general Prayer [For the whole state of Christ’s Church militant here in earth] together with one or more of” the Collects, “ concluding with the Blessing.” It may help us, however, to ascertain the point 232 «-raper for the Church Multtant. more fully, and to judge better of the intention of the Church in the matter, if we trace the history of the Rubric. In King Edward’s First Book it had stood thus; “Upon Wednesdays and Fridays the English Litany shall be said or sung in all places, after such form as is appointed in the King’s Majesty’s injunctions; or as is or shall be otherwise appointed by his highness. And though there be none to com- municate 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 at the altar, (appointed to be said at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper,) until after the Offertory : and then shall add one or two of the Collects afore-written, as occa- sion shall serve by his discretion. And then turning him to the people, shall let them depart with the accustomed blessing. ‘* And the same order shall be used all other days, whensoever the people be customably assembled to pray in the Church, and none disposed to communicate with the Priest. ‘Likewise in Chapels annexed, and all other places, there shall be no celebration of the Lord’s Supper, except there be some to communicate with the Priest.” Upon these Rubrics we may consult the full commentary given by Bishop Beveridge in his Dis- course on “The great Necessity and Advantage of Public Prayer, and of frequent Communion.” But, to make Bishop Beveridge’s remarks fully intelligible, we must first observe that he has been stating, with regard to the infrequency of Communion in later times, that ‘from the beginning it was not so.’ “‘ For some ages after the establishment of the Christian reli- gion by Christ our Saviour, so long as they who embraced it gave themselves up to the conduct of that Holy Spirit which He sent down among them, and were inspired by it with true zeal for Gop, and enflamed with love to their ever blessed Redeemer, so as to observe all things that He had commanded, whatsoever it cost them ; then they ne’er met together upon any day in the week, much less upon the Lord’s Day, for the public worship of God, but they all received this Holy Sacrament, as the princi- Vraper for the Church Milttant. 233 pal business they met about, and the most proper Christian service they could perform. And it is very observable that, so long as this continued, men were endued with the extraordinary gifts of Gon’s Holy Spirit, so as to be able to do many wonderful things by it; yea, and suffer too whatsoever could be inflicted on them for Christ’s sake. But in process of time, men began to leave off their first love to Him, and turn His religion into dispute and controversy ; and then, as their piety grew cooler and cooler, the Holy Sacrament began to be neglected more and more ; and the Priests who administered it had fewer and fewer to receive it, until at length they had sometimes none at all. But still they mistook themselves to be obliged in duty and conscience to con- secrate and receive it themselves, although they had none to receive with them. And this mistake, I suppose, gave the first occasion to that multitude of private masses, which have been so much abused in the Church of Rome; where the Priest com- monly receives himself, although he hath never a one to commu- nicate with him, and so there can be no communion at all. And as that abuse, so the disuse of the Holy Sacrament, sprang first from men’s coldness and indifferency in religion, which hath prevailed so far in our days, that there are many thousands. of persons who are baptized, and live many years in the profession of the Christian religion, and yet never received the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood in all their lives: and but very few that receive it above once or twice a year; which is a great reproach and shame to the age we live in; but none at all to the Church ; for she is always ready to administer it, if people could 99 be persuaded to come to it’... And this the Bishop proceeds, shortly after, to show thus: ‘For as in all things, so particularly in this, our Church keeps close to the pattern of the Apostolick and primitive Church ; when, as I have before observed, the Lord’s Supper was admi- nistered and received commonly every day in the week, but most constantly upon the Lord’s Day. And our Church supposeth it to be so still, and therefore hath accordingly made provision for it. Which that I may fully demonstrate to you, it will be » Great Necessity and Advantage, &c., pp. 145—147. (7th ed. 1719.) 234 Praper for the Church miuttant. necessary to enquire into the sense and practice of our Church in this point all along, from the beginning of the Reformation ; or, to speak more properly, from the time when she was restored to that Apostolical form which she is now of, as she was at first ; which we date from the reign of King Edward VI. “‘ For in the first year of that pious prince, the Liturgy, or Book of Common Prayer, was first compiled ; and in the second, it was settled by Act of Parliament. In which book it is ordered, That the exhortation to those who are minded to receive the Sacrament, shall be read: which is there set down, much the same that we read now. But afterwards it is said, ‘ In Cathedral ‘Churches, or other places where there is daily Communion, it ‘ shall be sufficient to read this Exhortation above-written once in ‘a month. And in Parish Churches upon the week-days it may ‘be left unsaid.’ Fol. 123. Where we may observe, First, That in those days there was daily Communion in Cathedral Churches, and other places, as there used to be in the primitive Church. And accordingly I find, in the Records of St. Paul’s, that when the plate, jewels, &c. belonging to the said Cathedral, were delivered to the King’s commissioners, they, upon the Dean and Chapter’s request, permitted to remain among other things, ‘ two pair of basons for to bring the Communion Bread, and to receive the Offerings for the poor; whereof one pair silver for every day, the other for festivals, &c. gilt.’ Dugdale, Hist. of St. Paul’s, Pag. 274. From whence it is plain, that the Communion was then celebrated in that Church every day. And so it was even in parish Churches. For otherwise it needed not to be ordered as it is in the Rubrick above-mentioned, that in parish Churches, upon the week-days, the said Exhortation may be left unsaid. And to the same purpose it is afterwards said, ‘ When the Holy ‘Communion is said on the work-day, or in private houses, then ‘may be omitted the Gloria in Excelsis, the Creed, the Homily, ‘and the Exhortation.’ Fol. 132°.” Upon these observations of Bishop Beveridge, the only thing to remark is, that the provisions of the Rubric, and the petition to the Commissioners from the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul’s, prove clearly what the design and intention of the Church at ° Ibid. pp. 149—151. Praper for the Church Milttant. 235 that time was, and was understood to be, even though it were proved to be the fact,—which, as we shall see, it probably was,—that the zeal and devotion which the compilers of our Liturgy desired to see, and for which they made provision, were not in fact found equal to their hopes. The Church’s design in these Rubrics is the point with which we are now mainly concerned. But the Bishop proceeds, in his comment on the Rubrics of Kdward’s First Book,— “ Next after that we quoted first, this Rubric immediately follows: ‘And if upon the Sunday or Holyday, the people be ‘negligent to come to the Communion, then shall the Priest ‘ earnestly exhort his parishioners to dispose themselves to the * receiving of the Holy Communion more diligently, saying,’ &c. Which shews, that upon all Sundays and Holydays people then generally received: the Church expected and required it of them. And if any minister found that his parishioners did not always come, at least upon those days, he was to exhort and admonish them to dispose themselves more diligently for it: and that by the Command of the Church itself, whereby she hath sufficiently declared her will and desire, that all her members should receive the Communion as they did in the primitive times, every day in the week, if possible; and if that could not be, yet at least every Sunday and Holyday in the year ?.” The remark made upon the preceding paragraph need not be repeated upon this. The Rubric testi- fies most plainly to the Church’s zntention and earnest desire: with regard to the actual fulfilment of that desire, it will be borne in mind that she was now endeavouring to substitute the actual participation in the Holy Communion by her members at large, in the place of the solitary masses of the priest ; and it were no great wonder if she found her hopes, for the most part, disappointed, and her ¢dea/ unattained. @ Ibid. p. 151. 236 Praper for the Church Militant, T repeat again, it is her zntention and desire with which we are mainly concerned. Bishop Beveridge thus proceeds to the Rubrics immediately before us. “In the Rubrick after the Communion Service there are several things to the same purpose: For it is there ordered, that upon Wednesdays and Fridays (although there be none to com- municate) the Priest shall say all things at the altar appointed to be said at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, until after the Offertory. And then it follows, ‘ And the same order shall be ‘used whensoever the people be customably assembled to pray in ‘the Church, and none disposed to communicate with the Priest.’ Fol. 130. Whereby we are given to understand, that upon what day soever people came to Church, the Priest was to be ready to celebrate the Holy Sacrament, if any were disposed to communicate with him. Andif there were none, he was to shew his readiness, by reading a considerable part of the Communion Service. ‘¢ There is another Rubrick in the same place that makes it still plainer; which I shall transcribe, because the Book is not commonly to be had ; neither can it be expressed better than in its words, which are these; ‘ Also, that the receiving of the ‘Sacrament of the Blessed Body and Blood of Christ may be ‘ most agreeable to the institution thereof, and to the usage of the ‘ primitive Church, in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, ‘ there shall always some communicate with the Priest that minis- ‘tereth. And that the same may be also observed every where ‘ abroad in the country, some one at the least of that house in every parish, to whom by course, after the ordinance herein made, it appertaineth to offer for the charges of the Commu- n n “~ nion; or some other whom they shall provide to offer for them, shall receive the Holy Communion with the Priest: the which may be the better done for that they know before when their course cometh, and may therefore dispose themselves to the os nx a a worthy receiving of the Sacrament. And with him or them who doth so offer the charges of the Communion, all other who be then godly disposed thereunto shall likewise receive the ‘Communion. And by this means the Minister, having always ‘some to communicate with him, may accordingly solemnize so ‘high and holy mysteries, with all the suffrages and due order n ~ Praper for the Church Militant, 237 ‘appointed for the same. And the Priest on the week day shall ‘ forbear to celebrate the Communion, except he have some that e729 ‘ will communicate with him °. Perhaps, to make this Rubric quite clear, the Bishop should have quoted—what he does indeed refer to, viz.—the Rubric which immediately precedes this, and which is the “ordinance” referred to in it. The Rubric stands thus :— ** And forsomuch as the Pastors and Curates within this realm shall continually find at their costs and charges in their cures, sufficient bread and wine for the Holy Communion, (as oft as their parishioners shall be disposed for their spiritual comfort to receive the same,) it is therefore ordered, that in recompense of such costs and charges the Parishioners of every Parish shall offer every Sunday, at the time of the Offertory, the just value and price of the holy loaf, (with all such money and other things as were wont to be offered with the same,) to the use of their Pastors and Curates, and that in such order and course, as they were wont to find and pay the said holy loaf.” Upon the Rubric before quoted Bishop Beveridge proceeds to say ;— ** Here we see what care the Church took, that the Sacrament might be daily administered, not only in Cathedral, but like- wise in Parish-Churches. For which purpose, whereas every parishioner had before been used to find the holy loaf, as it was called, in his course’; in the Rubrick before this it is ordained, that every Pastor or Curate shall find sufficient Bread and Wine for the Communion; and that the parishioners, every one in his course, shall offer the charges of it at the Offertory to the Pastor or Curate; and in this it is ordered, that every such parishioner shall then in his course communicate, or else get some other person to do it, that so the Communion may be duly celebrated ; and all there present, that were godly disposed, might partake of it. Which one would have thought as good a provision as could have been made in the case. But notwithstanding, through the obstinacy or carelessness of some, in not making their said offer- ing as they were commanded, it sometimes failed; as appears © Ibid. pp. 151—153. ' Comp. sup. p. 204. 238 Praper for the Churrh Militant. from the Letter written about a year after by the Privy Council, and subscribed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and others, to the Bishops, to assure them that the King intended to go on with the Reformation; wherein, among other things, they say: ‘ And ‘farther, whereas it is come to our knowledge, that divers ‘ froward and obstinate persons do refuse to pay towards the ‘ finding of Bread and Wine for the Holy Communion, according ‘ to the order prescribed in the said Book, by reason whereof the ‘Holy Communion is many times omitted upon the Sunday ; ‘These are to will and command you to convent such obstinate ‘ persons before you, and them to admonish and command to keep ‘ the orders prescribed in the said Book. And if any such shall ‘refuse so to do, to punish them by Suspension, Excommunica- ‘tion, or other Censures of the Church.’ History of the Refor- mation, Part 2. Coll. p. 192. From whence we may also learn, how much they were troubled to hear that the Holy Sacrament was any where omitted even upon the Sunday, upon any Sunday; how great a fault and scandal they judged it to be, and what care they took to prevent it for the future. | “This was the state of this affair at the beginning of the Reformation, and it continues in effect the same to this day. About three or four years after the foresaid Book of Common Prayer first came out, it was revised, and set forth again with some alterations in the form, but none that were material in the substance of it. Only the former way, of the parishioners finding Bread and Wine for the Communion every one in his course, being now found not so effectual as was expected, that was now laid aside, and it was ordered to be provided at the charges of the parish in general, in these words; ‘The Bread and Wine for ‘the Communion shall be provided by the Curate and Church- ‘ wardens, at the charges of the Parish; And the Parish shall be ‘ discharged of such sums of money, or other duties, which hitherto ‘they have paid for the same, by order of their houses, every ‘Sunday.’ Where we may take notice, that as hitherto it had been provided every Sunday by the houses of every parish as they lay in order, it was now to be provided by the Minister and Churchwarden, at the charges of the whole parish, but still every Sunday, as it was before; which being the most certain way that could be found out for it, it is still continued ; the first part of this Rubric, whereby it is enjoined, being still in force: but the latter part, from these words, ‘And the Parish shall be dis- charged,’ &c. is now left out, as it was necessary it should be, Praper for the Chureh Milttant, 239 after the former course had been disused for above a hundred years 8,”’ This omission, it will be understood of course, was made at the last Review. Bishop Beveridge continues :— “Now this Book of Common Prayer, which was thus settled by Act of Parliament in the fifth and sixth years of King Edward VI., was that which was afterwards confirmed in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, with one alteration or addition of certain lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, and the form of the Litany altered and corrected, with two sentences only added im the delivery of the Sacrament to the Communicants. These were all the alterations that were then made, or indeed that have been ever made since that time to this, except it be in words or phrases, in the addition of some prayers, and in some such incon- siderable things, as do not at all concern our present purpose. . For the care of our Church to have the Communion constantly celebrated, hath been the same all along, from the time that the Book of Common Prayer, before spoken of, was settled ; as may be easily proved, from that which was established by the last Act of Uniformity *.” But among the alterations made in the Rubrics of King Edward’s Second Book and in Queen Eliza- beth’s, following it, are some which demand our consideration, both as confirming the general view taken by Bishop Beveridge, and as proving more particularly what was the deliberate and_ settled intention of the Church in the Rubric immediately under our consideration. We have seen how the Rubrics stood in King . Edward’s First Book; but in King Edward’s Second Book and in Queen Elizabeth’s, in the place of these Rubrics stood the following :— “Upon the holy days, (if there be no Communion) shall be ® Beveridge, pp. 153—156. h Tbid. pp. 156, 157. 240 = Praper for the Church Militant. said all that is appointed at the Communion, until the end of the Homily, concluding with the general prayer for the whole state (estate, 1559) of Christ’s Church militant here in earth; and one or more of these Collects before rehearsed, as occasion shall serve. ‘“*And there shall be no celebration of the Lord’s Supper, except there be a good number to communicate with the Priest, according to his discretion. ‘And if there be not above xx. persons in the Parish of dis- cretion to receive the Communion, yet there shall be no Com- munion, except four, or three at the least, communicate with the Priest. And in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, where be many Priests and Deacons, they shall all receive the Communion with the Minister every Sunday at the least, except they have a reason- able cause to the contrary.” On comparing these Rubrics of the two Liturgies of King Edward, it would appear that the hope of finding a sufficient number of communicants, and obtaining accordingly the celebration of the Com- munion on Wednesdays and Fridays, or other ordi- nary prayer days, had been disappointed, and led therefore to the withdrawal of the silent testimony which the Church had designed to bear, of her earnest desire and hope in this matter, when she ordered so much of the Communion service to be said on those days. To the Holy days, accordingly, this order was now limited. And while the Church thus expressed her anxiety for the frequent celebration of the Holy Communion, it was thought necessary, at the same time, to preclude a celebration which would approach to the character of the solitary mass. Instead, therefore, of the former Rubric which might have seemed to allow of a Communion with one person only, or two, to communicate, it was now ordered that there should be no celebration except there were “a good number to communicate with the Priest, according to his discretion,” three being the least number allowed in the smallest parish. In Praper for the Church Militant, 241 Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, meanwhile, it being presumed that the Communion would be ad- ministered every Sunday at the least, it was provided that the whole body of clergy should, unless reason- ably hindered, communicate with the minister. And thus the Rubrics stood until the last Review. With regard, however, to the order of Service as appointed by these Rubrics when there was no actual celebration of the Communion, it may be well to mark what the order would be, according to King Kdward’s First Book, and also according to the Second Book and Queen Elizabeth’s. According to the First Book, after the Epistle and Gospel and the Nicene Creed was to follow “the Sermon or Homily, wherein,” for so the Rubric ran, “if the people be not exhorted to the worthy receiving of the holy Sacra- ment of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, then shall the Curate give this Exhortation to those that be minded to receive the same, Dearly beloved in the Lord, ye that mind to come,” &c. Then the Offertory, after which, when there was a Communion, the non-communicants were to depart: if there were no Communion, on Wednesdays and Fridays and other prayer days, the Priest, at this point in the service, viz. after the Offertory, was to add one or two of the Collects, and then dismiss the people with the accustomed blessing. (The Prayer for the Church militant, in this First Book of Edward VI. immediately preceded, or in fact, formed part of the Prayer of Consecration.) This, then, was the order of the First Book: it made no provision for the case of the Communion not being celebrated on a Sunday or Holy-day. But for this case, as we have seen, in the Second Book it was thought fit to make provision. The R 242 =Praper for the Church Militant, order of the service then was precisely as now, except that the Collect of the day, as in the First Book, preceded that for the King. After the Sermon and the Offertory followed the Prayer for the Church Militant. And as the Rubric directing the placing, at this time, of the Bread and Wine upon the Table was not introduced until the last review, there was no possible ambiguity as to the intention of the Church in the Rubric respecting the reading of the Prayer for the Church Militant when there was no Communion. Upon these days, it would seem, the Offertory was omitted; the Ru- bric, as already quoted, directing that upon the holy days, if there were no Communion, should “ be said all that is appointed at the Communion, until the end of the Homily, concluding with the general prayer for the whole estate of Christ’s Church,” &c. And that the Rubric was so understood and acted upon, is evident from a note of Bishop Cosin’s on the Prayer for the Church Militant. Upon the words, ‘and to give thanks for all men,’ he says, ‘¢ But how ‘ thanks for all men’ should stand here as a Pre- face, and then no thanks given for any men in the process or end of the prayer, nor no Eucharist follow (as upon Holidays when there is no Communion none doth), I confess I cannot understand.’ It will be borne in mind that Edward’s Second Book, as it stood till the last review, had omitted all commemoration and giving of thanks for the faithful departed: which Bishop Cosin goes on to observe as the explanation of the apparent incon- sistency. But had the Prayer for the Church Mili- tant not been read when there was no Communion, there would have been no ground for his argument. But indeed in regard to the Holy-days, or days when Praper for the Church Milttant, 243 there was no Sermon, I conceive there can be no doubt in the mind of any one. As regarded the Sundays, meanwhile, no provision was made, in the Second Book of Edward, for the contingency of there being no celebration of the Communion. At the last review, however, this case also was provided for; and the Rubric was altered thus :— “Upon the Sundays and other Holy days (if there be no Communion) shal be said',” &c. And this Rubric was followed by another slightly altered, as to the number required for the actual cele- bration of the Communion. “And there shall be no celebration of the Lord’s Supper except there be a convenient number * to communicate with the Priest, according to his discretion. ‘* And if there be not above twenty persons,” &c. .. . [as be- fore, cf. sup. p. 240. | “* And in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches [and Colleges |}, where [there are]|™ many Priests and Deacons, they shall all _ receive the Communion with the Priest ® every Sunday at the least, except they have a reasonable cause to the contrary.” It was necessary at the time of the last review, to make provision for the case of there being no celebration of the Communion even on Sundays; for, as Bishop Patrick tells us, ‘“‘'The neglect of the Holy Communion of Christ’s Body and Blood was so general, and so long continued, in the late dis- tracted times, being laid aside in many whole parishes of this kingdom for near twenty years together, that in some ages of the Church it would have been interpreted a downright apostacy from Christ, and a renunciation of the Christian faith.” i Vid. sup. p. 229. frequent celebration. k It had stood before, ‘a 1 The words between brack- good number.” This altera- ets were now added. Cf. p. 240. tion, slight as it is, is worthy m “ be,” Second Book of of notice, as marking the Edw. Church’s desire to facilitate the » “ Minister.” Ibid. eye 944 Praper for the Church Militant, And this seems clearly to be the true explanation of the alteration made in the Rubric at the last review, specifying the “Sundays” as well “other oO 99 THoly-days °. Bishop Beveridge, in a later part of the treatise already quoted, points out fully that this is the meaning of the Church in the Rubric under our He says, consideration. “ Thus much of the Communion Service, even from the be- ginning of it to the end of the aforesaid Prayer for Christ’s Catholic Church, is to be said upon Sundays, or other Holy-days, although there be no Communion for want of a sufficient number to communicate with the Priest. In the first Common Prayer Book of King Edward the Sixth it was ordered, That the priest, although there were none to communicate with him, shall say all things at the altar appointed to be said at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, until after the Offertory, upon Wednesdays and Fridays, without any mention of Sundays and Holy-days. From whence it appears, that they took it for granted, that there would always be a sufficient number of Communicants upon every Sunday and Holy-day at the least; so that they could? not so much as suppose there would be no Communion upon any of those days. But it seems they feared, that upon other days there might be sometimes none to communicate with the Priest, and so no Communion; and therefore ordered, that if it should so happen for a whole week together, yet nevertheless, upon the Wednesdays and Fridays in every week, so much shall be said of the Com- munion Service as is before limited. But afterwards as piety grew colder and colder, the Sacrament began to be more and more neglected, and by degrees quite laid aside upon the“week days%. And then the Church did not think it convenient to order any of the Service appointed for it to be read upon any ° [It has been said, indeed, that the word ‘‘ Holy-days,” in the former Rubric, included Sundays ; but from a compari- son of other Rubrics it would appear that then, as now, the Rubric observed the distinction between the two. | P As before, I would remark that it should perhaps rather have been said, “ they would not so much as suppose,” &c. 4 T would venture to recall to mind what has been said above, pp. 234, 235. Praper for the Church Milttant, 245 other Days, but only upon Sundays and Holy-days; but upon those days she still requires that, although there be no Commu- nion, yet all shall be said that is appointed at the Communion, until the end of the general Prayer (for the good estate of the Catholic Church of Christ), together with one or more of the Collects at the end of the Communion Service, concluding with the Blessing. ‘“ And verily there is great reason it should be so: not only because it is fitting that our devotions should be longer upon those than they are upon other days; but likewise there are several things particular in that part of the service which re- quire it. ‘“‘ Here are the Commandments of Almighty God.... Here is the Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, proper to many Sundays, and to all Holy-days in the Year, without which they could not be distinguished from one another, nor from other days, nor by con- sequence celebrated, so as to answer the end of their institution. .... Here is the Nicene Creed. . ... Here is the Offertory, and choice sentences of Scripture, read to stir up people to offer unto God something of what He hath given them, as their acknow- ledgment that He gives them all that they have, and that they hold it all of Him; ... Here, among others, is the Prayer for the whole state of Christ’s Church militant here on earth ; and it is but reason that we, as fellow-members of the same body, should join together in it upon all the great Festivals of the year, which are generally celebrated by the whole Church we pray for; and by that means testify our communion with it. And besides, this, as well as the other part of the Communion Service, is per- formed at the Communion Table, the place where the primitive Church used to perform its public devotions ; and ours, which in all things else is conformable to that, cannot but imitate it in this particular, at least so far as to have some part of its Service per- formed at the same place upon Sundays and Holy-days, although there be no Communion. ‘‘ But the main reason why so much of the Communion Service is ordered to be read upon Sundays and other Holy-days, not- withstanding that there is no Communion, seems to be this, that the Church may shew her readiness to.administer it upon these days, and so that it is not hers, nor the minister’s, but the people’s fault, if there be no Communion. For the Minister, by her order, goes up to the Lord’s Table, and there begins the Service appointed for the Communion, and goes on as far as he 246 =6praper for the Church Militant, can, till he come to the actual celebration-of it; and if he stops there, it is only because there are none, or not a sufficient number of persons to communicate with him: for, if there were, he was bound, and is ready, to consecrate and administer it to them. And therefore, if there be no Communion upon any Sunday or Holy-day in the year, the people only are to be blamed, and must answer for it another day. The Church hath done her part in ordering it, and the minister his, in observing that order: and if the people would do theirs, the Holy Communion would be constantly celebrated in every parish-church in England every Sunday and Holy-day throughout the year. Neither can they plead ignorance in the case, or say, they did not think it to be their duty to communicate so often: for every time they see the minister go up to the Communion Table, and there read part of the Service appointed for the Holy Communion, they are put in mind of their duty, and upbraided with their neglect of it.” * Great Necessity and Ad- vantage, pp. 219—223. Mr. Robertson (p. 203), quoting from the Quart. Rev. (No. exliii. p. 259), speaks of Bishop Beveridge as having “ attempt- ed a solution of the discrepancy between the two Rubrics, by supposing that the Church in- tended that the preparation for an actual Communion should be always made, and that the minister should proceed to the end of the prayer with the in- tention of going through the whole office, if any should offer to communicate with him.” “This, however,” Mr. Ro- bertson thinks, ‘‘is rather the imagination of a good man, zealous for frequency of com- munion, than an argument ca- pable of being supported by facts; and it is inconsistent,”’ he goes on to say, ‘ with that other Rubric which requires that persons wishing to commu- nicate shall give previous no- tice of their intention.” But I do not find in Bishop Beve- ridge’s statement of his own view of the matter any such inconsistency ; the testimony which he conceives the Church, by her appointed order, intend- ed to bear to the duty of con- stant communion, does not at all require that the minister should be supposed to be in doubt, to the last moment, whe- ther there will be a sufficient number to communicate or not ; his being at the Communion Table is the act of witness to the Church’s desire for the ad- ministration of the Communion, if there were those present who were prepared and desirous to receive it. With reference, however, to the two Rubrics, Mr. Robertson well observes, “The true explanation evi- dently is, that the prayer is intended to be used on all Sun- days and holy-days ; that on oc- casions of administration it is to be said after the alms and elements have been presented ; and that on other days it is to hold a corresponding place, al- Praper for the Church Militant. 247 From these passages, which have been quoted thus largely * in order to exhibit the full view of the matter, as it appeared to Bishop Beveridge, it will be seen both how plain to his mind was the inten- tion of the Church in the Rubric under considera- tion, and also how significant and important, in his view, was the provision thus made, and the witness silently borne to the Church’s desire for a return to primitive practice. And considering the time when Bishop Beveridge lived, he must be regarded as a competent witness as to the intention of the com- missioners of 1661. He had been ordained in that year by Bishop Sheldon, one of the principal of those commissioners, and was collated by the Bishop, about the same time, to the vicarage of Ealing in Middlesex. And by another of the same commis- sioners, Sheldon’s successor in the see of London, Bishop Henchman, “his singular merit,” as we are told, “having commended him to the favour of” the Bishop, he was collated in 1674 to the prebend of Chiswick in the cathedral of St. Paul’s. Nor was it, with him, a mere theoretic view of the rubrical law of the Church;—he had consistently carried it out into practice. In the church of St. Peter’s, Cornhill, to which he had been presented in 1672, he had established the celebration of the Commu- nion every Sunday: and in this and other respects, “as he himself was justly styled ‘the great Reviver and Restorer of primitive piety,’ so his parish was though these things, in whole or in part, have not been pre- viously ‘done.’” This last qualification, however, is unne- cessary; the Rubric at the end of the Communion Office mak- ing no mention of things to be “‘done”’ but only to be “said.” * It has been necessary to abridge Bishop Beveridge’s ar- gument, omitting several points, for which the reader must be referred to the treatise itself. 248 = Praper for the Church Militant, deservedly proposed as the best model and pattern for the rest of his neighbours to copy after.” But we have yet more distinct evidence of the intention of the reviewers of 1661, and of the feeling under which they acted. The Puritans had desired, “that the Minister be not required to rehearse any part of the Liturgy at the Communion-table, save only those parts which properly belong to the Lord’s Supper; and that at such times only when the said holy Supper is administered '.” To this the Bishops’ answer was as follows: ‘That the Minister should not read the Communion Service at the Communion-table is not reasonable to demand, since all the primitive Church used it; and if we do not observe that golden rule of the venerable Council of Nice, ‘ Let ancient customs prevail,’ till reason plainly requires the contrary, we shall give offence to sober Christians, by a causeless departure from Catho- lic usage, and a greater advantage to enemies of our Church, than our brethren, I hope, would willingly grant. The priest standing at the Communion-table seemeth to give us an invitation to the holy Sacrament, and minds us of our duty, viz., to receive the holy Communion, some at least every Sunday; and though we neglect our duty, it is fit the Church should keep her stand- ing *.” And the conclusion thus derived will be mate- rially strengthened by the examination of some of the Services first drawn up at the period in ques- tion. In the account given us of the proceedings of the commissioners we are told, “'They began with the office for the King’s Birth and Return, which was brought in the 16th of May, being their second session ¥.”” * Cardwell Conferences, p. Y Nichols, quoted by D’Oyly, 307. Life of Sancroft, vol. i. p. 111, " Ibid. p. 342. note. Praper for the Church Milttant. 249 The first Rubric prefixed to this Office was as follows :— ‘*< The Service shall be the same with the usual Office for Holy- days in all things; except where it is hereafter otherwise ap- pointed.” In this Service was a Collect, to be used “after the Prayer [For the whole state of Christ’s Church, &c.]” “ So also in the Form for the thirtieth of January, drawn up at the same time. And likewise in the “Forms of Prayer to be used upon the second of September, for the dreadful fire of London,” [1666] drawn up a few years later, and printed with the other Services in the Common Prayer Books. In this last mentioned Form there is a Collect to be used “after the Prayer (For the whole state of Christ’s Church,” &c.), and after that Collect is the following Rubric :— ** Here may be added the Collects for the second and fourth Sunday in Lent, one or both together, with the Collect (Almighty God, who hast promised, &c.) at the end of the Communion Service, and then the Priest shall let them depart with this Bless- ing. The Peace of God, &c.” It will be observed that it is here distinctly or- dered, that the Prayer for the Church militant, &c. be read, although the celebration of the Communion was not contemplated or provided for: which had not been expressed in the other instances. It is still more clear in the Form for the Acces- sion, in which, “After the Prayer [For the whole state of Christ’s Church, &c. ] these Collects following shall w When the service was alteration of this collect there altered in James IJ.’s time (the | was added also the sentence to 29th of May being no longer _ be read in the Offertory, ‘‘ Not the king’s birthday), with the every one,” &c. 250 Praper for the Church Milttant, be used ;” viz. the “ Prayer for Unity” and the three which are subjoined, with the Blessing concluding the whole; these last mentioned Collects, as well as the Blessing, being printed at full length. In this then, the latest of our Services in order of time, and which does not provide for the administration of the Communion, the stronger evidence is supplied of the still recognized order of the Church’s Service for Sundays and Holy-days, viz., the ending with the Prayer for the Church militant, &c.: and this, with a “Sermon” expressly ordered to be preached. And whenever the Accession, or the 5th of November, or the 29th of May, falls on a Sunday, it is obviously necessary, if the services are to be performed in their integrity, that that which is, as we have seen, the recognized order of the Church for morning Service on Sundays and Holy-days be, for the day at least, observed. And the argument drawn from these occasional Services, in particular from this for the Accession, may be carried back to the times preceding the last Review, nay, to the reign of Queen Elizabeth. In the “Fourme of prayer with thankesgiving, to be used of all the Queene’s Majesties louing subiects euery yeere, the 17. of Nouember, being the daye of her Highnesse entry to her kingdome. Set forth by authoritie,’—we find, after the Nicene Creed, the sentence for the Offertory, “ Let your light,” &c., then the Prayer for the Church militant, the Collect, “ Almighty God, which hast promised to hear,” &ce., and finally the Blessing. So also in the “ Fourme of Prayer with Thankes- giuing, to be vsed by all the kings maiestie’s louing subiects euery yeere the fift of August: Being the day of his Highnesse happy deliuerance from the Vraper for the Church Militant. 251 traiterous and bloody attempt of the Earle of Gowry and his brother, with their Adherents. Set foorth by Authoritie” (1603),—the Nicene Creed is followed by the sentence for the Offertory, “ Whatsoever ye would,” &e., then a Prayer of thanksgiving for the occasion, then the Prayer for the Church militant, then the Collects, “Assist us mercifully,’ &c., and “Almighty God, which hast promised to hear,” &c., and then the Blessing. And at the beginning of the Communion Service stands the following Rubric :— “If there be a Communion upon the fifth day of August, then let the Epistle, Gospel, and Prayers of Thanksgiving newly appointed for the present occasion, bee vsed in the places as they are here following set downe, to bee used when there is no Communion.” And the occasional Forms of prayer, put forth from time to time on public occasions, form an unbroken series from the times of Elizabeth and of James I., down to our own days, the occasions fol- lowing very close upon each other—in fact, through a long period, almost every year. But we must notice an argument which has recently been employed to prove that the “usage of closing the morning service with the Sermon, when there is no Communion,” is rubrically correct. It is argued that “when the Rubric” in question “ was agreed to in 1661, the convocation could not have intended to alter ” what, we are told, was “the acknowledged usage of those times, thence handed down to us, closing the morning service with the Sermon when there is no Communion.” It is said, «« When we consider the complaints formerly made against the length of our Morning Service, it appears highly probable, that what has grown up as ‘ the use of the Church,’ originated in a designed adaptation, by common consent, of our Morning Service 252 Praper for the Church Militant. (when the three services are read at the same time) to the feel- ings of the country ; and that the Rubric was still retained as a rule for those places where morning prayer was at an earlier hour, and the second service of the day was only with the Com- munion Service and sermon; or as it may appear on enquiry, as the rule to be followed whenever part of the Communion Ser- vice should be read, and there should be neither Communion nor sermon. ... No Rubric directs the three services to be read at the same time; and the public convenience which requires this to be done in parish churches, requires some such adaptation ; for which no special Rubric would have been necessary, as the public practice of our Church would become at once her rule and the record of it*.” . We are reminded that in the First Book of Edward VI., in which, though the Prayer for the Church Militant occupied a different place, the termination of the service when there was no Com- munion was similar to that which is ordered by the present Rubric,—viz. ending with the Offertory, and one of the collects added, with the blessing—there was also a rubric ’ which gave the curate leave, “by his discretion,” to omit certain parts of the Service if there were a Sermon, “or for other great cause.” “That this Rubric was not reprinted in 1552, we cannot be surprised ;” this is admitted, but the rubric is at the same time quoted as showing “great con- siderateness that the service should not be felt too long,” &c. It is also admitted that, “* The Prayer Book of 1552 being adopted in 1559, to read after the homily or sermon the prayer for the Church Muilitant, and one or more of the collects with the blessing, when there was no Communion, was the rule during Elizabeth’s reign : but then came the demand at the Hampton Court Conference, ‘ that the longsomeness of the service be abridged ;’ and afterwards at the Savoy, ‘that the Liturgy be not too tedious in the whole.’ ” * «The usage of the Church, the Rev. W. James, pp. 8—5. &c., vindicated, as agreeable to Y Sup. cit. p. 45. the intent of the Rubric,” by “ James, pp. 5, 6. Vraper for the Church Militant. 253 And it is urged, that “They who think the Rubric directs this prayer always to be used when there is no Communion, should consider whether it is likely that while the one party objected to the length of the old Liturgy, the other should actually have made it longer. ‘Too tedious in the whole’ was the language of the objectors; they did not, they could not, think it tedious in its several parts, in the services read separately, or any two of them combined, but ‘ tedious in the whole,’ i. e. when the three services were read at the same time. It is but justice, then, to the majo- rity who prevailed on that occasion, to suppose this lengthened prayer for the Church Militant was not designed to be used when the three services, performed in full with a sermon, were taken together as one whole, except for the special service of the Holy Sacrament .” But the best evidence as to the intentions of the revisers of 1661, is to be found in their acts. One of the first things they did, as we have already seen, was to prepare a Form of Prayer for the 29th of May yearly. But, indeed, it should be stated, that there had already, in the year before, been put forth “A Form of Prayer with thanksgiv- ing, to be used, &c., the 28th of June, 1660, for his Majesties happy return to his kingdoms, set forth by authority.” It consists first of “an order for Morning Prayer,” as usual, with four psalms beside the Venite, (viz. Psalms 20, 21, 85, and 118,) the Benedictus after the Second Lesson, two Prayers (one of them long) in the place of the Collect for the day, with the second and third Collects, then the Litany, with three prayers following the Collect “ We humbly beseech thee,” &c., viz., a prayer for the occasion, the Prayer for the Royal Family, and that for the Clergy and people, with the Prayer of St. Chrysostom, and “The grace of our Lord, &c.” Then “ The Second Service,” i.e. the Communion 4 [bid. pp. 20, 21. 