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

" Nothing is more reasonable, in questions concerning the interpretation of a
law, than to inquire how the practice of people was in times bygone ; because
what they did when the reason and sense of the law were best perceived, and
what the lawgiver allowed them to do in the obedience of it, may best be sup
posed to be that which he intended." — Bishop Taylor, Ductor Diibitantiiim,
iii. 6. 6. (Works, vol. xiv. p. 268.)

HOW SHALL WE CONFORM TO THE
LITURGY OF THE CHURCH
OF ENGLAND?
BY JAMES CRAIGIE ROBERTSON M.A.
OF TRINITY COLLRGE CAMBltlDGG
CURATE OF BOXLEV
SECOND EDITION, CORRECTED AND ENLARGED

LONDON
WILLIAM PICKERING
1844

Missing Page

vi Contents.
XV. The Offertory  190
(a.) The Collection  190
(b.) The Placing of the Elements .... 200
(c.) The Prayer for the Church Militant . . .202
(d.) The meaning of the word Oblation . . 204
XVI. On some other points in the Communion-office
(a.) The Lord's Prayer  210
(b.) The Epistle and Gospel  212
(c.) The Time for Approaching the Lord's Table 216
The Dismissal of Non-communicants . .217
(d.) The Confession  221
(e.) The Position of the Priest at the Consecration 222
(f.) The Priest Communicating  224
Clerical Communion  225
(g.) The Response Amen at Communicating . 226
(h.) Singing or reading during Communion . 226
(i.) Use of the" Second Service "on ordinary Days 227
XVII. (a.) The Yearly Number of Communions . . 228
(b.) Communion on Good Friday  232
XVIII. Baptism  235
XIX. Catechizing  242
XX. Sermons  249
XXI. Matrimony  255
XXII. (a.) Prayers for the Sick  257
(b.) Communion of the Sick  258
XXIII. Churching of Women  260
XXIV. Ordination and Ember-weeks  266
XXV. The Services for the State Holy- days .... 269
XXVI. Metrical Psalms  279
XXVII. On sharing in the peculiar Liturgical Forms of
Churches in Communion with the Church of
England  283
PART III.
Conclusion  292
Chronological Table  341
List of Editions  343
Index  345

$M&^8^^^^^^^^^^^$&$&

ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS.
P. 29, I. 9. The meaning of Sanderson's first rule is probably —
" Let not fear of giving scandal persuade you to do evil."
The comma, copied from Walton's edition, Lond. 1678, tends
to alter or obscure this.
49, 1. 9, read " Williams, Bishop of Lincoln and Lord Keeper,
afterwards Archbishop of York." [The error arose from a
misprinted date in the margin of Godwin de Praesul. ed.
Richardson, p. 303.J
70, lines 1-12. The Priest ought, doubtless, in the earlier part
of the commination-office to turn himself towards the
people ; and thus, where the desk for prayer is in a different
direction from the lesson-desk, the book must lie on the lat
ter ; but this is not Mr. Jebb's proposition. The rubric, which
had previously appointed the pulpit as the only place for
this service, may perhaps have been altered in consequence
of a suggestion by the committee of 1641, (Card. Conf. 276)
— "May not the Priest rather read the commination* in
the desk than go up to the pulpit ?"
127, I. 2 of note, dele " Winchester."
143, I. 6, for " ilium," read " illam."
161, note 94. Since this was printed, I have been favoured
by the Ven. Archdeacon Berens with a description of the
arrangement which he found in his Church at Shrivenham,
Berkshire — built, as he supposes, about the time of Charles
I. when the principal property in the parish was held by Sir
Henry Marten, father of the regicide. " It is a plain paral
lelogram, and had seats to the wall on every side — at the
east end as well as elsewhere. The communion-table was a
moveable table, standing east and west, under a pillar near
the east end. At the celebration of the Lord's Supper, the
elements were carried to the communicants, remaining in

* I have corrected the obvious misprint of communion, for commination. So
in Doc. Ann. i. 335, communion lo be received is printed for commiiuUion to
be read.

vm
their pews. With the verbal sanction of Fisher, Bishop of
Salisbury, I ventured," writes the Archdeacon, " to move
the table to the east end, to remove the seats previously
there, to put rails, &c."
166, lines 1-8. A passage of Fulke's Defence of Translations
of the Bible (p. 518, ed. Park. Soc.) may be quoted in il
lustration. — " In King Henry the Eighth's time, when that
[the earliest English] translation was first printed, there
was never a communion-table in any church in England."
196, add after line 22 — " Introducing an offertory before the
communion, distinct from the giving of alms to the poor " is
noted as an innovation by the committee of 1641. (Cardw.
Conf. 273.)
270, I. 7. and 271, I. 3. I find that the State-services were
not published with the first edition of the revised Prayer-
book in 1662 ; the reason probably being, that they were
not ready at the time of its publication. The proclamation
by which it is directed that they be annexed to the Book,
bears date, May 2, ] 662. The error, it will be seen, is of no
importance in the question.

Boxley, near Maidstone,
April 2, 1844.

HOW SHALL WE
CONFORM TO THE LITURGY OF
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND ?
PART I.
3fntroDuction.
AMONG the consequences of the late theological
movement has been the manifestation of a
feeling, more energetic, at least, if not stronger, than
any that had before been general, as to the obliga
tions of the clergy in matters of ritual observance.
We hear daily of the revival of practices, which,
from long disuse, have come to be now regarded as
novelties ; such revivals are often met with violent
repugnance on the part of persons who have hitherto
been accustomed to a different system; while their
advocates allege in favour of them, sometimes the
laws of our national Church, sometimes the remoter
sanction of antiquity; and, if it be urged that it
would be well to proceed soberly and gradually in
attempting to restore what has long been neglected,
they are found, perhaps, to reply, that they have no
choice in the matter ; that caution and a consideration
of circumstances are not within their power ; that
they have bound themselves by pledges which shut

2 3lnttoouction.
out the exercise of their own judgment, and can only
be fulfilled by an exact obedience to orders.
There are others — and among these the great
majority of the clergy, may, probably be reckoned —
who, without going so far, at least in practice, have
felt the impulse of the time, and wish to do their
duty in this respect to the best of their ability;
while this wish is accompanied by some perplexing
uncertainty as to what their duty really is.
And it is impossible to shut our eyes to the exist
ence of a third class ; the members of which, how
ever zealous they may be in the discharge of some
part of their pastoral functions, appear to act much
as if in ritual matters they hardly recognized any
authority, or held themselves bound by any engage
ments.1 To such persons it would be useless to
address myself; but in the hope that my labour may
not be unprofitable to some of those who wish to
perform their duty faithfully, in obedience to the
ritual directions of the Church, I purpose to examine,
in the following pages, the real amount of our obli
gations. Every parochial clergyman of the English Church
is bound by subscription to the following article of
the xxxvi th canon : —
" That the Book of Common Prayer, and of
Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,
containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word
of God, and that it may lawfully so be used ;
and that he himself will use the form in the said

1 See, for example, the strange state of things indicated by the
Bishop of St. David's, in his Charge of 1842, (pp. 19  26), as
existing in the diocese over which he has been called to preside.

3(nttoouction. 3
Book prescribed, in Public Prayer and adminis
tration of the Sacraments, and none other."
He has also subscribed this declaration : —
" I, A. B. do declare that I will conform to the
Liturgy of the United Church of England and
Ireland, as it is now by law established."
And a pledge to the same effect is exacted of priests
at their ordination, in these words : —
" Will you give your faithful diligence, always
so to minister the doctrine and sacraments and
the discipline of Christ as the Lord hath com
manded, and as this Church and realm hath
received the same, according to the command
ments of God ; so that you may teach the
people committed to your cure and charge with
all diligence to keep and observe the same?"
Answer. " I will so do by the help of the
Lord."
Such are the engagements of the clergy ; and
very strong language is often used as to their strin
gency. It appears to be the opinion of many inter
preters, that we are tied to an exact observance of
everything set down in the Prayer-Book; an ob
servance with which no outward circumstances may
lawfully be allowed to interfere.
Thus, we find Archdeacon Sharp, in the middle
of the last century, writing as follows, in his work
on the Rubric and Canons (p. 5.) ; — " We have by"
repeated engagements, which he enumerates, " tied
ourselves down to a regular, constant, conscientious
performance of all and every thing prescribed in and
by the Book of Common Prayer;" and, since this is
said to be undertaken ex animo, " how frivolous is
it for any of us to say that the connivance or the
presumed consent of our Ordinary, or the private

4 3Intrcmuctton.
conveniency of ourselves or families, or the obliging
any of our parishioners, or the apparent inexpedi
ency of adhering to the letter in some few cases, will
dissolve this our obligation !"
So the Bishop of London, in his late Charge (1842),
repeats words which he had formerly addressed to
the clergy of the diocese of Chester : — " Conformity
to the Liturgy implies, of course, an exact observ
ance of the rubric. We are no more at liberty to
vary the mode of performing any part of public
worship, than we are to preach doctrines at variance
with the Articles of Religion ;" (second ed. p. 31.) —
and his Lordship makes other observations to the
same effect.
And a divine whose character deserves the highest
respect, Dr. Hook, tells us in his Church-Dictionary,
(which is perhaps not the most valuable of his works,)
that a clergyman must " perjure himself" by omitting
to comply with a rubric ;2 and again, that " any
clergyman who wilfully and knowingly transgresses
[the rubrics] must be void of religion, since one of
the first duties of religion is to keep our vows."3
Perhaps it may not be Dr. Hook's intention that
we should understand these passages — the second of
which is not repeated in his later editions — accord
ing to the full severity of their apparent meaning ;

s " Some uninstructed congregations in our Church are accus
tomed to threaten their clergy, and to say that they will quit
their church, if this Creed is ever read ; forgetting, that, they
thus call upon their minister to perjure himself, since he solemnly
vows to conform to the Liturgy." (Ed. 2, Art. Athanasian
Creed.) Let it be observed that the perjury is said to be in
curred, not by unfaithfulness to the doctrine of the Creed, but by
breach of the rubric.
s Art. Rubrics, first edition.

3[ntronucttan. 5
and if so, it is much to be regretted that he has used
language so little fitted to edify or conciliate. In
any case, however, the words are very startling, and
must be construed as conveying a strong condemna
tion of all variations from the rubric ; and if we
compare the letter of the Prayer-Book with the
general practice of these times, it is evident that
this condemnation must affect a large proportion of
the clerical body.
To speak only of such things as are not uncom
monly done by those who are accounted among the
more regular of the clergy — perhaps most of us
have to charge ourselves with having, at some time
or other, deviated from what is said to be our duty
in some of the following particulars : — Omitting the
performance of daily service ; omitting that part of
the communion-office which is appointed to follow the
sermon when there is no administration ; celebrating
the holy communion without setting two lights on
the altar; omitting to give notice of holy-days and
fasting-days ; allowing the use of metrical psalms
in our churches ; wearing gowns in preaching ;
preaching at times for which no sermon is pre
scribed; infrequency in public catechizing; using
collects in the pulpit, before and after sermon ; read
ing the whole of the marriage-service at the Lord's
table, whereas it ought to be begun in the body of
the church ; marrying otherwise than in time of
Divine service.
Some of these practices are against the plain letter
of the rubric ; others are against what it is supposed
to involve. And in mentioning these instances, (to
which others might easily be added), I have perhaps
said enough to prove that almost all the present race
of clergy are liable to be accused of inconformity ;

6 3lntro0uction.
that the exact obedience, which is sometimes spoken
of as necessary,* is, at the least, extremely rare.
And to this universal inconformity it is to be at
tributed, that while such language as that already
quoted is held in various quarters, we find that the
same authorities, when they come to speak in the
way of practical direction, are disposed to make con
siderable allowances.
Thus, Sharp in many places admits of dispensa
tions, for various causes. The Bishop of London,
instead of enforcing complete and immediate con
formity, contents himself with recommending a gra
dual approximation — " It may," his Lordship says,
" call for the exercise of a sound discretion in certain
cases, as to the time and mode of bringing about an
entire conformity of your practice, in this respect,
with the letter of the law ; but I cannot, as it appears
to me, consistently with my duty, interpose any
obstacles, nor offer any objections, to its being done."
(p. 32.) Dr. Hook, too, even in his Church-Dic
tionary, sometimes makes use of milder expressions
than those which have been quoted ; and in his " Call
to Union," published two or three years earlier, after
describing two classes of interpreters, he thus speaks
— " A third party are of opinion, to which I myself
incline, that they act in perfect consistency with their
pledges, if they take things as they find them, merely
guarding against further innovations ; and if, as oc
casion offers, they return more nearly to th,e practice
of the Reformers, which, they rejoice to think, is the

* I may further refer to Mr. Crosthwaite's Communio Fide-
Hum, pp. 3 and 16, Mr. Lathbury's History of the Convocation,
p. 405, and the Bishop of Down and Connor's Charges, 1842-3.

3|nttotmction. 7
practice also of the primitive Church." (Ed. 1. p.
38.) It would appear, from a sermon preached in
July, 1843, that Dr. Hook is not now disposed to
condemn persons who hold the opinion here ex
pressed, or even one of more contented acquiescence
in the present state of things, if they themselves be
" fully persuaded in their own mind " that their
opinion and practice are lawful. (" Mutual For
bearance," p. 13.)
The Bishop of London appears to feel a difficulty
in giving directions, and to doubt whether the power
vested in his office extends to the authorizing any
deviation : — " Far from questioning the right of the
clergy to observe the rubric in every particular, I
know it to be their duty ; and the only doubt is —
how far are we [the Bishops] justified in not en
forcing such observance in every instance?" (p.
31-) '
In another recent Charge, however, we find it laid
down that the episcopal authority is fully sufficient
in such matters. The responsibility for variations
from the order of the Prayer-Book lies, according to
the Bishop of Worcester, not on the parochial clergy,
but on the Bishops, who, being aware that such
variations have obtained, may be considered to have
sanctioned them by their silence (pp. 7-8) ; and his
Lordship thus expresses anew in his Charge, senti
ments which had been previously published in a
letter to a clergyman of his diocese ; 5 — " When you
sign a declaration that you will conform to the Book
of Common Prayer, and to everything contained
therein, you bind yourselves to use in general that
* The Rev. Joseph Oldknow.

8 3!ntrcrouctton.
form in the administration of the Church-services,
rather than the Missal of the Roman Catholics on
the one hand, or the Directory of the Puritans on the
other ; and not that you will with more than Chinese
exactness make a point of conscience to adopt every
expression, and implicitly to follow every direction
therein contained, notwithstanding any changes which
altered habits of life, or altered modes of thinking,
may have rendered expedient." (p. 9.)
Again, at p. 36, Paley's well-known argument
about the meaning of subscription to Articles is thus
applied by his Lordship to the case under considera
tion : — " No one who reads the history of those times
with attention can doubt that the object of the legis
lature, who imposed upon the clergy a subscription
to the above declaration, was the substitution of the
Book of Common Prayer for the Missal of the Ro
man Catholics, or the Directory of the Puritans."
It is not easy, on this principle, to account for the
repeated and very careful revisions which have been
bestowed on our service-book ; as it would seem that
any one fashion of the reformed Liturgy would have
sufficiently and permanently answered the purpose
which the Bishop of Worcester speaks of as the mind
of the imposers. But indeed his Lordship's words
appear to admit of deviations from the formulary
to an extent of which it is difficult to understand the
limits ; certainly far beyond what would be consi
dered safe by many whose opinions as to the duty
of conformity are of no extreme strictness. And
while, in this Charge, it is taught that the silence
of a diocesan is sufficient to authorize any notorious
variation from the prescribed order, we find it more
commonly held by writers of name, that " where the
rubrics are plain and express, the ordinary has no

3IntroOuction. g
authority to release any minister from that obedience
which he owes the Church in what she commands in
her rubrics."6
In this state of things, it appears desirable that the
question of conformity should be deliberately consi
dered, with a view to a right understanding of our
engagements ; and I shall here state the conclusion
to which I have been led by a careful investigation,
and which it is the object of the present work to
establish. It is this ; — that the Book of Common Prayer ex
presses, what is for the present7 the ideal of the
Anglican system, rather than anything which has
ever been generally realized ; that while a conscien
tious clergyman will strive after the realizing of it,
he is not bound to put everything in practice at
once, if there be difficulties in the way from the cir
cumstances of the time, from prevailing notions and
tempers, but is at liberty to go to work gradually and
cautiously ; and, that those who are over us in the
Lord, have an authority— (different, it is conceived,
from that contemplated in the last-quoted Charge,

6 Sharp, quoted in Bishop Mant's Prayer-Book (p. xxvii.) on
the following words of the Preface — " For the resolution of all
doubts concerning the manner how to understand, do, and
execute the things contained in this book, the parties that so
doubt, or diversely take anything, shall resort to the Bishop of
the diocese, who by his discretion, shall take order for the quiet
ing and appeasing of the same ; so that the same order be not
contrary to anything contained in this book."
7 I say for the present, because the Church herself, in the
Commination-service, acknowledges a want of discipline, and ex
presses a wish for its restoration. And this may be considered
as a kind of sanction to my argument, that we are not bound, be
cause something appears desirable in itself, to establish it forth
with, without regard to circumstances.

10 3fnttotiuction.
but yet) — sufficient to warrant us in any such varia
tions as do not contradict the spirit of the Prayer-
Book ; in variations which proceed, not from any un
willingness to conform, but from a desire to work
prudently and effectually towards a conformity entire,
general, and lasting.
A notion to this effect had grown up within my
mind some years ago, in consequence of what fell in
my way while reading without any view to the pre
sent subject. The growth was almost insensible, nor
did I become fully aware of my impressions, until,
at a later time, I observed that an opposite interpre
tation began to be advocated with increasing fre
quency in publications of every kind ; that the advo
cates of this more rigid system accustomed themselves
to speak as if nothing could possibly be said against
them in the way of argument; and that, in fact,
however little their doctrine might be regarded in the
general practice, no formal attempt was made to
refute it. Thus I was led to give the matter a
degree of consideration which my immediate duties
had not required me to bestow upon it. It occurred
to me that I might do well, and even might be
of service to others, by devoting some time to a
full inquiry into the true principles upon which
obligations of this nature ought to be interpreted ; 8
and before proceeding far I was much encouraged
by finding that the very course which I had entered
on — that of historical examination into the manner in
which the orders of the Prayer-Book were formerly
understood and obeyed— had been pointed out by
Bishop Taylor, in his Ductor Dubitantium, as the

* This inquiry -was begun before any of the episcopal Charges
of 1842 had appeared.

3!ntroouction. 1 1
surest way to a correct judgment in such cases. The
words of that great divine and casuist are printed at
the beginning of the volume ; but they may be pro
perly repeated in this place. — " Nothing is more rea
sonable, in questions concerning the interpretation of
a law, than to inquire how the practice of people
was in times bygone ; because what they did when
the reason and sense of the law were best perceived,
and what the lawgiver allowed them to do in the
obedience of it, may best be supposed to be that
which he intended."9
It is on evidence such as Bishop Taylor speaks of
in this passage, that the argument to be maintained
in the following pages is built. And before entering
on the discussion, it may be well to premise that the
matter of obligation will be here treated as one not of
law but of conscience ; for although it be true, (as
we are often reminded), that the Prayer-Book is an
nexed to an act of parliament, and that, consequently,
every rubric has the authority of a statute, the real
question is notoriously this — whether, at a time when
there is no desire in any quarter to exact of us a per
fect compliance with the law, we be bound in con
science to comply with it in every particular.
It seems to be now very commonly assumed that
at the time of its compilation, and of the revisions
which it afterwards underwent, the Prayer-Book of
each date was at once fully put in force ; as if there
were no hindrances from prejudices or any other cir
cumstances, or as if, at least, no allowance were made

9 A passage of the same work, in which Taylor considers the
influence of custom in determining the observance of a law (vol.
xiv. p. 54.) deserves to be looked at.

12 31ntrorjuction,
for such impediments ; as if the simple issuing of a
book forthwith established in every place of worship
throughout the land, all the order and beauty which
the system of our Church prescribes or allows. A
glance at the Church's history will show that such
an assumption is somewhat rash ; and this general
view may serve as a preparation for the consideration
of details which is to follow.
I. The first English Prayer-Book was set forth in
1549; the second, in 1552. This latter, as is well
known, was more agreeable than the earlier to the
principles of the foreign Reformed, and of those who
afterwards became known at home as Puritans.
Among the changes were, the omission of some A'est-
ments which had been retained before, and the sub
stitution of the surplice as the only attire to be worn
by priests and deacons in their public ministration.
We find, however, that while the first book was
still in force, the copes, which were vestments pre
scribed by it to be used at the administration of the
holy communion, were taken away from Westmin
ster Abbey by an order of the council (Strype, Eccl.
Mem. ii. 238) ; and that during Edward's reign, the
offices of the Church, including the celebration of
the Lord's Supper, were very commonly performed
by ministers who wore only their ordinary dress.10
No one, of course, would wish to bring back such a
10 Sampson and Humphrey to Bullinger, July 1566. (Zurich
Letters, published by the Parker Society, No. 71, App. p. 94.)
" Quod addis, rem vestiariam ab initio reformationis non fuisse
abolitam, . . . in eo nostri minime vera retulerunt. Multis enim
in locis, serenissimi regis Edvardi VI. temporibus, absque super-
pelliceo ccena Domini pure celebrabatur." — Similar practices are,
it appears, not uncommon among the more liberal of the clergy
in Roman Catholic Germany at this day. (Gueranger, Institu
tions Liturgiques, ii. 707.)

3fntrotiuction. 13
state of matters ; but it is plain from these circum
stances, that the first compilers of our Book allowed
people to do things very inconsistent with that rigid
interpretation of the ordination-vow which some
would now force upon us. For be it observed, that
the pledge already quoted was in our Ordinal from
the first.11
II. The English Liturgy was suppressed during
the reign of Queen Mary, which ended in November,
1558. On the Feast of St. John the Baptist in the
following year, a new service-book, somewhat less
unlike than that of 1552 to the first Liturgy of King
Edward, came into force by act of parliament. In
it was the following rubric, which with slight varia
tions is still found in our Prayer-Book :
" 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."
(Keeling, p. 3.)
This seemed to revive the obligation of the second
and third orders of clergy to wear copes, vestments,
and albes, and to make it the duty of every Bishop,
" Whensoever he should celebrate the holy
communion in the Church, or execute any other
public ministration," — to " have upon him, be
side 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."
—(Keeling, 357.)
11 The Ordination-services were first published separately in
March, 1549-50, and were annexed to the Prayer-Book in 1552.
(Cardwell's Liturgies of Edw. VI. p. xviii. Keeling's Liturgiee
Briiannicse, vi.)

14 3fntroDuction.
Let us see, then, how the revivers of this law set
about observing it.
Parker, who, although obliged by illness to be
absent from London during the revision, had borne
an important share in the work by correspondence
with the other commissioners, was consecrated Arch
bishop of Canterbury in December, 1559. The
record of his consecration informs us that no pastoral
staff was delivered to him ; 12 and it is very doubtful
whether any one from that day to this has been more
fortunate than Dr. Hook, who " does not remember
to have seen an English Bishop attired as this rubric
directs." — (Ch. Diet. art. Crosier.) And further,
one of the consecrators, Coverdale, wore only a long
cloth gown, (" Non nisi toga lanea talari utebatur."
Doc. Ann. i. 245) ; which inconformity, although his
poverty, and his resolution not again to undertake
episcopal duties, may be pleaded for it, seems in
truth to have been the result of a puritanical prin
ciple, and yet to have been for some reason borne
with by the new primate. This is the more remark
able because Cranmer, a man whose eyes were much

12 Cardwell, Doc. Ann. i. 246. The circumstance appears to
be mentioned for the sake of marking the difference between the
consecration of Parker and that of former Bishops. The delivery
of the staff had been prescribed in the Ordinal of 1550, and
omitted in that of 1552. The Ordinal was not reprinted in 1559,
and the general rubric as to ornaments would not apply to this,
inasmuch as March, 1550, was later than the second year of King
Edward. (Gibson, Codex, p. 117.) The omission of the staff
at Parker's consecration, however, is less important than the
conclusion, which appears to be safe, that from that time it has
been generally disused. This is the irregularity which has led
me to notice the subject. It is hardly necessary to point out
that the passages in the " Hierurgia Anglicana," (pp. 82-89)
which speak of mitres, crosiers, &c. as carried at the funerals of

3Intronuction, 15
less open than Parker's to the danger of foreign and
puritanical notions, had refused to consecrate Hooper
unless on condition of his wearing the episcopal
dress. Whatever associations we may have been lately
taught to connect with the name of Archbishop
Parker, it is certain that to him, above all other
human instruments, the preservation of our Church
from puritanism is due. With very little support,
for the most part, either from the ministers of state13
or from his brother-bishops, he toiled vigorously to
keep down the spirit of nonconformity ; and his whole
life was made unhappy by continual contests with
the " Germanical natures" (Strype, Parker, p. 78) of
those whose notions had been formed, whether at
home or in exile, after the model of foreign discipline
and confessions.
That the system of the Prayer-Book could have
been fully carried out in those days, will not be
imagined by any one who will consider the great
lack of clergymen, which led to the ordination of
many illiterate persons,1* to the allowing the service
Bishops and represented on their tombs, can prove nothing as to
actual use of these ornaments. The only instance which has any
show of reality is " the crosier or pastoral crook of Archbishop
Laud," which is preserved at Oxford, (p. 83.) But as no evi
dence is offered as to Laud's practice, perhaps even this may be
no exception to the truth of Nicholls' statement, in his note on
this rubric, that the staff has never been used since Queen Mary's
reign. 13 In fact some, as Leicester and Knolles, were bitterly opposed
to his views ; Cecil and Walsingham often discouraged him.
(Keble, Pref. to Hooker, p. Ivii.) He writes to Cecil, just before
his death, that " the puritans had a strong party at court ; that
the Queen was almost the only person that stood firm to the
Church," &c. (Collier, ii. 548.)
14 E. g. Protestation to be subscribed by ministers, 1559. " I

16 3lntrotiuction.
to be read by laymen, and the frequent union of
several parishes under one "principal incumbent,"
who was represented in each by deacons or lay
readers. (Strype, Parker, 65). Deacons were then
allowed to hold cure of souls, although the com
mission given to that order of ministers was of no
greater extent than it now is. (Gibson, Codex, 848).
Bishops were often either strongly puritanical them
selves, or inclined to encourage puritans.15 Beza,
Bullinger, Martyr, and other foreigners, were looked
to by many eminent English churchmen as the
highest theological authorities, and indeed were ge
nerally less immoderate in their judgment than those
who appealed to them. Great irregularities were
everywhere committed ; and the Archbishop was
content to press for a very partial obedience to the
laws of the Church, with but little success in obtain
ing even that.
shall not covetously use open mechanical labour or occupation,
if my living be twenty nobles a-year." (Strype, Ann. i. 151.)
A Catechism is to be drawn up " for the erudition of simple
curates." Archdeacons are to set texts of the New Testament
for curates to learn, and are to hear them at visitations (Doc.
Ann. i. 204) ; and this order is repeated in the Canons pf 1571.
(Synodalia, 117.) Lever writes to Bullinger, July 10, 1560 —
" Ex illis valde paucis qui per magnam hanc regionem sacra-
menta administrant, ne centesimus quidem verbum Dei prsedicare
potest et vult ; sed tantum legere quod in libris [the Prayer-Book
and Homilies] prsescribitur omnes coguntur." (Zurich Letters,
No. 35.)
ls See, for example, (in Strype, Ann. ii. 90,) the orders issued
for Northampton, in 1571, by Bp. Scambler, a man infamous as
having earned a translation to Norwich " ob insigne suum meri-
tum in dilapidandis episcopatibus," i. e. by conniving at the
alienation of their property to laymen. (Godwin de Prsesulibus,
ed. Richardson, p. 559). See, too, Bp. Pilkington's Works,
edited by Professor Scholefield for the Parker Society, and the
account of him in Collier, Eccl. Hist. ii. 494.

3[ntroDuctton, 17
III. His successor, Grindal, (1575-1583,) had been
an exile in Mary's reign, and leant decidedly towards
puritanism. The puritanical party now felt itself
greatly strengthened by having a friend in the most
eminent place among the Bishops, which had hitherto
been occupied by a formidable enemy ; and, of course,
entire conformity was more distant than ever.
IV. Under Whitgift, things took another turn.
He pressed the subscription of the article, afterwards
incorporated in our xxxvrth canon, which was quoted
in the beginning of this essay ; he exacted conformity
with a strictness before unknown — unknown, i. e.
while the framers of the service-book themselves
lived to govern the Church ; and in this course he
was followed by his successor, Bancroft, (1604,) to
whom is ascribed the chief share in drawing up the
canons of 1604. (Collier, ii. 687.) "Bancroft's
unrelenting strictness," writes Collier, " gave a new
face to religion; the Liturgy was more solemnly
officiated ; the fasts and festivals were better ob
served ; the use of copes was revived, and the sur
plice generally worn, and all things in a manner
recovered to the first settlement under Queen Eliza
beth [i. e. the practice was brought near to the
theory of that system.] Some who had formerly
subscribed in a loose reserved sense, were now called
upon to sign their conformity in more close unevasive
terms. For now the xxxvith canon obliged them
to declare that they did ' willingly et ex animo sub
scribe the three articles,16 and all things contained in
the same,' so that now there was no room left for
scruples and different persuasion."
16 These were, 1. An acknowledgment of the royal supremacy ;
2. That quoted in p. 2 ; 3. Profession of belief agreeable to the
xxxix articles of Religion. C

is 31ntrotiuction.
We shall, however, see reason to think that the
conformity of Bancroft's time fell considerably short
of what some interpreters of our obligations would
now insist on.
V. Archbishop Bancroft died in 1610 ; and " with
him," says Heylyn, " died the uniformity of the
Church of England." (Life of Laud, 59.) The
character of Archbishop Abbot's government (1611-
1633) may be traced in the history of his successor,
Laud, and other Bishops of Charles the First's reign.
While their attempts at a reform drew on them
violent charges of innovation, they were able to
appeal to rubrics, canons, and ancient custom ; but
they found against them the custom of many later
years — the fruit of Abbot's long inattention to dis
cipline and order.
It is not, however, to be denied that Archbishop
Laud's system was in some respects different from
the letter of that prescribed in Queen Elizabeth's
Prayer-Book, — far as that letter exceeded the actual
practice of the time which had elapsed since its first
publication ; and this difference was not of sudden
growth, but the result of a gradual change. No
one who is at all acquainted with the writings of the
Reformers, can fail to perceive in the great work of
Hooker, which was published within the last years
of the sixteenth century, a vast advance in church
principle beyond the Theology in which that illus
trious writer had been trained up ; and in nothing is
the difference more strongly marked than in his tone
on ritual and ceremonial matters. It appears that his
views became more developed in the direction oppo
site to puritanism, even while he was engaged on the
" Ecclesiastical Polity ;" (See Keble, Pref. p. lxxi.)
and we cannot know how much further he may have

3[ntronuction. 19
gone in that last part of his labours which has un
happily been lost ; still less, can we venture to decide
what might have been his most matured opinions,
had he not been removed from the Church on earth
at the age of forty-six.
The most eminent divine of the time between
Hooker's death and the ascendancy of Laud, was
Andrewes, who, unlike the author of the " Ecclesias
tical Polity," possessed, in addition to the influence
of his character and writings, that which is derived
from eminent and authoritative station; since he
held, at various times, the mastership of a college,
the deaneries of Westminster and the Chapel-royal,
and the bishoprics of Chichester (1605), Ely (1609),
and Winchester (1619.) There was a very general
expectation that he would be translated from Ely to
Canterbury, as the successor of Bancroft ; and to the
preference of Abbot has been attributed that growth
of nonconformity which led to the Great Rebellion.
(Clarendon, ed. 1839, p. 38. Heylyn's Laud, p.
59.) Laud always professed to take Andrewes for
his model ; Wren, who, on account of his strictness
in pressing conformity, was the most unpopular of
the Archbishop's coadjutors, had served under An
drewes as chaplain.
It is to this eminent prelate, chiefly, that we must
trace those ideas of ritual propriety which met with
so much opposition, when in Laud's primacy an
attempt was made to act on them ; his notes on the
Common Prayer17 contain directions for a worship
17 Printed in the Appendix to Nicholls' Commentary. It is
to be remembered that these notes were evidently not intended
for publication, and that the writer has not explained the object
with which they were made. They are, therefore, to be read
with caution, lest we should suppose that to express his rule of

20 3!ntroDuction.
more ceremonious than that which was made matter
of outcry against the Bishops of Charles the First's
time, and it appears that his own chapel was ordered
accordingly; his form for the consecration of a
church18 was followed with very little (if any) alter
ation in those ceremonies which became the occasion
of so much slander and complaint against Laud ;
and to his influence are referred the rules for the
celebration of Divine service during Prince Charles's
residence at Madrid, (1623,) of which a part may be
here quoted.
(1 .) " That there be one convenient room appointed
for prayer ;' the said room to be employed, during
their abode, to no other use.
(2.) " That it be decently adorned chapel-wise,

practice under the existing Prayer-Book of his time, which may
perhaps be a suggestion for the improvement of the book, or
possibly may be nothing more than a memorandum of some
point which had struck him in the corresponding part of another
Liturgy. 18 See Sparrow's Collection, or the late edition of his Rationale.
Laud denies the use of those superstitious ceremonies which make
so great a figure in the popular histories. (Troubles, 340.) That
some of them are prescribed in the Roman Pontifical, may per
haps account sufficiently for his being charged with these by his
enemies, while others seem to have been purely imaginary. He
also employed in consecration of plate for his altar a form drawn
up and used by Andrewes. (lb. 315.) Sancroft, at a later day,
incurred much obloquy by consecrating plate. (Life of Kettlewell,
p. 56.) In the Hierurgia Anglicana may be found instances of
consecrating vestments, fonts, &c. The editors, however, have
made the mistake of including two extracts (p. 80), in which it
is evident that hallowing the font means nothing more than the
former part of the baptismal service. Among the earlier Reformed,
Laud shews (Troubles, 341-465) that Parker disapproved only of
Romish superstitions used at consecration of churches, not of
the rite itself; and Ridley's words (p. 55, ed. 1841) seem
capable of a like construction. Pilkington is thoroughly puri-

3fntroHuction. 21
with an attar, fonts,19 palls, linen coverings, demy-
carpets, four surplices, candlesticks, tapers, chalices,
patens, a fine towel for the Prince, other towels for
the household,50? a traverse of waters for the com
munion, a bason and flagons, and two copes.
(3.) " That prayers be duly kept twice a-day ;
that all reverence be used by every one present,
being uncovered, kneeling at due times, standing up
at the creeds and gospel, bowing at the Name of
Jesus. (4.) " That the communion be celebrated in due
form, with an oblation of every communicant, and
admixing water with the wine ; the communion to be
as often used as it shall please the Prince to set
down; smooth wafers to be used for the bread."21

tanical on the subject, (p. 64.) I need hardly refer to Hooker,
v. 12. There is a good deal of rather unseemly merriment about
the Roman ceremonies of dedication in the sermon preached by
Prideaux, afterwards Bishop of Worcester, at the consecration of
Exeter College Chapel, 1624. (§ 8.)
*9 This is the word in both the folio and the octavo editions of
Collier. But perhaps we ought rather to read fronts. " Para-
fronts and suffronts" were among the articles of altar- furniture
objected to as novelties of Laud's introducing.
20 These towels may perhaps imply that the hands were to be
washed before receiving the consecrated elements. Andrewes
himself washed his hands when about to administer at the dedi
cation of Jesus Chapel. There is, however, another use of
towels at the Communion, prescribed in the rubric of the Roman
Missal, x. 6: — " Minister ante eos [communicandos] extendet
linteum." (See a wood cut after an old drawing, in Dr. Rock's
Hierurgia, ii. 258). This custom is noticed by Evelyn as retained
in Charles II. 's chapel at Paris — " The King and the Duke
received the Sacrament first by themselves, the Lords Byron and
Wilmot holding the long towel all along the altar." (Diary,
Christmas-day, 1651.)
"-y Collier, ii. 726. Mr. Hallam tells us (Hist. Eng. 4th Ed. i.
405) that " It is said by Howell, who was then on the spot, that

22 3lntroDuction.
Laud and Wren, in fact, do not appear to have
had any notions more extreme than those of An
drewes ; but there can be little doubt that, if that
wise Bishop had been raised to the primacy when
Laud was, he would have taken a different way of
bringing the face of the Church to agree with his
ideas from that pursued by his less discreet admirers.
It by no means follows, from his having drawn up
the rules just quoted, with a view of-producing an
opinion favourable to the English Church among a
people devotedly attached to the Romish worship,
ceremonious even in their common life, and preju-

the Prince never used the service of the Church of England while
he was at Madrid." At p. 140, to which Mr. Hallam refers,
there is nothing on this subject in the 4th edition of Howell, (the
only one within my reach;) but at p. 124 is the following passage :
" The Prince hath no public exercise of devotion, but only bed
chamber prayers, and some think that his lodging in the King's
house is like to prove a disadvantage to the main business ; for,
whereas most sorts of people here hardly hold us to be Christians,
if the Prince had had a palace of his own, and been permitted to
have used a room for an open chapel to exercise the Liturgy of
the Church of England, it would have brought them to have a
better opinion of us ; and to this end there were some of our best
church plate and vestments brought hither, but never used." I
suspect that Mr. Hall am 's statement is founded on a misappre
hension of this passage. Howell regrets that, in consequence
of being lodged in the King's palace, Charles was unable to
comply with the rules for celebrating Divine service publicly, and
with outward magnificence ; but it is expressly stated that he had
" bedchamber prayers," i. e. the English offices used regularly
day by day, in his own apartment. Such was the practice of
pious persons at home, when hindered from joining in the public
service; and Chamberlayne tells us (Angliae Notitia, 1669,
p. 231) that the court chaplains in waiting have to read Divine
service before the King out of chapel daily twice, in the King's
private oratory." Although we may guess that the idea of this
private reading before Charles II. was little more than a fiction
devised to account for his absence from the public service, no

3[ntroDuction. 23
diced against our Reformation by the most extrava
gant fables,22 that he would have attempted to esta
blish a similar form of worship as general in a land
where the wiser heads had come to understand the
indifferency of some things, while the prejudices of
the multitude were all in favour of puritanism. Nay,
it will rather appear likely that he may have erred
in an opposite direction, if we may believe what is
stated of him by Fuller, (Ch. Hist. b. xi. p. 127)
that — " Wheresoever he was a parson, a dean, or a
bishop, he never troubled parish, college, or diocese,
with pressing other ceremonies on them than such

such notion is admissible as to his father, whom Bishop Hall
(Dedication of " Hard Texts") speaks of as " the great pattern
of devotion, twice a-day, even in public view, busied in the Book
of God." Lord Bristol, who was ambassador in Spain at the
time of the Prince's visit, is found afterwards speaking of himself
as having had " exercises of religion constantly used in his
house, and frequented by all other Protestant English," — of his
" frequent use of the Sacrament," his " constant profession of
religion." (Rushworth, i. 266-297.) He accuses Charles's com
panion, Buckingham, of absenting himself from, this worship, of
conforming in many things with the Spaniards, and giving them
hopes of the Prince's conversion ; but nothing is said as to
Charles himself, who, however, most probably did not join the
congregation at the embassy. Lloyd says in his panegyric on
Charles (Memoirs of Noble, &c. Persons, p. 171) — that he
" honoured our religion there by a Spanish Liturgy." It appears
(ib. 378) that Williams, afterwards Archbishop of York, pub
lished a Spanish version about that time, and, while the idea of
an open chapel was entertained, it may have been intended to
use this. Lloyd appears not to be aware that the reading of
prayers was eventually private; still, the Spanish book may
have been used. Wren was one of the Chaplains at Madrid.
22 See, for instances of foreign prejudices, Heylyn's Laud, p.
105 ; and Hackett's account of Archbishop Williams entertaining
an ambassador. (Life of Williams Pt. I. p. 210.) For a Spanish
view of the history, Calderon's play " La Cisma de Inglaterra."
(No. 85 in Keil's edition).

24 3fntroDuction.
which he found used there before his coming thither."
Indeed, Laud himself seems to have been exceeded
by some of his friends. " The compliancy of many,
to curry favour," says Bishop Hackett, " did outrun
the Archbishop's intentions, if my opinion deceive
me not." (Life of Williams, p. 100.) In a Scotch
presbyterian tract (Harleian Misc. iv. 427, 8vo. ed.)
it is said that " the great doctor of all church-cere
monies [doubtless Laud] protested, he was more
troubled with the too much conformableness of some
than with the nonconformableness of the others." And
he himself tells us (Troubles, p. 345), that his own
articles of inquiry were not excepted against, while
he was treated as if accountable for those of Bishops
Wren and Montagu.
The chief points objected to in the reforms of Laud
and his associates — (besides doctrinal and political
offences, which are foreign to the present inquiry) —
were such as these : The placing the communion
table, which had before stood in the body of the
church, or in the middle of the chancel, close to
the east wall, with its ends north and south, " altar-
wise ;" adorning it with various furniture which was
supposed to savour of popery ; guarding it by erect
ing a rail in front ; ordering that the elements for con
secration should be set on by the priest's own hands ;
meddling with the height and disposition of the
pews ; ordering the part of the communion-service
which is appointed for times when there is no admi
nistration, to be read at the altar, and not in the
desk ; using and enforcing reverences and gestures
which appeared novel ; enforcement of the surplice
as the garment to be used in preaching ; restraint of
pulpit-prayers, and diminution of sermons. I do not
inquire at present, whether the conduct of those who

3[ntroDuction. 25
endured persecution for having adopted such mea
sures, was in all things wise, and a fit model for our
imitation ;23 but shall only observe, that here, where
there certainly was something of that attention to
things not ordered in the Prayer-Book which Fuller
calls sesquiconformity3* — here, if anywhere, we might
expect to find the example of that exact conformity,
in all things to which the rules of the Prayer-Book
extend, which is now spoken of as necessary, if we
would not " perjure " ourselves ; and that I believe
it is not to be found here ; not even in the practice of
Montagu and Wren, much less in Laud's.
In the year 1637, an unsuccessful attempt was
made to introduce a liturgy into Scotland. It was
considered desirable, as an acknowledgment of the
northern Church's independence, that the service-
book should be somewhat different from that of
England ; and in the variations we may see, partly
the wishes of those who thought with Laud, whether
English or Scottish ; partly the tradition of England
as to the manner of Divine service, expressly set
down in a book intended for a country where there
was no tradition to direct the clergy in officiating
according to the liturgy.
Before leaving this part of the history, we may
notice a remarkable phenomenon of the time — unique,
perhaps, in our Church since the Reformation.
Nicholas Ferrar, born in 1593, after having studied

23 The opinion of a very acute contemporary is worth quoting. —
" The Bishops were too hasty, else with a discreet slowness they
might have had what they aimed at. The old story of the fellow
that told the gentleman, he might get to such a place if he did
not ride too fast, might have served their turn." (Selden, Table-
talk, Art. Bishops.)
si " Worthies," Gloucestershire, p. 360.

26 3Jnttotmction.
at Cambridge, having travelled much, and distin
guished himself by his share in the management of
the great Virginian Company, at the time of those
struggles against the Court which ended in its disso
lution, retired, about the thirty-second year of his
age, to Little Gidding, in Huntingdonshire ; where
thenceforward he devoted' himself, along with his
mother and other members of his family, to the ser
vice of God, in prayers, works of mercy, and other
holy exercises. Although it does not appear that
Ferrar was connected with the school of Laud,25
beyond having been ordained deacon by him in 1626,
at the recommendation of a common friend, the cir
cumstances of his life and character have made him
a favourite with many who represent themselves as
disciples of that school ; and for this reason we shall
sometimes refer to his practice.

25 He " professed that he did as verily believe the Pope to be
Anti-Christ as any article of his creed." (Wordsw. Eccl. Biog.
iv. 245.) An opposite opinion was charged on the Archbishop's
friends as a novelty. (See Laud, Troubles, p. 389.) Fox's
Book of Martyrs — a work little esteemed by Laud, since a want
of love for it was one of the charges brought against him — was
read aloud during dinner at Gidding. (E. B. iv. 180.) When
a pamphlet with the title of " The Arminian Nunnery" appeared
in 1642, founded on a perversion of a private letter in which a Mr.
Lenton had some years before related a visit to the society, Mr.
Lenton wrote an indignant disavowal of all connexion with the
publication ; and in this he seems to say that he had never written
anything to warrant the charge of Arminianism against the Fer-
rars — by which, no doubt, it was intended to connect them with
the Primate, then under persecution. (lb. 241-2.) Ferrar ap
pears to have been on good terms with his diocesan, Williams,
Laud's great rival ; and he varied from the Archbishop's order as
to some of his church-furniture. An account of the present state
of Little Gidding may be found in No. I. of the Cambridge
Camden Society's Transactions.

3introtiuction, 27
VI. If our obligations to conformity be such as
some writers would have us believe, it is plain that
no circumstances could warrant us in consenting to
suppress any part of the Liturgy, or to use any other
form. Should the sins of this country draw on us
the judgment of an ordinance, issued by successful
rebels or invaders, for the abolition of the Book, it
would be our duty still to read it as before, to incur
all penalties rather than vary from it, to prefer a
daily use or remembrance of it in a prison to the
opportunity of ministering at liberty to our brethren
without, on condition of using a different order of
prayer. The divines of Charles the First's day judged
otherwise. Sanderson, the most eminent casuist of
the age, has left us a tract on " Submission to Usur
pers," in which he gives an account of his own
practice during the ascendency of the sectaries, and
justifies it by argument. We learn from this tract
that he varied from the exact form of the Prayer-
Book. When accused to the authorities, he resolved
to forbear the use of it so as to satisfy the letter of
the ordinance against it, rather than forsake his sta
tion. He used some things, e. g. the Te Deum,
" only when I think the auditory will bear it," (p. 9.)
— "If I like my auditory," (p. 10.) Laws, he holds,
are not to be observed when " by reason of the con
juncture of circumstances, or the iniquity of the
times, — (contingencies which no lawgiver could
either certainly foresee, or, if foreseen, sufficiently
provide against) — the observation would rather be
prejudicial than advantageous to the public, or is
manifestly attended with such inconveniences and
sad consequents to the observers, as all the imagi
nable good, that can redound to the public thereby,

28 3[ntroDuction.
cannot in any reasonable measure countervail,"(p. 16.)
It is, he tells us, " generally resolved by casuists," that
obedience may, in some circumstances, be dispensed
with, extra casum scandali et contemptus, (p. 19, and
Pref. to Sermons, p. 72, Cf. Taylor, Ductor Dubit.
b. iii. c. 4. rule 18.) The public good is the object
to be regarded ; private interest, only as consistent
with this. By suffering for overnice scruples, he
considers, " we may lose much of that comfort which a
Christian confessor can take in his sufferings, when
they are laid upon him by the hand of God, and not
pulled upon himself by his own hands." 26 One of
26 This observation may be commended to some persons in our
day, if they should feel an inclination to run themselves into
trouble. Those, at least, cannot reasonably complain of it who
are so particular as to allowing the honours of martyrdom, that
they deny the title of Martyrs to Cranmer, Ridley, and others,
who suffered under Queen Mary; because, Mr. F. W. Faber
seems to say, (Introduction-to Laud's Autobiography, xxv. xxvi.)
one branch of the Catholic Church cannot make Martyrs in ano
ther ; or, according to another writer (Brit. Crit. July 1841, p.
14.), because it cannot be said, that that for which they suffered
was " the Truth icar i^oyfiv." It may be worth while to produce
a few testimonies on the other side, which have very lately fallen
in my way. Laud speaks of the Common Prayer as " composed
by such Bishops, and other divines as suffered, some of them to
martyrdom, for the truth of Christ." (Three Speeches, p. 10.)
Sanderson, (Pref. p. 77.) " sundry of them martyred in the
cause." Heylyn, (Hist. Ref. preface), " the effusion of the blood
of so many martyrs." Bishop Taylor (Works, vii. 291), "the
zeal which the holy martyrs and confessors in Queen Mary's time
expressed for this excellent Liturgy, before and at the time of
their death, defending it by their disputations, adorning it by
their practice, and sealing it with their bloods, are arguments
which ought to recommend it to all the sons of the Church of
England for ever ; and when it came out of the flame, and was
purified in the martyrs' fires, it became a vessel of honour ; &c."
Charles the First, (in Hammond, i. 353.) " The book of Com
mon Prayer was confirmed with the martyrdom of many ;" and
in the preface to the Canons of 1640, " those learned and godly

31ntrotiuction. 29
the objections discussed in the tract is,— that scandal
may be given by forbearing (p. 25) ; and Sanderson's
answer to this might suffice for us, if, in our case,
the scandal were not risked rather by insisting on
exact conformity than by forbearance. His four
rules as to scandal deserve serious attention, and
are so apposite to our subject, that I shall quote
them : —
1. "Do nothing that is evil, for fear of giving
scandal. 2. " Do nothing, good or evil, with an intention
to give scandal.
divines, divers of which suffered martyrdom." Hammond, (i. 355.)
" The Liturgy of the Church of England was at first, as it were,
written in blood, at the least sealed and delivered down to us by
the martyrdom of most of the compilers." The like language is
used in the Oxford Reasons against the Covenant, ^ 3. — " the
cause which our godly bishops and martyrs, and all our learned
divines, ever since the Reformation, have, both by their writings
and sufferings, maintained." Bull, (iv. 459.) speaks of Latimer
as " sanctissimus UpofiaprvQ." Collier, in his comparison of Mary
and Elizabeth, which drew on him vehement charges of popery,
says that the former " made martyrs." (ii. 670.) And it is sa
tisfactory to conclude with the following language from the eighty-
first " Tract for the Times," which we are authorized by another
Tract (87, p. 98.) to ascribe to Dr. Pusey. " Ridley, the great
upholder of catholic truth, received his martyr's crown," (p.
22.) " God, for His own Name's sake, rescued His servant
Cranmer, and gave him the crown of martyrdom," (p. 26,
see other extracts in Palmer's Narrative, p. 41.) So far were
the divines of the seventeenth century from using the language
which our extreme churchmen have lately considered just and
decent, that, as we have seen in the passages from Laud, Taylor,
and Hammond, they delighted to refer to the sufferings of the
Martyrs as a reason for loving the formulary which these had
bequeathed to them. Hooker was of a different mind from the
British Critic, as he believed that a man might possibly deserve
the title of martyr, without holding " the truth xar' k&xvv-' (See
Eccl. Pol. iii. 1. 11.) The question is well discussed by Dr.
Wordsworth, Eccl. Biog. iii. 91. It may be some comfort to Mr.

30 3fntroDuction.
3. "Do nothing, that may be reasonably forborne,
whereat scandal will be taken.
4. " Order the doing of that which may not be
well left undone, in such sort that no scandal (so
far as you can help it), may be taken thereat."
(pp. 30—34.)
Bishop Taylor, in the same evil days, drew up a
set of offices, intended to serve instead of the for
bidden Liturgy ; and this practice is in accordance
with the principles which he afterwards set forth in
his elaborate work on the Rule of Conscience, (b. iii.
c. 6.) Of Hammond, we are told by Fell, (Eccl.
Biog. iv. 343.) that although no " consideration
that terminated on himself" could " have petsuaded
him at all to regard that tyrannous injunction," [the
interdict of 1655], yet " charity to the family where
he was made him content to admit of an expedient
that secured all real duties, whilst he for some short

Faber to know, that, although Anglican divines think otherwise,
a celebrated lay theologian of the seventeenth century— whose
high eminence as a brother-poet must give his opinion great
weight with the author of " The Cherwell Water-lily," — agrees in
his estimate of Cranmer and the rest. See Milton's Prose Works,
ed. Fletcher, p. 3. If unmixed purity of cause and motives be
required before one can be a martyr, perhaps these gentlemen
might find some difficulties in the case of their favourite hero,
" St. Thomas of Canterbury," or, as one of them calls him, " St..
Thomas the Martyr." (Brit. Crit. July 1841, p. 198.) Perhaps
this writer forgot that our Calendar— from which Archbishop
Becket has been expunged in a very marked manner — mentions
another martyr of the name; who was also one of our Lord's
Apostles. ** Evelyn's Diary contains much information as to the state of
religion during the usurpation. He appears to have usually
attended service at parish-churches, in which he sometimes found
orthodox ministers. On Advent-Sunday 1654, he writes —
" There being no office at the church, but extempore prayers

3[ntrotwction. 31
time forbore that attendance on the altar which was
the very joy of his life." A similar compliance was
adopted by Bishop Bull, who was ordained during
the usurpation (Life, p. 33) ; and by Sherlock,
author of the " Practical Christian" (p. xxix. ed.
1841)"; and it would seem, from the Autobiography
of Patrick (pp. 23 and 39), that Bishop Hall in
those days conferred holy orders without requiring a
pledge that the receiver would use any particular
form of service.27
VII. At the Restoration of the royal family, the
Liturgy was again reviewed. In the commission
originally entrusted with this work, we find the
names of Cosin, Sanderson, Stern, Heylyn, Gunning,
Pearson, Sparrow, and Thorndike, — men whom even
our most extravagant writers have not yet ventured
to sneer at as puritan, latitudinarian, or Erastian in
their principles; and under some of whose names
they would earnestly desire to shelter themselves.

after the Presbyterian way, — (for now all forms were prohibited,
and most of the preachers were usurpers) — I seldom went to
church on solemn feasts, but either went to London, where some
of the orthodox sequestered divines did privately use the Com
mon Prayer, administer sacraments, &c. ; or else I procured one
to officiate at my house." 1655, Apr. 15. " I went to London,
to celebrate the feast of Easter. Dr. Wild [formerly one of
Laud's chaplains, afterwards Bishop of Derry] preached at St.
Gregory's ; the ruling powers conniving at the use of the Liturgy,
&c. in this church alone." In the same year, however, came
out " the protector's edict, prohibiting all ministers of the
Church of England from preaching, or teaching any schools."
(Nov. 27.) Their ministrations were thenceforth usually con
fined to private houses. On Christmas-day 1657, Evelyn and
others were arrested while attending the administration of the
Holy Communion, by Gunning, at Exeter House. He speaks,
however, at a later time of sermons preached in churches by
episcopal divines.

32 31ntroDuction,
The commissioners failed, indeed, in the especial
object for which they had been appointed — that,
namely, of arranging a form in which the presby-
terian party might agree with them ; but it was
through their influence that the Book became what
it is, when the revision was executed in the Convo
cation; and further, we find among the most active
members of that assembly the names of Wren and
Pierce, lately restored to the bishoprics in which
they had before the rebellion attempted to carry out
the principles of Laud, with that of Nicholson, the
author of valuable expositions of our Church's doc
trine, the associate of Taylor, and patron of Bull.28
We owe to these last revisers a debt of thanks for
restoring many things which had long been wanting,
and for prescribing by express rule some which had
before rested only on the sanction of custom; and,
without entering on questions which have been lately
discussed with much heat, I may profess that I can
see no good objection to the opinion " that if the

28 The Bodleian Library contains a very curious monument of
this time — viz. a folio Prayer-Book, printed in 1634, with
suggested alterations in the handwriting of Sancroft. Dr. Ban-
dinel, to whose courtesy I am indebted for a sight of the volume,
is of opinion that Cosin, to whom Sancroft was chaplain at the
time, was really the author of the notes ; at all events, they
express the mind of the school to which both Cosin and Sancroft
belonged. Dr. Cardwell has given some extracts from those
notes ; and, although most of the alterations were adopted by
the Convocation, it will be seen, by a reference to his " Con
ferences," pp. 388 — 391, that some of the things which our
extreme churchmen most insist on, were absolutely rejected.
Mr. Crosthwaite in his Communio Fidelium, and Mr. Bulley, in
his Tabular View of the Communion Offices, (a carefully-executed
and instructive work) have also made use of Sancroft's notes ; and
in the following pages will be found some extracts which have, I
believe, never before been published.

3[ntrotiuction. 33
meaning of any set of individuals is to be considered
as authoritative in the interpretation" of the Prayer-
Book, " the divines of 1660 surely have the fairest
claim." (Pref. to Froude's Remains, Part II. p.
xxiii.) But while we draw this conclusion against some,
who would deny the title of faithful churchmen to
persons whose opinions agree with Cosin and the
others just mentioned, rather than with Cranmer and
Jewel, or Hooper and Pilkington, we must, as against
another party, maintain the further inference, that, if
a committee composed in so large a degree of Divines
who had borne a part in the " Development of the
Church in the seventeenth century,"29 was contented
with our present Book, we need not complain of it as
insufficient, unless we be willing to profess ourselves
advocates of a further " development," for which
the sanction of their names cannot be pretended ;
and that if, in that time of triumph, they held it
wisdom to refrain from changes and restorations
more agreeable to the first Book of Edward the
Sixth, or still earlier formularies, it is pretty certain
that had they lived in these days of ours they would
not have advised the introduction or revival of such
things.30

s9 This is the title of an article in the British Critic for Octo
ber, 1842, which is meant as a reply to the Quarterly Review for
March of the same year. In order to understand how far this
paper is from fairly meeting the argument against which it is
directed, it must be carefully compared with that in the Quar
terly ; as to which, however, while professing a general agree
ment, I would not be understood to assent to all that is said by
the very able and eloquent writer.
30 Mr. Hallam, in his Constitutional History, has repeated a
statement of Burnet's (Own Time, i. 184) in a style which seems
intended to reflect strongly on the revisers as having acted
D

34 31nttoDuction.
We shall see in the next Part some details as to
the conformity of the time between the Restoration
and the Revolution; at present, I shall conclude
this Introduction with an observation for each of two
different classes.
The one I would remind that the present state of
things cannot possibly be made to appear so bad as
that which Laud had to deal with on his advance
ment to the primacy.
To the other, I would submit a few lines from
Crabbe's poem of " The Borough." They are part
of the character of " The Vicar," which the Edin
burgh Reviewer (quoted in the last edition, vol. iii.
p. 55,) sums up by describing him as " a good easy
man, with no character at all."

foolishly and wantonly — " The puritans having always objected
to the number of Saints'-days, the bishops added a few more ;
and, the former having given very plausible reasons against the
apocryphal lessons in the daily service, the others inserted the
legend of Bel and the Dragon, for no other purpose than to shew
contempt of their scruples." (ii. 35.) It is to be observed, how
ever, in general vindication of the revisers, that all hope of bring
ing the presbyterians to conform was at an end before the alte
rations were made, and consequently, there was no great reason
for regarding their scruples in drawing up offices for the Church.
And, as to the particular changes which are censured, we may
remark, (1.) that, properly speaking, there was no increase of
saints'-days ; the only difference being, that the festivals of St.
Paul and St. Barnabas, for which the Prayer-Book had pre
viously appointed special services, were now put on the same
legal footing with the rest ; see Part ii. c. ii. ; (2.) that the
apocryphal lesson, (formerly described as the xiv th chapter of
Daniel) was not wholly new to the Liturgy, but had been read
until 1604, when it was cast out in compliance with the puri
tans, who, as had just been proved to the Divines of 1660, were
no longer to be conciliated by any alteration that could safely
be granted.

3[nttoDuction* 35
" For sects he cared not : ' they are not of us,
Nor need we, brethren, their concerns discuss ;
But 'tis the change, the schism at home I feel,
Ills few perceive, and none, have skill to heal ;
Not at the altar our young brethren read,
(Facing their flock), the Decalogue and Creed ;
But at their duty in their desks they stand,
With naked surplice, lacking hood and band.'
* # * • * *
Habit with him was all the test of truth ;
' It must be right ; I've done it from my youth ;'
Questions he answer'd in as brief a way ;
' It must be wrong; it was of yesterday.'"
Hence it appears, that the slovenly practices which
people of a like temper now cherish as the most
venerable traditions, were shuddered at seventy years
ago as unprecedented innovations, — the truth being,
that both the more and the less reverent ways have
been followed by different parties, and revived from
time to time, ever since the Reformation.

PART II.
€&e duestion in Detail,
WE may now go on to consider in detail a few
of the points as to ritual which are at present
subjects of doubt or controversy ; not confining our
selves to the Prayer-Book, but taking a view also of
certain things which are insisted on by some church
men as having other authority of a nature to oblige
us, and occasionally noticing matters of which I am
enabled to offer some illustration, although the main
question of principle be not involved in them.1 And
if any reader should be disposed to wonder at the be
stowal of time and pains on subjects so utterly trifling
as some of those which are to be discussed, or at the
gravity with which they are treated, let him remem
ber that there are persons whose profoundest hearts

1 I endeavoured formerly to distinguish between things as to
which the question is whether they must be done, and those of
which it is rather to be determined whether they -may, or how
they shall, be done; treating the former class in the Second
Part, and the latter in an Appendix. It seems, however, more
advisable to throw the whole into one series ; merely warning the
reader that he is not to expect, under every head in this division
of the work, to meet with something which may bear on the prin
ciple of obligation.

Dailp lettuce. 37
are stirred by questions of vesture and gesture ; that
even the governors of the Church have found it
necessary to give some directions for the sake of
easing the consciences of such persons ; and that no
labour, however humble, can be misapplied, which
tends to clear the ground for worthier things by
doing away with what are felt, whether rightly or
wrongly, to be hindrances.

I.
3Datlp deduce.
IT is ordered in the preface to the Prayer-Book that
" All priests and deacons are to say daily the
morning and evening prayer, either privately or
openly, not being let by sickness, or some other
urgent cause ;
" And the curate that ministereth in every parish-
church or chapel, being at home, and not being
otherwise reasonably hindered, shall say the
same in the parish-church or chapel where he
ministereth, and shall cause a bell to be tolled
thereunto, a convenient time before he begin,
that the people may come to hear God's word,
and to pray with him."
One of the Tracts for the Times (No. 84) is de
voted to an inquiry " whether a clergyman of the
Church of England be now bound to have morning
and evening prayers daily in his parish-church 1" It
would seem that the writer intended an affirmative
answer ; he does not, however expressly give it him
self, and the passages collected by him point rather,
in my opinion, to an answer in the negative. His

38 £)ailp ^ertiice.
tone generally, and many of his observations, are
excellent. There are, however, other zealous persons who do
not hesitate to say boldly that we are bound ; and
there are also those who hold very opposite views.
Thus Mr. Bickersteth, in his sermon preached before
the Protestant Association, Nov. 5, 1842, appears to
be of opinion that it is better to shun the revival of
daily service, lest it should encourage formalism;
and that the family prayers of these days are more
than a sufficient substitute for the public prayers
prescribed in the sixteenth century, when the idea of
household devotion was a thing unknown.
One is not, of course, expected to argue here
against Mr. Bickersteth on the subject of formalism ;
which, according to that gentleman, and those who
think with him, is equally sure to corrupt public
devotions, and to spare those of a household. But,
even on the supposition that family prayer was not
used in the age of the Reformation — which, how
ever, is contradicted by the fact that forms of prayer
for family use were annexed to the older editions of
the Liturgy, from the time of Edward VI. (Strype's
Parker, 84.) — it might be observed, that if we must
choose between the two kinds, the daily public ser
vice is commended to us by the Church, and would
therefore, if for no other reason, seem the better to
dutiful churchmen ; and further, that the one kind
need by no means exclude the other.2
2 Archbishop Leighton, in his Charge, 1662, recommends
" that daily public prayer in churches, morning and evening,
with reading of the Scriptures, be used where it can be had con
veniently, and the people be exhorted to frequent them ; not so
as to think that this should excuse them from daily private
prayer, in their families and in secret, but rather as a help, to

Dailp ^>ertoice. 39
Another reason for dispensing with the daily ser
vice is given in the late Worcester Charge. It was,
we are told (pp. 15-16), prescribed at the Refor
mation, on account of the ignorance of the clergy,
" that they might thereby acquire a competent know
ledge of the Holy Scriptures ;" and as this purpose
is now attained by other means, we may fairly discard
those which the Reformers ordained. The purpose
here spoken of was certainly sometimes named in the
sixteenth century, (although, perhaps, not till after
the time of those whom we style the Reformers,) as
a reason for reading the daily offices ;3 but it seems
to be forgotten in this argument, that the Prayer-
Book has since passed through the hands of revisers,
who would probably have expunged this direction,
as a witness to a bygone discreditable state of things,
had they not seen in the daily service some advantage
besides that of improving the minister's familiarity
with the Scriptures.4 And when the Bishop of

enable and dispose them the more for both these." (Works, ed.
Pearson, iv. 396.) The fact that the Scottish Church in those
days did not use a set form of service, in no way affects this part
of the present question. A book of family prayers, intended to
preserve the Church's tone, and yet not to interfere with her
offices, has been published by the Rev. W. K. Hamilton.
3 See below, under a. d. 1585.
4 In the original preface to the Prayer-Book, there are some
observations, {which have disappeared since the last review),
about " profit in knowledge" to be obtained by " daily reading
upon the book." These, however, do not appear to be exactly
what his Lordship iutends, and very possibly they may not have
been in his mind. I may notice, in passing, that this and other
passages in the preface are evidently borrowed from that of
Cardinal Quignonez' Reformed Breviary, published in 1535. (See
his preface in Gueranger, Institutions, i. 401.) A notion akin to
that in question is exposed by Nicholls in his comment on the
place, and by L'Estrange, (p. 27), who adds — " I rather think

40 Dailg §>ertrice.
Worcester argues further, that " The preface directs
that all priests and deacons are to say daily the
morning and evening prayer, either privately or
openly; it is clear, therefore, that the option is
afforded them ;" (p. 15) — we are forced to suppose
that his Lordship must have overlooked that part of
the preface which relates to curates, i. e. clergymen
having cure of souls.5
Let me state clearly that I am fully convinced of
the desirableness of daily public prayer, and rejoice
to think that our people are becoming prepared for
it, and that it is growing more general. In what
follows, I only wish to establish on historical evidence
the principle that we are at liberty to use caution
and consult expediency in striving after the fulfilment
of our Church's intentions in this respect.
Daily prayer was, indeed, once far more common
than it now is. The list of services in the London
churches a century ago, (printed in Tract 84,) is
enough to shame our days greatly; and in reading
of former times, we often meet incidentally with
notices which shew that the daily service was used
in many places where it has since been discontinued.
Too much, however, is sometimes concluded from
these facts.

the Church's policy was, the better to inure and habituate the
clergy to their religious duties."
5 This word seems to have very soon acquired the meaning
which is now commonly attached to it. Dr. Cardwell, indeed,
ascribes the change to the time of the Restoration (Doc. Ann. ii.
271); but we find the bishops of that day speaking of the term
as having " anciently" signified a person " trusted by the bishop
with cure of souls," (Conf. 342), so that the meaning must then
have long been obsolete. Andrewes writes in his notes (Nicholls,
App. 24.) — " Ministri nunc appellantur, quos olim ecclesia veriori

IDailj? lattice, 41
Mr. Paget writes as follows, in his preface to
Bishop Patrick on Prayer : (p. xi.) " One great error
of a former age was, that the neglect of ordinances
was spoken of as though it were sin of the people
only ; but surely we of the clergy ought not to have
closed our churches because there were no congre
gation." There is truth in this, if applied to places where
there formerly was daily service ; but it is, as I pur
pose to shew, a mere imagination to suppose that
daily service was ever general in England since the
Reformation, or that in the times of our most re
vered divines, service was performed in churches
without a congregation.
Before proceeding to our proper subject, it may be
well to advert to the practice of the unreformed
Church. It is not, perhaps, any where directly
asserted by those among us who are accustomed to
magnify the excellences of the Roman communion —
but I believe it is not uncommonly inferred from
their writings — that the provisions made in the Bre
viaries for seven services daily are generally complied
with by the public recitation of these offices. This
idea, however, is by no means correct. The reader
may be referred to Gueranger's Institutions, vol. i.

nomine curatos dixit, propter animarum curam. Non ergo sub
sidiary solum hie [in the prayer for the clergy] intelligendi, sed
ipsi quibus cura ineumbit." The word is used in the present
sense by Bancroft (Doc. Ann. ii. 122); in the Lxixth canon,
(" curate or substitute"), and by the bishops of 1584 (Doc.
Ann. i. 418-9). And, still earlier, in 1562, we find mention of
" parsons, vicars, or their curates," (Synodalia, 504.) I con
jecture that the change may have been introduced at the settle
ment under Elizabeth, when, from the scarcity of qualified
incumbents, the class of subsidiaries was very greatly increased.

42 Dailp §>ertrice.
pp. 1 — 2 ; or to Gavanti, who appears to hold that
the obligation of the clergy to read the canonical
offices is variable according to the value of their
preferments (ii. 2-4), and tells us that " parochi de
jure antiquo tenebantur, nunc [his book was pub
lished in 1628] minime, ad publicam recitationem
officii in ecclesia, et hoc de consuetudine fere univer
sal^ et communiter recepta, exceptis vesperis in
diebus festis," (ib. p. 8.) At the present day, accord
ing to Fr. Xavier Schmid,6 the public performance
of the daily offices is almost exclusively confined to
cathedral, conventual, and other collegiate churches,
the service in parish-churches being for the most
part only on Sundays and holydays, with their eves.7
From the account given by Gueranger (vol. i. c. xiii.)
of Quignonez' Breviary, it is evident that in the age
of the Reformation the daily canonical hours were
not usually said in public, and that even the private
recitation was much neglected ; and, without wasting
labour in superfluous inquiries, we may sufficiently
understand the practice of that time in England from
such facts as these — that in 1539 we find Gardiner's
party speaking of " the service used in the church
daily in some places, or upon the Sundays and other
feasts in all places" (Strype, Eccl. Mem. i. App. p.

6 Liturgik der Christkatholischen Kirche, ii. 25. This valuable
and comprehensive treatise, which in its third edition extends to
about 2000 closely-printed pages, is characterized by Gueranger
(ii. 754) as an " excellent book." It is written, however, with
much greater sobriety of opinion and style than Gueranger's own
work. 7 Schmid attributes this falling-off from the practice of earlier
times chiefly to the circumstance that the people could not take
an interest in unintelligible services, and therefore ceased to
attend them. In the cathedrals, &c. the clergy are almost the
only worshippers at the daily offices, (ii. 27.)

o

Dailp ^ertiice. 4
284) ; and that in the first year of King Edward,
while the Latin service still remained, an order of
prayer " for victory and peace" was set forth, with
an injunction that it should " be used every Sunday
and holyday in the Common Prayer." (Wilkins,
Concilia, iv. 26.) It is important to point out the
real state of this matter ; not only because otherwise
our reformed Church must suffer unfairly in a com
parison with the unreformed ; but also because the
compilers of the Prayer-Book may be supposed to
have intended that our practice should be in some
degree modelled on that which prevailed under the
earlier system ; and thus from a mistaken idea of the
one must follow a misapprehension as to the other.
We now come to consider the history since the
Reformation ; and first, let us look at the practice of
eminent men who belonged to the class of parochial
clergy. Of Hooker, Walton only tells that on fasting-days
he " retired into the church, and locked himself up
many hours." (Eccl. Biog. iii. 518.)
Herbert read service morning and evening in Be-
merton chapel. Twice a week he went to Salisbury
cathedral, when his curate from Fulston officiated
at Bemerton. (lb. iv. 38 — 42.) The service at Ful
ston, the parish-church, therefore, was not so frequent
as at the chapel ; unless we adopt the very impro
bable supposition that the curate read one service or
both twice a-day on these occasions.
Ferrar, before his ordination, procured the mi
nister of Steeple Gidding to read prayers at Little
Gidding daily at eight and four, and (by the Bishop's
special leave) the litany at ten. (lb. iv. 173.) Hence
we learn, with the same degree of probability as in
the last case, that at Steeple Gidding there was no

44 £>ailp ^ertrice,
daily service. Ferrar's observances after ordination
are not to be thought of as a pattern for clergymen
in ordinary circumstances.
Sanderson. It has been inferred from Walton's
language about " the reading of the church-prayers,"
and " the decent and regular service of God," that
Sanderson, while incumbent of Boothby Pagnell,
used daily service (Bishop of Down and Connor's
Charges, 1842, p. 39). As the custom of the time
was otherwise, and Walton has spoken distinctly in
other cases, the general nature of his words here
seems rather to warrant an opposite conclusion. And
this is confirmed by Sanderson's own language in his
" Judgment on Submission to Usurpers."
Hammond had prayers in his church twice on
holy-days and their eves, and on Saturdays ; once on
other days. (Eccl. Biog. iv. 322.)
Heylyn " read the Common Prayers in his church
every morning ; that gave great content to the parish
(Alresford), being a populous market-town." (Life,
prefixed to Miscell. Tracts, p. x.)
Sherlock, of Winwick, according to Bp. Wilson,
" evening and morning, as the Church prescribes,
attended public prayers." (Pract. Christian, ed.
1841, p. xliii.)
Bull took his family to church on holy- days, and
tried to bring his people to observe Good-Friday,
by having " a sermon, besides the service of the
church."8 (Life, by Nelson, p. 54.) When a Bishop,
he increased the Wednesday and Friday service at
Brecknock to service daily ; and the daily morning
service at Caermarthen to service twice a day. (lb.
375—6).
8 Hence we learn that he did not usually preach on holy-days.

Dailj? ^>ettJice. 45
Kettlewell " had prayers both on holy-days and
their eves, as also upon Saturdays in the afternoon."
(Life, p. 24.)
It may be observed generally with respect to these
pious men, that, with the exception of Herbert, Fer
rar, and Sherlock, (who was placed in a very large
and populous parish, being " possessed of one of the
best livings in England," and " always entertaining
in his house at least three curates, for the service of
his church and chapels," pp. xxvii — xxx), — they
fell short of what is now said to be the plain duty of
every clergyman having cure of souls ; and, neverthe
less, their biographers (who, it is worthy of remark,
all lived in the seventeenth century,) put forward
their practice as something uncommon, and especially
deserving of our admiration.
We may next look at the general state of things.
In the Book of 1549, we find a declaration that no
man shall be bound to say matins and evensong
" but such as from time to time, in cathedral and
collegiate churches, parish-churches, and chapels to
the same annexed, shall serve the congregation."
(Keeling, xvii.) The clergy here named as excep
tions would seem to have been as much bound then
as now.
In the same year, the King's injunctions ordered,
" that the Common Prayer upon Wednesdays and
Fridays be diligently kept" (Doc. Ann. i. 64,) ; and
Ridley, in his injunctions, directed that this be
observed " in every church," (ib. 83.) If such a
measure of compliance with the rubric was held
enough for the diocese of London, under him whom
Dr. Hook (" Call," p. 60,) styles " that unflinching
high churchman Bishop Ridley," we may fairly guess
that matters were at least no better elsewhere.

46 £)ailg g>ertrice.
1550. The Council complains to Ridley of work
day sermons in Essex, and prays him to " take order
that they preach the holy-days9 only, as they have
been accustomed to do ; and the work-days to use
those prayers that are prescribed to them." (ib. i.
85.) The Bishop issues an order accordingly. If
this passage stood alone, it might seem to imply that
daily service was common ; but, after what we have
just seen, it cannot well be supposed to mean so
much. 1552. The act authorizing the second Prayer-
Book enjoins attendance at church only on Sundays
and holy-days (Gibson, Cod. p. 302) — an order
which was repeated in Queen Elizabeth's Act of
Uniformity, 1559 (ib. 357). In the second Book,
the obligation of using the service was extended by
the order that all priests and deacons be bound to
say it daily, " either privately or openly, except they
be letted by preaching, studying of divinity, or by
some other urgent cause." In this Book, too, ap
peared the rule as to curates — the same which is
now in our Prayer-Book, except some trifling points
of verbal difference. (Keeling, xvii.)
The Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, a code
which would probably have become law but for the
premature death of Edward VI., makes many pro
visions for service in churches, according to the various
classes into which they are divided. It does not
appear to contemplate public worship in parish -
churches except on Sundays and holy-days.
1559. It is ordered in the xlviiith of Elizabeth's
injunctions " that weekly upon Wednesdays and
Fridays, not being holy-days, the curate at the
9 Under this name the Sunday was then included.

Dailj? ^ertrice, 47
accustomed hours of service shall resort to church,
and cause warning to be given to the people by
knolling of a bell, and say the litany and prayers,"
(Doc. Ann. i. 196,) i. e., apparently, the prayers
which were printed at the end of the litany.
1561. Bishop Davies, of St. Asaph, orders, " That
the parsons, vicars, and curates, or one of them in
every of their churches, do come together on Wed
nesdays and Fridays, being not holy-days, and there
devoutly sing and say the litany, and exhort the
people to come with devotion to hear the same, with
other prayers, at hours and times convenient and
accustomed." (Wilkins, Concilia, iv. 229.)
1563. A form of prayers to be used during the
plague is set forth. Grindal, then Bishop of London,
desires his clergy to exhort the people " diligently to
frequent the Common Prayer in their parish-churches,
and that not only on Sundays and holy-days, but also
on Wednesdays and Fridays," (Remains, p. 79). A
royal order to the same effect followed, (ib. 81). The
custom of that age at seasons of visitation appears to
have generally agreed with this ; we meet with
similar provisions after an earthquake, in 1586,
(Grindal, Rem. 415), on account of war and dearth,
1590 (Strype, Whitgift, 360), and again, during a
time of dearth, 1596 (Doc. Ann. ii. 37).
1571. A Canon orders service "omnibus Domi-
nicis et festis diebus." (Synodalia, 120.)
1571. Grindal, as Archbishop of York, prescribes
service both in the forenoon and afternoon on every
Sunday and holy-day, " the litany and other prayers
appointed for the day" on Wednesdays and Fridays
in the forenoon, and evening-prayer " every Saturday
and holy-even." (Remains, 123.)
1584. Bishops answer to a puritan petition, " It

48 £>ailg lettuce.
taketh away daily service used in these [cathedral
and collegiate] churches." (Doc. Ann. i. 423.) It
would seem hence that daily service was not usual
elsewhere. 1585. " Orders for the increase of learning in the
unlearned sort of ministers," which appear to have
been sanctioned by the Convocation. (Synodalia>
552.) " The order appointed in the Preface of the
Common Book concerning the daily reading of pub
lic prayer shall be duly observed, to the end they
may be the better acquainted with the phrase and
histories of the Scriptures." (Doc. Ann. ii. 1.) If
we should wonder that public prayers were ordered
as means for the individual improvement of the un
learned ministers, the explanation may probably be,
that it was not held safe to leave the matter to the
private consciences of this class. Dr. Cardwell ob
serves on the whole paper of orders — " It does not
appear, nor is it probable, that they were adopted
generally."10 1585. Aylmer, Bishop of London, requires his
clergy "to use prayers Wednesdays and Fridays."
(Life, by Strype, 82.)
1590. Piers, Archbishop of York, inquires only as
to service on " Sabbath-days and other holydays."
1604. Canon xiv, orders prayer " upon such days
as are appointed to be kept holy by the Book of
Common Prayer, and their eves." — (The title has
" Sundays and holy-days.") Canon xv, that the
10 Among articles to be subscribed by the lay-readers, 1561,
was this ; — " I shall daily at the least read one chapter of the
Old Testament, and one other of the New, with good advisement,
to the increase of my knowledge." (Doc. Ann. i. 269.) This
was repeated in the Advertisements of 1565, with application to
the clergy also. (ib. 296.)

Daily ^ertrice. 49
litany be used on Wednesdays and Fridays, although
not holy-days ; and that one of each household
within half a mile attend.
The inquiries of Bancroft in the same year, those
of Overall in 1619, and those of Laud for Worcester,
1635, are according to the measure of these Canons.
In 1622, while the Spanish match was in view,
Williams, then Dean of Westminster and Lord
Keeper, afterwards Bishop of Lincoln and Arch
bishop of York, proposed among other things —
1. "That Common Prayer be duly performed in
all churches and chapels on Wednesdays and Fri
days, and two of every family be present."
4. " That private prayers shall no day be omitted
in the family of him that is of the degree of an
esquire; else not to be so named or reputed." (Life,
Pt. I. p. 122.)
A strong sanction this !
1627. A Mr. Blucknall left a salary to the curate
of Abingdon, for reading prayers daily — considering,
apparently, a special engagement necessary. (Hey-
lyn, Laud, p. 162.)
1636. It is ordered in the Scotch Prayer-Book that
"All presbyters and deacons shall be bound to say
daily the morning and evening prayer, either pri
vately or openly, except they be let or hindered by
some urgent cause ; of which cause, if it be frequently
pretended, they are to make the Bishop of the dio
cese, or the Archbishop of the province, the judge
and allower" (Keeling, p. xvii.) ; and the rule as to
curates is given as in the English Book of 1604,
which differs but slightly from the present form. It
is very remarkable, that about the same time with
the Book there came out a royal order, in which the
obligation of daily morning and evening service is
E

so oailg ^ertrice.
limited to bishops in their families, and to colleges.
(Rushworth, ii. 343.) This is important for the
present argument, as showing that in Scotland there
was issued in express words, together with the rubric
and by the same authority, that commentary which
I am endeavouring by historical evidence, reaching
through a number of years, to prove admissible in
the English Church.
1636. Bishop Wren's Injunctions for Norwich.
"That the litany be never omitted on Sundays,
Wednesdays, and Fridays." (D. A. ii. 202.)
1638. Bishop Montagu, in the same diocese, asks
— " Doth [your minister] upon Wednesdays and
Fridays ordinarily, and at other extraordinary times
appointed by the ordinary, read and pray the litany?"
(P-68.) Wren and Montagu, it will be remembered, were
the strictest of the bishops at that day. The state
of things then generally prevailing may be under
stood from what follows.
1641. The Committee appointed by the House of
Lords, Archbishop Williams being president, asks
(Cardw. Conf. 274.) "Whether, according to that
end of the preface before the Common Prayer, the
curate should be bound to read morning and evening
prayers every day in the church, and why not only
on Wednesday and Friday morning, and in the after
noon on Saturday, with holy-day eves ?" This Hey
lyn (Laud, 444) notes, as a specimen of " passages
observed impertinently, and not worth the altering ;"
i. e. the Committee wished to alter the rule, so that
it should explicitly sanction the usual practice of the
time ; which Heylyn supposed to be not inconsistent
with the rule as it stood.
Hammond (Preface to View of the Directory,

Dailg lettuce. 51
Works, i. 357) looks on the suppression of the Li
turgy as a judgment drawn down by the neglect of
it — " our want of diligence in assembling ourselves
together (the too ordinary fault of too many of the
best of us) ; our general, scandalous, unexcusable
disobedience to the commands of our Church, which
requires that service to be used constantly in public
every day." The same view is taken by Bishop
Duppa, in an annotated Prayer-Book which is pre
served in the Bodleian. Let it be understood, that I
refer to these passages merely as evidence of the fact.
Fuller, Ch. Hist. xi. p. 149, (written during the
Usurpation.) " We are concerned now more strictly
to observe the Lord's Day than ever before. Holy-
days are not, and holy-eves are not ; and Wednesday
and Friday litanies are not, and Lord's Day eves are
not." Bishop Taylor, (after the Restoration of Charles
the Second.) Rules and Advices to his Clergy, No.
77. " Every minister is obliged publicly or privately
to read the Common Prayers every day in the week,
at morning and evening; and in great towns, and
populous places, conveniently inhabited, it must be
read in Churches."
1662. The inquiries of Pory, Archdeacon of Mid
dlesex, are remarkable. — "Doth your minister say
daily, [&c. here the rubric is recited] especially, Is
the Common Prayer said or sung upon such days as
are appointed to be kept holy, and upon their eves
(Can. xiv)? Doth he say the Litany on every
Sunday duly throughout the year, as also upon all
Wednesdays and Fridays, though they be not holy-
days ?" It is evident that a compliance with the less
stringent rule — that of the Canon — would have been
considered sufficient.

52 Dailg ^ertiice.
1679. Gunning, Bishop of Ely, asks whether every
minister celebrate Divine Service " upon all Sundays
and holy-days, not omitting also other days appointed
by the Book of Common Prayer, as Wednesdays and
Fridays, (with the litanies added), and the eves of
every Sunday and holy-day, with ember and rogation
days ? And moreover, when he is at home, and not
otherwise reasonably hindered himself, and able to
get two or three gathered together, doth he every
day say Divine service morning and evening in the
parish-church ?"
1688. Archbishop Sancroft desires Bishops to
urge their clergy " that they perform the daily office
publicly in all market and other great towns, and
even in villages and less populous places bring people
to public prayers as frequently as may be ; especially
on such days, and at such times, as the rubric and
canons appoint, holy- days and their eves, on ember
and rogation-days, on Wednesdays and Fridays in
each week, especially in Advent and Lent." (D. A.
ii. 323.)
1688. Bishop Ken writes to his clergy, with a
view to the observance of Lent, " Be sure and offer up
every day the morning and evening prayers ; offer it
up in your family, at least, or rather, as far as your
circumstances may possibly permit, offer it up in the
church, especially if you live in a great town. This
I might enjoin you to do on your canonical obedi
ence; but for love's sake I rather entreat you."
(Works, ed. Round, 476-7.)
1689. Commissioners offer, with a design for a
comprehension of dissenters, — " That the rubric
which obliges ministers to read or hear common
prayer publicly or privately every day, be changed

Dailg ^ertrice. 53
to an exhortation to the people to frequent those
prayers." (Cardw. Conf. 429.)
Having thus collected notices from the Reforma
tion to the Revolution, I shall only refer, for later
times, to the Life of Sharp, Archbishop of York, i.
188; to Bishop Sprat, (Clergyman's Instructor, p.
242;) Bishop Beveridge, (Sermons, fol. ii. 216, and
Tracts for the Times, No. 25 ;) Bishop Patrick on
Prayer, pp. 118-231 ; and the original preface to his
work on Repentance, (p. xvii. ed. Paget;) Nicholls
and Wheatley's Commentaries ; Bingham, (Works,
vol. ii. p. 757 ;) and Bishop Butler's Charge at
Durham, 1751. These writers agree generally in
,, representing the attendance at daily service in their
days as thin ; in country places, they hardly contem
plate such service at all ; they consider that want
of a congregation11 sufficiently excuses a clergyman
from officiating publicly, and that he is bound in that
case to use the service in his family or by himself.
A few of the elder divines may be quoted as
11 As the rubric speaks of " the people" coming to church, it is
very questionable whether the framers would have encouraged the
performance of service without their attendance ; and a doubt to
this effect is rather strengthened than weakened by the fact that
the high Romanists consider it essential that clerks, in saying
offices by themselves, should repeat those parts which suppose
the presence of a congregation, and are addressed to the people;
a point as to which there is a difference of opinion between the
ultramontane and the Gallican parties (Gueranger, ii. 85). Com
pare the rubric as to the number of communicants. The Bishop of
London observes (p. 34) — " That the framers of the rubric did
not intend to insist upon an uninterrupted daily performance of
Divine service, appears, I think, from the direction given to the
curate, that when it is performed, he shall cause a bell to be tolled
a convenient time before, to give the people notice." According
to the strict letter, the bell is as necessary as the service.

54 Dailj? §>ettrice.
agreeing in, or approaching to, the stricter notions
now held by some. Thus Cosin (in Nicholls, App.
p. 67) considers that the rule relating to curates
" requires an explanation, (against them that account
themselves reasonably letted by any common and
ordinary affairs of their own), whether anything but
sickness or necessary absence abroad should be suffi
cient to excuse them from this duty." Sparrow
writes (Ration. 309) that the service is to be said
daily in church ; if there be no church,12 but not
otherwise, the priest is to say it at home ; if no com
pany can be got, by himself. And Comber (quoted in
the London Charge, and in Tract 84) will not allow
smallness of the congregation to be any excuse.
With respect to Cosin's note, it is to be observed
that the explanation which he suggests was not
adopted at the revision ; and that his, own Visitation-
articles of 1662 are not so stringent. And on a
survey of the whole question I think we may safely
conclude that daily service was never general in
parish-churches, either before or since the Reforma-

12 His Work was first published during the Usurpation.
13 Mr. Lathbury is of opinion that because the rubric of 1662
describes the litany as " to be sung or said after Morning Prayer,"
we are not now at liberty to use it alone on Wednesdays and Fri
days. (Hist, of Convocation, 195). The only one of the extracts
in this section which clearly requires a previous reading of the
Morning Prayer is that from Gunning's Articles, of a date later
than the alteration of the rubric. If, as is most likely, the words
were introduced in consequence of Cosin's suggestion, which is
given by Nicholls, (Append, p. 68) we may be justified in sup
posing them to mean only that this office shall not be read at a
wrong time of the day. In any case, they cannot bind us to use
the litany immediately after morning prayer, so as to combine the
two in one service. (See Jebb's Choral Service, 432-3.) Cosin
himself, while he desires the insertion of an order that the litany
be said after morning prayer, argues for a disjunction of the

Dailp §>ert)ice. 55
tion; that on Wednesdays and Fridays the litany
was commonly read, in the times which we have been
reviewing, (for the most part, apparently, without the
morning prayers j)13 that service on the eves of Sun
days14 and holy-days was also common; that the
want of a congregation was held an excuse for the
clergy ; and that altogether, according to the notions
of those times, our bishops have a right to order in
the matter according to their discretion.
It also appears that the clergy, if they do not use
the prayers in public, are bound to read them in
private.15 And whether we be prepared or not in the present
state of things to act on Mr. Gresley's opinion, (Ber
nard Leslie, p. 95,) that " a clergyman has clearly as
much right to close his church on the Sunday as on
one of the Saints' Days, for which an express service
is appointed," we must see that in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, the observation of holy-days by
public service was held to be universally binding.16

offices, and we know that he incurred persecution by practising
it. (Nicholls, App. 23. See Chap. vi. § b.)
14 It was usual to leave off labour at an early hour on Satur
day evening, by way of preparation for the Sunday. (Popular
Antiquities, c. xii.)
15 The Tract has excellent observations as to this, p. 37.
16 By an act passed a.d. 1551, (Gibson, Codex, i. 278,) work
ing on holy-days was allowed only " in harvest, or at any other
times in the year when necessity shall require." Compare Eliza
beth's Injunctions, No. xx. (Doc. Ann. i. 188.) The presby-
terians required, at the Savoy Conference, that " the people be
not upon such days forced wholly to abstain from work." (Conf.
306). The episcopal divines reply — " The people may be dis
pensed with for their work after the service, as authority pleaseth."
(ib. 341.) Stillingfleet (Eccl. Cases, i. 198) may be consulted
on the history of holy-days. Dispensations, he tells us, were
allowed before the Reformation. " Our Church (Can. xiii.) re-

56

II.
Concurrence of llol^bapjs.
THE Bishop of London observes, (p. 65) " Where
a Saint's day falls upon a Sunday, the collect
for the Saint's day as well as that for the Sunday
should be read, and the epistle and gospel for the
Saint's day, but the lessons for the Sunday."
Some persons are of opinion that it is not allow
able to mix up the Scripture readings of Sundays
and holy-days when they concur, according to this
suggestion. The practice, however, seems to be
countenanced by one of the rubrics before the service
for May 29 ; the whole of which rubric must be
allowed to carry some weight, while in part it has
the full authority of the Church, having been in
the. office for the day as sanctioned in 1662.. (See
Chap, xxv.) In this original part, the principle of
combination is to be found, although it is not so fully
applied as in the other form.
The puritans of James the First's day complained
that "Apocryphal chapters are rather read than Scrip-

quires holy-days to be observed with works of piety, charity, and
sobriety, but gives no rule of abstinence from works, or the strict
obligation of conscience." (ib. 201.) Archdeacon R. I. Wilber-
force (Church Discipline, 72-3) quotes from the register of his
archi-diaconal court an instance of a clergyman presented in
1725 " for neglect of his duty in not celebrating Divine service
on several Sundays and holy-days ;" and another of one presented
in 1683, for " omitting to read Divine service generally upon
holy-days, and for not declaring holy-days and fasting-days after
the reading of the Nicene Creed upon the Sundays before, and

Concurrence of tyoty-nnys. 57
ture, when any holy-day falls on a Sunday." A
writer of the time replies — " They are not read
rather than Scripture. And for the time of reading
them, it is of no necessity, but left to the discretion
of the godly and discreet minister." (Nicholls, Sup-
plem. 33.17) Hence it would seem that the Saints-
Day service was read in cases of concurrence ; — a
discretion, however, being commonly exercised as to
the choice of lessons.
Until the last review, the list of holy-days was
headed by an order that " none other" should be
kept ; yet it did not contain either the Conversion of
St. Paul, or St. Barnabas' Day, although the Prayer-
Book had offices for both. Heylyn (Tracts, p. 17,)
writes that the office for each of these " is observed in
all cathedrals and the chapels royal, where the service
is read every day, and in most parish churches also, as
often as either of them fall upon a Sunday." This pas
sage, like the preceding, shews that in his time it was
usual to read the Saint's-day service in cases of con
currence; and it does not contradict what has been
said above (p. 55,) as to the observation of holy-days
in that age, since the very difference between these
two and other feasts was, that St. Paul and St. Bar
nabas' days were not celebrated by summoning the
people to church expressly in order to keep them.
for not catechizing the youth either Sundays or holy-days," also
for omission of the perambulation in Rogation-week. It may be
doubted, however, whether much can be learned hence as to the
general practice of the times in question, since the parties appear
to have been guilty of many other neglects, which may have been
the real reason of the proceedings against them, although it was
found expedient to put these items forward. Mr. Wilberforce
does not state the results.
17 Nicholls is manifestly wrong in ascribing the treatise from
which this is taken to Laud.

58 Concurrence of ^olg^oags.
It may, however, throw a doubt on the generality of
Wednesday and Friday service; but if it was the
custom on these days of the week to read the litany
without morning-prayer, the same rule might exclude
the communion-service (and, consequently, every
thing that might involve the concurrence,) in cases
where either of the festivals in question fell on a
litany-day. Neither the historical fact which we learn from
these extracts, however, nor the passage of the Bishop
of London's Charge, will suffice to solve all our dif
ficulties — since there may be a concurrence of a
movable with an immovable holy-day on a week
day; e. g. in 1842, Good Friday concurred with the
Annunciation. Fuller rules, by which the principles of the Roman
books are applied to this class of cases, may be found
in the British Magazine for January and May, 1837,
and in some numbers of the Ecclesiastical Almanac.
The compilers of the Almanac, however, appear to
have carried their imitation of the Roman rubrics to
the extent of foppery ; and here, as in other things,
to have considerably overrated both the merit and
the value of their labours.
While it is allowed that the Roman books — (or,
more properly, the books formerly used in England)
— may fitly be consulted on such a subject, we must
not forget, in attempting to form any rules from such
sources, that our Church has, in the Preface to the
Prayer-Book, condemned the principle of intricacy.18

18 The passage in which " the number and hardness of the
rules called the Pie" are complained of, appears to be derived
from Quignonez — " Accedit tam perplexus ordo, tamque difficilis
precandi ratio, ut interdum paulo minor opera in inquirendo po-

Concurrence of ^olg^oag^. 59
Mr. Jebb has discussed the question with his
usual judgment, (Chor. Service, § lv.) and has fur
nished a system of directions in which the just me
dium appears to be observed between a neglect of
the Latin books and an undue imitation of them.
Bishop Cosin expresses a wish for a rule. (Nicholls,
App. 68.) As his suggestions in many cases in
fluenced the revisers of 1662, and yet nothing was
done m this, perhaps we may hence conclude that
they 'did not think fit to prescribe in the matter.

III.
W$z lK,ogatton--3Dap!$>
BISHOP Sparrow writes— (Rationale, 148) that
" the service formerly [i. e. by Elizabeth's in
junctions] appointed was Ps. 103 and 104, with the
litany and suffrages, and the homily of thanksgiving.
The two psalms were to be said at convenient places
in the common perambulation ; the people thus
giving thanks to God in the beholding of God's
benefits, the increase and abundance of His fruits
upon the earth. At their return to the church they
were to say the rest of the service."
According to Wheatley, " the three first parts"
of the homily are " to be used upon Monday, Tues
day, and Wednesday ; and the fourth, upon the day
when the parish make their procession." It seems

natur quam, cum inveneris, in legendo." (Gueranger, i. 398.)
The perplexed character has not been removed by the later alter
ations of the Breviary. Gueranger contends strenuously for the
necessity of intricacy in Divine offices, (i. 394, and elsewhere.)

60 c&e ftogariomoags.
to be intended that the first parts should be read
with the morning-prayers ; possibly the communion-
service of the preceding Sunday may be repeated,
and the homily introduced into it; and after this,
on one of the three days, the perambulation should
take place, and the service mentioned by Bishop
Sparrow should be gone through.
The observation of these days is often inquired
after in Episcopal Articles. The fullest notice of
this kind that has fallen in my way is Cosin's, a.d.
1662. — " Doth he, [the minister] or his curate observe
the three Rogation-days . . . saying the 103 and 104
Psalm, with the Churchwardens and others that ac
company him, in the perambulation of your parish 1
and when the perambulation is ended, doth he go
into the church with them, and read unto them one
of the sermons set forth and appointed for that pur
pose?" This order is somewhat different from that
contemplated by Wheatley.
Mr. Rose informs us that " There are several
entries in a private book belonging to the rectors of
Hadleigh, of the perambulations on Ascension-day,
after prayers at six o'clock in the morning." (Brit.
Mag. vi. 423.)
For further notices of the perambulation, see Queen
Elizabeth's Injunctions (Doc. Ann. i. 187); the In
terpretations by the Bishops, (ib. 204) ; the Adver
tisements of 1565 (ib. 293); Strype's Parker, 153;
Archbishop Grindal, (Doc. Ann. i. 337, and Remains,
241) ; Walton's Life of Hooker (Eccl. Biog. iii. 518) ;
Bishop Wren, (Doc. Ann. ii. 202); Bishop Mon
tagu's Articles, p. 67 ; Burn, Eccl. Law, iii. 75-6, and
Brand's Popular Antiquities, c. xxvi.

61

IV.
%ty place of IRealitng;^ tfje ^rapettf, anU tlje
^o0itton of ttje 9t£tni0ter,
RUBRIC :— " The Morning and Evening Prayer
shall be used in the accustomed place of the
Church, Chapel, or Chancel, except it shall be
otherwise determined by the Ordinary of the
place."
The Bishop of London speaks as follows (Charge,
p. 47) : " I do not consider it to be the intention of
our Church, that the officiating minister, when read
ing prayers, should turn his face to the east, with his
back to the congregation. Bishop Sparrow thinks
that anciently50 the reading-desk was so placed that
J9 Some persons think it necessary to speak of " saying
prayers," and tell us that this is the Prayer-Book expression.
The words read and say, however, appear to be there used in
differently. Compare the rubrics before the Apostles' creed and
after the third morning collect, with those before the Athanasian
creed and the litany. Our elder divines had no superstition on
the point. The phrase " to say prayers" sounds affected in
this sense, and is less expressive than the other, inasmuch as it
has not, like that, been conventionally restricted to the one
signification of reciting the appointed service aloud from a printed
Prayer-Book. 20 Bishop Sparrow's words are — " This was the ancient custom
of the Church of England, that the priest who did officiate, in
all those parts of the service which were directed to the people,
turned towards them ; but in those parts which were directed to
God immediately, he turned from the people ; and for that purpose
in many parish-churches of late the reading-pew had one desk
for the Bible, looking towards the people, to the body of the
church, another for the Prayer-Book, looking towards the east,

62 place of meaning drapers
the minister looked to the east, away from the people,
to whom he is directed to turn in reading the lessons.
But the reading-desk was unknown in the early years
of the Reformation. It is not mentioned in the
Injunctions of King Edward VI. nor in those of
Queen Elizabeth, nor in any canons or visitation-
articles before the canon of 1603." The first rubric
in King Edward's Common Prayer-Book orders that
the minister so turn him in reading prayers as that
the people may best hear him ; and as the customary
place for reading the prayers was then the chancel,
at the communion-table, it is clear that he could not
have faced the east."
It will be convenient to follow his Lordship in
connecting the two subjects here spoken of, — the
place and the position of the minister.
The passage to which he refers in King Edward's
Liturgy is as follows : —
" The Morning and Evening prayer shall be
used in such place of the Church, Chapel, or
Chancel, and the Minister shall so turn him, as
that the people may best hear."
This, however, is only to be found in the Book of
1552; in the others, both before and after, it is
ordered that the minister shall so turn himself in

or upper end of the chancel." (Rationale, pp. 34-5.) The
meaning appears to be, not that the fashion of these desks which
had been used " of late," (i. e. in the days of Charles I.) was
ancient, but that it agreed with the custom as to turning which
obtained anciently, (or before the Reformation,) and which is
still implied in the rubric relating to the lessons.
21 His Lordship refers to L'Estrange as the authority for this
statement. The reader will find below some passages from
episcopal orders and injunctions issued before 1603; which as
respects the present question, are to be classed with visitation-
articles.

ano position of Minister. 63
reading the lessons that " he may best be heard of
all such as be present" (Keeling, 12-13) ; but there
is no such rule for the prayers ; and at the last
review, a restoration of the rubric of 1552 was ex
pressly refused (Cardw. Conf. 314-351). Moreover,
it would seem that when the minister was ordered
to turn himself to the people throughout, the custom
of reading at or near the communion-table was also
suspended. In the Liturgy of 1549, it is directed that " The
priest, being in the choir, shall begin with a loud
'voice the Lord's Prayer," with which the service at
that time opened. The words " accustomed place,"
are first found in Elizabeth's Book, where they
denote, not exactly the communion-table, but the
priest's stall " at the upper end of the choir, near the
altar; towards which, whether standing or kneeling,
he always turned his face in the prayers." (Wheat-
ley, c. ii. §. 5. Cf. Gibson, Codex, p. 364.) Wheat-
ley suggests that the revisers of 1662, in retaining
this rubric (unless they did so from inadvertence,)
may have intended the reading-desk, which had in
the meantime come into general use, and had received
the sanction of a canon.
Let us now look at some passages connected with
the history.
The puritans at Frankfort, in Queen Mary's time,
complain of other exiles for turning eastward. (Strype,
Ann. i. 178.)
1559. Scott, Bishop of Chester, a Romanist,
reckons " praying towards the east" among things
which the proposed Book of Queen Elizabeth " taketh
away, either in part or clearly." (Cardw. Conf.
110.) 1562. The Convocation rejects a puritanical pro-

64 place of meaning Prapers
posal, " that in all parish-churches the minister turn
his face towards the people." (Strype, Ann. i. 337.)
1564. Cecil complains that " some say the service
in the chancel ; others, in the body of the church ;
some officiate in a seat; some in the pulpit, with
their faces to the people." (Collier, ii. 493.)
1564. At Canterbury Cathedral, " The Common
Prayer daily throughout the year, though there be
no Communion, is sung at the communion-table,
standing north and south, where the high altar did
stand ; the minister, when there is no communion,
useth a surplice only, standing on the east side of*
the table, with his face towards the people." (Strype,
Parker, 183.) The Bishop of London appears to
suppose that this arrangement as to place and position
in saying the prayers was usual at the time. I have
not, however, seen any notice of it, save on this
occasion at Canterbury ; where the extent of the
choir, and the remarkable elevation of the altar might
render it necessary that the minister should turn his
face to the people, although the practice elsewhere
were to face the east.*2

22 Since this was first published, a new interpretation of the
passage has been proposed by Mr. Jebb, in his valuable work on
the Choral Service. He argues that " the expression though or
when there be no communion has no relevancy with respect to
matins or evensong," and hence infers " that the Ante-communion
was daily performed, as it is still in St. Patrick's on Wednesdays
and Fridays in Lent." (Choral Service, p. 471.) It appears to
me that the expression " Common Prayer daily throughout the
year" cannot but include the Matins and Evensong; and it is
difficult to understand why, if the Ante-communion only were
meant, the priest should stand at the east side, in violation of the
rubric, which then, as now, directed that he should stand on the
north. It is, however, highly probable that the Ante-communion
(or, as it was usually styled, second service), may in this case
have been added to the daily morning prayer. The Book of

ann Position of tfje Minister. 65
1564. A clergyman near Booking appeals against
an order from the Dean, who had forbidden him to
turn towards the altar in reading the service. " His
church was small, and his voice might be heard.
The litany he said in the body of the church, and
when he said the service, he kept the chancel, and
turned his face to the east." (Strype, Parker, 152.)
1564. The parish accounts of Dartington have an
entry of xxijd. paid to a carpenter and his men for
one day's work in making " the new dexte [desk] to
the chansyll dore." In 1566 there is the following
charge — " paid for myndyng [mending?] of the seat
that the minister sitteth upon, ijd." (British Mag. vi.
269.) 1565. Advertisements by the Bishops — " That
the Common Prayer be said or sung decently and
distinctly, in such place as the ordinary shall think
meet for the largeness and straitness of the church
and choir, so that the people may be most edified."
(Doc. Ann. i. 291.)
1569. Parkhurst, Bishop of Norwich, orders for
great churches " a decent and convenient seat in the
1549 ordered that it should be said after the Litany on Wednes
days and Fridays, the priest wearing a plain albe or surplice,
with a cope. The dress described in the text is in accordance
with the Advertisements issued a few months later, where it is
said that in cathedral and collegiate churches the priest shall
wear a cope at administration of the Communion ; and " at all
other prayers to be said at the communion-table shall use no
copes, but surplices." (Doc. Ann. i. 291.) I have not observed
any other instances of the use on ordinary days in the reigns of
Elizabeth and James ; but under Charles I. we find that Wren
ordered in parish-churches " the second service on lecture-days,
if any," (Doc. Ann. ii. 200) ; that Cosin introduced the practice
of reading it daily in Durham Cathedral, (Hierurg. Anglicana,
p. 38) ; and Laud prescribed the like for Winchester. (Prynne,
Canterbury's Doom, p. 81.) See chap. xvi. % i.
F

66 place of leaning pragers
body of the church, where the minister may sit or
stand, and say the whole of the Divine service, that
all the congregation may hear and be edified there
with ; and that in smaller churches there be some
convenient seat outside the chancel door." This,
says Dr. Hook, (Ch. Diet. — Art. Pew,) " is the first
mention that we find made of a reading-pew." The
extracts just given from the Dartington accounts,
however, appear to mean much the same with this.
1569. Archbishop Parker inquires in his visita
tion-articles, " whether they do celebrate Divine
service in the chancel or in the church?" (Doc.
Ann. i. 321.)
1571. Archbishop Grindal enjoins on the clergy
of York — " Ye shall say or sing the Common Prayer,
standing in a pulpit or seat appointed for that pur
pose, and so turning your face towards the people as
they may best hear the same." (Remains, 123.)
And in the articles for the laity, an order is given
for " a decent low pulpit, to be erected and made in
the body of the church out of hand, wherein the
minister shall stand with his face towards the people,
when he readeth the morning or evening prayer;
provided always that when the churches are very
small, it shall suffice that the minister stand in his
accustomed stall in the choir ; so that a convenient
desk or lettern, with a room to turn his face toward
the people, be there provided." (Ib. 132.)
1571. Scambler, Bishop of Peterborough, orders
that at Northampton " the Common Prayer accus
tomed to be said [in the choir, be] brought down into
the body of the church, among the people, before
whom the same is used according to the Queen's
Book," (i. e. the Advertisements of 1565.) (Strype,
Ann. ii. 90.)

ann position of Minister. 67
1576. Grindal, as Archbishop of Canterbury, in
quires " whether the minister so turn himself, and
stand in such place of the church or chancel, as the
people may best hear." (Rem. 157.)
Cartwright about this time writes — " He which
readeth is in some places not heard, and in the most
places not understanded of the people, through the
distance of place between the people and the minister ;
all the which riseth upon the words of the book of
service, which are, that the minister shall stand ' in
the accustomed place.' For thereupon the minister
sitteth in the chancel, with his back to the people."
(See Hooker, ed. Keble, v. 30. 4.) The lessons, it
appears, were then read in the body of the church.
(Ibid.) It is stated in the Glossary of Architecture (3d ed.
i. 125), that in the church of Drayton Beauchamp,
of which Hooker was incumbent about 1584, " there
are still two desks in the reading-pew, as described
by Bishop Sparrow." The same pew is described
in a passage of another writer, which is produced by
the compilers of the Hierurgia Anglicana (p. 78), as
proving that the practice of praying eastward was
observed by Hooker. The language of this passage,
however, raised some suspicion in my mind ; and it
has proved on inquiry that the suspicion was correct ;
that the two desks are at right angles to each other,
that for the Prayer-Book being turned towards the
south, and that for the Bible towards the west.* The
date of the reading-pew has not been ascertained.
1590. Piers, Archbishop of York, inquires whether
the minister " turn him so as the people may best
hear, or not."
* For this information I am indebted to the kindness of the
present Rector of Drayton, the Rev. W. Hastings Kelk.

68 place of Eeaning pragers
1604. Canon xiv is to the same effect as the
passage above given from the advertisements of 1565.
Canon lxxxii directs " That a convenient seat be
made for the minister to read service in."
We learn incidentally, that between the 13th of
James I. and 1632, at St. Edmund's Church in
Salisbury, which appears to have been under puri
tanical control, " the reading-place had been removed
from the choir into the body of the church." (Rush-
worth, ii. 154.)
Herbert and Ferrar caused the pulpit and the desk
in their churches to be made of the same height ;
rather, however, two desks than two pulpits, the
height of Herbert's being seven feet four inches.
(Zouch's Walton.)
1636. Bishop Wren's articles. " That the minis
ter's reading-desk do not stand with the back towards
the chancel, nor too remote or far from it." (Doc.
Ann. ii. 205.) In his answer, when impeached,
Wren denies having violently enforced turning east
ward, and, for proof that such was the custom after
the Reformation, refers to " the ancient form of their
[seemingly the ministers'] seats in many churches,"
to Cartwright, as quoted above, and to the rubric for
turning at the lessons.. (See Parentalia, 78.)
1638. Bishop Montagu inquires-"-" Have you a
comely and convenient pew of wainscot for your
minister to read Divine service in, and another to
preach in ? Doth it stand in the face of the congre
gation as much as conveniently may be, so that they
may behold and hear and understand the minister in
what he readeth, preacheth, or prayeth ?"
1641. The Committee appointed by the House of
Lords charges as an innovation, the "turning eastward
in creeds and prayers." (Cardw. Conf. 272.)

ann Position of Minister. 69
L'Estrange, (Alliance, 72) shews from authorities
that " the bishops lately enjoining the service to be
said at the holy table, or in the chancel, did not
innovate, but held to the rubric, and that the offici
ating in the desk was a swerving from the rule, unless
where it was able to shew episcopal dispensation
expressly to warrant it." 23
Heylyn (Tracts, 159,) proves that the minister
formerly looked eastward, and complains that desks
were " all, or most part, of late so placed that the
minister faced his congregation, contrary both to the
Church's order and the ancient practice."
Bishop Cosin (in Nicholls, 66,) writes that " the
pulpit was wont of old time to be so placed and
joined to the front of the chancel (next to the body
of the church), that the priest might ascend up into
it from his own stall below, where he read the morn
ing and evening service." Elsewhere (p. 16) he
says, that " accustomed place" meant the chancel ;
that in most churches the ordinaries had used the
authority reserved to them by the rubric, of ordering
things otherwise ; " and from hence it was, some
what after the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign,
that the minister had a desk, or smaller pulpit, set
up for him, whereat to read Divine service and the
lessons, in the body of the church."
1662. By a change in the first rubric of the Com-
mination-service, the term reading-pew was for the
first time introduced into the Prayer-Book. The
editors of the Hierurgia Anglicana,2* (p. 78) endea-

23 This refers principally to the question of reading the second
service. See below, ch. xii.
2* This work, edited by members of the Cambridge Cam
den Society, but not one of that body's authorized publications,

70 place of leaning prapers
vour to convince themselves that the words " reading-
pew or pulpit" may mean one and the same thing;
and I have been surprised to find that a writer of
far higher authority, Mr. Jebb, supposes the desk
for the lessons to be meant, and does not think that
a place for reading the prayers is here contemplated.
(Choral Service, 194 and 533.) As we know that
reading-pews had been in use almost ever since the
accession of Elizabeth, and had been ordered by the
canons of 1604, I cannot but interpret this rubric as
a very clear recognition of what is usually understood
under the name.
From what has been brought together we may
has for its object to furnish documentary illustrations of our ritual
since the Reformation. Unfortunately, however, the editors
have thought fit to adduce evidence on the more ceremonial
side alone, instead of endeavouring to give a true representa
tion of the whole case. The work, therefore, must have the
effect of producing very mistaken notions, unless the reader be
able to supply from other sources that balancing information
which the compilers of the Hierurgia withhold. And while on
this account it must be a very unsafe guide for persons who, with
little knowledge of facts, are disposed towards the fuller system
in ritual matters — (leading them, for example, to regard things
as necessary according to the Anglican rule which are in truth
barely tolerable, or perhaps are even forbidden) — it does not
seem likely to have much effect towards mitigating the prejudices
of an opposite class. One reason for doubting its power in this
way is — that a very large portion, — (perhaps as much as a third)
— of the extracts, is taken from complaints, reports of complaints,
or answers to complaints, against the things which the compilers
wish to recommend. A puritan of our day will hardly be won
to love a rite or an ornament, which seems to him objectionable,
by being informed that his doctrinal forefathers from two to three
hundred years ago looked on it with detestation, and that, when
occasion offered, they persecuted, perhaps even to death, those
who used or enjoined it. The opinion here expressed as to the
work'is formed on an acquaintance with the first four numbers,
which are all that have yet appeared.

ann position of Minister. 1 1
conclude, that the present rubric was originally
understood to fix the chancel as ordinarily the place
in which the service should be read. In some cases,
perhaps, it was' said at the holy table, but it seems
to have been more generally said in a lower part of
the chancel, where the priest's stall was constructed.
The stricter churchmen turned eastward ; which
position, as well as the place of service, the puritans
vehemently objected to, as a hindrance to hearing
and understanding ; puritan ministers, perhaps, some
times factiously affecting to be inaudible, when tied
down to the observance of the rules.23 The gover
nors26 of the Church, although they did not think
fit to humour the puritans, always wished that the
service should be read distinctly and audibly, and
ordered things with a view to this, according to the
circumstances of particular places.
The canon of 1604 gave a general order for the
erection of desks, which had before been introduced
into many churches with the sanction of individual
ordinaries. During the primacy of Abbot the earlier
customs wore out, so that the bishops of Charles the
First's time were charged with innovation when they
attempted anything like a revival of them.
Although it was held desirable that the minister
should look eastward, this was evidently not insisted
on when it could really interfere with the edification

25 Bishop Wren states this as to the practice of his puritanical
contemporaries, when required to read the second service at the
altar. (Parentalia, 80.) It is most likely that they may have
behaved in the same way with respect to the matins and even
song, at the earlier date when these too were to be read in the
chancel. 26 I do not here speak of such as Grindal, Scambler, and
Parkhurst, who were puritanically affected.