254 Praper for the Church Mulitant. Service, with three Collects for the day, the sen- tence for the Offertory, “Let your light, &c.,” the Prayer for the Church Militant, another Prayer, the Collect “Almighty God, which has promised to hear,” &c., and the final Blessing. This was evidently considered the full and established form of Morning Prayer. The Form was very nearly the same when put forth in the following year, “for the 29th of May yearly, as the service for his Majestie’s happy return to his kingdoms, it being also the day of his birth.” In the Form as thus ordered, instead of “ the Second Service,” it is called “ The Communion Service.” So also in the Form of Prayer for the 30th of January as drawn up at the same period, we find four Psalms at Morning Prayer, the Benedictus, a long collect instead of the first at Morning Prayer, the Litany, with two prayers inserted before the Collect, “We humbly beseech thee, &c.;” then the prayers for the King, for the Royal Family, and for the Clergy, &c. Then “the latter service,” as it is here entitled, a sentence for the Offertory, as before, “ Let your light, &c.,” the Prayer for the Church Militant, and seven Prayers and Collects following, before the final Blessing. And very similar to this, in its general form and in its length, is a Form of Prayer issued in the course of the same year (1661-2), on occasion of a General Fast, “For the averting those sicknesses and diseases, that dearth and scarcity, which justly may be feared from the unseasonable- ness of the weather.” In the June following was issued another Form for a Fast to be kept in like manner on the 12th and the 19th of June, Praper for the Church Militant, 255 “‘ For the averting of those sicknesses, &c., which may justly be feared from the late immoderate rain and waters: for a thanks- giving also for the blessed change of weather, and the begging the continuance of it to us for our comfort: And likewise for beseeching a blessing upon the High Court of Parliament now assembled.” The order of service here is precisely on the same model; the prayer in the end of the Litany, “ We humbly beseech thee, &c.,” being followed by an- other prayer, then the prayers for the King, for the Royal Family, and the Clergy, the Prayer for the High Court of Parliament, the thanksgivings “for Fair Weather,” and “ For Peace and Deliverance from our Enemies,” the Prayer of St. Chrysostom, and “the Grace of our Lord, &c.” Then the Commu- nion Service, as before, the Prayer for the Church Militant being followed by four Collects before the Blessing. Nor does it seem to have made any difference in those days, in the order of the Service, whether there were a Sermon or not; and this it will be recollected, is the main, or indeed, we may say, the only point in question; for in regard to the proper manner of concluding the Service when there is not a Sermon preached, no manner of doubt is entertained. In “A Form of Common Prayer with Thanksgiving for the late victory by his Majesties Naval Forces,” issued in August, 1666, we find the order of service much the same as in the former instances. After the Nicene Creed, it is said, “Then followeth the Sermon, and after that shall be said, Let your light,” &c, ....“ Whatsoever ye would,” &c., then the Prayer for the Church Mili- tant, with a long prayer following, and then one of the Collects at the end of the Communion office, and the Blessing. 256 Praper for the Church Militant. In like manner, in “A Form of Common Prayer” put forth in Feb. 1673-4, for a General Fast “for Imploring God’s blessing on his Majesty, and the present Parliament,” we find a prayer following the first Collect at Morning Prayer, and another, a very long one, following the second Collect, four prayers inserted in the end of the Litany, and in the Com- munion Service a Sermon, followed by two sentences for the Offertory, then the Prayer for the Church Militant, with two long prayers following, and then a Collect and the final Blessing. Again, in “ A Form of Common Prayer for God’s blessing upon his Majesty and his dominions, and for the averting of God’s judgments,” which was put forth in April, 1678, we find a Sermon ordered, with the Prayer for the Church Militant, another long prayer, a Collect, and the Blessing. These instances will suffice; or others might be cited, following one another in unbroken succession, down to the present time. The service had indeed been so far shortened at the last review of 1661, that when the Litany was to be read, the prayers for the King, for the Royal Family, and for the Clergy and people, were omitted, which prayers had, up to this time, been said in the end of the Litany, before the Prayer of St.Chrysostom. Thus far the Service was shortened, but not other- wise. As to the objection made to its length, it had long before been answered by Hooker; that, ‘‘Forasmuch as in public prayer we are not only to consider what is needful in respect of God, but there is also in men that which we must regard; we somewhat the rather incline to length; lest over-quick dispatch of a duty so important should give the world occasion to deem that the thing itself is but little accounted of, whereon but little time is bestowed. Length thereof is a thing which the gravity and weight of such actions doth require. Vraper for the Church Militant. 257 ‘* Besides, this benefit also it hath, that they whom earnest lets and impediments do often hinder from being partakers of the whole, have yet through the length of Divine Service oppor- tunity left them at the least for access unto some reasonable part thereof. ‘Again, it should be considered, how doth it come to pass that we are so long. For if that very Service of God in the Jewish Synagogues, which our Lord did approve and sanctify with the presence of his own person, had so large portions of the Law and the Prophets together with so many prayers and psalms read day by day, as equal in a manner the length of ours, and yet in that respect was never thought to deserve blame, is it now an offence that the like measure of time is bestowed in the like manner? Peradventure the Church hath not now the leisure which it had then, or else those things whereupon so much time was then well spent, have sithence that lost their dignity and worth. If the reading of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, be a part of the service of God as needful under Christ as before, and the adding of the New Testament as pro- fitable as the ordaining of the Old to be read; if therewith, instead of Jewish prayers, it be also for the good of the Church to annex that variety which the Apostle doth commend °, seeing that the time which we spend is no more than the orderly per- formance of these things necessarily requireth, why are we thought to exceed in length?... } **¢ An hour and a half is,’ they say, in reformed Churches ‘ordinarily ’ thought reasonable ‘ for their whole liturgy and service.’ Do we then continue, as Ezra did, in reading the law from morn- ing till mid-day? or, as the Apostle St. Paul did, in prayer and preaching till men through weariness be taken up dead at our feet? The huge length whereof they make such complaint is but this, that if our whole form of prayer be read, and besides an hour allowed for a Sermon, we spend ordinarily in both more time than they do by half an hour. Which half hour being such a matter as the ‘ age of some, and the infirmity of other some are not able to bear ;’ if we have any sense of the ‘ common imbeci- lity,’ if any care to preserve men’s wits from being broken with the very ‘bent of so long attention,’ if any love or desire to ’> 1 Tim. ii. 1. [TD exhort ing of thanks be made for all that, first of all, supplications, men,” &c. | prayers, intercessions, and giv- 258 Praper for the Church Milttant. provide that things most holy be not with ‘hazard’ of men’s souls abhorred and ‘loathed,’ this half hour’s tediousness must be remedied, and that only by cutting off the greatest part of our common prayer. For no other remedy will serve to help so dangerous an inconveniency °.”’ Thus had Hooker, long before, answered the objection then commonly made by the Puritans to the length of the Church Service: but as regards the Savoy conference, we do not find that the com- plaint in question was brought at all prominently forward. In “the first Address and Proposals of the Ministers,” indeed, made to the King at the Hague, it was insinuated in the general exposition of their sentiments and wishes “concerning the Liturgy,” under which head they say, “ We are satisfied in our judgments concerning the lawful- ness of a liturgy, or form of public worship; pro- vided that it be, for the matter, agreeable unto the Word of God, and fitly suited to the nature of the several ordinances and necessities of the Church; neither too tedious in the whole, nor composed of too short prayers, unmeet repetitions or responsals; not to be dissonant from the liturgies of other reformed Churches, &c.°;” but afterwards, when, on the King’s restoration, the conference was granted, amongst the “ Exceptions” which they took against the Book of Common Prayer there was one which seemed to the Bishops to be rather at variance with that which they had been accustomed to make. They had complained that there was in the Prayer Booka “ great defect as to such forms of publick praise and thanksgiving as are suitable to Gospel ©. Eeel., Pol.’ vii82i (2. 4s) 4 Cardwell, Conferences, p. vol. ii. pp. 186—189. (ed. 282. Keble.) Praper for the Church Militant. 259 worship *.” Upon which the Bishops observe, “ We know not what public prayers are wanting, nor do they tell us; the usual complaint hath been, that there were too many '.” And with regard to “the acknowledged usage of those times,” in respect to the Prayer for the Chureh Militant, one of the latest acts of the autho- rities of the Church and State at the beginning of the troubles, had been the putting forth a Form of Prayer which, like others which had preceded it, as we shall see, shew clearly what the then established usage really was. It is entitled, ** A Fourme of Common Prayer to be used upon the Solemne Fast appointed by his Majestie’s Proclamation upon the second Friday in every month ; for the averting of God’s judgments now upon us; for the ceasing of this present Rebellion; and restor- ing a happy peace in this kingdom.” (1643.) In this Form, in the end of the Litany, with the three Prayers for the King, the Royal Family, and the Bishops and Clergy, is a long Prayer for the times, and the Prayer “In the time of War,” &c. “ After the Creed, if there be no Sermon,” it is ordered, “shall follow the Homily set forth in the end of this book ;” then follows a sentence for the Offertory, the Prayer for the Church Militant, “a Hymne or General Thanksgiving,” “a Thanksgiving for the Queen’s safe Return,” five Collects, and the Blessing. In like manner in “ A Forme of Common Prayer,” issued a few years before (in 1640), “'To be used upon the 17th of November, and the 8th of December,” appointed as Fast days, “For the re- moving of the Plague, and other Judgments of God, e Ibid. p. 309. f Ibid. p. 345. Siy 260 Praper for the Chureh Milttant. from this kingdom,” the order of service is very similar, five Psalms being read at Morning Service, three additional Prayers in the end of the Litany, the three Prayers for the King, &c., following; in “the latter service,” “the Sermon, or the Hom'ly of Repentance herewith published,” the Offertory sentence, the Prayer for the Church Militant, and seven Collects following, with the final Blessing. So also, some years before (1628), in “A Forme of Prayer, necessary to be used in these dangerous times of Warre,” on Fast days, appointed “for the preservation of his Majestie and his Realm, and all reformed Churches;” in which, however, there is no Sermon. So again, to go still further back, in the Form for the 5th of November, already referred to, if there was no Sermon, was to “be read one of the Homilies. And particularly some part of that Homily which is against Rebellion.” Yet the service ends, as we have seen, with a sentence for the Offertory, the Prayer for the Church Militant, two Collects, and the Blessing. But, to go back at once to the early part of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, we find a Form of Prayer issued in 1563, entitled, ‘* A Fourme to be used in Common Prayer twise a weeke, and also an order of publique fast, to be used every Wednesday in the weeke, during this tyme of mortalitie, and other afflictions, wherwith the Realme at this present is visited. Set foorth by the Queenes Maiestie’s speciall commaundement, expressed in her letters hereafter following in the next page. xxx Juli, 1563.7 These letters run thus: ‘‘ By the Queene. Most reverende father in God, ryghte trustie and right welbeloved, we greete you wel. ... And understand- yng that you have thought and considered upon some good order raper for the Church Milttant, 261 to be prescribed therein, for the which ye require the application of our authoritie, for the better observation thereof amongst our people, we do not only commende and allowe your good zeale therein; but do also commande all maner our Ministers Ecclesi- asticall or Civill, and all other our subjectes to execute, folowe, and obey such godly and holsome orders as you being Primate of all England, and Metropolitane of this province of Cantor- bury, upon godly advise and consideration, shall uniformely devise, prescribe, and publishe, for the universall usage of prayer, fastyng, and other good deedes, during the time of this visitation by sicknesse and other troubles. **Yeven under our Signet, at our Manour of Richmond the first day of August, the fifth yere of our raigne.”’ In the Preface “it is ordered and appoynted, ‘‘ First, that all Curates and Pastours shall exhort their parishioners to endevour themselves to come unto the Churche .. not only on Sundayes and Holy dayes; but also on Wed- nesdayes and Frydayes, during the time of these present afflic- Vat lag “Secondly, that the said Curates shall then distinctly and plainly reade the general confession appointed in the booke of service, with the residue of the Morning Prayer, using for both the Lessons the Chapters hereafter following... . “On Wednesdayes ... after the Morning Prayer ended, as is aforesayde, the sayde Curates and Ministers shall exhorte the people assembled (with the Homyly thereof made, or the like) to give themselves to their private prayers and meditations : For whiche purpose, a pawse shal be made of one quarter of an houre and more ; by the discretion of the saide Curate. During which tyme, as good scilence shal be kept as may be. ‘*That done, the Letanie is to be read in the middes of the people, with the additions of prayer hereafter mentioned. ‘Then shal folowe the ministration of the communion, so oft as ajust number of Comunicantes shal be therto disposed, with a Sermon, if it can be, to be made by such as be aucthorised by the Metropolitane or byshop of the diocesse, and they to entreate of such maters especially as be meete for this cause of publique prayer: or els for want of such preacher, to reade one of the homylyes hereafter appointed, after the readyng of the Gospel, as hath ben accustomed. And so the minister com- 262 Praper for the Church Milttant, mending the people to God with the accustomed benediction, shall dismiss them. “Tf there be no Communion, then on every of the sayde Wednesdayes after the Letanie, the x. Comaundementes, the Epistle, the Gospell, the Sermon or Homilie done: the general usuall prayer for the state of the whole Churche shal be read, as is set forth in the booke of Common Prayer. After which shall folowe these two prayers. Almightie God the fountayne of all wysdome, &c. And, Almightie God which hast promised, &c. With the accustomed benediction.” In the end-of the Litany, there was a Psalm appointed “to be sayd of the Minister, with the aunswere of the people,” and then “A prayer, con- teynyng also a confession of sins, which is to be sayde after the Letanie, as well upon Sundayes, as Wednesdayes and Irydayes,” (the prayer containing five pages,) “or els in the steade of that, one of two other prayers which might be used “the one one day, the other an other.” It is, however, further permitted that, ‘When there is a Sermon, or other just occasion, one of the lessons may be omitted, and the shortest of the three prayers appoynted in the Litany by this order may be said, and the longest left of.”’ It is scarcely necessary to point out, in this in- stance, not merely the great length of the service on such occasions,—and be it remembered, it was a weekly service,—but also that the ordinary service consisted then, precisely as now, of Morning Prayer, Litany, and Communion, immediately following each other; the Communion being administered if there were a sufficient number of communicants: if there were no Communion, after the Sermon or Homily done was to be read that which is here called “ the general wswall Prayer for the state of the whole Church,” with the concluding Collects and the Praper for the Church Militant, 263 Blessing. And here too, as in King Edward’s First Book, while provision is made for shortening the Service in other ways, nothing is said of curtailing this, the regular solemn conclusion of the whole Service. If further evidence, however, were desired re- specting the usage in Queen Elizabeth’s time, it is supplied by some passages which have been quoted in illustration of Hooker’, and which, as Mr. Keble observes, “seem to indicate, that the services of Morning Prayer, the Litany, and the Communion, were united in Queen Elizabeth’s time according to the present practice.” We find farther, in Archbishop Grindal’s Injunctions for the province of York, issued in 1571, this order— “The minister not to pause or stay between the Morning Prayer, Litany, and Communion; but to continue and say the Morning Prayer, Litany or Communion, or the service appointed to be said (when there was no Communion) together, without any intermission; to the intent the people might continue toge- ther in prayer, and hearing the word of God; and not depart out of the Church, during all the time of the whole Divine Service 5,” “ And if it were necessary,” as has been well ob- served, “we might safely infer that the Archbishop in this order was only pressing upon the province of York what he knew to be the ordinary practice of the § Vol. i. pp. 188, 189, note. ed. Keble. “‘ Whitgift, Def. 482, ‘ The longest time (if there be no Communion) is not more than an hour.’ And Bridges, Def. of Gov. p. 625, ‘ All the forms of Prayer that are pre- scribed in any part of our ordinary divine service, may be soberly and with decent pauses uttered forth, either for the minister’s or for the peo- ple’s part, in the space of little more than one hour, yea, the lessons and all the rest of the divine service within one hour and a half, even where the ser- vice is longest in saying, though also much and solemn singing do protract it.’ ”’ h Doc. Ann, vol. i. p. 336. 264 jraper for the Church Milttant. Wee diocese of London’.” It appears from these Injunc- tion, says Dr. Cardwell, “as we also know from other sources, that his province was more addicted to popery than to puritanism ;” and in the disposition to retain the performance of service at different times in the day we may trace an attachment to former practice, or the remains still lingering of established custom. For as regards the province of Canterbury, and indeed the whole kingdom, the Queen’s Injunctions had ordered that “immediately before the time of communion of the Sacrament, the priests with other of the quire shall kneel in the midst of the church, and sing or say plainly and distinctly the Litany, which is set forth, in English, with all the suffrages following, to the intent the people may hear and answer *.” And this was, in fact, but the renewal of Edward’s Injunctions of 1547, that “ zmmediately before high mass, the priests, with other of the quire, shall kneel',” &c. “And it is fair to conclude that after” King Edward’s First Book “was published, the same order was observed, mutatis mutandis, specially as we find it so ruled for the Wednesdays and Fridays™.” And the Rubric refers to the Injunc- tions; for the Rubric before the Litany stood thus; “Upon Wednesdays and Fridays the English Litany shall be said or sung, in all places, after such form as is appointed by the Kings Maesty’s Injunctions,” &c. Upon Sundays it would of course be used, the administration of the Communion every Sunday being taken for granted in the order of that Book. And by Edward’s Second Book, it was expressly iat Cal, FL? Ap. owes | Ibid. pp. 14, 15. * Doc. Ann. i. 187. mG. a. App. p. 23, Praper for the Church Millttant, 265 ordered “to be used upon Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.” The only question, in fact, is in regard to the Morning Prayer—whether it were performed at an earlier hour than the Litany and Communion; and the single ground for the supposition that such was the case, is in the first Rubric before the Commu- nion, as it stood before the last Review. ‘So many as intend to be partakers of the holy Communion shall signify their names to the Curate over night, or else in the morning afore the beginning of Morning Prayer, or immediately after.” “Whereupon,” says Bishop Overall’s chaplain, “is necessarily to be inferred a certain distance of time between Morning Prayer and High Service. A Rule which is at this time duly observed in York and Chichester; but by negligence of Ministers, and carelessness of people, wholly omitted in other places.” In fact, in one or two Cathedral towns the ancient practice may not improbably have been for a time retained, and without inconvenience: the separation of Morning Prayer from the Litany and Commu- nion is still the custom at Winchester, Worcester, and Hereford (Jebb, p. 226). And the note by Bishop Overall’s chaplain is evidence of the general adoption of our present practice, in his time, with the exceptions mentioned. There is a curi- ous note, however, in L’Estrange upon this same Rubric. «A great question there hath been of late" about the alliance of this word ‘ after,’ [‘ afore the beginning of Morning Prayer, or immediately after,’| and to what it should relate. One would have applied it to the beginning of Morning Prayer, as if it had " He wrote, it will be recollected, in 1659, 266 Praper for the Church Milttant, been said, ‘Immediately after the beginning of Morning Prayer,’ and videtur quod sic, because the Latin translator hath in this particular assumed the office of an interpreter, rendering it, ‘Im- mediate post principium Matutinarum precum.’ This notwith- standing, I approve rather of their sense who make it relative to Morning Prayer, and suppose as if the structure were, ‘imme- diately after Morning Prayer,’ that is, when it is ended: and this, I take it, is plainly inferrible from the very scope of this Rubric, which was not, as some may think, [to allot some space of time to make provision according to the number of the com- municants]; for the interstitium between the Morning Prayer and the time of the Communion, is so slender a space for the provision of those elements as, should there be a want, not half the country villages in this kingdom can be timely supplied therewith: No, it is clearly otherways, and that the design was, that the Curate might have timely notice of the several persons offering themselves to the Communion, and consequently might persuade notorious offenders, or malicious persons, to abstain, and, if obstinate, absolutely reject them according to the purport of the two rubrics following; .... Now how could the Curate possibly confer with such notorious evil livers, or malicious per- sons, between the beginning of Morning Prayer (which employed him wholly) and the Communion, unless there were some vaca- tion allowed him between those two offices; and that such a convenient space was allotted to intervene, is evident by the practice of those times. For the Morning Prayer and Commu- nion were not continued as one entire service, but abrupt °, broken off, and distinct, each Office from the other, by these words, ‘‘Thus endeth the Order of Morning and Evening Prayer:’ This was done that the Holy Day Service might be separated from the weekly. Whether or not the congregation departed hence upon Sundays and Holy Days after the end of Morning Prayer, and returned again to the Communion Service, I will not positively determine; I rather think not; because the authors of the ‘ Admonition,’ whose captious curiosity nothing could escape which seemed to promove their beloved quarrel, have these words, ‘ We speak not of ringing when Mattins is done,’ which could not administer the least shew of blame, had it been done in ® [It will be recollected that, lect—there was no more formal at that time, the Form of Mat- _ termination. | tins ended with the Third Col- Praper for the Church Milttant, 267 absence of the assembly, or had not the congregation been then religiously employed: For this bell was usually rung in the time of the second service, viz., the Litany, to give notice to the people, not that the Communion Service, as hath been supposed, but that the Sermon was then coming on. ‘ All ringing and knolling of bells, in the time of the Litany, high Mass,’ &c., was interdicted by the Injunctions of Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth, ‘except one bell in convenient time to be rung before the Sermon?.’. . . There being then, as I have said, so ap- parent and visible a breach between the first and second Service, the Morning Office, and the Litany, it is very probable, though the assembly did not dissolve, yet was there such a ceasing and rest from sacred employments, as might give the Curate time in that interval, both to receive the names of such as intended to communicate, as also to admonish, and, in case of obstinacy, to repel scandalous persons from that ordinance : sure I am, he was then more at leisure than he could be at any other time after Morning Prayer begun, or before it were ended 4.” The original distinction, then, between the Morn- ing Prayer, and the Litany and Communion which came into the place of high mass, would, as matter of fact, so far as the distinction was still preserved, tend rather to lengthen than otherwise the princi- pal service on Sundays: for to suppose that the people assembled twice in the early part of the day is, as L’Estrange himself observes, not at all probable. The great inconvenience of such a practice in most places, in country parishes in particular, would effectually stand in the way of such an arrange- ment. And if it were proved to be the fact that any such change as is commonly supposed, in regard to the union of three services in one, has taken place, it is, as indeed it ought to be, the convenience of the people, rather than that of the priest, which has been in the greatest degree consulted in such P Here follows the passage other subject. Vid. sup. p. 46. already cited, in reference to an- 1 L’Estrange, pp. 162, 163. 268 Praper for the Church Militant. change: for in rural parishes especially, and where a large proportion, perhaps, of the population have their dwellings at a distance from the Church, the performance of the several offices at distinct times would obviously exclude the greater part of the congregation from attendance at the whole service. But, indeed, in the words of a well informed writer, . .. “Peremptorily as some have asserted that our Morning Service for Sundays consists of three entire services intended for three several hours of prayer, and extravagantly long, merely owing to this clumsy consolidation of them all, it would not be easy to prove that such division did ever in fact obtain '.” This he proceeds to show from the Injunctions of King Edward and of Queen Elizabeth, the Rubric of Edward’s First Book, and other sources, noticing among other points, how “ Herbert, in describing categorically the duties of his Country Parson,” tells us that, “having read divine service twice fully... he thinks he hath in some measure according to poor and frail man, discharged the public duties of s 99 the congregation °. ‘The length of our Church service, therefore,” the same writer continues, ‘‘ of which we now * hear so much, and the repe- titions it contains, are evils, if evils they be, which have been practically existing almost from its first formation"; which a Hammond, a Sanderson, and a Taylor could tolerate without a complaint, but too happy, (as were then their congregations also, for those were not fastidious days,) if they were permitted in their secret assemblies to give utterance to these burning words with which the great Reformer had furnished them ’.” There had, indeed, appeared in other parties * Blunt’s Sketch of the Re- " May we not rather say, formation in England, p. 214. ‘from its very first forma- ‘ Country Parson, p. 25. tion ?” * Mr. Blunt thus wrote in Y Blunt, p. 218. 1832. Praper for the Church Militant, 269 symptoms of this fastidiousness, and we have seen how Hooker regarded it: and we have like evidence as to the feeling of Churchmen on this point, as well as in regard to the actual manner of perform- ing the Church Service at the beginning of the 17th century, in Mason’s Sermon “ preached at Norwich the third Sunday after Trinity, 1605 ”.” In that Sermon the writer gives a general view of the Chureh Service, as a whole, with observations upon it, the tenor of which, as Dr. Wordsworth observes, “sufficiently implies that ordinarily at least, in those times, the Matins, Litany, and Communion office, were not solemnized as separate services at different times of the day, but were used as one service continuously. Indeed,” adds Dr. Words- worth, “ notwithstanding the common notion to the contrary, I believe it would not be difficult to prove satisfactorily, that in parish churches it was never otherwise in England, after the Reforma- tion *.” The evidence borne by Mason’s summary may be judged of by the following outline of it. After speaking on other points, he says, ... “And so I come to our ministration. “* The beginning of our Church service is with some memorable sentence of Holy Scripture applied for that purpose, moving to repentance and prayer, or magnifying the mercy of God in Christ. Then after a holy exhortation, all of us, both minister and people, fall down before the throne of grace confessing our sins, &c.... Without question, (beloved,) here is a holy and blessed beginning.”’ He then goes through the Absolution, Lord’s Prayer, Psalms, Lessons, the Creed, Prayers, the Litany, and then proceeds thus, ¥ Printed in Dr. Words- _ vol. iv. worth’s Christian Institutes, * Thid. p. 483, note. 270 «=Praper for the Church Militant. ‘¢ And after some time spent in prayer, we intermingle again the reading of God’s holy word. ‘To beat down sin, we read God’s fiery law and fearful commandments... And to kindle and encrease our spiritual joy, we read those comfortable and selected portions of Scripture called Epistles and Gospels. Now for the holy Communion, it is so religiously penned, and so reve- rently performed in our Church, &c. . . . So again, [7. e. after the participation] pouring our prayers, and rendering thanks and glory to God on high, we conclude the celebration of these reverend mysteries, pronouncing a blessing to the people de- parting. *‘'Thus we repent and pray; we rejoice and pray ; we thank God and pray; we confess our faith and pray; we read and pray ; we hear and pray; we preach and pray; we receive the sacraments and pray. This is the order of our Church, which may well be called the house of prayer .”’ I have thought it well to enter into this question thus far, on account of its important bearing with the point immediately before us, and also because it is one instance, out of the many which might be cited, to shew to how great an extent, in these matters, hypothesis or hasty inference has been allowed to stand in the place of careful investigation of historical fact. In connexion with what is said in the passage above cited from L’Estrange, as to the intervals which may originally have separated the first and the second services, though the one followed almost immediately upon the other, it may here be observed, that it was with a special view, as it would seem, to occupy in a becoming and religious manner the intervals which occurred between the several parts of the services, that the metrical version of the Psalms was originally authorized. A portion of them, it will be borne in mind, was first put forth in the ¥ Ibid. pp. 480—484, Vraper for the Church Milttant. 271 reign of Edward VI. And when completed, their title declared them to be “set forth and allowed to be sung in all Churches, of all the people toge- ther, before and after Morning and Evening Prayer, and also before and after Sermons ;’ and in some copies of the old version we find “A Prayer to the Holy Ghost, to be sung before the Sermon,” begin- ning, “Come, Holy Spirit, the God of might, Comforter of us all,” &e. A Psalm is now almost universally sung in our churches before Sermon; and it may perhaps here be suggested that a doxology at least might, with especial propriety, be sung at the conclusion of the Sermon, in churches where, the Sermon being preached in the gown, and the Prayer for the Church Militant read, the officiating clergyman has to change his dress for the conclusion of the service at the Communion table. It may be well here to notice how some of our best authorities treat prac- tically the question as to the distinction between our several services, and in what way they would mark, and would consider to be marked sufficiently, the transition from the one to the other. In his Charge to the clergy of the Diocese of St. David’s, Bishop Bull speaks thus ; ** Whereas upon Sundays and holydays the Church hath ap- pointed a first and second service to be read one after another, it is convenient that there be a decent interval between them. For judge, I pray you, how absurd it may seem, to conclude the first service with St. Chrysostom’s prayer, and ‘The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ and immediately, without any intermission, to enter upon the second service. “‘T verily believe, the first intention of the Church was, that these two services should be read at two several times in the morning ; but now custom and the rubric direct us to use them 272 =Praper for the Church Militant, both at the same time. Yet in cathedral or mother churches, there is still a decent distinction between the two services; for before the priest goes to the altar to read the second service, there is a short but excellent anthem sung; in imitation whereof, in the churches of London, and in other great churches of the country, instead of that anthem there is part of a psalm sung 7.” It will be observed how Bishop Bull recognized both “custom and the Rubric” as directing us “now” to use both services “at the same time,” “one after another.’ And Bishop Gibson, in his Directions to his Clergy, 1724, after observing that the singing of Psalms “has ever been accounted a standing part of public devotion, not only in the Jewish, but in the Christian Church,” proceeds to say, “¢ And in the Church of England, particularly, whose Sunday- service is made up of three offices, which were originally distinct, and in their natures are so, there is the greater need of the inter- vention of psalmody, that the transitions from one service to another may not be too sudden and abrupt @.” Thus do these high authorities speak of that which has, of late, not unfrequently been treated as an interruption, utterly unauthorized and irregu- lar, of the Church’s appointed ritual; but I notice it here only in its bearing on the question immedi- ately before us. It comes in, however, here not out of place, as removing all difficulty, if any be felt, in regard to the dress of the preacher, as regulated by custom or rubric or both, and the conclusion of the service in conformity with the rubric, which directs the reading of the prayer for the Church Militant. And to those of the Clergy—and they are not a few—who feel a regard for long estab- lished custom, and would cherish the attachment z Works, ed. Burton, vol. ii. 4 Clergyman’s Instructor, p. pp. 18, 19. 309. raper for the Church Milttant, 273 evinced towards it, with a tenderness and respect inferior only to their dutiful and affectionate desire to obey, in all things, the orders which the Church may have given them, it will be some satisfaction if it be proved, not only that their general practice is in conformity with her directions in regard to the dress of the preacher, but also that the psalmody in which the congregation are engaged during the interval before the Sermon is not unsanctioned by her authority; that prayer before Sermon is no irre- gular insertion, but one which her appointed order vir- tually presupposed, and in regard to which even the departure from the strict canonical form becomes scarcely an irregularity if the Sermon be followed immediately by the Prayer for.the Church Militant,— a prayer formed, as we have seen ”, on the same model with the ancient form of bidding of prayer, which at one time, as we have also seen °, was appointed to oc- cupy this particular place ; and finally, that the whole Sunday Morning Service as now performed in all our parochial churches, consisting of Morning Prayer, Litany, Communion Service, and Sermon, is really performed according to the intention of our Church and its authorities, from the very time of the Refor- mation. Upon the main question, however, with which we have been engaged, respecting the Prayer for the Church Militant, the reader must’ here be reminded, that the object in the foregoing discussion has been simply to ascertain the true interpretation of the Rubric under consideration. How far that Rubric has generally been observed in past times in parochial churches, is a different question; for b Vid. sup. p. 223. © Vid, sup. p. 208. gb 274 «= raper for the Church Milttant, the resolution of which there seems to be rather a lack of satisfactory evidence. If it should seem, that the rubric in question was, in past times, not generally observed, such non-observance, while it affords some relief to the feelings of those who have inherited a usage which they cannot without offence, at the present time, make more strictly and rubrically cor- rect, will at the same time give the greater signi- ficancy to the fact of the re-establishment, at the last review, of the former rule, extended then from Holy-days to Sundays, and also to the fact of the continual recognition of this order of service in the forms of Prayer for special occasions put forth by authority from time to time, and following each other in uninterrupted succession, whatever the contemporary practice in general may have been, down to our own days. To sum up, then, the enquiry as to the Rubric which has been now under discussion, it would seem that there is no real ground of doubtfulness as to its intent and meaning; and moreover that the rule was laid down with an important object, viz. to keep up, in the Church’s Service, a silent, or rather an expressive testimony to her desire for frequent celebration of the Holy Communion, at least on Sundays and Holy-days, days for which a Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, were specially appointed. And this, the primary end (as it would appear) of the rule thus embodied in her ritual, her faithful ministers and people may at all events, and by all means within their power, keep steadily in view. It may also be observed, that the objection arising from non-uniformity of practice, or departure from the usage established in the generality of Churches, is Praper for the Church Militant. 275 one which is incidentally attendant on the partial attainment of the Church’s desire in regard to constant Communion :—where there is a congrega- tion of communicants every Sunday, as there is now in an increased and increasing number of places, the inconvenience altogether disappears; the ser- vice, as regards non-communicants, terminating, as usual, with the Sermon. And here also, it may be well to bear in mind, that the real source of the inconvenience, such as it is, is none other than this, —that the Church, more earnestly mindful of the practice of the Christians of the apostolic age, than of the disposition of the actual times on which she was fallen and of those which she fondly hoped were now happily past, would not consent to forego the vision of realizing again, in her Reformation under- taken upon the model of the pure and primitive ages, the practice of the early Christians, in coming together continually, or, at least, “on the first day of the week,” “to break bread.” If the Church of England were now free to act in the matter, and it were a question whether the last vestige of this testimony to her truly primitive character should be swept away by an alteration of the Rubric in question, it cannot be doubted that, in a very large number of her members, who admire and sympathize with the feeling evinced by such as was the pious and excellent Bishop Beveridge, there would be a very strong reluctance to witness such a change. Especially when it has been seen, that, even in these days, as well as in his, that which might have been thought hopelessly beyond the reach of revival, has been, in some degree at least, revived, involving not the slightest change in the ordinary service, where it has been most fully adopted, and imparting ree 276 =6Praper for the Church Milttant, meanwhile, great spiritual comfort to very many of the most faithful and devoted members of our Church, who are indebted to the existence of these Rubrics still in the Prayer-book, for what they regard as a great and inestimable blessing. This, however, regards rather the question of alteration of the Prayer-book. The question with which we are here concerned is one of interpretation ; and on the evidence now brought forward, it is sub- mitted, that if a doubt respecting the true meaning of the Rubric which we have been examining be re- ferred in any case, according to the provision of the preface to the Common Prayer, to the proper autho- rity, the resolution of that doubt cannot be other- wise than one way, viz. in favour of that which undoubtedly appears to be its plain and obvious import. Che Offertorp, THERE remains now only the question respecting the reading of the Offertory sentences, and the Church’s intention with regard to the frequency of the collection to be made at the Offertory. The Rubric stands thus after the Sermon or Homily: ‘Then shall the Priest return to the Lord’s Table, and begin the Offertory, saying one or more of these Sentences following, as he thinketh most convenient in his discretion.” Of the two questions which have arisen here, the one, viz., whether any sentence at all should be read when there is no collection to be made, is deter- mined, I think, by the evidence which has already come before us under the head of the Prayer for the Church Militant. For it is clear from the State Services, and others of a similar kind issued on par- ticular occasions, and which form a continuous series from the period of the last Review, or rather from (Queen Klizabeth’s reign down to the present time, that it was throughout the intention of the Church, that one sentence at least should always be read. And the uniform practice in Cathedrals and College Chapels, and also I believe in parish Churches where the Service is performed on Holydays, and no Ser- mon preached, confirms the same view. But the more important question for considera- tion is, whether the Church intended that the sen- tences for the Offertory should be read, with a view 278 Che Offertorp. to the collection of “the alms for the poor, and other devotions of the people,” on other occasions than when the Communion is administered, and if so, whether every Sunday. This question we will now examine. And here, as before, it may be well briefly to trace, historically, the course of the Rubric from the First Book of Edward VI. In that book the appointed Order was as follows. After the Sermon or Homily ended, and the Exhorta- tion (“Dearly beloved in the Lord,” &c.), which was to be read if, in the Sermon or Homily itself, the people were “not exhorted to the worthy receiving of the holy Sacrament,” the Offertory sentences were to be sung. The Rubric was as follows :— “Then shall follow for the Offertory one or more of these Sentences of holy Scripture, to be sung whiles the people do offer; or else one of them to be said by the minister, imme- diately afore the offering.”’ After the sentences stand the following Ru- brics :— ‘‘ Where there be Clerks, they shall sing one or many of the sentences above written, according to the length and shortness of the time that the people be offering. ‘“¢ In the meantime, whiles the Clerks do sing the Offertory, so many as are disposed shall offer to the poor men’s box, every one according to his ability and charitable mind. And at the offering days appointed, every man and woman shall pay to the Curate the due and accustomed offerings. ‘** Then so many as shall be partakers of the holy Communion, shall tarry still in the quire, or in some convenient place nigh the quire, the men on the one side, and the women on the other side. All other (that mind not to receive the said holy Communion) shall depart out of the quire, except the Ministers and Clerks. **'Then shall the Minister take so much Bread and Wine as shall suffice for the persons appointed to receive the holy Com- munion,” &c. Che @Gffertary, 279 In reference to this Rubric a recent writer has quoted from Burn the statement, that “this Offer- tory was anciently an oblation for the use of the priest ; but at the Reformation it was changed into alms for the poor;” and proceeds accordingly “to trace its history with reference to that point.” He observes, then, that “In the 27th year of Henry VIII., a. vp. 1535, an Act of Parliament had been passed for the punishment of sturdy vaga- bonds ; in which, churchwardens were ordered to collect volun- tary alms for the poor in each parish on Sundays and other days at their discretion, and to have a box set up in some convenient place in the Church, in which the money so gathered might be deposited.” *‘ This Act was extended in the first year of Edward VI., 1547, and the minister was required, after the Gospel every Sunday, specially to exhort the parishioners to a liberal contribution 4.” “Tt was doubtless,” the writer continues, “in compliance with this Injunction that the Rubric of 1549 was framed: and it will be observed,” he adds, “that the collection which it recognizes no way cor- responds with that now in use at the Communion. ** Those who were minded dropped their alms into the poor men’s box amidst the confusion of persons leaving the church or paying their dues to the Minister. The box was placed near the high altar, and we may well suppose that, if any were intend- ing to quit the church immediately, they would hardly enter the choir or chancel with the communicants, for this purpose alone, when they had no dues to pay, or did not intend to participate in the Communion. That this was hardly expected at this time, though it was thought right to give the opportunity to all, we may judge from the fifth of the ‘ Articles to be followed,’ &c. tival day every month, to go about the Church, and make a The writer adds in a note ; “In the Injunctions for the Deanery of Doncaster, 1548, (Cardwell, Doc. Ann. i. 68,) churchwardens are directed some one Sunday or other fes- request to every of the parish for their charitable contribu- tions.” 280 ~ he Offertorp. published in 1549, after the Act of Uniformity had passed: ‘Item, that after the Homily every Sunday, the Minister exhort the people, especially the communicants, to remember the poor men’s box >.’ And still more from Bishop Ridley’s Injunctions to the diocese of London, in 1550, among which is the following: ‘That the Minister, in the time of the Communion, immediately after the Offertory, shall monish the communicants, saying these words or such like. Now is the time, if it please you, to remem- ber the poor men’s chest with your charitable alms °.’”’ We must, however, observe that there was a dis- tinction, which seems here to have been overlooked, between the Offertory and the alms for the poor, and between the ordinary Sundays and certain “ offer- ing days.” The sentences, it will be recollected, (for they are identically the same with those in our pre- sent Prayer Book,) have reference some to the main- tenance of the Clergy, and some to the relief of the poor. It was only on four “appointed offering days” in the year “, that the dues were paid to the minister: on ordinary Sundays it was intended that, not as amid “the confusion of persons leaving the Church,” but, with the solemnity of a religious act, the people should go up to the chancel and offer their gift, the sacred treasury for the poor being, with this view, placed “near the high altar.” The offering was two- fold; for, beside the offering to “the poor men’s box” referred to in these Rubrics, there was also that which was appointed by the Rubrics at the end of the Communion office, already quoted *, viz., the offering by “the parishioners of every parish,” on “every Sunday, at the time of the Offertory, the just > Cardwell, Doc. Ann. i.75. Hen. 8, c. 12, viz. ‘the feasts ° “Ts the Offertory without of Easter, of the Nativity of St. Communion required by the John Baptist, the feast of St. Church ?” by Rev. R. Wick- Michael the Archangel, and the ham, pp. 15—17. Nativity of our Lord.” q L’Estrange, p. 180—“ those © Vid. sup. p. 237. mentioned in the Statute, 37 Che Offertorp. 281 value and price of the holy loaf, (with all such money and other things as were wont to be offered with the same,) to the use of their Pastors and Curates, and that in such order and course, as they were wont to find and pay the said holy loaf.” This Rubric carrying us back to the times preced- ing, it will be necessary, for the better understanding of the whole matter, to look a little into the origin of these offerings, especially as the first of the Ru- brics under our consideration evidently: presupposes an already established order. For it is worded thus: Then shall follow for the Offertory one or more of these sentences of holy Scripture, to be sung whiles the people do offer,” &c. We find, then, that anciently in the Western Churches, a psalm was sung “ while the people made their oblations. When this began,” says Mr. Palmer, “it is impossible to say...... The anthem called offertory has without doubt been received in the En- elish Church since the end of the sixth century, when Augustine brought the sacramentary and other books of Gregory to England. But it may have been used long before by the British Church.” With regard to the offerings thus made, and the origin from whence they were derived, Mr. Palmer observes,— ** There can be no doubt that it has been the universal custom of Christians since the apostolic age to offer alms and oblations to the glory of God. In the writings of the primitive fathers, and the acts of synods, we find this practice recognised throughout the whole world. We learn its prevalence in Africa from the writings of Optatus, Cyprian, Tertullian, and the decrees of the councils of Carthage. In the patriarchate of Antioch its ex- istence is testified by Chrysostom, the Apostolical Constitutions, and Justin. Ambrose is a witness for Italy ; Gregory Nazianzen, * 282 Che Offertorp., for Ceesarea and Pontus; the council of Eliberis for Spain; Irenzeus, Ceesarius of Arles, and the council of Matiscon, for Gaul; Augustine for England, and Patrick for Ireland. .... The custom of offering voluntary oblations was therefore uni- versal in the primitive church. These oblations were of va- rious sorts. Some offered money, vestments, and other precious gifts; and all, it appears, offered bread and wine, from which the elements of the sacrament were taken. But though all the churches of the East and West agreed in this respect, they differed in appointing the time at which the oblations of the people were received. In the West, the people offered bread and wine in the public assembly immediately after the catechumens were dismissed, and before the solemn prayers began. We have no authentic record of any such custom in the East. It appears that the oblations of the people were made in the Eastern churches before the liturgy began, or at least not during the public assembly.... In the churches of Gaul, Spain, Rome, Milan, and England, the people long continued to offer during the liturgy, and memorials of the custom remain to this day in most parts of the West. In the councils and the writings of the Fathers of those churches, we find many allusions to it, many injunctions regulating it. In time, when the clergy received donations of a more permanent nature, the oblations of the people fell off. In many places they became extinct, and in the rest there remained little more than the shadows and memorials of the primitive customs. Oblations are now in general never made by the laity in the Roman liturgy ; yet, in some remote parts of the country, people, according to Bona, still continue the practice. . . ‘In England, the people have been accustomed to offer obla- tions since the time of Augustine... but we can have no doubt that in the British Church the same practice had prevailed long before, since no Western Church can be named in which the people had not made oblations from the most primitive ages. A synod also held in Ireland in the time of Patrick, first archbishop of the Irish, in the fifth century, forbids the oblations of sinning brethren to be received ... In England the oblations of the people gradually became less as the Church was endowed with lands, and different rules as to the payment of offerings were adopted in different places... Henry Woodloke, Bp. of Win- chester, in his Constitutions of a. p. 1808, enjoined every person above eighteen years of age, who had sufficient means, to offer due and customary oblations on four great feast days in the year ... Che Offertory. 283 We also find the subject alluded to in other canons of the English and Scottish Churches. Thus the custom of lay oblation was con- tinually kept up in some degree in England, till the time when the Reformation at last began, and then we find the Church conti- nuing and reinforcing it . .. and the custom of oblation is to this day preserved in the Church of England, having never been inter- mitted from the most primitive ages '.” This outline of the history will fully explain the ~mention, in the Rubric before us, of “the offering days appointed,” when “the due and accustomed offerings” were to be paid by every one to the curate. The offering which it was now sought to restore every Sunday was a restoration of the alms and free-will offerings of earlier times, the traces of which had well nigh been lost °. But the Liturgy, as now reformed, restored the reality which had left its shadow in the service books; viz. oblations of the people in order to the participation of all the congregation, or of as many at least as were so minded, in the holy Communion, according to the apostolical and primitive use of Christ’s appointed ordinance, which had been so long discontinued, and also to the showing forth of Chris- tian charity and brotherly love in the primitive way. a ‘Et canat cum ministris suis ‘ Palmer, Origg. Liturg. vol. il. pp. 67—71, which must be consulted for authorities and references. $ In the missal of Sarum and Bangor, the York and the Hereford Missal, as well as in the Roman, after the Epistle and Gospel and the Creed, we find simply the address, ‘‘ Do- minus vobiscum,” ‘‘ Oremus,” and then the rubric, in the Sarum, ‘‘ Deinde dicitur Offer- torium,”’ in the Bangor, simply ‘‘Offertorium,” in the York, Offertorium,” in the Hereford, *‘Deinde dicat Offertorium,”’ and in the Roman, simply “ Et Offertorium.” Then follows the Rubric, ‘‘ Post offerto- rium vero porrigat diaconus,” &c. ; or, ‘* Postea lavet manus,” &c. ; or, ‘* Quo dicto ministret ea quae necessaria sunt sacra- mento: scilicet panem, vinum,”’ &c. ; or, ‘* Quo dicto, diaconus porrigit celebranti patenam,”’ &c. 284 Che @iertorp, For of the witnesses, above referred to, to the custom of ancient times, the earliest of all, Justin Martyr, giving an account of the Christians’ Sunday worship, after he has made mention of the reading of Scripture, followed by the sermon, and then prayer, and then the bringing in of bread and wine, and the consecration and distribution of the elements, tells us how “they who have means and are willing, each according as he is disposed, gives what he will; and that which is collected is deposited with the chief minister [the bishop], and he relieves orphans and widows, and those who, from sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds, and strangers that come from far; and, in a word, is the guardian to all who are in need °.” This passage seems to have been overlooked alto- gether in recent discussions respecting the Offertory, as regards ancient practice, although Justin Mar- tyr’s is the earliest account which we have of Chris- tian assemblies, and a somewhat similar passage from Tertullian’s later Apology, which speaks of monthly collections, has been referred to. The pas- sage from Tertullian is the more worthy of consider- ation, inasmuch as it is that which contains the celebrated heathen dictum respecting the love which the Christians shewed one to another. He says: ‘‘The most approved elders preside over us, having obtained this honour not by money, but by character; for with money is nothing pertaining unto God purchased. Even if there be with us a sort of treasury, no sum is therein collected, discredit- able to Religion, as though she were bought. Every man placeth there a small gift on one day in each month, or whensoever he will, so he do but will, and so he be but able; for no man is h Justin Martyr, Apol. i. p. Lincoln’s work on Justin Mar- 98. Compare the Bishop of tyr, pp. 89, 98. Che Offertorp. 285 constrained, but contributeth willingly. These are as it were the deposits of piety ; for afterwards they are not disbursed in feasts and in drinking, and in disgusting haunts of gluttony, but for feeding and burying the poor, for boys and girls without money and without parents, and for old men now house-ridden, for the shipwrecked also and for any who, in the mines, or in the islands, or in the prisons, become their creed’s pensioners, so that it be only for the sake of the way of God. But it is the exercise of this sort of love which doth, with some, chiefly brand us with a mark of evil. ‘See,’ say they, ‘ how they love each other'.’ ” Whatever be the true explanation of the differ- ence between this passage and that before cited from Justin Martyr, the one speaking of a monthly, the other of a weekly collection’, the earlier witness must, at all events, not be lost sight of; nor the fact that we find St. Cyprian, in the same Church of Car- thage, and who lived as much later than Tertullian as Justin Martyr was earlier, speaking thus,— “You are rich and wealthy; and think you, that you cele- brate the Feast of the Lord, who are altogether negligent of the offering; who come into the Lord’s house without a sacrifice, and take part out of that sacrifice which the poor has offered ? .... And whereas whatsoever is given, is bestowed on widows and orphans, one gives who ought to have received; that we may know how great penalty awaits the rich who is unfruitful, since 1% from this instance even the poor ought to exercise charity '. This passage distinctly recognizes the offerings out of which the poor were maintained, and the bread and wine supplied for the Communion. And the two passages of Justin Martyr and Tertullian, may perhaps be easily harmonized (even without sup- posing—what is very conceivable,—a difference in the practice of different Churches), by the following i Apol. i. 39, translated by lation, note. Dodgson, (‘‘ Library of the Fa- 1 St. Cyprian’s ‘Treatises, thers,”’) p. 81. (translated in Lib. of the Fa- K Compare Dodgson’s trans- _ thers,) pp. 240, 241. 286 Che Offertoryp. comment of St. Chrysostom, which has also been quoted in reference to the present subject. He is commenting on the Apostle’s words (1 Cor. xvi. 2), “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him.” ‘He said not,” says St. Chrysostom, ‘‘ Let him bring it into the Church,’ lest they might feel ashamed because of the smallness of the sum; but having by gradual additions swelled his con- tribution, let him produce it when I come, but for the present ‘lay it up,’ saith he, ‘at home;’ and make thy house a church, m ? thy little box a treasury The very expressions in the concluding sentence, it will be observed, contain an allusion to the trea- sury of the Church: and, indeed, there follows im- mediately in St. Chrysostom the mention of it. “Of this,” he says, “our treasury even now is a sign: but the sign remains, the thing itself nowhere.” So greatly had the spirit of primitive charity in his time degenerated. With regard, however, to the main question, it may have been that, under the feeling here described, some paid their offerings at stated intervals, once in a month or otherwise, as it might be, although there was the opportunity of offering every Sunday. The passage which St. Chrysostom is explaining, will perhaps scarcely prove the actual offering in the Church on the first day of the week; but it certainly seems to lay down more of a systematic and general plan of almsgiving “ m Homilies on 1 Cor. in loc. n The passage which has been cited from one of St. Chrysostom’s Homilies on 1 Tim. (v. 10) is, in fact, a wit- ness to the existence of the system to which it might seem altogether to object. ‘‘ Give not thy alms to those who pre- side in the Church to distribute. Bestow it thyself, that thou mayest have the reward, not of giving merely, but of kind ser- vice. Give with thine own hands,’”’ &c. This is the kind of caution which would be given at a time when alms were systematically distributed Che Offertorp. than has been allowed on the opposite side. has been said upon this passage, 287 For it ‘“‘It is believed that the Corinthians, having heard of their brethren’s wants at Jerusalem, had written voluntarily® to the Apostle, to declare their willingness to contribute to their neces- sities, and to ask at the same time his advice as to the method of collecting the alms and applying them. His answer is, ‘ Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store ’ (rap’ éaur@ riBérw Onoavpilwy, treasuring up at his own home?), ‘as God hath prospered him%.’.. . “The text in question then contains no precept for general use. It supplies no rule obligatory upon Christians at all times. It refers simply to that one event, of which St. Paul afterwards, writing to the Romans, says—‘ Now I go to Jerusalem, to minister unto the saints : for Macedonia and Achaia have been well pleased to make a certain distribution to the poor saints’.’ It recom- mends a course under extraordinary circumstances, which may be well adapted for like purposes; and indeed it suggests to every Christian the propriety of establishing for himself a rule of almsgiving, but this is all. And if it were forced beyond this, the rule which it would authorize would be something like the following :—‘ Choose for yourselves your own objects of charity : be your own treasurers for the amount of your own savings in this behalf, and in the distribution of it commit it to whatever $299 hands you please *. But St. Chrysostom himself gives a very different impression of the force of the Apostle’s direction. “He saith, ‘As I have given order unto the churches of Galatia, so also do ye.’... And he saith not, ‘I have advised,’ and ‘I have counselled ;’ but ‘I have given order,’ which is more through public channels; it is what, in fact, might be said now when relief is administered through charitable _ societies, and so there might be enter- tained the fear of individual feel- ings of benevolence being im- paired. ° “Compare 2 Cor. vill. 4 =—10, Acts xx: 3: xxive LA Rom. xv. 26. See Burton on 1, Cor, ,xvi« 1, and, on, 2. Cor; vil. 10.” P “See Bloomfield on this passage.” 1 Here follows the passage above quoted from St. Chry- sostom. F Ronmirxv- 25. * “Ts the Offertory without Communion required by the Church?” pp. 8, 9. 288 Che Offertoryp. authoritative. And he doth not bring forward a single city, or two, or three, but an entire nation: which also he doth in his — doctrinal instructions, saying, ‘even as also in all the churches of the Saints.’ For if this be potent for conviction of doctrines, much more for imitation of actions ¢.” It is evident, indeed, that the holy Apostle was exceedingly solicitous respecting this collection for the poor Saints at Jerusalem; and the object of these directions was in order that by this plan of systematic charity, every one weekly laying by him, there might be no difficulty or pressure when the Apostle came. And his request that they would approve by their letters certain persons whom there- upon he would send to bring their liberality to Jeru- salem, and who should go in his company only if it seemed fit to them that he should be the bearer of these alms, was dictated by the wish to avoid all appearance of personal interest or the possibility of suspicion in the matter". The earnestness, mean- while, which the Apostle felt on the subject, appears plainly from what he says in regard to it in his second Epistle; and the importance which he attached to this collection, as uniting the Christian body toge- ther by the sense of mutual benefits conferred and received, appears further from the Epistle to the Romans where he speaks of this journey; and finally, and not least, from the prayers in which he calls upon his brethren at Rome to join with him, that his service which he had for Jerusalem might be ac- cepted of the Saints“. And it was, in fact, as must be recollected, the fulfilment of the condition on which the three Apostles of the circumcision had t St. Chrysostom, zn loc. He " Comp. 2 Cor. viii. 19— clearly regards it asa general 21. ordinance of St. Paul. Vv Rom. xv. 25—381. Che @Offertorp. 289 given to him and to Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that they should go unto the Gentiles, and themselves to the circumcision, “only they would,” says the Apostle, “that we should remember the poor, the same which I also was forward to do.” And hence the order to “ the Churches of Galatia,” to which, by one of the many “ undesigned coin- cidences” in the Apostle’s writings, we seem to have an allusion here. It seemed well thus fully to consider this pas- sage because of the important place which it occupies in reference to the question respecting Apostolic practice in this matter, and also because the princi- ples by which the Apostle was governed may be found reflected not obscurely in the ordinances of our own Church at the era of the Reformation, when she was endeavouring to restore the Church’s trea- sury, and revive the exercise of Christian liberality after the pattern of the first ages. We will now return to examine more minutely the proceedings of that period. 7 Mention has been made already of an Act passed in the first year of Edward VI. (1547), which, ex- tending the provisions of a former Act of the 27th of Henry VIII. (1535), required that the minister after the Gospel every Sunday should exhort the parishioners to a liberal contribution for the poor. The Act referred to (1 Edw. VI. c. 3), is entitled «An Acte for the punishment of Vagabondes, and for the relief of the poor and impotent persons ;” and the twelfth clause is as follows :— W Gal. ii. 9,10. Or, as it been anxious to do this very has been rendered, “on which thing.” (6 cai éorovdaca avo account also it is that I have rovro rorjoa.) Burton. U 290 Che Pffertorp. ‘‘ And for the more furtherance of the relief of such which are in unfeigned misery and to whom charity ought to be extended, Be it enacted, &c. ... that every Sunday and holyday after the reading of the Gospel of the day, the Curate of every parish do make, according to such talent as God hath given him, a godly and brief exhortation to his parishioners, moving and exciting them to remember the poor people, and the duty of Christian charity in relieving of them which be their brethren in Christ, born in the same parish, and needing their helps.” Prior, however, to the passing of this Act, had been issued King Edward’s Injunctions of the same year, the first of his reign; amongst which is the following :— ‘* Also, They [the churchwardens | shall provide and have within three months after this visitation, a strong chest with a hole in the upper part thereof, to be provided at the cost and charge of the parish, having three keys, whereof one shall remain in the custody of the parson, vicar, or curate, and the other two in the custody of the churchwardens, or any other two honest men, to be appointed by the parish from year to year: which chest you shall set and fasten near unto the high altar, to the intent the parishioners should put into it their oblation and alms for their poor neighbours. And the parson, vicar, or curate, shall diligently from time to time, and specially when men make their testaments, call upon, exhort, and move their neighbours to confer and give, as they may well spare, to the said chest; de- claring unto them, whereas heretofore they have been diligent to bestow much substance otherwise than God commanded, upon pardons, pilgrimages, trentalles, decking of images, offering of candles, giving to friars, and upon other like blind devotions, they ought at this time to be much more ready to help the poor and needy, knowing that to relieve the poor is a true worshipping of God, required earnestly upon pain of everlasting damnation : and that also whatsoever is given for their comfort, is given to Christ himself, and so is accepted of him, that he will mercifully reward the same with everlasting life: the which alms and devo- tion of the people the keepers of the keys shall at times conve- nient take out of the chest, and distribute the same in the presence of their whole parish, or six of them, to be truly and faithfully delivered to their most needy neighbours : and if they be provided Che .Offertorp, 291: for, then to the reparation of highways next adjoining. And also the money which riseth of fraternities, guilds, and other stocks of the church (except by the king’s majesty’s authority it be otherwise appointed), shall be put into the said chest, and con- verted to the said use, and also the rents and lands, the profit of cattle, and money given or bequeathed to the finding of torches, lights, tapers, and lamps, shall be converted to the said use, saving that it shall be lawful for them to bestow part of the said profits upon the reparation of the said church, if great need require, and whereas the parish is very poor, and not able otherwise to repair the same *.”’ . ft was obviously the design of the measures which were taken at this time, to revive, if possible, some- thing like the ancient spirit of charity, and, while a church treasury was formed, and a more excellent way pointed out than had of late years been fol- lowed in regard to the “ devotion” of the people, to secure the clergy at the same time from the appear- ance of self-interest, “providing for things honest” by uniting with them, as joint keepers of the church’s public chest, the churchwardens, or two other per- sons to be appointed by the parish as representatives of the laity. It would seem to have been with a view rather to the cultivation of Christian charity as a principle, than to the mere relief of actual and pressing want that could not otherwise be provided for, that this system was established: and in the place of any strict limitation to the poor of the parish which might have been looked for, the money was to be applied, if they were sufficiently provided for, to “the reparation of the highways nearest ad- joining.” This, then, was “ the poor men’s box,” to which, according to the Rubric of Edward’s First Book, the whole congregation were to be invited to offer, not only on all Sundays and Holy-days, but x Doc. Ann. i. 17—19. 0.2 292 Che Offertorp. also on Wednesdays and Fridays, when the service was to be performed as has been already explained. If any doubt, however, remained as to the views of our Reformers in the order made in the Rubric under our consideration, it must be removed, I think, by a reference to the “ Consultation,” &c. of Herman, Abp. of Cologne, of which an English trans- lation was printed in London in 1547, at the pre- cise time when the Injunctions were issued, and two years only before the First Book of Common Prayer was put forth. Of the publication of this book in England, Strype gives the following account : ‘“‘ Octob. 30 [1547] came forth, translated into English, the book of the Reformation of the church of Colen; whereof Her- man, the good Archbishop and Elector, was the great instrument. This book shewed itself in this kingdom at this juncture, un- doubtedly, by the means of Archbishop Cranmer, and probably of the Protector, as a silent invitation to the people of the land to a reformation, and as a motive to incline them to be willing to forsake the old superstition, when they should see the beauty of a reformed church so lively laid before them in this book. And perhaps it was intended to serve as some pattern to the heads and governors of this church, whereby to direct their pains they were now ere long to take about the emendation of religious worship. This book took so well, that it was printed again the next year, together with the mention of the place where it was printed, namely, London, and the persons who printed it, namely, John Day and Wm..Seres .... both which were omitted in the first edition. The book was thus entitled, ‘A simple and reli- gious Consultation of us Herman, by the grace of God Archbishop of Colone, and prince Electoure, &c., by what means a Christian reformation, and founded in God’s worde, of doctrine, &c. .. . may be begon among men committed to our pastorall charge,’ &c. It is an excellent book, and was compiled, if I mistake not, by the pains and learning of Melanchthon and Bucer, and reviewed, examined, and allowed by the Elector himself ¥.” In this book, in the chapter “On the Lord’s ’ Strype’s Eccles. Mem. vol. ii. p. 26. (II. i. 41, 42.) Che Offertory, 293 Supper” will be found an Order of Service with which that in the First Book of Edward corresponds very closely, and which furnishes, in fact, a sort of running commentary upon it. We have traced al- ready what was the order in the First Book of Edward. Let us compare with it that of the “Con- sultation.” . ‘After the collectes there shall followe accordynge to the custume, a lesson of an epistle*, whyche shall be red in such a place (the reader turnynge hys face to the people) that it maye be hearde and understaded of the whole cogregatio. | Wherfore it shall be also read in douche, [7. e. German] bycause that lesson pertayneth to the instruction and admonition of the people. ‘* After the epistle, where clarckes be, lette alleluia be song in Jaten, or a graile, or some sequence, if they have anie pure, and Then let the Gospell* be red in duch to the people, whyche readynge, an interpretation, and ordinarie ser- some douch songe. mon”, shall folowe forth wyth, and after the sermon, a prayer for all states of men, and necessities of the congregation after this ? .... After thys solemne prayer lette the whole congregation synge the Crede. For thys confession of our fayeth, when the Gospel is heard and declared, oughte to be done of ryghte by all men communely, as all equallye hearde the Gospel, and the de- claratio thereof. ** And bicause no manne can heare the Gospel with fayethe, and knowe, and considre out of the same, howe greate love and gentilnes God hath shewed toward us in that, that he gave us his Son, and all things with him, which shall not out of this faith wholly give over, and bind himself to our Lord Jesus Christ, thys thing followeth also out of the nature of true faith, that the faith- ful study to declare this binding of themselves to the obedience z * The Collects ended, the Priest, or he that is appointed, shall read the Epistle in a place assigned.” a “Tmmediately after the Epistle ended, the Priest, or one appointed to read the Gos- pel, shall say,” &c. > In the Common Prayer, 1549, the Sermon or Homily followed immediately on the Creed, and the Prayer for all states of men later in the ser- vice, before the prayer of Con- secration. 294 Che Offertorp. of Christ, and thankfulness of their minds for so great goodness of God towards themselves, which at that time they more earnestly remember, with holy oblations for Christ being needy in his little ones. Therefore while the Creed is in singing, let the faithful offer their free oblations, every man according to the blessing which he hath received of the liberal and bounteous hand of God. To which office of faith and godliness, the pastors and teachers shall diligently exhort the people, teaching them that these oblations ought to follow the confession of faith and prayer, even by the very nature of true religion, neither can be absent from the same when we want not wherewith to declare this liberality. And that this work of religion may be conve- niently done, and rightly commended to the faithful, we wyl that there be some notable place appointed in every temple, not far from the altar, which every man may comely go to, and where the faithful may offer their oblations openly before the whole congregation. Which, after that the Sacrament is ended °, the officers of the holy treasure shall gather together, and shall lay the sum up in the treasury, the congregation looking upon them *.” It will be observed how very closely the order of service of the Prayer Book of 1549 followed that of Archbishop Herman’s Consultation, except only in the relative position of the Creed and the Sermon, and the place of the Prayer for the Church Militant. In this latter point the Second Book, of 1552, adopted the order of the Consultation. It will be seen, too, how essential and prominent a place the Offertory occupied in the view of the compilers of the Consultation; and also, as it would appear, that the offerings were to be made by the whole congregation. This seems evident from what follows, compared with the Rubric and service of 1549. ‘It was the manner of the old Church, and that taken out of God’s word, that after the preaching of the Gospel, before the * Comp. Injunctions, where 4 Consultation, Fol. 202, it is ordered that this be done 203. 207, 208. quarterly. Che Offertorp. 295 ministration of the Sacrament should begin, not only those should be commanded to go out of the temple which were not admitted into the congregation, nor pertained thereunto, but they also which were yet repentant, and not reconciled to the congrega- tion, with open absolution of sins... . ... “ But howsoever the rest be handled in the congrega- tion at this time, they nevertheless that shall be admitted to the Communion, as soon as they have made their oblation, must go together to that place that shall be appointed unto them, nigh to the altar. For in every temple there must some place be appointed nigh the altar for them which shall communicate, according to the opportunity and fitness of every temple. They then which shall be admitted to the Communion of the Lord’s Board, shall stand in that place, the men in their proper place, and the women in their place °, and there they shall give thanks, and pray religiously with the pastor. The giving of thanks shall be handled after the accustomed manner, but in douche, that the people universally may give thanks, as both the example and the commandment of the Lord requireth, and also the old Church observed ¢.” It is not, however, only in appointing the order of the Communion Service that the subject of offer- ings is treated of in the “Consultation:” there is an earlier and distinct portion of the work devoted to the topic “Of holy oblations.” After laying down the doctrine of Christ’s one “only acceptable and propitiatory sacrifice,” and how “moreover through Christ we offer to God the Father both our bodies and our souls, an acceptable sacrifice through faith, unto the praise and glory of his name,” the book goes on to show, how to the “sacrifices of praying, magnifying God, and giving of thanks, the sacrifice and the women on the other side. All other (that mind not © Compare Rubric of 1549. ‘Then [7. e. after the offering | so many as shall be partakers of the holy Communion shall tarry still in the quire, or in some convenient place nigh the quire, the men on the one side, to receive the said holy Com. munion) shall depart out of the quire, except the Ministers and Clerks.” ' Fol. 208, 209. 296 Che Offertorp. of liberality towards our neighbour, chiefly the needy, is joined.” It speaks of the three yearly feasts among the Jews, and the offerings then made, at which it was commanded “ that every man should offer according to his ability, of that blessing that every one had received of the Lord.” ‘‘ Which oblations he would have to be given forth to sus- tain the Levites, widows, orphans, strangers, and other poor people. And therefore the old Church retained that custom, that when they come together to hear the word, and to receive the sacrament, the faithful should offer their oblations to the Lord,.and consecrate them to him for the use of the poor.” It proceeds to limit the use of oblations to these objects, viz., “ that the religion of Christ may be fur- thered, that the holy ministry may be ordained and maintained, that the necessity of the poor may be provided for. Finally, that there may be ministered to every body as is needful to live godly.” ... And the preachers must teach and exhort the people diligently that they bring all their gifts and oblations into a com- mon treasury of the church, and that liberally. And they shall declare moreover that this is the duty not only of the rich but also of all men, after the measure of the goods which the Lord hath granted to every one of them... . ‘‘ Wherefore the preachers shall diligently exhort the people, that they offer their oblations to the Lord liberally as often as they come together to hear the Lord’s word, to the holy baptism, to the receiving of the Communion of the Supper of the Lord, to the common prayers 8, or on the Sundays, and other accus- tomed feasts, when marriages are blessed, when thanks are given to the Lord for them that have recovered themselves from sick- ness, when women lately delivered go to church, and whensoever God hath given peculiar gifts to men, which thing he doth even daily. For we daily enjoy the most ample benefits of God, where- fore we must daily declare our thankfulness with godly oblations, that the ministry of the church may be ever repaired and sus- ® |i. e. litanies. | Che @Offertorp, 297 tained, and that all men’s necessities may be bounteously suc- coured},” ... There is yet another chapter, towards the close of the Book, entitled “ Of comune almes,” which begins thus: “Tt is the proper and necessary office of every congregation rightly ordered and instituted, to provide that none among them want necessary things to live well and godly, . . . and moreover that they procure that no man live idly, and be burthenous to other, to which ministrie the primitive church appointed Stephen with his companions. Wherefore we will also procure that in every congregation some men of notable godliness, wisdom, and faithfulness, bemg approved by the testimonies of every congregation, shall be appointed by the visitors, as many as shall seem to suffice for that purpose in every place. These men shall note the names of all needy folk, and shall diligently ob- serve in what need every man is, and how he liveth, and they shall also exhort every. man to work according to his strength, and shall withdraw alms from them that can work and will not, according to the saying of Paul, ‘he that worketh not, let him not eat.’ It shall pertain to these provosts of the holy alms, to lay up in the ecclesiastical treasure all manner alms and oblations, that godly men shall offer to the Lord in the congrega- tion, or give privately, and thereout they shall distribute to poor folk according to every man’s necessity, and shall give an account of all that they receive, and lay forth to them whom we will appoint thereunto. ‘And that men may offer their gifts to the Lord more liberally, we will that there be a peculiar place and chest ordained in every temple for this purpose, not far from the altar, that it may be in the sight of all the people. And the preachers shall diligently exhort the people, that they appear not empty before the Lord, chiefly upon Sundays, and as oft as great company is gathered together, when Baptism is ministered, the Lord’s Supper, Con- firmation, the blessing of Marriage, and when men resort together to a Burial. Item, as often as men privately desire the help of God in some great necessity, or give thanks to God for singular benefits. ... ‘Furthermore we will that the four offering days in a year be h Fol. 134—139. 298 Che Offertorp; kept, that they which communicate at the Lord’s Table may offer some gift four times in the year, which thing they ought to do now the more gladly for that, that they know that they truly offer to Christ himself in his members, according to his word. . . . We will also provide, by the help of God, that no part of these oblations of the faithful be given to any body but such as need indeed, and chiefly to citizens, and inhabitants of every place, and among those, to them principally that be in greatest need, as to widows, orphans, sick folke, and such as be otherwise oppressed with need and miserie. Finally as much as may be spared shall also be given to strangers‘, “‘ And forasmuch as this manner of gathering and distributing the offerings and alms of the faithful was taught of God himself, both in the New Testament and in the Old, the faithful will gladly apply themselves thereunto, and will much rather confer these their alms into the common treasury of the congregation, than dis- tribute the same to poor folk after their own minds. For when most approved men shall be made overseers of this matter by the whole congregations after the institution of the Holy Ghost, what man is there that will stand so much in his own conceit, that he will not believe that such men shall both see better than he him- self can, in whom Christ the Lord is to be cherished, and with a more sincere judgment distribute to the members of Christ. For God is not absent with his blessings from his own institutions. ‘* As for common alms remaining, and other revenues given to the Lord for the use of the poor, Item, the goods that fraternities have for the same liberality, we will procure that they shall be brought together by the visitors into the common treasury of every congregation, that all poor folk may be more liberally suc- coured. It is a very hard thing, and full of business, to minister things necessary for life to all persons that need; nevertheless, by the help of Christ the Lord, we will so order this provision for the poor, and cause it so to be administered, that we doubt not it shall shortly come to pass, that all manner of necessary things shall be liberally ministered to all such as need unfeignedly, and that wilful beggary shall be taken away, and every man put to such labor as shall be profitable, and commodious for him, so that he shall burden no man without cause *.” 1 {It will be observed how by Justin Martyr. | perfectly the proposed applica- K Fol. 257—259. . tion agrees with that described Che Offertorp. 299 These chapters of Archbishop Herman’s “ Consulta- tion,” supply as full and perfect a commentary as we could desire upon the Injunctions of 1547! and the Rubric of 1549; or rather we may say they are manifestly the very source from which those orders were taken. It is unnecessary to point out how precisely the two agree, not only in regard to the general view taken of almsgiving, and the motives to Christian liberality, and the special objects on which it was, at that time, to be bestowed, but more particularly in regard to the placing of the box or chest near the altar, the arrangements for the dis- posal of the money deposited in it, and the recogni- tion and continuance of “the four offering days.” Of Cranmer’s esteem for Archbishop Herman, and frequent communication ‘with him, Strype gives this account in another place. Under the head of “ His kindness for Germany,” Strype tells us :— . . He held at least a monthly correspondence to and from learned Germans. . . **'To this country he had a particular kindness . Among the rest of his correspondents in Germany, Herman, the memorable and ever famous Archbishop and elector of Colen, was one; who, by the counsel and direction of Bucer and Melanch- 1 The Injunctions were ac- companied with a Book of Articles, printed at the same time, called ‘‘ Articles to be enquired of in the King’s Ma- jesty’s Visitation.” Amongst the “‘ Articles for the lay peo- ple,” is one which indicates the objects now mainly regarded of a charitable kind. ‘ Whether you know any that have taken upon them the execution of any man’s testament, or be admitted to the administration of the goods of the dead, which do not duly distribute them, ac- cording to the trust committed unto them ; and especially such goods as were given, and be- queathed, and appointed to be distributed among the poor peo- ple, repairing of highways, find- ing of poor scholars, or mar- riage of poor maids. To what uses and intents all such gifts and bequests of cattle, money, or other things, as in time past were made, for the finding of tapers, candles, or lamps, be now employed. And whether to be embecilled and withholden. And by whom.” Strype’s Eccl. Mem. vol. 11. p. 52. (II. i. 82.) 300 Che Cffertorp. thon, did vigorously labor a reformation of corrupt religion within his province and territories. But finding the opposition against him so great, and lying under the excommunication of the Pope for what he had done; and being deprived thereupon by the Emperor of his lands and function, he resigned his ecclesiastical honour, and betook himself to a retired life: which was done about the year 1547. But no question, in this private capacity, he was not idle in doing what service he could for the good of that cause which he had so generously and publicly espoused, and for which he had suffered so much... . . ‘* And if one may judge of men’s commencing friendship and love according to the suitableness of their tempers and disposi- tions, our Archbishop of Canterbury, and the ie of Colen, must have been very intimate friends. . . ‘“¢ And lastly, as our Archbishop devoted himself wholly to the reforming of his church ; so admirable was the diligence, pains, and study this Archbishop took in contriving the reformation of his. He procured a book to be writ concerning it, called ‘Instau- ratio Ecclesiarum,’ which contained the form and way to be used for the redressing the errors and corruptions of his church. It was composed by those great German divines, Bucer and Me- lanchthon; which book was put into English, and published here, as a good pattern, in the year 1547. ‘This book he in- tended to issue forth through his jurisdiction by his authority to be observed. But first he thought fit well and seriously to examine it, and spent five hours in the morning for five days, to deliberate and consult thereupon; calling to him, to advise withal in this great affair, his coadjutor Count Stolberg, Husman, Jenep, Bucer, and Melanchthon. He caused the whole work to be read before him; and as many places occurred wherein he seemed less satis- fied, he caused the matter to be disputed and argued, and then spake his own mind accurately. He would patiently hear the opinions of others for the information of his own judgment; and so ordered things to be either changed or illustrated. And so dexterously would he decide many controversies arising, that Melanchthon thought that those great points of religion had been long weighed and considered by him, and that he rightly under- stood the whole doctrine of the church ... insomuch that the said Melanchthon could not but admire and talk of his learning, prudence, piety, and dexterity, to such as he conversed with, and particularly to John Cresar, to whom in a letter he gave a parti- cular account of this affair... . And this I add that it might be Che Offertorp. 301 observed how Archbishop Cranmer went by the same measures in the reformation of the Church of England. . . . Such a corres- pondence there was between our Archbishop, and the wisest, moderatest, and most learned divines of Germany ™.” We have now full evidence before us as to the real source and origin of the provisions in the Injunc- tions of the first year of Edward, and the First Book of Common Prayer which was compiled soon after. And it will appear, I think, that we must receive with some modification the statement, that “it was in compliance with” the provision made in the Act for the relief of the poor (1 Edw. VI. c. 3), “that the Rubric of 1549 was framed;” and also, that in that Rubric “ the first compilers of the Liturgy” were but “seconding the desire of the legislature to provide for the support of the indigent ".” It was evidently from the Church that the movement proceeded; the spiritual heads of the Church, in their zeal for her reformation, looking back to the practice of primitive and apostolic times, and desiring to revive again the abundant bountifulness which distinguished the early Christians, were intent upon again making her the source of blessing to the needy, the almoner to her poorer members, and the witness thereby to the pre- sence of the Spirit of Christ within her; and the legis- lature was accordingly moved to lend its helping hand by civil enactment. The King’s Injunctions, enforcing the mode of charitable collection in the Churches, were embodied and followed up in the Act referred to, in the way already mentioned. In the 9th clause it was enacted, that, ‘‘ Forasmuch as there is many maimed and otherwise lamed, sore, aged, and impotent persons which resorteth to the city of m Strype’s Cranmer, pp. " Wickham, pp. 16, 19. 285—288. (I. 410—413.) 302 Che Offertorp. London and to other cities, towns, and villages on begging, whose coming together and making a number doth fill the streets or highways of divers cities, towns, markets, and fairs, who, if they were separated, might easily be nourished in the towns and places wherein they were born, or where they were or hath been most con- versant, and abiding by the space of three years, . . . all and singular mayors, sheriffs, bailiffs, constables, or other head officers of any city, town, or hundred to which such resort is or shall be, shall . . ey see all such idle, impotent, maimed, and aged persons... . bestowed and provided for of the tenauntries, cottages, or other convenient houses to be lodged in, at the costs and charges of the said cities, towns, boroughs, and villages, there to be relieved and cured by the devotion of the good people of the said city, borough, town, or village.”’ In the 12th clause followed the provision, already quoted, for an exhortation to charity from the Curate of every parish, on every Sunday and Holy-day, after the reading of the Gospel of the day. It will be well, however, to ascertain further how far the statement is well grounded, that when, in 1549, “something very unlike,” as we are told, “ what is now pleaded for,” (viz. the weekly collection at the offertory,) “was introduced,” it was “ to meet the pressure of pauperism,” which is commonly repre- sented as having been caused at that particular time by the recent suppression of the monasteries. For it has been observed, on the other hand, that ‘¢ On looking into the statutes, we find that the legislature had felt itself compelled to direct its attention to the subject while the monasteries were yet in existence. ‘Thus, in 1494, it is enacted, (11 Henry VII. c. 2) that ‘every beggar not able to work, shall resort to the hundred where he last dwelled, is best known, or was born, and there remain.’ Again, in 1508, there is an Act (19 Henry VII. c. 12) ‘ to provide for beggars not able to work.’ In 1530 it is ordered, that ‘the justices of peace in every county, dividing themselves into several limits, shall give license under their seals to such poor, aged, and impotent persons to beg within a certain precinct, as they shall think to have most need. (22 Hen. VIII. c. 12.) Che @Offertorp, 303 In 1535 (still before the suppression of monasteries) there was an act which differed from those of earlier date, inasmuch as it appoints that the local authorities in all towns, parishes, &c. shall take care for the maintenance of the poor ‘by way of voluntary and charitable alms’ (27 Hen. VIII. c. 25); and other acts of a like kind followed in the same reigns, in that of Edward, under Mary (2 and 3 Phil. and Mary, ec. 5), and in almost every parliament of Elizabeth.” It is added, at the same time, that “‘ These statutes, although they all differed more or less from the act of 43 Elizabeth, although the contribution was until 1572 (14 Eliz. c. 5) not compulsory but voluntary, all appointed means other than the offertory for raising the requisite funds °.” This last statement, however, will require more particular examination, as regards the Act of Henry VIII, of which, as it appears, that of Hdward VI. was an extension. By two writers, as we have seen, differing from each other in their view of the general question, the former Act of 1535 is referred to, as ordering the collection of “voluntary alms,” and, as one of them informs us distinctly, “on Sundays and other days ;” which collection, however, both of them seem to distinguish from the offertory, the one telling us that “ other means were appointed than the offertory for raising the necessary funds,” the other, that the collection was first “introduced” in 1549. But, on looking to the Act itself of 1555, its pro- visions seem very precise, appointing the collection to be made in the Church, although other ways are also included. ° Robertson, pp. 192, 193. beth, therefore, cannot have Mr. Robertson, it must be ob- served, is contending ‘that the offertory was never supposed to answer the purpose of a suf- ficient provision for the poor ; and that the act of 43 Eliza- been intended to supersede it, because the offices of the two were from the first recognized as different.” I agree very much in the conclusion, though not in the premises. 304 Che Offertorp. By clause 4 it is enacted, ‘“‘ That all and every the mayors, &c. ... of every city, borough, and town corporate, and the churchwardens, or two officers of every parish of this realm, shall, in good and charitable wise, take such discreet and convenient order, by gathering and procuring of such charitable and voluntary alms of the good Christian people within the same, with boxes, every Sunday, holyday, and other festival day, or otherwise among themselves, in such good and discreet wise as the poor, impotent, lame, feeble, sick, and diseased people, being not able to work, may be provided, holpen, and relieved, so that in no wise they nor none of them be suffered to go openly in begging... .” ‘Item, itis enacted (clause 9), ... that every preacher, parson, vicar, curate of this realm, as well in all and every their ser- mons, collations, biddings of the beads, as in time of all confes- sions, or at the making of the wills and testaments of all persons, at all times of the year, shall exhort, move, stir, and provoke people to be liberal, and bountifully to extend their good and charit- able alms and contributions, from time to time, for and toward the comfort and relief of the said poor, impotent, decrepit, indigent, and needy people... .” ‘* And for the avoiding of all such inconveniences and infec- tions as oftentime have and daily do chance amongst the people by common and open doles, and that most commonly unto such doles many persons do resort which have no need of the same, It is therefore enacted, &c.... that no manner of person or persons shall make, or cause to be made, any such common or open dole, or shall give any ready money in alms, otherwise than to the common boxes and common gatherings in every city, town, hundred, parish, and hamlet, to and for putting in plain and due execution of all and every the good and virtuous intents and purposes contained in this present Act; upon pain to lose and forfeit ten times the value of all such ready money as shall be given in alms contrary to the tenor and purport of the same; and that every person and persons of this realm, bodies politic, cor- porate, and others, that be bound or charged yearly, monthly, or weekly, to give or to distribute any ready money, bread, victual, or other sustentation to poor people in any place within this realm, shall, from the feast of Michaelmas next coming, give and distribute the same money, or the value of all such bread, victual, or sustentation, unto such common boxes, to the intent Che Gffertorp, 305 the same may be employed towards the relieving of the said poor, needy, sick, sore, and indigent persons, and also toward the set- ting in work of the said sturdy and idle vagabonds and valiant 9 . beggars. . . It is enacted further, that ‘‘ The money of all and every the foresaid free and charitable collections shall be kept in the common coffer or box standing in the Church of every parish, or else it shall be committed unto the hands and safe custody of any other such good and substantial trusty man as they can agree upon... . ** Ttem, it is ordered, &c..... that the inhabitants of every parish within this realm shall begin to make the foresaid free, charitable, and godly collections and gatherings in every Sunday and holy day next after the day of St. John Baptist next coming, and so shall continue yearly unto the last day of the next Parlia- ahente It is further provided, that the surplus of rich and wealthy parishes be applied in aid of other poor parishes, near and within any of the same cities, boroughs, towns, hundred, &c., by the discretion of the authorities; the alms to be voluntary, “ne any of them to be constrained to any such certain contri- bution but as their free wills and charities shall extend.” There is a special proviso for noblemen, &c., “to give in alms the fragments or broken meat” of their houses; also in behalf of servants discharged, during one month following; also for friars mendi- eants; and lastly—which is observable—for alms from monasteries, &c., as follows: “ Provided also that this Act ne anything therein mentioned be hurtful or prejudicial to any Abbots, Priors, or other person or persons of the Clergy, or other that by any means be bound to give yearly, weekly, or daily alms, in money, victual, lodging, clothing, or other thing, in any monasteries, almshouses, hospitals, and other foundations or brotherhoods, by any good authority or ancient custom, or of daily charity, by keeping of poor men established for that purpose,” &c. m4 306 Che Offertorp. This last proviso is important, and worthy of remark, as proving that the necessity of making provision for the poor had not that connexion which is commonly supposed with the dissolution of the Monasteries, but existed previously. “ Many of them, moreover,” as has been well observed, “ were themselves supported by mendicity’, and others, by indiscriminate alms-giving and hospitality, encouraged a class of vagrants which the law found it difficult to controul ” And it is worthy of remark, that Archbishop Herman’s Consultation, which proposed so systematic a plan of relief for the poor by the agency of the Church, contemplated at the same time the preservation of the monasteries, reformed and purified from corruptions’. And in regard to England, the year 1535, in which the Act in question was passed, was the year in which the visitation of the Monasteries took place, none of them being as yet touched. Such was the legislative enactment of 1535. It established the Church treasury as the channel for the receiving and distributing of charitable alms, and, with certain exemptions, inhibited and made penal other modes of giving relief to the poor and mendi- cants. The subsequent Act of 1 Edward VI. fol- lowed in its wake, enacting, by the clause already quoted, that every Sunday and holy-day, after the reading of the Gospel, the curate of every parish P [ As, indeed, the proviso in favour of friars, in the Act be- fore us, bears witness. | 9 Haweis’ Sketches of the Reformation, p. 269. At the same time, the writer adds, “they did enough to be re- gretted when they were no more.” ‘* Before the dissolu- tion of the monasteries, how- ever, pauperism, which had long solicited aid from the piety of the country as a humble suppliant, began to demand it from her fears as a strong man armed.”’ Ibid. pp. 269, 270. " Comp. Strype’s. Cranmer, l. c. sup. Che @Offertorp., 307 should make “a godly and brief exhortation to his parishioners, moving and. exciting them to remem- ber the poor,” &c. This, as has been already ob- served, was an advance upon the Act of 1535. In the next Session of 1548, was passed the Act of Uniformity, establishing the First Book of Common Prayer, this being the first Act of the Session. In the following Session, of 1549-50, was passed “an Act touching the punishment of vagabonds and other idle persons,” repealing the Act of 1 Edward VI., and re- viving that of 22 Henry VIII. As far, however, as regards the relief of the poor by charitable alms, it embodies verbatim the provisions of the Act 1 Ed- ward VI.; as to the sick and aged poor being “be- stowed and provided for of the tenantries, cottages, &c. ... there to be relieved and cured by the devo- tion of the good people of the said city, borough,” &e. In 1549 there were issued certain “Articles to be followed and observed according to the King’s Majesty's Injunctions and proceedings.” In these Articles, already quoted, the Minister was directed “after the homily, every Sunday,” to “exhort the people, especially the communicants, to remember the poor men’s box with their charity ;” and in the next year (1550) Bishop Ridley’s Injunction was, as we have also seen, ‘‘ That the Minister in the time of the Communion, immedi- ately after the Offertory, shall monish the communicants, saying these words or such like, ‘ Now is the time, if it please you, to remember the poor men’s chest with your charitable alms‘*.’” We might not unnaturally anticipate, that the same disappointment which, as we have seen, the Church was doomed to experience in the great body * Sup. cit. p. 280. Doc. Ann. i. 83. py 308 Che Offertorp, of her people, in regard to constant Communion, would also be found in respect to their offerings; and those who turned their back upon the altar would be apt to neglect “the poor men’s box” which stood near it. And, therefore, it would appear, it was thought not sufficient that the Offer- tory sentences should be sung or said, according to the Rubrical direction, but also immediately after the homily the Minister was to “exhort the people, especially the communicants, to remember the poor men’s box with their charity;” but probably few, even thus, being found to come up to the altar with their offering, except those who intended to com- municate, the Minister might perhaps, in conformity with Bishop Ridley’s Injunction, then, when they came into the quire, address them specially, as di- rected. And thus we might easily reconcile the two, apparently conflicting, directions. And _ this would be the more easily done, inasmuch as the Rubric had provided, that one or more of the sen- tences should be sung whilst the people offered, “or else, one of them to be said by the Minister, immediately afore the offering.” This last order would seem to have been intended to meet the case of parish churches where there were not clerks to sing the sentences; there it would be less conve- nient for the Minister to be reading, while the people were going up to offer, and accordingly he was to read one sentence first. And thus, with regard to the order under the first Book of Edward, we may say, that the whole congregation were invited to offer, while, in practice, probably the offerings were virtually those of the communicants. “ But,” it would appear, “the evils of pauperism Che POffertory, 309 evidently grew; and in 1552 a new Act was passed, requiring collectors to take down the names of persons willing to contribute weekly : and Ministers were ordered to exhort the unwilling, and to certify to the Bishop the refusal of those who continued obstinate.” And “at the same time,” as has been further ob- served, “a very remarkable alteration took place in the arrangement of the Communion Service, and. in the Rubrics relating to this part of it, which it is diffi- cult not to suppose has a connexion with the objects contemplated by the above-named Act. In the first place, the churchwardens are directed to ‘ gather the devotions of the people, and put the same into the poor men’s box.’ In the next place, the Prayer for the Church Militant is brought forward from immediately before the Prayer of Consecration to its present place, and the Exhortation (which origi- nally preceded the Offertory, and had always hitherto been addressed to the whole assembled congregation before the non-communicants withdrew,) is put after _ the Prayer for the Church Militant. The effect of this alteration was, to detain the whole congregation until after the Prayer for the Church Militant, into which prayer also are introduced the words which make the alms of the people an offering to God; ‘we humbly beseech thee most mercifully to accept our alms.’ So that besides the constraint applied by the personal address to each individual by the collector in the face of the congregation‘, there is a more direct appeal to their consciences in the name of God *.” t Compare the Injunctions — the revision of 1552. for the Deanery of Doncaster * Wickham, pp. 17, 18. (sup. cit.), which were prior to 310 Che Offertorp. It might still further have been observed, that the Rubric before the Offertory was now altered as follows. Instead of simply ordering that for the Offertory one or more sentences of holy Scripture should be sung or said‘, it directs that after the Sermon, Homily, or Exhortation, and the declaring to the people the holy-days or fasting days, the Curate shall “earnestly exhort them to remember the poor, saying one or more of these sentences following, as he thinketh most convenient by his discretion.” As the non-communicants were not now directed to leave the Church at this point in the service, the peculiar form which the Rubric had taken in the former Book was now changed; and the object aimed at in the verbal exhortation pre- scribed by the “Articles,” and by Bishop Ridley’s Injunctions, was now sought to be attained in ano- ther way. The Rubric after the Offertory sentences now stood thus, incorporating, unaltered, only so much of the former Rubric as related to the offering days appointed for the payment of ecclesiastical dues. ‘Then shall the Churchwardens, or some other by them ap- pointed, gather the devotion of the people, and put the same into the poor men’s box : and upon the offering days appointed, every man and woman shall pay to the Curate the due and accustomed offerings ; after which done, the Priest shall say, ‘ Let us pray for the whole estate of Christ’s Church,’ ” &c. With reference to the question whether the Church intended to receive the offerings of non- communicants or not, it may be observed that, whilst the Second Book bears witness to the difficulty which was experienced in realizing her desire to regard the whole of the congregation assembled on Y Vid. sup. p. 278. Che Offertorp. 311 the Sunday as composed of communicants, it bore witness also to her earnest solicitude to bring this about. It has been stated, as we have seen, that in the Second Book “the Exhortation, (which originally preceded the Offertory, and had always hitherto been addressed to the whole assembled congregation be- fore the non-communicants withdrew), is put after the Prayer for the Church Militant.” We must observe, however, that it was a new and a different Kixhortation which was thus introduced. In the former Book the Exhortation had been that which, | with very slight verbal alterations, now stands in our Communion Office after the Prayer for the Church Militant, and which is addressed exclusively to com-. municants, “ Dearly beloved in the Lord, ye that mind to come,” &c. Or “if upon the Sunday or holy-day the people” were “negligent to come to the Communion, then” was “the Priest earnestly” to “exhort his parishioners to dispose themselves to the receiving of the holy Communion, saying these or like words unto them, ‘Dear friends, and you especially upon whose souls I have care and charge, on —— next I do intend, by God’s grace, to offer to all such,” &¢.—the Exhortation which follows being substantially the same with that which is, in our present Prayer Book, appointed to be read “ when the Minister giveth warning for the celebration of the holy Communion.” But in King Edward’s Second Book, while the Exhortation “ Dearly be- loved in the Lord,” &c. was removed to its present place, the Exhortation now first introduced, to follow the Prayer for the Church Militant, is, for the most part, the same with that which in our present Prayer Book is ordered to be used, in giving warning for the celebration, where the Priest “shall see the 319 Che Gffertorp. people negligent to come to the holy Communion.” As originally introduced it began thus, with this Rubric prefixed, ‘* Then shall follow this Exhortation at certain times, when the Curate shall see the people negligent to come to the holy Com- munion. ‘‘We be come together at this time, dearly beloved brethren, to feed at the Lord’s Supper”; unto the which, in God’s behalf, I bid you all that be here present, and beseech you, &c. . . I, for my part, am here present*; and according unto mine office, I bid you in the Name of God, I call you in Christ’s behalf, I exhort you, as you love your own salvation, that ye will be partakers of this holy Communion. And as the Son of God did vouchsafe to yield up his soul by death upon the cross for your health, even so it is your duty to receive the Communion together Y in the re- membrance of his death, as he himself commanded. Now, if you will in nowise thus do, consider with yourselves how great injury ye do unto God, and how sore punishment hangeth over your heads for the same”; And whereas ye offend God so sore, in refusing this holy banquet, I admonish, exhort, and beseech you, that unto this unkindness ye will not add any more; which thing you shall do, if ye stand by as gazers and lookers on them that do communicate, and be no partakers of the same yourselves. For what thing can this be accounted else, than a further con- Truly it is a great unthank- fulness to say nay, when ye be called; but the fault is much tempt and unkindness unto God? greater when men stand by, and yet will neither eat nor drink this holy Communion with other. I pray you what can this be else, but even to have the mysteries of Christ even in derision ? * In our present Prayer Book (1662), “‘ Dearly beloved brethren, on I intend, by God’s grace, to celebrate the Lord’s Supper; unto which,” &e. * «J, for my part, shall be ready ;” (1662). Y The word ‘‘ together” is omitted in our present form. Its original insertion was sig- nificant, in its application to the congregation as at the time assembled together for the Com- munion. * “When ye wilfully ab- stain from the Lord’s Table, and separate yourselves from your brethren who come to feed on the banquet of that most heavenly food.” (1662.) All that follows is omitted in our present form, which ends with the last sentence, ‘‘ These things,” &c. Che @Offertorp. $18 It is said unto all, Take ye and eat, Take and drink ye all of this, Do this in remembrance of me. With what face then, or with what countenance shall ye hear these words? What will this be else, but a neglecting, a despising, and mocking of the Testament of Christ? wherefore rather than ye should do so, depart you hence, and give place to them that be godly disposed. But when you depart, I beseech you ponder with yourselves from whom ye depart ; Ye depart from the Lord’s Table: ye depart from your brethren, and from the banquet of most heavenly food. These things (if ye earnestly consider*), ye shall by God’s grace return to a better mind: for the obtaining whereof we shall make our humble petitions, while we shall receive the holy Communion °.” Here, then, it would appear, the non-communi- cants were to leave the Church, having been sup- posed to be present hitherto; and then the Priest was to say the Exhortation, “ Dearly beloved in the Lord; ye that mind to come,” &c. If, then, it be asked whether it was the intention of the Church, under the order of this Book, to receive alms from non-communicants, it would certainly appear that the collection was to be made from the whole con- gregation, and the alms to be offered in the Prayer for the Church Militant, before any departed; while yet at the same time the Church made her solemn protest against any of her members, who had come together to join in worship, and had thus far taken part in her sacred service, remaining to be specta- tors, as at the celebration of mass, but refusing to be a “These things if ye ear- nestly consider, ye will: by God’s grace return to a better mind; for the obtaining whereof we shall not cease to make our humble petitions unto Almighty God, our heavenly Father.” (1662.) > There followed another Ex- hortation which was ‘‘ some- time’’ to be ‘ said, also, at the Discretion of the Curate. * Dearly beloved, forasmuch as our duty is to render to Almighty God our heavenly Father most hearty thanks, for that he hath given his Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, not only to die for us, but also,” &c., nearly as in our present Ex- hortation when warning is Bes for the celebration. 314 Che Offertorp. actual partakers of the same holy feast with their brethren. It has been stated, indeed, that in this Second Book of Edward, “the whole of the Rubric providing for the regular administration of the Lord’s Supper every Sunday, as regards parish Churches, was withdrawn,” and that the new Rubric “ directed the omission of the Offertory when there is no Com- munion*.” But the statement does not appear to me to be correct. We have already seen that, in this Second Book, the case was provided for, of there being no Communion “upon the Holy-days,” but not so in regard to the Sundays: upon the Holy-days the Offertory, it would seem, was to be omitted*; and, as the Prayer for the Church Militant was neverthe- less to be read on those days, there was occasion for the marginal note now first introduced in this form. “If there be no almose given unto the poor, then shall the words of accepting our almose be left out unsaid.” It is too well known to need stating here, that the alterations made in the revision of 1552 were, to a considerable degree, owing to the objections made by Bucer and other foreign divines, at that time in England. It would seem to have been very much through Bucer’s influence that the Rubrics respect- ing attendance at the Communion were altered, and the Exhortations just referred to introduced. The Rubric in the First Book respecting the Offertory he highly commends, expressing at the same time his apprehension that there were but few parishes in which it had as yet been received and observed as it ° Wickham, p. 22. Homily, concluding with the 4 The Rubric ordered that general prayer for the whole the Communion Service should _ state,” &c. Cf. sup.-p. 240. be read ‘‘ until the end of the Che GCffertorp. 315 ought. He goes on to urge strongly the Christian obligation of providing for the poor, referring to the example of the early Church, as described in the Acts, and to the manifest precepts of God, that his people should suffer none to beg, or to be in want, (Deut. xv.) and moreover that none should appear before Him in the sacred assemblies with an empty hand. (Hxod. xxiii, Deut. xvi.) Bucer then refers to the order in the Primitive Church, of offering at every administration of the holy Communion, de- scribing the mode of collection and of administration, &c.; and then goes on to say,— ‘‘ Summis itaque viribus elaborandum erit, cum omnibus regnum Christi ex animo expetentibus, tum maximé populi Dei pastoribus, ut regia quoque potestate mendicabula removeantur: et populus ad contribuendum quotidie per concionatores invitetur,” &c.°... Bucer’s “Censura” was finished early in the year 1552, only a few weeks before his death. He had a little while before “presented his book in manu- script, ‘De Regno Christi, to King Edward, as it seems, abont new-year’s tide,” says Strype, “as his new year’s gift, himself being then sick, and dying the next month ‘.” One subject treated of very fully in this book was the provision which ought, in a Christian state, to be made for the poor; and a translation of this part, with some additional comments, appeared in print, without date, or printer’s name; but printed, as it would appear, subsequently to King Kdward’s death *. The tract in question has for its title-page, € Censura, in Buceri Script. informs us, ‘ was not printed Anglic., p. 463. till the year 1557, when Bucer’s f Eecles. Mem. vol. ii. p. children procured the press at 316. (IIL. i. 550.) Basil to be employed in it.” ‘ The book itself, as Strype 316 Che Gffertorp. ‘‘A Treatise, how by the Worde of God, Christian men’s _ Almose ought to Be distributed. Math. vi. When thou geuest thyne Almose, let not the trompettes be blowne before the: as Hypochrites do in their Sinagoges, and Streates, to haue Praise of Men.” The Preface “To the Reader” states that ‘* Because in these days, like as not many years sith, many lusty and sturdy persons be suffered to beg, men counterfeiting horrible diseases and infirmities, sit by the common ways craving almose : divers go about Westminster Hall, and other places, with gloves, under pretence to gather for the marriage of poor maidens ... and some crafty hypocrites, no friars in coats, but more subtle than friars in manners, under color to relieve and maintain orphans, poor widows, poor scholars, and other, gather much, but put all into their own purses, or bestow little, and that but after their own fantasy, and not indifferently to every one as his need requireth, and God’s word prescribeth, And so by all these means, and many other, good men’s charities be utterly abused : I thought it very necessary to set forth in English the mind and opinion of the reverend Father, and excellent clerke, Master Martin Bucer, touching the right giving and distributing of almose, and provision for the poor, declared in his book en- titled, ‘ De regno Christi,’ made for the Most Blessed King Ed- 9 ° ward, &c... Then follows “'The Order off the provision for the poor.” It begins thus :— ** Almighty God that setteth up the humble, and pulleth down the proud, that giveth riches and taketh it away, plainly com- mandeth his people that they should not suffer any to lack among them. Which commandment the primitive Church of Christ at Hie- rusalem kept with all reverence and devotion: whereby there was such abundance of alms given by good men, as relieved every man’s necessity, and so among them there was not one that was not provided for. Afterward, that this provision and gathering for the poor might be the better looked unto, and continue, the Apos- tles, inspired with the Holy Ghost, by consent of the whole con- gregation, appointed to that ministry seven men full of honest report and fame, &c... Those that were called to that holy ministry were named the Deacons of the Church ; who, albeit they ought to be assistant to the elders of the congregation in the The Offertorp. SVe conservation and execution of the discipline of Christ, and the administration of the Sacraments, yet their chief office and duty was, to keep the names of the poor in the congregation of the Christians, to know every man’s life and behaviour, and of the common almose of the faithful to distribute to every one, as much as was sufficient for his necessary relief... . * And all those that hear Christ and the Holy Ghost, will endeavour and labour to ordain and do all good things in such order and manner as they know the Lord and the Holy Ghost hath appointed. ** And sith it is manifest that God earnestly forbade that his people should suffer any to beg among them, and that his good- ness also ordained, that the poor should be looked unto by certain chosen men in the Church, and that good men’s devotions should be distributed to every needy person, as his necessity requireth ; it is without all doubt, that all those pray without devotion, ‘ Let thy kingdom come,’ which to their power do not bestow all their endeavour that this manner of providing for the poor be restored into the Church, which the Lord himself com- manded, and the Holy Ghost in the primitive Church ordained.” . . . Christ ‘‘ commanded ‘so to give almose as the left hand may not know what the right hand doth.’ This may best be done, if every man put into the common chest, or box of the Church to the use of the poor, as much as he may spare of that God giveth him. For when every man him- self will distribute his own almose, first, the institution of the Holy Ghost, and the lawful communion, company, and fellow- ship, of saints is broken. Besides th’almose due to the little ones of Christ, and so to Christ himself, is given oftener to the unworthy than to the worthy (for every man cannot know and try such poor people as he meeteth suddenly), and also such as be not meet to have almose come better instructed to beg, yea, as it were, to wring out the almose of a man’s purse with painted words, than those to whom it only ought to be given. Moreover when a man giveth almose with his own hand, he doth hardly put out of his mind the desire of men’s thanks and vain praises, which vain reward when he receiveth of men, he may not look for the true and perfect reward of God. And finally, when it is most certain, that such as give themselves wilfully to the trade of begging, be given and bent to all mischief; what other thing do they that nourish them, than maintain and increase the greatest pestilences and destructions of a commonwealth. ... . 318 Che @ffertorp. . .. And certainly men ought to be ashamed and lament, when this right manner of provision for the poor is restored in many countries which yet be under antichrist, such as vaunt they have received the Gospel of Christ, and profess to be of his Kingdom, be slack to restore it, yea, be hinderers of it, seeing it is an ordinance of Christ’s Religion, so necessary and so wholesome. “To conclude, whosoever doth not carefully endeavour, as much as he may, to restore this holy ordinance of the provision for the poor, as the Lord hath commanded and the Holy Ghost ordained ; he doth plainly bear witness of himself, that he doth not indeed know nor perfectly desire Christ and his kingdom, how much so ever in words he boast of Christ and his king- dom },” It is strong language that is here employed, and such as it would be difficult to parallel in any thing that has recently been said in defence of the Offer- tory. With the application of Bucer’s argument to the circumstances of the present day, we are not now immediately concerned: it is important only that it should be clearly ascertained what was the view then taken by those who were furthest re- moved, in their opinions and feelings, from the Church of Rome, and who would be least suspected of any desire unduly to exalt the authority of the Clergy, in the distribution and application of Chris- tian men’s bounty. A. few further extracts must, however, be made from the tract before us. In the sequel of the discussion under the second head of, “The means to restore into the Church the right kind of giving, and distribution of Almose, and provision for the poor,” it is urged that, ** Good magistrates ought to renew, and put in execution, that law of God, and of the Emperor Valentinian, which for- biddeth that any man be suffered to beg; and commandeth that those that be able to labour, should be forced to labour ; h Pp. 5—9. Che Offertorp, 319 and that such as be not able to labour, should be kept as our brethren and members, every one in the congregation where he dwelleth. And that this may be the better done, commandment ought to be given, that every man maintain such as be of his one household, or otherwise properly joined to him, if he be able: And that every city town and village do maintain such poor people as their friends be not able to keep, and not suffer them to wander abroad. And because it may be that some town or village is so poor, that it is not able to relieve all the poor thereof; that such also be not unprovided, it is very requisite, that in every shire certain godly and spiritually wise men be appointed, who may send such poor men from the places where they cannot be relieved, to such congregations where they may be sufficiently relieved. For all we Christians be together members, by the which name the congregations of the Gentiles in the time of St. Paul, and at his exhortation, did confess, that it was their duty to relieve the congregations in Jewry, that suffered great hunger and famine‘. Furthermore, because, through our corrupt and always disobedient nature to God, we continually loathe the ordinances and commandments of God, and, after our own lust and fond judgment, we desire to follow other means and ways than God hath appointed, there will be some that, not- withstanding this most holy provision for the poor, will not put their almose into the common chest, or box of the Lord, but will rather give their alms with their own hands, if they be minded to give any at all. Such men’s pride must be met with, not only by a law of the magistrate, but also by the discipline of the Church. By a law, to make them give double to the Lord’s chest, if they be found to give any thing privately to the needy: And by the discipline of the Church, that, if any give nothing into the Lord’s chest, he be warned of his duty by the Ministers of the Church, according the word of God. Whose admonition if they stubbornly contemn, that they be taken for ethnics and publicans. For albeit it be left to every man’s will to offer to Christ his Lord, to the use of His little ones, as much of his goods as he will; yet no man may be suffered, contrary to the express commandment of God, to come always with an ‘ empty hand’ into the presence of the Lord, and utterly to despise the ordinance of the Holy Ghost for the provision of the poor, yea, ' (Comp. sup. pp. 287—289. | 320 Che Offertorp. as much as in him lieth, to subvert it by his private distribution of almose *.”’ He goes on to meet the objection which he antici- pates; for he says, “ here will man’s wisdom (which always vaunteth itself above God’s) object, that it is unnatural, that men’s hands should be shut to the faithful, that they may not give, at their pleasure, to such as they perceive indeed to lack.” . “For it is not possible, as I said before, that any private man should so certainly search out the disposition of the poor, as those that be appointed to that office by the Church, and duly be exercised with all diligence therein. And God doth not keep his gifts, and increase of his Holy Spirit, from such as He hath chosen, and called to so great ministries of his Church!. Besides, admit that every man knoweth his needy neighbours, yet is it far better that every man send such poor people as ask his relief, be they never so holy and virtuous, to the deacons of the Church, to receive of them. For otherwise, others shall take example by him, to distribute also their own almose, and so oftentimes to such as they know not, and be not worthy of Christ’s almose, who can beg more boldly and craftily than the poor indeed. We ought to take wonderful heed, lest the least hole in the world be opened to our natural pride, to be wise against God and to swerve a hair- breadth from his commandments and ordinances, either to the right hand or to the left.” ...™ There is a good deal more in the same strain, and to the like effect, in particular respecting the various objects of Christian charity, and the duty of the Deacons to enter the names of the poor, “with the manner of their need and behaviour,” in “a parti- cular book” kept for the purpose,—all this, it will be observed, agreeing closely with the “Consulta- tion” of Archbishop Herman. And we may trace the recognition of this together with the other k Pp. 16—18. "Pp. ..19;.20;- Cia ' Comp. again Herman’s Regno Christi,’ Script. Anglic. ‘‘ Consultation,” sup. cit. pp. 50, 51. 80—86. Che Offertorp. 321 functions of the Deacon’s office, in “the Form and Manner of Ordering of Deacons,” first drawn up in 1552. ‘And furthermore it is his office, where provision is so made, to search for the sick, poor, and impotent folk of the parish, and to intimate their estates, names, and places where they dwell, to the Curate, that by his exhortation they may be relieved" by the parish, or other convenient alms.”’ The “Reformatio Legum Kcclesiasticarum” pro- perly belongs to the same period, having been pre- pared in 1551. It may be well therefore to see what it says on this subject. Under the head, “De Divinis Officiis,” cap. 8, entitled “Deficiente cna Domini quid faciendum,” it is said :— *¢Si mensze Domini legitimus convivarum numerus defuerit, nullam potius quam solitariam esse volumus ; sed Minister ingra- tam et impii populi negligentiam acriter objurgabit ... ase qui- dem omnia suppeditata esse, ccelestis ut iste cibus expediretur, angique se vehementer quod illorum barbarus et prophanus vel stupor, vel fastus, epulas tam pias et necessarias distulerit, et se ab illis maximopere contendere, proximum ne Diem Dominicum ullo modo preetereundum existiment®. Preterea pauperum illis causam diligenter commendet, ut illorum necessitates sublevent?.” Under the head “ De Ecclesia et Ministris ejus,” cap. 3, “ De Diaconis :” ** Diaconus erit patronus pauperum, ut languidos confirmet, soletur vinctos, inopes juvet, eritque pater orphanis, patronus viduis, et solatium afflictis et miseris, quantum in illo est, omni- bus. Nomina etiam pauperum Parocho diligenter deferet, ut ejus suasu Ecclesia tota permota necessitatibus illorum prospiciat, ne mendicantes laté fratres obambulent, eodem et ccelesti Patre nati, et pretio redempti.”. ... Under the head “ De Ecclesiarum Gardianis :” n QOr, as it is in our present ° Compare Exhortation of Form, ‘‘ with the alms of the 1552, above cited. parishioners, or others.” P Compare Rubric of 1552. Y $22 Che Offertorp. ‘Pecunia in pauperum cista piorum largitione reposita, ad festa Nativitatis Domini et Pentecostes, ac aliis temporibus, si necessitas postulaverit, per gardianos praedictos, de consilio recto- ris, vicaril, vel parochi, et aliorum quatuor ex primoribus parochiz per eos ad heec vocandorum, inter pauperes parochie, aut in alios pios usus, prout necessitas postulat, fideliter distribuatur.”. . . This order, it will be observed, agrees very closely with that in the Injunctions of 1547; only here there is greater latitude allowed in regard to the application of the money thus collected, extended as it is now not merely to the “reparation of high ways next adjoining,” but to “pious uses” generally; a provision, we may observe, which our present Rubric seems only to follow out more fully. But with regard to the primary object, the relief of the poor of the parish, we must consider now more particularly the Act of 1552, already referred to. From the way in which it is spoken of in the statement before quoted‘, the Prayer Book of that year being interpreted by it, it would be inferred that the revised Prayer Book was subsequent to the Act. This, however, was not the case: the Act followed up the previous provisions of the Prayer Book. The first measure of the Session (5 and 6 Edw. VI.), which began on the 30th of January, 1551-2, was the Act of Uniformity establishing the revised Book of Common Prayer; the second was an Act “For the Provisyon and Relief of the Poore.” This Act, after confirming the statutes 22 Hen. VIII. ce. 12, and 3, 4 Edw. VI. c. 16, as to Vagabonds, &c., proceeded to enact, ‘“‘ That yerelie one holidaye in Whitson weke, in everie citie, borough, and town corporate, the Mayor, Bailiffs, or other head officers for the time being, and in every other parish of the 4 Vid. sup. p. 309. Che Gffertorp. 323 country, the Parson, Vicar, or Curate, and the Churchwardens, having in a register or book as well all the names of the inha- bitants and householders as also the names of all such impotent, aged, and needy persons as, being within their city, borough, town corporate, or parish, are not able to live of themselves nor with their own labour, shall openly in the Church and quietly after Divine Service, call the said householders and inhabitants together, among whom the Mayor and two of his brethren, in every city, the bailiffs or other head officers in boroughs and towns corporate, the Parson, Vicar, or Curate and Churchwardens in every other parish, shall elect, nominate, and appoint yearly two able persons or more to be gatherers and collectors of the charitable alms of all the residue of the people for the relief of the poor; Which collectors the Sunday next after their election (or the Sunday following, if need require) when the people is at the Church and hath heard God’s holy word, shall gentellie aske and demaunde of every man and woman what they of their charity will be contented to give weekly towards the relief of the poor: And the same to be written in the said register or book ; And the said gatherers, so being elected and chosen, shall justly gather and truly distribute the same charitable alms weekly (by them- selves or their assignes) to the said poor and impotent persons of the said cities, boroughs, &c., without fraud or covine, favor or affection, and after such sort that the more impotent may have the more help, and such as can get part of their living to have the less, And by the discretion of the collectors to be put in such labor as they be fit and able to do, but none to go, or sit openly a begging, upon pain limited in the aforesaid Statute.” The penalty on refusing the office of collector is, by the next clause, that of “forfeiting twenty shil- lings to the alms box of the poor,” &c....The Collectors are to account to the Mayors, &c., or to the Parson, Vicar, or Curate, and Churchwardens, quarterly; and when they go out of their office, to deliver “all such surplusage of moneys as then shall remain of their collection undistributed, to be put in the common chest of the Church, or in some other safe place, to the use of the poor,” &c. It is further enacted that, ez 324 Che Offertorp. ‘Tf any person or persons, being able to further this charitable work, do obstinately and frowardly refuse to give towards the help of the poor, or do wilfully discourage other from so charit- able a deed, the Parson, Vicar, or Curate and Churchwardens of the parish where he dwelleth, shall gentillie exhort him or them toward the relief of the poor, And if he or they will not be so persuaded, then, upon the certificate of the Parson, Vicar, or Curate of the parish to the Bishop of the diocese, the same Bishop shall send for him or them to induce and persuade him or them by charitable ways and means, and so according to his discretion to take order for the reformation thereof °.”’ Such were the provisions of the Act of 1551-2, which followed immediately upon the Act of Uni- formity by which King Edward’s Second Book had been established. The subsequent Acts of the Legis- lature in regard to the relief of the poor, during the reion of Elizabeth, and the history, in fact, down to the period of the last Review, have been briefly summed up as follows. It is stated that, — “The Rubric, as regards this point, remained in the same condition from 1552 to the last revision in 1662. But mean- while considerable changes took place in the state of the law respecting the support of the indigent, all gradually tending to remove the management of this work from the hands of the Church to those of the state. Hitherto the relief of the poor had been administered by ecclesiastical officers alone’, by the Minister or the Churchwardens, whose authority was by the last mentioned Act, to be supported by the Bishop. In 1562, an Act (5 Eliz. c. 3) empowered the Bishop to summon such as * This Act was confirmed and so, according to discretion, and amended in 1555 (2 and 3 Phil. and Mary, c. 5), the same provision being made as before for the Bishop to send for per- sons refusing to contribute, or discouraging other, “ t’? induce and persuade him or them by charitable means and ways t’ extend their charity as in this Act is well meant and intended, to take order for the charitable reformation of every such ob- stinate person.” § [ This statement is not quite accurate ; in cities, towns, &c., the mayor, bailiffs, &c., as we have seen, appointed the col- lectors,—in country parishes, the minister and church- wardens. | Che @Offertorp. 325 refused to take a due proportion of the expences voluntarily upon themselves, before the justices of sessions, who were to assess them what they thought reasonable towards the relief of the poore, and commit them in case of refusal, till it was paid. And again, by Statute (14 Eliz. c. 5,) a.p. 1572, power was given to the justices to lay a general assessment. ‘The state of the law on this subject, would naturally tend to obliterate nearly all traces of the object contemplated in the appointments of 1549: ‘the poor men’s box’ was in most places removed ; the ordinary evils of pauperism were seemingly provided against ; and accord- ingly, in the last Revision of 1662, the direction to the Minister, to exhort to remember the poor, which had stood a dead letter in the Rubric before the Offertory for nearly one hundred years, was removed, and it was ordered that the money given at the Offertory shall be disposed of to such pious and charitable uses as the Ministers and Churchwardens shall think fit t.” It will be necessary, however, to examine some- what more minutely the progress of legislation on this subject in Queen Elizabeth’s reign. The Act of 1562, which was entitled “ An Acte for the Releife of the Poore,” confirmed and amended the Acts of 22 Henry VIII. and 3 and 4 Edward VI. Collectors were to be appointed yearly, as before; the time of the appointment being now altered to “the Sunday next before [gw. ‘after,’ vid. note in Statutes] the Feast Day of the Nativity of St. John Baptist", commonly called Midsummer Day.” “And for the better execution of this Act touching the election of the collectors for the poor,” it was enacted, ‘“‘That every parson, vicar, curate, &c.... shall yearly for evermore upon the Sunday before Midsummer day in the pulpit, or some other convenient place in the Church, give knowledge and warning, at the end of some of the morning service, to the parishioners then and there present, to prepare themselves on t Wickham, pp. 23, 24. " As originally, by Act 27 Hen. 8. 