72 piace of Eeaning pragers.
of the people. Wren denies having pressed it ;
Montagu's Inquiries seem even to discourage it.
On the whole, the best plan for a reading-pew
appears to be that approved by the ~Bishop of Lon
don (p. 48), according to which the desks for the
Bible and Prayer-Book are at right angles to each
other, as in the case of Drayton Beauchamp. It is
desirable that prayer-pulpits should be got rid of at
the earliest opportunity.
The only condition prescribed as to the form of
the reading-seat is, that it be " convenient." As an
abundant latitude is thus allowed, it seems very
unnecessary that any party among us should make
an outcry against the term reading-pew as one which
cannot mean anything but what is bad, or should
attempt to explain away the authorities by which
this article of church-furniture is sanctioned.
The settlement of the points which have been con
sidered under this head is expressly left to the
Ordinary.

V.
4Drnanunt0 of tlje Cfjurcfj anO of tlje 5$img>ttr;0.
RUBRIC of 1662:— "Such ornaments of the
church and of the ministers thereof, at all times
of their ministration, shall be retained, and be
in use, as were in this Church of England by
the authority of parliament, in the second year
of the reign of King Edward VI."
We shall hereafter consider in detail what were
the ornaments intended by this rubric. It may be
well to exhibit in this place, for the purposes of

©rnaments. 73
reference and comparison, the corresponding passages
of earlier books.
1552. It is ordered by the rubric of King Edward's
second Book that
" The minister at the time of the Communion,
and at all other times in his ministration, 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." (Keeling, 3.)
1559. The rubric directs 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 VI., according
to the act of parliament set in the beginning of
this book." (Ibid.)
The passage of the act here referred to is as
follows — " Such ornaments of the church and of the
ministers thereof shall be retained, and be in use, as
was in this Church of England by authority of
parliament in the second year of the reign of King
Edward 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 ecclesi
astical, or of the Metropolitan of this realm." (Gib
son, Codex, 309.) Our present rubric appears to be
derived from this act, rather than from the rubric of
Elizabeth's Book.
Very great importance has been attached to the
question of ornaments. The puritans held those
prescribed by the Church's rulers to be unlawful for

74 Ornaments.
Christians ; the rulers enforced them, not apparently
so much for the sake of the things themselves as be
cause the principle of obedience was involved ; and
there was very good reason to suppose that from yield
ing they could hope for nothing but to be assailed
with further demands. It is to be observed, however,
that no attempt was ever made to enforce (at least
on the parochial clergy,) those ornaments by the
disuse of which our common practice seems to fall
short of the rubric.27 Copes, albs, lights on the
altar, were never, I believe, prescribed by any ordi
nary for parish churches; the subjects of dispute
were commonly things as to which all the clergy of
the English Church appear to be at present in per
fect agreement.
The word " retained" 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.
The words of a letter written at the time by Sandys
to Parker are worth quoting — not as having any formal
authority, but as shewing what kind of interpretation
was considered, admissible by an influential divine
who had been concerned in the revision of the
Liturgy. — " Our gloss upon this text is, that we
shall not be forced to use them, but that others in
the meantime shall not convey them away, but that

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

jDrnaments. 75
they shall remain for the Queen." (Burnet, Hist.
Ref. ii. Records, p. 332.)
It is not clear in what meaning the revisers of
1662, by whom the word was introduced into the
rubric, intended it to be understood ; we may, how
ever, 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 injunctions and canons ; — although these, it
must be allowed, were more or less wanting in the
full authority of Church and State.
Strong feelings are at the present day entertained
by various parties as to the importance of ornaments.
For an example on the part of those who object to
an excess, let the following extract from an account
of Bishop Alexander's visit to Bethlehem serve in
stead of a multitude which might easily be collected :
- — " I observed to the Greek Bishop that the Arme
nians and the Greeks do not differ much in their
religious opinions ; upon which he replied, ' Oh yes,
look at their altar; you see all those vases of
flowers28 on it, which they consider a decoration;
we have nothing of the kind on our altars." (Eccl.
Gazette Aug. 1842, p. 24.) The Bishop who made
this speech appears to be followed by the Rev. F.

28 It appears that some clergymen are in the habit of adorning
their altars with symbolical flowers ; on which subject there were
some observations in the British Critic a few years ago, when the
opinions of that periodical were more moderate than at a later
time (Apr. 1840, p. 272). Ferrar's church was decorated with
flowers ; (Wordsw. E. B. iv. 249 ;) and the use of evergreens at
Christmas-tide is universal ; but I have not met with any example
of the practice now in question.

76 Ornaments.
C. Ewald, who reports it, and by the London Society
for the Conversion of the Jews, which has sent it
forth to the public, in considering that some momen
tous difference of belief is involved in the difference
of usage as to flowers ; and if the mere decoration
be held of so much importance, where both parties
acknowledge an altar, we may well believe that the
feeling will be far stronger where one party con
siders the " name and thing" of altar to be altogether
intolerable. An instance of opposite character may be brought
from Mr. F. W. Faber's " Sights and Thoughts."
This gentleman represents himself as having, some
where in the south of France, been favoured with a
manifestation of a remarkable personage, — a " man
of the middle ages." They discuss the religious
condition of times past and present ; and so well
are they pleased with each other, that Mr. Faber
accompanies his " mediaeval " friend on an expedition
to the iEgean ; — the Boswell to a sage of his own
imagining. I do not profess to have read the whole
narrative of their Tour to the Eastern Islands, which
fills upwards of six hundred and forty octavo pages;
but the last words on the last page are these, —
uttered by the airy oracle " in a solemn voice, some
what tremulous from deep emotion," after a survey
of modern England : — " You have led me through
a land of closed churches and hushed bells, of un-
lighted altars and unstoled priests. Is England
beneath an interdict?"
In other words, Mr. Faber chooses, as most fa
vourable for letting his curtain drop with an imposing
effect, a moment in which he is seen listening defe
rentially to this "projection of his own soul," (if I
may borrow a phrase from some other late writer)

©rnaments. 77
and allowing himself to be told without contradic
tion, that because — 1. Our churches are seldom
open ; 2. We have little bell-ringing altogether, and
perhaps because we do not use bells at the Holy
Communion; 3. Our altars have no lighted candles
on them; 4. Our clergy do not universally wear
tippets, — England has put herself into a state in
which religious minds of the middle ages would have
seen an entire withdrawal of the outward means of
grace !
While I regret the existence of the first ground,
I trust that the evil is not so great as Mr. Faber
supposes; (and be it remembered that before the
Reformation daily service was not universal ;) but I
am as little able to enter into the feelings of one who
would bring forward the other items in such a man
ner, as into those of the Greek Bishop at Bethlehem
and the retailers of his speech.
Before entering on the consideration of details, I
would direct attention to an editorial remark which
appeared in the British Magazine while under the
management of the late Mr. Rose, and which may
therefore be safely ascribed to that eminent and
lamented person — "The clergyman does not pro
vide the ornaments of the church. It may, or may
not, be his duty to present the churchwardens for
not doing it ; but he cannot refuse to officiate be
cause they have not provided the proper orna
ments."

78 ©rnaments-)Ug6ts.

(a.) Lights on the Altar.
These are the only ornaments of the church, as to
which much is said at the present time ; for it is
hardly to be imagined that the editors of the Hierurgia
Anglicana can be serious in including the pax
(psculatorium) among the articles which our rubric is
supposed to contemplate.29 The " traverses, curtains,
canopies, palls," &c. with which Laud embellished
some altars, have not been revived, or, if revived in
any quarter, have been allowed to pass in silence, so
far as my knowledge extends.
Two pamphlets on the Lights have lately ap
peared ; the one anonymous,30 the other by the Rev.
G. A. Poole, who, at the time of the publication,
was one of the clergy of Leeds. The latter I have
read with great astonishment ; so strange is the con
trast between the author's vehemence and the ap-

29 The second year of Edward ended January 27, 1548-9.
(Nicolas, Chronology, 350). The act by which the Prayer-book
was enforced, was read a third time in the House of Lords, Jan.
15, and a third time in the Commons, Jan. 21, (Cardwell's
Liturgies, p. xi.) The period intended in the rubric is evidently
that of this enactment, i. e. the very last days of the second
year. Unless retained at that time, such ornaments as had been
used at an earlier date in the year are now of no authority ; and
if anything beyond a mere suggestion were required in proof of
this view, such a practical reduction ad absurdum as that fur
nished by these ritualists, (p. 2) in quoting a notice of the pax
from a paper of injunctions, (Doc. Ann. i. No. xii.) issued while
the service was still mainly in Latin, might probably be found
sufficient. The pax is now generally disused in the Roman
communion, (Schmid, Liturgik, i. 252).
30 " Dr. Cardwell and certain Church Ornaments."

©maments— JLig&ts* 79
parent unimportance of his subject ; between the
scornful confidence of his tone and the weakness of
his argument. I have not taken the trouble to get
the earlier pamphlet, as it appears that Mr. Poole
had the advantage of using it.
The Bishop of London observes, (p. 48) " I see
no objection to candles on the communion-table,
provided that they are not burning, except when the
church is lighted up for evening service." The
order, however, is for lights ; Fuller argues on the
word, that "these being termed lights, shows they
were not lumina cceca, but burning," (Ch. Hist. b.
vii. p. 374) ; and we have abundant proof that they
were burning. Indeed Mr. Poole, while he very
properly " resents the false assertion " that he " has
burnt candles at midday," " suspects that it may be
found to be the real intention of the Church in the
rubric," (p. 24.) The stories which idle and mali
cious people have told of him are, in fact, false —
only because he has not fully conformed to the sup
posed law. To have candles without lighting them
is but half -confovmitj ; indeed, it appears to take
away the symbolical meaning for which the lights
are said to be prescribed — " the signification that
Christ is the very true Light of the world."
The argument for lights runs thus : — By an act of
parliament in the thirty-first year of Henry the Eighth,
the authority of law was given to his proclamations,
and those which should be issued in the minority of
his son. While this act was in force, injunctions
were published in Edward the Sixth's name, (1547,)
whereby it was ordered that the clergy " shall suffer
from henceforth no torches nor candles, tapers or
images of wax, to be set afore any image or picture,

80 Ornaments— JLig&ts.
but only two lights upon the high altar31 before the
sacrament, which, for the signification that Christ is
the very true light of the world, they shall suffer to
remain still." (Doc. Ann. i. 7.) This, it is said,
was law in the second year of Edward ; the rubric,
therefore, We are told, now binds us to adorn our
altars with the lights here sanctioned.
It is remarkable that Mr. Poole has all but given
the answer to his own argument. He writes : —
" Though the letter of the law [under Henry VIIL]
might enjoin the light by the roodloft, the light
before the sacrament of the altar, and the light about
the sepulchre, yet, as the roodloft and the sepulchre
are now taken away, we are saved from the possi-
bility of returning to these additional lights." (p. 9.)
Here this writer stops ; but Dr. Beaven (Brit. Mag.
October, 1841) carries us on a step further; " The
sacrament," too, he shews, is now taken away ; for
by this term was meant the consecrated wafer, sus
pended in a pyx over the altar ;32 its attendant
candles, therefore, have now no more authority than
those which were the accompaniments of the roodloft
and the sepulchre.

M I find that Mr. Lathbury (Hist. Convoc. 391) supposes the
injunction to be null, because " we have no altars in our churches."
This argument is by no means convincing to me, and may be still
less so to some others.
32 We shall see that this must be meant, although formerly
candles were required at the consecration of the Eucharist. Thus
in Lyndewood, (p. 236, ed. 1679,) Archbishop Reynolds orders
(1322) " Tempore quo missarum solennia peraguntur, accendan-
tur duae candelae, vel ad minus una." The comment is, " Est
enim a parte juris ordinatum, quod sacerdos sine lumine ignis
non celebret missam. Si tamen faciat, nihilominus conficit, licet
graviter peccet." On the exposition of the sacrament, see Schmid,
ii. 293.

Ornaments— Hig&ts. si
I shall now give in order some passages relating
to the history of this ornament ; and for the clearer
understanding of the question it will be expedient to
begin at a period somewhat earlier than that of Ed
ward's injunction.
1536. Cromwell, as Vicar- general, enjoins — " Ye
shall . . . suffer from henceforth no candles, tapers, or
images of wax, to be set afore any image or picture,
but only the light that commonly goeth across the
church, by the roodloft, the light before the sacra
ment of the altar, and the light about the sepulchre ;
which, for the adorning of the church and Divine
service ye shall suffer to remain still," &c. (Wilkins,
iii. 816.) On this injunction it is to be observed —
(1.) that that of 1547 was evidently formed from it;
and, (2.) that here we have a beginning of a reduction
in the number of lights.
The reduction was soon carried further. By
Henry's injunctions of 1538 and 1539, (Wilkins, iii.
842-7,) no other lights are allowed but that " before
the Corpus Christi." The King writes to Cranmer,
Oct. 1541 — " We by our injunctions commanded,
that no offering or setting of lights or candles should
be Suffered in any church, but only to the blessed
sacrament of the altar." (Strype, Cranmer, 92.)
Such being the history previous to the sanction of
two lights in the beginning of Edward's reign, we
may be prepared to expect some further movement
within no long time after the appearance of his in
junctions; as images, which had also a qualified
countenance from these, were very soon after done
away with.
1547. Archbishop Cranmer, in his articles of
Inquiry, which were later than the royal injunctions,
and founded on them, asks, " Whether [the clergv]

82 Ornaments— Higbts.
suffer any torches, candles, tapers, or any other lights
to be in churches, but only two lights on the high
altar?" (Doc. Ann. i. 43.) "Whether they had
upon Good Friday last past the sepulchres with their
lights, having the sacrament therein?" (Ib. 48.)
This refers to the Romish practice of reserving a
wafer, consecrated on Maunday Thursday. The
exhibition of " the sacrament" seems to have been
now confined to the high altar.
In October of the same year, we read of a sizar of
St. John's, Cambridge, who pulled down the pyx
in the chapel of his college, and of irregular pro
ceedings of a like sort elsewhere. Strype also
speaks of " an injunction that the pyx should no
more hang in a string over the altar." (Eccl. Mem.
ii. 116.) He is not quite clear as to the date, and I
have not met with this order; which, however, as
we shall see, is not necessary for determining the
question. 1548. The parish-accounts of St. Martin's Leices
ter contain this entry — " For two pound of candles
on Christmas-day, 5d." (Hierurgia Anglicana, p.
1.) I quote the passage, merely in order to point
out its irrelevancy. Waxlights had cost as much as
8d. a pound sixty years earlier, as is proved by an
extract from some other accounts. (Brit. Mag. iv,
146.) These, therefore, must have been of inferior
material, and, consequently, cannot have been altar-
lights. In fact, they were evidently candles used
for lighting the church at the early communion which
had been usual on Christmas morning. (Schmid. ii.
57-466.)— " That only night in all the year
Saw the stoled priest the chalice rear."
(Marmion, Introd. to Canto vi.)

Ornaments— Lights. 83
In January 1549, at the end of Edward's second
year, the First English Liturgy was ratified, having,
according to Strype, (Eccl. Mem. ii. 87,) been
printed in the summer of 1548. In it, there is no men
tion of lights ; and it is impossible that the hanging
pyx can have been used under its authority, since it
allows no reservation of the sacrament except for the
purpose of being given on the day of consecration to
such sick persons as shall, before the time of service,
have engaged the Curate to administer to them in
private. As the lights had been sanctioned only in
the character of appendages to the pyx, I do not
hesitate to infer that they were not among the orna
ments authorized at the time to which our rubric
refers. And here the inquiry might be concluded,
but that it is necessary to investigate the history of
the lights or candles which we read of after this date.
1549. Royal Injunctions. (Doc. Ann. i. 63.) "That
all parsons omit in the reading of the injunctions
[which it was their duty to read in churches peri
odically] such as make mention of ... . candles upon
the altar." This may serve as a comment on the
intention of the Prayer-Book which had just been
published. In the same year, the Devonshire rebels, who rose
in opposition to the Reformation, made this demand
— " We will have the sacrament hang over the high
altar, and there to be worshipped as it was wont to
be." (Cranmer's Works, ed. Jenkyns, i. 218.)
1550. Bishop Ridley, Articles and Injunctions for
London. (Doc. Ann. i. 80-2.) " Whether there be any
images in your church .... candles, &c." " That
there be no reading of such injunctions as extolleth
and setteth forth candles." " That no minister do
counterfeit the popish mass in setting any light upon
the Lord's board."

84 Ornaments— Lights.
This last sentence relates, not to the use of lights
as allowed in 1547, but to candles lighted at conse
cration. 1552. Articles of Religion, No. xxix. " The
sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not commanded
by Christ's ordinance to be kept, carried about, lifted
up, nor worshipped." This is now in our xxvmth
article, and is a condemnation of the practice with
which the lights are connected by the injunction of
1547. 1553. Aug. 21. " Mass began [after Edward's
death] at St. Nicholas Cole- Abbey, sung in Latin,
and tapers set on the altar, and a cross." (Strype,
Ecc. Mem. iii. 22.)33
1555. Cardinal Pole orders in his legatine con
stitutions, " ut in qualibet ecclesia parochiali fiat
tabernaculum3* decens et honestum, cum sera etclavi,
quod in altum elevatum in medio summi altaris
affigatur, in quo tabernaculo sanctissimum eucha-
ristiae sacramentum custodiatur," .' . . and, where it
can be afforded, " ut perpetuo lampas vel cereus
coram sanctissimo hoc Sacramento ardeat." (Doc.
Ann. i. 146-7.)
1557. The Cardinal, in his articles for the diocese

33 He continues, " And here I cannot but make this remark
upon the incumbent of the said St. Nicholas, whose name was
Parson Chicken, that he sold his wife to a butcher, and Nov. 24
was carted about London."
3* By this order, the foreign custom of keeping the pyx in a
tabernacle was substituted for that which had been used in
England, of hanging it up in a string. The reason of the change
may probably be inferred from an article proposed in the Convo
cation of 1557 — " Paretur locus vel circiter medium altaris vel
ad ejus cornu, in quo sacrosancta eucharistia sub sera sancte
custodiatur, ne in earn impii sacramentarii aliquando impetum
faciant." (Synodalia, 454.) The hanging pyx had also been

Ornaments— Lig&ts. 85
of Canterbury, asks — " Whether there do burn a
lamp or a candle before the sacrament," and orders " if
there do not, that then it be provided for with expe
dition." (Ib. 174.)
In these two passages last quoted, we have the
very phrase of King Edward's injunction.
1559. Fecknam, a Romanist, says, in contrasting
Queen Mary's days with those since her death :— -
" There was no most blasphemously treading of the
sacrament under their feet, and hanging up the
knave of clubs35 in the place thereof." (Cardw. Conf.
103.) 1559. In Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, which
are for the most part copied from those of 1547, the
room of that by which the lights were sanctioned is
occupied by one relating to a different subject, while
those immediately before and after remain in their
former places. (Doc. Ann. i. 180.) This circum
stance might of itself be sufficient to prove that lights
were not intended among the ornaments which the
rubric of the same date ordered to be retained.
1560. Jan. 6. Sampson, who had been an exile in
Mary's time, and had taken up strong opinions as to
used in France, but never in Italy. (Martene, i. 252.) See as
to this ornament an article by Mr. Pugin, in the Dublin Review,
No. XX. p. 337. It would appear from Dr. Rock's Hierurgia
— a work which must not be confounded with the Hierurgia
Anglicana — that the tabernacle is now in use among the English
Romanists. (See vol. i. p. 161, and the engravings in vol. ii.)
Pole's order leads me to observe that lamps may satisfy the
injunction of 1547 as well as wax-lights. " Lampadem ardere
convenit ante unumquodque altare ; plures ante altare majus."
(Gavanti, iii. 69.)
35 Besides such deeds, readers of the history of the time will
observe much abominable language as to the pyx on the part of
the extreme reformers. Fox revels in profanity on this and
kindred subjects.

86 Ornaments— iLig&ts.
the unlawfulness of some rites and ceremonies, writes
thus to Peter Martyr of the prospect under Eliza
beth : — " Quid ego sperem, cum exulet ex aula
Christi ministerium, admittatur autem Crucifixi imago
cum accensis luminaribus?36 Altaria quidem sunt
diremta, et imagines per totum regnum ; in sola aula.
Crucifixi imago cum candelis retinetur." He puts
the case : — " Si princeps ita injungat omnibus epis-
copis et pastoribus, ut vel admittant in suas ecclesias
imaginem cum candelis, vel ministerio Christi cedant,
quid hie faciendum sit?"37 No such measure had
as yet been adopted, nor were this writer and those
who thought with him put to the trial here contem
plated at any later time.
1560. Bishop Jewel, in his Challenge at St. Paul's
Cross, defies the Romanists to shew " that the sacra
ment was [in the first 600 years] or now ought to be,
hanged up under a canopy." (Doc. Ann. i. 255.)
The subject was afterwards fully discussed by him
in his Defence against Harding.
1561. Accounts of St. Helen's, Abingdon (Arch-
aeologia, vol. i.) "Paid for four pounds of candles upon
Christmas-day in the morning for the mass 12rf."38
This is adduced in the Hierurgia, p. 3, but it is to

36 This agrees with the rubric xx of the Roman Missal.
" Super altare collocetur crux in medio, et candelabra saltern
duo, cum candelis accensis, hinc et inde, in utroque ejus latere."
37 I have followed the copy in the Zurich Letters, (No. 27,)
which differs slightly from those before published, and professes
to be more accurate.
38 Mr. Pugin (Dub. Rev. No. xxiii. 172) infers from this and
other entries, that the parish " adhered to the ancient rites for
some time." The opinion is not to be rashly rejected, but an
examination of the accounts in the Archaeologia has convinced
me that it is incorrect. The retention of the word mass proves
nothing.

Ornaments— Jlig&ts* 87
be explained in the same way as the entry of Christ
mas 1548. There is a similar charge in the same
accounts, 1574.
1562. Bishop Parkhurst to Bullinger, Aug. 20.
" Evangelium ad me adfertur, crucem scilicet, et
candelabra in capella Reginae esse comminuta, et, ut
quidam retulit, in cinerem redacta." (Zurich Letters,
No. 53.) This seems to relate to the exploit of the
Queen's fool, who broke the Crucifix at the instiga
tion of Sir Francis Knolles. (Heylyn, Hist. Ref.
296.) 1563. The same to the same, April 26. " Scripsi
ad te, crucem, cereos, candelabra, e Reginae capella
abducta ; sed paullo post sunt reducta, magno piorum
moerore. Cerei antea quotidie incendebantur ; nunc
minime." (Zurich Letters, No. 57.)
1563. Homily on Peril of Idolatry (p. 215, ed.
Oxf. 1832.)—" In the day it needeth not, but was
ever a proverb of foolishness, to light a candle at
noontime." 1567. Bishops Grindal and Horn write to Gualter,
" Accensos cereos et ejus generis alia, ex legum
praescripto nunquam revocanda, penitus amisit [omi-
sit?] ecclesia Anglicana." (Zurich Letters, No. 75.)
This statement evidently applies to all lights, although
it was called forth by a question as to tapers used at
baptism. (Ib. App. 358.)
Harding (in Jewel, Def. Apol. 12.) reproaches
the Reformed — " Ye raise up the heresy of Vigilan-
tius, in refusing to . . . keep lights in churches, to
the honour of God." Again, p. 19. — " If lights at
the Gospel and Communion be not had, . . . judge ye
whether ye have duly kept the old ceremonies of the
Church." Jewel replies (21.) by adducing passages
to prove that lights were not used in the early Church

88 Ornaments— JLigfcts.
in the manner here intended — thus leaving it to be
concluded that the Anglican Church did not retain
any. 1576. Grindal inquires at Canterbury, whether
any of late have left legacies for " obits, diriges,
trentals, torches, lights, lamps, tapers, or any such
like use, now by law forbidden." (Remains, 173.)
Both at York and at Canterbury, he includes candle
sticks among " reliques of superstition and idolatry,"
which he wishes to be " utterly defaced and de
stroyed" (ib. 136-159) ; and in this he is followed by
Piers, Archbishop of York, 1590.
1606. Andrew Melville, the noted Presbyterian,
was sent to the Tower, " where," says Walton in the
Life of Herbert, " he remained very angry for three
years." (Eccl. Biog. iv. 14.) One of his offences
was the having written satirical verses on the orna
ments of the chapel-royal, among which verses was
this : — " Lumina caeca duo, pollubra sicca duo."39
(Fuller, Ch. Hist. b. x. 70.)
1623. Tapers are ordered for the Prince's chapel
at Madrid, as we have seen already (p. 21).
1628. Peter Smart, in his sermon on the text, " I
have hated them that hold of superstitious vanities,"
— preached in Durham Cathedral immediately after
some decorations and reforms had been introduced
by his brethren of the Chapter, — complains of " can
dlesticks and crucifixes; burning wax candles in
excessive number, when and where there is no need

39 The story of Melville's frantic behaviour is told with high
admiration by Dr. M'Crie, (ii. 240, ed. 1.) The verses were
written in consequence of what , Melville had witnessed on the
feast of St. Michael — " One of the Dii minorum gentium of the
English," according to the biographer.

Ornaments— Ligfrts. 89
of lights." (P. 23, ed. 1640.) This puritan, how
ever, deals in such extravagances of slanderous ex
aggeration that it is impossible to know what foun
dation there really was for his charges.
1628. Among Ferrar's furniture at Little Gidding
are mentioned, " two large wax candles on the com
munion-table." There were other candles, " not for
purposes of superstition, but for real use, to give
them light when they could not see without them."
(Eccl. Biog. iv. 176-249.)
1633. At Charles the First's Coronation at Edin
burgh, where the ceremonies were under the direction
of Laud, " It was remarked that there was ane four-
nooked tassell in manner of ane altar, standing within
the kirk, having standing thereupon two books,40 at
least resembling clasped books, called blind books,
with two chandlers and two wax candles, which
were unlight,41 and ane bason wherein there was
nothing; at the back of this altar, covered with
tapestry, there was ane rich tapestry, wherein the
Crucifix was curiously wrought, and as thir [i. e.
those] bishops who was in service past by this Cru
cifix, they were seen to bow their knee, and beck,
which, with their habit [copes] was noted, and bred
great fear of inbringing of popery." (Spalding,
Troubles in Scotland, ed. Bannatyne Club, i. 17.)
Archbishop Laud, making statutes for cathedrals,
found the altar rightly placed at Canterbury, and
recommended " candlesticks, bason, and carpet."
(Heylyn, 274.) He was accused at his trial of " ad
ministering the sacrament with some more solemnities
than in ordinary parochial churches, though con-

40 Cosin, in Nicholls, App. 34, orders a Bible and Prayer-Book
to be set on.
il~ Another edition (Aberdeen, 1829, p. 16) reads " on light."

90 Ornaments— lig&ts.
stantly observed in His Majesty's chapels." (Ib.
491.) 1641. The Lords' committee is to inquire into
" advancing candlesticks in many churches, upon the
altar, so-called." (Cardw. Conf. 272.) The Commons
on Sept. 8 of this year ordered their removal. (Nal-
son, ii. 482.)
Although the use of candles in parish-chmches
seems to be here meant, it does not appear that it ever
was enjoined by any Bishop. There is nothing of the
kind in the Norwich articles of Wren and Montagu,
nor is the former prelate charged with any such order
in his impeachment, where we may be very sure that
nothing would have been omitted which could have
given the slightest pretext for an accusation. I
have also looked into some of the venomous little
pamphlets of charges against parochial clergymen of
the Laudian school, without observing any mention
of candles ; whence we may conclude that the use
of them was not general even among the most cere
monial of the parochial clergy.42 Puritans never
complain of being obliged to set up candles; they
are not enjoined or inquired after by any bishop
whose articles have fallen in my way, from Parker to
Ken, although so many other ornaments and articles
of furniture43 are mentioned, that these could not

42 Mr. Markland gives a copy of a contemporary print, in
which candles are represented on the altar of a church. (Remarks
on English Churches, 3d ed. p. 29.)
43 E. g. The communion-table, its covering, the pulpit, the
commandments, the font, with its cover, the Bible, Prayer-Book,
Homilies, Erasmus's Paraphrase, Fox's Acts and Monuments,
Jewel's Works, poor-box, sentences of Scripture on the walls,
reading-pew, cup, flagon, pulpit-cushion, book of canons, sur
plice, table of forbidden degrees, &c.

Ornaments— Lig&ts. 91
have been omitted if they were held necessary. I
have not observed any notice of them in Hooker ;
nor are they enumerated among the church-furniture
in the collection of poems entitled " The Synagogue,"
written in the time of Charles L, and usually printed
with Herbert's Temple.
Bishop Cosin, indeed, (in Nicholls, App. p. 34,)
prescribes that at communion-time, " two wax candles
are to be set on ;" but, — (besides that he may have
had in view the celebration in a cathedral, a royal
chapel, or the chapel of a college, as he had borne
authority in places which come under each of these
heads) — his note (probably written before he was a
bishop) is no injunction;** nor is any such order
found in his injunctions of 1662.
Mr. Poole assumes that the lights or candles were in
general use until removed by the puritans in the Great
Rebellion. Enough, I trust, has been said to shew that
this assumption is quite gratuitous. It would appear

*¦* He writes at p. 17, that by virtue of the rubric, the lights
were continued in all Queen Elizabeth's chapels, " and so they
are in all the King's, and in many cathedral churches, besides the
chapels of divers noblemen, bishops, and colleges to this day."
Bishop Cosin may possibly have had ground for saying that
Edward's injunctions were the authority for the Queen's candles;
but nothing to this effect has fallen under my notice in contem
porary papers. It is true that all the accounts of her ornaments
which I have seen, proceeded from the opponents of ceremonies ;
still, if the injunctions were alleged, the plea would hardly
have been unnoticed. We shall probably be more correct if we
refer Elizabeth's proceedings to her own pleasure. Archbishop
Williams supposes that she wished " to comply with foreign
princes, and to make them believe she was not so far esloigned
from the Catholic religion as was bruited abroad," for which
opinion he quotes the testimony of French writers. (Holy Table,
p. 39.) It is to be observed that Bishop Cosin does not mention
parish-churches, nor give any hint of general obligation.

92 Ornaments— Lights.
rather, that they have never been restored in parish-
churches since their removal under Edward VI. ; that
they were removed before that period of his reign to
which the rubric refers us for the list of ornaments ;
that, when the ornaments of Edward's second year
were restored by the rubric of 1559, the lights were
not supposed to be included among them ; and,
which is the most important fact, that, as they were
connected with the practice of hanging " the sacra
ment" over the altar, the discontinuance and autho
ritative condemnation of that practice would in any
case do away with the force of Edward's injunction
in their favour. They were re-established in the
royal chapels by Elizabeth, not from any authority
of the Church, but because of her own personal
tastes ; they have been ever since continued in royal
chapels, and, after that model, were adopted in many
private chapels of bishops and lay noblemen, as also
in colleges. They seem to have been wanting in
most or all cathedrals until the time of Laud, and to
have been generally retained in churches of this class
since the Restoration of Charles II.
I believe, therefore, that in the places where these
ornaments have a degree of authority, that authority is
derived from some other source than the rubric now
under consideration ; and that there is no authority
whatever for using them in churches and chapels of
the parochial class. If, however, they could be intro
duced without any superstitious assertion of their
necessity, on the one hand, or equally superstitious
alarm on the other, they might, it is conceived, form
an innocent and not unsuitable decoration.
A few words may be added as to the lighting of
the candles. This is certainly meant in the injunc
tion of 1547 ; Queen Elizabeth's lights were burning

Ornaments— Hig&ts. 93
when she first exhibited the obnoxious ornaments ;
and although a change was soon made in this re
spect, and Melville found the candles in her succes
sor's chapel lumina ceeca, it appears that the practice
of lighting was revived on some occasions (probably
at Communion) in Whitehall chapel during the
reign of Charles I. Together with this fact as to
the chapel-royal, we learn that the candles in Laud's
chapel at Lambeth were not lighted (Rushworth, ii.
279) ; even Prynne appears to acquit the Archbishop
on this point. (Canterbury's Doom, 62-3.) The
reader will have observed the curious discrepancy
between the two editions of the honest northern
chronicler by whom the Edinburgh coronation of
1633 is described; that which reads unlight is of
the higher authority in general, but is not, I am
informed, to be regarded as conclusive.
With the exception of those in the royal chapels,
it would seem that the candles of that time were not
lighted. Neal, indeed, reports that Warmistre, one
of the representatives of Worcester in the convocation
of 1640, expressed a wish, in a speech, " that there
might be no lighted candles in the day-time." (Hist.
of Puritans, ii. 9, ed. 1837.) On looking, however,
into the speech itself, (which was published as a
tract), I have not found anything relating to the
subject, except the following words, which evidently
imply flighted candles — " I know not why we
should have candles in the day-time ; I wish there
may not be so much as an emblem of a fruitless
prelacy or clergy in the church, that only fill the
candlestick, but give no light." The same conclusion
is supported by a kindred specimen of puritanical
Durandism in a pamphlet of 1641, entitled " Vox
Borealis," where it is related that a person " coming

94 Ornaments— lig&ts.
into a new-altered church, and looking upon their
implements, told his friend that was with him . . .
that . . . their two dark tapers betokened blindness
and ignorance." (Harleian Misc. iv. 427.)
Although, however, this was the practice of the
school of Laud, it is very evident, as has been said
already, that any one who may think himself bound
by the rubric to set candles on the altar, ought also
to consider himself bound to light them.
In this section, I have confined myself to the
question of fact ; some observations as to the spirit
and purpose of the injunction which has given rise
to the inquiry will be found in another place.45

(b.) Ornaments of the Minister generally.
The authority for these is different from that which
is alleged for lights on the altar ; being the rubric
of the Prayer-Book which in the second year of King
Edward was sanctioned by act of parliament.46
Of the ornaments there prescribed, the rochette
and staff belong to bishops only, and therefore do not
fall within the limits of the present inquiry ; and as
to the vestment, the tunicle, and the albe, it need only
be said that they were done away with at a later
time in Edward's reign, and do not appear to have

*« See Part III.
4fi I believe, in fact, that the intention both of the Act of
Uniformity and of the rubric in 1559 was simply to restore those
articles which had been expressly prescribed in the Book of 1 549
and forbidden in that of 1552; among which the lights are
notoriously not included. It has, however, seemed best to con
duct the argument as to lights so as to meet their advocates more
on their own grounds.

Ornaments. 95
been used since the rubric of 1559 authorized their
revival. The surplice has always been prescribed, and is
now universally used, as the dress to be generally
worn in public service. The only questions with
respect to it are, — whether it may be worn at the
celebration of the holy communion instead of the
cope? and — whether it must be worn in preaching,
to the exclusion of the gown ?47

(c.) The Dress for Ministering at the Altar.
1549. A rubric orders that the chief officiating
priest, or celebrant,
" shall at the time appointed for the ministration
of the holy communion, put on him a white
albe, plain, with a vestment or cope ;"4B and that

*i By the way, a passage in Hooker (iv. 4, 2) suggests a doubt
whether the make of our present surplice be altogether correct.
The puritans object to the vestment, " si de forma agitur, talaris
vestis honestior." The word talaris is rendered by Hooker " down
to the foot;" and is defined by a convocation of Queen Mary's
reign to mean " neque nimia longitudine caudam trahens, neque
nimia brevitate crura tibiasque demonstrans." (Synodalia, 477.)
According to these interpretations, the usual surplice of our days
is talar, whereas that of Hooker's age was not. I leave the pro
secution of the subject to those who care for such things. {First
edition.) I have since found that the shorter surplice is agree
able to the Roman practice, (Gav. Thes. i. 142-553 ; Martene,
iii. 262) and that some of our clergy have therefore lately adopted
it. Mr. Jebb, from whose valuable work my knowledge of the
latter fact is derived, proves that the flowing vesture is more
primitive (p. 219). The same is acknowledged by Mr. Pugin,
(Dub. Review), by Schmid (i. 196), and by Dr. Rock, who in his
Hierurgia, gives engravings of the dresses at present used in the
communion of which he is a member.
48 The word cope, as used in our rubrics and other documents,

96 Ornaments— Cbe Cope.
the assistant ministers, where there are any,
" shall have upon them albes, with tunicles."
(Keeling, 167.) 49
1552. It is directed in the second Book, that
" the minister at the time of the communion,
and at all other times in his ministration, shall
use neither albe, vestment, nor cope;" that
" being a priest or deacon, he shall have and
wear a surplice only." (Ib. 3.)
1559. Guest, afterwards Bishop of Rochester,
writes to Cecil an account of the conclusions which
had been resolved on by himself and the other com
missioned revisers, with respect to the proposed
Prayer-Book of Elizabeth. They disallow any dif
ference of habit at communion. In the Book, how
ever, when published, was a rubrical order that the
minister should use the ornaments of King Edward's
signifies exclusively a garment to be used at the altar — the
pluviale of Roman ritualists. Capa or cappa is a word of much
wider meaning, and may in many places be rendered a cloak.
(See Martene, iii. 262.) In the Sarum Missal, we find that
sometimes the clergy are to be vested in cappae of various
colours, and in such cases silk is specified as the material ; but
it is not so when the cappae are black, and in one place we read
— " clerici de secunda forma, in cappis nigris, hoc est, in habitu
quotidiano." — A friend informs me, that the word is used in the
Oxford Statutes, to denote the " habit" worn by Doctors at
University-sermons. Thus a German writer, who has lately pub
lished his amusing misconceptions of our Church (Gaebler's Litur-
gie d. Kirche v. England, Altenb. 1843, p. 24), is mistaken in
supposing the black gown commonly used in preaching to be the
cope ; it might, however, be designated in Latin as a cappa.
*9 Bingham, overlooking this rubric, and supposing one in
another part of the book to be the only order as to vestments,
has wrongly charged Baxter with misrepresentation of our
Church's directions in the matter. (French Church's Apology,
b. iii. c. 7.) It appears from Johnson's Vade-mecum that the
same mistake has been made by others.

Ornaments— C&e Cope. 97
second year " at the time of the communion, and at
all other times in his ministration." (Keeling, 3.)
The insertion of this is ascribed to the Queen herself.
(Cardw. Conf. pp. 21-50.)
1561 . The Bishops' interpretations of the Queen's
injunctions. " That there be used only but one ap- •
parel ; as the cope in the ministration of the Lord's
Supper, and the surplice in all other ministrations."
(Doc. Ann. i. 205.)
Sandys to P. Martyr, April 1, 1560. " Tantum
manent in ecclesia nostra vestimenta ilia papistica,
capas intellige, quas diu non duraturas speramus."
(Zurich Letters, No. 31.) Sandys' gloss on the late
rubric has been given already, p. 74.
1564. It is reported that at Canterbury Cathedral,
" the priest which ministereth, the pistoler and gos
peller, wear copes" at the administration ; surplices
are worn at the holy table when there is no commu
nion. (Strype, Parker, 183.)
1565. The advertisements issued by the Bishops
prescribe a surplice at communion in parish-churches ;
a cope in cathedral and collegiate churches ; where,
however, a surplice was to be worn " at all other
prayers to be said at the communion-table." (Doc.
Ann. i. 291.)
Grindal inquires at Canterbury, 1576, whether
the minister " do wear any cope in a parish-church
or chapel," as if it were unlawful to do so. (Remains,
159.) Whitgift, 1584, speaks of the surplice as
" required" at communion as well as at other times.
(Strype, Whitg. App. p. 50.) Piers, Archbishop of
York, 1590, inquires " whether all copes, vestments,
albes, tunicles, . . and such like reliques of popish
superstition and idolatry, be utterly defaced and
destroyed." From these extracts it will appear
H

98 Ornaments— €&e Cope.
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 authority.50
These vestures soon fell into disuse, even in cathe
drals. Thus at Canterbury, 1573, " they had' still
remaining a great many old copes, which were to be
disposed of as the Archbishop thought best." The
Dean was charged with " having made away with
the copes of the church ; which he confessed, be
cause it had been agreed by the chapter that all the
copes should be made away, and that he had two of
them, and paid £15 for the same." (Strype, Parker,
444.) The copes at King's College, Cambridge, too,
were sold before 1576. (Strype, Annals, ii. 421.)
1604. Heylyn (Life of Laud, p. 6,) writes, " This
vesture having been discontinued (I know not by what
fatal negligence) many years together, it pleased the
Bishops and Clergy in the convocation to pass a

50 In the first edition an opinion was expressed, that from the
time of the Advertisements to the end of Elizabeth's reign " the
parochial clergy neither wore copes, nor were held bound to wear
them." This opinion is contradicted in the Hierurgia Anglicana,
(p. 184,) on the ground that Cartwright and other puritans, after
1570, speak of copes as customary vestures, and " had they been
confined to cathedrals and private chapels, this could not have
been said of them with propriety or truth." Propriety and truth
were not in the sixteenth century, any more than they now are,
unfailing characteristics of puritanical controversy. I have not
met with, nor have the editors of the Hierurgia produced, any
instance of a cope in parochial churches during the period in
question ; and I had noted many instances of surplices then used
at communion, before I was aware that copes were positively
forbidden by some Bishops of the time. Extracts which prove
this are now introduced into the text ; and I have, accordingly,
made my inference more entirely opposite to the idea of the
Hierurgists.

Ornaments— C&e Cope. 99
canon to this purpose;" — "In all cathedral and
collegiate churches, the holy communion shall be
administered upon principal feast-days, the principal
minister using a decent cope, and being assisted with
the gospeller and epistler agreeably, according to
advertisements published anno 7 Eliz." (Can. xxiv.)
At the same time, the LVinth canon gave order
for " ministers reading Divine service, and adminis
tering the sacraments, to wear surplices."
Under Archbishop Bancroft, we are told, " the use
of copes was revived, and the surplice generally
worn." (Collier, ii. 687.) It is, of course, to be
understood that the copes were worn according to
the limitations of the late canons ; these having been
chiefly drawn up by Bancroft himself while Bishop
of London. He appears, indeed, to have gone a step
further, in prescribing for his own cathedral, 1608,
that the epistle and gospel be read in copes every
Sunday and holy-day ; (Wilkins, iv. 436 ;) but
although he inquires about habits at Wells cathedral
in 1605, there is no mention of the cope in his articles
on that occasion. (Ib. 415.)
The cope fell again into disuse in cathedrals
during Abbot's primacy, although probably retained
in the royal chapels. Laud prescribed its restoration
in cathedrals, but did not give any such direction for
parish-churches. Even for the University church at
Oxford, on the most solemn public occasions — viz.
at the administration of the holy communion by
the Vicechancellor in the beginning of term — he is
content to order a surplice. (Autob. 215-6.) And
although the committee of 1641 suggest that " the
rubric should be mended, where all vestments are
commanded which were used 2 Edw. VI." (Cardw.
Conf. 274), and the presbyterians of 1660 find fault

100 Ornaments— Cfre Cope.
with it as seeming to order copes, it is evident that
no such vestment had ever been used within their
knowledge in parochial churches. The Bishops in
their reply to the presbyterians, while they do not
agree to an alteration, give no other reason for the
refusal than a reference to their general defence of
ceremonies, in which there is nothing, so far as I
have observed, that can throw any light on this sub
ject. (See Cardw. Conf. 314-351.)
1662. The words " at all times of their ministra
tion " were substituted for those of the earlier rubric
— " at the time of the communion, and at all other
times in his ministration." The change is not with
out significance ; since, while the two forms are in
themselves equivalent, the earlier appears intended
to suggest the fact that a peculiar dress is prescribed
for the communion, which is much less likely to be
suspected from the rubric as it now stands.
1681. Thoresby (quoted by Dr. Hook, " Call to
Union," p. 158,) saw " rich embroidered copes" at
Durham cathedral ; where the full splendour of the
ritual had been restored by Bishop Cosin, who held
the see from 1661 to 1671. (See his Devotions, ed.
1838, p. vi.)
1686. From the manner in which Evelyn mentions
the vestures of James the Second's Romish clergy,
(apparently copes and chasubles,) it would seem that
he had not been accustomed to see such garments in
the English Church. (Diary, Dec. 29.)
" The ancient copes, used till some time in the
last century, still exist at Durham ; and at West
minster,51 as tradition informs us, they were used till
si " Florence," writes Mr. Digby, " could send forth nothing
in costliness or beauty superior to those [vestures] which were

Ornaments— €&e Cope. 101
about the same time." (Jebb, Choral Service, 216.)
Their use at Durham is said to have been abolished
through the influence of Warburton, who became
prebendary in 1755. (Brit. Mag. vi. 40.)
I have not met with any later notice of the cope,
except as used at Coronations.
The general rubric relating to ornaments corres
ponds, as we have seen, with a passage in the Act
of Uniformity, 1 Eliz., to which is attached a pro
vision that the ornaments shall be retained " until
other order shall be therein taken by the authority
of the Queen's Majesty, with the advice of her com
missioners appointed and authorized under the great
seal for causes ecclesiastical, or of the Metropolitan
of this realm. On this, Burn (Eccl. Law, iii. 437,)
says that no other order ever was taken, and there
fore the lviii th canon, by which surplices are
ordered to be worn at the administration of the
sacraments in parish-churches, is void, as opposed to
the act. It is to be observed, however, that if no
alterations were made by the Queen in the very way
here provided for, yet an alteration was made by the
advertisements of 1565, which, although issued on
the authority of the Bishops, (see Card. D. A. i.
287, and Conf. 39,) were popularly known as " The
Queen's Book." Andrewes (in Nicholls, App. 38-9)
appears to consider that the advertisements fulfil the
condition of the act, and that, consequently, they
have the full authority of law. And when the rubric

procured from her for the Abbey of Westminster, some of which
still clothe on solemn days the worthy successors in the priest
hood of England." (Mores Catholici, v. 89.) Are we to under
stand that some of the Westminster copes or chasubles are now
in use among the English Romanists?

102 Ornaments.
was re-enacted in 1662, it is not to be supposed that
those who re-enacted it intended to contradict and
abrogate the Lvinth canon, any more than we sup
pose the framers of the canons of 1604 to have
intended self-contradiction when they ordered in the
xiv th that the Prayer-Book should be strictly com
plied with, and in the lvtii th, that a surplice should be
worn where the Prayer-Book in strictness prescribed
a cope. This idea as to their intentions is strength
ened by the circumstance, which has just been no
ticed, that the rubric of 1662 is not precisely the
same with that of Queen Elizabeth, but has under
gone a slight alteration. Sparrow, himself one of
the revisers, quotes the advertisements of 1565 as
an unquestioned interpretation of the rubric. (Ra
tionale, 311.) Laud speaks of copes, not as commanded
by the rubric, but as allowed or warranted by the
canon. (Troubles, 313-326.)
Dr. Hook, in his Call to Union (p. 158), and even
in his Dictionary, seems to think that the cope may
be dispensed with. The Christian Remembrancer
for Dec. 1842, however, tells us that " English
churchmen cannot much longer dispense with it."
(p. 619.)
I do not profess to discuss the obligations of the
capitular clergy in this respect.

(d.) The Preaching-dress.
A surplice has been usually worn by preachers in
cathedral and collegiate churches; and also very
commonly by the poor clergy of remote districts,
such as Wales and Cumberland. In churches of an
intermediate kind, a gown has long been the pulpit-

Ornaments— €&e preac&tng-Dress. 103
dress, worn by clergymen of all opinions, and not
supposed to be any badge of a party. Such was the
authority of this custom, that we find the late re
spected Bishop Jebb (whom, notwithstanding certain
connexions, and his share in certain speculations, no
one would consider either a puritan or a latitudina-
rian) making it " a particular request that every
member of his diocese provide himself with a decent
black gown ;" and this because " the senses and
imagination are to be enlisted in the service of re
ligion." (Charge, 1823, in Pastoral Instructions,
208.) Of late, however, we have heard very different
opinions ; the gown has been decried as a " relic of
puritanism," a " Genevan rag," utterly unauthorized,
and unknown in our pulpits until the times of the
Great Rebellion.
On some of these assertions it may be observed,
before going further, that gowns are authorized as a
part of the ordinary clerical dress, and are still worn
out of doors in the universities ; at the worst, there
fore, they become puritanical and Genevan rags only
when worn in the pulpit.
In the following notices will be found some helps
towards determining whether even there they be in
tolerable, and tokens or relics of puritanism.
1549. Edward the Sixth's first Book. "In the
saying of matins and evensong, baptizing and
burying, the minister in parish churches and
chapels annexed to the same shall use a sur
plice; and in all cathedral churches and col
leges, the archdeacons, deans, provosts, masters,
prebendaries, and fellows, being graduates,
may use in the choir beside their surplices,
such hoods as pertaineth to their several

104 Ornaments— Cfce Preacfjing^nress.
degrees; but in all other places, every mi
nister 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 per-
taineth to their several degrees." (Keeling,
356.)
This rule is revived by our present rubric. The
Bishop of London appears to think (p. 53) that it
prescribes the surplice for preaching. According to
Sharp's view of it, on the contrary, the ordinary
clerical dress is to be worn in preaching, graduates
wearing hoods in addition, (pp. 206-7.) And from
the fact that no mention is here made of marrying
and churching, it has been inferred by Burn (iii.
438), that a surplice is not necessarily required for
these rites.
I would observe, however, that the extent of this
particular rubric is not so wide as Sharp and Burn
imagine ; that it is intended to apply to those por
tions only of the public offices which are expressly
named in it ; and that the rule for other portions is
to be sought elsewhere. Burn himself points out
that a surplice is not here prescribed for the holy com
munion ; the reason of which is, as he rightly states,
that for that office a special dress is ordered in
another part of the book ; and thus we are prompted
to the remark, which does not appear to have occurred
to this respectable writer — 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 con
sulted. For in the Book of 1549, the holy com
munion is made, (not, as now, an optional, but) a
necessary part of the marriage-rite ; the same sacra
ment is connected with " the purification of women ;"

Ornaments— C&e Preac&ing=oress. 105
and there is no mention of any preaching, except
that which is introduced in the communion-office.
On looking, then, to the rubrics of the communion,
we find, as we have seen in a former section, that the
celebrant is to wear a white albe, with a vestment 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 preaching. In these
circumstances, 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, we learn, that sometimes 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 The
saurus, i. 209 ; iii. 105.) Applying these rules to
the English service, we may gather that under the
first Book of Edward the dress of the preacher was
an albe, — a close-sleeved vesture, resembling the sur
plice.58 And it is worth observing — since arguments
are now sometimes built on what is supposed to be
the unprecedented and absurd nature of any such
practice — that when the celebrant was also the
preacher, a change of dress took place on ascending
and leaving the pulpit.
The book of 1552 did away with copes, vestments,
and albes ; and, in prescribing a surplice as the habit
to be worn at the communion, may be supposed
to have intended that it should be worn in preaching.

58 The alternative of a surplice appears to be excluded by the
fact that the albe is the under-vesture prescribed for all the
clergy at communion.

106 Ornaments -Cbe Preacfnng-tiress.
1559. Guest writes to Cecil while the revisal of
the Prayer-Book is in progress : — " Because it is
thought sufficient to use but a surplice in baptizing,
reading, preaching, and praying, therefore it is
enough also for the communion." (Cardw. Conf. 50.)
This was brought forward as an argument against
the use of copes ; and the character of the passage
leads me to choose this place for observing, that in
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the term
communion was not applied to that part of the service
which is read when there is no celebration of the
sacrament. This is spoken of as " prayers used at
the holy table," and later, as " the second service ;"
here, it seems to be included in the "reading,
preaching, and praying." In short, it was regarded
as quite different in character from the communion-
service, properly so called ; as akin rather to the
morning and evening prayers. The reader will
find it useful to keep this distinction in mind.53
1561. The Bishops' Interpretations prescribe
" The surplice in all other ministrations " [but the
communion.] (Doc. Ann. i. 205.)
1562. Requests to convocation by No well and
others. (Strype, Ann, i. 336). " That the use of
vestments, copes, and surplices, may be taken away,
so that all ministers in their ministry use a grave,

M It is countenanced by canons xxiv-xxv., which allow sur
plices as " sufficient" in cathedrals when there is no celebration,
although for celebration they require the use of copes ; and the
circumstance here noticed will invalidate the argument of a late
writer, who maintains the exclusive use of the surplice at morn
ing-sermons, on the ground that the "communion-sermon"
differs in kind from all others— (" the Prayer for the Church
militant, &c." by C. I. H. 1843.) Unless an administration is
to follow, a sermon in the morning is not a communion-sermon.

Ornaments— C&e preacf)ing*oress. 107
comely, and side [i.e. long] garment, as commonly they
do in preaching." The Bishop of London supposes that
this is to be understood of occasions " when sermons
were preached without the reading of the Common-
Prayer." (p. 74.) Although it would seem that ser
mons were usually delivered under such circumstances
bythe "licensed preachers, "and consequently were far
more common in that age than now, I am still inclined
to think, as before seeing his Lordship's Charge, that
ordinary preaching may also be meant. Another
request in the same paper is — " That the ministers
be not compelled to wear such gowns and caps as
the enemies of Christ's gospel have chosen to be the
special array of their priesthood." Hence the preach
ing-garment approved by the puritans would seem
not to have been the same with the ordinary canoni
cal dress.53
1564. London ministers are "prayed [by Grindal
their Bishop] to take on them the gown, (which one
of them describes to be a Turkey54 gown with a fall
ing cape,) and to wear in the ministry of the Church
a surplice only." (Strype, Grindal, 97.)
53 Sampson and Humphrey complain that the clergy were re
quired to wear when out of church " togas longas, a papistis
mutuo sumptas." (Zurich Letters, No. 71, p. 97.)
s* This name, however, is more commonly used to describe an
uwcanonial habit. Thus, Harding " twits " the Reformed Church
— " Do not some wear side gowns, having large sleeves, which is
not well liked of your sect ? Some of more perfection [i. e.
puritans], Turkey-gowns, gaberdines, frocks, or nightgowns of the
most lay fashion, for avoiding of superstition?" (Ap. Jewel,
Def. Apol. 323.) And the description of the dress in which the
puritan delegates appeared at the Hampton Court Conference—
" Gowns of the shape of those worn by Turkey merchants,"  is
interpreted by Collier as shewing that they " had nothing of the
canonical habit." (ii. 271.)

108 Ornaments-e&e preaci»ng=t>ress.
1565. The advertisements enjoin — " That the
dean and prebendaries wear a surplice with a silk
hood in the choir; and when they preach in the
cathedral or collegiate church, to wear their hood."
(Doc. Ann. i. 291.) This ought to be compared
with the rubric of 1549. It would appear to be in
tended that the sermons should not be in the choir
of cathedrals, but, as is usual abroad, in the nave ;55
and there is ground here for supposing that the surplice
was not worn by dignitaries when preaching. The
canon of 1 604 (see p. Ill) cannot, I think, be fairly
alleged in favour of an opposite opinion. Nothing
is here said of dress to be worn out of the choir,
except that a hood shall be worn, which might be
with a gown as well as with a surplice; and the
two orders further differ, inasmuch as this prescribes
the dress of the preacher only, while the canon gives
direction for other members of the foundation likewise.
The canon, therefore, is a fresh enactment, not an
interpretation of the advertisement. It is observable,
also, that there is no mention of preaching in the
next advertisement; — " That every minister saying any
public prayers, or ministering the sacraments or other
rites of the Church, shall wear a comely surplice."
1570. A puritan writes (Strype, Annals, ii. 6.)
that the Bishops " do make such a diversity between

55 This is confirmed by Archbishop Bancroft's order for Can
terbury Cathedral, 1608. (Wilkins, Cone. iv. 436.) "That
upon solemn feastdays the sermon be made before the Commu
nion : the moveable pulpit being placed either in the presbytery,
[i. e. the space between the stalls and the altar, Jebb, 196,] or
choir ; and every afternoon of such days there be a sermon for
the city in the ordinary place." The ordinary place at Canter
bury was the chapter-house, (Doc. Ann. i. 347 ; Jebb, 494.)
The sermon at Ely is still in the nave. (Jebb, 196.)

Ornaments— €&e Preac&ing*Dress. 109
Christ's word and His sacraments, that they can56
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 de
clared with crossing, with coping, surplicing, &c."
Here we may remark that, in the usage of that time,
preaching seems to have been distinguished from
church-service, and further, that the passage is
adverse to the opinion which has been quoted from
Burn as to the dress at marrying and churching.
1570. Sandys, then Bishop of London, in his In
junctions, orders the Clergy " In all Divine service
to wear the surplice." (Ib. 29.)
1571. Canon as to preachers licensed to itine
rate.57 "Inter concionandum utentur veste quam
maxime modesta et gravi, quae deceat atque ornet
ministrum Dei, qualisque in libello admonitionum
descripta est." (Synod. 127.) In the advertise
ments of 1565, which are here referred to, (Ib. 126),

56 The reading in Strype is cannot. It may seem strange thus
to make the evidence change sides, but the sense requires the
alteration. 57 " C. I. H." does injustice to the itinerant preachers of
Elizabeth's early days, — who were men selected for learning and
ability, for doctrinal and political soundness, and were devoted
to one part of the ministerial function in consequence of the
general unfitness and ignorance of the parochial clergy — by con
founding them with the heterodox and factious lecturers of a later
time, who made preaching their whole work out of a contempt for
sacraments and liturgical forms. The latter class may have been
a corrupt offspring of the former ; but the two were very oppo
site in character. It would be no discredit to the gown if the use
of it originated with the licensed preachers ; and, as we shall see,
the lecturers objected to it.

no Ornaments— C&e Preacfjing^ress.
the only passage that can be meant is that which
orders for ministers that " in their common apparel
abroad " their gowns be " syde, with sleeves strait
at the hand, without any cuts in the same; and
that also without any falling cape." (Doc. Ann. i.
294). 1571. Grindal enjoins — " That every minister
saying any public prayers, or ministering the sacra-
rnents^ or other rites of the Church, shall wear a
comely surplice." (Remains, 155.) About the
same time, he writes to Zanchius, that the surplice
is used " in publicis precibus, omnique administra-
tione sacra." (Ibid. 335.)
1584. Archbishop Whitgift, in articles ex officio
(Strype, Whitg. App. p. 50) requires an answer to
the following : — " That you have at the time of
communion, or at all or some other times in your
ministration, used and worn only your ordinary
apparel, and not the surplice as is required."
1597. Hooker represents puritans as saying —
" We judge it unfit as oft as ever we pray or preach
so arrayed." (v. 29. 7.) This seems to intimate
that the same dress was used in preaching as in
prayer. 1598. A passage in Shakespeare's "All's well
that ends well," has been quoted in the course of
late discussions on this subject " Though honesty
be no puritan," says the clown, (Act i. Sc. 3), "yet
it will do no hurt; it will wear the surplice of
humility over the black gown of a big heart." It has
been inferred by Mr. Scobell 58 and others, that the

58 Mr. Scobell endeavours in his " Thoughts on Church-
Subjects," to prove that the use of the surplice in preaching is
absolutely unlawful. That portion of his arguments which rests

Ornaments— C&e Preacfeing-nress. 1 1 1
orderly clergy of the time wore at prayers a surplice
over a gown (the latter being their ordinary dress),
and laid aside the surplice when about to preach.
The inference does not appear to be fairly drawn from
this somewhat obscure passage, which rather speaks
of one shewing an insincere outward conformity — as
the fanatical preacher in Hogarth's " Medley " wears
the gown over a harlequin's dress, and the protestant
wig over the tonsure of a Romanist. I believe, how
ever, that the practice was then most commonly as
Mr. Scobell supposes, although he seems to be mis
taken in thinking that it was either universal or
strictly authorized.
1604. Canon lviii orders ministers to wear sur
plices in " saying the public prayers, or ministering
the sacraments, or other rites of the Church," but
says nothing about preaching in this dress ; whence
Sharp thinks that the canon does not sanction it.
At least no check is here given to what we know to
have been the usual practice of the time — the use of
the gown in preaching. Canon lxxiv prescribes for
ordinary dress, " gowns with standing collars, and
sleeves strait at the hands, or wide sleeves, as is
used in the universities." Canon xxv, Members of
cathedral and collegiate churches " 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." This seems to be the

on the notion that the minister in preaching speaks only as an
individual, not as expressing the mind of the Church, is forcibly
answered by C. I. H.'s statement of the tests enforced by the
Church for the purpose of securing orthodoxy in her teachers
(Appendix E. pp. 25-28); and Mr. Jebb, probably without re
ference to Mr. Scobell, has disposed of his whole rationale in a
few words (Choral Service, 220.)

112 Ornaments— €&e preacfjing^ress.
rule by which the present practice of such churches
is governed. (Cf. Gavant. Thes. iii. 106.)
Bancroft's inquiries of the following year are ex
actly according to the canons.
1629. Laud, Bishop of London, presents to Charles
I. a paper of " Considerations for the better settling
of the Church-government." One of the proposed
measures 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 Arch
bishop Abbot (1629) and later, to Laud himself, after
his elevation to the Primacy (1633). (Ibid. 30;
Doc. Ann. ii. 178.)
It would appear 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 these vestments ; and that
this would not have been attained if the ministers
were allowed to preach without officiating in prayers
also ; consequently, that the surplice was not used
in preaching. And further light is thrown on the
matter by another part of the same paper, in its later
forms, where it is ordered that clergymen combining
for a lecture in a market-town, " shall preach in gowns
[in such seemly habits as belong to their degrees,
1633] and not in cloaks as too many do use."
1636. It is ordered in the Oxford Statutes, which
about this time underwent a revision by the Arch
bishop : — " Concionatores habitu gradui suo compe-
tente induti ad ecclesiam accedant, et eodem induti
conciones suas habeant."59
In the articles for the Archdeaconry of Canter-

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

Ornaments— Cfje Preac&ing=nress. 1 13
bury, 1636, preaching is not mentioned as one of the
things for which a surplice is required.
1638. Bishop Montagu inquires, " Doth your mi
nister officiate Divine service in the habit and apparel
of his order, with a surplice, an hood, a gown, and a
tippet ? not in a cloak, a sleeveless jacket, or horse
man'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 is not
mentioned. Heylyn (Laud, 243) tells us that combination-
lecturers in towns were required " in some places to
read the second service at the communion-table, and
after the sermon to go back to the table, and there
read the service ; all which, being to be done in their
hoods and surplices, kept off the greatest part of the
rigid Calvinists."
Bishop Wren owns having ordered the surplice for
preaching ; because the rest of the service, both
before and after, was read in it; because it is the
use of cathedrals, and, as appears from Hooker, was
in Queen Elizabeth's time used in parish-churches ;
and because the rubric orders the ornaments of 1549
" at all times of ministration," in which he holds that
preaching is included.60 (Parentalia, 92.)
60 This interpretation will certainly not hold good for all the
documents of Queen Elizabeth's reign in which such words occur.
One instance to the contrary has already been noticed, p. 109 ;
and in an extract pp. 106-7, preaching is spoken of as distinct
from ministry. In the canons of 1571 we find — " dum peragitur
pars aliqua sacri ministerii, aut habetur sacra concio." (Synod.
125.) I believe that the sermon will be oftener found distin
guished from " ministration" or " Divine service" than included
under these terms.

„^*S8S*:--'

114 Ornaments- Cfje Preacfring^tiress.
After the Restoration, we find Wren inquiring
(1662) — " Doth [your minister] preach in his cassock
and gown (not in a cloak), with his surplice, and
hood also if he be a graduate ?" (The Prayer for the
Church-Militant, &c. Append, p. 12.) Cosin in the
same year requires the surplice to be worn with the
habit by the minister " at the reading or celebrating
any Divine office ;" he 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 ?" Pory, Archdeacon of
Middlesex, does not specify preaching in his inquiries
respecting dress ; but Gunning, Bishop of Ely, 1679,
is equally stringent with his predecessor, Wren.
Of the passages illustrative of this period which
are to be found in Pepys' Diary, it will be sufficient
to quote the following — " 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
church, to go up to the pulpit, to preach without it."
It is now time to attempt some conclusions from
the history which we have been surveying.
It appears that the rule of King Edward's second
year, to which the rubric refers us, is to be construed
as appointing an albe for the preacher's dress, when
a sermon is introduced into the communion-office.
The albe, we know, has not been generally used
in the Reformed Church since 1552 ; still, we are
bound to observe that it, and not the surplice, is the
most legitimate preaching-dress ; that the surplice
must derive its warrant, not from our rubric, strictly
interpreted, but from some other and less perfect
authority.

Ornaments— Cfje Preac&ing=tjress. 1 1 5
It is only in the communion-office, or in that part
of it which is to be read when there is no celebration,
that our Prayer-Book prescribes the use of sermons.
The licensed preachers of Elizabeth's reign, and the
lecturers of a later date, were allowed, however, to
preach at other times ; and for their discourses, the
gown was the appointed dress.
The " second service," as has been said before,
was regarded as altogether distinct in character
from the complete communion-office ; hence it is
not unlikely that the rule for the dress to be worn at
lectures may have extended to the sermons in this
service ; indeed, even when the communion was to
be celebrated, it is probable that the surplice may
have been laid aside during the sermon ; for a similar
practice had prevailed before the cope and albe
had given way respectively to the surplice and the
gown. There is in the documents of Elizabeth's reign a
remarkable absence of especial direction for the dress
to be worn by ordinary ministers in their preaching ;
there is, also, much doubt whether the language of
that time usually included preaching in " Divine
service" or " ministration."
With respect to both these points, my own opinion
is favourable to the pretensions of the gown; but
where so much is obscure and conjectural, it would
be unbecoming to speak with confidence.
That the authorities in the days both of Elizabeth
and of Charles I. saw no absolute unfitness in the
gown for preaching, is evident from the canon of
1571, from the recognition of the lecturer's dress,
and from other passages which have been given.
In short, the enforcement of surplices (where they
were enforced) seems to have been a measure of

116 Ornaments— €&e preaci)ing*Dress.
caution against popular puritan orators, who could
otherwise have ascended the pulpit without ever
officiating in any part of the service for which the
surplice was usually required. Bishops Wren and
Montagu appear to have been the only prelates of
Charles the First's time who prescribed this preach
ing-dress ; indeed the case is not clear as to the
latter; and the line of defence adopted by Wren,
when his order was charged on him as a novelty, is
very remarkable. He fetches his precedents, not
from the primacy of Bancroft, who is generally
described as a more vigorous and rigid exacter of
conformity than any of the preceding arcbbishops,
but from the reign of Queen Elizabeth ; and he refers
to books as his sole evidence with respect to the
practice of her days; although only thirty-three
years had past since the queen's death, he himself
having been eighteen years old at the date of that
event, and twelve at the publication (1597) of
Hooker's Fifth Book, which he quotes as if it were a
document relating to things far beyond the memory
of living man. The like is done by Heylyn, in his
Life of Laud (p. 6).
It appears, then, that the surplice was not worn in
preaching during the reign of James I. ; it is not
ordered by the canons of 1 604 ; and although Hooker
be admitted as a witness that it was so worn in
the last years of the sixteenth century, Bishop
Wren's silence as to the experience of his own boy
hood in the matter, which is one that could not fail
to be noticed by a boy, may be considered as suffi
cient proof that the custom was then by no means
universal. If, (which I am not prepared either to
affirm or to deny,) it was general in the earlier
years of Elizabeth, we have reason to believe that

Ornaments— €&e Preacfiing^ress. 1 1 7
towards the end of her reign it was for the most part
disused. Under Charles II. we find that Gunning, and appa
rently Cosin, join with Wren in exacting the use of
surplices in preaching. Sharp tells us that the constant
use of the surplice in the pulpit within the diocese of
Durham a century ago " is said to have taken rise
from an opinion of Bishop Cosin, 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," &c. (206.)
I have already (p. 104) expressed my dissent from
the argument by which Sharp attempts to prove that
the practice is really against the rubric ; but neither
can I agree with the very eminent ritualist whose
alleged opinion he combats.61 (See note 6o.)
We find, further, that the fancy of the puritans
ran, not on gowns, but on cloaks and other unautho
rized and unacademical garments.62 Far from being
a Genevan fashion, the gown was abhorred by the
Genevating party, little, if at all, less than the surplice
itself. 61 The divines of Charles the First's reign appear to have had
exceedingly little traditional information respecting the preceding
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 been effected, was as
yet unopened. The earliest histories of the Reformation, (after
Fox), by Fuller and Heylyn — the earliest regular commentaries
on the Prayer-Book, by Sparrow and L'Estrange — were not pub
lished until the time of the Usurpation. It seems almost necessary
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 authorities as Cosin, Wren, and
Laud. & Comp. South, iv. 179, ed. 1823; Heylyn's Laud, 191.

118 Ornaments— Cfce preacfring-nress.
On the whole, it appears to me that the matter is
in itself indifferent ; that in the earlier history there
is a degree of obscurity which may well warrant differ
ences of opinion ; and that the gown, as well as the
surplice, may plead high and practically sufficient
sanction from the seventeenth century.
As the clergy of our day all wear the surplice at
prayers and sacraments, it might have been supposed
that an order for preaching in surplices would not
excite any murmuring ; still less could opposition
have been reasonably anticipated to such advice as
that lately given by the Bishop of London. His
Lordship, believing the thing to be indifferent, and
wishing to consult seemliness and convenience, would
have the surplice worn in the morning, where there
is but one clergyman, that the part of the service
which ought to follow the sermon63 may be said
without change of dress ; in the afternoon, he advises
that his clergy preach in gowns.
It is needless to relate or to comment on the man
ner in which these directions have been received.
We have, I trust, seen in this section grounds for
thinking of the gown less vilely than some zealous
churchmen require us to do ; and in order further to
make it appear tolerable, let me remind some persons
that monks preach in the habit of their order ;6i and a
gown is properly the habit of an English clergyman.
The garment described in the advertisements of

63 Perhaps the worst fault of the gown is that it has led to a
too general neglect of this. . See c. xv. § c.
6* " Si concionator sit regularis, remanet indutus solo habitu
suo regulari." (Gavanti Thes. i. 209, col. 2.) See Pepys,
Diary, March 17, 1677.

Ornaments— Cbe ^ooti. 1 19
1565 is identified by Mr. Jebb (p. 223), with that
which is now styled a preacher's gown, " modern cus
tom having however tucked up the full sleeve to the
elbow, the narrow wristband no longer appearing."
I cannot agree with Mr. Jebb in thinking that a
graduate ought to wear this gown rather than that
of his degree. If " the whole tendency of our times
has been, especially at the universities, to mark the
academical rank rather than the order in the church,"
— may not the like be said of the rubrics, canons,
and other orders of earlier times ? I am unable to
see the danger which is here apprehended.

(e.) The Hood.
This, as worn among us, is an academical distinc
tion. The rubric of 1549 respecting it has been
quoted above, (p. 104.) The LVinth canon of 1604
is more stringent, and orders that appropriate hoods
be worn by all graduates ; while non-graduates are
allowed to " wear upon their surplices, instead of
hoods, some decent tippet of black, so it be not
silk." When the learned Mr. Palmer says in his
" Origines Liturgicae" (Appendix x.) that " all our
clergy are permitted to wear the hood," it would
seem that he includes the tippet under this name ;
that, however, is identical with another of the ar
ticles described by him, as we shall presently see.
The hood ought properly to be worn with the
preaching-garment, whatever this be ; and I may
notice that it appears to have been formerly reckoned
among things which are to be provided at the cost
of the parish.

I20 Ornaments— C&e Cippet.

(f.) The Tippet.
Mr. Palmer does not notice either this name, or
liripipium^ which is the equivalent in the Latin
tviiith canon. Several dictionaries and other works
of reference have also been looked into without any
satisfactory result. The following collection of pas
sages, however, will probably be found sufficient to
determine the matter.
24 Hen. VIII. a.d. 1532. An act orders that
stuff made beyond the king's dominions shall not be
worn by the clergy, with some exceptions : — " It
shall be lawful to all Archdeacons, Deans, Provosts,
Masters, and Wardens of the cathedral and colle
giate churches, Prebendaries, Doctors or Bachelors
in Divinity, Doctors of the one Law and of the other,
and also Doctors of other Sciences, to wear black
velvet, or black sarcenet, or black satin, in their
tippets and riding-hoods or girdles. And that none
of the clergy under the degrees aforesaid, other than
Masters of Art, and Bachelors of the one Law or the
other, or such other of the said clergy as may dispend
yearly £20 over all charges, shall wear in their tip
pets any manner of sarcenet or other silk." (Gibson,
Codex, p. 190.)
1557 (under Mary). We read among articles
established or proposed in convocation. (Synod.
452-476.) " Nee in epitogiis [these seem to be
the tippets of the act just quoted,] quisquam prae-
sumat uti velveto aut sarcineto, nisi fuerit ad minus

65 This word is said to be derived from cleri peplum. Bailey,
in voce Liripoop.

Ornaments— Cfje Cippet. 121
artium magister vel in legibus baccalaureus, vel bene-
ficium assecutus ecclesiasticum."
1564. Bishop Grindal desires the London clergy
to wear the tippet. (Strype, Grind, p. 97.) He
uses these words some years later, in describing to
Zanchius the usual dress, — " Collo circumducta stola
quaedam, ab utroque humero pendula, et ad talos
fere demissa." (Remains, .335.) Stola is rendered
by Strype, (p. 107,) " a tippet."
1565. In the advertisements, (Doc. Ann. i. 294-5.)
Dignitaries, Doctors, &c. are ordered "in their com
mon apparel abroad to wear tippets of sarcenet, as is
lawful for them by the act of parliament, anno xxiv.
Henry VIII."
The lawfulness, we may observe, relates here to
the material. It was lawful for clergymen of less
mark to wear tippets of inferior stuff.
1565. We are told (Strype, Parker, 213,) that
some preachers " would take the confidence, and that
even before the Queen, to preach without their
habits ; and it was taken great notice of, that some
had preached before her Majesty without tippet."
Of orders given to the London clergy, " the fourth
article related to the sarcenet tippet, that such should
wear it as might by the act of parliament 24 Hen.
VIII. and no other."
1566. Scotch ministers remonstrate with the
English bishops in behalf of those who refused the
habits, " If surplice, corner-cap, and tippet have
been badges of idolatries, in the very act of idolatry,
&c." (Strype, Parker, App. p. 84.) I quote this
from among a multitude of puritan complaints, be
cause it professes to give a reason.
The puritans of Hooker's time complain that the
clergy are forced to wear " cappam et superpelliceum

122 Ornaments— Cfce Cippet.
in sacris, in communi vita liripipium, &c." (Eccl.
Disc. fol. 97—101, quoted by Keble on Eccl. Pol.
v. 78. 13.)
1604. Canon lviii. already quoted, (p. 119). By
canon lxxiv. Dignitaries, Doctors, Bachelors in
Divinity and Law, and Masters of Arts, having any
ecclesiastical living, are ordered to wear abroad
" hoods or tippets of silk or sarcenet," while other
ministers are to wear the same dress with these
" except tippets only."
1638 Bishop Montagu asks, "Doth your mi
nister officiate in the habit of his order, with a sur
plice, an hood, a gown, and a tippet ?" (p. 67.)
We may now proceed to inferences.
No order for wearing the tippet with the surplice
appears before 1604. The garment with which the
court-preachers of Elizabeth's reign were expected
to wear it, was most likely the gown ; this seems
probable from the language of the extract ; from the
fact — (which will be more particularly noticed here
after—that the sermons at court were not in the
communion-office; and also because, unaccountable
and inconsistent as are the scruples of puritanical
conscience, it is unlikely that persons who wore the
surplice would have refused the tippet.
It was an ordinary article of clerical dress, worn
abroad with the gown ; and puritans objected to
wearing it at all, because it had been used before the
Reformation " in the very act of idolatry," i. e. in
the service of the -mass. We must, therefore, look
for it among the vestments of the earlier time ; and
by Archbishop Grindal's help, we find it to be the
same with the stole or scarf, described by Mr.
Palmer, Origines, Appendix vi.
The canon permits a tippet of inferior material to

Ornaments— Cfre Cippet. 123
be worn over the surplice by such as are not
graduates. The tippet is also a proper appendage
of the gown, and perhaps every clergyman of the
present day can satisfy some one, at least, of the
conditions on which the act 24 Henry VIII. allows
that it be of silk. It is commonly worn with the
surplice and hood by Doctors, dignitaries, and
chaplains ; 66 but if the clergy generally should feel
disposed to adopt it, in deference to the opinion
of Mr. F. W. Faber's Projection,67 that it is a
chief note of spiritual life in a Church, I should
suppose that we may all be justified in wearing it,
without further order, and even that it may be
assumed without raising any great outcry in any
quarter.68
66 If the reader is acquainted with that very curious history of
self-will and unstableness, The Life of Selina, Countess of Hunt
ingdon, he will probably remember her ladyship's fancy that her
rank gave her the privilege, by " bestowing her scarf on " any
clergyman, of setting him free from all allegiance to the Church
and the bishops, without his suffering any loss of his standing as
a minister. 67 See p. 76.
68 It was not until after this section had been revised for the
present edition that I had an opportunity of consulting a learned
article on vestments in the xviith volume of the British Magazine.
The writer (pp. 376-8) contends that the tippet is not the same
with the stole. The name, it appears, is still given at Oxford to
a small round article, not of silk, which is on particular days
buttoned on behind the left shoulder of University preachers ;
and this the writer supposes to be a degenerate form of the round
cape worn by Romish ecclesiastics, with which, accordingly, he
would identify the tippet of our canons, &c. I had myself,
before inquiring into the matter at all, supposed that cape to be
the tippet; but the passages above given appear to me quite
conclusive for a different view ; I have read (in Prof. Jenkyns'
edition of Cranmer, as I think) of a priest who " hanged himself
in his tippet," whence we may infer that in form it was not like
a cape ; and Mr. Jebb tells us, (p. 215), that the scarf is to this
day designated in Ireland by the name of tippet . When Grindal

124

VI.
%ty loutg of ^ertito.— 2Ditii!Sion at tlje feeHricegf.
(a.)
IT is ordered by the xivth canon, that " the Com
mon-Prayer shall be said or sung at convenient
and usual times." In like manner the Reformatio
Legum directs that morning prayer shall be " ante-
meridiano quopiam tempore con venienti."
According to Bishop Sparrow (Rationale, 195,)
the usual hour for the communion-service " was
anciently, and so should be, nine of the clock, morn
ing ; this is the canonical hour." The practice of
his own time, however, was different. L'Estrange
tells us that nine was the hour at which morning-
prayer usually began (p. 72) ; and this is confirmed
by some passages in episcopal papers of that, day,
which are quoted by Prynne, (Cant. Doom, 375-9.)
Donne gives us to understand that the sermon on
Sundays was over at eleven. (Works, ed. Alford, iii.
383.) Cosin (in Nicholls, 23) complains that the hours
is found ordering the destruction of " stoles " among " monu
ments of superstition and idolatry," (Rem. 136 — 159) we may
suppose him to intend those of various colours which had formerly
been used, whereas the " tippet " of the Reformed was black
only ; and it is very probable, as the writer in the magazine
suggests, that the scarf of chaplains, &c. may have been an
ornament of different origin from the stole, and that the restriction
of colour in the latter may have caused them to be considered as
identical. There are some letters on the tippet in the xxth
volume of the same periodical.

Cfje J£>ours of ^ertoice. 125
were later than in the age of the Reformation, when
he supposes that morning- prayer was at six o'clock.
In another place (p. 67), he says that because there
is no order as to time, the services in most places
begin " when the morning is past, and when the
evening is not yet come." He therefore expresses a
wish that something may be prescribed. As this
wish was doubtless known to his colleagues in the
revision of 1662, we may conclude that they held it
inexpedient to comply with it.
I am not aware on what grounds Cosin's opinion as
to the original hour of matins generally69 is founded.
That it had been earlier than in his day, however,
appears from Bishop Scambler's orders for Northamp
ton, 1571 ; in which it is directed that the service in
the parish-churches be ended by nine, in order that
the people may thence resort to sermon in the prin
cipal church. (Strype, Ann. ii. 90.)
Archbishop Laud writes (Autobiog. 239), " The
morning-service is everywhere to end by twelve, at
farthest; so the vespers never begin before three,
and end by five. And this, I take it, is universal.
And the reason of it, as I conceive, is, that the prayers
of the Church, howsoever different in place, might
be jointly put up to God in all places at the same
time." Bishop Beveridge (in Tracts for the Times, xxv. 3,)
says that there is no other limitation than that matins
should be before, and vespers after, noon.
It is stated as a reason for limiting the hours of

69 Of course the hour had in some places been early — e. g. at
St. Antholin's, London, 1559, service was zX.fi.ve a. m. (Strype,
Ann. i. 134.) Weekday service would probably be earlier than
that of Sundays.

126 c&e J£>ours of ^ermce.
marriage, that the communion, which was intended
to follow, ought to be administered before noon.
This rule is generally transgressed in the practice of
our day ; as is also, in various ways, the principle
stated by Archbishop Laud.
Walton says of Herbert, (Eccl. Biog. iv. 38,) " For
the time of his appearing [in church] it was strictly
at the canonical hours of ten and four." It does not
appear what canon is here referred to.
The changes made in the distribution of the ser
vices at the Reformation may be considered to have
destroyed the force of any earlier canons relating to
this subject ; and it is evident that the Church now
recognises no other rule in the matter than con
venience and custom.

(b.)
I have reserved for separate consideration the
subject of Division of Services, although some things
connected with it afford illustrations of that which
has just been discussed.
By Edward the Sixth's Injunctions, 1547, it was
ordered that the litany should be said " immediately
before high mass" (Doc. Ann. i. 14) ; and in the
Book of 1549 provision was made that the litany
and the communion-office — (or that part of it which
is used when there is no administration), — should be
said together. (Keeling, 229.) Elizabeth's Injunc
tions, 1559, in like manner connect the litany with
the communion. (Doc. Ann. i. 187.)
The old rubric of the commination-service assumes
an interval between morning-prayer and the litany —
" After matins ended, the people being called to-

Division of t&e ^ertrices. 127
gether by the ringing of a bell, and assembled in
the church, the English litany shall be said." (Keel
ing, 349).
The Reformatio Legum, however, prescribes that
the offices be united.
There was considerable discussion on the subject
in the time of Charles I. ; the puritan party generally
objecting to a dissociation of the offices, which
custom had long joined together. Thus, it is made
a charge against Cosin, that whereas the morning-
service at Durham had previously been performed at
five o'clock, an alteration was introduced through
his influence, so that the proper matins only were
said at the former hour, while a " second service"
was reserved for ten o'clock. (Cosin, i. xxv. ; Cf.
Hier. Anglic, p. 38.)
The question is debated between Williams and
Heylyn, in the course of their controversy on the
subject of altars. Williams (Holy Table, 174) is
against the division. Heylyn (Antidotum, Part iii.
61) writes — " This was the ancient practice of the
Church of England. The morning-prayer, or matins,
to begin between six and seven ; the second service,
or communion-service, not till nine or ten; which
distribution still continues in the Cathedral Church
of Winchester, in that of Southwell, and perhaps
some others."70 He tells us that " in some churches
while the litany is saying, there is a bell tolled, to

1° Among other places in which the division is known to have
been kept up are the Cathedrals of Canterbury, Winchester,
Worcester, and Hereford ; Winchester College ; and in Wheat-
ley's day, Merton College. (Jebb, 226, Johnson's Vade-Mecum,
i. 13.) In the last-named instance, the fact that the building is
both a college-chapel and a parish-church (see Ingram's Oxford)
might perhaps have led To this arrangement.

128 Division of tbe ^ermces.
give notice unto the people that the communion-
service is now coming on." (P. 59.)
The first rubric of the communion- office, as it
then stood, was often referred to in such discussions
— " So many," it was directed, " as intend to be
partakers shall signify their names to the curate
overnight, or else in the morning afore the beginning
of morning-prayer or immediately after." (Keeling,
165.) Aless, indeed, had interpreted the last words
" vel immediate post principium." (Bucer, Scripta
Anglic. 422) ; but this, besides being repugnant to
the idea of a due order in public worship — (and it is
inconceivable that the framers can have contem
plated an interruption of the service) — is expressly
proved to have been contrary to the usage of Eliza
beth's time, since in the order of prayer during the
plague of 1563 we find that " a pause shall be made
of one quarter of an hour and more by the discretion
of the curate" between matins and the litany (Grin
dal, Remains, 84). Hacket produces this passage
(Life of Williams, Part ii. 71-2); L'Estrange (162),
and Sparrow (195), without being aware of it, argue
to the same effect on other grounds, as does also
Bishop Overall's chaplain, who testifies that York
and Chichester Cathedrals in his day allowed an
interval. (Nicholls, App. 36.) The interval between
the offices might, of course, be of various lengths ;
the commination-rubric appears to contemplate two
distinct assemblings of the people. (Compare Cosin,
in Nicholls, App, 23.)
At Archbishop Parker's Visitation, in 1560, matins
were to be done in the choir by eight o'clock, and
then there is a direction for the litany to be sung at
a later hour. (Jebb, 432, from Strype's Parker, b. ii.
c. 2.) *

Division of tije lettuces. 129
Grindal enjoined at York, in 1571, that the offices
should be said " together, without any intermission,
to the intent that the people may continue together
in prayer and hearing the word of God, and not
depart out of the church during all the time of the
whole Divine service." (Remains, 137.) The prac
tice elsewhere may very possibly have been similar ;
but there is no reason for .supposing that it was
enforced, except in the north, where special regula
tions were required in order to subdue a lingering
attachment to Roman usages and opinions. No
corresponding order is to be found in the same
Archbishop's articles for Canterbury, except that he
forbids ringing between morning-prayer and the
litany ; whence we may probably infer that a short
interval was generally allowed in that diocese.
We find, however, that a little later the morning-
prayer, the litany, and the communion-office were
usually joined in one service, and that the puritans
complained of its length as exceeding the custom of
" other reformed Churches." (Hooker, v. 32-4.)
But indeed this need hardly be supposed to intimate
a change ; if the interval between the matins and
the liturgy did not exceed a few minutes, the whole
service might be spoken of as really one.
As the practice of uniting the services began so
early, and has not been censured or discountenanced
by the later revisers of the Prayer-Book, we need
not doubt that it is sufficiently sanctioned ; while,
on the other hand, it is evident that a distinctness
was originally provided for, and still remains lawful.
Whether the first compilers of our Liturgy contem
plated the union, is not altogether clear ; that they did
so is not improbable, as they had before them the fact
that the Latin offices were in practice consolidated ;
K

130 Ditrision of t&e ^ermces.
thus matins, lauds, and prime were commonly said to
gether, and the service of the mass was in like manner
united to tierce.71 (Gavanti, ii. 2-8 ; Tract 75, p. 7.)
The Reformatio Legum is an early sanction of the
union. It appears that the litany and the communion
were always used as parts of the same service. I
have already had occasion to shew that the rubric of
1662, by which it is for the first time ordered that
the litany be said " after morning-prayer," was not
intended to preclude a division of these offices (p. 54).
Perhaps it may be worth while to observe, that an
opinion as to the advantage or disadvantage of sepa
rating them is not to be considered as a mark of
religious party.72 The puritans of Hooker's day took
one side; those who persecuted Cosin, the other;
and persons of very various theological sentiments
are at the present time to be found among those who
advocate the disjunction.
I shall conclude this section by setting before the
reader Bishop Wren's scheme of an ordinary Sunday-
morning service, with incidental offices introduced.
Morning-prayer, with Baptism after the second
lesson. Litany. Prayers for the Sick. (See ch. xxii. § a.)
Marriage, begun in the body of the church, and
finished at the altar.

» At the present time, " the night-offices [matins and lauds]
are usually said in broad day ; of the day-offices, two, three, or
more are said together without any interval, even in cathedral
and conventual churches." (Schmid, ii. 6. Comp. p. 28, ib.)
?s This appears to be imagined by the author of " The Prayer
for the Church Militant," &c. Appendix D.

Dimsion of t&e ^errnces. 131
Churching, at the altar.
Beginning of the Communion-office.
Sermon, preceded by bidding of prayer.
Prayer for the whole state of Christ's Church.
Warning of holy-days.
Exhortation to communion (differing somewhat
from the second of those in the present Prayer-
Book). Collects and Blessing.73

VII.
l&etoetenceg.
IT is needless at the present day to say anything as
to the grosser improprieties, such as talking and
wearing the hat in church, of which complaints are
frequent from the days of the Reformation to those
of Andrewes, Donne, and their contemporaries. The
following notices relate to acts of reverence which
are not, like the uncovering of the head and a decent
silence, now universal.
1549. Rubric. — " As touching kneeling, crossing,
holding up of hands, knocking upon the breast,
and other gestures, they may be used or left as
every man's devotion serveth, without blame."
(Keeling, 357.)
Later books have given positive order as to some of
these points.

">3 See his injunctions in Doc. Ann. No. cxliii. On the sub
ject of the present section see Blunt's Sketch of the Reformation,
pp. 214-219.

132 metier ences.
1559. Elizabeth's Liind injunction orders " that
whensoever the name of Jesus shall be in any lesson,
sermon, or otherwise in the church pronounced, due
reverence be made of all persons young and old,
with lowness of courtesy, and uncovering of heads of
the menkind, as thereunto doth necessarily belong,
and heretofore hath been accustomed." (Doc. Ann.
i. 199.) 1561. The injunctions of Davies, Bishop of St.
Asaph, are in accordance with the Queen's. (Wil
kins, iv. 229.)
1571. Grindal, as Archbishop of York, forbids
the people " superstitiously to make upon themselves
the sign of the cross when they first enter into any
church to pray." (Remains, 140.) From this and
other injunctions, it appears that many Romish prac
tices continued to keep their ground within his
jurisdiction. Hooker (E. P. v. 30, 3) says that " there is no man
constrained to use" the "harmless ceremonies" of
bowing at the name of Jesus, and the like.
Heylyn, (Hist. Ref. 296, and Life of Laud, 16,)
tells us that the general prevalence of custom at the
time of the Reformation made it needless for the
Reformers to give any order about reverences ; 74 that
under Elizabeth the people " made their due reve-

7* This kind of argument appears to have been pushed to
extravagance by some of Heylyn's contemporaries. Thus, Arch
bishop Williams (Holy Table, 163,) mentions " a Latin determi
nation, aiming to prove that, look, what ceremonies were used
about the altar before the Reformation vi et virtute Catholicae
consuetudinis, by power and force of any general custom, though
passed over in deep silence by our Liturgy, are notwithstanding
commanded, as by a kind of implicit precept, even unto us that
live under the discipline of the English Liturgy." The reverences

Eetierences. 133
rence at their first entrance into the church;" and
although this custom wore much out afterwards,
vestiges remained in the Garter-ceremonies, and in
some at Oxford. In his own youth, too, country
women used to make a reverence eastward before
sitting down in churches, which had come to be mis
interpreted as a courtesy to the minister. The argu
ment from custom in the age of the Reformation
appears to me not altogether sound, since we have
seen that the Book of 1549 allowed a latitude, while
it marked the variety of opinions on this subject,
and that the Elizabethan Reformers expressly en
joined some of the earlier observances, while the
royal injunctions were silent as to others, and indi
vidual Bishops discountenanced them.
1604. Canon xvni. " When in time of Divine
service the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned, due and
lowly reverence shall be done by all persons present
as it hath been accustomed." It would appear from
a petition of puritans to James the First on his acces
sion, that similar orders had already been given by
some Bishops. (Cardw. Conf. 132.) I do not see
how we can reconcile with this canon the words of
an almost contemporary writer — (in Nicholls, App.
39,75) that " in reading the holy Gospel, and never
else, is adoration made at the name of Jesus, for

used in the Roman ritual are very various — as may be conjectured
from a few words of Merati (in Gav. Thes. i. 155) — " Haecincli-
natio infima, nempe solius capitis, subdividitur ab aliquibus in
tres alias classes, quarum prima vocatur minimarum maxima,
secunda, minimarum media, tertia, minimarum minima."
75 These notes were taken by Nicholls from the margin of a
Prayer-Book in Bishop Cosin's library at Durham. They are
often cited as having the authority of Bishop Overall, whom the
writer speaks of as his " lord and master" (p. 51) ; and some-

i 34 iRetierences.
then only is it in its right exaltation, and then men
stand in a posture ready to make reverence."
Laud found at Canterbury " bowing used towards
the altar by the appointment of the Dean and Chap
ter." He defended the practice on various occasions,
referring, among other authorities, to Bishop Morton.
(Collier, ii. 762-775.)
1635. He orders for Winchester school, " That
such reverence be used in the chapel both in access
thereto and recess therefrom, and also in service-
time, as is practised in cathedral churches, and is
not dissonant to the canons and constitutions of the
Church of England. (Wilkins, iv. 518.)
Mr. Lenton, a visitor to Little Gidding, reports of
Ferrar, that " at entering the church he made a low
obeisance ; a few paces further, a lower ; coming to
the half-pace, (which was at the east end, where the
tables stood), he bowed to the ground, if not pros
trated himself." (Wordsworth, E. B. iv. 248). Mr.
Lenton reports of his conversation with Ferrar after
wards — " I replied that I thought God was as present
thing depends on this, as the name of Overall is of high authority
while the notes approach more nearly than the standard Divinity
of that time in general to certain peculiarities of the nonjurors.
It is, therefore, proper to observe that there is no reason for sup
posing the writer to speak for any one besides himself; he does
not profess to do so ; and if, as is assumed, he made use of his
" lord and master's" collections, it does not follow that he must
have expressed Overall's exact opinions. It would not surprise
me to find that the authorship is to be ascribed to Cosin, in his
days of less mature judgment. He was Overall's librarian, and
was only twenty-four years of age at the death of his patron, in
1619 — the date of the book in which the notes are written. It
is very probable that the question may shortly be settled, as new
editions of both Cosin and Overall are now in progress. For the
present, I refer to the unknown writer as " Bishop Overall's
Chaplain."

Eeuerences. 135
at Paul's Cross as at Paul's Church; and at the
preaching- place at Whitehall [which was in the open
court, see Latimer, i. 183, ed. 1824] and Spital
sermons, as elsewhere. And yet in those places —
(no not in the body of the church, though there be a
sermon and prayer there) — we do not use this three
fold reverence, nor any low bowing, unless in the
chancel, towards the east, where an altar or some
crucifix is. He answered me something of the tri-
nary number, which I did not understand, nor well
hear. The cathedrals make but one reverence,
whereas they [Ferrar's household] make three." (E.
B. iv. 250.)
1638. Bishop Montagu asks, " whether the pa
rishioners bow towards the chancel and communion
table ?" — " Do they stand also at the reading of the
gospel, and bend or bow at the glorious, sacred, and
sweet Name of Jesus, pronounced out of the gospel
read ?" (66.) This inquiry accords rather with the
note in Nicholls than with the canons.
Bishop Wren, in answer to his impeachment,
states that he began to use reverences after the ex
ample of Andrewes, whom he supposes to have had
the tradition from the Elizabethan Reformers. (Pa-
rentalia, 81.) In Andrewes' notes on the Common
Prayer, we find many obeisances prescribed for the
communion-service. 1640. Canon vu. recommends and explains the
custom of " doing reverence and obeisance both at
coming in and going out of churches, chancels, or
chapels," but does not enforce it, and concludes as
follows ; — " We desire that the rule of charity pre
scribed by the Apostle may be observed, which is,
that they which use this rite despise not them who
use it not; and that they who use it not condemn

136 IRetoerences.
not those that use it." (Comp. Hammond, " View
of the Directory," Works, i. 387.) The moderation
of this canon is said to have given offence to some
extreme ceremonialists. (Fuller, Ch. Hist. xi. 172.)
1641. The Lords' committee notes as an inno
vation, " bowing towards [the holy table] or towards
the east, many times with three congees, but usually
in every motion, access, or recess in the church."
(Cardw. Conf. 272.)
In the same year, on September 8, the Commons
ordered " That all corporal bowing at the name
Jesus, or towards the east end of the church, chapel,
or chancel, or towards the communion-table, be for
borne." (Rushw. Part iii. 386.)
1645. It is ordered in the puritan " Directory for
Public Worship," — " Let all enter the assembly, not
irreverently, but in a grave and seemly manner,
without adoration or bowing themselves towards one
place or another." (Clay on the C. P. 207.)
1662. The canon of 1604 was revived by the con
vocation, and, after undergoing some alterations, was
passed and confirmed by act of parliament. (Doc.
Ann. ii. 253 ; Synodalia, 672.)
Archdeacon Hewetson's directions to Wilson (after
wards Bishop of Sodor and Man) are worth quoting
— " In church to behave himself always very rever
ently; nor ever turn his back upon the altar in ser
vice-time, nor on the minister, when it can be avoided.
To stand at the lessons and epistles, as well as at the
gospel, and especially when a psalm is sung ; to bow
reverently at the name of Jesus, whenever it is men
tioned in any of the Church's offices ; to turn towards
the east, when the Gloria Patri and the creeds are
rehearsing ; and to make obeisance at coming into,
or going out of, the church, and at going up to and

IRetierences. 137
coming down from the altar — are all ancient, com
mendable, and devout usages ; and which thousands
of good people of our Church practise at this day,
and amongst them— (if he deserves to be reckoned
amongst them,)— T. W.'s dear friend." (Chamber
lain's Selected Letters, 158.)
For other notices on this subject, see Pepys,75
Diary, Feb. 26, 166|; the author of "Love and
Truth," (supposed to be Izaak Walton) — in Cham
berlain, 255; and Bishop Burnet, Own Time, i.
691 ; ii. 636. This last writer gives it as his opinion
that " all bowings to the altar have at least an ill
appearance, and are of no use."
Bourne, in 1725, mentions bowing towards the
altar on entering a church as common in the north ;
Brand, 1777, speaks of it as probably confined to
some colleges at Oxford. (Popul. Antiquities, ed. i.
pp. 83-4.)
At Oxford Cathedral, reverence is still done by
the canons on leaving the choir; (Dr. Pusey, in Brit.
Mag. xii. 639.) and we may presume that the like
custom, at entering or leaving, is observed in those
other cathedrals, where, as at Canterbury (Collier, ii.
762) and Dublin, (Bramhall, new ed. i. Ixxx.) the
members are bound to it by special statutes.
The Bishop of London's judgment is, that we
ought to bow at the Name of Jesus, according to the
canon of 1604- — 1662 ; and that, although, in his
opinion we are not bound by the canons of 1640,
there is no very serious objection to the additional
obeisances there recommended. His Lordship points

?6 A curious practice of bowing towards the King's seat in the
chapel royal, is mentioned by Pepys, June 12, 1660 ; and by
Evelyn, Apr. 8, 1685.

138 jReoerences.
out that the canon itself does not command them, and
considers that if we bow, we must teach our people
not to misunderstand our act. (P. 44.)
The practice of crossing is, as we have seen, left
indifferent by the rubric of Edward's first Book, and
was afterwards forbidden by individual Bishops, be
cause of superstitions which were popularly con
nected with it. Hooker is induced, by the attacks
of the puritans on this ceremony as used in baptism,
to enter into a general defence of it (v. 65). He
makes, however, a distinction between the use at
baptism and that " in common life ;" the latter he
evidently treats as something which is indifferent, and,
although sanctioned by primitive practice, yet by no
means of continual obligation. Taylor writes — (xiv.
53.) " It was a long and a general custom in the
Church, upon all occasions of solemnity or greater
action, to make the sign of the Cross in the air, on
the breast, or on the forehead ; but he that in
England should do so, upon pretence because it
was a Catholic custom, would be ridiculous. For a
custom obliges, by being a custom among them with
whom we do converse, and to whom, in charity
and prudence, we are to comply .... To think we
are bound to comply with any such custom, is to
make ourselves too fond admirers of the actions, and
more than servants to the sentences and customs, of
ancient Churches."

139

VIII.
Ptefnjsong.
IT appears that some clergymen have of late con
sidered it their duty to utter the service in a
wonderful sort of recitative,78 on which the Bishop
of London remarks as follows : —
" No person objects more strongly than I do to a
declamatory and dramatic mode of reading ; but I do
not understand why those clergymen who seek to
avoid that fault, should pass to the opposite extreme
of rapid and monotonous recitation, which they de
scribe as reading piano cantu. I am aware that in the
old rubric even the lessons were directed to be sung
in plain tune,79 as also the Epistle and Gospel. But

78 This is sometimes described as " intoning " the service. John
son, by defining " intone, to make a slow, protracted noise," — of
which meaning he cites an example from the Dunciad — appears
to favour this use of the word, in so far as it is employed to
denote recitation in a peculiar tone, although that with which we
are concerned is commonly not slow, but the contrary. In eccle
siastical usage, however, it would appear from a comparison of
other languages, (Ital. intonare, Span, entonar, Germ, intoniren,
Fr. entonner), that the term more properly means — to begin the
recitation of something which is to be taken up and continued
by others. Thus, it might rightly be applied where the rubric
of 1549 directs — " After the Gospel ended, the priest shall
begin, I believe in One God. The clerks shall sing the rest."
?9 The rubric until the last revision was — "To the end the
people may the better hear, in such places where they do sing,
there shall the lessons be sung in a plain tune, after the manner
of distinct reading." It has sometimes been said (e. g. in the
" Apology for Cathedral-service,") that the assigned reason con-

140 Plainsong;.
this was wisely altered. There are certain parts of
the service which the rubric still directs to be said
or sung; with reference, probably, to 'choirs and
places where they sing,' as the rubric expresses it,
and to parish-churches and chapels, where the prayers
are said and not sung. But, whether said or sung,
it should be devoutly, audibty, and distinctly. The
xivth canon directs that the Common Prayer " be
said or sung distinctly and reverently." Queen Eliza
beth's injunction of 1559 was — "that all readers of
public prayers be charged to read leisurely, plainly,
and distinctly." The writer of the homily on Com
mon Prayer cites a constitution of Justinian to the
same effect; the rule laid down in the Reformatio
Legum is — " partite voces et distincte pronuncient,
et cantus sit illorum clarus et aptus, ut ad auditorum
sensum et intelligentiam proveniant." The reason
why so great stress was laid on the distinct reading
of the Church-service, independently of its obvious
necessity, was the general prevalence of an opposite
practice among the popish clergy, many of whom,
after they had conformed to the Liturgy, read it as
they had been accustomed to read the prayers in
their breviary.
" It is much to be regretted that any of the clergy
of our reformed Church, which justly glories in a

tains a recognition of the fact, that a modulated tone can be un
derstood at a greater distance than ordinary reading. It is, how
ever, a mistake to apply that fact, however unquestionable in
itself, to the explanation of this rubric, which is merely intended
to prescribe a simpler manner for the lessons, &c. than for
other parts of the service. Aless renders it — " In his locis in
quibus musica figuralis cani solet, lectiones, &c. simpliciter uno
tono, in modum perpetuae dictionis, distincte legantur." (Ap.
Bucer. Scripta Anglic, p. 393, ed. Basil. 1577.)

IPlainsong. 14 1
form of public prayer so framed that the people may
both understand it and bear a part in it, should
think it necessary, profitable, or consistent with the
Church's intentions, to read it in a hurried and in
distinct manner." (Charge, 54-6.)
The reader will, perhaps, hardly thank me for
adding anything to this comprehensive and forcible
passage. That the choral chant was intended by our Re
formers to be retained in the Church, is abundantly
proved in Mr. Jebb's late work, (Sections, 22-24,)
and by Mr. William Dyce, in the preface to his
adaptation of Marbecke's musically-noted Prayer-
book. That with which we are now concerned, however,
is not the chant of cathedrals, but a different mode,
which is introduced into parish-churches. Mr. Jebb,
whose profound acquaintance with ecclesiastical
music gives especial value to his opinion on such a
subject, condemns it very energetically, as a " mono
tonous whine," (p. 179), a "hybrid imitation of
chanting," (ibid), worthy only of " ill-taught school
boys," (p. 323), the offspring of " a perversity which
is vexatious, setting all common sense at defiance,
and hindering religion," (p. 244). After having
witnessed a performance of this kind by an adept, —
(which I have done but once in the Anglican Church)
— I am disposed to concur to the full in these cen
sures. The Book of 1549 throughout recognizes the dis
tinction between places " where they sing," i. e.
where there are choral establishments,— and ordinary
churches, " where there be no clerks." The latter
are exempted from chanting.

142 piainsong.
In that year, complaints having been made — (and
Burnet tells us that he had seen many letters on the
subject)—" that the priests read the prayers ge
nerally with the same tone of voice that they had
used formerly in the Latin service, so that the people
did not understand it much better than they had
done the Latin formerly ; the course taken [at a
visitation] was, that in all parish-churches the service
should be read in a plain and audible voice ; but,
that the former way should remain in cathedrals,
where there were great choirs, who were well ac
quainted with that tone, and where it agreed better
with the music that was used in the anthems. It
was said that those who had been accustomed to
read in that voice, could not easily alter it ; but as
those dropt off and died, others would be put in their
places, who would officiate in a plainer voice."
(Burnet, Hist. Ref. ii. 101.)
The tone now in question would seem to be the same
with that which is here represented as used by those
of the clergy who were not sufficiently acquainted with
the Cathedral manner of chanting. To fall into such
a tone is, as an observation of any village school will
show, extremely natural — i. e. in the same seftse in
which any other awkward habit is natural ; and it
may be maintained with less of exertion than the or
dinary reading-tone of educated persons. To these
circumstances, combined with the fact that the Latin
service would in any case have been unintelligible to
the people, and was often not understood by the
clergy themselves, we may, perhaps, attribute its in
troduction in the performance of Divine offices.80 Be

so When used in the lessons, it does not appear to be consistent
with the charge given to readers at their ordination according to the

Plainsong. 143
that as it may, we see that it was considered incon
sistent with the object of English service, and was to
be abolished as soon as possible.
To the Bishop of London's extract from the Re
formatio Legum, a few words may be added —
" Itaque vibratam ilium et operosam musicam, quae
figurata dicitur, auferri placet, quae sic in multitu-
dinis auribus tumultuatur, ut saepe linguam non
possit ipsam loquentem intelligere." The section, it
is to be observed, refers to choral foundations.
In addition to his Lordship's quotation from the
injunctions of 1559, we may notice, that in those
injunctions the distinction of churches which have a
choral establishment from others is recognized, and for
the former it is ordered " that there be a modest and
distinct song so used in all parts of the common
prayers that the same may be as plainly understood
as if it were read without singing." (Doc. Ann. i.
196.) The same qualities of reverence, sobriety,
distinctness, &c. which are spoken of in these in-

Roman Pontifical.—" Studete verba Dei, videlicet lectiones sacras,
distincte et aperte ad intelligentiam et aedificationem fidelium pro-
ferre, .... Itaque dum legitis in alto loco ecclesiae stetis, ut ab
omnibus audiamini, &c." These ministers, according to Durandus,
are ordained, " ut libros Dei distincte et aperte ad intelligendum
legant, sicut in veteri Testamento accipimus Esdram fecisse." (Ra
tionale, ii. 4.) St.Isidore of Seville is so far from prescribing mono
tonous reading, that he seems almost to border on an opposite error.
— The reader, he says, is to officiate so that" ad intellectum om
nium mentes sensusque promoveat, discernendo genera pronunci-
ationis, atque exprimendo omnium sententiarum proprios afFectus,
modo indicantis voce, modo dolentis, modo increpantis, modo
exhortantis, sive his similia, secundum genus propriae pronunci-
ationis. Porro vox lectoris simplex erit, et clara, ad omne pro-
nunciationis genus accommodata, &c." (De OfHciis Eccl. 1. ii.
c. 11.) See too Schmid. ii. 110.

144 Plainsong.
junctions and in the canon of 1604, are also insisted
on in the articles to be subscribed by ministers and
readers, 1559 — 1561 (Strype, Ann. i. 151 ; Doc.
Ann. i. 269) ; in the Advertisements of 1565 (Doc.
Ann. i. 291) ; in Archbishop Parker's Visitation-
Articles, 1569 (ib. 324); and in the Canons of 1571
(Synodalia, 121). It is worthy of note, that the
xxxvth Article of Religion uses much the same lan
guage as to the reading of homilies ; it is, therefore,
as much against the intentions of the Church that
this strange tone should be employed in the ordinary
service as in preaching.
Jewell (Def. Apol. 459) reproaches the Romanists
for "whispering" and " mumbling" their prayers,
and alleges ancient authorities for the propriety of
reading the service " distinctly and plainly, with
loud and open voice."
At the Savoy conference, the old rubric for singing
the lessons in a plain tune was objected to by the
presbyterians ; the episcopal divines reply — " The
rubric directs only such singing as is after the manner
of distinct reading ; and we never heard of any in
convenience thereby, and therefore conceive this
demand to be needless." (Cardw. Conf. 315 — 351.)
The rubric, however, was eventually altered. (See
Jebb, Section xliv.)
It appears, therefore, that while the Church re
cognizes two descriptions of service — the choral and
that of ordinary churches — distinctness is required
in each of these ; and that there is no recognition of
the third manner, now under consideration.
Our best divines give no sanction to it; such of
them as were Bishops often inquire in their articles
as to reverence, clearness, and distinctness in the
manner of reading the service. And I may refer

jpiainsong. 145
the reader further to Herbert's Country Parson, c. vi ;
to Bull's Works, ii. 19, and Nelson's Life of him,
pp. 46-8 ; Kettlewell's Life, Append, p. xxxiv ; Stil-
lingfleet's Ecclesiastical Cases, i. 202 ; and Bishop
Jebb's Pastoral Instructions, p. 203.
Good reading is, as I need hardly say, something
very different from theatrical declamation ;81 but even
the latter is perhaps not more intolerable than the
fashion which we have been considering. " Slovenly
and careless reading, or what appears to be such,"
observes Mr. Jebb, " is quite as much a mark of
affectation as pompous declamation." (Choral Ser
vice, 180.)
Enough has, I trust, been said to shew that this
fantastical fashion is as little countenanced by au
thority and precedent as by taste, reason, or charity.
" Quum vero inclinata ululantique voce, more Asi-
atico, canere coepisset, quis eum ferret? aut quis
potius non juberet auferri?"83

81 See for the distinction the Bishop of Ossory's Charge, 1842,
ed. 3, p. 11.
82 Cic. Orator, c. 8. I have somewhere seen it asserted that
by the word saying the Church intends recitative, as distinguished
from reading. But, as has been already pointed out, (p. 61.) the
words are used indifferently in the Prayer-Book. A rubric of
the marriage-service had, until the last revision — " Then shall be
said a sermon." (Keeling, 305.) On the subject of this section,
and of that relating to Psalmody, the reader may be referred to
one of Lord Stowell's judgments, quoted by Dr. R. Phillimore in
his edition of Burn, iii. 440.