326 Che Offertorp. the Sunday next after Midsummer day then next following, to come to the Church, and there t’elect and choose collectors and gatherers for the poor, according to the tenor of this Act... .” In the clause respecting the Bishop’s interference in case of obstinate refusal, with the Bishop are joined, in this Act, “Chancellors or their Commis- saries or Guardian of the Spiritualities,” to send for such person “tinduce or persuade him or them” &c., as before. “‘ And if the person or persons so sent for, of his or their froward or wilful mind, shall obstinately refuse to give weekly to the relief of the poor according to his or their abilities,” the Bishop, &c., shall have power to bind such persons, in the sum of ten pounds, to ‘‘appear before the justices of the peace .of the county,” or before the mayor, bailiffs, &c., in any city or town, or, if the person refuse to be so bound, may commit him to prison, there to remain until he shall become bound as aforesaid. And the said justices, &c. . . . ‘‘if the said obstinate person do ap- pear before them, shall charitably and gentelly persuade and move the said obstinate persons to extend his or their charity towards the relief of the poor of the parish where he or she inhabiteth and dwelleth ; and if he or she shall obstinately and wilfully stand in the same, and will not be persuaded therein by the said Justices,” &c. then the said justices, or in a city or town, the mayor, bailiffs, &c., with the churchwardens where the said obstinate person shall inhabit, or one of them, have power ‘“ to sess, tax, and limit, upon every such obstinate person, according to their good discretions, what sum the said obstinate person shall pay weekly towards the relief of the poor within the said parish ;” . and on refusal to pay, the justices, &c. may imprison. The Act of 1572 is entitled, “An Acte for the punishement of Vacabondes, and for Releif of the Poor and Impotent.” It repeals the Acts 22 Henry VIIL, 3d and 4 Edward VI, and 5 Elizabeth. By this Act the Justices of the peace are to ‘* Register all aged and impotent poor, born or for three years resident in their several districts, and settle them in convenient habitations, and ascertain the weekly charge, and assess the Che Offertorp. 327 amount on the inhabitant, and yearly appoint collectors to receive and distribute the assessments, and also an overseer of the poor.” In 1597, three Acts were passed, one “for the relief of the poor” (39 Elizabeth, c. 3), another “ for punishment of rogues, vagabonds, and sturdy beg- gars” (c. 4), anda third “for erecting of hospitals and abiding and working houses for the poor” (c. 5). By the first of these, the Churchwardens and four overseers are to be appointed by the Justices of the peace yearly in Easter week, ** To raise weekly or otherwise (by taxation of every inhabi- tant, &c. ...in such competent sums of money as they shall think fit) a convenient stock of flax, hemp, &c. to set the poor on work, and also competent sums of money for and towards the necessary relief of the lame, impotent, old, blind,” &c.... *“ which said Churchwardens and Overseers... . shall meet together once every month, in the Church of the said parish, upon the Sunday in the afternoon after Divine Service, there to consider of some good course to be taken, and of some meet orders to be set down in the premises.” Finally, the Act of 1601 “for the Relief of the poor,” confirming or amending the former Acts, requires in like manner, the Churchwardens and Overseers to meet together “at the least once every month in the Church,” &c. as before, and enacts that the Justices of the peace shall yearly “rate every parish to a weekly sum of money, as they shall think convenient, &c.;” which sums so taxed shall be yearly assessed by the agreement of the parishioners “themselves, or in default thereof,” &c. This Act, passed in the last Parliament of Queen Elizabeth, is the well known Act, (43 Elizabeth, ce. 2,) which established on its permanent basis the — system for the relief of the poor. And now, then, reviewing the history from the 328 Che Oftertorp., first measure of Henry VIII. to this last of Queen Elizabeth, we may trace clearly the steps by which the collection for the poor gradually lost its original character of a free will offering, in which character it formed part of the religious service of the assem- bled congregation. It was first established as a free and voluntary contribution, expressly marked as such, to be made in the churches every Sunday and holyday; the clergy being desired in their Sermons, as well as when men were making their wills, to exhort them to Christian liberality. Then (1547) there was to be an exhortation of the Curate to his parishioners every Sunday and holyday after the reading of the Gospel; then, in King Edward’s First Book (1549) the offering of alms was made a part of the appointed service ; and, in the Articles of the same year, the Curate after the homily was to exhort them, especially the communicants, to remember the poor men’s box with their charity. Then in King Edward’s Second Book (1552), the alms were to be collected through the Church, and offered in the prayer for the Church Militant, in the name of the whole congregation; and, by the Act of the same year, the people being called together after service on one Sunday in the year, it was to be “gently” asked and demanded of them what they would each, “every man and woman,” contribute weekly, and if they were unwilling, they were to be “gently exhorted” by the Clergyman and Churchwardens, and, if still reluctant, dealt with “by charitable ways and means” by the Bishop of the Diocese. But such methods purely spiritual and ecclesiastical failing, the state found it necessary to arm the Bishop with civil power, by binding the reluctant party to appear before the Justices of the Che Offertorp. 329 peace; the Justices being still directed to make “gentle and charitable” means avail, if possible, before they proceeded to assess, or, if necessary, to imprison. And then next, in 1572, the general assessment is committed to the Justices of the peace; which again, in 1597, appears no longer as a weekly contribution, but to be “ weekly or other- wise” raised by the Churchwardens, and Overseers appointed by the Justices; a link of connexion, how- ever, with the parish church and its services still remaining in the meeting, now appointed, of the Churchwardens and Overseers to be held at least monthly “upon the Sunday in the afternoon after Divine Service,” and the yearly sum, though taxed by the Justices, being nevertheless “assessed by the agreement of the parishioners themselves.” Such was the gradual progress of things in this matter between 1535 and 1601, the character of a volun- tary offering, on every Sunday and holyday, by the congregation assembled in the Church, being lost only from the necessity of more stringent enforce- ment than the Church could supply. In this state of things, however, at the very time when, on the hypothesis which we have been con- sidering, all traces of the weekly collection on Sundays and holydays might be expected to dis- appear, we find an application of it, which, though of a temporary and occasional character, is too remarkable an instance to be passed over unnoticed. The occasion was the siege, by the Duke of Savoy, of the city of Geneva, in the first year of King James, 1603. We learn from Strype, that ‘“‘ Agents from that city came now into England, and making the King acquainted with their miserable condition, and the great 330 Che Offertorp. danger they were in, both of their liberty and of their religion reformed, earnestly petitioned for some contribution from this Protestant realm, to enable them to continue to maintain their The King gave them a gracious hearing, and resolved to promote a collec- tion for them among all his subjects; he considered them as deserving well of the common cause of religion; and how that city was of famous memory for the zeal it ever had to religion, and for harbouring many voluntary exiles, as had fled there for that cause, and particularly those of the English nation. And therefore, in behalf of people so well affected, he directed collec- tions of charity to be made weekly on Sundays, and also on Holy days, whensoever the people met together in their religious assem- blies. And the money so collected to be returned to the Bishops monthly, and sent up to the Archbishop from the Bishops re- spectively, every three months. Such a regard was then had to the Church of Geneva. But behold his Majesty’s letter to the Archbishop, written in October from Winchester. ”’ state against the powerful assaults made upon them. Strype then gives the Royal Letter, in which the Archbishop is required to direct his letters, in the King’s name, to the several Bishops of his province, that they might ‘** Give order to the Parsons, Vicars, Curates, and other Incum- bents of the several parishes in their dioceses, to make known so much to their parishioners, at their assemblies on Sundays and Holy days ; and how much it shall be to the commendation of their zeal, and our good liking, that in this cause they shew themselves liberal and forward; and to accompany the same with such good exhortations as they shall think meet to excite the people’s devotions’ to extend itself toward a city deserving so well of the common cause of religion”. . . .” Y The use of the word ‘‘de- Churchwardens, or other fit votions’’ may be noticed here, as illustrating the rubric as it then stood, “Then shall the Churchwardens, or some other by them appointed, gather the devotion of the people,” &c., or, as it stands now, more fully including such a case as that in question,—‘‘ the Deacons, person appointed for that pur- pose, shall receive the Alms for the poor, and other devotions of the people,” &c. “ Strype’s Whitgift, p. 563 (II. 475—477). ‘ This royal letter the Archbishop exempli- fied in his letter to the rest of the Bishops,” the conclusion of Che Gffertory. 331 The collection under this Royal Letter brings us to the exact date of the Convocation of 1603; and upon the hypothesis under consideration, legal pro- vision having now, two years before, been finally made for the poor, and “the ordinary evils of pau- perism seemingly provided against,” and thus “all traces of the object contemplated in the appoint- ments of 1549” being in a way to be “nearly obli- terated,” we might certainly have expected that “the poor men’s box,” if it had not yet “in most places” been removed, was, at all events, in no like- lihood to be restored. Instead of this, however, we find the Canons of 1608 re-establishing, almost ver- batim, the Injunctions of 1547. The 84th Canon, headed “A chest for alms in every Church,” runs thus,— **'The Churchwardens shall provide, and have within three months after the publishing of these Constitutions*, ‘a strong chest, with a hole in the upper part thereof, to be provided at the charge of the parish (if there be none such already provided) 9, having three keys; of which one shall remain in the custody of which is given also by Strype, p- 564. Another royal letter, granted some years afterwards to time to y® Bishops of y® Dioceses, and by them be trans- mitted half yearely to” the (1619 cire.), for the erection of churches and schools in Virgi- nia, is given from a copy in the State Paper Office, by Mr. Anderson, in his recently pub- lished ‘‘ History of the Church of England in the Colonies,” &e. vol. i. pp. 314—316. The letter orders “‘ that those Col- lections be made in all the par- ticular parishes four seuerall tymes, w'tin these two years next coming; and that the seuerall accounts of each parish, together with the moneys col- lected, be returned from time Archbishop: ‘‘ and so be deli- uered to the Treasurer of that plantation, and so to be employ- ed for the Godly purposes in- tended, and for no other.”’ “‘Itis, I believe,” says Mr. Anderson, ‘*the first document of the kind ever issued in this country for the benefit of its foreign pos- sessions.” * Injunctions (1547), * within three months after this Visita- tion.” But compare the In- junctions throughout. ¥ The words within the pa- renthesis were now first added. aoa Che @Offertorp. the Parson, Vicar, or Curate, and the other two in the custody of the Churchwardens for the time being; which chest they shall set and fasten in the most convenient place, to the intent the parishioners may put into it their alms for their poor neighbours. And the Parson, Vicar, or Curate, shall diligently, from time to time, and especially when men make their testaments, call upon, exhort, and move their neighbours to confer and give, as they may well spare, to the said chest; declaring unto them that, whereas heretofore they have been diligent to bestow much sub- stance otherwise than God commanded, upon superstitious uses, now they ought at this time to be much more ready to help the poor and needy, knowing that to relieve the poor is a sacrifice which pleaseth God, and that also whatsoever is given for their comfort is given to Christ himself, and is so accepted of him that he will mercifully reward the same. The which alms and devo- tion of the people, the keepers of the keys shall yearly, quarterly, or oftener, (as need requireth) take out of the chest, and distribute the same in the presence of most of the parish, or six of the chief of them, to be truly and faithfully delivered to their most poor and needy neighbours.” The Rubric, meanwhile, in the Prayer Book of 1604, stood as before, though it had not been over- looked in the review which followed the Hamp- ton Court Conference; as appears by the slight alteration, not otherwise worth noticing, of the title of “the poor men’s box” into “the poor man’s box.” The “alms given unto the poor,” or “the devotion of the people,” as it was variously designated in the Rubric, is in the Canon, by an equivalent phrase, described as the “alms” of the parishioners, or “the alms and devotion of the people:” the word “oblations,” used in the Injunctions, does not appear in the Canon, perhaps because the alms-giving had no longer necessarily attached to it, from the place where the poor-box stood, the character of an offer- ing made at the altar; though indeed, the verbal oblation of the alms in the Prayer for the Church Militant, still invested it with that character. If, Che Offertoryp. 333 however, we must suppose, as has been suggested, that “after a provision had been made by the statute [of 43 Elizabeth], the duty of giving in addition would be little felt, except by those who, having learned to take an unworldly measure of their obli- gations, and to look on such deeds as a benefit to their own souls, were impelled to them by faith and love ’,” it is the more worthy of remark that, at that very moment, the Church should have re-asserted the claims of Christian charity, and given an opportunity for such exercise of voluntary “devotion,” by the revi- val, in this Canon, of the Order of King Edward’s In- junctions. It was, however, in practice, probably, not generally observed, though some there may have been like Bishop Andrewes, of whom Bishop Bucke- ridge says, in his Funeral Sermon (preached Nov. 11, 1626), speaking of “the first place he lived on,” which “ was St. Giles’s” [ Cripplegate ], — “ There, I speak my knowledge, I do not say he began, sure I am he continued his charity; his certain alms there was ten pounds per annum, which was paid quarterly by equal portions, and twelve pence every Sunday he came to Church, and five shillings at every Communion*.” The Communion would seem to have been monthly. At least we are told in the same Sermon, that ‘“‘ After he came to have an episcopal house, with a chapel, he kept monthly communions inviolably, yea, though himself had received at the court the same month. In which, his carriage was not only decent and religious, but also exemplary; he ever offered twice at the altar, and so did every one of his servants, to which purpose he gave them money, lest it should be burden- some to them ».” “ Robertson, p. 195. v. p. 294. a Andrewes’ Sermons, vol. > Ibid. p. 296. 334 Che Offertorp. It has been suggested, in explanation of this double offering, that Bishop Andrewes “himself adopted some such practice,” as he has recom- mended in his notes on the Prayer Book. For “in the place where our sentences stand, he says, ‘Instead of these, read the peculiar sentences for the Offertory, wt infra, and some of these immediately before the Benediction, for the poor‘? At that later period of the service he would have the sen- tences of our Prayer Book read,—the communi- cants, as they retire from the chancel, dropping their alms into the box at the chancel door*.” It is at the same time, however, observed by the author of this conjecture, that we do not find any record of such being the Bishop’s practice in the account of the Consecration of Jesus Chapel, Southampton, though we do there “find our present Rubric anti- cipated, both in the manner of gathering, and in the destination of the money. One of the chaplains ° ‘in patinam argenteam oblationes collegit;’ and the Bishop directed that these offerings should be em- ployed in buying a chalice for the chapel. (Sparrow, Rationale, 415.)” It would seem more probable, from the way in which Bishop Buckeridge speaks of Bishop Andrewes’ offering “twice at the altar,” that both offerings were made at the time of the Offertory, the one perhaps for what might be called distinctly “pious” uses, the * [Vid. Nichols, App. pp. 41, 42.] 4 Robertson, pp. 195, 196. Comp. Nichols, App. p. 52. It is clear, I think, from Bishop Andrewes’ note, that it con- tains merely a suggestion of the order which he would have recommended: for it contem- plates the Priest standing still at the altar ‘‘and reading, at this part of the Service, the exhortatory sentences for alms, ut supra.” © [Dr. Christopher Wren, and his brother, Dr. Matthew Wren, afterwards Bishop of Norwich and of Ely. | Che Offertorp. 335 other for “charitable,” as our present Rubric desig- nates them; the one, for instance, for the immediate service of God, the worship of His house, the main- tenance of His ministers, &c., the other, for the poor; as, in fact, the passage above quoted from Bishop Andrewes’ notes distinguishes these two classes of objects of Christian liberality ‘. And this distinction corresponds with a passage in his Sermon preached at the Spital, April 10, 1588. He says there,— “‘ Now if you enquire to whom your doing good should stretch itself, St Paul himself will tell you. To them that instruct you— they are to ‘communicate’ with you in all your ‘ goods,’ that is, the Church ; and ‘to the necessity of the saints,’ or, to the saints that be in necessity, that is, to the poor. “The Church first : for this end came Esther ‘to the kingdom,’ and Nehemiah to his great favor with the prince, even to do good to the Church ; and for this end hath Tyrus, that rich city, that abundance bestowed on her, even to be ‘a covering cherub’ to the Church of God, and to stretch out her wings over it... . ‘This for the Church ; you must have a wing stretched abroad to cover it. And for the poor you must have a bosom wide open to receive them... . ‘The poor are of two sorts; such as shall be with us ‘ always,’ as Christ saith, to whom we must do good by relieving them : such is the comfortless estate of poor captives, the succourless estate of poor orphans, the desolate estate of the poor widows, the distressed estate of poor strangers, the discontented estate of poor scholars; all which must be suffered and succoured too. ‘‘There are others, such as should not be suffered to be in Israel, whereof Israel is full; I mean, beggars and vagabonds able to work ; to whom good must be done, by not suffering them to be as they are, but to employ them in such sort as they may do good. This is a good deed no doubt ; and there being, f The “‘ peculiar sentences” were the following : Gen. iii. 4; which Bishop Andrewes sug- Exod. xxv. 2; Deut. xvi. 16; gested ‘‘ for the Offertory,’ 1 Chron. xxix. 14. 17; Neh. sufficiently indicate his views x. 32; Ps. xevi. 7, 8; Mark in regard to it. The sentences xii. 41; Acts xxiv. 6. 336 Che Offertorp, as I hear, an honourable good purpose in hand, for the redress of it, God send it good success. I am as one, in part of my charge, to exhort you by all good means to help and further it 8.” The allusion here is, of course, to the measures in progress which resulted in the final establishment of the poor law; but we may see clearly how very far even such a legislative enactment would be from answering all the ends which would be regarded in Bishop Andrewes’ own views of Christian charity. And it is interesting to observe how completely he carries on the testimony to the various wants which had been so earnestly pressed in the earlier days of the Reformation. There is another passage of the same Sermon which may be cited not inappropriately here, nor unseasonably in these times. | ** Now to them in your just defence I say—for God forbid but while I live I should always defend this honourable city in all truth—to them whom the mist of envy hath so blinded that they can see no good at all done but by themselves, I forbid them, the best of them, to show me in Rheims or in Rome, or in any popish city Christian such a show as we have seen here these two days [Monday and Tuesday in Easter week.] To day but a handful of the heap, but yesterday and on Monday the whole heap, even a mighty army of so many good works as there were relieved orphans, ‘the chariots’ of this city, I doubt not, and ‘ the horse- men thereof.’ “They will say it is but one, so they say ; be it so, yet it is a matchless one. I will go further with them, spoken be it to God’s glory, Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam: ‘ Not unto us, not unto us, O Lord, but unto thy name give the praise, for thy loving mercy and for thy truth’s sake which we profess.’ I will be bold to prove that learning in the foundation of schools and increase of revenues within colleges, and the poor in foundation of almshouses, and increase of per- petuities to them, have received greater help in this realm within these forty years last past, since not the starting up of our Church, ® Sermons, vol. v. pp. 41—43. Che @Offertory, 337 as they fondly use to speak, but since the reforming ours from the error of their’s, than it hath I say in any realm Christian, not only within the self-same forty years (which were enough to stop their mouths) but also than it hath in any forty years upward, during all the time of popery, which I speak partly of mine own knowledge, and partly by sufficient grave information to this behalf. This may be said, and said truly ».” The poor law had been established now for a quarter of a century, when (in 1626) Bishop Buck- eridge preached Bishop Andrewes’ funeral Sermon ; yet he there expresses his regret at the neglect of the weekly Offertory, and at the same time, his view of the intention of the Church in this matter. He has been speaking of the sacrifice which Christians are to offer, following, in fact, very much the line of thought marked out in Archbishop Herman’s “ Con- sultation” before quoted—Christ “the only true, proper sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of mankind,” then the Church’s offering of itself, through Christ, and specially in the holy Communion, even “ the offering of ourselves, our souls and bodies,” as “a part of Divine worship ;” and he goes on :— ‘** Now as... there cannot be perfect and complete adoration to God in our devotions, unless there be also doing good and dis- tributing to our neighbours ; therefore to the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in the Eucharist in the Church, mentioned in the fifteenth verse', we must add also beneficence and communi- cation in this text*; for Devotio debetur Capiti, benevolentia membris, ‘ The sacrifice of devotion is due to our Head Christ, and piety and charity is due to the members.’ So then, offer the sacrifice of praise to God daily in the Church, as in the fifteenth verse ; and distribute and communicate the sacrifice of compassion and alms to the poor out of the Church, as in this text. ** Shall I say extra Ecclesiam, ‘out of the Church?’ I do not say amiss if I do say so; yet I must say also, intra Eccle- Ibid. pp. 36, 37. * [* To do good and to dis- i (Heb. xiii. 15. “By him tribute forget not; for with therefore let us offer,’ &c. such sacrifices,” &c. v. 16. | Z 338 The Offertorp. siam ; this should be a sacrifice in the Church, the Apostles kept it so in their time. Primo die, ‘ the first day of the week,’ when they came together to pray and to break bread, St. Paul’s rule was, separet unusquisque, ‘let every one set apart,’ or ‘lay by in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gather- ings when I come.’ And our Liturgy in the Offertory tenders her prayers and alms on the Lord’s day or Sunday, as a part of the sacrifice or service of that day, and of God’s worship ; which I wish were more carefully observed among us. For this also is a Liturgy or office, so called by the Apostle, 4 dtaxovia rijc Aetroupytac, ‘ the administration of this service,’ or ‘ office,’ or ‘ Liturgy ;’ there is the ‘ Liturgy’ and ‘office.’ For the daily service and sacrifice ‘not only supplieth the want of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings unto God.’ So the Lord’s day, or Sunday, is then best kept and observed, when to our prayers and praises and sacrifices of ourselves, our souls and bodies, we also add the sacrifice of our goods and alms, and other works of mercy to make it up perfect and complete, that there may be opus diei in die suo, ‘the work of the day in the proper day thereof,’ and these two sacrifices of praise and alms, joined here by God and His Apostle, may never be parted by us here in our lives and practice .. . when we have offered our- selves, our souls and bodies, to be living and spiritual sacrifices in the Church unto God, by our High Priest, Christ, we must not rest there, but must also offer our alms, whether in the Church or out of the Church, to the relief of the poor members of Christ that are in want !.” It appears from Bishop Andrewes’ notes on the Prayer Book, that he did not altogether approve of the mode of collection appointed by the Rubric as it then stood. His note upon it is, ‘‘ Sapit haec Collectio per capita Genevensem illum per Ecele- sias, tumultuaria forma, discurrendi morem ™,” And upon the latter part of the Rubric, in which it is said that “upon the offering days appointed every man and woman shall pay to the Curate the due and accustomed offerings,” he observes, ' Andrewes’ Sermons, vol. v. ™ Nichols, App. p- 42. pp. 267, 268. Che Offertorp. 339 “They should not pay it to the Curate alone, but to God upon the altar; from whence the Curate has his warrant to take it, as deputed by Him, and as the Apostle plainly alludes, 1 Cor. ix. 13, 14. Heb. xiii. 10. And this is not to be forgotten, though it be forgone, that whosoever gave any lands or endow- ments to the service of God, he gave it in formal writing, as now-a-days between man and man, sealed and witnessed, and the tender of the gift was super altare, and by the donor upon his knees ®.”’ In the Scotch Prayer Book of 1637, which must now be noticed as the connecting link between our own Prayer Books previous and subsequent to the last review, we find the first four and the sixth of Bishop Andrewes’ sentences adopted as the first five sen- tences for the Offertory ; then follow the first two sen- tences from the former Offertory of our own Prayer Book, Matt. vi. 19, 20, and Matt. vii. 12; then, from Bishop Andrewes, Mark xii. 41—44; and then from our own Offertory, 1 Cor. ix. 7; ix. 11. 2 Cor. 1x. 6,7. Gal. vi. 6, 7. 1 Tim. vi. 17—19. Heb. vi. 10, and xiii. 16. The Rubric in the Scotch Service Book stood thus: ‘While the Presbyter distinctly pronounceth some or all of these sentences for the Offertory, the Deacon or (if no such be present) one of the Churchwardens shall receive the devotions of the people there present in a bason provided for that purpose. And when all have offered, he shall reverently bring the said bason with the oblations therein, and deliver it to the Presbyter, who shall humbly present it before the Lord, and set it upon the holy table.” And at the end of the Communion Office the following Rubric was introduced : ‘“‘ After the Divine Service ended, that which was offered shall be divided in the presence of the Presbyter and the Church- wardens, whereof one half shall be to the use of the Presbyter to provide him books of holy divinity; the other half shall be n [bid. z Y 340 Che Offertory. faithfully kept and employed on some pious and charitable use for the decent furnishing of that Church, or the public relief of their poor, at the discretion of the Presbyter and Churchwardens.” It will be observed how entirely Bishop Andrewes’ suggestions and practice were followed in the order of this Book: and Bishop Wren, who was one of the three English Prelates consulted in the matter, had been Chaplain to Bishop Andrewes, and was, as we have seen, one of those who officiated at the consecration of Jesus Chapel, Southampton. It was on the same principle, probably, with Bishop Andrewes’ double oblation, that Archbishop “Laud’s private chapel,” as we are told, “had one basin for alms, and another for offerings (Prynne, quoted in Hierurg. Angl. p. 10); and in this, as in other matters, he declared at his trial, that he followed the example of Andrewes°.” It is to be observed, at the same time, that “in the strict in- junctions of Bishop Wren, while all the other parts of service to be used when there is no administra- tion are specially enumerated, there is no mention made of the Offertory. (Doc. Ann. ii. 208. seq.) ?” We find, however, among the “innovations” speci- fied by the Committee appointed by the House of Lords in 1641, is this; “ By introducing an offer- tory before the Communion, distinct from the giving of alms to the poor ‘.” With regard to the general practice of those times, it would appear, that the observance of the Church’s appointed order concerning the Offertory, and the fulfilment of her desire in respect to the adminis- tration of the Communion, as might have been ex- pected, generally accompanied each other; as, in ° Robertson, p. 196. 1 Cardwell’s Conferences, p. P Ibid. p. 198. 273. Che Offertorp. 341 fact, we have already seen that, for the most part, probably, the offerings would be those of commu- nicants, and of few, if any beside, and that the neglect of the Communion and of the Offertory would be co-extensive. We find it recorded in the Life of Hammond by Bishop Fell, that in his parish of Penshurst, to which he was presented in 1633, ** As to the administration of the Sacrament he reduced it to an imitation, though a distant one, of primitive frequency, to once a month, and therewith its anciently inseparable attendant, the Offertory ; wherein his instruction and happily insinuating example so far prevailed, that there was thenceforth little need of ever making any tax for the poor. Nay, (if the report ofa sober person, born and bred up in that parish, be to be believed) in short time a stock was raised to be always ready for the apprenticing of young children whose parents’ condition made the provision for them an equal charity to both the child and parent?.” What Hammond’s view of the Offertory was, and also what was the general practice of his time, we learn from his “ View of the New Directory and Vindication of the Ancient Liturgy *,” put forth in 1645. He says, ‘For the order of the Offertory, it must first be observed, that in the primitive Apostolic Church, the Offertory was a con- siderable part of the action, in the administering and receiving the Sacramentt.... Justin Martyr... . sets down the manner r «For the relief of the poor,” adds his _ biographer, ‘besides the fore-mentioned expedient, wherein others were sharers with him, unto his pri- vate charity, the dedicating the tenth of all receipts, and the daily alms given at the door, he constantly set apart over and above every week, a certain rate in money; and however rarely his own rent days oc- curred, the indigent had two and fifty quarters’ days return- ing in his year.” s The “ Ordinance” order- ing the ‘‘ New Directory ” to be used, was passed by the parlia- ment, Jan. 3, 1645; and another ordinance of Aug. 23rd in the same year, forbade the use of the Common Prayer in any pri- vate place or family. (Card- well, Conf. p. 242.) t He here refers to the de- scription given in 1 Cor. xi. 342 Che Offertorp. of it clearly in his time".... This clearly distinguisheth two parts of the Offertory, one designed for the use of the faithful in the Sacrament, another reserved for the use of the poor.... parallel to those which we find both together mentioned, Acts xxiv. 17, ‘I came to bring alms to my nation and offerings’... Thus, after Justin, Ireneeus ..... So Tertullian, ‘ Modicam unusquisque stipem menstrud die adponit,’ ‘every one brings somewhat every month,’ just parallel to our Offertory at monthly Communions. Much more might be said of this out of ancient Constitutions and Canons, if it were not for my desire of brevity. Effectually St. CyprianY.... And St. Augustine to the same purpose .... I have been thus large in shewing the original of the Offertory, because it hath in all ages been counted a special part of Divine Worship .. . . the observation of which is yet alive in our Liturgy. (I would it had a more cheerful, universal recep- tion in our practice.) ... Now that this offering of Christians to God for pious and charitable uses, designed to them who are His proxies and deputy-receivers, may be the more liberally and withal more solemnly performed, many portions of Scripture are by the Liturgy designed to be read to stir up and quicken this bounty; and those of three sorts, some belonging to good works in general, others to alms deeds, others to oblations ; and when it is received and brought to the Priest, he humbly prays God to ‘accept those alms ;’ and this is it which I call the Service of the Offertory, so valued and esteemed among all antients, but wholly omitted in this Directory, (only a casual naming of a ‘ Collection for the poor,’ by way of a sage caution, that it ‘be so ordered, that no part of the public worship be thereby hindered’) upon what grounds of policy, or pretence of necessity, I know not, unless out of that great fear, lest works of charity (which the Apostle calls an ‘ acceptable sacrifice,’ and ‘ with which God is well pleased’) should pass for any part of the service or worship of God, which after praying to Him is an act that hath the greatest remark, and highest character set upon it, and when it is thus in the Offertory, is accounted ‘ pars cultiis,’ ‘a part of wor- ship,’ say the Schoolmen; and beside, where it is used, as it ought, proves of excellent benefit (when prudent, faithful officers have the dispensing of it) toward the supplying and preventing the wants of all, waow év ypeia oor knoeuwy yiverat, ‘ the minis- ter is thereby enabled to be the guardian of all that are in want,’ " Cf. sup. p. 284. v Sup. cit. p. 285. Che Offertorp. 343 saith Justin M.” Apol. 2, and sure necessity hath no law or reason in it, when the rejecting of such customs as these proves x 99 the only necessary *. The passage of Hammond from which the above is taken, is interesting and important in many ways. It not only carries on the argument of Bishop Buck- eridge’s Sermon, and completes” the account given of ancient practice by preceding writers, but it shews also what was, in Hammond’s view, the intention of the Church, and also how far, in his time, it was observed or neglected. It is, moreover, important to observe how, in his own individual practice, he followed what he conceived to be clearly the apos- tolic rule respecting the weekly laying by in store; while in his parochial ministrations he felt that the primitive custom, to which Tertullian bore witness, was essentially observed, if the Offertory accompanied as frequent an administration of the Holy Commu- nion as the circumstances of the time admitted. The attacks made upon the Book of Common Prayer at the period now in question, and the sup- pression of our ritual during a calamitous season, had the effect of commending it the more to the thoughtful and affectionate study of Churchmen, and bringing out more fully to their view its distin- guishing features, its truly primitive character, and its pious and charitable provisions. In 1657, as we have seen, Sparrow published his Rationale, in which, in the explanation of the Offer- tory, he incorporates the sentences which Bishop Andrewes had selected for this service, and also ¥ (Sup. cit. p. 284. | Hammond must be referred to. * Works, vol. i. pp. 374, It has been necessarily abridged 375. here. Y For the entire passage, 344 Che Offertorp. expresses fully the feeling which those sentences embody’. In reading his notes, it will be recol- lected that Sparrow was one of those who was so shortly after, upon the Restoration, engaged as one of the assistant Divines at the Savoy Conference. ‘“‘ Offerings or oblations are an high part of God’s service and worship, taught by the light of nature and right reason ; which bids us to ‘ honour God with our substance,’ as well as with our bodies and souls ; to give a part of our goods to God, as an ho- mage or acknowledgment of his dominion over us, and that all that we have comes from God, 1 Chron. xxix. 14: ‘ Who am I, and what is my people,’ &c.... ‘ For all things come of thee,’ &c.... This duty of offerings was practised by the Fathers before the Law with a gracious acceptation. Witness Abel, Gen. iv. 4. Commanded in the Law, Exod. xxv. 2, ‘Speak to the children of Israel,’ &c....So Deut. xvi. 16. Confirmed by our Saviour in the Gospel, St. Matth. v. 23, ‘Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar,’ &c. . . . [f any man conceives that this offering here mentioned was a Jewish perishing rite, not a duty of the Gospel to continue, let him consider, ‘‘ First, that there is the same reason for this duty under the Gospel, as under, or before, the Law, God being Lord of us and ours, as well as of them; and therefore to be acknowledged for such by us, as well as by them. ‘Secondly, that all the rest of our Saviour’s Sermon upon the Mount was Gospel, and concerning duties obliging us Christians : and it is not likely that our Saviour should intermix one only Judaical rite amongst them. “Thirdly, that our Saviour before all these precepts mentioned in this his Sermon, whereof this of oblations is one, prefaces this severe sanction, St. Matth. v. 19, ‘ Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments,’ &c..... which could not be truly said concerning the breach of a Jewish outworn rite. ‘Fourthly, That our Saviour hath carefully taught us there 2 To the edition of 1674, his knees, laying upon an altar and others, is subjoined Bishop a deed of endowment sealed, Andrewes’ “ Form of the conse- with the words of Bishop An- cration of a Church or Chapel.’’ drewes printed below, “ It is The frontispiece, or rather title- not to be forgotten,” &c. (Vid. page, represents a king upon sup. p. 339.) Che Offertorp. 345 the due manner of the performance of this duty of oblations, like as He did concerning alms and prayers, and no man can shew that ever He did any where else; nor is it probable that He should here carefully direct us how to do that which was presently to be left and was already out of force, as this was, supposing it to be a Jewish rite. We may then, I conceive, suppose it for a truth, that oblations are here commanded by our Saviour, “Add to this, that offerings were highly commended by the Gospel, in the wise men that offered gold, frankincense, and myrrh, S. Matth. ii. 11, and that they were practised by the Fathers in the Christian Church. So says Epiphanius. . . Irenzeus ....S. Hier. Ep. ad Heliodor. [‘ The ax is laid to the root of the tree, if I bring not my gift to the altar: nor can I plead poverty, since the poor widow hath cast in two mites.’| We should do well to think of this. ‘Though oblations be acceptable at any time, yet at sometimes they have been thought more necessary, as ‘* First, when the Church is in want, Exod. xxxv. 4, &c. ‘Secondly, when we have received some signal and eminent blessing from God..... “Thirdly, at our high and solemn Festivals, Deut. xvi. 16, ‘ Three times in the year shall they appear before me, and they shall not appear empty.’ Especially when we receive the holy Communion. ... And surely it becomes not us to be empty- handed, when God comes to us full handed, as in that Sacrament He does *.” From this passage is plainly discovered Bishop Sparrow’s view of the Offertory, and of the place which it should hold in the public worship of God, as well as of the manner in which offerings should be made; and these, it will be observed, not re- stricted to the times of receiving the Holy Com- munion, though at such times an offering was most fitting and obligatory. Shortly after Sparrow’s Rationale, as has been already noticed, was published L’ Estrange’s “Alliance of Divine Offices,” and it is interesting to see the 4 Rationale, pp. 258—262. (ed. 1657. 346 Che @ffertorp. same view taken by a well-informed layman, who had investigated these matters for himself. He refers expressly, as we shall see, to Bishop Andrewes. Upon the word “Offertory” as it stood in the Rubric of the Scotch Liturgy, he observes, ** The whole action of the sacred Communion is elemented in nothing but sacrifices and oblations : So in our Church, so in the Apostolic, which should be the grand exemplar to all; and though our Church varieth somewhat, in the mode, from the first original, yet in the substance her practice is conformable. These sacrifices and oblations we may cast into four partitions, and find them all in the primitive, and in our own Service. I shall name them all, but insist only upon the first, as incident to my present purpose. The first is the bringing of our gifts to the Altar, that is, the species and elements of the sacred symbols, and withal some overplus, according to our abilities, for relief of the poor. . . . So that when we come together to ‘ break bread,’ in the Scripture notion, that is, to communicate, we must break it to the hungry, to God him- self in his poor members... . ... “ Now to restrain my discourse, as I promised, to the sacrifice of alms deeds, it will be necessary to take notice of the Apostolic and primitive practice in this concernment, and thereby to observe the agreeableness of our own rule with it®.... Now although the elements of bread and wine are provided by an establishment of our Church differing from the ancient custom, yet can there be no reason showed, why we should proscribe and cast away that most necessary sacrifice of alms; which, though at first introduced as concomitant with the former, yet hath sufficient interest in reli- gion to entitle itself to a place in the course of the grand sacrifice, and the Church hath very fitly assigned it this place, as preambu- latory to the prayers ensuing, it being properly styled by St. Chrysostom zrepov rijc ebvyiic, ‘the wing of prayer,’ upon which wing the prayers of Cornelius ascended up into heaven, Acts Xl Upon the sentence “ Who goeth a warfare,” &c. he observes, > L’Estrange here refers to relation to ‘‘ the mode,” as he the passage in the first Epistle observes, “is most express,” to the Corinthians (xvi. 2), Justin Martyr, Clemens Alex- to Ignatius, Tertullian who, in andrinus, St. Cyprian, &c. Che Offertorp. 347 “This, with the succeeding sentences 7, 8, 9, 10, have a pecu- liar reference to the ministry; by which plan it is, that our Church intended a double offering: one eleemosynary alms for the poor; another oblatory for the maintenance of the Clergy. In the earliest times of Christianity such spontaneous oblations were the only income of the Church; with no other alimony did the ministry subsist. This collection was first weekly, 1 Cor. Xvi. 2; next, in flux of time, and in the African Church ¢, ‘ menstrua die,’ once a month. . . . And though Christian princes restored, in after times, to God his own, and endowed the Church with tithes, yet did not these oblations cease thereupon. ... No, all along, oblations both spontaneous, and such as custom had established, continued together with tithes, even unto our days*.”... Such was the effect upon the minds of faithful and thoughtful Churchmen, clerical and lay,—if Sparrow may be taken as a specimen of the one, and L’Estrange of the other,—of that deeper con- sideration and more perfect understanding of the Church’s order and ritual, which the events of those days had tended to produce; the attacks which were made on the Prayer Book calling forth its defenders, - and its public suppression endearing it the more to the feelings of the true-hearted. And their re- marks on the Offertory are the more observable, because in the Prayer Book, as it then stood, the traces of it were very faint; the name of the Offer- tory was not found in the Rubrics, and there re- mained only the mention of “the offering days appointed” on which were to be paid to the Curate “the due and accustomed offerings,” with the clause in the Prayer for the Church Militant, (of accept- ing the alms of the congregation,) implying, as it naturally did, as we find from the passage quoted from Hammond, the act of presenting the alms as an offering at the holy table. © But on this point, vid. sup. d Alliance, pp. 177—179. pp. 284—286. 348 Che Offertorp. From what we have seen, however, in regard to the state of feeling among Churchmen, we might have expected to find that the direction in which things were moving, in regard to this point, when the last review was taken in hand, would be that of restoration. In the paper by Bishop Cosin, be- fore referred to, of “ Particulars to be considered, explained, and corrected, in the Book of Common Prayer,” are the following notes : ‘In the Rubrick following the Sentences of the Offertory, ‘ The Churchwardens, or some other by them appointed,’ are ordered to ‘gather the devotions of the people, and to put the same into the poor man’s box ;’ which being seldom or never observed in most Churches, nor agreeing to the divers sentences (before set down), would be otherwise here ordered or explained. ‘* And the accustomed offerings to the Curate are here appointed to be ‘paid by every man or woman, after which done the Priest shall say,’ &c. Which if it should be thus observed, and at this time when they come to receive the Communion, would breed a great disturbance in the Church, and take up more time than can be allowed for that purpose: Wherefore it is needful, that some alteration were made of this Rubrick; and that the offerings or devotions of the people then collected, should be brought to the Priest and by him presented and laid upon the altar, or Communion Table, for such uses as be particularly named in the sentences then read by him °.” The Rubric accordingly, was altered to this its present form. *“‘ Whilst these Sentences are in reading, the Deacons, Church- wardens, or other fit person appointed for that purpose, shall receive the Alms for the Poor, and other devotions of the people, in a decent bason to be provided by the Parish for that purpose ; and reverently bring it to the Priest, who shall humbly present and place it upon the holy Table.” And at the end of the Communion Office, there was introduced the new Rubric— © Nichols, App. p. 69. Che Offertorp, 349 * After the Divine Service ended, the money given at the Offertory shall be.disposed of to such pious and charitable uses as the Minister and Churchwardens shall think fit. Wherein if they disagree, it shall be disposed of as the Ordinary shall ap- point.” In comparing the Rubrics, as thus framed, with those of the Scotch Service Book, we may observe that, while the sentences were left as they had stood in the former Books of Edward and Elizabeth, that which had been designated in Edward’s Second Book as “the devotion of the people,” was now called “the alms for the poor,” while by “the other devotions of the people,” would be understood such like objects as had been provided for in the Rubric of the Scotch Book, the same expression of “ pious and charitable uses” being employed here as there. The Offertory, meanwhile, was recognized again as a well known thing, as it had been in King Edward’s First Book". “Then shall the Priest return to the Lord’s Table and begin the Offertory, saying one or more of these sentences following,” &c. Bishop Andrewes’ wish, moreover, was carried into effect by the adoption of “a decent bason” for the receiv- ing of these alms and devotions, the word “receive,” being advisedly and happily chosen, both in this Rubrie, and in that of the Scotch Service Book, with the view, as I think we may perceive, of leav- ing it undetermined whether the alms and devotions should be “gathered” by the Deacons, Churchwar- dens, &c., as had been ordered by the Second Book of Edward, or be put into the bason as offerings, by the people themselves, Thus silently, without the apparent introduction of any great change, was the system of the Offertory fully incorporated into * Compare Rubric of 1549, sup. p. 281. 