146

IX.
W$z H000on0.— S^ugsic after tfjem.— Heaping bp
Hapmen. (a.)
WHEN the presbyterians at the Savoy Con
ference objected to the public reading of the
Apocrypha, the episcopal divines replied — " If their
fear be that by this mean those books may come to
be of equal esteem with the canon, they may be
secured against that by the title which the Church
hath put upon them, calling them apocryphal."
(Cardw. Conf. 341.)
Hence it would seem that we may be justified in
announcing apocryphal lessons as such. Any other
addition to the form of announcing which the rubric
prescribes, or the adoption of any other form, is
unauthorized. (b.)
The use of what is called a voluntary after the
lessons, in the times next to the Reformation, is
established by the following passage of Bacon ("Paci
fication of the Church," Works, ii. 540, ed. 1819).
" After the reading of the Word, it was thought fit
there should be some pause for holy meditation,
before they proceeded to the rest of the service;
which pause was thought fit to be filled rather with

EeaDing op ILapmen. 147
some grave sound than with a still silence ; which
was the reason of the playing upon the organs after
the Scriptures read."
It is much to be wished that the grave character
here mentioned were everywhere duly preserved in
such performances.
(c.)
In the rubric by which the reading of the lessons
is directed, the words were formerly — " the minister
that readeth." The substitution of " he that readeth"
by the last revisers is an authority for allowing this
office to be performed by laymen, as is usual in the
universities. Any parochial clergyman who may
relieve himself by using the liberty thus given, will,
of course, take care that his lay substitute be a
person able to read distinctly and with intelligence.
Another rubric seems to require that the lessons
should be announced by the minister himself.
It appears that, before the rubrical sanction was
introduced, custom had assigned to the clerk the
reading of the first lesson and the epistle. Grindal
both at York and at Canterbury requires that persons
appointed to the office of parish-clerk should be able
to read these, " as is used." (Remains, 147-168.)
The first lesson was very commonly read in cathe
drals by the lay clerks, and still is so on week days
at Lichfield. (Apology for Cathed. Service, 43 ;
Jebb, 327.)83

83 Lessons were anciently read by subdeacons and ministers of
the minor orders. (Martene, iii. 14.) Laymen, and even chil
dren, were sometimes admitted to read. (Schmid. i. 256.) Kings

148 iReaOing bp Hapmen.
A passage in Bishop Andrewes' Notes (Nicholls,
App. 38,) shews that the duties of the Epistler and
Gospeller, who are required by the Advertisements
of 1565 and by the xxivth Canon as assistants to
the officiating priest in cathedrals, were not uncom
monly discharged by laymen. Laud abolished this
practice at Winchester. (Heylyn, 275.)
Burnet (Own Time, ii. 636,) and Wheatley com
plain of a practice of allowing the litany to be said
in cathedrals by laymen. Mr. Jebb informs us that
this custom is still kept up at Lincoln, where the
performance abundantly justifies the idea which we
might naturally conceive of its unfitness. (Choral
Service, 439.) Unseemly as the very notion of such
a practice appears, however, it is not, as to the
earlier part, forbidden by the Prayer-Book. There
is no limitation in the rubric ; and Bishop Sparrow,
— himself one of the commissioners who revised the
Liturgy in 1662, — writes (Rationale, 78) : " In the
former part of the litany, the priest hath not a part so
proper but that it may be said by a deacon or other,
and it useth to be sung by such in cathedral and
collegiate churches or chapels."
It would appear from Sparrow's words that the
latter part of the litany was in his day said by the
priest only. In the early years of the Reformation,
when deacons were the only resident clergymen in
many parishes, and indeed the person licensed to
officiate was often only a lay reader, it is evident
that no such rule could be observed. The rubric of
1662 expressly names the priest as the minister in

and Emperors claimed the reading of that lesson in the Christmas
office which records the decree of Caesar Augustus. (Mores
Catholici. b. v.)

Eleaoing bp JLapmen. 149
this part of the office ; custom, however, admits
deacons also to read it.
In the Books before the last review it was ordered
that the general confession in the communion-service
should " be made in the name of all those that are
minded to receive the holy communion, either by one
of them, or else by one of the ministers, or by the
priest himself," (Keeling, 201) ; and a rubric at the
end of the Catechism appeared to contemplate the
employment of laymen as catechists in the public
service. (Ib. 285.) In each of these places, an
alteration was introduced by the revisers of 1662.

X.
<Hty Pace for fleam'tiff tbe Hitanp.
ALTHOUGH we have already discussed the
question in what place the morning and even
ing prayer ought to be read, that of the place for
reading the litany requires a separate examination.
In the first year of Edward VI. it was enjoined
that in parish-churches, " The priests, with other of
the quire, shall kneel in the midst of the church,
and sing or say the litany" (which had been set forth
in English during the reign of Henry), — " and in
cathedral or collegiate churches the same shall be
done in such places as our commissaries in our visi
tation shall appoint." (Doc. Ann. i. 15.) Cranmer
inquires accordingly in the same year, " whether
they .... have said or sung the litany in any place
but upon their knees, in the midst of the church."
(Ib. 46.)

150 cbe Place for
The rubric of 1549 makes express reference to the
injunctions on this subject ; and a rubric of the
Commination-service, which has been in our books
from the beginning, assumes that the litany is cus
tomarily said in a peculiar place.
In 1559, Queen Elizabeth renewed the injunction,
(ib. 187,) with an especial intention to abolish the
practice against which it had been directed, viz. the
saying of such forms in procession about the church
and churchyard.
In 1563, Grindal, then Bishop of London, gave
direction in his form of prayers to be used during the
plague — " The litany is to be read in the midst of
the people." (Rem. 84.)
Hooker (v. 30, 4,) and the passages quoted from
his adversaries in Mr. Keble's edition, witness to the
observance of the same practice in the end of the
century. In 1641, however, we find it charged on the
bishops as a novelty, that they introduced " reading
the litany in the midst of the body of the church in
many of the parochial churches," in this, as in other
respects, " pretending for their innovations the in
junctions and advertisements of Queen Elizabeth,
which are not in force, but by way of commentary
and imposition." [exposition?] (Cardw. Conf. 273.)
In Sancroft's book, it is suggested that the follow
ing addition be made to the rubric — " The priest or
clerks kneeling in the midst of the choir, and all the
people kneeling, and answering as followeth." This
suggestion was not adopted at the revision of 1662;
but in that year we find the probable author of it,
Cosin, making inquiry in his articles whether there
be a litany-desk in the midst of the church.
The Committee of 1641 objects to the practice as

leaning tbe ULitanp. 151
novel in parochial churches only ; by which circum
stance, and by one of Cosin's notes (Nicholls, App.
68,) we are warranted in supposing that in cathedrals
it had always been kept up. It is so in some cathe
drals at this day — only one priest however, or per
haps two, going into the middle of the choir.
Wheatley speaks of the injunctions as still in force ;
but his language shows that in the practice of his
time they were disregarded. Those of Edward VI.
seem to have the authority of law, by virtue of the
act 31 Henry VIII. which gave that authority pro
spectively to royal proclamations, as has been already
said, (p. 79. Comp. Chron. Table, at the end). On
a consideration of the whole history, however, it ap
pears that the authority is not of any great cogency ;
more especially as the last revisers of the Prayer-
Book refused to declare themselves expressly against
the general custom by inserting in the rubric the
direction of the forgotten injunctions.
I do not, therefore, believe that we are bound in
.conscience to revive the earlier practice ; and to do
so in parish-churches where it has fallen into disuse,
would at this time be a measure of very questionable
wisdom.

152
XI.
i;tje Communiontable or aitai*.
(a.) The Position.
RUBRIC : — " The table at the communion-time,
having a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall
stand in the body of the church, or in the
chancel, where morning and evening prayer are
appointed to be said."
This has been in our Books since 1552. The
altars in churches had been taken down by virtue of
an order issued in the fourth year of Edward VI.
as their continuance was supposed to favour certain
superstitions. (Doc. Ann. i. 82-89.) Altars were, of
course, re-erected under Queen Mary; and in 1559
we find divines requesting Elizabeth again to order
their removal. They argue that these " are none of
those things which were established by act of par
liament in the second year of King Edward," because,
(among other reasons,) while the Prayer-Book of
that year was still in force, Ridley had appealed to
its expressions for a justification of his proceedings
in taking down the altars. (Strype, Ann. i. 162.)
In the Queen's injunctions, which came out soon
after, it is ordered " That the holy table in every
church be set in the place where the altar stood, and
so to stand save when the communion of the sacra
ment is to be distributed ; at which time the same
shall be so placed in good sort within the chancel, as
whereby the minister may be more conveniently
heard of the communicants in his prayer and minis-

Cbe <£ommunion=Cable ot aitat. 153
tration, and the communicants also more conveniently,
and in more number, communicate. And after the
communion done, from time to time the same holy
table to be placed where it stood before." (Doc.
Ann. i. 202.) On the words which I have given in
italics, Laud argues that the ends ought to be north
and south ; " to set it east and west had been cross
the place where the altar stood, and not in it."
(Troubles, p. 262.) The same argument is advanced
by Heylyn, (Coal from the Altar, 3d ed. p. 19).
Williams replies — " The injunction, directed to her
Majesty's subjects, and not to her mathematicians, is
likelier to use the term of a common and ordinary,
than of a proper and mathematical, place." (Holy
Table, 44.) Among the Bishops' interpretations of
the injunctions, 1561, we find this : — " That the table
be removed out of the choir into the body of the
church, before the chancel-door, where either the
choir seemeth to be too little, or at great feasts of
receivings ; and at the end of the communion, to be
set up again, according to the injunctions." (Doc.
Ann. i. 205.)
1561. Commissioners issue an order that " in the
place where the steps [of the altar] were, the com
munion-table shall stand, and that there be fixed over
it the tables of God's precepts, imprinted for that
purpose." There is much disputation between Hey
lyn (Coal from the Altar, 22,) and Williams (Holy
Table, 41,) as to the meaning of this injunction.
Mr. Pugin (Dublin Review, No. xxiii. 162,) speaks
of it as " seeming to imply that the table was not to
be moved in time of communion." The clearness of
other orders, before and since, makes it unnecessary
that we should enter on the discussion of the
question.

154 Cbe Communiontable
1562. Among matters to be moved by a party in
the convocation, is this — " That the table from hence
forth stand no more altarwise, but stand in such place
as is appointed by the Book of Common-Prayer."
(Strype, Ann. i. 318.)
1564. The table at Canterbury Cathedral stood
north and south, except in communion-time ; but at
communion, it was " set east and west." (Strype,
Parker, 183.)
1565. Advertisements. " They shall decently cover.
with carpet, silk, or other decent covering, and with
a fair linen cloth at the time of the ministration, the
communion-table, and set the ten commandments
over the said table." (Doc. Ann. i. 292.) Bishop
Wren in his " Answer" interprets this as " directly
implying that it should stand in the east, even
in communion-time." (Parentalia, 76.) The same
construction is given by Heylyn (Life of Laud, 20,
and Tracts in the Altar controversy). L'Estrange
(Alliance, 166) concludes, apparently with greater
reason, from a comparison with the canons of 1604,
that " the table placed where the altar stood, was
but seposed, set out of the way, during only the time
of non-communication." Williams argues against
Heylyn, that " to be fixed on the east wall, over the
communion-board, can signify nothing else but that
they should be fixed higher than the communion
table, upon some part of the east wall, so as the people,
seeing the communion-table, might over that see and
read the ten commandments." (Holy Table, 43.)
1604. Canon lxxxii. The table shall " stand" (in
the place of the altar, doubtless,) " saving when the
holy communion is to be administered; at which
time the same shall be placed in so good sort within
the church or chancel as thereby the minister may

or attar. 155
be more conveniently heard of the communicants in
his prayer and ministration, and the communicants
a,lso more conveniently, and in greater number, may
communicate with the said minister;84 and that the
ten commandments be set upon the east end of every
church and chancel, where the people may best see
and read the same."85
While parish churches86 were regulated by the
orders which have been quoted, a different custom
prevailed elsewhere. The altar was retained in the
royal chapels ; images, lights, and a silver crucifix
were used as ornaments under Queen Elizabeth ;
and although some changes in these took place after
wards,87 the altar always remained, standing in the
east, with its ends north and south.

84 Heylyn's commentary on this is marked by his usual boldness.
The word church he supposes to be inserted, lest otherwise some
lately-built churches, in which there were no chancels, should be
deprived of the communion. (Antidotum Lincolniense, p. 95.)
He does not explain how it happens that the rubric of 1552,
which was made before the erection of any such churches, accords
in this point with the canon ; nor how it happens that church is
named in the canon before chancel. In short, while Heylyn
would represent the canon as nothing else than a dispensation
from building chancels, the truth is, that both it and the rubric
allow the use of chancels only when equally convenient with the
body of the church for hearing and communicating.
85 The canon proceeds to direct that " other chosen sentences"
be " written upon the walls of the said churches and chapels, in
places convenient." It is obvious that the intention of these
orders as to the decalogue and other texts is not fulfilled, unless
the character adopted be one which people of scanty education
can read without difficulty.
8<i There were exceptions, such as St. Giles, Cripplegate (Nal-
son, ii. 491) ; and others are alleged by Bishop Wren, Paren-
talia, 77.
w The crucifix was broken by the Queen's fool, at the instiga
tion of Knolles, (Heylyn, Hist. Ref. 296). It would seem, how-

156 Cbe Communiontable
The private chapels of bishops were arranged in
like manner (Doc. Ann. i. 243) ; and the same was
the case in most cathedrals. Laud, when in 16 16^
on being appointed dean of Gloucester, he removed
the table from the middle of the choir, speaks of that
position as contrary to the practice of other cathedral
churches.88 (Heylyn's Laud, 63.)
During Abbot's primacy, that part of the injunc
tions and canons which related to the usual place of
the table in parish churches was generally neglected ;
it was left at all times in the middle of the chancel,
or in the body of the church ; and the profanations
which it underwent in consequence are forcibly stated
by Pierce, Bishop of Bath and Wells, in a paper of
reasons for an alteration, which will be found in
Heylyn's Life of Laud, p. 272. To remedy these

ever from Laud's Troubles (316), that an embroidered figure of
the same kind was always retained in the hangings behind the
altar. 83 Prynne asserts that " this was then a gross untruth ; for it
then stood not so in any cathedrals." (Cant. Doom, 77.) Where
Prynne contradicts Laud, my acquaintance with the writings of
the two leads me to believe the Archbishop without hesitation.
In this case, we have the corroborative fact, that the Commons,
when in 1640 they complained of the removal of tables " in parish-
churches, and chapels in the universities," (Rushw. iii. 1148,)
made no mention of cathedrals ; whence we may presume that in
these the practice had generally been as Laud states it. The
table was set altarwise at Durham some years before 1624.
(Cosin, vol. i. pp. xiii-xxvii.) As to the university-custom, Sir
Nathaniel Brent deposed that before Laud's chancellorship " there
were no copes, altars, nor communion-tables turned and railed
about altarwise, in churches or colleges at Oxford." (Cant.
Doom, 71.) I have not attempted in the text to distinguish
between the ancient altars which remained, or the new stone
altars which were erected, in some places, and the tables which
were placed altarwise in others.

or altar, 157
evils was a chief object with Laud and his school ;
and their attempts met with very violent opposition.
The positions in the nave and at the east end had
come to be looked on respectively as expressions of
two opposite doctrines on the sacrament ; to remove
the table, therefore, to fence it with rails, to turn the
ends north and south, were measures which raised
loud Outcries of popery.
In 1628, the executors of Mr. Blucknall, who had
left gifts to Abingdon church, ordered the table to
be placed in the east ; and the court of chancery
confirmed the order. (Heylyn's Laud.)
In 1633, Archbishop Abbot, usually favourable to
the puritans, gave a decision against them in the
matter of Crayford church ; ordering that communi
cants should kneel on the two ascents or foot-paces
in the chancel, before the table. (Doc. Ann. No.
137.) In the same year, Laud having in the meantime
succeeded to the primacy, a decision was given re
specting the church of St. Gregory by St. Paul's,
London. The dean and chapter of the cathedral, as
ordinaries of the church, had ordered that the table
should be placed in the east, altar-wise ; the King
in council confirmed the order, and, in answer to the
allegation of rubrics and canons to the contrary,
declared that the matter belonged to the jurisdiction
of the ordinary. (Doc. Ann. No. 140.)
The Archbishop only inquires, in 1634, " Whether
is the table placed in such convenient sort within
the chancel or church, as that the minister may be
best heard in his ministry and the administration,
and that the greatest number may communicate?
And whether is it so used out of time of Divine
service as is not agreeable to the holy use of it?"

158 Cbe Communiontable
(Williams, Holy Table, 84.) His articles for Wor
cester, in the following year, agree with this. In
the Archdeaconry of Canterbury, 1636, it is asked —
" Have you a decent communion-table, placed as it
ought to be, so as may be most convenient for the
due administration of the holy communion, and of that
part of Divine service there appointed to be said ?"
We find, however, that more stringent measures
were about this time adopted elsewhere.
Thus, Wren enjoins in the diocese of Norwich,
1636, " That the communion-table in every church
do always stand close under the east wall of the
chancel, the ends thereof north and south, unless the
ordinary give particular direction otherwise, and the
rail be made before it according to the Archbishop's
late injunctions, reaching cross from the north wall
to the south wall ; near one yard in height, so thick
with pillars that dogs may not get in."89 (Doc. Ann.
ii. 202.) It appears that in some instances, where
sufficient reason could be shown, he allowed the
tables to stand otherwise. (Parentalia, 76.)
Montagu, 1638, insists that the table " be fixedly
set in such convenient sort and place within the
chancel as hath been appointed by authority, accord
ing to the practice of the ancient Church ; i. e. at
the east end of the chancel, close unto the wall, upon
an ascent or higher ground." (P. 52.) He asks if it
be " removed down at any time, either for or without
communion, into the lower part of the chancel, or
body of the church ?"

89 There was a story of a dog entering a church, and seizing
on the bread intended for consecration, there being no rail to
hinder him. (Laud, Troubles, &c. p. 562. Parentalia, 76.)

or altar. 159
Besides the puritans,90 other opponents rose up
against these measures. A controversy was waged,91
in which Williams, then Bishop of Lincoln, and Hey
lyn, one of the Archbishop's chaplains, were most con
spicuous — each of them displaying ability and learn
ing in a far greater degree than fairness or decency.
Williams allowed the table to stand according to
Laud's wishes in his cathedral, and in his private
chapel ; but affirmed that " without some new canon
it is not to stand altarwise" in parish churches. (Holy
Table, 20.) He ordered that at communion it be
placed according to convenience ; that at other times

9° A curious specimen of the puritanical class is a pamphlet
entitled " The Retractation of Mr. Charles Chancy, formerly
minister of Ware, in Hertfordshire ; wherein is proved the unlaw
fulness and danger of railing in altars or communion-tables."
Mr. Chancy had applied to altars a different kind of railing from
that approved by the bishops ; and after some star-chamber
troubles, (Rushw. ii. 34-316), set sail for New England in 1637,
bequeathing this tractate as a legacy to the hemisphere of his
birth. (First edition.) It has since been proved that his spirit
still lingers among the descendants of his parishioners at Ware.
See the newspapers of 1843.
91 About 1636-7. Williams had some years before written
" A Letter to the Vicar of Grantham," which was the foundation
of the dispute. The chief publications were—" A Coal from the
Altar," (Heylyn) ; " The Holy Table, Name and Thing," (Wil
liams) ; "Altare Christianum," (Pocklington) ; " Antidotum
Lincolniense," (Heylyn). The subject may be divided into three
heads, viz. (1.) The doctrine of the eucharist; (2.) The ancient
history of altars ; (3.) The authority in the Reformed Anglican
Church for placing the holy table. It is no inconsistency to hold
with Williams on the last of these points, and with his opponents
as to the first. With respect to the second, (which is the least
important,) there appears to be some truth on each side. Wil
liams copied his inquiry in 1635 from that of Laud's metro-
political visitation, given above. Prynne (Cant. Doom, 89,)
misrepresents his conduct in this respect.

160 Cbe Communion*Cable
it stand in the east, but with its ends east and west.92
If the position in the east were found convenient at
all times, still he considered it uncanonical to fix the
table. (H. Table, 13-19-204.)
In the vnth canon of 1640, the matter is declared
to be of its own nature indifferent ; but it is judged
convenient that there be a general conformity to the
practice which had been observed " in the royal
chapels, in most cathedrals, and some parochial
churches, saving always the general liberty left to
the bishops by law, during the time of adminis
tration of the holy communion." This expresses
Laud's own opinion. (Wren's Parentalia, p. 15.) By
the same canon it is ordered " That the communion
tables in all chancels or chapels be decently severed
with rails, to protect them from profanations."
The Commons soon after ordered that the tables
should be removed into the body of the church, and
that the rails should be taken away."93

9* The table at Little Gidding was so placed, which Dr. Peckard
supposes to have been done purely out of obedience to the dio
cesan's orders. (Eccl. Biog. iv. 249.) I have, however, as has
already been intimated, considerable doubt whether Ferrar ought
to be reckoned a Laudian churchman. There is no proof that
the table stood otherwise before the orders were issued by Bishop
Williams ; and if Ferrar had disliked the position, there were very
reasonable grounds for claiming an exemption. He had restored
the church from the condition of a barn ; it might well be con
sidered as the private chapel of the mansion-house, which adjoined
it, and was the only dwelling in the parish (ib. 172). The Bishop,
therefore, could hardly have refused, on application, to give leave
that it should be ordered after the fashion of his own chapel.
93 Sept. 8, 1641. (Nalson, ii. 482). The order was pub
lished without the concurrence of the other House. The Commons
had for some time before communicated in the middle of the
church at Westminster Abbey, with the willing permission of the
dean, Bishop Williams. (Ib. i. 563).

or altar. i6i
In Sancroft's Prayer-Book it is suggested that the
rubric be altered as follows, in accordance with the
Scotch Liturgy of 1636. " The table always stand
ing in the midst, at the upper end of the chancel, (or
of the church, where a chancel is wanting), and
being at all times covered with a carpet of silk,
shall also have at the communion-time a fair white
linen cloth .... and the priest, standing at the north
side (or end) shall say," &c. The revisers did not
make any change. But from the time of the Resto
ration, the fashion of placing the holy table altarwise
has been all but universal.94 (See Evelyn, Diary,
April 6, 1662 ; March 2, 1678.)
From what we have seen, it may be concluded,
1. That the rubric and the canon of 1604 favour the
removal of the holy table at communion-time : 2.
That the usual position before Archbishop Laud's
reforms was with the ends east and west; and this
is countenanced by the rubric, which speaks of the
north side," whereas the Scotch Book, drawn up in
accordance with the Archbishop's views, has " north
side or end:"95 3. That whereas some of our " eccle-
94 I have been told, that at Deerhurst, in Gloucestershire, the
table to this clay stands in the middle of the chancel, with its ends
east and west, and surrounded by seats.
85 Here, and in Sancroft's book, the words side and end are
intended to be understood as synonymous. Heylyn endeavours
(Coal, p. 23) to persuade us that the rubric was originally so
construed ; but all evidence of usage is against him. He quotes
the Latin Prayer-Book of 1 560 as having the expression "partem
septentrionalem ;" and it is also cited by Wren (Parent. 75) as
proving " that north-part, north-side, and north-end were all
one." The real explanation, however, is, that that book was
intended exclusively for the use of colleges, and in this, as in
other points, sanctioned practices which it was not considered
safe to set before the people of that time in general. See Part
III. M

162 c&e CommuniomCable
siologists," who in general make much of Laud's
authority, are earnest for the abolition of rails, the
introduction of this protection was one of his chief
measures for the ordering of churches:96 4. That
if we provoke puritanically-disposed churchmen by
introducing unauthorized and unfamiliar ornaments
and ceremonies about our altars, they may be able
to give us considerable trouble by a reference to the
authorities for the position of the table at times of
communion.

(b .) The Material.
It remains to be considered of what material the
altar or table ought to be formed.
1559. Among Queen Elizabeth's injunctions is the
following, " For tables in the church," (Doc. Ann. i.
201) — " Whereas her Majesty understandeth, that in
many and sundry parts of the realm the altars of the
churches be removed, and tables placed for the admi
nistration of the holy sacrament, according to the form
of the law therefore provided ; and in some other
places, the altars be not yet removed, upon opinion
conceived of some other order therein to be taken by
her Majesty's visitors ; — in the order whereof, saving
for an uniformity, there seemeth no matter of great
moment, so that the sacrament be duly and reverently
ministered; — yet for observation of one uniformity
through the whole realm, and for the better imitation of
the law in that behalf, it is ordered, that no altar be
taken down but by oversight of the curate and the

96 Altar-rails are sanctioned by the Roman Church, as well as
the rails or screens which separate the chancel from the nave.
(Schmid. ii. 43.)

or altar. 163
churchwardens; and that the holy table in every
church be decently made," &c.
As this injunction was contemporaneous with the
Book of Elizabeth, it is evident that the rubric of
that book, by which the ornaments of 2 Edward VI.
were ordered to be retained, cannot be construed as
prescribing stone altars. Indeed the injunction, by
referring to a " law" on the subject, would seem
either to recognize the order for tables which had
been issued at a later date in Edward's reign, or to
declare that tables accord better than altars with the
office which had just been sanctioned by the Act of
Unifarmity. And, unless we suppose it self-contra
dictory, it appears to me that it must be interpreted
not only as a prohibition of all tumultuary violence
against altars, but as a charge that they should be
removed in every church by the proper authorities of
the parish.97
It is argued by Bishop Overall's chaplain, that
the Elizabethan reformers did not intend to abolish
either the name or thing of altars. He tells us that
the altars had been retained in the royal chapels,
and also in cathedrals, except where puritanical
authority prevailed. (Nicholls, App. p. 37.)
When Harding charges the Reformed with resem
bling the Donatists in their fury against altars, Jewel
97 The opposite interpretation is in effect as follows — " For
the sake of uniformity throughout the realm, and for the better
imitation of Edward the Sixth's order that all altars should be
taken down, (or, of the Prayer-Book in which the article is always
styled a table, and is supposed to be moveable) it is hereby pro
vided that the curate and churchwardens of any parish may, if
they shall think fit, suffer the altar to remain still ; and that the
holy table in every church shall be decently made," &c. I have
already had occasion to quote the testimony of Sampson in the
following year — " Altaria sunt diremta per totum regnum." (Zur.
Letters, No. 27.)

164 c&e Communion=Cable
replies — " As for the altars, which Optatus saith
the Donatists brake down, they were certainly tables
of wood, such as we have, and not heaps of stones,
such as ye have." (Def. Apol. p. 315.) He goes on
to prove that the primitive altars were of wood — a
fact, we may observe, which is not contested. Thus,
Merati writes — " Communis fert eruditorum opinio,
primis ecclesiae temporibus altaria fuisse lignea."
.(In Gavant. Thes. i. 130. Cf. Martene, i. 111.)
It is ordered in the Advertisements of 1565 " that
the parish provide a decent table, standing on a
frame, for a communion-table" (Doc Ann. i. 292);
and in the canons of 1571 the following charge is
given to churchwardens — " Curabunt mensam ex
asseribus composite junctam, quae administration!
sacrosanctae communionis inserviat." (Synodal. 123.)
The lxxxii nd canon of 1604, which begins —
" Whereas we have no doubt, but that in all churches
convenient and decent tables are provided" — appears
to assume that the material was such as is described
in the extract just quoted.
The Vicar of Grantham, quarrelling with his pa
rishioners, threatened that " he would build him an
altar of stone at his own charge, and fix it in the old
altar-place, and would never officiate upon any other,"
(Holy Table, 6) ; his Bishop, Williams, tells him,
and alleges evidence for the opinion, that tables
made of stone,98 and fixed in one place, are against
the intention of the Anglican Church. (Ib. 13-19,
&c.)
98 I do not quote Williams as an authority entitled by character
to our deference. His arguments must rest on their own merits.
It is to be' remembered, however, that his Letter to the Vicar of
Grantham was written by him in the discharge of his office, and
not in the character of a controversialist. The controversy did
not break out until five or six years later.

or altar. 165
The vn th canon of 1640, in giving orders for
placing the communion-table at the east end of
churches, declares that, " at the time of reforming
this Church from that gross superstition of popery,
it was carefully provided that all means should be
used to root out of the minds of the people both the
inclination thereunto and memory thereof ; especially
of the idolatry committed in the mass, for which
cause all popish altars were demolished." (Synodal.
404.) From these passages it would seem, that the au
thority of our Church is, in its apparent meaning,
adverse to the use of stone altars. If the demolition
of altars in the sixteenth century was but partial, 99
we have, it must be remembered, to concern ourselves
with the orders which were then given, not with the
degree in which they were executed ; and in later
documents, such as the canons of 1604 and 1640, it
is assumed that the substitution of tables had been
universal. The rubric and all other rules which
suppose the table to be moveable, suppose, as a
necessary consequence, that it is not a solid structure

99 This is an opinion of Mr. Bloxam, (Camb. Camd. Soc.
Transactions) and of Mr. Markland, (on English Churches, 3d.
ed. p. 27) — chiefly grounded on the fact that orders for the de
struction of altars are found in the time of puritan ascendancy.
It must be remembered how very untrustworthy puritan testimony
is on such subjects ; how gladly Laud's enemies would exaggerate
a few instances into a multitude ; and that in some cases there
may have been, first, a demolition under Elizabeth, and subse
quently, a reconstruction by some of those who, in Hackett's
phrase, " did outrun " Laud. Arundel is the only place in which
an ancient high-nitax has been discovered at this day, although
side-altars are less uncommon, (Markl. 27, Cf. Gloss. Architect.
3d. ed. i. 7.) Montagu inquires, " Is your communion-table, or
altar, of stone, wainscot, joiner's work, strong, fair and decent ?"
(p. 50.)

166 Cbe Communiontable
of stone ; and, while the mere name of table deter
mines nothing as to the material, I have met with
no reason for doubting, and with many for believing,
that in the sixteenth century the word was intended
and understood, with reference to this subject, to
denote a table of wood. And even if this be not
allowed, there can be no doubt that the form of a
table was intended to be generally observed.
Although, however, the apparent bearing of rubrics,
canons, injunctions, and historical evidence, is against
the employment of stone, there are circumstances
which favour the opinion that this material, and also
the form of an altar, may be borne with. The in
junction of 1559 expressly declares the matter in
different in itself, and disavows any religious objec
tion ; and, while it alludes to an earlier " law " in
favour of tables, it evidently does not regard that law
as conclusive against stone altars. Such would be
the case according to either interpretation of the
reference ; the order of Edward the Sixth's council
was wanting in authority; the rubrics and Act of
1 Eliz. in distinctness. The canon of 1640 declares
the rooting out of Romish notions to have been
the only cause of the demolition in the preceding
century. The altars, we know, remained " in Kings'
and Bishops' houses, where are no people so void of
understanding as to be scandalized." (Williams,
Holy Table, 16.) And as to the rubric, it is to be
remembered that the position of the table is a matter
left to the jurisdiction of the ordinary.
I conceive, therefore, notwithstanding the pro
visions of the rubric, &c. that a Bishop has power
to sanction the employment of a stone table or altar,
if in his opinion neither superstition nor scandal be
likely to result.

or altar. 167
With respect, however, to persons who in our day
may be desirous of reviving the use of stone altars,
it may be well to make two remarks.
1. If stone be insisted on as necessary for the pur
pose of setting forth or symbolizing any theological
opinion, that opinion must be one which neither the
primitive Church nor the reformed Church of Eng
land has deemed it necessary to express in any such
manner. 2. If the superior appearance be the ground of
preference, the following observation of Mr. Jebb
deserves attention : — " While the white linen cloth is
to be ' upon' [the table at communion-time, according
to the rubric], the carpet is to ' cover it ' [canon
lxxxii.] Whence it may be inferred, that the linen
cloth need only extend over the horizontal surface,
while the ordinary covering is to reach to the ground.
There is no authority for the practice now frequently
adopted, of leaving the stone or wooden front and
side of the altar exposed." (Choral Service, 467.)
Sober churchmen will probably agree with the
author of " The Synagogue," that —
"For the matter whereof it is made,
The matter is not much,
Although it be of touch, l
Or wood, or metal, what will last, or fade,
So vanity
And superstition avoided be."2
(See Herbert's Poems, ed. 1835, p. 237.)

1 i. e. Touchstone — " the dark-coloured stone or marble an
ciently much used for tombstones." (Gloss. Architect.) Coleridge
strangely supposes touch to be the German Tuch, i. e. cloth.
(Note, in Herbert, 339).
2 The reader is now in a condition to appreciate the following
extract from the Hierurgia Anglicana, (p. 42.) — " The injunction
of Elizabeth permits, but does not enjoin, the removal of stone

168

XII.
<3Efje pace for rca&tnrr, tfie " »>econti »>ectrice."
THERE have been disputes as to the place for
reading that part of the communion-office which
is appointed to be used when there is no administra
tion of the sacrament, and which, (as convenience
requires the employment of some shorter designation),
I shall, according to the custom of the seventeenth
century, speak of as the " Second Service."

altars; such altars remained in Bishop Overall's time, in the
chapels royal and many of the cathedrals, and they were in very
many places restored by the Caroline Bishops and Confessors.
The rubric directs that the chancels shall remain as they have
done in times past, i. e. posterior to Edward the Sixth's second
Prayer-book, and the removal of the ancient altars ;'' [this may be
a periphrasis for Queen Mary's reign — after the authority of the
second Book and of those who had destroyed the altars was at
an end ; (in which case there would be the mistake of referring the
rubric to the Book of Elizabeth ;) or posterior may be a misprint
for anterior] ; " and on the supposition that the altar is an ' orna
ment of the church,' (as affirmed by Bishop Cosin), it ought to
be of stone, in obedience to the rubric, which directs that ' such
ornaments of the Church shall be retained, and be in use, as were
in this Church of England, by authority of parliament, in the se
cond year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth.' " With respect
to the rubric relating to the chancel, the fact that it dates from
Edward's second Book, after the removal of stone altars, is a
sufficient proof that it cannot possibly contemplate the retention
of these. Our best ritualists and canonists (such as Cosin, in
Nicholls, App. 16, Gibson, Codex, 223, Wheatley, and Burn),
generally explain it as intending the separateness of the chancel,
and the preservation of its steps and seats, not the continuance of
all its furniture.

tbe " ^econo ^ertrice » 169
The Bishops of Charles the First's time ordered
that it should be read at the holy table, and were
charged with innovation in consequence. (Card.
Conf. 272, Prynne, Cant. Doom, 493.) Wren brings
forward aged clergymen, to witness that such was
the practice in their youth " in many parochial
churches," as well as in cathedrals and the chapels
royal, (Parentalia, 79) ; Laud says, " Since my own
memory, this was in use in very many places, as being
most proper, and by little and little this ancient
custom was altered ; and in those places first, where
the emissaries of this faction [the puritans] came
to preach." (Three Speeches, 374.) The objections
of Cartwright, and Hooker's defence of the Church
in reply to them, corroborate the statements of Laud
and Wren with respect to the practice of Elizabeth's
reign. It would appear, however, that even in that
time there were differences of observance. Arch
bishop Williams, in referring to Hooker's testimony
that the portions in question of the communion-
office were " commonly read at the table of the Lord,"
remarks that he does not speak of them as always
read in that place. (Eccl. Pol. v. 30, 2-4 ; Holy
Table, p. 176).
In favour of the usage may be pleaded those
rubrics which speak of the Lord's table in connexion
with parts of the communion-office which are read
in the Second Service ; and there is certainly no
ground for finding fault with the observance of it,
unless, as may happen in some churches, it render
the service inaudible. It is not, however, as appears
to me, the only allowable practice.
In the rubric at the end of the office, by which it
is directed that certain parts of the service " shall be
said if there be no communion," there is no order as

170 cbe Place for reatrtng
to the place where they shall be said ; whereas, in
the Liturgy of 1549, it was expressly enjoined that
the priest should say them " at the altar." (Keeling,
229.) This circumstance would lead us to presume
that the later Books intend to allow the custom of
reading elsewhere.
The rubric which directs that the priest shall say
the opening prayers " standing at the north side of
the table," is interpreted by Laud to mean, that when
ever he reads these prayers, he must stand there, al
though there be no communion. (Three Speeches,
375.) This rubric, however, plainly refers in strict
ness to times when the table is prepared for a cele
bration ; and the change which has just been men
tioned appears to shew that it and the other rubrics
which suppose the priest to be at the altar are not
necessarily to be extended to all times when a part of
the office is used ; — an inference which is strengthened
by the fact, that this rubric and the omission of a
special direction for the place of second service date
alike from the Liturgy of 1552.3 From the order in
the lxxxii nd canon of 1604, that the table shall
stand in the east, " saving when the holy communion
is to be administered ; at which time the same shall
be placed in so good sort within the church or chan
cel, as thereby the minister may be more conveniently
heard of the communicants in his prayer and ministra
tion," it is evident that the framers of the canons did
not contemplate the minister's officiating at the table
except on occasions of actual communion ; and, as
we have already had reason to know, the practice of
that age, until Laud attempted to introduce a change,

' The interpretation here proposed derives countenance from
other rubrics of the Communion-office. See ch. xv. § c.

tbe " ^econD ^>ermce,» 1 1 1
was that the second service should be read from the
desk.4 Williams gave order that at Grantham the table
should be removed from its eastern position, " when it
is used, either in the time of the communion, or when
the vicar shall be pleased to read the later part of
the Divine service thereupon," (Holy Table, p. 10),
and this order appears to be consistent with the
intention of the canons.
L'Estrange (212) is of opinion that the Bishops
were right in ordering this service to be read from
the altar, but that they perhaps mistook the reason.
His own reasoning is by no means conclusive.
After the Restoration, the presbyterians desire,
"that the minister be not required to rehearse any
part of the liturgy at the communiontable, save only
those parts which properly belong to the Lord's
supper ; and that at such times only when the said
holy supper is administered." (Cardw. Conf. 307).
The bishops answer (Ib. 342), after alleging pri
mitive custom — " The priest standing, at the com
munion-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

4 Archbishop Grindal enjoins at York, 1571, " That the prayers
and other service appointed for the ministration of the holy com
munion be said and done at the communion-table, except the
epistle and gospel, which should be read in the said pulpit (i. e.
where reading was before appointed, see p. 66) or stall ; and also
the ten commandments, when there is no communion." (Re
mains, 132.) I am not sure that I understand this. It would
seem that Grindal wished all Scripture readings to be from the
pulpit or stall, except the commandments when there was a com
munion ; and that the beginning of the order applies only to such
times — the second service being read in the stall throughout.

172 place for reaoing " ©econo @>ermce.»
the Church should keep her standing."5 These pas
sages of the conference are less conclusive than they
may at first sight appear. In fact, the presbyterians
pray that the orders of Archbishop Laud's time as to
this point be not enforced ; the bishops justify these ;
but at the revision of the Liturgy which followed, the
rubric was not made imperative ; and it is not to be
supposed that we are bound by the words of the
conference where the Prayer-Book and canons leave
us at liberty. The presbyterians, in reporting the
bishops' answer, conclude their rejoinder on this
head — " Moreover, there is no rubric requiring this
service at the table." (Grand Debate, Lond. 1661,
P-79-> My own feelings are strongly in favour of going
to the altar at all times ; but I have thought it well
to call attention to the true state of the case, as one
among many proofs how little ground there really is
for the assumptions of some persons who talk very
confidently as if all authority were unquestionably
with them.
The place in which the epistle and gospel are to
be read will be considered in a subsequent section
(Ch. xvi. § b.)

s Among propositions sent by the York convocation to that of
Canterbury during the review of the Liturgy in 1661, was this —
" Were it not expedient that ... the second service should be said
at the communion-table, at least in the cathedrals V (Wilkins'
Concil. iv. 569.) The reason alleged in the text is also given by
Gunning— one of the most prominent among the episcopal Divines
at the Conference — in his articles of inquiry, 1679.

173

XII.
draper, More »>ermon.
RUBRIC :— " Then shall follow the Sermon, or
one of the Homilies already set forth, or here
after to be set forth, by authority."
Canon lv. " Before all sermons, lectures, and
homilies, the 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 for Christ's holy Catholic Church,'
&c. . . . always concluding with the Lord's Prayer."
The canon here is generally taken to be supple
mentary to the rubric. Mr. Gresley, however, tells
us, by the mouth of a character in one of his tales,
(Bernard Leslie, p. 219), that they are " apparently
at variance, and of the two the rubric is decidedly
the most binding." He thinks that the canon refers
to sermons delivered without the previous reading of
service, e. g. those in the University churches; a
notion which had before been broached by a writer
in the Quarterly Review for Jan. 1834 (p. 533), and,
although only in the form of an inquiry, by Mr.
Rose in the British Magazine, iii. 182-687.
In answer to this, it may be observed that the
canon not only speaks of " all sermons," but adds
" and homilies" — a name designating a class of dis
courses which we may be sure, were never read
except after prayers. The distinction between [extra
ordinary] " preachers" and [ordinary] " ministers"

174 praper before Sermon.
tends also to prove that the canon applies to sermons
introduced in the regular service, as well as to others.
Moreover, the form which it prescribes may be re
garded as an appendage of the sermon, and in that
character is no more forbidden than the practices,
equally unmentioned in the rubric, of giving out a text,
and concluding wfth a doxology. And, not to argue
further, all the authorities that have fallen in my
way are for the minister's saying something, and con
cluding with the Lord's Prayer, which the canon
requires. But another question remains : — Are we bound to
use the form appointed by the canons, or one re
sembling it? What is to be said of the practice,
described by Mr. Gresley as prevalent, whereby
" the clergyman commences with a prayer, some
times from the Liturgy, with or without alterations,
sometimes an extemporary effusion of his own?"
(P. 217.)
In our inquiries as to this point we shall be much
assisted by Heylyn's Tract, drawn up for the infor
mation of Curie, Bishop of Winchester, about 1637,
and one published by Wheatley on an occasion to be
noticed hereafter.6 Something is also to be learnt
from Mr. Coxe's " Forms of Bidding Prayer."
In order to prepare the reader for understanding
what is to be brought forward, I shall here anticipate
one of my conclusions, viz. that the form was enjoined
for political purposes.

6 " Bidding of Prayers before Sermon no mark of disaffection
to the present Government." Lond. 1718. This tract might
advantageously be included in the modern editions of his " Illus
tration of the C. P.", as in that work he declines the discussion
of the question, on the ground that he had treated it elsewhere.

Prager before Sermon. 175
It appears, then, that before the Reformation,
" bidding the bedes" was used in connexion with
sermons. The preacher, in an English form, desired
the people's prayers ; and afterwards they prayed
in silence. (Burnet, H. R. ii. 30 ; Collier, Records,
No. 54.)
1534. On the rupture with Rome, Henry VIII.
put forth a form of bidding, in which he required
himself to be named as " immediately next under
God, the only supreme head of this Catholic Church
of England." (Wilkins, iii. 783.) In his form for
Ireland (Collier, Records, 40) is embodied what may
be termed a discourse on the question of the supre
macy. The form in King Edward's injunctions (Doc. Ann.
i. 21.) had the same title of " supreme head." Cran
mer inquires accordingly as to naming the King in
prayers, and declaring his supremacy, (ib. 42. )7
1554. An order is sent to Cambridge, " That
every preacher there should declare the whole style
and title of the King and Queen [Philip and Mary]
in their sermons." (Fox, iii. 88.)
1559. Elizabeth's injunctions, (Doc. Ann. i. 202-
3.) " The form of bidding prayers, to be used gene
rally after this uniform sort." The Queen is styled,
" Defender of the Faith, and supreme governor8 of
7 Mr. Gresley argues that because the injunctions direct the
omission of prime and hours when there is a sermon, the bidding
is needless when the service is said. (B. Leslie, 219.) It seems
rather, that not the bidding, but the whole sermon, is regarded
by the injunction as the substitute for the omitted prayers.
8 Jewel, " View of a Seditious Bull," p. 14 — " Where is she
ever called the supreme head ? Peruse the acts of parliament, the
records, the rolls, and the writs of chancery or exchequer, which
pass in her Grace's name ; where is she ever called the supreme
head of the Church ? No, no, brethren ; she refuseth it, she

176 praper before Sermon.
this realm, as well in causes ecclesiastical as tem
poral." From the addition, " And this done, shew
the holy-days and fasting-days," Heylyn (Tracts, p.
158,) and Wheatley conclude that the bidding was
then used at the end of the sermon, after which it
was that the declaration of days was ordered by the
rubric. Cartwright, the famous puritan, is said by Bishop
Wren, on the authority of Andrewes and others, to
have been the first who changed the bidding into a
direct invocation. (Parentalia, 90.) This would
seem to have been the extent of his innovation, as
Bishop Wetenhall (" Of Gifts and Offices in the public
worship of God," 1679, p. 152) states, on the autho
rity of one who remembered him, that " he did not
pray by gift," [i. e. without a precomposed form].
A direct prayer in the end of the sermon, besides the
bidding, had before been customary. (Cranmer, ed.
Jenkyns, i. 273 ; R. Hutchinson's Works, ed. Parker
Soc. &c.)
1588. Whitgift inquires, (Doc. Ann. ii. 14.)
" Whether the ministers used to pray for the Queen's
Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, by the title and style due
to her Majesty, appointed by the statutes of this
realm, and her Highness' injunctions, and exhort the
people to obedience to her Highness, and other magis
trates, being in authority under her." The political
character is very apparent in this inquiry.
Bacon (" Of Church Controversies," Works, ed.

would not have it, nor be so called. Why then doth Christ's
vicar blaze and spread abroad so gross untruth ? why should he
say Queen Elizabeth maketh herself the head of the Church ?"
The Bishop then goes on to define the supremacy, as understood
in his days. Comp. Hooker, E. P. viii. 4.

Prager before Sermon. 177
1819, ii. 517,) speaks of harsh proceedings against
puritans on account of their " praying for her Majesty
without the additions of her style."
1604. James I. at the Hampton Court conference
notices some puritanical irregularities. (Card. Conf.
203.) " Some preachers before me can be content to
pray for James, King of England, Scotland, France,
and Ireland, defender of the faith, but as for supreme
governor in all causes and over all persons, as well
ecclesiastical as civil, they pass that over with silence ;
and what cut they have been of, I after learned."
On this the Lvth canon was enacted, by which the
King's titles and jurisdiction are prescribed to be
named in the bidding.
Archbishop Bancroft inquires accordingly at Wells
cathedral, 1605, whether " his whole style" be given
to the King. (Wilkins, iv. 416.)
In 1619, James had again remarked that preachers
even in his own presence omitted mention of his
style, and of the governors of the Church ; in con
sequence of which Archbishop Abbot orders the
general observance of the canon. (Doc. Ann. ii.
133.) Hilliard, who wrote a century later,9 accounts for
the prevalence of direct prayer or invocation among
the clergy of this time by supposing that they wished
to confute the puritan censures, which represented
them as ungifted. At all events, it became so general,
that we find prayers at sermon in the works of divines
so little inclined to the popular side as Donne, Her
bert, and Bishop Taylor. The canonical practice
seems to have been forsaken by all but some " ancient
9 " The Obligation of the Clergy to keep strictly to the bidding
Form of Prayer." Lond. 1715, p. 18.
N

178 Praper before Sermon.
doctors." (Heylyn, Tracts, 152.) The enforcement
of it was charged on Laud as a novelty, not only by
the ignorant multitude but by the committee of 1641 .
(Ib. and Cardw. Conf. 273.)
There was certainly great reason for the adoption
of some measures of restraint at the time when the
Archbishop revived the canon. It was the fashion
of the popular preachers not to enter the church
until the prayers appointed in the Book were ended ;
and, as is declared in the vth canon of 1640, the
puritanical laity adopted the same manner of shewing
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.)10
1636. Bishop Wren enjoins the canonical form,
mutatis mutandis, but with no other variation, except,
if the preacher wish, " the name of the two univer
sities, and of a patron;11 and no prayer to be used

io South, iv. 179 (ed. 1823). " They shall come into the
church when [the Common Prayer] is done, and, stepping up into
pulpit, (with great gravity, no doubt,) shall conceive a long,
crude, extemporary prayer, in reproach of all the prayers which
the Church, with such admirable prudence and devotion, had
been making before."
n Pepys, Dec. 23, 1666. " To church, where a vain fellow
with a periwigg preached ; chaplain, as by his prayer appeared,
to the Earl of Carlisle."

Prager before Sermon. 179
in the pulpit after sermon ; but the sermon to be
concluded with ' Glory be to the Father,' &c. and so
come down from the pulpit." (Doc. Ann. ii. 201.)
This limitation to the very form of the canon is
stricter than the canon itself.
1640. In the convocation, " a short prayer, com
prehending the matter of the canon, was drawn up ;
this form, it was said, would have been well received
by those who scrupled the direction of the canon ;
but the Archbishop thought it better to keep close to
the old rule than run the risk of a new experiment,
and thus the motion was dropped without going
further." (Collier, ii. 793.)
After the Restoration, the bishops " pronounce the
offices in the Common Prayer [which had not yet
been revised] altogether unexceptionable, and con
ceive the Book cannot be too strictly enjoined, espe
cially when ministers are not denied the exercise of
their gifts in praying before and after sermon ; which
liberty for extemporary or private compositions stands
only upon a late custom, without any foundation
from law or canons ; and that the common use of
this practice comes only from connivance." (Collier,
ii. 873.) In their answer to the presbyterian excep
tions, at a later time, they say, " We heartily desire
that great care may be taken to suppress those private
conceptions of prayers before and after sermon, lest
private opinions be made the matter of prayer in
public, as hath and will be, if private persons take
liberty to make public prayers." (Cardw. Conf. 337.)
" The mischiefs that come by idle, impertinent,
ridiculous, sometimes seditious, impious, and blas
phemous expressions, under pretence of the gift, to
the dishonour of God, and scorn of religion, being
far greater than the pretended good of exercising the

180 prager before Sermon.
gift, it is fit that they who desire such liberty in
public devotions should first give to the Church
security that no private opinions should be put into
their prayers ; to prevent which mischief the former
ages knew no better way, than to forbid any prayers
in public, but such as were prescribed by public
authority." (Ib. 341.)
1661. The convocation passed a vote " pro unica
forma precum tam ante quam post sermonem sive
orationem praedicatam usitanda et observanda;" but
nothing came of this. (Synod. 656.)
Bishop Wren, 1662, and Bishop Gunning, 1670,
inquire particularly as to brevity. (Wheatley, p. 59.)
This, let it be remarked, is required by the canon ;
and the practice of puritans made it necessary that
the observance of the rule should be looked to.
Archdeacon Pory, 1662, treats the lecturers as still
a suspicious class, and asks whether the canon be
observed. 1664. In a conference of the Parliament-houses,
the Commons mention " praying extempore before
and after sermon" as one among things which " may
be said to be the practice of the Church," yet " were
never established by any law, either common, statute,
or canon." (Pepys, Diary, May 13.) The context,
however, makes it not altogether clear whether we
may suppose the practice to have been usual at that
very time.
1689. Among customary things for which the ex
press sanction of the commissioners appointed to revise
the Liturgy is desired, we find " the liberty taken in
the prayer before sermons," and " a short prayer of
the minister's own composing after sermons." (Cardw.
Conf. 453.) .
1695. Archbishop Tenison (Doc. Ann. ii. 335)

Praper before Sermon. isi
writes to the bishops of his province — " It seems
very fit that you require your clergy in their prayer
before sermon to keep to the effect of the canon ; it
being commonly reported that some clergymen use
only the Lord's Prayer, or at least leave out the
king's titles, and forbear to pray for the bishops as
such." This order appears to allow the use of direct
prayer, instead of the bidding.
1714. George I. (Doc. Ann. ii. 360) desires the
bishops, because some preachers use the Lord's
Prayer alone, or with a collect, or at least leave out
the royal titles, to see that their clergy " keep strictly
to the form in the canon contained, or to the full
effect thereof."12
From these passages it appears very clearly what
was the object in enforcing such forms : — viz. to
secure from preachers a full and distinct recognition
of the existing sovereign's right, in opposition to other
claimants ; of his ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in oppo
sition, first to the papacy, and afterwards to the
" presbyterian Hildebrandism"13 of the puritans; of
the episcopal polity, which puritans denied ; and

is On this arose a strange instance of popular suspicion, Many
preachers still kept to invocation ; while those who obeyed the
King's orders, — although the very object of these was to exact a
pledge for the loyalty of the clergy — were commonly charged with
disaffection ; because, (it was said), they bid the people pray for
King George without praying for him themselves ! Wheatley,
Hilliard, and others, hereupon published pamphlets on the history
of the form. Wheatley had previously used an invocation, in
which he prayed for the sovereign by name. The absurdly
founded charge of disaffection appears from Sharp (p. 193) to
have continued thirty years later against those who obeyed the
canon. 13 This expression is used by Mr. Hallam, (Const. Hist. ii.
461) to characterize the spirit of Dr. M'Crie's writings.

182 prager before Sermon.
perhaps, at last, of the line of bishops who took the
oaths to the Revolution government, in opposition
to the nonjurors. The other matter of the bidding is
included, as many have observed, in the prayers of
our Liturgy, and especially in that " for the whole
state of Christ's Church ;" but as the enumeration of
titles would not agree with the proprieties of prayer,
they are thrown into this form of bidding.
The reasons for which the form was enforced,
then, cannot be said to have any existence among us
at this day. Even if some of the clergy indulge in
an " exercise of gifts" which is not commendable, it
is not to be supposed that their prayers resemble
those which Laud contended against, either in ex
travagance of length, or in the mischievous character
of their matter ; nor do any of our popular preachers
now avowedly disparage or despise the Liturgy. Ac
cording, therefore, to the principle laid down by Bishop
Taylor, that " a law made for a particular reason,
when the reason wholly ceases, does no longer oblige
the conscience," (Works, xiv. 242,) the observation of
the canon appears to be now unnecessary.
The use of privately-composed prayers is objec
tionable on many grounds ; and the practice of some,
who spoil a collect by alterations of their own,
changing the tone of the prayer and the character
and flow of its language, although, not so dangerous,
is perhaps at least as offensive. I do not, however,
see anything inadmissible in the use of a collect as
we find it. The objections made by the bishops in
Charles the Second's time against extemporal and
privately-composed prayers, do not hold against the
employment in this place of words which have been
provided by the Church for use in some part of her
service. Where such a practice has hitherto ob-

praper before Sermon. 183
tained, it appears to me that the clergy may continue
to follow it with a safe conscience, unless their
bishops should think fit to revive the canon by a
special order.
There is, however, an objection, advanced by Hey
lyn, (Tracts, 158-9,) and now often repeated with
great pretension — that the pulpit is not the place
of prayer. If such reasoning were fully carried
out, it must be wrong to say the Lord's Prayer14
in the pulpit ; which, however, the canon pre
scribes; nor can I see any difference, in so far as
this objection is concerned, between a long bidding
followed by the Lord's Prayer, and a bidding in the
three syllables •" Let us pray," followed by a col
lect as well as by that Divine form. Bishop Cosin
(Nicholls, App. 42) observes on the words " Let us
pray for. the whole state of Christ's church," &c. in
the communion-office — " The bidding of the common
prayers, appointed before all sermons in the injunc
tions and canons, is nothing else but this allocution
to the people, extended to particulars." And I would
remind some of those who talk about the proprieties
of place, that " mediaeval " preachers knelt and said

u A correspondent of the British Magazine for March, 1840,
has a very singular fancy on this point. " The only form allow
able [in the pulpit] is the bidding prayer, which is nothing more
than a sort of rubric setting forth the order and subject-matter of
the prayers in the church. And hence the Lord's Prayer itself is
not, strictly speaking, prayed, but only repeated as part of the
catalogue, so to say, of prayers proper [!]. The custom of
kneeling in the pulpit is, I conceive, not a correct one. I should
no more think of kneeling there, than I should when the prayer
comes in the lesson where the blessed gift of it is recorded."
(293.) Although I cannot agree with this writer as to the Lord's
Prayer before sermons, it seems to me clearly wrong to stand up,
as some congregations do, when it is read in a lesson.

184 prager before Sermon.
the Lord's Prayer in the pulpit.15 (Burnet, H. R. ii.
30.) Moreover the convocation of 1662, in passing
its order for the composition of a prayer, doubtless
intended an invocation to be used in the pulpit.
And among private doctors, may be named — Taylor,
who used invocation, (vol. v. p. xv.) and prescribes
a prayer of this kind in his Offices (xv. 265) ; Ham
mond, who thought it allowable, though not ordered,
(i. 380) ; Hooker, against whom Travers objected
kneeling, (apparently in the pulpit), and whose judg
ment as to the importance of matters which many
now consider so vital was, that " to note them he
should have thought a greater offence than to commit,
if he did account them faults, and 1iad heard them
so curiously observed in any other than himself, they
are such silly things." (Vol. iii. p. 712.) Kettlewell
also used prayers, and those of his own composition.
(Life, App. p. xxxiv.)
L'Estrange (p. 173) and Bingham (xiv. 4. 13)
give ancient examples of prayers for a blessing on
sermons (Comp. Thorndike, Of Religious Assemblies,
c. vii. § 31.) and we find the like in some of the
specimens collected by Heylyn, Wheatley, and others
15 In Gevanti Thes. Sacrorum Rituum, i. 200, are these direc
tions for the preacher — " Postquam concionator suggestum as
cendent, jungit manus, . . . et statim ad altare genuflexus, clara
voce dicit salutationem angelicam; qua completa surgit." . . .
So a council held at Edinburgh, 1549, (before the Reformation
of Scotland) orders — " In omnium concionum publicarum ex-
ordio, servetur vetus et receptus invocandi modus, per orationem
Dominicam, cum salutatione angelica ad virginem Deiparam,
pro gratia impetranda; et in earundem concionum fine oretur
pro animabus defunctorum, in recepta ecclesise consuetudine."
(Wilkins, Cone. iv. 58.) In Southern Germany it is usual for
preachers first to open the subject of the sermon, then to kneel
and in silence say the Lord's Prayer and the angelical salutation.
(Schmid, ii. 149.)

Prager before Sermon. iss
out of sermons preached by eminent men in times
near the Reformation. There is a great variety in
these specimens, of bidding and prayer, of form,
matter, and place in the sermon.
In England, before the Reformation, the custom
was, either that both priest and people should pray
in silence, after the bidding ; or that the priest
should say the Prayer as far as the word " temp
tation," and the people should add the rest as a
response. (See Burnet, H. R. ii. 30; Martene, i.
137; iii. 24). In after times, the latter of these
practices was observed at sermons, as most com
monly in the other parts of public worship. (See
Coxe, p. 69.) Hence, therefore, we have analogy,
as well as the plainest meaning of the words, for
extending to the Lord's Prayer in this place, the
general rubric, which orders that the people say it
with the minister, " wheresoever it is used in Divine

service." l5

16 See ch. xvi. § a. This is not inconsistent with what has been
said in the section on the preaching-dress as to the meaning of
the terms ministration and Divine service ; since we there saw
reason to believe that the divines to whom we are indebted for
the last revision of the Prayer-Book — from which the general
rubric dates — understood preaching to be a part of " Divine
service." Although we may question their opinion, as applied to
the documents of the preceding century, it is of the highest
possible authority in resolving the meaning of their own rubric.
Besides, although a sermon were not Divine service, a prayer
must be such, even when introduced in connexion with a sermon.
Latimer very commonly ends his sermons with the Lord's Prayer.
At Stamford, where he was a stranger, he declares — " That all
that cannot say it may learn, I use before the sermon and after
to say it. Wherefore now, I beseech you, let us say it together."
(Ed. 1824, i. 284.) Also in the end of his fourth sermon on the
Lord's Prayer — " I desire you to say after me, Our Father,
&c."

186

XIV.
%$t Cuctjatisstic Clarantss.
(a.) The Bread.
THERE was formerly much contention about the
quality of the bread to be used at communion.
The Book of 1549 ordered that it should be un
leavened, as before, but somewhat different in form.
The rubric of 1552 agrees with that of our present
Book, in which it is said, that
" To take away all occasion of dissension and
superstition which any person hath or might
have concerning the bread and wine, it shall
suffice that the bread be such as is usual to be
eaten ; but the best and purest wheat bread that
conveniently may be gotten."
In Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, 1559, it is or
dered that the bread be " common fine bread ; of the
same fineness and fashion round as the usual bread
and water, heretofore named singing-cakes,17 which
served for the use of the private mass." (Doc. Ann.
i. 202.) When some persons attempted to represent
this as contrary to the rubric, Archbishop Parker —
declaring the matter indifferent, and that he wished
only for peace and uniformity — wrote as follows : —
" It shall suffice, I expound, where either there

w This seems to have been a term used to denote wafers in
general ; thus we find in a tract of 1590 — " the letters finished and
sealed up with singing -cake." (Hail. Misc. 8vo. ed. ii. 171.)

€ucbaristic ^Elements. 187
wanteth such fine bread, or superstition be feared in
the wafer-bread, they may have the communion in
usual bread ; which is rather a toleration in these two
necessities than a plain ordering, as in the injunc
tion." (Strype, Parker, p. 310.)
Wafer-bread was used by the Reformed abroad, as
Peter Martyr informed Grindal. (Strype, Grindal,
31.) When that Archbishop urged the practice of
Geneva, in favour of the wafer, the puritans replied,
that although wafer-bread was used in the parish-
churches at Geneva, yet the English congregation
there " did minister with loaf-bread." (lb. 117.)
We find from Hooker (iv. 6. 1) that wafer-bread
was used in the last years of Elizabeth's reign ; but
it would seem that this custom, like some others
which had until then been followed, shortly after
wore out. Thus the observance of it is noted as a
singularity in Burton, the author of the "Anatomy
of Melancholy," who was born in 1576, and died in
1640. (See ed. 1827, vol. i. p. xvi.)
Archbishop Bancroft inquires, 1605, whether
" fine white bread " be provided.
Bishop Andrewes used and prescribes wafer-
bread, (Nicholls, App. 40) ; it is ordered, too, in the
rules for Prince Charles' chapel at Madrid.
The Scotch Liturgy is in accordance with Parker's
interpretation of our rubric — " Though it be lawful
to have wafer-bread, it shall suffice that the bread
be such as is usual."
We have the testimony of Cosin that the use of
the wafer " was continued in divers churches of the
kingdom, and Westminster for one, till the seven
teenth of King Charles." (Nicholls, App. 54.)
Archbishop Laud declares — " I never either gave
or received the communion, but in ordinary bread.

188 €ucbaristic dements.
At Westminster I know [wafer-bread] was some
times used, but as a thing indifferent." (Troubles,
342.) I do not know whether such bread be ever used
at the present day ; unless it have local tradition in
its favour, the use would be a foolish superstition ;
more especially as the council of Trent teaches —
" Potest eucharistia et in fermentato pane confici,"'
(Catech. ii. 4. 15), and according to many eminent
Roman authorities, the use of unleavened bread was
introduced only about the eleventh century. (See
Bingham, xv. 2. 5, Schmid, i. 406-8, and Martene,
i. 114-116 — who, however, is himself of a different
opinion.)
(b.) The Wine.
The mixture of water with the wine is a primitive
usage, and was insisted on as essential by some of
the nonjurors; 18 not, however, until after they had
left the public communion on other accounts. It is
ordered in the Book of 1549. Bishop Andrewes
approves of it in his Answer to Cardinal Perron, (p.
11), prescribes it in his notes (Nicholls, 40), and
practised it at the chapel-royal and elsewhere — as at
the consecration of Jesus Chapel. It is also set
down among the things to be observed in the chapel
at Madrid.

i8 On this subject, a sentence in Mr. Palmer's " Narrative of
Events connected with the Tracts for the Times," (ed. 1. p. 24,)
is important. — " Having devoted great attention to the study of
the ancient Liturgies, I was perfectly satisfied that the nonjuring
writers, (such as Johnson, &c.) were by no means qualified by the
amount of their information to form a sound judgment on such
points."

oEucbaristic (Elements. 189
Bishop Overall's Chaplain writes, (Nicholls, p.
60) — " Our Church forbids it not, for ought I know,
and they that think fit may use it, as some most
eminent among us do at this day."
Laud, when Rector of All-Hallows, Barking, in
troduced the practice into the church of that parish,
where it continued to be observed in the last cen
tury. (Brett on the Liturgies, ed. 1838, p. 404.) 19
The mixture of the cup is no more forbidden in
our Church at this day, than in the times of An
drewes and Laud (See Palmer, Origines, ii. 76, and
Bishop Jolly on the Eucharist) ; but it would be ex
tremely unwise in any clergyman to introduce it
now, unless he thought it necessary ; and any one
who should entertain that opinion would hardly be
fit to hold office in the Anglican Church.20

19 This is one of the circumstances which convince me that
Nicholls must have been mistaken in ascribing to Laud an " In
troduction to the Prayer-book," (see p. 57,) which is printed in the
Supplement to his Commentary. On the rubric of that time —
" Every parishioner shall receive the sacraments according to the
order in this book appointed," — the writer notes — " Bread, not a
wafer-cake ; leavened, not unleavened ; wine alone for the other
element, not wine mingled with water," (p. 29.)
s0 Nor, indeed, in the Roman. The Missal (de Defectibus,
iv. 7,) pronounces that water " non est de necessitate sacramenti,"
and in the Tridentine Catechism (ii. 4. 17) we read — " Quamvis
aquae admiscendae ita graves rationes sint, ut earn sine mortal!
peccato praetermittere non liceat, ea tamen si desit, sacramentum
constare potest." The Sarum Missal, (fol. cxxxiv), in ordering
that the quantity of water be not excessive, has these words —
" apponitur aqua solum ad significandum, sed una gutta tantum
significat quantum mille." Jewel, (Answer to Harding, p. 26),
and Overall's Chaplain (Nicholls, App. p. 60) quote and refer to
passages of Durandus, Scotus, Aquinas, and others, to the same
effect. Schmid (i. 413) says, that the colour of the wine is a
matter of indifference, and that in his country (Southern Germany)
white wine is generally used.

190 (2Eucbari0tic Clements.
It must not, however, be supposed that I presume
to censure those clergymen who temper the wine at
early communion, lest the receivers should not be
able to bear its strength.

XV.
die ^Dffertorg.
UNDER this head I shall consider— 1. The col
lection of money ; 2. The placing of the ele
ments; 3. The use of the prayer "for the whole
state of Christ's Church militant here in earth,"
at times when there is no communion ; 4. The
meaning of the word oblations in that prayer.
(a.) The Collection.
The Bishop of Worcester appears to be of opinion
that the offertory is altogether superseded by the
poor-laws, and that the sentences in our communion-
office " have lost their pertinence," (p. 12.)
If the rubric were now the same as before the
introduction of the poor-law in the forty-third year
of Elizabeth, we might remark, as in the case of the
Daily Service, the difficulty of reconciling his Lord
ship's views with the fact that the Prayer-book has
been subjected to a revision since the cessation of
that state of things to which alone he supposes its
directions to be applicable. It would, however,
seem as if the divines of 1662 intended expressly to
provide against such a doctrine as that in question,

€&e ©ffertorp. 191
when for the order of earlier books, that " The church
wardens, &c. shall gather the devotion of the
people, and put the same into the poor man's box,
and upon the offering-days appointed,21 every man
and woman shall pay to the curate the due and
accustomed offerings " — they substituted our present
rubric — " The deacons, &c. shall receive the alms for
the poor, and other devotions of the people, in a decent
basin, &c." (Keeling, 186.)
That part of the former rubric which provided for
the payment of dues to the clergy on the offering-
days had, as we know from Bishop Cosin's notes
(Nicholls, App. 69), long been practically obsolete ;
while, therefore, the right of the clergy to a share
of the offerings, in cases of necessity, was still re
served in the revised office, by retaining those sen
tences which make mention of it, the payment of
dues in the time of Divine service was no longer
countenanced ; and the newly-introduced term " other
devotions," as also the substitution of a basin for the
poor-box, gave a sanction to the collection of money
for pious purposes in general.
Indeed, on inquiring a little into the history of
poor-laws — (and I have not the means of inquiring
deeply, nor does it appear necessary) — we find that
the offertory was never supposed to answer the pur
pose of a sufficient provision for the poor ; that the
act of 43 Elizabeth, therefore, cannot have been
intended to supersede it, because the offices of the
two were from the first recognized as different.
The part formerly borne by the Church in main
taining the poor appears to be very generally misap-
21 viz. Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide, and the feast of the dedi
cation of the parish-church. Gibson, 739.

192 cbe HDffertorg.
pfehended. Mr. Hallam has shown, with his usual
admirable clearness, the necessary inadequacy of the
monastic system as an instrument for this purpose
(Const. Hist. i. 78-9) ; and 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 Hen. 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 1503, there is an act,
(19 Hen. 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).
In 1535, (still before the suppression of monas
teries), 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 volun
tary and charitable alms," (27 Hen. VIII. c. 25) ;
and other acts of a like kind followed in the same
reign, in that of Edward, under Mary (2 and 3 Phil.
& Mar. c. 5), and in almost every parliament of Eli
zabeth.42

22 In all these statutes there are penalties against vagabonds,
some of them excessively severe. The mildest is, that they shall
be set in the stocks for three days and three nights, with a diet of
bread and water only. By the act of 27 Hen. VIII. " A valiant
beggar, or sturdy vagabond, shall at the first time be whipped
and sent to the place where he was born, or last dwelled, by the
space of three years, there to get his living; and if he continue

Cbe ©ffertorp. 193
These statutes, although they all differed more or
less from the act of 43 Elizabeth, although the con
tribution was until 1572 (14 Elizabeth, c. 5) not
compulsory but voluntary, all appointed means other
than the offertory for raising the requisite funds.23
What was the actual operation of the offertory
during the reigns of Edward and Elizabeth, I have
no very sufficient means of ascertaining. We know,
however, that the Reformation was followed by a
general decay of almsgiving, which is complained of
by Latimer in many places, by Ridley, who, in
Queen Mary's reign, speaks of it as one of the sins by
which the restoration of popery had been deserved,
(Works, ed. 1841, p. 60), by many other preachers

his roguish life, he shall have the upper part of the gristle of his
right ear cut off; and if after that he be taken wandering in idle
ness, or doth not apply to his labour, or is not in service with any
master, he shall be adjudged and executed as a felon." By the
act 14 Eliz. c. 5.—" A vagabond above the age of fourteen years
shall be adjudged to be grievously whipped, and burned through
the gristle of the right ear with a hot iron of the compass of an
inch, unless some credible person will take him into service for a
year. And if, being of the age of eighteen years, he after do fall
again into a roguish life, he shall suffer death as a felon, unless
some credible person will take him into service for two years ; and
if he fall a third time into a roguish life, he shall be adjudged as
a felon." Although the proportion of punishment to crime was
very high in those days, it is evident from such enactments as
these that beggars must have been not merely a numerous but a
dangerous class.
23 Bucer in his book " De Regno Christi," about 1550, pro
posed a plan for managing the poor by means of the clergy, but
apparently without effect, (Collier, ii. 302). The poor-box is men
tioned in the act of 1551, (and perhaps may be so in others,) not
as the treasury whence the money should be taken, but as the re
ceptacle for such surplus as might remain after the objects should
have been answered. (Gibson, 228.)
o

194 Cbe ©ffertorp-
of the time,24 in the homily " Of Almsdeeds," and in
certain homilies set forth, a.d. 1596, "to move com
passion towards the poor and needy." 25 In these last-
named discourses, distribution both by magistrates
and by private individuals is spoken of, (p. 13) but
the Church's part in such works is not brought for
ward ; the offertory is not named, either in connexion
with the mention of the poor-box, (p. 35) or, (where
we might most surely have looked for it), on the oc
casion of quoting St. Paul's direction for setting apart
a portion of income as alms " on the first day of the
week," 1 Cor. xvi. 2. (p. 41) ; neither is there any
mention of it in the homilies of 1563.
The rubric of those days, too, gave more counte
nance than the present to the omission of the collec
tion on ordinary Sundays and holy-days ; for whereas
it is now directed, that, 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;" — the order then wasy
that the office should be gone through "until the
end of the homily, concluding with the general
prayer;" no mention being made in that rubric of
the intervening offertory sentences. (Keeling, 228.)
And thus the order of prayer during the plague of
1563, passes at once from the sermon to the prayer
for the Church. (Grindal, Remains, 84.)
Taking these facts together, I am inclined to think

24 See in the British Mag. for June 1843, the ninth of some
interesting papers in which the times of the Reformation are
illustrated from the contemporary pulpit.
25 These have lately been reprinted by the Rev. Charles Miller,
Vicar of Harlow, to whom we are indebted for the publication of
several instructive tracts on the:offertory, written by himself, Mr.
Lebas, and Mr. Stafford.

Cbe ©ffertorg. 195
that the system of an offertory on all Sundays and
holy-days had become a dead letter long before the
act of 43 Elizabeth. If, however, this be a mistaken
conclusion, it will by no means follow that we are at
liberty to adopt the Bishop of Worcester's views with
respect to present duty. Let it be supposed that
until the 43rd year of Elizabeth the offertory had
been the main, and not a subsidiary, instrument of
providing for the poor ; — we can understand that, after
a regular provision had been made by the statute
of that year, the duty of giving in addition would
be little felt, except by those comparatively few who,
having learned to take an unworldly measure of their
obligations, and to look on such deeds as a benefit to
their own souls, were impelled to them by faith and
love. As the temporal relief of the poor was the
only object contemplated by the offertory-rubric of
those days, or by the canon of 1604, which prescribed
that alms-boxes should be set up in every church,
(lxxxiv), even such persons would have to look
chiefly elsewhere for the means of bestowing their
bounty. If from such circumstances the offertory
fell into disuse in the earlier half of the seventeenth
century — and we know that it was generally omitted
even on occasions of communion, (L'Estrange, 178,
Fell's Hammond, in Eccl. Biog. iv. 322) — this is in
no sort a warrant for our disusing it.
During that very time we may trace a movement
preparatory to the alteration of 1662; and it is
interesting to observe that the extension of the offer
tory to new uses appears to have originated with the
venerable Andrewes. In his notes, he gives a selec
tion of sentences which particularly relate to offering ;
in the place where our sentences occur, he directs —
" Instead of these, read the peculiar sentences for the

196 ebe ©ffertorg.
offertory, ut infra, and some of these immediately
before the benediction, for the poor." At that later
period of the service he would have the sentences of
our Prayer-Book read, — the communicants, as they
retire from the chancel to their seats, dropping their
alms into the box at the chancel-door. From the
expression in Bishop Buckeridge's sermon at his
funeral — " he ever offered twice at the altar " (An
drewes, Serm. v. 296, ed. 1842) — it would seem that
Andrewes himself adopted some such practice ; and,
although there is no record of this at his consecration
of Jesus Chapel, we there find our present rubric an
ticipated, 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.)
Laud's private chapel had one basin for alms, and
another for offerings, (Prynne, quoted in Hier. Anglic.
p. 10) ; and in this, as in other matters, he declared
at his trial that he followed the example of Andrewes.
The sentence^ suggested by Andrewes were em
bodied in the Scotch Liturgy, probably through the
influence of Laud ; and a rubric of that book provided
that a part of the collections should be applied in
purchasing books for the priest, while the rest might
be spent in furnishing the church, or any similar work,
as well as in relieving the poor. •
The rubric of our last revisers, although not framed
according to the suggestion of Sancroft's MS., in exact
accordance with that just mentioned, resembles it
in recognizing a variety in the uses of the offertory.
For us, therefore, as has been said, the defective
practice of those who lived in the earlier part of the

C&e ©ffertorg. 197
seventeenth century can be no pattern or excuse.
In addition to the legal rate for the poor, and our
private almsgiving, we have a duty, which it is to be
hoped that churchmen will not cease to feel, of giving
something to our needy and afflicted brethren through
the medium of the Church ; we have duties which
did not fall on that generation,28 as to providing the
means of religious knowledge and worship, both at
home and abroad ; and the present order of our
Prayer-Book, unlike the earlier, constitutes the offer
tory into a channel for the performance of such
duties. I cannot, therefore, but differ very widely
from the opinion which has led us into this dis
cussion. A rubric at the end of the office directs that the
money collected at the offertory shall be appropriated
" after the Divine service ended." This phrase in
cludes occasions on which the communion is not
celebrated ; • and in like manner it is ordered that
certain collects shall " be said after the offertory,
when there is no communion." The Church, there
fore, evidently sanctions the use of the offertory on
all Sundays and holy-days, and contemplates this
practice as more easy of attainment than that of ad
ministering the holy communion on all such days.
I do not, however, apprehend that we are bound
to have a collection on every Sunday and holy-day.
In the practice of the seventeenth century, both before
and after the last review, the offertory was too gene
rally neglected at all times in country parishes ; the
most exemplary pastors, such as Hammond and Bull,
26 See Mr. H. W. Wilberforce's admirable essay on " The Pa
rochial System," pp. 24-5, ed, 1.

198 Cfte flDffertorp.
did not attempt to revive it unless on occasions of
communion. (Eccl. Biog. iv. 322 ; Life of Bull, 53).
In the strict injunctions of Bishop Wren, while all
the other parts of service to be used when there is no
administration are specially enumerated, there is no
mention of the offertory. (Doc. Ann. ii. 200, seq.)
These circumstances must have some weight in the
interpretation of our rubric, while we have reason
to rejoice that our actual practice is better than that
of the time in question, and willingly admit that
it is our duty still further to improve it. In the
Prayer-Book itself, provision is made for occa
sions when there may "be no alms or oblations;"
and the rubric as to the use of collects may be satis
fied by reading the prayer for the Church ; — that, as
we shall see hereafter, being included under the
term offertory. The Priest, too, is left to say, at his
discretion, a single sentence and no more, which
would, of course, be insufficient to give time for a
general collection even in the smallest congregation.
The reading of one or two sentences would give an
opportunity to any one who might especially wish to
offer, on occasions when there should not be a ga
thering from the people in general.
Although I have tried in vain to discover or ima
gine any creditable grounds for the violent opposition
which is now made to the system of a weekly offertory,
it seems advisable, for the avoiding of needless and
hurtful disagreements, that we should proceed care
fully and gradually in any attempt to introduce it.
But the revival of this usage would, doubtless, be
a great means of teaching our people some things
which are now too little thought of. It would lead
them to enlarge the measure of their liberality, and
to consider that their gifts are given to God; a

CbeDffertorg. 199
truth from the forgetfulness of which modern alms
giving is sadly stinted and corrupted.
It has been questioned whether alms ought to be
received of non-communicants on days when a cele
bration is intended. In early times, such persons
were excluded from offering. (Bingham, xv. 2.2;
Martene, i. 139 ; Gueranger, i. 60.) The custom of
the Western Church in later days was, however,
different; and that the intention of the English
Church is to follow the practice which had prevailed
in these countries before the Reformation, appears
plain from the rubrics of 1549 and 1662. In the
former, it is ordered that before the separation of
communicants from the rest, " so many as are dis
posed shall offer to the poor men's box;"27 in the
latter, the offertory precedes the direction that the
communicants shall be " conveniently placed."
The intentions of Elizabeth's revisers may be ga
thered from the circumstance that Guest, in writing
to Cecil on the revision, quotes from Durandus —
" The mass of the learners is from the introit until
after the offertory." (Cardw. Conf. 51.) Those of
our later revisers, if any key to them were needed,
might be illustrated by various passages in which
the very influential Cosin includes the offertory in
2? Aless' translation of this — "quilibet qui communionem vult
percipere" — appears to be inconsistent with the language and
matter of the next rubric — " Then [i. e. after the offering] so
many as shall be partakers of the holy communion shall tarry still
in the choir, or in some convenient place near the choir. All
other shall depart out of the choir," &c. Ridley's injunction of
1550, (Doc. Ann. i. 83) that " the minister 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' " — does not appear irreconcileable
with my interpretation of the rubric.

200 c&e ©ffertorg.
the non- communicants' part of the office. (Nicholls,
Append. 35-69; Tract quoted in Brit. Mag. xviii.
192.) And an argument which is sometimes ad
vanced — that the elements ought not to be exposed
on the altar in the sight of those who are not minded
to receive them — is sufficiently answered by the fact
that in the unreformed Church the whole eucharistic
office was, and is, gone through in the sight of the
non-communicants, and that this practice is not dis
countenanced by our own Church. We find, indeed,
that Andrewes, in his consecration-service, excluded
non-communicants before the time of offering ; but
it is to be remembered that in the Book of his day
there was no rubric on the subject of separation or
convenient placing.28

(b.) The Placing of the Elements.
It was ordered in the Book of 1549, that after the
offertory-sentences had been read, the priest should
" set both the bread and wine upon the altar."
(Keeling, 185.) This rubric was omitted in 1552 ;
from which time until 1662, it is to be supposed
that the clergy, according to their doctrinal views
and sympathies, either placed the elements with
their own hands, or allowed them to be placed by
others. " Offering of bread and wine by the hands
of the churchwardens and others, before the con
secration of the elements, is noted as an innovation
of the school of Laud in 1641. (Cardw. Conf. 273.)
2s Mr. Markland (Eng. Churches, 208) and Mr. Jebb (Choral
Serv. 501) are in favour of receiving alms from non- communi
cants.

€&e SDffertorg, 201
At the last review, the rubric was again made
imperative, in accordance with the Scotch Liturgy
and the first Book of Edward VI.
The new rule, we know, was exceedingly little
heeded in the following times. Hickes (quoted in
Tract 81, p. 275,) writes that it was " almost never
since observed in cathedral or parochial churches.
I say almost never, because I never knew or heard
but of two or three persons, which is a very small
number, who observed it." He traces this, with
apparent reason, to the practice which had prevailed
before the alteration.
The history of the rubric gives so marked a charac
ter to its present provisions, that I conceive the ordi
nary argument from the dispensing power of custom
to be altogether inadmissible in this case.
A question arises — whence is the priest to take
the elements before placing them 1
A credence or sidetable was used by Andrewes,
Laud, and other divines of the same school, and
was objected to as an innovation in 1641. (Rushw.
ii. 280. Cardw. Conf. 273.) Sparrow conceives
that this article of furniture may be implied or sanc
tioned by the rubric which directs that " chancels
shall remain as in times past." (Ration. 305.) The
interpretation which refers that rubric to the furniture
of the chancel is not, however, given by him as cer
tain, but only as possible ; and, as we have already
seen, (p. 168) other writers with reason suppose that
the distinctness of the chancel from the rest of the
church, and the preservation of the steps and seats,
are all that is intended.
Bull, we are told (Life, 53), " always placed the
elements of bread and wine upon the altar himself,

202 c&e ©ffertorg.
after he had received them from the churchwarden
or clerk, or had taken them from some convenient
place where they had been laid for that purpose."
I conceive that these ways of fulfilling the in
junction of the rubric are all perfectly unobjectionable
in themselves ; but that the custom of suffering the
elements to be placed on the holy table by any other
hands than the priest's, and at any other time than
that which is appointed, is a transgression of the
rubric in spirit as well as in the letter.

(c.) The Prayer for the Church Militant.
A rubric at the end of the communion-office directs
that " Upon the Sundays and other holy-days, if
there be no communion, 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."
It has been lately argued that the prayer for the
Church ought not to form a part of the service when
there is no administration of the communion. The
chief ground of the opinion is, that the rubric before
the prayer orders it to be said after the alms and
elements have been placed on the altar; and con
sequently, that according to that rubric the prayer is
not to be said, unless these acts have previously been
performed. This argument, I need hardly remark, in no wise
does away with the rubric above given ; at the utmost,
it can only prove that the two orders are contra
dictory ; and it might with equal reason be asserted
that the rubric before the prayer is contradicted by

Cfje ©ffertorg. 203
the marginal direction,—" If there be no alms or
oblations, then shall the words of accepting our
alms and oblations be left unsaid."
Bishop Beveridge, it appears, " attempted a solu
tion of the discrepancy between the two rubrics, by
supposing that the Church intended that the prepa
ration for an actual communion should be .always
made, and that the minister should proceed to the
end of the prayer with the intention of going through
the whole office, if any should offer to communicate
with him." (Quart. Rev. No. cxliii. p. 259.) This,
however, is rather the imagination of a good man,
zealous for frequency of communion, than an argu
ment capable of being supported by facts ; and it is
inconsistent with that other rubric which requires
that persons wishing to communicate shall give pre
vious notice of their intention.
The true explanation evidently is — that the prayer
is intended to be used on all Sundays and holy-days ;
that on occasions 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, although these things, in whole or in part,
have not been previously " done."
The Church, I believe, has designed to provide in
her Communion-office two distinct services ; the one,
for the celebration of the holy mysteries ; the other,
for ordinary occasions ; and, where there is no special
direction, we are left to exercise our common sense
in omitting from the shorter service such things as
would be absurd or needless unless there were an
actual communion. This view will give the solution
of other cases besides that which is now before us.
Another argument against the use of the prayer is
derived from the circumstance that certain collects

204 c&e ©ffertorp.
are ordered to be said " after the offertory when
there is no communion."
This objection is sufficiently answered by Wheat-
ley, who shews that the rubric dates from the first
book of Edward, in which the non-communion office
did not include the prayer for the church ; and
although the rubric was not altered at the time when
the prayer was included in that office, " the collects
are still to be said after the offertory, though not
immediately after, as formerly ; the prayer coming
in between."
It appears to me, however, that Wheatley is mis
taken in limiting the term offertory to the sentences
which are read during the collection of money. Such
was, indeed, the case in Edward's first Book, to which
he refers; but when, in 1552, the prayer was trans
ferred from a more advanced part of the service to its
present position immediately after the sentences, and
a petition for acceptance of alms was inserted in it,
it would seem to have become a part of the offertory ;
and it was at that same time that the order was given
for including it in the non-communion service. The
rubric before and that after these collects, therefore,
are perfectly consistent with each other ; so that the
alteration suggested in Sancroft's MS. — " After the
offertory or prayer for the estate of Christ's Church,"
— was altogether needless.

(d.) The meaning of the word " Oblation."
It appears not unsuitable to the object of this work
that we should consider in what sense the term
oblations in our communion-office ought to be under
stood ; since on its meaning will depend the practical

€&e ©ffertorg. 205
question whether it ought to be used on some oc
casions. The word was introduced into the prayer for the
whole state of Christ's Church at the last review.
At the same time, it was ordered, that, immediately
before saying that prayer, the priest should place,
first, the collected money, and then the elements of
bread and wine, upon the holy table. The Scotch
Liturgy had used the phrase offer up with respect to
the elements ; and in the language of the theological
school which had the ascendancy in our Church at
the last revision, as well as in that of the ancient
Church, and of the Church before the Reformation,
these were designated by the term oblations.
On a consideration of these facts, I cannot doubt
that it was the intention of the revisers to include the
bread and wine under the term ; had it been other
wise, some other word would surely have been em
ployed. It has, however, been argued by divines of very
high character that the term must refer to the ele
ments exclusively. " We humbly beseech God,"
writes Bishop Patrick, (quoted in Tract 81, p. 218),
" to accept not only our alms, but also our oblations.
These are things distinct ; and the former, alms, signi
fying that which was given for the relief of the poor,
the latter, oblations, can signify nothing else but, (ac
cording to the style of the ancient Church), the
bread and wine presented unto God, &c."
In other words, the money collected must all fall
under the denomination of alms ; the other term,
consequently, must signify something different from
money, and therefore necessarily the elements.
The same reasoning is repeated by Hickes, (ib.
279), Nelson (294), Brett (381-385), by the editor

206 e&e ©ffertorp.
of the Tract, Dr. Pusey, (37-8), by Shepherd, and
by the late venerable Bishop of Moray, in his work
on the Eucharist, p. 142. No other argument of any
pretension is brought forward ; but this is supposed
to be conclusive.
After having for some years acquiesced in the in
terpretation, I was led to entertain a doubt of it by
observing a curiously correspondent distinction which
runs through our present office. Thus, in the offertory-
rubric it is directed that the collectors " shall receive
the alms for the poor, and other devotions of the
people ;" in the following prayer, we beseech God to
"accept our alms and oblations," while in the margin it
is directed that "if there be no alms or oblations, these
words shall be left unsaid ;" and, lastly, at the end of
the office it is ordered that " the money given to the
offertory shall be disposed of to pious and charitable
uses." It is also remarkable that in every one of these pas
sages the distinction dates from the revision of 1662.
Let us now look back to earlier usage.
In the Book of 1549 it is ordered, that " whiles the
clerks do sing the offertory, so many as are disposed
shall offer to the poor man's box  and at the
offering-days appointed, every man and woman shall
pay to the curate the due and accustomed offerings."
(Keeling, 185).
Another rubric of the same date prescribed that
the clergy should provide the elements/ and the
parishioners " 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." (ib. 233.)
The Liturgies from 1552 to 1662 directed that

C&e ©ffertorp. 207
the churchwardens or others should " gather the
devotion of the people, and put the same into the
poor man's box, and upon the offering-days, &c." as
in the earlier Book.
We have already seen that gifts made at the offer
tory were distinguished by Andrewes and Laud into
alms and offerings. (P. 196.)
The Scotch Liturgy directs that one half of the
collection be given " to the use of the presbyter, to
provide him books of holy Divinity ; the other half
shall be faithfully kept, and employed on some pious
or charitable use, for the decent furnishing of that
church, or the public relief of their poor." (Keeling,
226.) It appears, therefore, that our Prayer-Books have
always provided for a money-offering of two different
kinds. Formerly, there was a payment to the priest,
at the same time with the collection for the poor ;
and in our present office, there is a continually
marked distinction in the passages which make men
tion of the collection. That portion which is given
to " charitable uses " is spoken of by the name of
" alms ;" and it appears as if the word oblations might
signify the " other devotions," destined for uses
which are characterized by the epithet " pious."
It would seem, therefore, inconsistent with the
history of the rubrics, and with the construction of
our present service, to say that all offerings of money
must be included under the name of " alms."
And while it is certain, as Bishop Patrick says,
that the. term oblations was by ecclesiastical usage
applied to the elements intended for consecration, it
is no less unquestionable that it was also employed
to signify money intended for the maintainance of
the clergy, for the service of God, for merciful works

208 c&e ©ffertorg.
of the more spiritual kind, and that sometimes it even
denotes the alms for relief of temporal necessities.
For examples of such senses I may refer to Lati
mer, i. 20, ed. 1824, (where oblations are expressly
distinguished from alms, and among them are
reckoned such works as building and adorning
churches, and setting up of candles before images) ;
the injunctions of Edward VI. and Elizabeth, (Doc.
Ann. i. 18-190) ; Hooker, v. 79, 1 ; the Madrid re
gulations, given above, p. 21 ; Gavanti, iii. 163 ;
Laud's Oxford Statutes, (" ante mensam sacram eu-
charistiae oblationes faciant ;") Cosin, in Nicholls
App. 52; L'Estrange, 179; the Scotch Liturgy of
1637, where, as in that of the present day, the de
votions of the people are expressly styled " oblations ;"
Taylor, xv. 298 ; Duppa, in Tract 81. p. 126 ;
Sparrow, Rationale, 206-210; Stillingfleet, Eccl.
Cases, i. 243 ; Johnson, in Tract 81, p. 346 ; Gibson,
in many places ; Nicholls, on the Offertory ; Burn,
(articles Altarage and Pentecostals) ; Martene, i. 139.
The minister's dues on the churching of women are
styled in the rubric " offerings " — a word identical in
origin and meaning with " oblations ;" and we are still
familiar with the term Easter Offerings.
And it deserves to be especially noticed, that the
Book of 1662, in which the order for presentation of
the elements was restored, and the word oblations
was introduced, was also the first which provided
for the presentation of the collected money on the
altar ; the manner having previously been that it
should be at once put into the poor-box.
I believe, therefore, that there is reason for differ
ing — which I do with sincere diffidence — from the
respected Divines who would confine the term " ob
lations" to the elements offered for consecration.

€&e ©ffertorg. 209
Let me be allowed to add a few words on the
doctrinal intentions of those who introduced the
term, with the accompanying rites, into our liturgy
at the last revision. They meant, unquestionably,
to countenance that high doctrine of the eucharist
which was held by the school of Laud. Still, if my
interpretation of the word be correct, it is evident
that a person who does not hold that doctrine may,
without any evasion, say the amended service ; and
from the fact that the words of the Scotch Book
" offer up " were not adopted, it would seem that
the revisers did not wish to add a belief of the
sacrificial doctrine to the conditions necessary for
admission to the ministry.29

29 In "The Anglican Church in the xixth century, translated
from the German of F. Uhden by W. C. C. Humphreys, Esq."
it is said (p. 172) that " on the Reformation [Restoration] the
Church adopted the puritanic elements in the doctrine of the
Last Supper." I cannot divine the meaning of this ; perhaps it
may be a blunder of the very incompetent translator. In another
place he makes his author tell us that the Scotch " evening-ser
vice" is decidedly anti-calvinistic — evidently confounding Abend
(evening) and Abendmahl, (the Lord's Supper).

210

XVI.
flDn gome otfier joints in tlje Communion=officet
(a.) The Lord's Prayer.
IN the rubric before the Lord's Prayer where it
first occurs in the Prayer Book, it is ordered that
the people shall repeat it with the priest, " whereso
ever it is used in Divine service."
It is very commonly supposed that the Prayer as
it is found in the beginning of the Communion- office
does not fall within the application of this rubric.
The idea is, I believe, founded on the following
arguments — (1.) That a special rubric before the
Communion-office directs that " the priest shall say
the Lord's Prayer with the collect following;" (2.)
That the Communion is not to be understood under
the term " Divine service."
With respect to the latter of these reasons, I may
observe, that in all the instances which have fallen
under my notice of a distinction between " Divine
service" and Communion, the latter term appears to
signify a celebration; consequently, that the ante-
communion may be included in " Divine service,"
although the proper eucharistic part of the office
were not so. The matter, however, is put beyond
all doubt as regards the present question, by the fact
that at the same time when the general rubric relating
to the Lord's Prayer was inserted, the Communion-

€&e lorD'0 Praper, 211
office was in two other places recognized as a part of
" Divine service."30
We find that until the last review the Lord's
Prayer was, in the course of the Church's services,
repeated in four different ways : — (1.) by the priest
and the people together, as after the Apostles' Creed,
and, (although then without explicit direction,) in
the beginning of morning and evening prayer; (2.)
partly by the priest, partly by the people, as in the
litany and elsewhere ; (3.) by the priest alone, at
the beginning of the communion — which appears
most probable, although I am not aware of any testi
mony to the fact ; (4.) in the post-communion, by
the people after the priest, as the confession in the
daily services is now said. (Hooker, v. 36. l.)sl
The general rubric, quoted above, was inserted in
1662, with a view, seemingly, of establishing one
uniform manner throughout the services. It may
have been thought needless to alter the two rubrics
in the communion-office, as they may both be inter
preted without any glaring contradiction to the general
rule. That the practice described under the third head
has continued in this place, may perhaps be ascribed
to the force of tradition, prevailing over the new
order. We know that it prevailed against an ex
press and clear rubric in the matter of placing the

30 Rubric at the end of the office — " After the Divine service
ended, the money given at the offertory shall be disposed of."
Rub. in the Form of Matrimony — " The banns shall be published
in the time of Divine service, immediately before the sentences
for the offertory." Another order has been substituted for this
in late editions. See Part III. Note 16.
31 There is a slight error as to this in Mr. Keble's note.

212 Cfje Communion=office.
eucharistic elements (ch. xv. § b) ; here, where there
was some room for doubt, the victory might be still
easier. I am informed that at Westminster Abbey the
custom is that the priest alone should say the prayer,
without being accompanied even in the Amen. This
practice, as well as that of joint repetition through
out, would satisfy the rule by which the Amen is
printed in upright letters.32 It appears to me, how
ever, that it is a tradition of the time before the
last revision, not an exemplification of our present
rubric. As for an argument which I have heard, that " up
to a certain point the communion is a sacrificial ser
vice, and therefore the prayer ought to be offered
by the priest's lips only," — I shall only express a hope
that one may believe the Eucharistic Sacrifice rightly,
without being able to understand this.

(b.) The Epistle and Gospel.
The place for reading the epistle and gospel is not
expressly prescribed in our rubric.
Anciently, they were read from the ambon, or
ambons ; for the arrangement of churches varied as
to this — some having an ambon in the middle, while
in others there was one on either side.
Durandus uses the terms pulpitum and ambo as
32 The rule is, that the Amen is so printed when it and the
preceding prayer or other form of words are to be said by the
same lips ; i. e. either throughout by minister alone, or through
out by minister and people together. See a good statement and
illustration of the principle by the Rev. C. Lacy, in Brit. Mag.
Jan. 1841, p. 44.

Cfje (ZEpistle anD Gospel. 213
synonymous, (i. 32). He says that the epistle might
be read either on the right hand or in the middle of
the church ; the mystical reasons for the latter prac
tice, however, being stronger. The epistle was read
by the subdeacon, the gospel by the deacon ; they
both read from the same ambon, but in some churches
they went up to it by different ways. (iv. 24). The
reader of the epistle stood on a lower step, the
gospeller, on a higher, (ib. iv. 15; Schmid, ii. 134).
In the middle ages, it was usual to chant the
gospel from the roodloft. (Pugin, in Dub. Review,
No. xxiii. p. 100). The Sarum Missal (fol. ii-iii)
orders that the epistle be read sometimes from the
pulpit, sometimes " ad gradum chori;" and the
gospel from the same place with it. The Roman
Missal seems to direct that they be read in advance
of the altar; — the epistle on the south side, the
gospel, on the north. (Gavanti, i. 202-4.) The
readers stand on the floor of the presbytery — i. e. the
space between the altar and the stalls. (Schmid, ii.
134.) According to Edward the Sixth's injunctions, 1547,
these scriptures were to be read " in the pulpit, or in
such convenient place as the people may hear the
same." (Doc. Ann. i. 13). His first Book orders
them to be read " in a place assigned for the pur
pose," (Keeling, 175,) and is the only one of our
Prayer-Books which makes any mention of the sub
ject. Sancroft's MS. suggests that this rubric should
be restored.
Grindal enjoins at York that the epistle and gospel
be read in the " pulpit or stall," — meaning by the
latter word the priest's stall in the chancel of small
churches, and by pulpit, the " decent low pulpit" or
desk in which the morning and evening services are

214 c&e Communiotvoffice.
ordered by him to be said in larger churches ; not
the sermon-pulpit, which is mentioned in another of
his injunctions as evidently different. (Remains,
132-3.) Bancroft in 1608 ordered at Canterbury Cathedral
that they be read " in some convenient place, near
the communion-table." (Wilkins, iv. 436.)
Andrewes would have them read at the door of
the septum (Nicholls, Append. 38); it was so at
the consecration of Jesus Chapel, where one of his
chaplains read the epistle, and the other the gospel,
each standing in the same place, " ante sacram men-
sam ;" and Wren, (one of those chaplains) in his
answer when impeached, speaks of this practice as
usual. Prynne, in arguing that the whole " second ser
vice " should be read from the desk, asserts that
"The rubric expressly determines that the epistle
and gospel, (chief parts of this service), shall be read
where the two lessons are, with a loud voice, that
the people may hear the minister that readeth them."
(Cant. Doom, 493.) I am not aware of any such
rubric. The point, however, has always been left
open by the rubric ; and even Wren, in ordering that
the other parts of the service should be said at the
altar, adds — " yet so as in very large churches the
minister may come nearer to read the epistle and
gospel." (Doc. Ann. ii. 201.)
When the epistle and gospel are read at or near
the altar by two clergymen, it is customary that the
epistler should stand on the south, and the gospeller
on the north. It has, however, been said of late that
"even where there is but one clergyman officiating,
before commencing the epistle he should cross to the

€&e <£pistle anu ©ospel. 215
epistle side, and recross before beginning the gospel."
(English Churchman, vol. i. p. 246). This practice
is forbidden in Edward's injunctions of 1549, and in
those of Bishop Ridley, where it is directed " that no
minister do counterfeit the popish mass in shifting
the book from one place to another." (Doc. Ann. i.
63-81.) It has no kind of sanction from the Reformed
Church, and, as we have seen, the scriptures in ques
tion were anciently and in the middle ages very
commonly read without change of place, although
the readers were different. To revive it at this day
— as is done, according to the writer whom I have
quoted, " in at least one church in London,"- — is no
thing better than a ridiculous and offensive playing
at popery.
The Book of 1549 prescribes that after the gospel
has been announced " The clerks and people shall
answer — Glory be to Thee, O Lord!" (Keeling, 177).
Bishop Overall's chaplain (Nicholls, App. 39) sup
poses that the omission of the order in later books
was the effect of negligence on the part of printers.
The use of this doxology would seem to have
been customary in Hooker's time (v. 30. 3). The
Scotch Liturgy prescribes it, and also a thanksgiving
after the gospel ; and the xxixth of the present
Scotch canons sanctions both. No rubric on the
subject was introduced at the last revision, although
Sancroft's book suggests an adoption of the Scotch
order ; the doxology, however, has been very gene
rally retained in practice, and may surely be so
without blame.

216 cfje Communion»o6Jce»

(c.) The Time for approaching the Lord's Table. —
The Dismissal of Non-Communicants.
There was formerly a considerable variety of opi
nion and practice as to the place where the commu
nicants should receive.
Puritans wished to remain in their seats, and
loudly complained of some bishops who required
them to go into the chancel. This question was
connected with that as to the position of the holy
table, which need not be here reopened.
The vnth canon of 1640 required communicants
to " approach to the holy table, there to receive the
Divine mysteries," and grounds this order on the
words of the service — " Draw near and take this holy
sacrament to your comfort." (Synodalia, 405 ;
Keeling, 200). It does not, however, make those
words the signal for the approach. Andrewes ob
serves — « Forte non opus est his verbis, quia jam
accesserunt." (Nicholls, App. 44). Wren says,
that the communicants, to whom the words are ad
dressed, are already in the chancel ; the invitation to
"draw near," therefore, must, in his opinion, mean
that they are to draw still nearer— i. e. that they
shall come up to the rail. (Parentalia, 83). And
from Cosin's notes, (Nicholls, App. 35-69) Sparrow's
Rationale, (211) and Montagu's Articles, (81) it
appears that by the custom of that age the time of
approaching to the altar was between the exhorta
tion " Dearly beloved in the Lord," &c. and the
invitation in which the words " Draw near " are
found. At the subsequent revision of the Liturgy, there

approach to tfje Loro'is Cable. 217
was inserted a direction that the communicants
should be " conveniently placed for receiving " before
the exhortation ; and at the same time the words
" Draw near " lost the signification of a bodily ap
proach, in consequence of the addition — " with
faith." The rubric as to convenient placing appears to
mark, (as has been already suggested, p. 199), the
period of the service at which the separation of com
municants from non -communicants ought to take
place, and to determine that the portion in which the
latter share on occasions of communion shall be the
same which is appointed to be read when there is no
celebration. It remains to be considered in what manner the
non-communicants shall be disposed of. In the
Book of 1549 it is ordered that after the offertory
" so many as shall be partakers of the holy commu
nion, shall tarry still in the choir, or in some conve
nient place nigh unto the choir. All other, (that
mind not to receive the said holy communion,) shall
depart out of the choir, except the minister and
clerks." (Keeling, 185).
The former custom, by which the non-commu
nicants remained in the body and aisles33 of the
church during the communion, was still continued ;
nor has it ever been forbidden in our service-books.
The estimation of such bystanding, however, was

33 Farrar, Bishop of St. David's, was accused in Edward's
reign of suffering non-communicants to be in the choir. His
defence is, that the choir in the churches where this had taken
place, was not properly separated from the rest of the church.
(Fox, iii. 167-170.)

218 c&e Communion=office.
very different before and after the Reformation.
Formerly, the celebration of the mass in the sight of
the people had been very frequent, but communion of
the laity had been only annual ;3* (See ch. xvii. § a.)
now, while the practice of remaining in the church
as " gazers and lookers " was not forbidden, the
people were very earnestly taught that such a practice
was nowise praiseworthy or safe. Thus, the xxv th
article declares, that " the sacraments were not or
dained of Christ to be gazed upon or carried about,
but that we should duly use them, and in such only
as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome
effect or operation ;" the homily " Of the sacrament "
teaches that " of necessity we must be ourselves par
takers of this table, and not beholders of other,"
(ed. Oxford, 1832, p. 404) ; and an exhortation
which was in the liturgies from 1552 until the last
revision pronounces it less blameable to depart from
the church than to remain without communicating.
(Keeling, 192). This is styled by Overall's chaplain,
" a religious invective against the lewd and irre
ligious custom of the people, then nursed up in
popery, to be present at the communion, and to let
the priest communicate for them all. (Nicholls, App.
43). And Cosin speaks of it as " an exhortation to
the people that they should go out of the church
who do not come thither to communicate." (ib. 35.)
We find Grindal writing to Parker, in 1564, that
3* Schmid tells us, as to present practice in his part of the
world, (viz. the diocese of Passau, and probably Southern Ger
many in general), the priest is usually the only communicant;
and even those others who communicate do not usually receive
in the mass, as all rituals direct, but either before or after. " It
is as if the clergy themselves had lost the feeling how intimately
the communion is connected with the oblation." (ii. 247).

if3on*Communicant0. 219
it were advisable not to have a public communion of
the London magistrates at St. Paul's on the thanks
giving for cessation of the plague, because " if the
communion be ministered in Paul's, it will be done
so tumultuously and gazingly, by means of the in
finite multitude that will resort thither to see, that
the rest of the action will be disordered." (Remains,
267). At Canterbury Cathedral, the same year, " none
were suffered to tarry within the chancel, but the
communicants." (Strype, Parker, 183.)
When Harding " saith in scorn that we would have
all the people that will not receive to be driven out of
the church," Jewel replies — " O Mr. Harding . . . you
know this is neither the doctrine nor the practice of
our Church ; howbeit, the ancient doctors have both
taught so, and also practised the same." (Answer,
59). He argues strenuously in various places against
the Romish practice, and alleges ancient Christian
writers who denounce the custom of looking on at
communion without partaking. (Serm. at Paul's
Cross, 56-7 ; Def. Apol. 225-6.)
Bancroft (Dangerous Positions, b. ii. c. 9), quotes
from an attack on the church by Gilby, a puritan —
" They eat not the Lord's Supper, but play a pageant
of their own to blind the people, to make the silly
souls believe that they have an English mass."
Towards the end of the century, it would seem to
have been usual for non- communicants to depart
from the church. See Hooker, v. 68, 10.
Andrewes dismissed the non-communicants at the
consecration of Jesus Chapel, and that, as we have
seen in a former section, before the offertory. (Spar
row, 415).
In 1631, it is ordered at St. Paul's, London, " that

220 €&e Communiorwoffice.
no man shall presume to walk in the aisles of the
choir, or in the body or aisles of the church, during
the time of Divine service, or the celebration of the
blessed sacrament, or sermons." (Franckland's An
nals, 391). Hence it would seem that all parts of
that church except the choir were still allowed to be
open at communion-time.
We have, however, in some passages which have
been quoted, sufficient proof that the custom was in
that age generally obsolete. Montagu's Articles of
1638 appear to require that " boys, girls, or irreverent
men and women " be excluded from the chancel only
(p. 43) ; but it is said that at Ipswich, in the follow
ing year, he gave order that " no boys, girls, or gazers
be suffered to look in, as at a play." (Prynne, Cant.
Doom, 88.)
At the last revision of the Prayer-Book, all allu
sions to the presence of non-communicants were
removed. It has been argued that " as we well
know in what direction all the changes went at that
most important era, it is but fair to conclude that the
revision went to restore the use of Edward's first
Book."35 I would observe, however, that the alterations of
1662 extended beyond the omission of the expres
sions in which " gazing " was censured ; for until
then, the words " make your humble confession to
Almighty God " were followed by these — •" before
this congregation here gathered together in His holy
Name." (Keeling, 200.) And even were there not
this circumstance to be considered, we might, as it

'5 Modern Puritanism, p. 55. This pamphlet is chiefly a re
print from the Christian Remembrancer of Jan. 1843. There is
a note on the question in the Hierurgia, p. 105 — which is quite
in keeping with the general character of that work.

C&e Confession. 221
appears to me, safely conclude on a view of the
history, that it was the intention of the revisers to
throw a veil over the practice, which had until then
been permitted by the Church, rather than to give it
any additional sanction.
Still, it is not forbidden ; and it is possible that in
particular instances a clergyman may be able to turn
to good account the liberty which is allowed by our
Prayer- Book.36 ( d.) The Confession.
The direction that the communicants should join
in saying the confession was first introduced in 1662.
The rubric had previously ordered that it be said
" in the name of all those that are minded to receive,
either by one of them, or else by one of the ministers,
or by the priest himself, all kneeling humbly upon
their knees." (Keeling, 200). On this the com
mittee of 1641 suggests — " whether the rubric is
not to be mended concerning the party that is to
make his confession ; that it should be said only by
the minister, and then at every clause repeated by
the people." (Cardw. Conf. 275.) Among the con
cessions of the episcopal divines at the Savoy was
this — " That the general confession at the communion
be pronounced by one of the ministers, the people
saying it after him." (Ib. 363.)
Hence it would seem, that, although the rubric is
still not explicit as to this point, the people ought
here, as in the daily service, to say the several clauses
of their confession not with but after the minister.

36 I have met with a suggestion that young persons newly
confirmed and intending to communicate might perhaps with
advantage be allowed to be present for once without receiving.

222 cfte Communion=office.

(e.) The Position of the Priest at the
Consecration.
RUBRIC. " When the priest, standing before the
table, hath so ordered the bread and wine that
he may with the more readiness and decency
break the bread before the people, and take
the cup into his hands, he shall say the prayer
of consecration."
This rubric is variously interpreted; some sup
posing that the priest ought to stand before the table
only during the time of ordering the elements, while
others extend the direction for so standing to the whole
prayer and act of consecration.37
The Book of 1549 prescribes that this and other
parts of the service be said " afore the midst of the
altar," or " towards the altar." From 1552 until
the last revision, there was no direction on the sub
ject ; even the order for taking the paten and chalice
into the hands was left out at the instance of Bucer,
although the practice continued to be traditionally
observed. (Cosin in Nicholls, App. 53.)
I am unable to say whether the custom of con
secrating "before the table" was uninterruptedly
kept up in any quarter, but strongly suspect that it
was not. We find it, however, among the leading
churchmen of Charles the First's time, such as Laud,
Wren, and Cosin. Wren, when this was charged
on him as a crime, replied that he did so only be-

3? He must also, as a consequence, receive the communion in
the same place, as is done in the magnificent service of St. Peter's
Church at Leeds.

C&e position of t&e Priest. 223
cause the elements " stood upon the table further
from the end thereof than he, being but low of
stature, could reach over his book unto them, and
yet still proceed on in reading of the words without
stop or interruption." (Parentalia, 103.) Laud de
fends himself on similar grounds, and speaks with
great contempt of the mystical reasons which were
imputed to him (Troubles, 116); and although Cosin
(Works, i. xx-xxiv.) had not the physical cause for
standing before the altar in the same degree with
Laud and Wren, his character forbids us to suppose
that he can have considered that position necessary
in itself; indeed even a tall man would feel the
inconvenience of the other, if the table were placed,
as it was by the school of Laud, with its ends towards
the north and south.
The Scotch liturgy of 1637 directs that " the pres
byter during the time of consecration shall stand at
such a part of the holy table where he may with the
more ease and decency use both his hands." (Keel
ing, 214). This order sanctions, although it does
not plainly enforce, the position in front of the table
throughout ; and it has been, together with the prac
tice of Laud and his associates, adduced by way of
proof that our present rubric, which speaks expressly
of " standing before the table," ought to be construed
as requiring the priest to remain there while saying
the prayer.
On comparing the rubrics, however, we may ob
serve two circumstances in our own which do not
appear in the other ; viz. — that the priest is to order
the bread and wine so that he may conveniently reach
them ; and — that he is to break the bread " before
the people." These directions would both be super
fluous, if it were intended that he should stand in

224 c&e Communion=office.
front of the altar while consecrating ; if the second
meant no more than that he ought to be seen by the
people, while standing in such a position that his
action cannot be seen, it is impossible to imagine
why it should have been inserted ; for it has never
been the practice of the Western Church that the
priest should himself be out of sight.
Taking into account, therefore, the difference of
these rubrics, and the history of the troubles in which
Laud and others were involved, I believe that the
rubric of 1662 was intended to provide against those
inconveniences which led some divines of the earlier
time to stand before the altar throughout the holy
action. The priest, standing before the table, is to
order the elements, i. e. to remove them to such a
place that he may reach them from the north end,
without being obliged to provoke captious persons
by turning his back on them during the consecration.
Thus the interpretation which to me, at least, has
always appeared most natural, is confirmed by an
inquiry into the history of the rubric.

(f.) The Priest communicating — Clerical
Communion.
There was, until the last review, no clear direction
for the position of the priest while communicating.
Bishop Overall's chaplain is in favour of standing,
and it would appear that such was the usual practice
of his time, since he reports a puritanical objection
to the enforcement of kneeling on the laity, that
" They may be as well left to their liberty, and
stand, as the minister, when they receive." (Nicholls,
App. 45.) Curie, Bishop of Winchester, 1637,

Cfje Priest communicating. 225
requires that the priest kneel as well as the people.
(Rushworth, ii. 187.)
Bishop Cosin expresses a wish that an order for
kneeling should be given, and that words should be
prescribed, " lest otherwise some contentious minister
should say that he is not enjoined to kneel in this
holy action, or to say any words at all when he
takes the sacrament." (Nicholls, App. 69.)
Sancroft's Prayer-Book contains suggestions on
both these heads, but no order for words was given
at the revision.
Mr. Crosthwaite, in his learned and valuable essay
entitled Communio Fidelium, (pp. 25-8,) quotes
various liturgies in which words are set down for the
priest to say when he receives, without any form to
be addressed to the people ; it being assumed, appa
rently, that he would naturally supply this. Many
examples of the same kind may be found in Martene ;
and altogether it appears plain that words ought to be
used in both cases.
It is, however, further questioned whether a change
of person ought to be made by the priest when he
administers the consecrated elements to himself. The
Scotch Liturgies, both old and new, appear to direct
that he shall address himself in the second person ;
and the American Liturgy — an example generally to
be shunned — agrees in this. Sancroft's book, how
ever, has the first person ; and this is, in so far as I
have observed, invariably the case in Martene's
documents. The use of the first person, therefore,
appears to have a stronger claim on us than the
other. Until the last review it was ordered that the clergy
present should receive before the laity, "that they

226 c&e Communion-office.
may help the chief minister." As this reason has
been removed from the rubric, it would seem that
clergymen ought now to receive first, although it
be not intended that they shall assist in the dis
tribution.