350 Che Offertoryp. our Service, and its uses extended; the new Ru- bric, by which it was ordered that “after the Di- vine Service ended, the money given at the Offertory ” should “be disposed of to such pious and charit- able uses as the Minister and Churchwardens should ‘think fit,” providing evidently for the bestowal of such collections upon various objects of Christian piety and charity, in the same way as Bishop An- drewes had determined the application of the money collected at the consecration of Jesus Chapel, South- ampton. And that part of the Rubric which referred to “the offering days” appointed, was now removed: free will offerings to the clergy being provided for by the words, “other devotions of the people,” as well as contemplated in some of the sentences which had throughout been retained; while the regular “ eccle- siastical dues, accustomably due” at Easter, were by another Rubric, which also remained in the revised Book, ordered to be paid at that season. Thus, so far from having lost all its meaning and applicability, the Offertory, at the last Review, was, as matter of fact, re-established with extended pow- ers of usefulness. And further, that the use of it was contemplated even though the Communion were not administered, would seem to be the natural inference from the order of arrangement adopted, by which, after the Rubric directing the collection of the offerings and the presentation and placing of them upon the Holy Table, is the direction in the following Rubric, that “when there is a Communion, the Priest shall then place upon the Table so much Bread and Wine as he shall think sufficient. After which done, the Priest shall say,” &c. Che Offertoryp. 351 And that this was indeed the intention, appears further from the Occasional Forms already referred to, in which, though the administration of the Com- munion was not contemplated or provided for, it was nevertheless supposed that there might be alms. This applies particularly to days of public Fasts, on which alms-giving might specially be looked for as the fitting accompaniment of prayer and fasting. It may have been possibly for this reason, if it were not a casual omission, that in the Form of Thanks- giving for the King’s Restoration, appointed for June 28, 1660, there is no clause within brackets, nor any marginal note, in the Prayer for the Church Militant ; whereas in the Form for the 30th of January [1661 ] there is the clause within brackets (“to accept our alms”) and the note in the margin, “If there be no alms given unto the poor, then shall the words (of accepting our alms) be left out unsaid.” And so also in the Forms of Prayer for the Fast of Jan. 15 and 22, and of June 12 and 19 in the same year, 1661. In the Form of Thanksgiving for Aug. 14 and 23, 1666, and subsequent forms, such as that for the Fast of March 27, and April 17, 1672, and that for the Fasts of Feb. 4 and 11, 1673-4, and in similar Forms issued from that time, the words within brackets stand as in the Prayer Book (“ to accept our alms and oblations”), and the marginal note in like manner, “If there be no alms or oblations,” &c. And here we must examine the question re- specting the meaning of the word “oblations,” in the insertions made thus, at the last Review, in the parenthetic clause in the Prayer for the Church Militant, and in the marginal note appended. The meaning of the word would seem to admit of little 352 Che Cffertorp. doubt to any one who had in mind the language of the Injunctions and of the Rubrics of the First Book of Edward VI., the order of which, as we have seen, was, to so great a degree, though silently, restored at the last Review. It was now no longer a mere collecting of “alms for the poor,” but, in the lan- guage of the Injunctions, a receiving of these and other “devotions of the people,” as an “oblation” to be humbly presented and placed by the hands of the Priest upon the holy Table. And the other oblation which the Rubric of Edward’s First Book had contained, viz. the setting the bread and wine, duly prepared, upon the altar, was now fully recog- nized and embodied in the Rubric, ordering the Priest, after the Offertory sentences, to “place upon the Table so much Bread and Wine as he shall think sufficient.” In regard both to the “devotions of the people,” and also to the elements of Bread and Wine, the words “offer” and “ oblation” had been used in the Scotch Service Book *, which is an important point in regard to the Rubric as adopted at the last Review. From the MS. corrections in a Prayer Book pre- served in the Bodleian Library, and which seems to have been prepared by Sancroft, then chaplain to Bishop Cosin, for the consideration of the Commis- sioners, it would appear that it was his wish that the revised Book should have followed more precisely the Rubric in the Scotch Service Book. The Ru- bric which he prepared with this view, although it was not accepted without some alteration, is evi- dently, from its form, the basis of that which was adopted. The proposed Rubric was, 8 Cf. sup. p. 339. Che @Cffertorp. 353 “And if there be a Communion, the Priest shall then offer up and place upon the Table so much Bread and Wine as he shall think sufficient ®.” It was probably judged expedient, in restoring the more full recognition of the Offertory in its essential features, to abstain from embodying in the Rubric now adopted the stronger form of expression, to “offer up,” which the Scotch Prayer Book had used in relation to the elements; though, indeed, the place in which the Offertory stands in our Communion Service, long prior to the act of Consecration, and while the ele- ments can be regarded only as God’s “creatures of Bread and Wine,” must effectually exclude even the appearance of any the most remote approximation to Romish doctrine. The essential idea of the Offer- tory was at the same time sufficiently marked by the restoration of the name, (“Then shall the Priest ... begin the Offertory,”) and the introduction of the term “oblations” in the Prayer for the Church Militant. In the use of which term a comprehen- sive meaning, as including the gifts of every kind, would seem to be indicated by its being used appa- rently as synonymous with “devotions of the people,” in conjunction with the word “alms ;’—for whereas the Rubric speaks of “the alms for the poor, and other devotions of the people,” the Prayer speaks of “alms and oblations ;? while, on the other hand, taking this Rubric in connexion with that which fol- lows, the word might seem rather to refer to the elements: inasmuch as, when “the alms and other devotions of the people” have first been presented and placed upon the holy Table, and then the Bread and Wine placed thereon, the Priest is directed, in » Vid. Bulley’s Variations in Offices, p.163. Cardwell’s Con- the Communion and Baptismal _ ferences, pp. 388—391. Aa 354 The @Cffertorp, the Prayer immediately following, to say, “ We humbly beseech thee, most mercifully to accept our alms and oblations.” The true inference, I think, would be that doth senses were intended. The latter sense seems to be regarded almost exclusively by Bishop Patrick, in whose view, however, as in that of our other divines, following herein antiquity, the two senses are closely combined. Bishop Patrick’s writings are the more worthy of consideration, inas- much as, from their several dates, they show both how the language now embodied in the Liturgy was understood by a contemporary, and also what were the opinions which, as then already received, found expression in that language. In his “ Mensa Mystica,” as originally published in 1660, before the review of the Common Prayer, he says, “We must not, when we come to God, appear before Him empty ; but we are to consecrate and offer unto Him some of our temporal goods, for the relief of those that are in want, which may cause many thanksgivings to be sent up by them unto God. It hath been said before, that our whole selves ought to be offered as a holocaust to God ; our love should be so great as to spend eur souls and bodies in his service ; now in token that we mean so to do, we must give something that is ours unto Him to be employed to his uses. We are to give God an earnest of our sin- cere and entire devotion to Him, by parting with something that we call ours, and transferring itto Him. Of this the Apostle speaks, Heb. xiii. 15, 16, where the serious reader (that can stay so long as to peruse those Scriptures which I cite) will find both praise and likewise communication of our goods to others, to be called ‘sacrifices.’ So that the spiritual sacrifice of ourselves, and the corporal sacrifice of our goods to Him, may teach the Papists that — we are sacrificers as well as they, and are made kings and priests unto God. Yea, they may know that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist is an offering (out of the stock of the whole congrega- tion) to this service, according as it was in the primitive times, when (as Justin saith) they offered bread and wine to the mpoeatwc chief minister of the brethren, who took it, and gave Che Gffertory. 355 praise and glory to the Lord of the whole world, and then made éxi wodv a large and prolix thanksgiving to Him that had made them worthy of such gifts. We have Noyixjy cal dxarvoy Bvaiar, —(as Origen his phrase is),” &c.i... In the later editions of the same work, subsequent to the review of 1661, the passage stands thus— 6é e . worthy of such gifts. We pray Him therefore in our Communion Service, to accept our OBLations (meaning those of Bread and Wine) as well as our Atms. We still make oye Kal dxarvov Ovoiay,” &e.*... And again in his “Christian Sacrifice,” published in 1674, speaking of the Bread and Wine as having, by “the ancient Christians,” been “first sanctified by being offered to God with thanksgiving, and pre- sented to Him with due acknowledgments that He -was the Lord and giver of all things,” he observes, “That also is to be understood when you see the bread and wine set upon God’s table by him that ministers in this divine service. ‘Then it is offered to God; for whatsoever is solemnly placed there, becomes by that means a thing dedicated and appro- priated to Him. ** And if you observe the time, when this bread and wine is ordered to be placed there, which is immediately after the alms of the people have been received for the poor, you will see it is intended by our Church to be a thankful oblation to God for the fruits of the earth. And, accordingly, all that are there present, when they behold the priest thus preparing the bread and wine for consecration to an higher mystery, should secretly lift up their souls to God in hearty thanksgiving, and offer Him the sacrifice of praise for these and all other such like benefits, desirmg Him to accept of these gifts, as a small token of their grateful sense that they hold all they have of Him, as the great Lord of the world. And so we are taught to do in that prayer which imme- diately follows in our Liturgy, ‘ for the whole state of Christ’s i « Mensa Mystica, &c. by Symon Patrick, D.D. Dean of Simon Patrick, B.D. Minister Peterborough, and Chaplain in of God’s Word at Battersea in Ordinary to his Majesty.” Surrey.” 1660. pp. 43, 44. 1684. k pp. 37, 38. (5th ed.) “ by A‘a 356 Che @Offertorp. Church,’ and wherein we humbly beseech Him to ‘accept’ not only ‘our alms,’ but also our ‘ oblations.’ These are things dis- tinct; and the former (‘alms’) signifying that which was given for the relief of the poor, the latter (‘oblations’) can signify nothing else but (according to the style of the ancient Church) this bread and wine presented to God, as a thankful remembrance of our food both dry and liquid (as Justin Martyr speaks) which He, the Creator of the world, hath made and given unto us!.” Wheatly follows Bishop Patrick, to whom he refers, noticing in addition the fact of the “ Rubric being added to our Liturgy at the same time with the ‘oblations’ in the Prayer following (i. e. at the last Review).” These writers, however, while they notice thus the introduction, or rather the restoration of the direc- tion for the placing of the elements upon the holy Table, as having been made at the same time with the insertion of the word “oblations,” have mean- while not noticed the restoration also at the same time of the “offering” of the “od/ation and alms” of King Edward’s First Book and his Injunctions; that offering being now made not “to the poor men’s box,” but, equally with the elements, “placed upon” the holy Table, as well as “humbly presented” there. And it is worthy of remark that, in the order thus established at the last Review, the same words are thus used in relation to both offerings. But, in fact, the two applications of the term “oblations,” espe- cially when we regard them in their origin, are inseparably united; the same offerings out of which, in ancient times, the elements for the holy Com- munion were taken, supplying also the means of charitable bounty to the poor. So that, I conceive, in all cases in which “alms for the poor, or other ' Christian Sacrifice, pp. 76, 77. (4th ed.) 1676. Che Offertorp. 357 devotions of the people” are received, whether the Communion be administered or not (though of course specially then), the word “oblations” is in- tended to be used. We must proceed, however, to examine another hypothesis which has been raised respecting the Rubric, adopted at the last Review, directing how the Service is to be concluded if there be no Com- munion, in its bearing on the question whether the Offertory on such occasions was intended to include the whole congregation or not. It appears to be freely admitted and “confessed” that the Rubric “at first sight looks like a deliberate restoration of the practice enjoined by the Rubric of 1549.” But, then we are told, “it must be remembered that that very appointment which called forth the Rubric of 1549, was then, and is still, the only source of main- tenance for the poor in some parts of the English Church ”.” We are reminded that “the Poor Law assessment was a measure which applied to England only, while the Common Prayer was designed for every portion of the British dominions. Where the collection therefore, independently of Communion, was _ re- quired, it was also requisite that instructions should be given for the time and mode. ‘The Rubrics,” it is thought, are “drawn so as to meet this case, without requiring a weekly collection throughout and Ireland, and in all those of m ‘* The “practice,;’’ we are told, ‘‘ of returning to the Com- munion ‘l'able after the Sermon, and reading the Offertory while the Churchwardens collect from the whole assembled congrega- tion, is to be seen to this day in many Churches in Scotland the Isle of Man on most Sun- days in the year. In the latter it is omitted only when the ser- vice is in Manx, the congrega- tion being then presumed to consist wholly of such persons as are too poor to give.” 358 Che Offertarp. the Church. One or more of the sentences is ordered to be read at discretion, but the note respecting times when there are no alms is still retained; in- dicating, apparently, that where circumstances did not require it, no collection need be made, excepting when there was Communion °.” Such is the hypothesis, which, however, upon exa- mination will, I think, be found to rest upon no sufficient basis. For first with regard to the usage in Seotland and Ireland; in Ireland, at least, the practice cannot be referred to the Rubric before us. For it is only, as Tam informed, when Sermons are preached for some particular charity, that the collec- tion from the congregation is made, in the churches in Ireland, during the reading of the Offertory sen- tences: the collection for the poor, made every Sun- day, is made during the singing before the Sermon —an arrangement which may much more easily be referred for its origin to the order established in the time of Edward VI.° For as, by the Act of 1547, it was after the Gospel every Sunday that the Minister was required to exhort the parishioners to ® Wickham, pp. 25, 26. It no less than eight or nine is added, that ‘‘if we consider the original cause of this note’s introduction, viz. to provide for those occasions when the Offertory was,” as we are told, ‘“‘ by a pointed alteration omit- ted, its bearing upon this part of the question is very import- ant.” The supposition as to the omission of the Offertory has been already taken notice of. (Vid. sup. p. 314.) ° Mr. Wickham mentions it as a curious fact (p. 22, note), ‘that in a district in the dio- cese of St. Asaph, comprising parishes, it has been the cus- tom, from time immemorial, to make a collection, whenever there is a Communion, from the whole congregation.” He states further, ‘‘that there is not a uniformity of practice in these parishes ; insome of which the Collection is made during the singing, before the Sermon, but even in these,” he observes, ‘it is easy to trace the ongin of the custom in the appoint- ments of the First and Second Books of Edward VI.” Che Offertory, 359 a liberal contribution, it may have become the cus- tom to make the collection then, or at least after the Creed and before the Sermon or Homily. But, however this may be, the Irish usage does not seem referable to the Rubric in question; nor is it correct to state that the English Book of Common Prayer, “was designed for every portion of the British dominions.” It was, like the former Books, limited to England and Wales, and the town of Berwick upon Tweed; and it would not appear that the usages of the Churches in Scotland or Ireland were in any way regarded in it. It is hardly probable that the ease of Scotland, circumstanced as it then was in regard to the Church, was specially in view; and the Irish Church and parliament acted independently of England, though they followed in its wake and adopted its Liturgy as revised*®. The words of the Rubric, moreover, which were retained unaltered from the Second Book of Edward and that of Eliza- beth, directing the Priest to say “one or more of” the sentences for the Offertory, “as he thinketh most convenient 7m his discretion,” are evidently to be interpreted by the Rubric of Edward’s First Book: which directed that “one or more of these sen- tences” should “be sung whiles the people do offer,” and by the Rubric of the Scotch Service Book, which subjoined to the word “discretion” the explanatory clause, “according to the length or shortness of the time that the people are offering.” It may, however, readily be admitted that the Rubric, as it was left at the last Review, provided equally for the case of a collection being made or not, the Minister exercising his discretion in reading or not reading P Bishop Mant’s History of the Church of Ireland, vol. ii. p. 645. 360 Che Offertorp. the sentences specially designed for that purpose. The retaining, in like manner, of the note respecting times when there are no alms, can scarcely be inter- preted as “indicating that, where circumstances did not require it, no collection need be made, excepting when there was Communion.” There is nothing that would express either the supposed dispensation, or the supposed limitation, to occasions on which the Communion was administered. “But,” we are told, “though this Rubric certainly seems to require the reading of one or more sen- tences of the Offertory, (as we find still done in Cathedrals and Collegiate Chapels) it is clear in point of fact that the collection now demanded was not made at all in England after the revision of the Liturgy, and the publication of this Rubric.” In proof of this, reference is made to Dean Comber, who “writing within twenty years afterwards, says, ‘This Apostolical and excellent custom of weekly collec- tions is now generally (to the grief of all good Christians) omitted, and wholly laid aside. Surely Comber,” it is argued, “is not here contrasting two periods of his own life separated by twenty years only! He is speaking of what he considered the custom of ancient times, and indeed of what was actually the custom so long as the Communion con- tinued to be administered not less frequently than every Lord’s Day. But it was the discontinuance of this latter practice, of which he should have com- plained, rather than of that which in the Primitive Church had never been disconnected from it ‘.” But, if we look to the passage itself as it stands in Comber, we shall see that, while it certainly gives 1 Wickham, pp. 26, 27. The Offertorp. 361 evidence as to what was the general practice in his times, and which he so much deplores, it bears wit- ness, at the same time, to the view which he took of the Rubric, and of the intention of the Church, according to his view, to invite the offerings of her children, at her weekly assemblies for worship, even though the Communion were not, as he desired to see it, celebrated weekly. He says, ‘We have now [i.e. in the Creed,] professed our faith to God, and next we must give some testimony to our brethren, that it is not adead faith, but such an one as worketh by love, Gal. v. 6, and is made perfect by charity, James 11. 22.... The first and most natural act of charity is, to relieve the wants of the necessitous with somewhat which we can spare; and this the Apostle adviseth us to do every Lord’s day, 1 Cor. xvi. 1, and by his authority our Church invites us to give alms so often, whe- ther there be a Communion or no: For this is now the only real offermg which we Christians can make, being instead of those vast oblations and costly sacrifices which the Jews did ever join with their prayers, and it is the proper means of acknowledging God’s bounty to us, and supreme authority over us; wherefore alms ought to accompany all our solemn supplications. The Jews at this day do (instead of the daily sacrifice which now they cannot offer) give a small piece of money every day when they pray ; much more ought we Christians so to do; to whom greater love is shewed, and of whom larger charity is required .... Itis well observed that our Saviour hath enclosed Prayers between Alms and Fasting, Matt. vi., and therefore they are called its two wings, without which it will scarce fly so high as the throne of God. However it is very necessary we should give somewhat with all our more solemn prayers, and yet, because it is nothing worth, if it be not given freely, we do (as the ancient Church did') persuade, and not command it from the people, that they may have the opportunity of a free-will offering, not that they " Comber refers here to the gest that Tertullian’s meaning passage in Tertullian(sup. cit.), was, according to the exact which, however, as Mr. Wick- force of his words, not that the ham observes, speaks only of a collection was made monthly, collection ‘“‘ made monthly.” I but that every one gave some- have already ventured to sug- thing, at least, monthly. 362 Che Gifertorp. should think it is left to their liberty by God, whether they will give or no; and yet upon this false persuasion, and the abuse of our Exhortation, this Apostolical and excellent custom of weekly collections is now generally (to the grief of all good Christians) omitted, and wholly laid aside.” Dean Comber continues: ‘The oblation of Alms, which is at other times commendable, is at the time of this Sacrament of love necessary, and by no means to be omitted, because our Saviour (with respect, no doubt, to the holy Table, as Mr. Mede excellently proves, Diatr. Holy Altar, Sect. 2. p. 18, &c.) directs us to bring our gift hither to the Christian altar, Matt. v. 23, 24, and St. Paul hath jomed the sacrifice of alms to that of Eucharist, Heb. xiii. 15, 16, which our Saviour himself first practised ; for his custom of giving alms at the Passover made his disciples mistake his words to him that bare the bag, John xiii. 29; and it is very probable, that at the time of receiving this Sacrament were all those large dona- tions of houses, lands, and money made, Acts il. 44, 45, 46. For when those first converts were all united to one Christ, and to one another in this feast of love, their very souls were mingled, and then they cheerfully renounced their property, and easily distri- buted their goods among those to whom they had given their hearts before. Some say it was only in the Church of Jerusalem, where they had all things common, but in other places it is certain there were Collections every Sunday, 1 Cor. xvi. 1, (that is, every time they received this Holy Communion.).... It was not determmed how much any man should give, but all men were exhorted and enjoined to offer something according to their ability, which if any neglected, the Fathers censured them as un- charitable communicants. Our penurious and uncharitable age may blush at the liberal offerings of our own pious ancestors, who crowned the Christian altars at these Sacraments, with rich vessels and costly vestments; and offered at the holy Table deeds, and noble donations of lands and revenues, charters of great privileges and immunities, and all that might testify their love to Jesus and his Church; nay, in the very times of persecution they offered in such abundance, that it appears by Tertullian and St. Cyprian, these very oblations sufficed, First, to maintain the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ; Secondly, to provide all necessaries for Divine administrations; Thirdly, to feed and sustain orphans, widows, and all the Christian poor, yea, some of the heathen also Che Gffertarp. 363 sometimes. I might add, to the reproof of our slackness, that in those days it was esteemed a great punishment, fit to be inflicted on murderers, prostitutes, excommunicate, and malicious persons, to deny them the liberty of giving alms at the holy Table, by which they thought themselves deprived of the Communion of saints, though many now so lightly inflict this upon them- selves §.”’ In this passage, Comber very plainly and un- doubtingly expresses what, in his view, was the intention of the Church in regard to the Offertory. And we must bear constantly in mind, that it is the intention of the Church with which we are primarily concerned. It is important, doubtless, to ascertain what, at different periods, has been the prevailing practice, especially where there is a question as to the restoration of usages which have fallen into de- suetude, or in regard to the authoritative enforce- ment of Rubrics; but the first point on which men’s minds require to be satisfied is, what is the mind and meaning of the Church, as expressed in her rules. And in this enquiry we shall, obviously, be much assisted by consulting the writings and the practice of the best instructed and most faithful of her sons, and especially of those who lived nearest to the time when the several Rubrics in question were drawn up. But if, omitting this first object of enquiry, in referring to these writers, we look to them exclusively or chiefly for evidence as to the general practice of their times, we may be uncon- sciously taking as the authorized interpreter of the Church’s system, a state of public opinion and feeling as low as was that, confessedly on all hands, of the reign of Charles the Second. We may be losing, moreover, the benefit of a valuable example ‘ Companion to the Temple, Part 3, pp. 27, 28. 364 Che Offertorp. and pattern to ourselves. For while, indeed, to those who are keenly alive to the apparent discrepancy between the Church’s rule and our present practice, and to the neglect in which it may seem to have originated, it cannot but be a matter of no ordinary satisfaction, to find evidences of a witness borne in days past to the Church’s appointment, and of an earnest endeavour to obtain the fulfilment of her desire, on the part of those from whom we thus learn most fully what the Church’s intention really was, we shall learn from them also a lesson of that pa- tience and Christian moderation by which the true sons of our Mother, the Church of England, have been ever distinguished, and in which we have need to exercise ourselves, if like them we too are com- pelled to feel and own,—and thankfully, nevertheless, —that her standard is higher than that to which we can, for the present, hope to attain. In regard to the point immediately before us, Dean Comber’s testimony is strongly corroborated by that of Bishop Nicholson, which carries us back immediately to the time of the last Review, Bishop Nicholson having been appointed to the see of Gloucester in 1660-1. In the dedication dated June 20, 1661, of his Exposition of the Catechism, to Bishop, afterwards Archbishop, Sheldon, he states that “some years” were “ passed since these brief and plain collections were published,” which having been “with approbation received, and the whole im- pression sold off” he had been “called upon by eminent men in the Church to publish them again.” Under the head of “the duties of the Sabbath,” he specifies the doing “all acts of charity,” one of which is, “to give alms,” which he connects more immediately with public worship; for he says, among Che Offertory. 365 those who sin against the Fourth Commandment are, ‘‘They who, under pretence of sermonizing, have cast off God’s solemn worship on this day ; such as is, solemn reading of the Old and New Testament, common prayer, supplication, giving of thanks, singing of psalms and hymns, administrations of Sacraments, exercise of Church censures, collections for the poor, ordination. All which were the offices and actions which were performed in the common assemblies in the primitive Church on this day ‘.”. . . At the same time, he connected this giving of alms specially with the celebration of the Commu- nion. He says the “charity” required of them who come to the Lord’s Supper will be conspicuous, 1. “In giving to, and relieving the necessities of our poorer brethren. Hard it is for any man to show that the Sacrament in the primitive Church was administered without an offertory. Mention is made of the liberality and charity expressed at their breaking of bread. And a command there is, that upon the ‘ first day of the week, (a day appointed for the sacrifice) every man should set apart somewhat for the use of the poor.’ All Litur- gies of the Church record it, and owrs intends it, and speaks for it in those sentences that persuade it, and in the subsequent prayer, where we desire of God ‘ to accept our alms.’ ”’ The view here taken by Bishop Nicholson seems entirely to agree with Dean Comber’s: he considers the “collections for the poor” to have been estab- lished by apostolical precept, and received by our Church, as a part of God’s solemn worship, in which every man should take part every Sunday: while at the same time, recognizing that day as the day specially appointed for the celebration of the holy Kucharist, he would at all events contend strongly against the Sacrament being ever administered with- out the Offertory accompanying it. ' He refers, in a note, to Justin Martyr. 366 Che Offertarp. And this last, as it was thus in his view the most essential point, deeply read as he was in the records of Christian antiquity, so it was the utmost that Bishop Bull, who, as a parochial clergyman, owned Bishop Nicholson as his diocesan as well as patron ", endeavoured to establish in his own parish. His biographer tells us; “The holy Eucharist, the mysterious rite and perfection of Christian worship, was not performed so often in his parish as he earnestly desired, and yet oftener than is usual in little villages ; for he brought it to seven times in a year. But whenever he officiated at the altar, it was exactly agreeable to the directions of the rubric, and with the gravity and seriousness of a primitive priest. He preserved the custom of a collection for the poor, when the priest begins the Offertory, which I the rather mention, because it is too much neglected in country villages. He always placed the elements of bread and wine upon the altar himself, after he had received them either from the Churchwarden or clerk, or had taken them from some convenient place where they were laid for that purpose. u *¢ In the year 1662, Mr. Bull was presented to the vicarage of Suddington, St. Peter, by the then lord chan- cellor, the earl of Clarendon, at the request and application of his constant patron and wor- thy diocesan, Dr. Nicholson, who was made bishop of Glou- cester upon the Restoration, and who had all that merit which was necessary to fill so great a station in the Church to the best advantage, if his steadiness to her doctrines and discipline, in her most afflicted state, had not made it also reasonable that he should have had his share in her __ prosperity.” “This good bishop .... by his learned writings had de- fended and maintained the Church of England against her His constant practice was to offer adversaries, when she was un- der a cloud; and after that she had rid out the storm, did not omit to do all that became an excellent prelate, for sup- porting the catholic faith and discipline professed in her com- munion both by himself and by others. He died at Glouces- ter, having sat in that chair above eleven years, in the 82d year of his age, upon the 5th of February, 1671-2, with the reputation of a truly primitive bishop. His works shew him to have been a person of great learning, piety, and prudence.” ..-. Nelson’s Life of Bull, pp. 44, 45. 176, 177. The epitaph written by Bishop Bull, and inscribed on his monument, is given by Nelson. Che Offertorp. 367 them upon the holy table, in the first place, in conformity to the practice of the ancient church, before he began the Communion Service ; and this the rubric, after the Offertory, seemeth to require of all her priests, by declaring, that ‘ when there is a Communion, the priest shall then place upon the table so much bread and wine as he shall think sufficient ’.’ ”’ In this description, which has been given entire in order to the better understanding of that part of it which more immediately concerns the Offertory, indicating as it does that Bishop Bull had a collec- tion of alms only when the Communion was admi- nistered, there is nevertheless something observable in the way in which his biographer seems to regard the Offertory as distinct from, and preceding “the beginning of the Communion Service,” i. e. the service for the actual administration of the Com- munion, the commencement of which, as has been already observed, would seem to be marked by the Rubric, “ And when there is a Communion,” &c. The Offertory seems thus to be recognized as separable from the Communion; and that this was in reality the view taken by Nelson, appears clearly from his own work, “The great duty of frequenting the Christian Sacrifice.” And we may take as a. faith- ful expositor of Bp. Bull’s opinions in this matter, his attached pupil and friend. From the note, then, which Nelson subjoins to the sentences for the Offertory, it would seem that he contemplated the offerings as exclusively those of communicants ” ; but at the same time in an earlier note, at the beginning of the Offertory, we find him writing thus : ‘The Communion Service begins with some sentences col- v Life, pp. 52, 53. to charity, the communicants ’ He says, ‘While the Mi- make their offerings.”’ nister reads these exhortations 368 The Offertorp. lected out of the Holy Scriptures proper for the occasion; which do with great energy enforce the duty of charity, which we are called upon to exercise at this time. The oblations of the primi- tive Christians were upon such occasions offered in such abun- dance that their clergy were thereby liberally maintained and all necessaries provided for divine administrations, as well as for the relief of the poor; but now that a stated maintenance is settled upon those that wait at the altar, these collections are particularly applied to the support of the necessitous ; not but that the dis- tribution belongs to the minister, who may share in it himself, if his wants require it. The Apostle advises, that these collec- tions be made every Lord’s Day *, and from his authority the Church invites us to give alms so often, whether there be a Commu- nion or no; but this Apostolical custom of weekly collections is now generally omitted, and wholly laid aside. It would be well indeed, if a means could be found out to revive them, that such oblations might accompany all our solemn services upon the Lord’s Day. Till then we should be more liberal in the per- formance of our alms-deeds, to which the following Sentences exhort us both from command and example. ... They further instruct us in the objects that are to be supported by our obla- tions, which are the clergy, and all the poor, especially Chris- tians ; in the measures of it, liberality and cheerfulness; and lays down the end we ought to propose to ourselves, which is the glory of God 9.” It will have been observed that, in this passage, Nelson partly incorporates the language of Dean Comber; while it is at the same time interesting to observe how, with the prospect but faint of the restoration of that which he regarded as clearly the Church’s desire and design, he urges the im- proving to the utmost the opportunities which were still afforded of exercising Christian liberality. With Bishop Bull must be joined his eminent and excellent contemporary, from whose pages we have already quoted so largely, “the great restorer * 1 Cor. xvi..1, 2. » Christian Sacrifice, pp. 75, 76 (first ed. 1706). Che Gffertory, 369 and reviver of primitive piety,” [I mean Bishop Beveridge. How clearly he read in the Church’s appointed order her desire for the constant. cele- bration of the Communion, how earnestly he endea- voured to further that desire, and how successfully he attempted it in his own parish in London, we have already seen; but it is evident notwithstanding, that, in his judgment, the Church authorized and intended the use of the Offertory, even though the Communion were not administered, in particular on her more solemn days of worship, and specially on the Lord’s day. In the passage already partly quoted’, in which he points out the fitness of the order by which, upon Sundays and Holy days, the Church “still requires, that although there be no Commu- nion, yet the Service is to be read to the end of the Prayer for the Church Militant,” he says, “Here is the Offertory, and choice sentences of Scripture, read to stir up people to offer unto :God something of what He hath given them, as their acknowledgment that He gives them all they have, and that they hold it all of Him; which, how- soever it be now generally neglected, except there be a Commu- nion, yet people ought certainly to be put in mind of it, at least upon all Holy-Days, and especially upon the Lord’s own Day, according to His own order, written by His Apostle St. Paul, Gorsxvie? 4" With these authorities, we may, I think, safely conclude, not only that the Church allows the use of the Offertory, even though there be no celebra- tion of the Communion, but also that the including of the Offertory as part of the Service to be read “upon the Sundays and other Holy-days,” when there is no Communion, was intended to be a wit- * Vid. sup. p. 245. 4 Great Necessity and Aceantoies pr22k. Bb 370 Che Offertoryp, ness to the primitive practice of offerings made by the Church at her solemn assemblies for worship on the Lord’s Day, and a witness also to her desire to see such practice restored, and to give an opportunity to those of her members who might be so disposed, to present on such occasions, as part of their reli- gious service, the free-will offering of their hands. I would repeat, however, here, what has been observed already, that the Rubric leaves it to the discretion of the Priest whether he shall say “one or more” of the sentences for the Offertory; and it is only when more than one of “these sentences °” are read, that the Rubric‘, taken literally and strictly, requires the receiving of the alms by the persons appointed; nor, as has been already ob- served, does the Rubric, as it stands at present, require them to “gather” the alms and other devo- tions of the congregation, but only to “receive” such as should be offered ;—the mode of receiving, or of affording to those who might be so disposed the opportunity of offering, being left open. And the freeness of the offering has been so marked throughout, whether in the regulations of our own Church, or in those of early times, and is indeed so essentially embodied in the sentences which are read, that no Clergyman would wish, if he could avoid it, to adopt any method which would seem to give a character of compulsoriness to that of which the great beauty and value consists in its being a “free-will offering.” » It will be observed, also, general character. that, not only the first, but the ¢ “Whilst these sentences three following sentences also are in reading, the Deacons, have—and that intentionally, Churchwardens,” &c. it is evident—more or less of a Che Offertorp. 371 The propriety, however, of reading any. of the sentences on occasions when no collection is to be made, has been questioned by Archdeacon Sharp, who gives it as his opinion that, “when there is no collec- tion of alms made, there is no occasion to use any of the sentences appointed to be recited during the time of a collection.” After quoting the several Rubrics on the subject, he draws this conclusion,— ‘From these several Rubrics laid together, the sense of the Church may be gathered; viz. that alms and the sentences are intended always to accompany each other: and the obvious inference is, that, where the former are wanting, the latter will seem superfluous and without warrant.” At the same time he says :— ‘Yet I dare not blame any minister who continues the com- mon practice of reciting one or two of them, before he proceeds to the prayer for the Church Militant. And the rather, because it is observable that in most of the occasional offices for fasts and thanksgivings, enjoined by authority, one of these sentences, which bears the nearest relation to the occasion in hand, is directed to be read at the Offertory. And these directions plainly carry their authority along with them. But while we are left to the apparent directions in the Rubric only, it will be difficult to shew that we have any. authority from thence to use them when there are no stated offerings of alms. The just consequence of which would have been, that we might not at those times use any of these sentences, had not custom, and an almost universal practice of the Clergy, forbid the drawing such a consequence. ‘* Therefore, as the matter now stands, it seems to be left as a point determinable at our own discretion, viz. either to do what has been most usually done, or not to do what we are persuaded in our judgments was not originally designed to be done‘.” I would only observe upon this passage, that the “almost universal practice” to which Archdeacon Sharp bears witness, together with the evidence of the occasional offices to which he refers, carrying d Sharp on the Rubric, pp. 77, 78, note. Bb2 Bie Che Offertoryp. us back to the very time when the collections at the Offertory ceased to be weekly, goes very far to prove that what has been “most usually,” or universally done, was in reality “designed to be done.” We have now, then, I think, sufficiently ascer- tained both that the Church admits of the Offertory, even though there be no Communion, and also that, even when no alms are collected, one or more of the sentences may properly, and indeed ought to be read. But a question yet remains, whether when the Communion is to be administered, the offering should be made by the whole congregation, or only by the communicants,—which in other words is, in fact, the question, at what time in the service those who do not stay to partake of the Communion should leave the Church. In King Edward’s First Book, as we have already seen, this point was determined: the non-communi- cants were to leave the Church immediately after the Offertory. In the Second Book no express direc- tion was given, except that those who remained, though not intending to communicate, were, in the exhortation following the Prayer for the Church Militant, bidden to depart. But, long before the last Review, it would seem to have been the usage for non-communicants to leave the Church at an earlier point in the service. For, in describing the order of the services as it then stood, Bishop Cosin says, A After the Sermon follows the Offertory ; and there is a col- lection made among the communicants for the sustenance of the ministers of the Church, and the poor. . . . Then we pray for the Church militant... . “Then follows a twofold Exhortation to the people. One is, that they should go out of the Church who do not come thither Che @Offertorp, 373 to communicate: the other is, that the remaining part should prepare themselves for a worthy receiving of it °.” The continuance, however, of any of the congrega- tion to this part of the service, except those who intended to receive the Communion, would seem to have been a remnant of Romish practice,—the being present at Mass without receiving—which accord- ingly, we may suppose, did not last long. The non- communicants, especially, after the collection had ceased to be made every Sunday, probably left the Church at the same point in the Service at which they had been directed to leave it by the First Book of Edward, and at which they commonly leave it now, i.e. after the Sermon; with this only difference, that, by the order of Edward’s First Book, they were directed, before they departed, first to make their offering. It is, at all events, clear that prior to the last review, the non-communicants had been accustomed to leave the Church before the reading of the Ex- hortation in question: for in Bishop Cosin’s paper of “ Particulars to be considered, explained, and cor- rected,” &c., we find these remarks, “The first and second Exhortations‘ that follow are more fit to be read some days before the Communion, than at the very time when the people are come to receive it; For first, they that tarry for that purpose are not ‘negligent,’ and they that are ‘ negligent’ be gone, and hear it not. Then secondly, they that should come to the minister, for quieting of their conscience, and receiving the benefit of absolution, have not then a sufficient time to do it. Wherefore requisite it is, that these two exhortations should be appointed to be read upon the Sunday or some other Holiday before. ‘‘ Likewise in the third exhortation, there be these words ap- pointed to be read somewhat out of due time ; ‘If any of you be © Nichols, App. p. 35. asmuch as our duty is,” &c. ' «We be come together,’ Vid. sup. pp. 312, 313, and &c., and ‘‘ Dearly beloved, for- note °. 374 Che Offertorp. a blasphemer of God, or a slanderer of his word, an adulterer, or be in malice or envy, or in any other grievous crimes, bewail your sins, and come not to this holy table, lest, after the taking of that holy Sacrament, the devil enter into you as he did into Judas,’ &c. For is any person who comes at that time purposely to receive the Communion, likely to discover himself, (if he be guilty) in the presence of all the congregation, by rising up and departing suddenly from it? Therefore this clause were fitter to be omitted in this third Exhortation, and to be added to the second, a week, or some days at least, before the Communion is administered. “In the next words which the Priest is to say unto them that come to the Holy Communion, they are invited to ‘draw near.’ And though in many places they use so to do, where they are to remove from their seats, and to approach nearer to the Table in the Church or Chancel, for the taking of the holy Sacrament; yet in other places where the Chapels are small, and the communi- cants so few that they are all fixed already in their several places within the Chancel or Church near to the Table, before these words come to be read unto them, there will be no need to have them remove, and therefore no need of any such words ; for which reason there would be a provision here made to that purpose 8.” All these suggestions of Bishop Cosin were fol- lowed. The two Exhortations, with the necessary alterations before noticed", were appointed to be read “when the minister giveth warning for the celebration of the holy Communion (which he shall always do upon the Sunday or some Holyday, im- mediately preceding”): the passage in the third Exhortation was omitted, and inserted in that which now stood as the first of those two; and the words, in the address “to them that come to re- ceive the Holy Communion,” “draw near” were modified by the addition of the words “ with faith” (“draw near with faith”); and, by this so slight alteration, no longer seemed to imply necessarily a change of place in the communicants. And at the same time the Rubric at the beginning of the % Nichols, App. p. 69. h Vid, sup. pp. 312, 313. Che Offertoryp. 375 third exhortation—that which was to be addressed to the communicants at the time of the celebration —was altered thus. Instead of “Then shall the Priest say this Exhortation,” it stands now, ** At the time of the celebration of the Communion, the com- municants being conveniently placed for the receiving of the holy Sacrament, the Priest shall say this Exhortation. Dearly beloved in the Lord,” &c. This, then, would seem to be the point in the Service at which those of the congregation who do not intend to communicate should depart ; although, acting consistently and uniformly upon the principle of unwillingness to regard any of her congregation as thus self-excommunicate, the Church has pointedly abstained, since the First Book of Edward, from giving any express direction upon the subject. It had been easy to give such direction, but it would have involved the recognition of what she would not contemplate. And thus the very doubtfulness to which we are subject in the interpretation of her formularies, is often found, when we consider it more carefully, to be, in reality, an indication of her mind. And the point of division thus marked, though faintly, would seem to be the same as in the Second Book of Edward, which appeared to con- template the whole congregation remaining until after the alms had been offered in the Prayer for the Church Militant. The First Book of Edward, as we have seen, directed the non-communicants to depart as soon as they had offered their alms during the singing of the Offertory sentences: and with this usage would nearly coincide in practice that which at present prevails, in the case which alone will fully solve the problem of the Rubrics in our Communion Office, viz. that of the Communion being adminis- 376 Che Offertoryp. tered on the Sunday. In the case of a collection being made for some object of charity on an ordinary Sacrament Sunday, the people would, according to this usage, leave their alms at the time of the Offertory, viz. immediately after the Sermon. And there is this, at least, to be pleaded for the permis- sion of such usage, under circumstances like those in which we find ourselves at present, the greater part of our congregations unhappily not remaining to the Communion, that thereby the integrity of the Ser- vice for the celebration of the Communion is un- broken, the solemn prayer for the Church universal being part of the Service which in ancient times was marked off as the missa fidelium. For as Bishop Andrewes observes in one of his Notes, ‘‘ After the ending of the first part of the Liturgy (which they called heretofore the Missa Catechumenorum) follows, according to our custom, the Sermon. Then the third part of the Service, 193 which is the form of administration of the Holy Communion '. And it is to be observed that, in his Form of Consecration, Bishop Andrewes excluded the non- communicants before the Offertory “. Bishop Cosin also in explanation of the word missa, observes, ‘For as heretofore the dismission was twofold, so the service was likewise double, that which belonged to the Catechumens, and that which belonged to the faithful. The Catechumens’ Missa reached to the Offertory (who were obliged to depart before the offering was made), the Missa of the Faithful beginning with the Offertory. For each of these offices followed immediately ' Nichols, App. p. 35. k After the Nicene Creed, followed by the reading of the Sentence of Consecration, and a prayer, ‘‘ Finitis precationibus istis Dominus Episcopus sedem separatim capessit (ubi prius) populusque universus non com- municaturus dimittitur, et porta clauditur; prior Sacellanus per- git legendo sententias illas hor- tatorias ad eleemosynas,” &c. The same order is followed in the Form of Consecration, which passed the Convocation in 1712, and which is now generally used on such occasions. Che @Offertorp, 377 one after the other, but only that the dismission of the Catechu- mens and the Penitents came between them |.” And there was something corresponding, in some degree, to this dismission in the Exhortation which followed the Sermon, and preceded the Offertory, in King Edward’s First Book, and which, addressed as it was “to those that be minded to receive” the Communion, warned those who were in grievous sin, or who were not in charity with their brethren, not to come to the holy Table. But in the revised Liturgy the whole congregation, as it would seem, were invited to offer, and solemnly to present their ' Nichols, App. pp. 35, 36. And Bishop Beveridge, though, as we have seen, he regarded the Offertory as intended to include the whole congregation, yet practically recognizes this division in the Service. In one of his Sermons he says, ...“‘T shall briefly run through the whole Office, beginning at the Offertory. ‘* Our minds, therefore, being rightly disposed and prepared for so great a work, by an humble confession of our sins, by fervent and solemn prayers to God for the pardon of them, and for the grace to forsake them, by praising and magnify- ing his all glorious name, and by hearing some part of his holy word read and expounded to us, we then make bold to address ourselves to our Lord’s Table, where the first thing we set about is to exercise our cha- rity, and that two ways; first, by a liberal contribution of what God hath given us, to the relief of others’ necessities; and then by praying for Christ’s whole catholic church militant here on earth.”... (Sermon 130.) This passage may be added to the evidences already cited, of the Services of Morning Prayer and Communion being formerly used, as now, toge-~ ther :—Bishop Beveridge evi- dently so used them, and ap- parently without any question. Nelson seems to recognize the same division in the service, and also to contemplate an in- terval at this point, while the minister, as it would appear, is changing his dress. He says, ‘“When the Sermon is ended, we should endeavour as soon as we can to compose ourselves for the devout celebration of the Christian Sacrifice; and while the Minister is preparing himself to attend the Holy Table before the Communion Office begins, that time may be well employed in imploring God’s grace to assist us in the right discharge of that holy service we are about to per- form.” And again, “‘ The Com- munion Service begins with some sentences. collected out of the Holy Scriptures,” &c. (Christian Sacrifice, pp. 71, 75.) 378 Che Offertorp. offerings in the Prayer for the Church Militant ; and the same order, as we have already seen, would appear to be recognized in the Rubric as settled at the last Review. And indeed the case is in some respects altered since the times of the early Church, inasmuch as now the whole congregation is pro- fessedly of baptized persons: and with the excep- tion of those who may be repelled for certain offences or disqualifications, all are presumed to be in full communion with the Church. And as the offering of the elements is that of the whole parish, so the offering of alms and other devotions would properly be that of the whole congregation. And that this is the intention and desire of the Church, cannot, I think, be doubted. It only admits of a question whether, in the absence of any precise direction, it may not, in one view at least, be most consistent with primitive practice, as well as with that which is generally established amongst us, and which derives sanction, at least, if it does not derive also its origin, from the order of King EKd- ward’s First Book, that those who do not remain to the Communion, on occasions when there is to be a collection first for any charitable purpose, should, after making their offering, or leaving their alms at the Church door, if provision be so made according to the now usual custom™, be allowed to depart before the solemn offering of the alms and oblations in the Prayer for the Church Militant. At all events, while there exists any soreness of feeling on the subject, a clergyman m The plate at the church to be set ‘in the most conve- door must be considered as the nient place,” which was com- representative of the alms box, monly near the church door. which, by the 84th Canon, was Che Offertorp. 379 would surely deprecate any mode of receiving the offerings which should mar the freedom and hearti- ness of the gift—a gift which he, as the Minister of the congregation, in the name of those who are assembled to present it, beseeches the Almighty “most mercifully to accept ;” and how may we hope that He will so accept that which is given “ grudg- ingly or of necessity,” and not as from such an one as he at whose hands alone He “loveth” to receive the gift, even from “a cheerful giver?” And still more painful would it be, if dislike of the solemn presentation of the offering with the united prayer of the whole congregation were stirring up feelings adverse to those of devotion and charity, at the very time when the petition is ascending to the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, that it may please Him “to inspire continually the universal Church with the spirit of truth, wnzty, and concord, and” to “orant that all they do confess” His “holy Name may agree in the truth” of His “holy Word, and live in wnity and godly love.” If it be not the nearest possible approximation to the Church’s de- sire, it may nevertheless be worthy of consideration whether, in a state of imperfect practice, her object would not in this way be best attained, and her ultimate end be most fully kept in view; and some sanction be found for it, though not in the letter, yet in the spirit of our Blessed Lord’s command . in the Sermon on the Mount, to him who should bring his gift to the altar, and there remember that his brother had aught against him, “Leave there thy gift before the altar and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” Though the offering were not rejected at the hand of the worshipper who, whether for want 380 Che Offertorp, of charity to his brother, or from consciousness of guilt or of unpreparedness, or from whatever other cause, were not willing to remain to present solemnly his own offering with the oblation of himself, his soul and body, in the thankful commemoration of his Redeemer’s sacrifice, it might be regarded as though his own offering of his gift in the due order of the Communion Office were thus, as it were, but for a time delayed, while the gift itself is received at his hands. There remains now to be considered only one more Rubric in connexion with this subject, viz., that which stands at the end of the Communion Service, and which directs the manner of disposing of “the money given at the Offertory.” The distinct mention introduced into it, of “pious” as well as of “ charita- ble” uses, we have already seen, was adopted from the Scotch Liturgy, where such “pious or charitable use” is further defined to be “for the decent fur- nishing of that Church, or the public relief of their poor, at the discretion of the Presbyter and Church-— wardens.” An instance of the like application to pious uses we found in the consecration of Jesus Chapel, Southampton, by Bishop Andrewes; and the same practice obtains in regard to the collec- tion usually made at the consecration of a new Church. The order adopted from the Scotch Prayer Book into our own at the last Review, for the disposal of the money given at the Offertory on each occasion as a distinct appropriation, “after the Divine Service ended,” seems certainly to recognize very plainly that it was not simply the relief of the poor of the parish that was contemplated as the end and object of the Offertory: it would obviously Che @Cftertorp. 381 meet the now constant case of a collection made for some charitable society or institution, as well as for the support of parochial schools, &c. And it is singular that, amidst the discussion that has lately taken place in regard to the Offertory, it has not been observed how the Rubric, by giving to the Minister and Churchwardens the joint disposal of the money thus collected, gives full security against the danger to which collections at the Church doors are equally liable with offerings at the altar, viz., that of diverting from parochial objects the support which they primarily demand. We have an instance recorded of a question arising, of the kind for which the Rubric has made provision, at a period not very remote from that of its original adoption. And it may serve as an illustra- tion of the view then taken in regard to the “pious and charitable uses” to which the money given at the Offertory was to be applied. The instance re- ferred to occurs in the Autobiography of Bishop Patrick, and belongs to the time when he was Rector of St. Paul’s, Covent Garden. He is writing of the year 1680". parish Church. To this end 2 The unknown continuator of the Bishop’s Autobiography says, ‘‘In that loose reign of King Charles II., when the nation grew worse and worse under all the judgments which God sent amongst us, Dr. Patrick kept up to great strict- ness of life, and bore his testi- mony against the prevailing vices of the age; which made him highly esteemed by good men of all parties... . It was about this time [1679] that he took no small pains to set up monthly Communions in_ his he published his ‘Christian Sa- crifice ;’ a book that has done great service this way. His great devotion and seriousness at that ordinance, induced great numbers to communicate with him, which appears from the great sums of money gathered at the Offertory; there being a fund raised of above 4001., besides what was distributed to the necessities of the poor, in a few years. He has told us how laudably it was disposed of, for the honour of that time, 382 Che Offertorp. *“‘ Having very often great Communions, and sometimes large offerings (more than once near twenty pound, and on an Easter- day five and twenty), I was very solicitous how to dispose of so much money, and at last resolved to enquire after all that were sick and in great need, and gave a liberal relief to them; and then ordered the remainder to be put into the chest in the vestry, of which I had one key, and the Churchwardens each of them another. And the Clerk kept a register of what was thus laid up of the Communion money. I am not able to say in what year it was; but about this time I took an account from the Clerk, out of his Register, what the sum was to which the money we had laid up amounted, and found it four hundred pound. Whereupon I called the Churchwardens to consider how we should dispose of it to some charitable or pious use, as the Rubric in the Commu- nion Book directed. They desired it might be laid out for the relief of the poor, who I told them had already had their share, on those Sundays when the offermgs were made, and that they were not intended to lessen their rates for the poor, which would be to give to the rich, and not to the needy. And therefore I insisted this money should be employed for some pious use, and propounded the purchase of twenty pound per annum, to be settled on the Curate, who should read prayers morning and evening for ever. To this they would by no means consent, till I told them I would appeal to the Bishop how this money should be employed, as the Rubric directs, when the Minister and Upon which they yielded to me ; and a piece of land being found out, in Essex, of the fore-named Churchwardens cannot agree. value, a purchase was made of it, and an able Lawyer, Mr. Thursby, made a settlement of it in Trustees, which was put into the chest afore named, there to be preserved °.”’ and reproach of this, when men are for serving of God with that which costs them nothing. I have thought the account of the respective sums through the whole time worth preserv- ing.” (pp. 230, 231.) This account, however, does not ap- pear. But I am informed that the money thus raised was laid out in the purchase of estates put in trust for the benefit of the poor, Communion plate, and similar objects. (pp. 230, 231.) ° Autobiography, pp. 88— 90. ‘The Bishop adds, ‘ Some pious persons indeed had de- sired prayers at the hour of ten in the morning, and three in the afternoon, which they maintained by a voluntary con- tribution. These therefore were ordered to be at six o’clock in the morning, and seven at night Che Offertorp, 383 And that the view taken of the intention of the Rubric, if not at that period, at least early in the following century, did not restrict “ pious and cha- ritable uses” to the mere relief of the poor of the parish, nor even to parochial objects, such as those to which Bishop Patrick appears to have applied the money received at the monthly Communion in his Church, may be deduced, I think, from the history of a trial to which attention has lately been called, and which took place at Rochester, before Sir Littleton Powys, in the year 1719’. There seems to have been no question raised then as to the mode * of collecting; the only question was as to the odyects for which it was intended, the charge being that certain persons, , ** Being evilly and seditiously disposed to the government of this kingdom under our most excellent Lord George, king of &c., and averse to the happy establishment thereof, and wickedly desirous of gain, and most horridly and unjustly intending to procure to themselves unlawful gains, under pretence of collecting charities, alms, and gifts, for the sustenance and maintenance of boys and girls,—viz. twenty boys and thirty girlk—...did.. conspire and confederate with the said boys and girls to afnere up and down in Kent, and divers other parts or counties of England, in order to collect great sums for the aforesaid pur- poses,” &c. The facts of the case were simply these,—that “on Saturday, August 23, 1718, upon leave ob- tained, first from the Bishop of Rochester (Bishop Atterbury ), and secondly, from the Rev. Mr. Wilson, rector of Chislehurst, to preach two charity in summer time (before trading also still continue at ten and began, and when it was done), that servants might resort unto them. Which they did very much, and I hope will continue to do. The other prayers three, to which the gentry and better sort of people, who main- tain them, are wont to come.” P Vid. Howell’s State Trials, vol. xv. pp. 1407—1422. 384 Che Offertorp. sermons for the children of St. Ann’s, Aldersgate; the schoolmaster, with four or five more, [trustees for the charity children] carried down some of the children to Chislehurst.” They were immediately taken up and carried be- fore two of the Justices of the Peace, and the High Sheriff, and asked “how they dared to come strolling and begging about the country, without license or authority first obtained. To which they answered, that if Archbishops and Bishops thought it a good work to preach for such children, they thought it a good work to collect for them: to which the Justices replied, they cared not for Archbishops or Bishops, and were resolved the thing should not be pursued.” ; In the account given of the scene which occurred on the following day, when the collection was to be made, it seems to be mentioned asa thing not out of the ordinary course, that “the Sermon [preached by the Rev. Mr. Hendley, who came from Islington, | being ended, the Rev. Mr. Wilson (whose curate read prayers,) put on a surplice, and repaired to the altar to read the Offertory sentences before the prayer for the Church Militant.” And, we are told, “the people gave liberally, till they came to Mr. Farrington [one of the Justices] who not only refused giving, but seized the collector, asserting it was illegal; that the children were vagrants, and sent about begging for the Pretender.” A scene of great violence and confusion followed; notwith- standing which we find “the Rector had good success in collecting, many people crowding up to give before their turn; and others, kept back by mere force, threw their money into the plate.” At the conclusion, the Rector “ called the Church- Che Offertory. 385 warden to tell the money with him, and agree to the disposal of it according to the Rubric;” but this the Justices countermanded, “whom Mr. Church- warden rather chose to obey.” “In the evening the Rector, the preacher, and three persons who brought the children down, were taken into custody, and bound over to the Quarter Sessions at Maid- stone, as rioters and vagrants.” No bill being then found against them, “they moved to be discharged, but the Justices obliged them to put in fresh bail for their appearance at the next Assizes, when they appeared, and the” foregoing “indictment was found against them.” It is desirable to ascertain how far the evidence of this trial really goes, in relation to the question before us, although it might appear the less neces- sary to say much on the subject, inasmuch as it is well known that, when the case was referred to in Court, Lord Stowell set it at once aside, as one in which judgment had been given under strong poli- tical bias, at a time when party feeling ran high, and there was a great suspicion of designs in favour of the Pretender. And indeed, the Judge, it appears, was so strangely forgetful of the dignity and even the decencies of his office, as to allow, in his summing up, political considerations to appear to so great an extent as this :— “The Judge summed up the evidence, and observed, what dangerous consequences might happen from these collections; and was a little suspicious that Mr. Hendley had Cardinal Albe- roni’s leave, as well as the Bishop of Rochester’s, to make this collection, to carry on worse designs under the specious colour of advancing charity; and seemed confirmed in his suspicion, because the manner of collecting had some resemblance with that of the Cardinal’s in Spain, for he laid a tax upon the people, which they were forced to pay, and gave it the specious name ofa CCG 386 Che Offertorp. free-gift, alias charity. If this stratagem was to spread in Eng- land, by the subtle artifices of this political Cardinal, the nation is in danger of paying double taxes. Upon the whole, the Judge wished that he had his eleven brethren to consult with upon the bench; but, as that was not possible, he directed the Jury to bring in their verdict for the plaintiffs; when the Jury went out, and returned in a few minutes with a verdict—Guilty ; upon which the Judge fined them 6s. 8d. each, and told them, if they did not like the verdict, they might bring a writ of error.” The charge of the Judge, in this respect, reflected the tone of the leading counsel for the prosecution. Mr. Marsh had, “ with a warmth, alleged, ‘“‘ That in time charity schools might raise such sums of money as to enable them to make head against the government ; their drums beat to arms, and their trumpets sound a most dreadful alarm; the Protestant religion had its quarters Christian beaten up at Chislehurst, and the terror had struck the head-quarters in town; the sum of 3/. was raised even in that little parish, and suppose 10,000 parishes in England, from each of which if that sum was raised, it would be enough to bear the chevalier’s charges into Italy, and help him to consummate the marriage with the princess Sobieski, &c. . . . and that if a stop were not put to these proceedings, in time the clergy would grow up into friars mendi- cant ; and then quoted several acts of Parliament against vagrants, to prove the defendants were within the meaning of them; and showed the illegality of collecting money without letters patents or briefs 4.” “Serjeant Darnell spoke chiefly relating to the acts of Parliament in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth, King Charles II., and Queen Anne, made against vagrants and wanderers from their parishes, and in- sisted these collections were illegal; as did Mr. Baynes.” | On the other side, “the defendants proved that they had the Bishop’s and Incumbent’s consent,” _ 4 [Upon this passage there taken down in short hand: it is anote in Howell, taken from would have been very enter- a “ former edition ;” “It is taining, as well as useful.” | great pity this trial was never Che Offertorp, 387 that “the Archbishop of Canterbury preached at St. Dionis Backchurch for the charity children of Shadwell,” and “that the Archbishop of York did the same.” Farther, “Mr. Archdeacon Spratt offered in evidence, that he had seen the House of Lords present at a Sermon at Westminster, when a collec- tion was made for poor children not thereunto belonging; and offered the three rubrics for the defendants’ vindication,—viz. the last after the Nicene Creed, the first after the Offertory, and the last after the Communion Service; but the Judge overruled them, by urging that the collection was restrained to a fixed time.” This last remark of the Judge, as thus reported, it is not very easy to understand. But “as to what was mentioned of the two present Archbishops,” he observes, in the letter which he wrote shortly after- wards to the Lord Chancellor Parker, stating the circumstances of the trial, that “it was for the poor of the same town, though of a different parish; and all the circumstances of those cases,” he adds, “do not now appear, nor were they litigated, as this case is.” We may observe, however, that it did clearly appear that in the instances quoted, in which un- doubtedly no dispute or question had arisen, collec- tions were made in one parish for schools in another, and a remote, parish :—and in this the whole ques- tion at issue was involved. All that was conceived to be necessary, it would seem, was to have the Bishop’s and the rector’s license, the consent of the churchwardens on behalf of the parish being, of course, implied in their joint appropriation of the money collected. Sir Constantine Phipps, in answer to Serjeant Darnell, insisted the collection “was legal, as they had the Bishop’s and rector’s license; Gc 2 388 Che Offertorp: and that, if what they had done was illegal, it was cognizable only in the ecclesiastical courts; and that if the House of Lords were present at such a collec- tion, as Mr. Archdeacon Spratt had deposed, and that he had seen the late Lord Chancellor Cowper, and the late Lord Keeper Wright encourage such collections, sure there could be no illegality in it; and then proceeded to show the defendants were not within the several acts of Parliament quoted; as did Mr. Comyns and Mr. Blondel, who insisted that such proceedings would discourage charity schools, and put an end to that noble institution,” &ec.... The acts of Parliament quoted were those which have been already referred to in the present inquiry, the earliest of which acts, be it observed, while they had for their object to prevent common begging, or to allow it only within certain restrictions, under licenses duly granted, did at the same time enforce the collections 7m church, made in conformity with the Rubric for the relief of the poor. The only question, obviously, was, whether the Rubric, as it now stood, authorized the receiving of money for other than parochial objects. -The Judge ruled that it did not; but it appears from his letter to the Lord Chancellor that this judgment was one of first impression, though he saw no reason afterwards to alter it. He says, ‘As to the Rubric in the Communion Service, I said I thought that was to be taken secundum subjectam materiam, viz. the ordi- nary collection at the Communion, which is ever then used to be made for the poor of that parish, but should not extend to every collection the parson should appoint for any foreign charity, and that I did not till now hear that the clergy did claim such a power. And further [ said that I thought those words of the Rubric did not imply such a power in the parson: for the words being, ‘ the money given at the offertory shall be disposed of to such pious Che Offertorp, 389 and charitable uses as the parson [ Minister] and churchwardens shall think fit, wherein if they disagree, it shall be disposed of as the ordinary shall appoint,’ such a power of appointing a col- lection at pleasure is as much implied in the churchwardens as in the parson; for they have as much liberty to disagree from the parson as the parson has to disagree with them ; and so the church- wardens might also appoint collections for what charities they pleased ; but that I thought that the parson and churchwardens, either jointly or severally, could not appoint any collection for charity otherwise than in common form for the poor of their own parish, and that those are the charitable uses intended by the Rubric, and particularly at the Communion, to the service of which those words of the Rubric are subjoined. I hope your Lordship, on reading that part of the Rubric at the end of the Communion Service, will be of my opinion, which I then suddenly declared, as to the implication, and do not since alter, unless otherwise con- vinced.”’ Upon the question whether it was the intention of the Rubric to limit strictly the application of money received at the Offertory to the relief of the poor of the parish, we have already seen what evi- dence there is; but it undoubtedly implies the agreement of the Churchwardens with the Minister in regard to the disposal of the money; and also that the Churchwardens shall ordinarily take part in receiving it from the hands of the congregation. The argument, however, which the Judge, according to his own account, further used in regard to the nature of relief of the poor, would go far to make it improper to collect for such an object even at the Communion, or for the poor of the particular parish. He says, *‘T also told the jury that this case did consist of two parts ; the first, but particular, and the other very general. ** As to the particular, it is relating to the maintenance of the poor, which is not of a spiritual nature, but a mere lay concern, and relating to the civil government; and the several acts of Par- liament do plainly esteem it as such, by ordering the rates and 390 Che Gffertorp. collections for the poor, and putting the whole management into the lay hands of the justices of the peace, and the overseers of the poor, who are to be nominated by the justices of the peace, and accountable to them, and by their directions to set the poor at work, if they thought proper; and therefore, a justice of the peace, being then in the church, might well take it to be a matter within his jurisdiction, and that he might stop such a new and extraordinary proceeding, newly begun among the clergy, relat- ing to the maintenance of the poor, and a collection made by strangers, without the consent or assistance of the churchwardens or overseers of the poor of that parish*.” How it was that the relief of the poor came thus to have the appearance and character of “a mere lay concern” we have already seen in tracing the history; but by the Judge’s argument, it would be unfitting to collect for them in Church, or even at the Communion. ‘‘ But this case, if under a general consideration,” the Judge proceeds to argue, ‘‘is of a vast extent, and mighty consequence to the King and the people, and at which the very legislature may take great umbrage. The levying of money is the tenderest part of our Constitution, and if it may be done arbitrarily under the show and form of charity, (which may comprise all good works and all good intentions,) it cannot be said whither it may go.... But besides here in England no collection, even for charity (unless for the poor of the same parish), is, by law, to be made, but by the leave and permission of the king, gathering of money being so nice a matter that it must not be done, even for charity, without his leave in the most compassionate cases ; and thence the ancient method of briefs under the Great Seal has been used, even upon extreme great losses by fire. And the statutes of 4th and 5th of Anne have put the whole manage- ment of briefs under the regulation of the Court of Chancery, and empower the laying great fines upon the offenders. But t [The proceeding, it may but seized the collector, as- be observed, which the Judge serting it was illegal, and no thus vindicated, was that, when collection should be made; the collector came to Mr. Far- that the children were vagrants, ringdon, a justice of the peace, and sent about begging for the he “not only refused giving, Pretender,” &c. | Che Offertorp. 391 this method were giving a go-by to all Royal licenses, and putting it in the power of the clergy to do all acts of charity of them- selves, at the expense of the people, and to be sole judges of the occasions, and to make what application and account they please. I told the jury that I was very clearly of opinion, in point of law, this was a case of dangerous consequence, and was an invasion not only of the King’s prerogative, but also upon the Legis- lature, and that I thought the defendants Guilty.” Supposing this, however, to be the law as stated by the Judge, it were obvious to remark, that it is not specially collections made at the Offertory, or in the Church, that are declared to be illegal, but all collection of monies, for whatever purpose, without license from the Crown, except for the poor of the parish ; and even a collection for this object, as we have seen, would appear equally questionable ; and thus the whole system certainly of modern charity, administered as it is to so great an extent through societies and charitable institutions, would be pro- scribed at once. No individuals, or body of men, in any way associated together, except under special charter or license from the Crown, would be at liberty to collect or raise money for any charitable purpose. And charity Sermons would be altogether illegal *. In fact, the only strictly legal collections, on this view of the case, would be where charters of incor- poration have been granted by the Crown for the receiving of monies for special objects of piety and charity. Thus in 1701, the Archbishops of Canter- bury and York, the Bishop of London, and others, were incorporated under the name and title of “the Ss It is not necessary to state tions — hospitals, infirmaries, here to how great anextent not &c., of the metropolis, especi- religious societies only, but ally—are dependent upon such many of the charitable institu- sources for their support. 392 Che Offertorp. Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts,” to have perpetual succession, and “ power from time to time, and at all times hereafter, to depute such persons as they shall think fit, to take subscriptions, and to gather and collect such monies as shall be by any person or persons contributed for the purposes aforesaid '.” An Act of incorporation has been granted in like manner, in the present century, to another So- ciety, putting it expressly in the place of that system of collecting by briefs, to which Sir Littleton Powys referred. The Act in question (9 Geo. IV. c. 42) is entitled “An Act to abolish Church Briefs, and to provide for the better collection and application of voluntary contributions for the purpose of enlarg- ing and building Churches and Chapels,” (15th July, 1828) or more fully, “for enlarging, building, re- building, and repairing Churches and Chapels in England and Wales.” It repeals the Act (4 Anne, ce. 14), and incorporates the Society which had been founded in 1818 for these objects. And thus, where formerly a brief would have been applied for, application is now made for a grant from “the Incorporated Society for Promoting the Enlarging, Building, and Repairing of Churches and Chapels ;” and on this ground alone, indepen- dently of new Churches built by its aid, the parishes in England generally have a direct interest in the t The preamble of the Char- ter of Incorporation runs, ‘ And whereas we think it our duty, as much as in us lies, to pro- mote the glory of God, by the instruction of our people in the Christian religion; &c. . . And whereas we have been well as- sured, That if We would be graciously pleased to erect and settle a Corporation for the re- ceiving, managing, and dispo- sing of the charity of our loving subjects, divers persons would be induced to extend their cha- rity to the uses and purposes aforesaid, Know ye therefore,” &e. Che Offertorp, 393 Society, which is thus made the general Almoner for them “. And with regard to the objects for which the earlier Society was incorporated, and which, at first sight, might seem more remote from parochial purposes, a very different view of the matter will be taken when it is considered, to how great an extent the parishes at home have relieved them- selves of some of the poorest of their people, by the system of compulsory emigration. To those who would have become chargeable to the poor rates at home, charity is shown in the most truly charita- ble and Christian way, by helping to supply them, in their settlements abroad, with those ministrations and ordinances of religion which were their birth- right in their native land. Consideration of the peculiar character of these Societies, at least, thus incorporated, would I think have somewhat modified the manner in which it has been stated, in reference to the opposition which had been raised, in some places, to the revival of the Offertory, that “these weekly contributions were made subservient to the purpose of certain reli- gious Societies in connexion with the Church, which had been lately or long established for purposes most excellent in themselves, but which, from the vast extent of their operations, did not obtain those subscriptions from the voluntary liberality of the public which their increased expenditure required, « The Society which has been also founded within the present century, for the carrying on throughout the country of the work which, at the beginning of the last century,had been recent- ly begun in the Charity Schools of the Metropolis, is also in- corporated, as “ The National Society for educating the chil- dren of the poor in the prin- ciples of the Established Church.” 394 Che @ffertorp. and which the Clergy of the Establishment might think that they deserved ;” and that “thus the jea- lousy of the people was roused by having their alms not only transferred to extra-parochial charities, but distributed in that manner without their formal consent ; and as the reading of the Offertory at all was, In most places, a recent introduction, contem- poraneous with the use so made of it, it bore the appearance of an obsolete custom revived, as a means of supplying deficiencies in the funds of cer- tain favourite Societies“, and obtaining them, in some cases, from a reluctant people ”.” The truth is, that not the religious Societies re- ferred to, so much as the objects for which those So- cieties were instituted, have lately, as in some degree at the beginning of the last century, forced them- selves more strongly upon men’s minds, as the great- ness and urgency of those objects increased; and thus has been awakened, not in the Clergy only or chiefly, but in the laity also, a zeal to employ, to the furtherance of those ends, all the means and influences which the Church could supply. And since the work was great, and common interests were concerned, and times were come of which it seemed emphatically true, whether in regard to the body politic, or to that “one body,” the Church, ‘ [It must be observed that whatthe Societies themselves— or at all events, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel —have specially desired, has been an increased extent and amount of annual subscriptions ; it being obviously important that they should have a uni- form permanent income to de- pend upon. This object was obtained, in the parallel case of the relief of the poor under the Acts of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., by ascertaining what amount each individual was willing to be responsible for, which was then collected weekly. | | ~ Vid. Mr. Benson’s pamph- let, p. 53. Che Gffertarp. 395 “if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it,” there has been a feeling rising up in various quarters, which has lost sight, in some degree, of the lines of demarcation which originally made each parish more nearly to resemble a community in itself;—the growth of population in some places, and the growth of riches in others, and the links which bind all together, and which are making themselves daily more sensibly felt, have led men, with the same instinct which has united them in Societies for religious and charitable objects, to con- sider how they might most effectually co-operate for the accomplishment of the great ends in view; acting out, only to a wider extent, and by voluntary move- ments, the principle which, to a certain extent, was embodied in the first steps of the national provision for the poor, in the times of Edward and Elizabeth, viz., that the wealthier parishes should, within cer- tain limits, assist the poorer. And the manner of collecting, at the time of the Offertory, was but the bringing more perfectly, as it seemed to many, under the Church’s rule and system, impulses of charity, which had shown themselves already in active operation in various directions, and sought only for a more uniform and simpler machinery, and a more powerful spring of action. Admitting, however, that the peculiar rights con- veyed by an Act of Incorporation fully meet the legal objection in regard to collecting money for charitable objects, as stated by Sir Littleton Powys, it may be said that this leaves still undecided the question respecting the lawfulness of collecting (otherwise than under the immediate authority of a Royal letter) for such objects 7m churches. Upon this point, therefore, it may be observed, that the main 396 Che Offertory. question at issue, in a legal point of view, seems to be, whether the Rubric (which, by the Act of Uni- formity establishing it, has the force of Statute Law) contains any restriction, in regard to the “ pious and charitable uses” which it contemplates, other than is involved in the agreement of the Church- wardens with the Minister as to the special uses to which the “alms and other devotions” of the people shall be applied. The omission of any restrictive expressions, such as were employed in the Scotch Service Book, on the model of which the present Rubric was formed, would, in regard to this question, be a point specially to be considered. And certainly, in the intention of those who drew up the Rubric at the last Review, there would seem not to have been any such limitation. The interests of the particular parish, it may well have been thought, were suffi- ciently secured by the provision for the consent of the Churchwardens, in the appropriation of the money, as the representatives of the laity of the congregation. And every parochial Clergyman would assuredly feel that it is “for his own, and especially for them of his own house,” that he is bound to “ provide” in the first instance. The Rubric clearly requires the concurrence of the Churchwardens; and if this has, in any case, been lost sight of, an error doubtless has been committed,—an error, however, which, it must at the same time be granted, has been committed not less in regard to collections made at the Church doors. For all that is said in regard to the question of legality applies in that case equally, or with more force than in this, inasmuch as the Church knows nothing of collections other than the receiving “the alms and other devotions of the people” at the~ Che Offertorp. 