(g). The Response Amen at Communicating.
Bishop Andrewes (in Nicholls, App. 49), directs
" To the prayer The Blood, fyc. the communicant to
say Amen, and then, and not before, to take the
Sacrament." For the antiquity of this practice and its universa
lity in ancient liturgies, see Bingham, xv. 5, 8, and
L'Estrange, 210. Bishop Montagu inquires if it be
observed. Bishop Cosin suggests that it.be ordered
in the rubric (Nicholls, 61) as it had already been in
that of the Scotch Book ; and Sancroft has a note to
the same purpose. Although without such express
sanction, it is traditionally followed by many persons,
and is recommended in Sparrow's Rationale, (220)
and in devotional books of high character, such as
Cosin's Devotions, Sherlock's Practical Christian,
and the works of Wilson and Lake on the Eucharist.

(h.) Singing or Reading during Communion.
It appears from L'Estrange (210) and Thorndike,
(Relig. Assemb. c. x. § 105,) that in their time
it was usual to sing psalms while the people were
communicating; for which, although it is not pre
scribed in our Book, they adduce ancient precedents.
The puritanical Bishop Scambler (1571) would

case of t&e " ^econu ^ermce » 227
have " a minister in the pulpit, reading comfortable
scriptures of the Passion or other like, pertaining to
the matter in hand." (Strype, Ann. ii. 91.)
It is prescribed in the Book of 1549 that the Clerks
shall sing at this time the two sentences of the litany
which begin " O Lamb of God ;" and the same is
recommended in Sancroft's notes.
At Durham Cathedral, as Mr. Jebb informs us,
(511) "a soft symphony is played on the organ"
Jldiile the communicants receive.

(i.) Use of the " Second Service " on ordinary
days.
A rubric at the end of the communion-office pro
vides that a part of that office shall be used on Sun
days and holy-days when there is no communion.
The Book of 1549 further required that this "second
service " should be said on Wednesdays and Fridays
" at the altar" — the priest wearing "a plain alb or
surplice, with a cope ; and the same order shall be
used all other days whensoever the people be custom-
ably assembled to pray in the church, and none
disposed to communicate with the priest." (Keeling^
229-231). By this rubric, then, the second service
was to be read on all mornings when there was an
assembling in the church and none could be found to
communicate ; i. e. on Sundays, holy-days, and litany-
days in parish-churcheS) and every day in cathedrals
and such other places as professed, according to an
other rubric, (ib. 178) to celebrate the holy communion
daily. Although no such rule appears in any later Book,
we find notices of a daily use of the service in cathe-

228 c&e Communion-office.
drals. It is prescribed in the Reformatio Legum ;
and we meet with it at Canterbury 1564, (see p. 64)
at Durham in Cosin's time, (Works, i. xxv. Hierurg.
Anglic. 38), and at Winchester, when Laud reformed
that cathedral. (Heylyn, Laud, 275).
As the Reformatio Legum did not become law, the
practice must have been founded, in those places
where it was followed, on special orders or tradi
tions. When a morning-sermon is preached in parish
churches on any ordinary day, the second service
ought to be read ; such was the order in the fast-
book of 1563, and Bishop Wren requires it in his
injunctions. (Grindal, Remains, 84 ; Doc. Ann. ii.
200).

XVII.
W&t gearlp4|2 umber of Communions*.— Communion
on (Boot) iFtiUap.
(a.)
I TRUST it is needless for me to profess a belief
that frequent communion is exceedingly desira-
able. It is ordered by a rubric that " 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 reason
able cause to the contrary."
Although this rubric was then in the Book, the
advertisements of 1 565 are content to order monthly

gearuj Bumoer of Communions. 229
communion in such places ; and such was the prac
tice of Canterbury Cathedral at that time. (Strype,.
Parker, 183.)
In 1571, Grindal enjoined at York — "Ye shall
minister the holy communion every month, once at
the least, in every of your churches and chapels
where ministration of the sacraments is permitted."
(Remains, 124.) For the cathedral he prescribes
communion on certain principal feasts, and once in
every month in which no such feast occurs ; leaving
the question of greater frequency to the " good
disposition " of the Chapter, (ib. 148.)
The rubric was, however, observed in later times ;
and the practice seems to have passed away in con
sequence of the lax notions as to ordinances which
followed on the Revolution of 1688 ; to which
notions is also attributed the disuse of weekly com
munion in London churches. (Life of Kettlewell, p.
90.) In the rules for the chapel at Madrid, it was or
dered that the communion be " as often as it shall
please the Prince to set down." At Holyrood (1633)
it was to be monthly ; (Heylyn, Laud, 247 ;) and
such was probably the custom of the royal chapels
generally. Bishop Andrewes speaks as follows ; (Sermons,
v. 67.) " We should continue in this, and the fre
quenting of it, if not so often as the primitive Church
did — which either thrice in the week, or at the fur
thest once, did communicate — yet as often as the
Church doth celebrate; which, I think, should do
better to celebrate more often." He does not inform
us what was the usual number of celebrations at the
date of this sermon, (1592) but says as to the pre
vailing notions, " If it be panis annuus, once a-year

230 c&e Communion^office.
received, we think our duty discharged."37 Of An
drewes himself we are told by Bishop Buckeridge,
in his Funeral-Sermon, (ib. 296) that " after he
came to have an episcopal house, with a chapel, he
kept monthly communions inviolably, yea, though
himself had received at the court the same ^month."
A monthly celebration appears also to have been the
practice of Laud in his chapel at Lambeth. (Rushw.
ii. 279.)
Bishop Overall in his articles, 1619, and Bishop
Montagu, 1638, seem to allow of as few as three com
munions yearly. At Little Gidding, the minister of

3? As it is now the fashion to magnify the Romish Church as a
model in the provision and exercise of spiritual privileges, it may
be useful to point out that the idea here reproved was derived
from the times before the Reformation. Roger Hutchinson writes,
(Works, ed. 1842, p. 220) " We may not gather that the holy
communion of Christ's honourable Body and Blood is to be re
sorted unto but once a-year, because [the Israelites] had but a
yearly lamb, and an annual remembrance; as some Bishops of
Rome have taught in times past, which would have the laity of
every realm to have but an annual communion ; and as many
appear to be persuaded yet, but vainly and wickedly." (Comp.
Pilkington, p. 542). This might seem to be an enemy's exagge
ration of the fact, that the council of Lateran in 1215 appointed
an annual reception as the least that could be allowed in members
of the Church. (See Bingham, xv. 9, 6 ; Catech. Concil. Trident.
ii. 4, 62 ; Martene, i. 154). But when we find the Devonshire
men, who in 1549 made an insurrection in resistance to the Re
formation, declaring among their demands for the restoration of
privileges — "We will have the sacrament of the altar but at
Easter delivered to the lay-people," (Cranmer, ed. Jenkyns, ii.
220) — we cannot doubt what had been the usual teaching of the
preceding times. Harding (ap. Jewel. Def. Apol. 229) allows
that communion had been unfrequent in England, but says that
it was not so abroad. The Liturgy of 1549, in accordance with
the previous custom, required the people to communicate " once
in the year, at the least," whereas the later books make thrice the
lowest number. See p. 218.

gearlj? dumber of Communions. 23 1
the adjoining parish administered monthly to Ferrar's
household ; Ferrar himself being only a deacon.
(Eccl. Biog. iv. 181.) Herbert writes, (Country
Parson, c. 22,) "The parson celebrates it, if not duly
once a month, yet, at the least, five or six times in
the year, as at Easter, Christmas, Whitsuntide, afore
and after harvest, and the beginning of Lent." Ham
mond "reduced it to an imitation, though a distant
one, of the primitive frequency, to once a month."
(E. B. iv. 322.) Bishop Cosin, after stating that
" 2 Edw. VI. [i. e. under the Book of 1549] the com
munion was administered, as it still ought to be in
catholic [qu. cathedral ?] churches, every Sunday at
the least,"38 — gives it as his opinion that in his time
" the condition of the Church was not for the present
capable of so excellent a custom." (Nicholls, App.
23.) Bull's yearly number of celebrations were
seven ; which, though short of his wishes, is said by
his biographer, Nelson, to have been " oftener than

38 In the Book of 1549, the division containing the Introits,
Collects, Epistles, and Gospels has a general heading in which
they are described as " to be used at the celebration of the Lord's
Supper and holy communion throughout the year;" but besides
this we find in the offices for several particular days a further
heading — " At the Communion." Those thus distinguished are—
Christmas-day, (when provision is made for two communions),
the Circumcision, the Epiphany, Good Friday, the Annunciation,
thirteen other days which may fall within the week, and the fol
lowing Sundays — Sexagesima, Easter, (two communions), Whit
sunday, Trinity, and the fourth, eighth, and sixteenth after it. I
do not undertake to say, that this distinction (of which no notice
has fallen in my way) was intended to mark out the days in
question as more especially times of celebration ; but there must
in all probability be some meaning in the circumstance, and no
other interpretation has occurred to me, while this does not appear
inconsistent with the rubrics in the office of that Book.

232 c&e Communion-office.
is usual in little villages." (Life, 52.) Kettlewell
administered " on Christmas-Day, Good-Friday,
Easter-Day, the Sunday after, and Whitsunday;
and several times of the year besides." (Life, 24.)
Archbishop Sancroft (1688) orders that it be " in
the greater towns once in every month, and even in
the lesser too, if communicants may be procured ; or
however, as oft as they may." (Doc. Ann. ii. 323.)
The Bishop of London says in his late Charge,
(p. 38) " I think that in every parish there ought to
be at least monthly communion ;" and the Bishop of
Exeter considers this " the very least which ought
to satisfy any faithful pastor of the smallest parish.''
(Charge 1842, p. 27). It must be matter of great
joy to every sound churchman that the number of
celebrations has generally throughout the country
increased much of late. Should the wishes of the dis
tinguished prelates just quoted be everywhere carried
into effect, the instances here given will shew that
in this respect, at least, we need not be spoken of as
degenerate from the practice of our best divines.

(b.)
Objections are entertained by some persons against
the propriety of celebrating the holy communion on
Good Friday ; and it is also questioned whether the
practice be agreeable to the intentions of the Anglican
Church.39 With respect to the question of propriety,
I shall content myself with saying that I have not met

39 See Mr. F. W. Faber's " Sights and Thoughts," pp. 304-8,
where the case is stated with considerable extravagance of lan
guage.

Communion on ®ooo jTrioag. 233
with any argument sufficient to prove the eucharistic
feast inconsistent with the penitential character and
exercises of the day. This, however, is chiefly a
matter of feeling.
Looking at the present Prayer-Book by itself, we
find that everything in it is favourable to communion
on the day of the Passion, except the negative fact
that this has not, like other days commemorative of
great events in the Gospel history, a particular pre
face appointed for it. This, however, may be suffi
ciently explained by the circumstance that the other
prefaces were translated from Liturgies which con
tained none for this day.
The custom of omitting communion on Good
Friday was of comparatively late origin. Martene
(iii. 130), referring to authorities of date from a. d. 600
to 900, shews that it was then usual to communicate
on this day, although not, apparently, to consecrate.
In monasteries, all the members communicated, (ib.
iv. 140.) Indeed, from some words of Bishop
Tonstal (in Collier, ii. 113) and of Harding (in
Jewel, Answer, 101) it would seem as if even in the
sixteenth century the people were allowed to receive,
consecration only being forbidden; and there are
Roman Theologians at this day who wish for a resto
ration of the general communion. Schmid professes
himself unable to divine why the priest alone should
have the privilege of communicating. "The Eucharist,"
he writes, " is the bread of our souls ; why should
there be a day on which we may not receive it ?"
(Liturgik, ii. 510).
If we enter on an argument from probability, we
shall be led to expect that the Anglican Reformers
would sanction the practice now in question. Ac-

234 Cfje Communion*office.
cording to the Roman order, the priest communicates
alone, and in one kind, the Host having been conse
crated on the preceding day. Is it likely that our
Church would discountenance communion more than
the Roman ? If not, it will follow, that, as she
disallows solitary reception, communion in one kind,
and reservation of the sacrament, she must approve
of a general communicating on this day as on
others. A few facts shall be added to confirm this idea.
The Introits, &c. for Good Friday in the first Book
of Edward VI. have, as we have seen, the special
heading — " At the communion." This seems of
itself decisive as to the mind of the compilers.
Rastall, a Romanist, in his answer to Jewel's
Challenge, blamed the Reformed Church of Eng
land for communicating on this day. (Heylyn, Hist.
Ref. 347.)
Andrewes, in his first sermon on the Passion, (ii.
134) speaks of the administration as about to fol
low.41 Hammond in his last sickness communicated on
Good Friday. (Eccl. Biog. iv. 385.) The Romish
Church, indeed, allows the sacrament to be given on
this day to persons in extremity ; but such was not
Hammond's case.
Good Friday was, as we have seen, one of Kettle-
well's regular days of administration.
We have, therefore, very sufficient grounds for
believing that the practice is sanctioned by our
Church ; and we have seen also that it has the au-

41 This passage is pointed out by a writer in Brit. Mag. iv. 58 ;
in which volume some letters on the subject may be found.

Communion on <©oou jTriOap. 235
thority of eminent individual divines ; while, of
course, those who object to it, whether on the ground
of feeling or for any other reason, are not constrained
either to administer or to receive.

XVIII.
25aptC0m.
SOME of the reasons why Baptism should be
administered in public are well set forth in the
first rubric before the office for infants. Our people
may also be taught, that, in offering up prayers for
those who are baptized, as in all intercessions and
other offices of love, they do a good to their own
souls. It is proper, generally, that the office should be
introduced into the public service, after the second
lesson, as the rubric appoints. In populous town-
parishes, the ordinary is the best judge of the matter ;
but in answer to a common objection it may be
observed, that unless the questions be put separately
for each child,42 the difference of time occupied will

42 Sharp (p. 23) argues that this is necessary. The printing
of the Prayer-Book is not quite conclusive for his view ; the fact
that the order was expressly given in 1549, and has since been
omitted, is against it. The strongest argument in its favour is,
that in the office for adults, which was added in 1662, it is
ordered that each person be questioned " severally." No such
order, however, was then given as to children ; and it would be
easy to point out a difference between the cases sufficient to
warrant a variety of practice.

236 baptism.
be trifling, unless the number of receivers be immo
derately great.
The number of Godfathers and Godmothers was
first fixed by the rubric of 1662. Bishop Wren had
before ordered that there should not be more than
three sponsors. (Doc. Ann. ii. 204.) In the ancient
Church, only one was required, who was, in the case
of adults, to be of the same sex with the person
baptized, although no distinction of sex was observed
with respect to those who were sureties for infants.
Some authorities forbade that more than one should
be admitted. (Bingham, xi. 8. 11.) The Council of
Trent prescribes that there be only one sponsor, or,
at most, one of each sex ; and proxies for absent
sponsors are allowed. (Sess. xxiv. c. 2 ; Gav. Thes.
iii. 73.) The limitation of number was, it appears,
intended to prevent the increase of spiritual affinities,
which, as is well known, are in the Roman com
munion regarded as a bar to marriage. (Note in
Courayer's translation of Fra Paolo, vol. i. p. 395 ;
Schmid, iii. 15.)
The xxix th canon requires that the sponsors shall
have been communicants. Sharp (106) thinks that
this must be insisted on. Archdeacon R. I. Wilber-
force considers it advisable in present circumstances
to begin the restoration of the discipline by requiring
owe communicant. (Charge, 1841. )43
The same canon forbids the admission of fathers
to answer for their own children. We are justified
« See " Sponsors for the Poor," by the Rev. M. Hawtrey, who
proposes that the communicants should form themselves into an
association for undertaking the much neglected duties of sponsor
ship.

iBaptism. 237
in making a like restriction as to mothers — at least,
in endeavouring to dissuade them from offering them
selves; the reason why they are not expressly ex
cluded being manifestly, that the baptism is supposed
to take place while the mother is yet unable to leave
her house.
It is, however, very doubtful whether the object
of the canon be that which is usually supposed — the
securing, namely, of increased spiritual guardianship
for the child. It has been shown by Mr. Fallow,
(author of a valuable work on the Baptismal Offices)
that the puritans wished to have children baptized
on a profession of the father's faith ; that as the
former words of the service, by which the child was
addressed through the sponsors — " Dost thou forsake
the devil," &c. —might be misinterpreted so as to
accord with this, special means were required to
counteract the evil ; that this is the reason why the
advertisement of 1565 and the canon of 1604 for
bade fathers to be Godfathers to their own children,
or that any person should appear to answer for the
father in his absence. As, then, the service of our
present Book secures the same object otherwise, by re
quiring that the stipulations be made in the name of the
child, Mr. Fallow would conclude that the canon is
obsolete; and, as he remarks, it has not that claim
on us which belongs to usages of the early Church,
since the ancient practice was otherwise. (Brit. Mag.
Feb. 1840.) This argument appears to me sufficient
to justify a clergyman in dispensing with the canon
in cases where a strict enforcement of it would be a
prohibition of baptism.
The font is, according to canon lxxxi, to be made

238 TBaptism.
of stone,44 and " set in the ancient usual place," i. e.
near the church-door. The Bishops at the Savoy
Conference refused to concede that it might be placed
elsewhere, unless in cases where the people could
not hear; in these, they would leave the position to
the ordinary. (Cardw. Conf. 324-355-363.)
The rubric directs that it be " filled with pure
water," our Church holding with the Roman, "aquam
veram et naturalem esse de necessitate sacramenti."
(Cone. Trid. Sess. vii. Can. 2, de Bapt. ; Cf. Mar
tene, i. 48.) Laud, Wren, (Doc. Ann. ii. 204),
Montagu (p. 49) and others, require " that no pots,
pails, or basons be used in it or instead of it ;" and the
use of basons is also forbidden by the Advertisements
of 1565. (Doc. Ann. i. 292.)
The history of the different manners of adminis
tration is given in Wall's Defence, c. v. He refers
the introduction of sprinkling to the presbyterians
during their ascendancy. Taylor, indeed, speaks of
sprinkling as the settled practice of his day (xiv. 62) ;
but as he translates perfusus by sprinkled, we may
understand him to mean pouring rather than asper
sion, so that his evidence may be reconciled with
Wall's opinion. Archdeacon Churton contends, and
apparently with reason, that the Church does not by
the word " dip " intend total immersion ; that to dip

44 Ferrar's font was of brass, and was set near the pulpit; "the
laver," according to Mr. Lenton, " was of the bigness of a barber's
bason." (Eccl. Biog. iv. 249.) This was agreeable to the taste
of the puritans, who in 1573 desired the removal of fonts, " and
also the brazen eagles, which were ornaments in the , chancels,
and made for lectures [lecterns?]. As for the eagles, they must
be molten, to make pots and basons, for new fonts." (Strype
Parker, 451.)

^Baptism. 239
" is merely to put a body (either some part of it, or the
whole,) into water, in contradistinction to the apply
ing of water to the body." (Life of Nowell, 187.)
Martene writes — " Caput praesertim aquis immer-
gebatur." (i. 50.) Milan is, according to Schmid
(i. 386-7), the only Church of the west in which
immersion, either total or partial, continues to be
practised ; affusion being the usual manner of admi
nistration in the Roman communion. He considers
sprinkling censurable ; — " Perhaps it is not valid
except when the water runs on the recipient, since it
is only in such cases that a washing takes place."
Mr. Poole writes (On Lights, p. 34) — " I suppose
that trine affusion is generally practised, as it ought
to be, to this day." If this is the expression of a
real belief, a little inquiry into facts, or a reference
to the Bishop of London's Charge (p. 51), would
undeceive the writer. The Book of 1549 required
that the child should be thrice dipped ; but no order
for the repetition has been given in any of the later
Books. Montagu requires it (p. 72) ; and Taylor is
favourable to it, although he considers it indifferent,
and testifies that a single " sprinkling" (see above p.
238) was the custom of his time (xiv. 65-6). Hooker
(v. 12. 3) shews that the use of one or of three im
mersions is indifferent ; either practice may be inter
preted soundly, and either may be perverted so as to
favour heretical opinions on the doctrine of the
Trinity. (Cf. Martene, i. 50.)
Archbishop Peckham directs, a. d. 1281 — "At
tendant sacerdotes, ne lasciva nomina, quae scilicet,
mox prolata, sonent in laseiviam, imponi permittant
parvulis baptizatis, sexus praecipue foeminini." (Gib
son, 440). The Parson, says Herbert, " admits no vain

240 baptism.
or idle names, but such as are usual and accus
tomed." (c. xxii.)43
The first rubric before the office for Private Bap
tism is probably little observed. It certainly cannot
plead Catholic sanction, as in ancient times baptism
was ordinarily administered only at a particular
season in the year. (See the rubric before the office
until 1662.) Distance from the church, coldness or
wetness of weather, and many family circumstances
(besides the natural desire of the mother to witness
the admission of her child " into the congregation of
Christ's flock,") may surely be " approved by the
curate " without express application, as reasons for
dispensing with the very early administration of this
sacrament which is here prescribed.
Baptism is not to be administered in private houses,
unless in cases of necessity ; and then only according
to the form provided for such occasions. Evelyn,
(Diary, April 12, 1689), shews the prevalence of
irregularity46 in this respect under the Restoration,
(which is confirmed by many passages in Pepys),
and also the origin of it. " I urged that when they
went about to reform some particulars in the Liturgy,
church-discipline, canons, &c, the baptizing in pri
vate houses without necessity might be reformed
.... proceeding much from the pride of women,
bringing that into custom which was only indulged
in case of imminent danger, and out of necessity
43 See curious passages on naming in Jewel on the Sacra
ments, p. 268, and Fuller, Worthies, Berkshire, p. 110.
*" This and similar irregularities, are very common in the
Roman communion, the clergy in many places not daring to
withstand them. (Schmid, iii. 60.)

baptism. 241
during the Rebellion and persecution of the clergy
in the late civil wars. To this they [Archbishop
Sancroft, and Lloyd, Bishop of St. Asaph] heartily
assented, and promised their endeavours to get it
reformed, utterly disliking it as novel and indecent."
The rubric, however, as it was and still remains,
appears sufficiently stringent.
The Sarum Manual allows chamber-baptism in
the case of royal infants, and this was according to
the general practice of the middle ages. (Fallow on
Baptism; Martene, i. 10.)
Attempts are often made to combine the service
for Public Baptism with that for receiving into the
congregation infants which have been privately bap
tized. No combination can be made, however, with
out destroying the significant differences of the two
offices, in which the Church's view of the sacrament
is remarkably shown. Nor, again, is it desirable
that each should be gone through at full length in
the same service. Perhaps, therefore, the best way
of managing the matter may be by arranging that
children in the two states shall be brought at different
times ; which may easily be done if previous notice
be required, as the rubric directs.
Sharp notes (p. 30,) that in the form for hypo
thetical baptism, dipping is the only manner of
administration mentioned ; the child, in the cases for
which that form is appointed, being supposed strong
enough to bear immersion.
It is to be observed, that throughout the office for
baptism of adults, the officiating person is styled
Priest ; and that deacons at their ordination receive
authority only to baptize infants, and that " in the
absence of the priest." These limitations, as well as
the office for adults, were added at the last review.
H.

242

XIX.
Cateclnjinff.
A VALUABLE collection of " Documents and
Authorities on Public Catechizing " was pub
lished in 1840, by the Rev. John Ley, of Exeter
College, Oxford. His authors insist much on the
importance of the exercise ; they see in a right
grounding by these means the be.st hope of building
up our people in the truth, and guarding them
against the errors *7 which may prevail around us ;
and they shew very sufficiently, (what might be
abundantly confirmed from other quarters,48) that to
the ignorance arising from neglect of this solid in
struction, and the lust of listening to popular oratory
instead, many of the mischiefs which have afflicted
this country may be traced.
And, doubtless, if we could now establish such a
system of catechizing as our Church contemplates,
we might hope to do vast good ; influencing our
parishioners in their early years, and using the young
as instruments for the instruction of others. And if
it be argued that by such public catechizing we
may drive people away from our churches, let it be

47 " Though sermons give most sail to men's souls, catechizing
layeth the best ballast in them, keeping them from being carried
away with every wind of doctrine." (Fuller, Worthies, p. 97.)
48 Leighton's Charges may be referred to in particular, as
shewing the wretched state into which a people may fall under a
system of excessive preaching combined with a lack of cate
chizing.

Catering; 243
considered whether we may not lose at least as many,
whether to the sects or to utter ungodliness, by the
neglect of it. There can be no doubt that if we
could get over the first difficulties, the gain would
after a few years greatly preponderate.
It is needless to dwell long on the history of Cate
chizing. Edward the Sixth's first Book ordered it to be
once in six weeks at least, half an hour before even
song, on some Sunday or holy-day. The Book of
1552, and all since, direct the curate to catechize
"diligently upon Sundays and holy-days." Bishop
Cosin remarks (Nicholls, App. 58) that this does not
prescribe it for every such day, but only " as often
as need requires, according to the largeness and num
ber of children in his parish ;" — which is true ; — but
as Wheatley observes, (c. viii. s. 2.) " how to reconcile
the Lixth canon to this exposition of the rubric, I
am at a loss ;" since that canon orders the exercise
to be used on every Sunday and holy-day. The
Reformatio Legum assigns the first hour of the after
noon in city-parishes to catechizing — from which the
people are to proceed to sermon in the cathedral at
two o'clock. The injunctions of 1559 have "every
holy-day and every second Sunday." (Doc. Ann. i.
195.) It would seem that in the early years of Elizabeth
the rubric was very imperfectly obeyed ; since among
matters to be moved in the convocation of 1562 we
find — " That all parsons, &c. every Sunday and holy-
day do  at afternoon offer themselves to teach
the catechism to the youth of the parish, and take wit
ness thereof of the churchwardens and sidemen, upon
pain to forfeit for every time that they do neglect so
to do 3*. Ad." (Synodalia, 504.)

244 Catecbiiinof.
The canon of 1571 orders that the clergy " omni
bus Dominicis et festis diebus statim a meridie
praesto erunt in templis, ibique minimum adduashoras
legent et docebunt catechismum. " (ib. 121.)
We find a variety in the orders of various bishops
on the subject ; sometimes the catechizing is to be
" before," sometimes, " before or after," sometimes
" before or at " evening prayer ; and the duration is
from " half an hour or more " to " one hour at the
least." (Grindal, Remains, 124-162 ; Bancroft's
Articles, 1604 and 1605 ; Laud's, for Worcester,
1635 ; Articles for the Archdeaconry of Canterbury,
1636.) In 1622, James I. issued injunctions that no ser
mon should be preached "but upon some part of the
catechism, or some text taken out of the creed, ten
commandments, or the Lord's Prayer, funeral-sermons
only excepted; and that those preachers be most
encouraged and approved who spend the afternoon
exercise in the examination of children in their cate
chism, and in the expounding of the several points
and heads of the catechism, which is the most ancient
and laudable custom of teaching in the Church of
England." (Doc. Ann. ii. 149. See the sermon
preached at St. Paul's Cross by Donne, in enforce
ment of these orders, No. civ. ed. Alford.)
To revive the catechetical instruction was one of
Laud's chief objects ; and of course the attempts at
it were among the grounds of complaint against him
and his brethren.
In 1 662, it was ordered that the catechizing should
be introduced into the service after the second lesson ;
and there can be no reasonable doubt that this new
rubric was intended to supersede that part of the
Lixth canon which orders that it should be before

Catering. 245
evening prayer. It was hoped that the alteration
would draw the people to catechism ; but it had the
effect of driving them away from the prayers.49
(Nicholls.) As to the persons to be catechized, it is ordered,
that " all fathers, mothers, masters, and dames, shall
cause their children, servants, and apprentices (which
have not learned their catechism ") to come to church
and be thus instructed. For the words of the paren
thesis, the Book of 1549 had — " which are not yet
confirmed." The alteration was made in consequence
of Bucer's suggestion that " many are confirmed
young, and before they understand their catechism,
at least, though peradventure they can repeat the
words of it." (Cosin, in Nich. App. 57.) It
appears, therefore, that the curate may continue to
catechize those who have received confirmation.
A canon of 1571 orders that the clergy catechize
" omnes suos omnium aetatum atque ordinum ; non
tantum puellas aut pueros, sed etiam, si opus erit,
grandiores." (Synodalia, 121.) Even our most
rigid disciplinarians would hardly attempt to act on
this order to the full in the present day.
Nicholls tells, us, that before the Great Rebellion
the children were catechized on Saturdays, and the
youth on Sundays.
The present Bishop of Exeter (in Ley, p. 43)
says that " the mere hearing the children say the
catechism, either entire or broken into short ques
tions, is the business of the school, and would be a
very inadequate substitute for a sermon," and de-

49 See an extract in Ley, p. 41, from one of the Bishop of Lon
don's Charges.

246 Catering;.
scribes " good and effective catechetical instruction"
as a system of" instructing the youth by means of the
Church-catechism clearly and largely explained before
the congregation." To retain the youth — those who
have left school, and have begun to earn money by
labour — under the influence of the Church, is one of
the most desirable objects with us, and also very
difficult of attainment. We should gain much
indeed if the catechism could be made the means of
effecting this.
It does not appear that catechetical instruction
must necessarily be uninteresting to the hearers, or
a severe tax on their patience and charity.50 Rubrics,
canons, and other documents throughout suppose
something different from a mere asking the questions
and receiving the prescribed answers.51 Much of an
interesting kind may surely be drawn out and com
municated in the course of the examination; and
50 One of our ablest living prelates speaks thus of catechizing :
" It is probably never more likely to answer these ends [of bene
fiting the young] and at the same time to strengthen the attachment
of those of riper years to the Church, than where such instruction is
given, according to the intention of the Church, in the presence
of the congregation. I am convinced that many of our churches
would be much better attended, if this practice were revived."
(Charge to the Clergy of St. David's 1842.) Dr. Beaven, in his
exceedingly useful " Help to Catechizing," tells us from his own
experience, that the exercise wins on the congregation by degrees ;
and that it is much less apt than afternoon sermons to induce a
disposition to sleep. These testimonies are very encouraging to
any clergymen who may be disposed to try the system of catechiz
ing without lecturing ; but proof is given in the text that lectur
ing is also allowed.
si We find, indeed, that the bishops of Laud's school are
charged by the committee of 1641 with " prohibiting the minis
ters to expound the catechism at large to their parishioners "
(Cardw. Conf. 273) ; and that a puritan of the same time re
ports of Pierce, Bishop of Bath and Wells — " I heard him say

Catering. 247
moreover, although the limits imposed by the nature
of a catechetical lecture would considerably check the
exuberances of popular eloquence, there is nothing
against, but very much in favour of, such a dis
course as might be both useful and sufficiently agree
able to the generality of our people. Whitgift, in
1591, charges that the clergy "expound and ex
amine." (Doc. Ann. ii. 24.) The directions of
1622 allow in the afternoon sermons in exposition of
the catechism, (ib. 149). To the same purpose
speak — Abbot in his letter issued on that occasion,
(ib. 153); Laud and Charles I. (Laud's Troubles,
562) ; Montagu, who allows of the treating " some
common place of divinity, or the four parts of the
English authorized catechism, or some of the xxxix
articles," (p. 60) ; Charles II. (Doc. Ann. ii. 257) ;
Sheldon, (ib. 286) ; Sancroft, (ib. 323) ; and Tenison,

to his registrar, that, whereas information had been given con
cerning certain ministers, that they expounded upon the cate
chism, that information was too narrow to catch them, and there
fore it should have run thus — That they catechized or ex
pounded upon the catechism sermonwise, — and then they would
have been obnoxious to censure." (Nalson, ii. 413.) But it is
evident, from the words at large in the first extract, and from the
distinction in the other, that the forbidden expounding must have
been something of a peculiar kind. And this is illustrated by the
fact, that Bishop Wren, after having enjoined that the minister
" catechize according to the questions of the Church catechism
only," (Doc. Ann. ii. 205,) states in his Defence, that he wished to
guard against pretended compliance, and the use of unauthorized
catechisms, that he always recommended real explanation, and
directed how it might be managed most to edification. (Parentalia,
85). I conceive, therefore, that the words of his injunction are
intended only to confine the clergy to the subjects and the doc
trines of the catechism, whereas some might have wished to run
out into that kind of preaching which is forbidden in the declara
tion prefixed to the xxxix Articles. And on the same principle
we may interpret the other passages.

248 . Catering.
(ib. 335). Herbert prescribes both questioning and
exposition, (Country Parson, Chapters 5 and 21).
Usher ordered his biographer, Bernard, to use both,
(Eccl. Biog. i. 438) ; and such was Kettlewell's
practice.51 (Life, 23-4). Compare, too, Towerson,
in Ley, p. 25. Bishop Ken's expositions of the
catechism excited great interest, and were resorted
to by persons of the highest distinction.52
Perhaps we may do well to begin by examining
the children occasionally, and studying to confine our
afternoon sermons to subjects such as those pointed
out by the authorities here referred to ; or to others
likely to ground our people in an understanding and
love of our Church, her doctrines, government, and
formularies. It appears, that the proper place for the clergy
man at examination is the desk ; in lecturing on the
catechism, the pulpit.53

51 He began to catechize in Lent, and continued several Sun
days after that season. It was his practice to preach in the after
noon on texts " that should lead him in again to the same mat
ter."— Life, 23.
52 See a letter from the Princess (afterwards Queen) Anne, re
questing that a place might be reserved for her when Ken was to
expound, in his Works, ed. Round, p. 208.
63 The following passage has been kindly communicated to me
by the publisher, Mr. Pickering : " During the interregnum in
the seventeenth century, a laudable custom prevailed, of insuring,
by a written obligation, the bringing of children to the cate
chism by their parents and sponsors. I have an extract from the
register of Christchurch, in Hampshire, a.d. 1651, which estab
lishes this fact. It is couched in these words, — ' We, whose names
or marks are here subscribed, together with the names of our chil
dren baptized do solemnly protest and promise, that if we and
our children live together until they come to the age of nine years,
we will bring or cause our children to come to the congregation
of Christchurch before our present minister, Mr. Warner, or his

249

XX.
femnonss.
A FEW more passages may be here collected, to
help towards determining a question which
some things in the preceding section bear on ; viz.
whether sermons be allowable except in the com
munion-service, to which the rubric is supposed by
some to limit them.
1550. Bishop Ridley, by desire of the council,

successors ; there to renew their covenant made in baptism, and
to answer and give a reason of their hope, by way of catechism,
so often as the said Mr. Warner, or his successors, shall require
us so to do.' " (The Book of Common Prayer with Notes by the
Rev. R. Warner, Bath, 1809.) Of the person by whom this en
gagement was framed, we learn from Antony a Wood (Athenae
ed. Bliss, iii. 450) that he " was much resorted to by those of the
presbyterian persuasion ;" while it appears from Walker's " Suf
ferings of the Clergy" (p. 285), that a clergyman of the name of
Imbdfehad been ejected from the vicarage of Christchurch. War
ner, therefore, was in fact a popular puritanical preacher, who had
intruded into a benefice of which the rightful possessor had been
despoiled by the rebels. His system of catechizing — probably
according to the form of the Westminster Assembly — was credit
able to him as an individual ; but we have abundanUproof that
diligent catechizing was in general one of the last points as to
which the religious system of that day might be expected toiclaim
a superiority over the Church. It will be observed that the pas
sage from the register contains no warrant for the commentator's
mention of sponsors, as distinct from parents. I may mention,
in connexion with this extract, that Cardinal Pole ordered the
names of Godfathers and Godmothers to be registered. (Doc. Ann.
i. 172.) This appears to be the practice of the Roman Church,
(Schmid, iii. 15), and might with advantage have been retained
in our own.

250 Sermons.
puts a stop to week-day lecturing in Essex, and
orders that sermons be " only upon Sundays and
holy-days, and none other days, except it be at any
burial or marriage." (Doc. Ann. i. 86.)
We see by Latimer's practice (e. g. in his sermons
for the 24th Sunday after Trinity, and the first and
second of those on the Lord's Prayer) that sermons
in the afternoon as well as in the forenoon were usual
in that age.
The Reformatio Legum is full and various in its
provisions on this head. Of cathedrals it is said —
" Conciones in his ecclesiis antemeridianas sane
omnes tollimus, ne quisquam illarum occasione legi-
timae desit suae ecclesiae." In all parish-churches
there was to be a sermon in the morning ; in city
parishes, the afternoon was to begin with catechizing
for an hour ; from this, the people were to resort to
sermon in the cathedral, which was to be at two
o'clock ; after which the evensong of the cathedral
was to follow, while the people from the various
parishes returned to be present at service in their
several churches. In the country, curates were to
preach in the morning-service ; in the aftentoon,
they were to catechize, to preach, and finally to read
the evening-prayer. The regulations for cities must
probably have been found impracticable, if this code
had ever been enacted. In cathedrals there were
also to be expositions of scripture thrice a- week.
According to the royal injunctions of 1559 (Doc.
Ann. i. 181) the clergy were to read a homily in the
communion-office on Sundays, if there were no ser
mon ; and on holy-days, as a substitute for a sermon,
to read the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten
Commandments in the pulpit, for the instruction of
their parishioners. Grindal's order, both at York,

Sermons. 251
1 57 1 , and at Canterbury, five years later, is in ac
cordance with this. (Remains, 127-161.) The
homilies were, according to a canon of 1571 (Synod.
121), to be read " de scripto."
1563. The preface to the second book of Homilies
directs the clergy, " where the homily may appear
too long for one reading, to divide the same, to be
read part in the forenoon and part in the after
noon." We may safely conclude that the licensed preachers
who were sent through the kingdom in those times
did not confine their preaching to the mornings of
Sundays and holy-days.
Sermon or homily on Wednesdays and Fridays is
mentioned in various orders of prayer set forth during
Elizabeth's reign on occasion of public calamities^-
e. g. the plague of 1563 (Grindal Rem. 84,) and the
earthquake of 1580. (Clay on the C. P. 190.)
Elizabeth heard sermons only in Lent, at which
season alone preaching had been anciently used
at court, (Heylyn, Laud, 126. Cf. Hooper, Early
Writings, p. 558) — " our ancestors," says Cham-
berlayne, with apparent gravity, (Angliae No-
titia, ed. 3. p. 232,) "judging that time enough
to teach such an audience their duty to God and
man." The court-sermon was in the afternoon.
There had been sermons at court during the Queen's
reign on the Wednesdays and Fridays of Lent.
James I. transferred the Wednesday sermon to Tues
day, the day of the week on which he had escaped
from the Gowrie conspiracy, 54 and appointed a
54 The late editor of Andrewes (v. 235) does not appear to
have observed that the " Sermon preached before two kings, Aug.
5, 1606," is in fact the earliest of those on the Gowrie conspiracy
— or to be aware that it was originally in Latin, and is so printed
among Andrewes' Opuscula.

252 Sermons.
sermon on every Tuesday through the year. Laud
restored the old order in Lent, but left the Tuesday
sermon at other times (Heylyn, Laud, 313.)
Bishop Buckeridge reports of Andrewes that " he
would be bold with himself, and say, when he
preached twice a-day at St. Giles' [Cripplegate, of
which he became vicar in 1589], he prated once."
(Andrewes' Sermons, v. 295, ed. 1843.)
1622. In the directions for catechizing, exception
is made in favour of funeral-sermons.55 (Doc. Ann.
ii. 149.)
1629. Laud, then Bishop of London, proposed to
the King that the orders of 1622 be enforced ; " if
this cannot be, then that every bishop ordain in his
diocese, that every lecturer do read Divine service in
his surplice before the lecture." (Rushworth, ii.7.)
Royal orders were issued accordingly, 1633, by which
catechizing is prescribed " wheresoever there is not
some great cause apparent, to break this ancient and
laudable order." (Doc. Ann. ii. 178.)
1636. Bishop Wren says that " sermons are re
quired by the Church only upon Sundays and holy-
days in the forenoon, and at marriages ; and are per
mitted at funerals."' He forbids all others, unless
there be express allowance ; for granting of which,
however, he seems to suppose his own authority suf
ficient. (Doc. Ann. ii. 206.)
The afternoon lecturers of this age, although it
was held necessary to check them as the chief

55 Knowing the present practice, we may be surprised to find
that the custom of funeral-sermons was once in disfavour with
puritans. The Warwickshire classis resolved in 1589 — " The
preachers must leave off by little and little to preach at burials,
lest thereby they nourish the superstition of some men, or give over
themselves to the preservation of vanity." Bancr. Dang. Pos. b.
iii. c. 10. Comp. Hooker, v. 75.

Sermons. 253
fomenters of puritanism, were not put down, but
only restrained in their range of subjects, as we
have already seen.
1662. Act of Uniformity, § xxii :— "At all and
every time when any sermon or lecture is to be
preached, the common prayers and service in and by
the book appointed to be read for that time of the
day, shall be openly, publicly, and solemnly read."
This is the act by which the authority of the state is
given to our present Prayer-Book. The reader will
observe that it contemplates sermons in the evening.
Lectures on week-days are also allowed by § xix.
Pocock had two sermons on Sunday, in addition to
catechizing, " when the length of days would permit
him." (Life, pp. 92-345, ed. 1816). Bull (Life,
307,) established at Avening a sermon on Thursday,
with catechizing. He also preached twice on Sun
days, (ib. 48.) Kettlewell's practice we have seen
already under the head of Catechizing.
Evelyn writes Aug. 14, 1681 — " No sermon this
afternoon, which, I think, did not happen twice in
this parish these thirty years." From his diary
throughout; and from that of his contemporary Pepys,
we learn that afternoon-sermons were usual in the
age of the last revision of the Liturgy.
On the whole, we may perhaps conclude, that the
Prayer-Book was never understood to prescribe for
churches and chapels of all kinds an uniform order of
sermon in the morning of Sundays and holy-days,
and peremptorily to forbid preaching at any other
time ; that sermons and lectures on the afternoons of
such days, and at other times, are tolerable, though
not commanded ; and if they treat on catechetical
subjects, or be simple expositions of Scripture, with
out any mischief in the matter of them, sermons in

254 Sermons.
the afternoon of Sundays have been held com
mendable by our best divines ; that weddings and
funerals may give an occasion for a sermon on any
day ; S6 and that the Bishop's authority has always
been held sufficient to regulate the practice, so as to
sanction what the Prayer-Book does not prescribe.
While, however, I maintain on such grounds the
lawfulness of preaching in the evening-service, it is
right to give a caution against a presumptive argu
ment which may perhaps occur to some minds : viz.
that those who in the age of " unpreaching ministers "
gave order for only one sermon, would, if their lot
had been cast in our days, most likely have required
more. This argument appears to me unable to bear
examination. The Essex case alleged under the
date 1550, shews that even in the time of the Re
formation a multitude of sermons was in some in
stances complained of; and further, the authority of
Ridley and his brethren cannot well be pretended
for a multiplication of sermons, if this be accompanied-
by a variation from their system in the diminution
of prayers and communions, and the neglect of holy-
days, which in their age seem to have been observed
by a cessation from labour as on the Lord's Day.

56 At weddings it would be introduced in the communion
service.

255
XXI.
Sipatiimonp.
IN answer to a question which is sometimes put,
and which, when it becomes practical, may call
for a very speedy determination, I can state on the
highest authority, that " a clergyman is not at liberty
to marry a couple during the same service in which
the banns are asked for the third time."57
The Lxund canon orders that marriage shall be
" in time of Divine service," — a rule which is now
probably little regarded. Sharp, in his 12th Charge,
traces the neglect of this canon to the example of
bishops in uniting parties of rank or importance, and
the granting of licenses. If, it was argued, persons
in higher life may be dispensed with, why not others
likewise? And hence followed general disregard.
Bishop Cosin (Nicholls, App. 70,) observes that
" it is not ordered at what time of the service this
form of marriage shall be celebrated." Bishop Wren
may perhaps be taken to express the most correct
usage in ordering that after morning-prayer " the
marriage be begun in the body of the church, and
finished at the table." (Doc. Ann. ii. 203.)
This brings us to the consideration of place. Wren's
injunction is in exact accordance with the rubric,
which orders that the first part of the service be gone
67 Letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury to a clergyman
of his Grace's diocese, 1841.

256 a^atrimong,
through in the body of the church, and the con
cluding part at the table ; while the psalm which
intervenes between the two is to be said or sung by
" the minister or clerks going to the Lord's table."
Any doubt which might be felt as to the meaning of
this last order is removed by a reference to the first
Prayer-Book of King Edward, and to the service-
books, which were in use before the Reformation.58
The psalm, therefore, ought most properly to be said
during the advance from the body of the church ;
and it appears that the order was observed in Hooker's
time. (v. 30. 5.)
Andrewes at Jesus Chapel consecrated specially
" locum nuptiarum." (Sparrow, 398.)
Bishop Montagu asks (p. 74) — " Are there any
married without a ring, joining of hands, or the fees
laid down on the book ?" As he does not put any
question about the place of matrimony, we may con
clude either that the rubric now under consideration
was never transgressed in his day, or, (which is per
haps more likely), that he did not consider the breach
of it important.
The presbyterians after the Restoration desire that
the order for a change of place be omitted. The
episcopal commissioners reply, " They go to the
Lord's table because the communion is to follow."
(Cardw. Conf. 330—360.) It would hence seem

58 Rubric, 1549. "Then shall they go into the quire, and the
minister or clerks shall say or sing this psalm following." Aless'
translation — " Tunc ingrediantur chorum, ministris aut clericis
canentibus psalmum." The Sarum and York books have in
eundo. (See Palmer, ii. 215.) The earlier part of the service
was then in the church-porch. There is no direction on this point
in the present Roman Ritual, and the usual place of marriage is
the presbytery, or before one of the altars. (Schmid, iii. 355.)

agatrimonj?. 257
that, according to the now prevailing practice, —
whereby the whole service is used in one part of the
church, and the communion is omitted, — the nave is
the more suitable of the two places. But of course
no one would make such an alteration as would at
once be an offensive novelty and a breach of the
literal rubric.
There is reason to believe that the rubrics as to
place have always been observed in some churches.

XXII.
praperg for ttje &icfe— Communion of the £>tcfe.
(a.)
BISHOP WREN directs (Doc. Ann. ii. 203)
" that when any need is, the sick by name be
prayed for in the reading-desk, and nowhere else, at
the close of the first service, except it be in the after
noon, and then to be done immediately after the
creed ; using only those two collects which we [qu.
be ?] set down in the Service-Book for the Visitation
of the Sick." In his answer when impeached, he
says that this was the custom of Westminster Abbey,
" and also it seemeth to be intended by James,59
Bishop of Winton, by his articles, 1617  But
howsoever, (as he humbly conceiveth,) it was by law
left to be ordered by the direction of the ordinary."
(Parentalia, 91.)
Wren's object was to check the extravagances of
89 Montagu. The Bishop Montagu more frequently mentioned
in these pages was named Richard. S

258 Praptrs for tfje %>icfe.
the popular preachers, who used to introduce the
sick (with very many other subjects) into their pulpit
prayers. (See Heylyn's Tracts, p. 156.) From the
mention of Westminster, we may probably conclude
that Andrewes, who had been Dean of the Abbey
Church, sanctioned the practice for which his former
chaplain was called in question.
Agreeably to this, it is related incidentally of Ham
mond, that " a neighbour lady languishing under a
long weakness, he took care that the Church office
for the sick should be daily said in her behalf." This
was in his own chamber, a.d. 1660, when the use of
the liturgy was not yet restored in churches. (Eccl.
Biog. iv. 384.) We may reasonably infer that he
considered the introduction of the collects into the
public service lawful.
The xxui rd of the present Scotch canons allows
the public use of collects from the offices for the
sick. (b.)
The term sick in the title of the communion- office
may be interpreted by means of the Lxxist canon,
which allows the eucharist to be privately adminis
tered to persons " either so impotent as that they
cannot go to church, or very dangerously sick." In
like manner, the Reformatio Legum, after forbidding
communion in private houses, adds — " Aegrotantibus
tamen et vehementer debilitatis coenam Domini fla-
gitantibus negari nolumus."
It was ordered in the Book of 1 549, that the office
should be used " afore noon." This order does not
appear in later books.
The dress to be used at the administration appears,

Communion of t&e S»icfe. 259
by virtue of the general rubric which orders that the
ornaments of 2 Edward VI. be retained, to come
under the order of that year which directs that " in
all other places [besides churches and chapels] every
minister shall be at liberty to use any surplice or
no." (Keeling, 356.)
It seems to be held both by the presbyterians and
by the church-divines of 1661, that, according to
the rubric, the minister may not refuse the commu
nion to a sick person. (Cf. Andrewes, Answ. to
Perron, p. 6.) The latter say, in answer to objec
tions, " It is not fit the minister should have the
power to deny this viation, or holy communion, to
any that humbly desire it according to the rubric ;
which no man disturbed in his wits can do, and
whosoever does, must in charity be presumed to be
penitent, and fit to receive." (Cardw. Conf. 332 —
361.) The presbyterians observe on this (Grand
Debate, p. 143) — " There is no condition mentioned
in the rubric, but that he be desirous to receive the
communion in his house ; humbly is not there."
Neal mentions as one of the alterations of 1662, that
" the minister is not enjoined to administer the sacra
ment to every sick person that shall desire it, but
only as he shall judge expedient" (iii. 96.) I can
not see any change to this effect ; perhaps the writer
may have confounded this subject with that of the
Absolution in the Visitation- office, where the words
" if he humbly and heartily desire it " were then
inserted.

260

XXIII.
Cfjuccljing of Wamz n.
ARCHBISHOP GRINDAL enjoins at York,
1571, "Ye shall not church any unmarried
woman, which hath been gotten with child out of
lawful matrimony, except it be upon some Sunday
or holy-day, and except either she, before her child
birth, have done due penance for her fault, to the
satisfaction of the congregation, or at her coming to
be churched she do openly acknowledge her fault
before the congregation accordingly, and show her
self to be very penitent for the same, leaving it free
for the ordinary to punish her further at his discre
tion." (Remains, 127.) He inquires to the same
effect at Canterbury, 1576. (Ib. 164.)
Whitgift, 1585, requires of a woman in such cir
cumstances " public acknowledgment of her sin, in
such form as the ordinary has prescribed." (Doc.
Ann. ii. 6.)
Archbishop Piers (1590), Bancroft (1605), and
Laud (1635) make similar inquiries.
It is to be observed that the language of such
passages in general applies to all cases where a child
is the fruit of unlawful intercourse, although a mar
riage between the parents may have taken place
before the birth.
To the demand of the presbyterians at the Savoy
Conference, that something should be required of an
unmarried or adulterous woman after childbirth, " by
way of profession of her humiliation, as well as of

Cfmrc&ing; of COomen. 26 1
her thanksgiving," the episcopal divines reply that
such a person " is to do her penance before she is
churched." (Cardw. Conf. 334—362.) The pres
byterians treat this answer as delusive — (Grand De
bate, 147) — " That is," they say, " if she be accused,
prosecuted, and judged by the Bishop's Court to do
penance first, which happeneth not to one of a mul
titude ; and what shall the minister do with all the
rest?" Cosin, although in his notes he cites Grindal as
sufficient authority for refusing the office unless
penance be performed (Nicholls, 66), has no inquiry
on the subject in his articles, 1662 ; Gunning in
1679 requires a license from the ordinary as a con
dition before churching.
The reader has doubtless remarked that the repre
sentation of the matter given by the presbyterians is
very different from that in the episcopal injunctions
and articles ; according to the latter, the minister is
not at liberty to read the service unless the woman
produce a license from the ordinary, while the pres
byterians state that he is not warranted in refusing
unless she have been convicted in the ecclesiastical
court. As women in the circumstances which we are
considering were then liable to prosecution in the
spiritual court, it would seem that, even according to
the presbyterian statement, a clergyman had suffi
cient means of deterring any such person from in
sisting that he should read the service without having
reason to believe her penitent. But this discipline
appears to be interfered with by the statute 27 Geo.
III. c. 44, which enacts that " no suit shall be
brought in any ecclesiastical court for fornication or
incontinence after the expiration of eight calendar

262 Cfmrc&ing of flBomen.
months after the time when such offence shall have
been committed ; nor for fornication at any time
after the parties shall have lawfully intermarried."
(Burn, ii. 403.)
The reader is now in possession of all that I have
noted on this subject ; it has seemed better to produce
it than to leave the matter unnoticed, although, from
ignorance of law, I am unable to draw a conclusion.
I must also profess myself unable to enter on the
subject of penance. There is a form in Grindal's
Remains, p. 455, which the Archbishop, according
to Strype, laid before the convocation (Life, 260).
The historian, however, does not state whether it was
authorized by that body.60
The words " decently apparelled," which were
inserted at the last review, are interpreted to mean
" with a white covering or veil." Such was the
practice before the Reformation, and puritans com
plain of it as still prevailing in Elizabeth's time.
(Burnet, Hist. Ref. iii. Records, p. 335.) In the
following reign, the chancellor of Norwich made an
order that every woman should be veiled at her
churching ; a woman was excommunicated for con
tempt of this order, and prayed a prohibition, which
was refused by the judges, as they were certified by
the bishops that the order was according to the
ancient usage of the Church of England. (Gibson,

60 The discipline of the Romish Church as to this point is in
many places very lax (Schmid, iii. 385) ; indeed it would appear
that, in countries of that communion generally, the civil power
and the popular feeling are as little favourable to the enforcement
of penance and excommunication as among ourselves. (Ib. i.
738.)

Cfmrc&ingofajSomen. 263
451.) Archdeacon Pory, in 1662, inquires whether
the veil be worn ; but it is said that we have not a
legal right to enforce it. (Hook, Ch. Diet. ed. 2, Art.
Canon.) The most proper place for this service is the
chancel, "where," say the bishops in 1661, "she
may be perspicuous to the whole congregation, and
near the holy table, in regard of the offering she is
there to make." (Card. Conf. 362.) To say the ser
vice in the desk, the woman remaining in her seat,
was noted in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
as puritanical. (See Strype, Whitg. 141 ; Collier, ii.
624 ; and Montagu's Articles.) It is to be observed,
however, that the rubric of those days prescribed
" some convenient place, nigh unto the place where
the table standeth," and that the priest should stand
by her ; whereas the present rubric leaves the matter
to custom and the ordinary's direction.
Andrewes at Jesus Chapel churched a woman
" ad limen cancellorum ;" Montagu (p. 78) orders
that the place be " before the communion-table, at
the steps or rail."
Bishop Wren enjoins (Doc. Ann. i. 203) " that the
churching begin as soon as the minister comes up to
the communion-table, before the second service, un
less there be a marriage that same day ; for then the
churching is not to begin until those prayers ap
pointed to be said at the Lord's table for the mar
riage be ended ; and Bishop Sparrow tells us that
other visitation-articles agree in this (p. 291). The
office used formerly to be restricted to the morning-
service. In Sharp's time it was commonly used on
week-days before the general thanksgiving ; on Sun
days, after the Nicene creed, (p. 72.)

264 C&urcijins of ffllomen.
A complaint has lately been made by some decla
ratory writers in periodical publications, that the
offering to God at churching has been corrupted into
a fee to the priest. It is necessary, therefore, to
inquire in what sense the word offering is here used.
The Book of 1549 orders that " the woman who is
purified must offer her chrism, and other accustomed
offerings." The chrism was the white vesture which
had been put upon the child at baptism.61 When
the use of this was abandoned, in 1552, it was no
longer mentioned in the rubric; but in 1561 we find
among the Bishops' interpretations of the royal in
junctions the following direction — " To avoid con
tention, let the curate have the value of the chrisom,
not under the value of Ad., and above as they may
agree and as the state of the parents may require."
(Doc. Ann. i. 206.) This appears to be a rule for
the amount of the offering at churching.
Hooker (v. 74, 4) and L'Estrange (326) are
evidences that the offering made on these occasions
belongs to the minister.
We have already had occasion to see(c. xv. § d.) that
the dues of the clergy are sometimes intended by the
words offering or oblation; indeed it would appear

61 A. D. 1236 it was ordered — " Panni chrismales non nisi in
usum ornamentorum ecclesiae convertantur ;" i. e. as Lyndewood
explains, they were only to be used for making or repairing
vestments, covering up plate or crucifixes, and the like purposes.
(Gibson, 224.) The money for which the chrism was afterwards
commuted, however, is not subject to any such regulations, and
the " other accustomed offerings " probably always belonged to
the priest. In the present Ritual of the English Romanists it is
directed that the priest shall put on the child's head " linteolum
candidum, loco vestis albae." (Ed. 1831, p. 22.) There is much
information on the meanings of the word chrism in Lord Lind
say's Travels.