397 Offertory. And in regard to collections made in the Church in obedience to Royal Letters sent through the Bishop, the true state of the case would seem to be this,—that whereas the Church has made provision for the offering of such alms and devotions, in the appropriation of which the Minister and Churchwardens must agree, the su- preme authority over the whole kingdom requires that on a certain occasion, or on some occasion within a certain time, the offering should be devoted to a certain object, for which the Bishop accordingly, as required by the Sovereign, desires that the Mi- nister will exhort his congregation to a liberal con- tribution. It is worthy of remark, however, that the Royal Letters as well as Briefs, have, as a general system, given authority to collect either in the Church or from house to house, which last cir- cumstance would vindicate some special jealousy on the part of Crown lawyers in regard to contribu- tions so levied. But as regards the mode of col- lecting from congregations, the Act of Queen Anne seems to contemplate the collection being made in the Church. The Churchwardens and Chapel- wardens, (and teachers and others of “ separate congregations,”) are required to “collect the money that shall be freely given, either in the assembly, or by going from house to house, as the briefs require.” On the whole, then, we arrive at this conclusion, that the theory of the Church, emulating herein primitive practice, would seem to provide, as for the administration of the Communion every Sunday, so also for the contribution of alms and offerings on every return of the first day of the week, and of the 398 The OCffertorp. solemn services which it brings round with it; but that it is left to the discretion of the minister whe- ther he will read one or more sentences at the Offertory, and so give opportunity or not for the re- ceiving of such alms and offerings. It appears, moreover, that the Churchwardens ordinarily are to assist in receiving the alms or offerings; and likewise that they, in conjunction with the Clergyman, are to determine the disposal of the money. In regard, further, to such disposal it seems open to a question, whether the “ pious and charitable uses” mentioned in the Rubric are to be limited strictly to parochial objects or not; it would, I think, rather appear that they are not; though, doubtless, parochial ob- jects, whether in regard to the clergy or the poor of the parish, have the first claim. But however it be appropriated, with such consent, and whether such collection be more or less frequent, whether constant or occasional, the essential character of the Offertory being that of a free-will offering, the gift of a cheer- ful giver, the intent of the Church would most cer- tainly be contravened if, with whatever zeal for the fulfilment of her desire, it were suffered to become the occasion of strife and irritation, rather than the means of exercising, as well as the opportunity of evincing, the spirit of true Christian charity, of “unity and godly love.” The weekly “laying by in store” which the Apos- tle recommended to the Churches, was intended to make the burden lighter by the gradual accumula- tion, as well as the pressure more equal by mutual help. “For I mean not,” saith the Apostle, “that other men be eased, and ye burthened; but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their wants, that their abundance Che Offertorp. 399 also may be a supply for your want; that there may be an equality; as it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack.” In illustration of which pas- sage, and as giving an instance of its application, may be quoted, in conclusion, from a Journal of Visitation of the Bishop of Australia, a notice of an .address made by him to the people of a township in his diocese, assembled for the purpose of promoting the building of a Church in their town. In his address to them, the Bishop referred to a former meeting at which he was present two years before, in 1841, “numerously attended, but leading to no result,” and “expressed a hope that a smaller num- ber, acting with zeal, would accomplish more.” He explained to them “that the true mode of providing for the erection and support of Churches, &c. was not, according to the too prevalent custom, that a few contributors should each give a large sum, more, perhaps, than they could conveniently afford, but that all should unite in contributing, conscientiously and perseveringly, a certain proportion of their possessions and profits, which would then effect, without casting a burdensome obligation upon any one, the object which all were desirous of accom- plishing ;—that the Almighty never designed that the support of His Church should be burdensome to any; nor would it be so, if a//* were to concur in supporting each their own proper share of the cost, by giving back to the service of the sanctuary a stipulated portion of whatsoever God had bestowed * [The principle of the col- as laid down in the Acts of lection of voluntary self-assess- Henry VIII. and Edward VI. ment for the poor of every man — will recur to mind. | and woman in the congregation, 400 Che Offertorp. upon him,” &ec. “This representation,” the Bishop adds, “seemed to be approved; and at the conclu- sion, those present, besides making up the amount (300/.) required to obtain the aid of Government towards the erection of the Church, set down addi- tional subscriptions amounting to 90/., to be paid as the progress of the building should require; and also agreed to a regular weekly or monthly contribution . of small sums, to be persevered in until the re- quired funds should be provided for completing the Church ’.” Y Two Journals of Visitation, pp. 25, 26. Conrluston, AND now, to bring to a conclusion the investigation in which we have been engaged, it may surely be regarded as matter of comfort, and of humble yet cheerful hope, amid the difficulties which at the pre- sent time may seem to beset us, that those difficul- ties do, in fact, arise mainly from this—that our Church, in her Reformation, took for her model the earliest and purest times, and endeavoured to raise the order of her worship, and with it the practice of piety, to the standard of those ages. She found that, in those early days, part of the service on the Sunday, when the Christians held their solemn assemblies for worship, was a Sermon or Homily, following upon the reading of Scripture; and that this was followed by common prayers offered up by the whole congregation, and by the presenting of the sacred elements for consecration with solemn suppli- cations and thanksgivings, and participation in the Holy Communion by all present; and, moreover, that on the same occasions a collection: was made at which they who had the means, and were so disposed, each according to his ability and as he purposed in his heart, contributed to the sacred treasury of the Christian congregation. In the description, to this effect, which is given by Justin Martyr of the religious assemblies of the pd 402 Conrluston, early Christian Church *, and which has been already referred to so far as regards the last mentioned point, we may clearly trace the model which our own Church has followed in that part of her service which has come more immediately under our con- sideration, in connexion with recent discussions. If any one think she ventured too boldly in her course of Reformation, or presumed too confidently on a revival of zeal, and devotion, and love, such as had characterized the earliest ages, surely we may “ for- give” her “this wrong.” Let men deem it, if they will, a fond imagination, a too sanguine hope which she then cherished ; but her faithful and attached children, while they speak with thankfulness of her Reformation as having been made, by God’s mercy, after the pattern of the first and purest ages, will surely regard it far otherwise. They will at all events observe with gratitude, how the hope which influenced her caused her to provide the more largely for the spiritual wants and aspirations of her children; and if she experienced disappointment in regard to the way in which they responded to her care, she at least had done what in her lay; and her zeal, at the same time, has been throughout tempered by that moderation and’tenderness, which so pre-eminently distinguish her, in the adaptation of her rules and the application of them to prac- tice, that her standard, though high, has not seemed unattainable; nay, in some few bright instances, such as that of Bishop Beveridge, it has even been attained. It is to these causes that we must attribute the disposition which has been shewn by those who have, at different times, been * Compare the Bishop of Lincoln’s work on Justin Martyr, pp. 88, 89. Conrluston, 403 engaged in the review of her ritual, to depart as little as possible from the lines which had at first been drawn; in those respects, at least, in which the essentials of Christian piety and the model of primi- tive worship were concerned: they would rather bear with defects or anomalies in practice than lower the tone of feeling which she had endeavoured to maintain. For a careful examination of her history will prove that her’s has not been, as we might sup- pose from the way in which men often speak, a system which, when once laid down, was at once carried rigidly and perfectly into execution, and was so maintained until, amid the carelessness and apathy of the last century, it fell into abeyance, and must now therefore, if we have any thing like conscientious feeling, be restored without delay to its former integrity :—it will appear, rather, that from the first days of the Reformation, her course has been that of struggle, in a greater or less degree, against the opposing influences which have hindered her from realizing her own brighter visions, or ex- hibiting the principles of her system in their full and efficient operation. With reference to the several points which have come under our more immediate consideration, we shall observe that, as regards her public ministrations, our Church has in one point at least attained her desire; I mean, in the regular supply of instruction by the ministry of her Clergy to the congregations of her people assembled for worship, insomuch that preaching has now become an essential element in the function of the parochial minister—a con- dition of things very different, as the records which we have examined will shew, from that which ex- isted in the first days of the Reformation. In the pd2 404 Conclusion; customary dress of the preacher we have still a wit- ness to the circumstances of a period when the instruction of the people from the pulpit was in other hands than those of the parochial Clergy, and the “preacher,” generally speaking, was not the parish priest but the itinerant friar: “the Sermon” meanwhile has come to be regarded as so inseparable from the ordinary “ ministration” of the parochial clergyman, as to have occasioned some doubt in the interpretation of the Rubric which refers to the dress of the “minister,” but which, we have seen reason to think, was not in- tended to apply to the dress of the preacher. In like manner, with regard to the Prayer before Sermon, while on the one hand it would appear, from the evidence of usage before and at the time when the Rubric was drawn up, and again reinforced, that the now universally established practice of using some prayer is not at variance with the Rubric, the ex- istence of the canonical form, still used on formal and solemn occasions, is a memorial of times when these were the only prayers in which the people were invited to join, in their mother-tongue. It tells moreover of the necessity which in after-times was found of guarding the service of the Church, and even the liberty of conscience of the worshippers themselves, from the intrusion of extemporary or private prayers which harmonized but ill with our Service, and which have been advantageously, though quietly, superseded by the now general use of a Collect from the Liturgy, followed by the Lord’s Prayer. And lastly, with regard to the conclusion of the Service, when there is no Communion, by the read- ing of the Offertory and the Prayer for the Church Conrluston, A405 Militant—for these two points may here be merged in one—we have seen both what the intention and desire of the Church would appear to have been, and also how far it has hitherto been complied with. We have found, if I mistake not, that which may serve to remove all ambiguity from the subject, and also to account for the diversity which would seem throughout to have prevailed, between the rule of the Church, or at least her aim and desire, and the general practice of her congregations. We have seen with what motive it was that she ap- pointed this order, as a silent witness to her solici- tude for the restoration of constant Communion, and with it of those offices of devotion and charity which accompanied it in early times. And finding in this object, which the Church herself has never lost sight of, though her children have not equally regarded it, the full and satisfactory solution of the questions which have been raised as to what her appointed order really is, we shal] find in it also, when duly considered, whether in itself, or in con- nexion with the indisposition too commonly shewn, on the part of her baptized members, to claim for themselves the privileges of Christian Communion, enough to account for the failure which, in these points, she has been doomed to experience. We shall find in it also a reason for the exercise of much Christian consideration, and tenderness in the manner of carrying her desires and designs into effect, and be specially careful that the witness maintained be in her own spirit of earnestness and gentleness combined, anxious, at every step, to make more deeply felt the privilege and the value of those means of grace which she would dispense fully and freely to all her members. : A06 Conrlusion, There will be those, doubtless, on both sides who will be impatient of the toleration with which our Church has ever shewn herself disposed to bear with imperfect practice, and which must be patiently borne with, if a higher standard be set up than we can reasonably hope will universally or generally be attained. But, while the alternative here evi- dently lies between thus much of non-uniformity on the one hand, and on the other hand, the authorita- tive adoption of a lower standard, the Church seems throughout to have chosen the former course; and there are few who, in their sober and thoughtful moments, will condemn her herein. Nay rather, they will regard it as a matter of deep thankful- ness that they are themselves, through the mercy of God, members of a Church which verily has been in no wise wanting to them, and which, if her children were not wanting to her, and to themselves, in their employment of the means which she would afford them, would indeed be “a praise in the earth.” It is most important that this should be clearly seen and duly felt to be the real truth of the matter, disposed as men sometimes are, when sud- denly awakened to a sense of their responsibilities, and impressed with stronger convictions of duty, to reproach the Church herself with neglect in respect to that which, it may be, she has made no few or feeble efforts to attain, but in regard to which she has met with hindrances from causes which, on any vigorous movement among us, we ourselves see and feel are too strong to be easily overcome. While, then, from motives of true charity, nay even of faithfulness to the charge committed to her, even in the spirit of Him who said, “ Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none,” she exercises a Conrluston. 407 discretion in the enforcement of rules where there is danger lest strict observance might be purchased too dearly ; and while, in regard to other matters of infe- rior importance, she has abstained from laying down a positive rule, or has but faintly indicated her pre- ference, there will be, to impatient spirits and to those who cannot exercise mutual forbearance, matter of disquietude and even annoyance, beyond that degree of regret which every true Christian and Churchman must feel, where all “speak” not and do not “the same thing,” nor are “ perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judg- ment.” But if in matters of this kind the inspired Apostle himself, as we find, would lay down no absolute rule, save that of mutual forbearance and charity, the bearing with diversity of practice where any common principle could be found,—the weak not condemning the strong, nor the strong judging the weak ’,—we may well be content, and even thankfully receive it as a token that the spirit of our own Church is not utterly unlike that of the early Apos- tolical, if we too find no perfect remedy for owr ills save in that which an Apostle, in the first days of the Gospel, recommended to the Churches. While the Church retains a standard higher than that which general practice has hitherto attained, or may be expected, humanly speaking, to attain, there must and will be some degree of un-uniformity to bear with. I say, humanly speaking; for who shall pre- sume to limit the almighty power of God, or the grace of His Holy Spirit poured forth abundantly in answer to the devout prayers of His Church, and in gracious blessing on those who have faithfully made b Rom. xiv. & xv. 1—7. 408 Conrluston, use of the means of grace vouchsafed to them ? And the hope of such days as yet in store for the Church, if it may be so,—for she will ever “ hope” even “against hope,”—will be to her a reason for not lowering her standard, if by any means she can avoid so unwelcome a necessity, lest she incur the risk of forfeiting a blessing, when her God was ready to bestow it. The Prophet’s message to his country- men in a season of disquiet and apprehension, seems to be that which is pre-eminently suitable to times like these: “For thus saith the Lorp God, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved ; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength.” “And therefore will the Lord wait that he may be gracious unto you, and therefore will he be exalted that he may have mercy upon you: for the LorpD is a God of judgment: blessed are all they that wait for him.” (Isai. xxx. 15. 18.) Our Church in her theory—and that theory, ever and anon, in some degree at least, happily exempli- fied in practice—seems now, among the Churches of Western Christendom, to bear a solitary testimony to primitive practice, in regard to daily public prayer in a language understood by the people, and a weekly Communion in which such of her mem- bers as are thus religiously and devoutly disposed, are invited to partake of the consecrated elements, in both kinds, according to Christ’s ordinance and the practice of the primitive Church. But while the theory of the Church,—if it must so be designated,— whether from negligence or from necessity is but par- tially carried out, there must be diversities which may easily be turned into marks of division, and “ badges of party,” as men commonly speak, producing appeals to authority to put an end to such diversities, or Conrluston. 409 exciting some impatience of feeling, if authority seems to be unwilling, or declares itself unable, so to interfere. When, however, the temporary excite- ment has subsided, or the evil has been removed or mitigated in other ways, it will assuredly be felt by Churchmen generally to be a matter of satisfaction and thankfulness, rather than the reverse, that the Church has so guarded her ritual from the danger of alteration, that, even in committing to the Bishop of the Diocese, or, if occasion arise, to the Archbishop of the province, the duty of taking order for the appeasing of diversity, or the resolution of doubts, in regard to any thing contained in the Book of Common Prayer, it is expressly provided “that the same order be not contrary to any thing contained in” the said Book. The line being thus clearly drawn between z- terpretation and alteration, and there being found, as I think it will have appeared, sufficient data for satisfactory interpretation, even in the cases in regard to which the greatest degree of doubtfulness has been supposed to exist, it is important that it should be clearly seen where the question ceases to be one of interpretation, and becomes one of altera- tion of the Liturgy. And here, without entering on a wide field of discussion, it may be sufficient to suggest the consideration, that, even if there were no difficulty in re-assembling the Convocation, or rather the two Convocations of the provinces of Canterbury and York,—to say nothing of that portion of the united Church which is in Ireland, and which might reasonably require to have a voice in the eccle- siastical legislature for the United Church of Eng- land and Ireland,—the relations of the civil Legisla- ture to the Convocation of the Church have under- 410 Conclusion, gone so essential an alteration, that no Book of Common Prayer could ever again, humanly speak- ing, have the same authority with that which our present Prayer Book possesses. For it must be recollected that that Prayer Book embodies at once the result of the labours of a Commission such as was that of 1661, carrying with it the weight of names like those of Cosin, Sanderson, Walton, Pearson, Sparrow, and others; and then the correc- tion by both houses of Convocation, and afterwards by a Committee of members of the two houses, “ in- structed to make a diligent examination and revi- sion of the whole Book ;” which then was accepted by the two houses of Parliament, the Lords present- ing “their thanks to both houses of Convocation for the great care and industry they had shewn in revising” it, and the Commons resolving to adopt it without further consideration *;—the two houses of Parliament representing, at that time, the laity of the national Church. Such sanction by the whole body corporate of Church and State, constitutionally represented, can never be looked for again. In despair, however, of such sanction of Convocation and Parlia- ment, there are some perhaps who might be disposed to urge the adoption of such a mode of procedure as was taken in the reign of James [. But not to enter further into the questions which, as we have seen, were raised as to the formality of that proceeding even under the circumstances of. those times, we may observe that, inasmuch as the last Act of Uniformity reserved no such exer- cise of the Royal power as was reserved by the Act of Uniformity of Queen Elizabeth, on which * Cardwell’s Conferences, pp. 869—378. Conclusion, 41] King James’s Commission partly rested, there would remain singly as the ground of such proceeding “the supreme authority and prerogative royal,” the theory and actual exercise of which, it is super- fluous to remark, has been greatly altered since those days; the court of high commission, through which it was then mainly exercised, and of which certain members formed the Commission consti- tuted by King James, having long ago been finally put down. And since there are put forth now no edicts or proclamations, as in King James’s time, “Per ipsum regem,” but, according to the theory now established and received, the Crown acts only on the responsibility of its Ministers, who possi- bly may not be members of the Church of Eng- land, any measure of this kind would undoubtedly awaken serious alarm and dissatisfaction in the minds of Churchmen generally, looking at it simply in its possible consequences as a precedent, indepen- dently of the various suspicions and apprehensions of change in one direction or another, which would assuredly be excited, in whatever way such commis- sion might be composed. For things are not now as when, in the days of Henry VIIT. [1540], “the King granted a commission (and got it confirmed by Act of Parliament) to several Bishops and other divines, to examine the doctrines and ceremonies then re- tained in the Church;” “the reasons of” which “commission the lord vicegerent, April 12, when the parliament opened, did specify in a speech to the house, namely, ‘The King’s desire of an union ; and the rashness and licentiousness of some, and the superstition and stiffness of others, and some called papists, and some heretics...;” and, “the lords” having “approved of this, and of the persons named,” 412 Conrluston, and having “ordered their days of sitting, which were three whole days in the week, and three half days,” “in July a bill was brought in, and agreed to, that whatsoever these bishops and divines commis- sionated by the King, or others by him appointed, should determine concerning the Christian faith or the ceremonies, should be believed and obeyed by all the King’s suljects*.” In these days undoubtedly, in whatever way a commission might be constituted, though “the divines” that were “appointed” were such as King Henry’s, whom “the statute calls, ‘The best learned, honestest, and most virtuous sort of doctors of divinity, men of discretion, judgment, and good disposition, ” it could hardly fail but that there would be endless suspicions and jealousies of the pre- ponderance of this or that party, or shade of opinion ; or a distrust of the whole body if they should seem to have been selected with a view to represent all shades of opinion within the Church, and so to endanger the preservation of any definite system or “form of sound words” in the amended Liturgy. And even if this were not so, and a basis sound in law, and ecclesiastically safe, could be found for any such arrangement, it would undoubtedly be felt prac- tically to be a great evil to have shaken the foun- dations on which the order and ritual of the Church had so long rested: there would infallibly, when men’s feelings had subsided, be heard expressions of regret that the venerable formularies of the Church had been tampered with, and complaints that a temporary excitement had been mistaken for a real and permanent dissatisfaction, and that the Church, in regard to her most sacred things, * Strype’s Eccles. Mem. vol. i. pp. 856, 357. CL. i. 550.) Conclustorn, ALS where stability was of the greatest importance, had been removed from that place in the ancient fabric of our national system to which she could never again be restored. Considerations such as these, will surely suggest to thoughtful and religious minds—nay rather, they seem already to have suggested, if we may judge from the apparent subsiding of the excitement which lately prevailed—the serious question, whether in the insuperable difficulties which thus beset, on every side, the attempt to move from our present stand- ing, there be not an indication of Divine Provi- dence discernible to those who will humbly look for such guidance—a voice like that which spake to the prophet concerning his countrymen of Judah, “Their strength is to sit still.” It would, indeed, be most calamitous, if, ignorant of our true posi- tion, of its peculiar advantages and intrinsic strength, guarded well as it is from enemies on either side, we should, in a moment of groundless apprehen- sion for the safety of our spiritual inheritance, follow the example of those who, in alarm at the growing power of the Assyrian, and taking “coun- sel but not of” Him, nor asking at H1s mouth who is the only source of wisdom and strength, were bent on obtaining succour from some antagonist power, seeking to “strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Kgypt.” Like them, when they fled precipitately from the face of danger, distrusting their own citadel of strength, and unaware of the number and the force of their own armies compared with those of whose voice they were afraid, we might incur the sentence pronounced upon them—“ therefore shall ye flee ;”—“ One thousand shall flee at the 414 Conrluston. rebuke of one; at the rebuke of five shall ye flee: till ye be left as a beacon upon the top of a moun- tain, and as an ensign on an hill *.” It has been recently remarked, with much truth, that it should be “a cause of unbounded thankfulness to us, that all classes of members of the English Church are so sincerely united in their affection to the Book of Common Prayer as the faithful exponent of Gospel truth in all those holy ordinances which it sets forth.” Persons of the most opposite ways of thinking, it is observed, are found “ ardently profess- ing this attachment” to it. “Not that they describe it in the same terms, or value its different parts in the same proportions ... but at least this gratifying picture is exhibited, that, in a period of very serious distractions, those who represent the most marked contrasts of opinion within the Reformed English Church, unite in prizing very highly, and in prizing as a whole, that Liturgy which is no merely acci- dental appendage to her, but which constitutes to the great mass of her members the principal exhibi- tion of her character, and (under the sacred Scrip- tures) nearly the whole of her authoritative teaching. If men could but steadily keep in view the thoughts and purposes of peace in the midst of controversy, surely they could not fail to perceive that, in this country at least, when one extols the Prayer Book as Catholic, and another as Protestant, many of the very same ingredients in its composition are at the same moment present to the mind of each, though expressed by them under different, and, as some will have it, incompatible designations; such ingredients as the intense earnestness of its confessions, the ® Tsai sexx) 2. 7.216,°1-7; Conrluston, 415 comprehensive scope and the fervour of its prayers, the majesty of its hymns of praise, the truth and force with which it represents and provides for the mutual relations of God and His worshippers, and of men one towards another ".” With such a possession as this it were obvi- ously most dangerous to tamper. For when once the question of alteration were mooted, it would not be so easy to say to what extent alteration would be urged, or what character it would assume. The his- tory of the last Revision alone would sufficiently shew, how different may be the course which things will take, in actual movement, from that which has been expected or clamoured for. And with the cer- tainty that, if a revision were in agitation, changes in opposite directions would be urged by contending parties, and fresh sources of bitterness be opened, and men’s minds be still further perplexed by the canvassing of points in regard to which the entrance of doubt would be in itself a great calamity, it may safely be asserted that the general feeling of the great body of sound and attached members of our Church would be for the preservation of the system of the Church, and the order of the Book of Common Prayer as IT Is. Meanwhile, with regard to the question of obli- gation as it affects the consciences of the Clergy, there can be no doubt what was the intention and animus of the declaration required by the 36th Canon, that the Minister “will use the form pre- scribed” in the Book of Common Prayer, “and none other;” or of the declaration enforced by the Act of Uniformity of 1662, that he “will conform to ' Quarterly Review, No. exlix. pp. 150, 151, 416 Conrluston, the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now by law established.” These declarations were obviously intended as a security, that none should serve in the ministry of the Church who were not in their minds fully convinced of the truth and soundness of her teaching and the excellence of her duly appointed order:—none who entertained any doubts whether the Book of Common Prayer contained in it any thing “contrary to the Word of God” or might “be lawfully used,” or who could not give their “unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing prescribed in and by” the said Book. The necessity of such declarations on the part of those who were to minister in her sanctuary, had been shown by sad experience. And undoubt- edly any departure from the appointed order of the Prayer Book grounded on opinions and _ feelings in the individual at variance with the principles and rules of the Church, would convict such an one of unfaithfulness in his ministry, and inconsistency with his professions. But the patient, unrepining endur- ance of a condition of things,—bearing upon it as it does some marks of Providential overruling,— which seems to forbid the full or the immediate realization of that which nevertheless we may keep faithfully and steadily in view, the pattern which the Church has set before her clergy and people as her object and aim, but which it has scarcely been the privilege of any one amongst her most faithful and devoted sons to see exemplified in all its beauty and perfection—this surely is a far different thing. The very title of one of the prayers which has been so often referred to of late, may remind us that Christ’s Church is still, as it has ever been, “militant here in earth;” that it is a scene of Conrluston, 417 trial, with difficulties to be encountered, enemies visible and invisible arrayed against her, a conflict to be maintained, yet with no carnal weapons, but with those only which are of heavenly temper; by means and agencies commended to us by an Apostle who had well tried their power—“by pure- ness, by knowledge, by long-suffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, by honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report; as deceivers, and yet true;...as chas- tened and not killed; as sorrowful, yet alway re- joicing *.” Deeper acquaintance with the Church’s past his- tory, with the principles which guided the practice and supported the hearts of those who have gone before us, and now are entered into their rest, will tend assuredly to impart to us both strength and patience. Even the limited enquiry in which we have now been engaged will have served to shew, how the varied graces of the spirit “of power and love and soberness” were thus united in some of the greatest and best of her sons, whom God’s good Providence has given us as guides amidst the doubts and perplexities of our way. And it will deepen and strengthen our dutiful attachment to the Church of which it is our privilege, as it was theirs, to be ministers or members, and will enhance in our eyes the value of that sacred inheritance which they have bequeathed to us in the Liturgy, when we see how it has been consecrated to us by the many thoughts and cares which they were called to bestow upon it ; § 2 Cor. vi. 6—10. 418 Conclusion, how in almost every line of the rules which it con- tains, and even in the very liability to doubtfulness which sometimes: perplexes us, we find memorials of past days of trial and difficulty, and, at the same time, of the Christian wisdom which, under God’s blessing, has preserved to us through such dangers the inestimable treasure. “Lorp, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us’.” “We wait for thy loving-kindness,— We have thought of thy loving-kindness—O God, in the midst of thy temple ’.” h Isai.;xxyi. 12: ' Psal. xlviii. 9. (Compare Prayer Book Version.) INDEX. Autey, Bp., his paper prepared for the Convocation of 1562, 75 Anderson, A., Sermons at Paul’s Cross, bidding of prayer, 212 Andrewes, Bp., his note on the Ad- vertisements, 130 ; Sermons, bid- ding of prayer, 208, note; his almsgiving and offerings at the Communion, 333; form of Con- secration, 334. 344, note, 380 ; Spital Sermon, 335 ; note on mode of collecting in churches, 338 ; his Sentences for the Offertory, 339. 343 5; note on the division in the Communion Service, 376 Arundell, Abp., his Constitutions respecting Sermons, 32, 36, sq. 38 ; and bidding of prayers, 205 Bancroft, Abp., Orders for Canter- bury Cathedral, respecting Ser- mons, 118, note ; copes, 174. Bennet, Dr., on the Advertisements, 131 Beveridge, Bp., on Frequent Com- munion, 232, sq. 244, sq. ; his prac- tice in regard to it, 247; on the Offertory, 369; division in the Communion Service, 377, note Bonner, Bp., Injunctions as to bid- ding prayers, 210 Boyes, Dr. John, frontispiece to his Works, 27 Bridges, Dr., length of the service, 263, note Bristol Cathedral, Sermon formerly _ preached in the nave, 118, note Bucer, ‘ Censura,’ 315 ; ‘ De Regno Christi,’ ibid. ; English translation of part of it, on Alms, 315. sq. Bull, Bp., union of Church Services, and psalmody, 271; his practice as to the Communion and the Offertory, 366 Bullinger, Letter to Humphrey and Sampson, 112, note Canterbury Cathedral, orders for, by Abp. Bancroft, 118, note, 174 ; usage as to the dress worn in preaching, 153 4 Cartwright, first departed from the form of bidding of prayer, 214 Chislehurst, trial respecting charity Sermons at, 383 ; Christ Church Cathedral, dress of preacher in the quire, 154 Chrysostom, St., collections and alms- giving in the ancient Church, 286 Colet, Dean, his Sermon, bidding of prayer, 200 Comber, Dean, on the Offertory, 360, 368 Cooper, Bp. of Galloway, quoted, 46 Cosin, Bp., his opinion respecting the dress for preaching, 16, 174 ; his notes on vestments, 18—22; on the Sermon as distinctive of our Service, 23 ; paper of Particulars, &c., in Common Prayer, 169, 340 ; his observances at Durham, 173 ; Visitation Articles, 175 ; his Ser- mons, forms of bidding prayer, 218—222 ; notes- on prayers be- fore Sermon, 223 ; on the. Prayer for the Church Militant, 242 ; on the Offertory, 372; order of the Communion Service, 373; division of the Communion Service, 376 ° Deacon, J., Sermon, prayer, 213 Descent into hell, Article on, 76 Drant, T., Sermon at Paul’s Cross, bidding of prayer, 216 Durham, diocese of, preaching in the surplice, 15; cathedral, copes, 173 bidding of Elfric, Homilies, 32 Ely Cathedral, Sermon formerly preached in the nave, 118, note Epomis, or hood, 15, note Exeter Cathedral, Sermon formerly in the nave, 118, note Festivalis, Liber, 32. Forms of Prayer, State Services, &c., Prayer for the Church Militant, 248—251; order and length of service, 253— 256, 259 — 262; Offertory, 351 420 Frewen, Abp., Visitation Articles, 176 Friars, Preaching, &c., 35 Fuller, Bp., Visitation Articles, 177, note Gardiner, Bp., his form of bidding prayer, 197 Geneva, Royal Letter, and collec- tion for, 329 Gibson, Bp., on conjunction of Ser- vices, and psalmody, 272 Gilby, A., his Dialogue, 24; and Letter, 138—140. Gowns, Preaching and Academic, 25—28 Granet, W., Sermon at Paul’s Cross, prayer before Sermon, 212 Grindal, Abp., Injunctions respect- ing rood-lofts, 51, note ; respect- ing vestments, albes, &c., 134— 136 ; letter to Zanchius, 141, note, 144; injunction as to union. of Services, 269 ; letter of Grindal and Horn respecting vestments, 140 Guest, Dr., letter to Cecil, 53. 58. 143 Gunning, Bp., Visitation Articles, 175 Hammond, Dr. H., his practice, and view of the Offertory and alms- giving, 341. 343 Hammond (J), Archdn. of Hunting- don, Visitation Articles, 177 Herbert, G., his Country Parson’s perambulation, 92; times of pub- lie service, 268 Herman, Abp. of Cologne, his Con- sultation, 292—298. 337 ; Cran- mer’s friendship for him, 299— 301 Heylyn, his opinion on the preach- ing dress, 159, note Hood, to be worn in preaching, 6, 14—17, 39, 63, 118, note ; in Ca- thedrals upon the surplice in ser- vice time, 6, &c.; in parish church- es, 129, 179—181 Hooker, his parish processions, 92, note ; his judgment on change of position in the minister, &c., 93, note; allusion to the surplice in preaching, 142; referred to by Bp. Wren, 163. 165 ; length of the Church Service, 256 Humphrey and Sampson, their letter respecting vestments, 140 Jewel, Bp., bidding of Prayer, 214 Justin Martyr, on the Collections in the ancient Church, 284 Endep. ) ; Juxon, Abp.,Visitation Articles, 159, note, 167—169 _ Kechyn, R., disturbed in his parish by a puritan preacher, 91 Laney, Bp., Visitation Articles, 177 Latimer, Bp., his preaching, 41 ; forms of bidding of prayer in his Sermons, 195—197 Laud, Abp., letter to the Vice-Chan- cellor of Oxford,respecting gowns, 30; his paper of “Considerations,” 157 ; alms and offerings in his chapel, 340 L’Estrange, on King James’s Pro- clamation, 149 ; on bidding of prayers, 202; on distinction of services, 265 ; on the Offertory, 346 Man, Isle of, usage in regard to the Offertory, 357, note Mason, F., Sermon, evidence as to union of services, 269 Monasteries, 302 ; proviso for alms from, 305 Montagu, Bp., Visitation Articles, 160 Nelson, on the Offertory, 367 ; divi- sion in the Communion Service, 377, note Nicholson, Bp., Visitation Articles, 176 ; on the Offertory, 364 ; his character, 366, note Nowel, Dean, 65 Overall, Bp., his chaplain’s note on vestments, 155 ; on division of services, 265 Owtram, Archdeacon, Visitation Ar- ticles, 178 Oxford, Council held at, 38; Aca- demical habits, 28—30 Parker, Abp., his corrections of the Book of Articles, 77; Advertise- ments, 100, sq. ; Visitation Arti- cles, 123 Patrick, Bp., neglect of the Commu- nion during the Commonwealth, 243 ; Mensa Mystica, ‘ oblations,’ 354 ; Christian Sacrifice, 355 ; his application of the Offertory money, 381 Peckham, Abp., his Constitutions respecting preachers, 32, 34, sq. Pepys, Diary quoted, 178 Piers, Abp., Visitation Articles, 136 Pilkington, Bp., letter to the Earl of Leicester, 99 Powel, Dr., a preacher, 4] Ender, Pulpits in time of Queen Elizabeth, 51, note Reformatio Legum, alms, &c. 321 Ridley, Bp., Visitation Articles, 48 ; letter of the Council to him re- specting preachers, 49 ; his letter in consequence, 50 ; injunctions as to collection of alms, 280, 307 Roodlofts, 51, note Sancroft, Abp., Consecration Ser- mon, bidding of prayer, 222; Pray- er Book prepared for the last review, 352 Sandys, Bp., letter to Parker, 54, 56, 172 ; his paper laid before Convo- cation of 1562, 71; injunctions, 144 ; Sermons, bidding of prayer, 208 Sermon bell, 46 Sharp, Archdeacon, on Bp. Cosin’s opinion respecting the surplice for preaching, 15, and on the ca- non, 16, 145 ; Advertisements, 132 ; wearing the hood with the surplice in parish churches, 179 ; on reading the Offertory senten- ces, 371 South, on extemporary prayers, 215 Sparrow, Bp., reference to the Ad- vertisements, 130 ; on prayer be- fore Sermon, 192—194 ; view of the Offertory, 344 | 421 St. Asaph, district in diocese of, usage as to collections, 358 St. Paul’s Cathedral, dress worn in preaching, 154 Stubbes, P., Anatomy of Abuses, 188 Tenison, Abp., Letter respecting the bidding of prayer, &c., 224 Tertullian, the collection of alms in the ancient Church, 284,342, 361, note Virginia, Royal Letter for churches and schools, 331 Westminster Abbey, copes, 173 White, T., Sermons at Paul’s Cross, bidding of prayer, 210—212 Whitgift, Abp., his description of the behaviour of Puritan minis- ters, 97, note ; Visitation Articles, 103, 124 ; Articles ex-officio, 144 ; length of the Service, 263, note. Whittingham, Dean, letter to the Earl of Leicester, 100 Wilson, Dr., a preacher, 40 Winchelsea, Abp., his Constitution, 10, note Wren, Bp., order for preaching in the surplice, 159 ; note, 160, sq. ; Visitation Articles, 175; order enforcing canonical form of bid- ding prayer, 214 ; chaplain to Bp. Andrewes, 334, note, 340 ERRATA. Page 51, notes, col. 2, 1. 5, after pulpits dele marks of quotation. — 116, 1. 15, dee their. — 136, 1. 15, read a successor of Grindal. — 188,1. 5, dele books. — 270, 1. 18, for with read upon. Ff a eR ae 1, het ain Pele au Bi. aa 24 el Mievese i, 7 " (74 Riis, Sait pe Wig “? Ap eet te ih 7 4% mt be Cc) Ne T ae te Ce ee $0 a Lae a's Bae, ¢ PRETSE ¢ Sfeaies! b a, on 3 ” &: ri ac Saree a y ee Bie kth * ’ wep, Ay ye ie oe cer hea < O5S eer lita rh he AES Je? $y 7 vi Gt ei oh “e 4 Sd op ited i iF ee ty agit st Rad ond Bot we, vhost Ye ern beee a: wae vate 7 \ ‘ag 4 ee. ct | ; buai Digh in wh ‘ ‘ peu : \ bs it b é ve 3 4 bi Piigk * . z i r f ae mp Ta a : ahi * i ‘ i é rHici i : a ein I t " . ‘ ‘ . i Y 7 a | ne bie a _soHN’s square eas She ollinif pr S thitedh . #2 é 2 ; ” ’ . Ps . a Y \. " rie k t AA ED BTR Oe riety A j 4 7 Ny fj - 1 uF vw x bg PGT Re § PN Pl a Rhy ¢ ’/- a, thoky dod”! an cig The 4; o] “iAP tS et fm A, e é A “4 : j ; ; ire: ani way & ese hier RA eae wb és Pm wt ‘ a . . a ‘ ‘ 4 a *. COMES i oe ii, i “ : J ; Larsy 4 ~ 7 i ; Pes * > ' : NEW BOOKS PRINTED FOR F. & J. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL’S CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE. I DIARY in FRANCE; Mainly on Topics concerning Epuca- TIoN and the Cuurcu. By CHRISTOPHER WORDSWORTH, D.D., Canon of St. Peter’s, Westminster. In post 8vo. 6s. 6d. II. LECTURES on the First Seventeen Chapters of the Acts of the APOSTLES. Delivered at St. George’s Church, Hanover-square. By the Very Rev. ROBERT HODGSON, D.D., late Dean of Carlisle, and Rector. In 8vo. 12s. Ill. SONGS of the BIRDS ; or, Analogies of Animal and Spiritual Life. By the Rev. W. E. EVANS, M.A., Prebendary of Hereford. In small 8vo. 5s. 6d. : IV. REVIEW of the LATEST EVENTS and PRESENT STATE of the CHURCH of CHRIST. By C. F. ars WINGARD, D.D., Arch- bishop of Upsal, and Primate of all Sweden. Translated from the Swedish, by the Rev. G.W. CARLSON. Insmall 8vo. 6s. 6d. *,* This Volume contains a particular account of the Greek Church and its Sects, and of the Church in Sweden, with a notice of the other branches of the Christian Church. v THE GOSPEL NARRATIVE of OUR LORD’S RESUR- RECTION HARMONIZED: with REFLECTIONS. By the Rev. ISAAC WILLIAMS, B.D., late Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. In small 8vo. 8s. Wy INSTRUCTIONS for the USE of CANDIDATES for HOLY ORDERS, and of the PAROCHIAL CLERGY, as to ORDINATION, LICENCES, INDUCTION, PLURALITIES, RESIDENCE, &c. &c.; with Acts of Parliament relating to the above, and Forms to be used. By CHRISTOPHER HODGSON, M.A., Secretary to his Grace the Arch- bishop of Canterbury. Siath Edition. In 8vo. 12s. Vil. DISCOURSES on PUBLIC EDUCATION. By CHRISTO- PHER WORDSWORTH, D.D., Canon of St. Peter’s, Westminster, and late Head Master of Harrow School. In small 8vo. 9s. 6d. NEW BOOKS PRINTED FOR F. & J. RIVINGTON. Vill. The DARK AGES; being a Series of ESSAYS intended to illustrate the State of RELIGION and LITERATURE in the 9th, 10th, }Jth, and 12th Centuries. Reprinted from the “ British Maga- zine,’ with Corrections, and some Additions. By the Rev. S. R. MAITLAND, F.R.S. & F.S.A., Librarian to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Keeper of the MSS. at Lambeth. Second Edition. In 8yo. 12s. IX. The TEACHING of the PRAYER-BOOK. By JOHN WOOD WARTER, B.D., of Christ Church, Oxford ; Rector of Patch- ing, and Vicar of West Tarring, Sussex 5 sometime Chaplain to the | British Embassy, Copenhagen. In 8vo. 7s. 6d. Xe MISSIONS to the HEATHEN: being the BAMPTON LECTURE for 1843. By ANTHONY GRANT, D.C.L., Vicar of Romford, Essex; late Fellow of New College, Oxford. Second Edition. In 8vo. 10s. 6d. XI. THEOPHILUS ANGLICANUS; or, Instruction for the Young Student concerning the CuurcH, and our own Branch of it. By CHRISTOPHER WORDSWORTH, D.D., late Head Master of Har- row School. Third Edition. In post 8vo. 8s. 6d. XII. SPECULUM GREGIS; or, Parochial Minister’s Assistant. By the Rev. R. B. EXTON, Incumbent of Athelington and Cretingham, Suffolk. Siath Edition. In pocket size, price 5s., bound in roan, with clasp. XIII. BP. JEREMY TAYLOR’S HOLY LIVING and DYING. Adapted to General Use. By the Rev. W. H. HALE, M.A., Arch- deacon of London, and Master of the Charter House. Second Edition. In small 8vo. 8s. 6d. XIV. PAROCHIAL SERMONS, preached in the Parish Church of Heversham, Westmoreland. By the Rev. ROBERT WILSON EVANS, B.D., Vicar ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge ; and Author of “The Rector y of Valehead,” and “ Bishopric of Souls. ? Tn small 8vo. 6s. XV. BP. COSIN’S DEVOTIONS. A Collection of PRIVATE DEVOTIONS, in the Practice of the Ancient Church, called the HOURS of PRAYER: as they were much after this manner published by authority of Queen Elizabeth, 1560. Taken out of the Holy Scrip- tures, the Ancient Fathers, and the Divine Service of our Church. Thirteenth Edition. Pocket size. 5s. 6d. XVI. The BOOK of PSALMS, translated from the Hebrew; with NOTES, Explanatory and Critical: By the late SAMUEL HORSLEY, LL.D., F. R.S., F.A.S., Lord Bishop of St. Asaph. Fourth Edition. In 8yo. 12s, i > seareeteateey: Patti . A Awe UE Semereat = =e - i nal ts = ie URBANA ~~ UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Ee ——$$—S — ——— qe ——____ =——— eed ————_ NW ————— ——_—___ ——$—————y === © —— -———— ee) ————— = ———— ——___ = « ———$—_ ss ——————— —_—$—$———ey —== © —— oO __——— Seas © === ——— [aes N ———— SSE ene ———— = ——___. —_—————— —— FT © $end —_—_—— = === =e ———__. ——— ——$—$—————eny Ss ————Seees ey —— SEs ers _—$<—$——