C&urc&ing of &Homen. 265
from Gibson and Burn that the term fee properly
signifies money paid to persons connected with spiri
tual courts, while that which is given to the clergy
for performance of offices is styled by some other
name. (Comp. Johnson, Vade-mecum, i. 244.) Arch
bishop Mepham, in 1328, says that at marriages,
churchings, and burials, " ipse Dominus in minis-
trorum suorum personis solebat oblationum libamine
populariter honorari " (Gibson, 739) ; and in like
manner Andrewes observes on the old rubric of the
communion-office which directed that dues should
be paid " on the offering-days appointed" — " 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." (Nicholls, App. 42.)
While, therefore, the writers to whom I have al
luded are in so far right that the money ought most
properly to be offered on the altar, it is an utter
mistake to suppose that it is misappropriated in
being applied to the maintenance of the priest.
There can, of course, be no objection to the expres
sion of gratitude to God on occasions of deliverance
" from the great pain and peril of childbirth " by
the offering of money for pious uses in addition to
the customary dues, and besides the ordinary alms of
the giver ; and I heartily wish that a practice so
becoming were universal.
The American Prayer-Book differs from ours in
appointing that the offerings " be applied by the
minister and churchwardens to the relief of distressed
women in childbed."

266
XXIV.
^Detonation anti <Embtz63*Wzzk&.
THE Church has appointed four times in the year
for ordinations, and has directed that prayer
and fasting be used at these times, in behalf of the
ordaining bishops, and of the candidates for holy
orders. The xxxi st canon forbids ordination save at these
seasons. The preface to the Ordinal admits nothing
short of " urgent occasion " as a reason for ordaining
" upon some other Sunday or holy-day." And this,
Bishop Gibson tells us, (Codex, p. 160) " may not
be done at the discretion of the bishop, but must
have the archbishop's dispensation and license, as the
practice hath been." Johnson, however, writes
(Vade-mecum, i. 56) " The Bishop, if he think fit,
may ordain on any Sunday or holy-day ;" and Burn
is of opinion that, in the silence of the rubric on this
head, " it may be a question whether dispensation be
necessary." (iii. 44.)
It was resolved in the upper house of convocation,
April, 21, 1662, "Quod nullae ordinationes clerico-
rum per aliquos episcopos fierent nisi intra quatuor
tempora, pro ordinationibus assignata." (Synodalia,
670).

62 The most likely etymology of this word, that I have seen, is
that proposed by a correspondent of the British Magazine, Feb.
1844, who supposes it to be a corruption of tempora. The Ger
man term quatemper, (quatuor tempora) indicates the interme
diate step.

Cmber-aBeelt. 267
Archbishop Sancroft and his suffragans agreed, in
1685, " that they will ordain no man but upon the
Lord's Days immediately following thejejunia quatuor
temporum, except he have a faculty to be ordained
extra tempora; and such a faculty the Archbishop
declares he will not grant but upon very urgent occa
sion." (Doc. Ann. ii. 305.)
For the importance of the observance, I shall refer
to some revered divines of former days.
Hooker " never failed the Sunday before every
ember-week to give notice of it to his parishioners ;
persuading them both to fast, and to double their
devotions for a learned and pious clergy; and to
what he persuaded others, he added his own example
of fasting and prayer ; and did usually every ember-
week take from the parish-clerk the key of the
church door, into which place he retired every day,
and locked himself up for many hours." (Walton,
in Eccl. Biog. iii. 518.)
Herbert, after lamenting to a friend the decay of
piety, and too general contempt of the clergy, " took
occasion to say, one cure for these distempers would
be, for the clergy themselves to keep the ember-
weeks strictly, and beg of their parishioners to join
with them in fasting and prayers for a more religious
clergy." (Ib. iv. 39.)
Hammond, (" Parsenesis," c. ii. § 24) in reckoning
up the sins by which it appeared to him that the
judgments then afflicting this Church and nation had
been drawn down, mentions the neglect of the ember-
weeks ; for which, it is to be remarked, although the
observance of them was prescribed, no prayer was at
that time provided in our Book.
Bishop Wilson writes, (Sac. Priv. " Friday,")

268 Cmoer=2£teefe.
" All persons Tieing concerned in the choice of pas
tors, every body ought to pray for good pastors."
Bishop Beveridge, in his third sermon on the
Church (Works, vol. i. 1842, p. 45), speaks highly
of the advantage of observing the ember- weeks.63
The notices of ordinations which appear in our
newspapers and magazines will not allow us to doubt
that some of the bishops of this day prefer irregular
times to those appointed by the Prayer-Book for con
ferring holy orders. Surely there is much authority
against this ; nor can we suppose that such a practice
does not cause something to be lost, by depriving the
ordaining Bishops and their clergy of those interces
sions which the Church desires her children to offer
up, with fasting, in their behalf, at the stated seasons
of ordination.
The ember-week prayers were added at the last
review. The rubric before them is made clearer by
a reference to the Scotch Liturgy, in which one of
them, which is formed after a collect in the ordination-
service, had before appeared, with an order that it
should be " read every day of the week, beginning on
the Sunday before the day of ordination." (Keeling,
52.)

63 By a comparison of various circumstances, I gather that this
sermon was preached in 1684.

269

XXV.
<&ty ^etfrneg for tlje fetatx l$olp=t>ap0.64
WE find that three different views are proposed
respecting the offices which, by virtue of an
order from the Sovereign, are usually printed at the
end of the Common Prayer. By some writers, the
use of any special service is represented as a breach of
our engagements to conformity ; others consider that
we are bound to make use of the services as we find
them in the modern Prayer-Books ; while, according
to a third party, the offices which have a claim on
us are certain others of earlier date. This last view
relates only to the first three services ; that for the
Accession standing on a different footing.
Before attempting an estimate of these opinions, it
is necessary to premise a sketch of the history of the
services. By an act of 1605, (3 Jac. i. c. 1.) it was ordered
that there should be a yearly thanksgiving on the
fifth of November, .in memory of the Gunpowder
Treason. A service for the day was set forth by
the authority of the crown in 1606; and in 1662,

64 On this subject may be consulted a little work by the Hon.
and Rev. A. P. Perceval, 1838 ; Dr. Cardwell's Conferences, pp.
383-4 ; a pamphlet by the Rev. T. Lathbury, 1843, reprinted, as
the author informs us, from " The Church of England Quarterly
Review ;" and the British Magazine, vols. xii. xiii. and xiv. For
the earlier forms, see Mr. Perceval's work, or Reeling's Li-
turgiae.

270 c&e ^eruices for
having been revised by Bishop Cosin, under the au
thority of the convocation, it received the sanction
of that body, (Synodalia, 671,) and was enforced by
a royal proclamation, which directed that it, with
other forms, should be annexed to the Book of Com
mon Prayer. It appeared, accordingly, in the same
year, annexed to the new Prayer-Book, which hath
just been adopted by parliament. (Act of Uni
formity, 13 and 14 Car. II. c. 4.) In the calendar
of that Book, the 5th of November is named among
" certain solemn days, for which particular services
are appointed."
The office was again altered in 1689, so as to in
clude a thanksgiving for the landing of the Prince of
Orange. The changes then introduced are ascribed
to Bishops Patrick and Sprat; the altered service
was set forth by royal proclamation.
In the calendar annexed to the act for altering the
style, (24 Geo. II. c. 23), the 5th of November is still
mentioned by its original designation, as in the
calendar of 1662 — the day of " the Papists' Con
spiracy " — no allusion being made to the landing of
King William.
The religious observance of the 30th of January,
in memory of the martyrdom of Charles I., and of
the 29th of May, as the day of Charles II. 's " Birth
and Return," was provided for by acts of 1660 and
1661. (12* Car. II. cc." 30 and 14 ; 13 Car. II. c.
11.) In 1661, the convocation entrusted to two
committees of bishops the preparation of office for
these days; and in the following year, it adopted
the forms which had been composed accordingly—
that for the 29th of May bearing especial reference
to the birth and other personal circumstances of the

tfje ^)tate ©olp^aps. 271
reigning sovereign. (Synod. 640, 671.) These
forms were included in the proclamation already
mentioned, and were printed with the Book of
1662 ; and the days are named in the calendar of
that Book along with the 5th of November.
In the reign of James II., new services for the 30th
of January and the 29th of May were promulgated
by the royal authority.65 In that for the 29th of
May, all reference to the birth of Charles II. was
omitted. The calendar of 24 Geo. II.65 however,
adheres to the old designation of the day, as the an
niversary of " The Birth and Return of King
Charles II.
The Accession of the Sovereign was celebrated
with thanksgiving as early as 1570. (Nicolas, Chro
nology, p. 168.) The form used in 1578 is pre
served, and has been reprinted by Strype. (Annals,
vol. ii.) That the observance was maintained in the
reign of James I. appears from the testimony of
Andrewes, who says in a sermon preached in 1606

65 It is said that these services were drawn up by Sancroft in
1661-2, and were then offered to the convocation, but not ap
proved by it. When, in a new reign, it became necessary to omit
those parts of the Restoration-service which were personal to
Charles II., Sancroft took the opportunity of substituting both
his own compositions for the forms which the convocation had
sanctioned. This statement rests on the authority of Bishop
Burnet. (Own Time, i. 184).
66 Mr. Perceval states (pp. 14, 24) that the calendar, although
provided by convocation in 1661-2, was " now for the first time
confirmed by civil statute," As the observance of the three holy-
days was ordered by distinct acts of parliament, it is perhaps un
necessary to inquire whether the calendar of 1662, which recognizes
their observance, enjoys, with the body of the Prayer-Book, the
sanction of the act of uniformity.

272 c&e ^ernices fot
that the anniversary of the Accession " hath a select
service, both of psalms and chapters." (v. 169).
The convocation of 1640, by its und canon, or
dered the celebration of the Accession,67 and a form
drawn up in 1626 was then approved. The canon
was so worded as to apply only to Charles I. in par
ticular ; and " this festival was disused in the reign
of Charles II. upon the occasion of the murder of his
royal father, which changed the day into a day of
sorrow and fasting." (Gibson, Cod. 279). Besides
this, there was the additional reason for intermitting
the observance in that reign, that the service for
May 29 was a celebration of Charles' accession de
facto, being, in the words of an act of parliament,
(Gibson, 284), " the birthday, not only of his
67 The word employed is Inauguration, which might seem ra
ther to signify the Coronation, and we find that the anniversary
was usually styled " coronation-day." Evelyn writes in James the
Second's reign, (Diary, Feb. 6, 1686). — " It was much wondered
at, that this day, which was that of his late majesty's death, should
be kept as a festival, and not the day of the present king's coro
nation. It is said to have been formerly the custom, though not
till now, since the reign of James I." The canon of 1640, how
ever, in grounding the observance of the " inauguration " on the
practice of " our own most religious princes since the Reformation,"
appears to contemplate no change from the order of Elizabeth and
James ; and in their reigns we know that the accession, not the
coronation, was commemorated. (See Andrewes and Nicolas).
We find the term " coronation-day " applied in Charles the First's
reign to March 27 — the accession — whereas he was crowned on
Feb. 2. (Rushworth, iii. 886.) So Andrewes' sermon already re
ferred to is said to have been preached on " coronation-day ;" and
Bishop Cartwright, in his Diary, Feb. 6, 1687, speaks of the ac
cession as the " inauguration." Evelyn and his contemporaries,
therefore, would appear to have been in error, which may be
easily accounted for by the popular use of the term coronation,
and the lapse of time since Charles I. was in a condition to cele
brate his festival.

t&e §>tate ^olp^aps. 273
majesty as a man and a prince, but likewise as an
actual king."
James II. revived the celebration, which was
again disused under William III. to whom the altered
service for Nov. 5 was as the Restoration-office had
been to Charles II. The office in its present form
has been used since Queen Anne's reign.
With the exception of the short time when the
canon of 1640 was in force, the observation of the
accession has always rested on the royal authority
alone. The order for it was issued separately, until
George III. included this day in the same proclama
tion which commanded the other three to be kept,
and directed that the Accession-service should, like
the others, be appended to the Prayer-Book. (Per
ceval, 16.)
We now proceed to consider the practical ques
tion of our duty with respect to these holy-days.
The opinion which regards all special services as
inconsistent with our obligations to conformity, and
with the order of the xiv th canon, that the Common
Prayer shall be used " without either diminishing or
adding anything," appears to me to derive its en
tire weight from the characters of those who have
advocated it. Among these are Mr. Jebb, (who
mentions that his relative, the late Bishop of Limerick,
held the same view,) and Archdeacon R. I. Wilber-
force in his work on Church-discipline. Mr. Jebb
observes, that " since the last review, and the passing
of the act of uniformity, the power of the crown and
of the temporal legislature has been in this respect
definitively restrained ; and now, when convocation
no longer sits, its tacit approbation of measures passed
without its express authority can no longer be pre-
T

274 c&e lettuces fot
sumed." (Choral Serv. 536). On this, however,
it may be remarked, that the right of the crown to
appoint forms for particular occasions was always
regarded as something distinct from, and independent
of, that power of altering rites and ceremonies which
was reserved to Queen Elizabeth by the act of uni
formity 1559, and which was exercised, whether
rightfully or not, by her successor in setting forth
the Prayer-Book of 1604, (see p. 303) ; that the
latter power only is taken away by the act of 1662 ;
that at the very time when the Book of that year was
in preparation, the convocation was employed, under
royal license, in framing offices for three of the State
holy-days; that the use of those offices was a subject
of inquiry in Bishop Cosin's Articles of the same
year, which proves in what light they were then re^
garded ; and that the right of issuing occasional
forms of prayer has been continually exercised by the
sovereign since the date of the act of uniformity. " It
is," says Mr. Rose,68 " a doctrine held by all eccle
siastical lawyers, that it is an understood part of the
royal prerogative to order solemn thanksgivings and
fasts, and desire the proper authorities to prepare
forms of prayer for them ; and that the act of uni
formity contains no saving clause for this prerogative,
because it was too well known and established to
require any such clause."
The only sanction wanting to the services of 1662
was that of parliament; and even this may be con
sidered as implied ; since, although no special forms

68 Brit. Mag. xii. 687. Some of Mr. Rose's remarks in the
beginning of the discussion on the service for Nov. 5, being ne
cessarily written in haste, were, as he afterwards acknowledged,
not altogether correct as to facts. The words here quoted, how
ever, appear not to have been controverted.

t&e g>tate J£>olj?=oaj?s. 275
were prescribed by any of the acts which ordered
the celebration of the days, the objects contemplated
by the acts could not be attained by the use of the
ordinary daily prayer. I feel myself obliged, further,
to disagree with Mr. Jebb's remark as to the convo
cation. His objection would apply equally to forms
issued for immediate use — (as we may presume that
some were) — during the vacations of that assembly
before the suspension of its functions ; general con
sent of the clergy appears to be now a fair equivalent
to the tacit allowance of convocation in former times ;
and moreover, in point of fact, the four services, even
in their present form, were published while the con
vocation was yet in a state of activity.
Archdeacon Wilberforce writes (p. 132) that "the
resolution of a clergyman [Johnson, author of 'The
Unbloody Sacrifice'] a century ago, in standing to
his engagements, has established a precedent for re
jecting the authority " of the State-services. These
words lead us to imagine a triumph of consistency in
the case ; but according to the statement and docu
ments which Burn (ii. 328) gives, Johnson's conduct
would appear to have been neither consistent nor
triumphant. After having, in his " Clergyman's Vade-
mecum" (i. 192), advocated the power of the crown to
appoint solemn days and services, he was cited before
his ordinary in 1715 for omitting the Accession office.
He persisted in the omission, and justified it by de
nying the royal authority to prescribe such offices,
contrary, as he affirmed, to the Prayer-Book, Canons,
and acts of uniformity. In 1721, he published a
work67 in which he stated that the prosecution against
him did not proceed. This expression of satisfaction,

67 Probably his " Case of Occasional Days and Prayers,'' to
which Mr. Wilberforce refers. I have not seen this-.

276 c&e lettuces for
however, was premature ; for the matter was after
wards carried further, and ended two years later, in
his making humble submission, and expressing a
grateful sense of Archbishop Wake's " lenity " in ac
cepting his retractation. Thus was this divine some
what ignominiously brought back to his original view
of the subject.
I believe, then, that the service for the Accession
has authority sufficient to warrant us in using it, in
asmuch as it is set forth by royal order ; and that we
are also warranted in using some forms for the anni
versaries of the Gunpowder Treason, the Martyrdom
of King Charles, and the Restoration.
There remains, however, the question — What are
the proper forms for these days ?
The celebration of Jan. 30 and May 29 has the
sanction of both convocation and parliament ; and it
would seem that either the earlier or the later services
for these days might be used consistently with the
authority of parliament, unless the calendar of 24
Geo. II. c. 23, by the terms of its reference to the
three holy-days, is to be considered as withholding
its sanction from the alterations introduced subse
quently to 1662.
There is, however, no ground for supposing that
any legislation on this particular subject was con
templated by the framers of that act; and it can
hardly be doubted that the reference of the older
calendar was retained through inadvertence, since
the original service for the 29th of May became in a
great measure inapplicable on tbe death of Charles
II. Putting, then, this act aside, we have the fact
that the one set of offices for Jan. 30 and May 29,
was drawn up and sanctioned by the convocation of
1662 ; and on the other hand, the fact that the sub
stitution of the later offices took place while the con-

t&e ^tate J£>olj?*tiags. 277
vocation was yet able to speak for itself, and therefore
may be supposed to have tacitly permitted it.
The modern office for November 5 stands on an
inferior footing to the others, inasmuch as the form of
1662 has been supplanted by one in part relating to an
event which has no authority, either of convocation
or of parliament, for its commemoration. In favour
of it, we may consider that it has all along had the
sanction and obedience of Bishops and other church
men ; and that, like the others, it comes to us recom
mended by the nearest authority.
It appears to me, that for the sake of obedience to
to this authority, we may rightly use the services as
we find them ; provided, always, that there be not in
them anything which we consider wrong.68
But we are not obliged by our engagements to
approve or to use any of these offices, since they are
no part of the Prayer-Book " by law established," to
which we yield assent, and promise to conform.
With respect to the office for November 5, which
is that on which discussions are most likely to arise,
it is shown by Dr. Pusey, (Serm. on Nov. 5, p. 41.
68 I cannot agree with Mr. Lathbury, in laying much stress on
the fact that the special forms are always composed by divines,
and that certain prelates are members of the council, by which
they are set forth. We may have unfaithful bishops, such as
Parker and Cartwright in James the Second's days, or some of
those who acquired an unhappy notoriety in France, at a later
time. We know by very recent experience, that the privy
council, or those who exercise its judicial powers, can give
decisions very repugnant to the feelings and principles of church
men. (See the Bp. of Exeter's remarks on the case of Mastin
v. Escott, Charge, 1842, and Speech in the House of Lords,
March 8, 1844.) And the famous case of James' " declaration
for liberty of conscience," will suffice to shew that the same body
may enjoin highly objectionable matter — such as it may be the
duty of churchmen at all hazards to resist, in the spirit of San
croft and his brethren.

278 cfje lettuces fot ^tate E>onj=tiags.
App. p. 9) that we may safely use it as it is com
monly printed, without involving ourselves in any
approbation of the revolution of 1688 ; inasmuch as
the prayers which relate to that event express thanks
for the Providential guidance of affairs, without
passing judgment on the human actors. It is surely
quite fair to interpret the whole service in accord
ance with the homily on Rebellion, which is pre
scribed to be read in the course of it.69
Dr. Pusey would himself prefer using the older
service, unless, e. g., an order from an ecclesiastical
superior enjoined the use of the other. If we enter
tain a real objection to the office of James II. for
Jan. 30, or to that of William III. for Nov. 5, it ap
pears to me that there is ordinarily nothing to hinder
the use of the earlier forms ; but the office for the
Birth and Restoration of Charles II. was so framed
that it necessarily became obsolete on the death of
that sovereign.
A rubric before the service of Jan. 30 orders that
" If this day shall happen to be Sunday, this
form of prayer shall be used and the fast kept
the next day following."
This rubric some persons, among whom are the
compilers of the " Ecclesiastical Almanac " for 1842,
interpret as meaning that in such cases the service is
to be used on the Sunday, and, consequently, that the
fasting is to be disjoined from the penitential form of
prayer. That no such strange proceeding was in
tended, is plain from the original rubric, by which
it is directed that " this form of service shall be used
the next day following." (Keeling, 402.)
69 The party which does not look on the frustration of James
the Second's designs as a blessing had not put forth its views
when Dr. Pusey wrote. (1837-8.)

* 279
XXVI.
S!£etrfcal pgalmg.
TWO metrical versions of the Psalms enjoy a kind
of authority among us. That by Sternhold and
others professes in the title-page to be " set forth
and allowed to be sung in all churches of all the
people together, before and after morning and even
ing prayer, as also before and after sermons." The
" New Version " was sanctioned by the Crown in
William the Third's reign. " By the same authority
also, in the reign of Queen Anne, certain Hymns
were allowed to be appended as a supplement to the
New Version of Psalms, and were permitted by the
Queen to be used in all churches." (Bp. of Down
and Connor, Charges, 1842, p. 52.)
Besides these, it is the fashion in some churches to
use collections of hymns, more or less multitudinous,
which have no sufficient authority, which are in many
cases the work of avowed dissenters,70 and generally
differ widely in tone and spirit from the authorized
formularies of our Church. Of such hymns it is
needless to say anything further.
Let us now look at the history of metrical psalms.
1549. The act which authorized the first Book
of Edward VI. provides (§ vii.) that " It shall be
lawful for all men, — as well in churches, chapels,
oratories, as other places, to use openly any psalm or
7° Even this is not without a parallel in the Roman commu
nion. The present Parisian Breviary contains hymns by Coffin,
a Jansenist, to whom the Church refused the sacraments on his
death-bed (Gueranger, ii. 300) ; and Schmid (i. 243.) complains
that there is no restriction either as to the music or as to the
words which are introduced into the Church-service.

280 metrical psalms.
prayer taken out of the Bible at any due time, not
letting or omitting thereby the service or any part of
it mentioned in the said book." (Gibson, 297.) " This
proviso," writes Collier, (ii. 263,) " was thrown in,
as it is thought, to countenance the psalms projected
to be turned into verse, and to allow the use. of them
in churches ; for these singing psalms, as they were
called, were very much the inclination of the re
formed." It is to be observed that verse is not men
tioned in the act, Heylyn (Hist. Ref. 127,) and
Collier (ii. 326) agree that the sanction of Sternhold's
version was rather a connivance than an approbation.
It has no discoverable authority, other than this act,
passed five years before the appearance of those
psalms which were versified by Sternhold himself,
the first-published portion of the collection. (Strype,
Eccl. Mem. ii. 86.) And this conclusion, we are
told, was the result of an inquiry " when the allow
ance was disputed in the High Commission." (Hey
lyn, Aerius Rediv. 248, ed. 1670.)
1559. Eliz. Injunction 49, allows that while plain
song is to be used in the service generally in those
churches where provision is made for musical per
formance of it, " It may be permitted that in the be
ginning or in the end of the common prayers, either
at morning or evening, there may be sung an hymn
or such like song to the praise of Almighty God, in
the best sort of melody and music that may be con
veniently devised." (Doc. Ann. i. 196.) Heylyn
remarks, " No mention here of singing David's Psalms
in metre, though afterwards they first thrust out the
hymns, which are herein mentioned, and by degrees
also did they the Te Deum, Magnificat, and the
Nunc Dimittis." (Hist. Ref. 289.) Perhaps, how
ever, we may hence infer by analogy a liberty for
metrical psalms before and after service, in places

metrical Psalms. 28 1
where more artificial music is not used, although it is
to be remembered that the Anthem, which is intended
by the injunction, has by a rubric of later date been
confined to another place in the service.
In September of the same year we read of psalms
" after the Geneva fashion," at St. Antholin's, Lon
don, — (long after a favourite resort of civic puri
tanism.) The " Geneva fashion" consisted in the
singing of the whole congregation, "men, women,
and boys " together, instead of keeping the antipho-
nal way. (Strype, Annals, i. 136.)
In the end of the year, we find that there were
some troubles at Exeter on the subject of psalmody.
The royal visitors, of whom Jewel was one, had given
order for service at the cathedral, according to the
Prayer-Book. Soon after, some laymen and women
disturbed the church by singing metrical psalms,
and complained against the authorities for interfering
with them. The visitors wrote a remonstrance to the
chapter, which was followed by one from four com
missioners, among whom were Parker and Grindal.
The chapter replied to the former, that the proceed
ings of the complainants were in breach of the act of
Uniformity. This answer was written before the
receipt of the letter from the Primate and his asso
ciates; no answer to that is given by Wilkins, nor
does it appear that the cause of the " Geneva fashion"
was further espoused by the high personages who
had been appealed to. The chapter evidently con
sidered the metrical psalms unauthorized. (See
Wilkins, Cone. iv. 200.)
In Grindal's orders of prayers to be used during
the plague of 1563, and after its cessation, certain
psalms are named as " to be sung or said before the
beginning or after the ending of public prayer.'
(Remains, 93 — 120.) In the second order, it is also

282 metrical psalms.
said that these " may be used instead of the ordinary
psalms in the morning prayer." It would seem as if
the prose version were meant.
1 640. Cosin, then prebendary of Durham, declares,
in his answer to the absurd charges brought against
him by Smart, another prebendary, that he " never
forbade singing the metre psalms in the church, but
used to sing them himself with the people at morning
prayer." (Collier, ii. 799.)
This, let it be observed, was in a cathedral.
1641. The Lords' sub-committee at once proves
the prevalence of the metrical psalms, and betrays a
sense that the pretensions of Sternhold's title could
not be well made out : " It is very fit that the imper
fections of the metre in the singing psalms should
be mended, and then lawful authority added unto
them, to have them publicly sung before and after
sermons, and sometimes instead of the hymns of morn
ing or evening prayer." (Cardw. Conf. 277.) It
would seem that the authority is desired, not only for
the proposed alterations, but for the version altoge
ther ; as if it were hitherto wanting in such sanction.
It is remarkable that the bishops of 1661 appear
studiously to avoid considering the request of the
presbyterians for an amendment of the metrical
psalms, or leave to use a purer version. They answer,
" Singing of psalms in metre is no part of the Liturgy,
and so no part of our commission." (Cardw. Conf.
308—342.) Bull in his Charge, 1708, (Works, ii. 18,) says,
that he believes an interval was intended between
the first and the second service in the morning, which
is filled up in cathedrals by an anthem, in London
and other great churches, by psalm-singing.71 Mr.
71 See Dr. Hook's Call to Union, note N. for the introduction
of this fashion at Leeds during the same year.

metrical Psalms. 283
Gresley (" Bernard Leslie," p. 218) supposes a
metrical psalm allowed by inference after the third
collect, when the congregation is not equal to the
anthem there prescribed ; but from what has been
said it will probably appear that there is more evi
dence of the historical kind for such psalms else
where than Mr. Gresley supposes. The use of psalms
while the minister is moving from one part of the
church to another may be defended by a reference
to the Introits and Graduals of earlier books.73
And the practice of singing before Morning and
Evening prayer may plead considerable countenance
from past times, although — understanding the word
correct to mean fit, proper, or fully authorized, —
we may fully agree with the Bishop of London when
he says (p. 65), " I think it is not correct to com
mence Divine service with a psalm or hymn."

XXVII.
i3Dn gljannjj in tl)z peculiar Uttutfftcal JFormg of
CljurcIje0 in Communion toith tfje
Ctjurcf) of QEnfflanO.
IN the course of certain painful differences by which
the peace of the Church in Scotland has lately
been disturbed, it has been alleged that a clergy -
w See as to Beveridge, Nelson's Life of Bull, p. 63. An
drewes writes (in Nicholls, 24) — " Here [i. e. after the Litany]
the minister riseth, and if there be a sermon, an introit is sung."
So, at his consecration of Jesus Chapel, — " Post benedictionem
populi cantatur Psalm 132, conscenditque suggestum M. Robin
son, Theol. Bac." — " In many places," writes Schmid, describing
the present practice of churches in communion with Rome, " a
hymn for the aid of the Holy Spirit is sung by the choir or by the
congregation while the preacher is going up into the pulpit." (ii.
149.)

284 gating in Mces
man of English ordination cannot, without a breach
of his solemn engagements, share in the peculiar
communion-office of the Scottish Church. Such an
act would, in the apprehension of some persons,
render him " liable to a charge of violation of the
terms of subscription (Canon xxxvi. Art 2), to
suspension, excommunication, and deposition from
the ministry (Can. xxxvm.), and would, moreover,
tend, ipso facto, to void any license he might hold to
preach in the English Church (Can. liv.)."73
It has been avowed by some, at least, of the clergy
who thus interpret our obligations, that they enter
tain doctrinal objections to the office in question.
This point, however, has no real connexion with the.
other, nor, indeed, is it attempted to connect them ;
so that the proposition to be dealt with is this — That
an Anglican clergyman is forbidden by his engage
ments to share in any forms of public worship other
than those which are provided in the Book of Com
mon Prayer; that, therefore, he is excluded from the
orthodox offices of Churches which are recognized
by his own Church as true both in constitution and
in doctrine.
And, before going further, it may be observed that
the Scottish communion-office answers to this des
cription. It is essentially the same with that con
tained in the Scottish Liturgy of 1637. That liturgy
was drawn up with the concurrence and aid of Arch
bishop Laud and other English Prelates ; it was set
forth by the authority of Charles the First, whom the
Anglican Church commemorates as her Martyr ; it
was much regarded in the subsequent revision of our
own Prayer-Book, and suggested many of the altera
tions which were then introduced. If the present Scot-
" Letter of the Rev. A. W. H. Rose, in a published Corres
pondence with the Bishop of Aberdeen.

ofot&erC&urc&es. 285
tish office be more decided and explicit in doctrine
than that of England, the doctrine embodied in it is un
questionably that of the most authoritative Anglican
divines. The office is notoriously in some points even more
conformable than our own to the Liturgies of the
Primitive Church74 — an authority to which the
English Church professes to defer, not only in mat
ters of faith, but even in ritual things, since she
commends her Prayer-Book to us as being " agree
able to the mind and purpose of the old Fathers."
(Preface). And, (which appears decisive of the
matter,) the Church in which it is used has always
been regarded by her Anglican sister as one in doc
trine with herself; even those obstacles to perfect
outward communion which were formerly interposed
by the temporal legislature on political grounds have
within these last years been removed — the bill for
that purpose having been introduced into parliament
by the present Archbishop of Canterbury, and car
ried with the undoubted approbation of the great
body of the clergy. The scruples of individual
English clergymen, therefore, are in nowise counte
nanced by their Church, or by its rulers either now
or heretofore.
In one of the cases which have come under the
public notice, a clergyman was required by the
Bishop under whose jurisdiction he had placed him-

'* See Brett on Liturgies ; Bishop Jolly, on the Eucharist ;
Dean Skinner's Work on the subject; Tracts for the Times, No.
81 ; and " The Authority and use of the Scottish Communion-
office vindicated, by the Rev. P. Cheyne," a pamphlet published
since this section was first written, and of far higher character
than any other of the writings which have been called forth by
the proceedings of Mr. D. T. K. Drummond and Sir W. Dun
bar.

286 ^baring in HDffices
self, not to administer, but only to receive the holy
eucharist according to the Scottish rite; and from
this he considered himself to be debarred by the
engagements of his Anglican ordination. As to this,
it is to be remarked that there is not in any of our
engagements even an appearance of restraint as to
receiving the rites of the Church; ministers are
bound as to their ministration, but otherwise they
are under ho special obligation beyond the other
members of the Church. If, therefore, it be the duty
of an Anglican clergyman to refuse the holy eucharist,
marriage, or any other rite, (if such there be,) of which
he is capable, at the hands of a true Church which
uses forms orthodox yet different from ours, or to par
ticipate in the prayers of such a Church, the same
duty will bind the laity also ; it will, for example, bind
any one who may travel or settle in the United States
of America to exclude himself from the communion
of the Church which is there planted, and to refuse
her Baptism for his children.
The system thus imputed to the English Church,
of enforcing on her members a separation from the
rest of Christ's flock throughout the world, is surely
at first sight monstrous and intolerable. A particular
Church is represented as declaring that by no other
offices than her own, her children, in whatever part
of the earth, shall put up their public prayers and
receive holy ordinances ! Such a pretension would far
exceed those of the Roman Pontiff, who, in publishing
a Breviary for his whole communion, gave per
mission to retain the former books wheresoever a
prescription of 200 years could be shown in their
favour ; by virtue of which exemption the Ambrosian
and Mozarabic liturgies are still of local authority,
with the allowance of the most strenuous ultra
montane.

of ot&er Cfmrc&es. 287
But is there really any ground for imputing such
assumptions to the Church of England ? Are her
formularies conceived in a spirit of wilful self-isola
tion, in a disdain of other Churches, a carelessness for
communion with them ?
We find her speaking throughout in a very oppo
site tone. She teaches us to pray " for the good
estate of the Catholic Church, that it may be so
guided and governed by God's good Spirit, that all
who profess and call themselves Christians may be
led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity
of spirit, in the bond of peace ;" — that the Universal
Church may be inspired " with the spirit of truth,
unity, and concord ;" that it " may live in unity and
godly love." We profess a belief that " it is not
necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all
places one, and utterly like ; for at all times they
have been divers, and may be changed according to
the diversities of countries, times, and men's man
ners ;" — that " every particular or national Church
hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish cere
monies or rites of the Church ordained only by
man's authority, so that all things be done to edify
ing." (Art. xxxiv.)
The canon which gives its authority to the Scot
tish communion- office (Scottish Canons, No. xxi.)
refers expressly to the xxth and the xxxiv th of our
articles, as shewing that, according to the principles
of the Anglican Church, a sister-body has a right to
appoint peculiar forms without forfeiting our com
munion ; and I Cannot doubt that the interpretation
is correct. We assert a liberty, not for ourselves
only, but for every national Church. We assert that
such Churches have a right to use offices, rites, and
ceremonies different from our own ; and at the same
time, we profess a desire for unity, a sense of the

288 gating in Mces
duty of communion between different branches of
Christ's Universal Church ; does it not follow that
the members of the English Church, whether lay or
clerical, are bound by her, not to refuse but to seek
the communion of other orthodox and rightly-con
stituted Churches, when opportunity offers ?— -to seek
it, and to shew a recognition of the rights of particu
lar Churches, by participating in such of their offices
as are peculiar to them, provided that these be not —
(as, under the supposition, they cannot be) — repug
nant to the Word of God ?
The English Church, we may be sure, maintains
no opinion contrary to those of Catholic Christianity75
on the subject of intercourse with other Churches ;
her mind is expressed in the judgment of one of her
greatest sons, that " in the ceremonial and ritual part
of religion, where the religion is the same, we are not
tied abroad to our country customs." (Taylor, xiii.
302. Cf. xiv. 50.) We know historically, that she
has twice furnished Scotland with the beginnings of
an episcopacy, at times when it was known that no
liturgical form would be used in that country ; 76
" As to this, see Bingham, b. xvi. c. 1. and Palmer on the
Church, Part I. " Nee disciplina in his melior est gravi pru-
dentique Christiano, nisi ut eo modo agat quo agere viderit eccle
siam ad quam forte devenerit. Quod enim neque contra fidem,
neque contra mores bonos habetur, indifferenter sequendum, et
propter eorum inter quos vivitur societatem servandum est ; ne
per diversitatem observationum schismata generentur." Isidor.
Hispal. de Offic. Eccl. i. 43. (Ex Aug. Ep. ad Januar.)
76 Viz. in 1610, and after the Restoration of Charles II. The
Scottish ritual of the latter period is described by Mr. Lawson as
follows : — " There were no fixed Communion-tables, neither the
Bishops nor the clergy wore their episcopal robes and surplices
during the ordinary performance of Divine Service ; and it is not
even certain whether the latter wore black gowns, though it ap
pears from various contemporary portraits that the Bishops did so

ofot&erCfmrc&es. 289
that at a later time she gave bishops to America, a
country independent of our government, and where
the Liturgy of the Church is different ; and lastly,
that in our own day she has authorized clergymen of
Scottish and American ordination " to perform Divine
service, to preach, and to administer the sacraments "
within her consecrated buildings.76 (3 and 4 Vict. c.
33, Burn, i. 415, eee.) This was, of course, done in the
knowledge that the Churches in Scotland and Ame
rica have offices different from ours ; we allow them
to officiate in our churches according to our forms ;
is it to be supposed that we are to refuse compliance
with their forms in their congregations 1
I have, therefore, no doubt as to the justice of the
interpretation which is put on our obligations by the
respected Bishop of Aberdeen and Primus of the
Church in Scotland 77 — himself a priest of Anglican
ordination. They bind us as ministers of the Church
of England ; within our own cures, and in other

on ordinary occasions. As there was no Liturgy, no responses
were made, or expected to be made, by the congregation. The
two Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist were administered
by both Episcopalians and Presbyterians nearly in the same man
ner, without signing with the sign of the cross in the one or kneel
ing at the other. Only, when administering Baptism, the Epis
copal clergy required an assent to the Apostles' Creed, as the
ground of the infant's religious education," while the Presbyte
rians " demanded an acknowledgement of all the dogmas of the
Westminster Confession, and the more violent of them even an
assent to the Solemn League and Covenant." (Hist, of the Scot
tish Episc. Church, 1843, p. 52.)
7fi I speak of these acts as done by our Church, because, al
though they may be wanting in formal sanction, they were the
acts of her chief governors, and done, it is believed, in accordance
with the general feeling of her other members ; which is a sanc
tion sufficient for the present argument.
77 In the correspondence already quoted.
u

290 faring in SDffices
places, at home or abroad, where the Anglican Church
has jurisdiction.78 In engaging ourselves to " conform
to the Liturgy as now by law established," we do not
promise to refuse all alterations which may hereafter
be introduced by competent authority ; nor to insist
on the English Liturgy in places to which our law
does not extend. " Within this Church and realm "
we are bound to use it ; yet it is no duty of ours, but
a transgression of Church principle, that we should
trouble other Churches, contrary to the liberties as
serted in our xxxiv th article. Beyond the bounds
of her jurisdiction, the English Church would wish
her children to shew their fellowship in Christ's
Body by joining in the forms which have the sanc
tion of the local Church in every place, if these be
truly-constituted Churches, and willing to admit us
to communion without exacting such terms as we
believe to be sinful.
True it is, that we have little intercourse for the
present with foreign communions ; but this is not the
fault of the English Church ; it is caused either by
defects in the constitution of those bodies, or by their
uncharitableness in excluding us unless we will sub
mit to unlawful conditions. Far be it from Anglican
Churchmen to contradict the spirit of their Church
by making obstacles where none are offered from
without ! Our engagements are intended to bind us
to Anglican doctrine and temper, to secure our alle
giance to the Church ; surely it is a strange per
version if any clergyman endeavour to make them
the means of introducing dissension and schism
into a communion with which we profess to be at
unity. 78 Chaplaincies on the Continent are, of course, included.

of ot&er Cfmrc&es. 291
I have spoken simply of the case of a clergyman of
the Church of England, without discussing the ad
ditional obligations which any one, acting upon the
principles which I have laid down, may have thought
himself at liberty to contract on the occasion of ac
cepting a cure in a sister-Church.

PART III.
Conclusion,
LET me not be misunderstood as if I thought a
partial conformity good in itself, or regarded it
with any affection. I believe, not only that the
Ghurch's system in its fulness is better than any im
perfect approach to it, but that we are bound always
to keep this full system in view, and to labour that it
may be realized ; and it is only from a desire to work
towards that end in the most effectual manner that
I would recommend caution for the present, and
have endeavoured to prove that we may be justified
to our consciences in proceeding by degrees, instead
of forcing everything at once on an unprepared, if
not an unworthy, generation. I agree entirely in
purpose with all such, among the persons against
whom I have been arguing, as consider the English
Church to be to us, until it shall please God to heal
the breaches of His Church on earth, the organ and
representative of the Holy Church Universal ; —
with all such as, while they feel that the English
Church is not the whole of Christendom, yet do
not hold it a condescension to defer to her or con
tinue in her, nor consider their condition as members
of this national Church inferior to that of " foreign

Conclusion. 293
Catholics " in communion with the see of Rome.
Indeed, I agree even with those by whom the view
which has been described is derided as Pseudo-
Anglican, (Brit. Crit. July, 1842, p. 81,) in the
grand object of desiring the union of all Churches
throughout the world, and of all men to the One
Holy Catholic Church ; but my differences from
them are meanwhile so very great that it would be
useless at present to speak of our agreement, even if
there were no reason for the apprehension, which I
have of late been forced most unwillingly to enter
tain, that our conceptions of the ultimate object are
alike only in name.
" Whatever," writes Dr. Hey, (Lectures, iii. 6*
5.) " is expressed in words lately settled, must re
quire obedience without abatement ; whatever is
old, becomes more indefinite, and is to be construed
with greater latitude."
We do not, in the present case, need much help
from this principle ; for " obedience without abate
ment " was never required or given ; neither during
the time when the first English Prayer-Book was in
force, nor during the shorter authority of the second;
not while the Church was governed by the very men
who had set forth the Book of 1559, nor under the
administration of Bancroft or of Laud, the most
energetic of our primates ; nor, lastly, in the times
immediately following on the revision in the reign
of Charles II.
And if we inquire into the practice of individuals,
we generally find something short of perfect confor
mity in those divines whom we should be most ready
to look to for guidance and example.

294 Conclusion.
Thus, no bishop1 since the days of Queen Mary
has used a pastoral staff, which yet is ordered by
the rubric. Communion on the day of marriage, pre
scribed until the last revision as a thing that " must "
be observed, (Keeling, 306) was never enforced, at
least from the early part of Elizabeth's reign.2 An
drewes preached between the prayers and commu
nion-service. (Notes in Nicholls, p. 49, and Form
of Consecration). Bancroft established the like order
at Canterbury " on solemn feastdays." (Wilkins, iv.
436.) Overall, (author of the part of our catechism
which relates to the sacraments,) transferred the
prayer beginning, " O Lord and Heavenly Father,"
from the post-communion to the place which it had

1 I am bound to remember the alleged exception of Laud, (p.
15); but if the crosier now preserved at Oxford was really used
by him in his ministration, as the rubric directs, it is strange that
we do not hear of it in contemporary accusations or defences ; and
I cannot recall to my mind any such mention of it.
s See Strype, Ann. ii. 37, (1571) who seems, however, to have
made the mistake of putting into Elizabeth's mouth a reason
founded on the rubric of 1662 ; Hooker, v. 73, 8 ; Hammond,
" Parsenesis," c. 2, s. 19; L'Estrange, 297. A neglect of the
order was among the charges brought in Edward's reign against
Farrar, Bishop of St. David's, who, after having endured much
persecution at the hands of protestants in that time, was put to
death by the Romanists under Mary. It appears that, on the
occasion in question, the communion was administered by his
chaplain ; the Bishop himself did not receive, because " not able
fasting to celebrate the communion after travel of fourteen miles ;
the married persons not disposed to receive the holy communion,
he could not compel them against their consciences, and saith
that he did not dispense with them as it is contained in the
article." (Fox, iii. 166-170). Bishop Wren, however, orders
that persons not receiving be presented, (Doc. Ann. ii. 204) ;
and at the Savoy, the episcopal divines appear resolved to main
tain the old rubric (Cardw. Conf. 331-360), although it was after
wards altered.

Conclusion. 295
held in the Liturgy of 1549, as a prayer of oblation
before communicating.3 (Nicholls, App. p. 49.) The
office for Visitation of the Sick was introduced into
the public service, used so by Hammond (Eccl. Biog.
iv. 384,) and in part sanctioned even by Wren, the
most rubrical of bishops. (Doc. Ann, ii. 203, and
Parentalia, p. 9 1 .) * Ferrar used the Athanasian creed
at irregular times, and seems to have otherwise taken
liberties with the rubric. (Eccl. Biog. iv. 248).
Wren orders the notice of holy-days to be given at
a different time from that appointed by the Prayer-
Book. (Doc. Ann. ii. 203). Hooker and Patrick
deviate from the rubrics of their respective ages as
to the time of catechizing. (Eccl. Biog. iii. 518 ;
Patrick's Autobiography, 171). Andrewes, Bull,
and Kettlewell preach in the afternoon. No record
is found of those prescribed vestments which are now
disused, as ever worn by the parochial clergy ; and,
— (not to mention more instances) — we find but few
traces of any near approach to that frequency of
public prayer and communion which some tell us
that we are all solemnly pledged to observe, what
ever be the state of things around us. And in thus
practically interpreting the law of obligation to con-

3 On this Bishop Jolly remarks, that " he must have thought
it no breach of the act of Uniformity," (On the Eucharist, 155) ;
Dr. Pusey, that " perhaps his so doing implies that it had always
been so done in that portion of the Church, and the rubric not
received in that church as yet." (Tract 81, p. 36). With great
respect for the writer, I must profess myself unable to understand
this explanation.
* It appears, from this passage, that such was the custom of
Westminster. Hence, we may reckon Bishop Andrewes among
the divines who approved of it. He had held the deanery of
Westminster, and Wren had been his chaplain. See Part II. c.
xxii. s. a.

296 Conclusion.
formity, as not inconsistent with a deviation from the
strict order of the Book, it does not appear that the
holy men of former days supposed themselves to be
violating solemn oaths, or loading their consciences
with guilt.
An exact obedience was not given or required
while the Church's legislature was in full activity,
and able to suit its measures to the necessities of the
times, — when the state concerned itself to a degree
now unknown in the affairs of the Church, which
was then held co-extensive with the nation ; how,
then, can it be thought that a stricter rule is binding
upon us, now that the condition of the Church is so
greatly altered from that for which our rubrics and
canons were framed ?
And in order to confirm the legitimacy of admit
ting tradition and example as helps towards the un
derstanding of our engagements, let it be observed,
that the current and received traditions have not all
been of a diminishing character. " The Book," says
Bishop Overall's chaplain, " does not everywhere
enjoin and prescribe every little order, what should
be said or done, but takes it for granted that people
are acquainted with such common things and always
used, already." (Nicholls, App. 23). Many things,
indeed, which were before left open, and were there
fore variously done, according to the taste of indivi
duals, are expressly ordered since the last review ;
such as the placing of the elements on the altar ; the
position of the priest in consecrating and receiving ;
the use of his hands at the consecration ; the response
Amen after the prayer of consecration, which had
before been used, the people by it professing " their
faith of Christ's Body to be exhibited to them," (Ni
cholls, App. 48) ; the consecration of additional bread

Conclusion. 297
and wine when required, which had previously the
authority of a canon only (Can. xxi) ; standing at the
gospels, at the Gloria Patri in the daily service, and
consequently at the psalms and hymns which follow ;
reading the sentences, exhortation, confession, and
absolution, as well at evensong as at matins. The
rubric relating to the anthem dates also from 1662,
and it is so worded as to imply that the framers con
sidered the custom of " quires and places where they
sing," founded on one of Queen Elizabeth's injunc
tions, a sufficient warrant for the performance of an
anthem, and intended to exercise their own authority
only in directing at what stage in the service it
should be introduced.5 Under this head, too, comes
the form for the publication of banns, all but the de
scription of the parties, which is still left to " the
accustomed manner."6 But there yet remain some
things which, though not prescribed, are generally
observed; e. g. standing up at the beginning of
morning and evening prayer ; joining in the Ter-
sanctus;7 giving out the psalms of the day; and

5 The use of the prayers for the Sovereign, &c. when the Litany
is not read, was observed, but not prescribed before the last re
vision. Elizabeth by her injunctions allowed an anthem at the
end of service, and after it these prayers were usually said. Hence
the position according to the present rubric. See Cosin in Nicholls
App. 25.
6 The charge to sponsors, that they should cause children to
be instructed in the catechism, and should bring them to confir
mation, was ordered in the earlier Books, but no words were pre
scribed for it. Thus it was neglected about 1591. (Doc. Ann.
ii. 23).
7 It is very usual to begin to join at the words — " Therefore
with angels ;" and, probably through a misapprehension of the
compilers, this is sanctioned in the American Liturgy. Mr. Palmer
shews from the usage of all Churches, that the hymn itself —

298 Conclusion.
(which has always been the most remarkable in
stance of this kind,) reading the psalms in the alter
nate manner. As to this last, there is in our rubric
no direction that the people shall join with their lips
in the psalms at all; much less that they shall re
cite the verses alternately with the minister. Bishop
Bedell, we are told, used to read the whole through
out, saying that he found no authority for a different
practice. (Life, in Hone's Eminent Christians, ii.
260.) Yet so completely has the tradition been re
garded as a rule, that we find the puritans continually
complaining of the alternate reading as a grievance
inseparable from the Church without fresh legisla
tion. A petition is presented by Nowell and others
to the convocation of 1562, praying " that the psalms
be sung distinctly by the whole congregation, or said
with the other prayers by the minister alone." (Strype,
Annals, i. 335). Hooker, in replying to those who
found fault with the saying alternately, does not give
any hint that the Church is not accountable for the
custom, or that ministers are not bound to use it, but
puts forth his majestic strength in defending it on its
own merits. (Eccl. Pol. v, 37-39.) The episcopal
divines at the Savoy take a similar course ; (Cardw.
Conf. 305-338); and, although it was proposed at
the last revision that the practice should be enjoined
by an express rubric, (as we learn from Sancroft's
MS.) no alteration was then introduced — the sanc
tion of custom being apparently regarded as suffi
cient.8

" Holy, Holy, Holy, &c." is the only part which ought to be said
or sung by the people. (Origines, ii. 127.)
8 I may take this opportunity of adverting to two points con
nected with the recitation of the psalms. 1 . The second part of

Conclusion. 299
Nothing indeed can be more untenable than the
notion that the Prayer-Book is a complete rule, which
will not admit of any variation, either by exceeding
or by falling short of it.9
Mr. Poole tells us, in his argument for Lights, (p.
13), that Cathedrals " are regulated by no authority
which does not equally bind the most private chapel,
or the most remote parish church."10 Buttermere
must be a mimic York-minster, Capel Curig as cere
monious as Canterbury ! I cannot understand on
what grounds this is said. The rubric itself makes
special provision for " quires, and places where they

the doxology used at the end of psalms and hymns is styled
Answer ; by which term, wherever else it is used in our present
Liturgy, and also in the older Books, (where it occurred much
oftener), it is intended that the words shall be said by the people.
The Scotch Liturgy is express — " The people shall answer, As it
was in the beginning, &c." It would seem, therefore, that in pro
priety the minister ought always to say the first part of the doxo
logy. 2. Dr. Hook is of opinion that the Athanasian creed, " when
it is not sung by a choir, is to be said throughout by the people
after the clergyman, who is to repeat the whole of it in the same
manner as the other creeds." (Ch. Diet.) The practice of alter
nate reading, however, is justified by Mr. Palmer and Mr. Jebb.
9 As practices less generally observed, but having much sanc
tion of a traditional kind, may be mentioned — the use of a doxo
logy before, and of a thanksgiving after, the gospel in the com
munion-service, (p. 215) ; the custom of turning to the east at the
creeds ; and that of saying Amen at receiving the consecrated
elements, (p. 226.) Mr. William Dyce's Preface to Marbecke
may be consulted on the subject of traditional sanction.
10 A like assertion, as I have discovered since the publication
of the former edition, was made by Heylyn, and is refuted by Wil
liams in replying to him. (Holy Table, pp. 182-3). In speaking
of authority which equally binds, Mr. Poole evidently means,
that not only the regulating authority but the particular regula
tions are the same ; since his argument is, that because candles are
found in cathedrals, therefore they ought also to be set up in all
other churches and chapels.

300 Conclusion,
sing," and gives order for communion, " every Sun
day at the least in cathedral and collegiate churches,
and colleges, where there are many priests and dea
cons." The whole body of injunctions and canons
recognizes a distinction between cathedral and colle
giate churches on the one hand, and parish churches
on the other ; nay, we often find a distinction drawn
between parish churches in towns, and those in the
country. This last is the case as to week-day ser
vices. Sermons are allowed in towns at times when
the rubric does not prescribe any, when catechizing
is ordered elsewhere. Lights on the altar are en
joined only for cathedrals ; so too are copes ; until
1604, hoods were not required but in these greater
churches ; Charles II. while willing to give up the
use of the surplice elsewhere, proposes that it be re
tained in cathedrals, colleges, and the royal chapels.
(Doc. Ann. ii. 249.) The standing of the holy table
differed in the different classes of churches, until Laud
attempted to establish general uniformity ; " largeness
and straitness of the church and choir " are spoken of
as circumstances which are to determine in what part
the minister shall officiate; sermons are allowed in
the university-churches without the previous reading
of prayers ; colleges in the universities, and certain
great schools, are allowed to use service in Latin,
which is forbidden elsewhere ; (Card. Doc. Ann. No.
50.) the Latin Book set forth for these societies per
mits the reservation of the consecrated elements for the
sick, while it was not allowed by the English Liturgy,
" upon a rational presumption that, the greater light
they enjoyed, the less prone and disposed would they
be to error and superstition," (L'Estrange, 300) ; and
at the same time (1560) we find a Latin office ap-

Conclusion. 301
pointed for their use in communion at funerals,11 al
though the usage of celebrating the holy communion
on such occasions was then no longer provided for in
our English Service Book. (Doc. Ann. Nos. 50-51.)
We meet with notices of peculiar traditions in vari
ous churches, which are received as sufficient autho
rity for practices; there are, too, special statutes by
which the chapter clergy are bound to observances not
required or used elsewhere.12 We find, indeed, Arch-
11 The collect in this form varies remarkably from the last prayer
in our present Burial-Service, (of which it is otherwise a transla
tion), in having the following words at the end : — " Petimus ut . . .
in generali resurrectione, extremo die, nos una cum hoc fratre
nostro resuscitati, et receptis corporibus, regnemus una Tecum in
vita aeterna." At the time when the version was made, our " col
lect " was precisely the same as it now is ; the Latin is not ex
actly in agreement with the Book of 1549 ; nor does it appear to
have been adopted from any older office. It is curious, by the
way, that the revisers of 1662, while they added the commemora
tion of departed saints to the prayer for the Church Militant, al
tered into its present form the prayer in the Burial-Office begin
ning" Almighty God, with whom,"&c. which previously contained
these words — " that we, with this our brother, and all other de
parted in the true faith of Thy Holy Name, may have our perfect
consummation," &c. Mr. Palmer appears to allude to this prayer,
where he argues that " a petition for the departed was not intended
by the revisers of 1551 ; for had they designed to retain prayers for
the departed, how are we to account for their omission in the com
munion-service ?" (Origines, ii. 95.) On the reasons for omit
ting them in that place at the revision of 1559, see a letter from
Guest to Cecil in Cardwell's Conferences, p. 52. It appears from
the notes of Overall's chaplain and of Bishop Cosin, (Nicholls,
App. 64-5), that in the next century both the puritans and the
party to which these divines belonged supposed a petition for the
departed to be involved in the Burial-Service as it then stood.
12 Thus, Archbishop Bancroft inquires at Wells cathedral,
1605, " whether daily service be there sung, according to the foun
dation of this church ?" . . " How often have you sermons or
lectures in the week, and by whom ? and what be the statutes of
this church in that behalf?" (Wilkins, Cone. iv. 415.)

302 Conclusion.
bishop Sheldon speaking of the cathedrals as " the
standard and rule to all parochial churches of the
solemnity and decent manner of reading the Liturgy
and administering the holy sacraments," (Doc. Ann.
ii. 280) ; but we may be very sure that when he wrote
thus, in desiring that the service in the cathedrals
themselves should be decent and solemn, he did not
mean that parish churches were to conform to the
very pattern of cathedrals, so that (after the fashion
which is so offensive in foreign churches), meanswhich
are sufficient for nothing more than a decent simpli
city should be employed in such an imitation of mag
nificence as can only be paltry and childish.
Again, we find that the chapels-royal had ways of
their own13; and if any lovers of ornaments should
be led by the mention of copes and crucifix, of long
towels extended in front of the communicants, of in
cense, (Evelyn, Diary, Easterday, 1684,) of images
and burning lights, to think of what was there done
as a pattern for all other places, let him remember
that there was no sermon in the communion-service
(Burnet, H. R. iii. 299) ; that the court-sermon was
in the afternoon ; that in Elizabeth's time there was
usually preaching only on week-days in Lent, and on
festivals;14 that, although the rubric since the last
review appoints the anthem to follow immediately
after the third collect at morning and evening prayer,
it was always performed after the sermon in Charles
the Second's chapels (Pepys, passim) ; and that from
the beginning of James the First's reign until Laud
procured an alteration from Charles the First, it was

is On this point see Williams, " Holy Table," c. 2, and Hey
lyn's " Antidotum Lincolniense," c. 2.
14 Some authorities do not mention the festival sermons.

Conclusion, 303
the fashion that at whatever time in the service the
king might enter, prayers were broken off, the anthem
began, and the preacher went into the pulpit ! (Laud,
Troubles, 37 ; Howell, vol. iv. Letter 12.)
Nor, again, do we find among divines of former
days that spirit, which is now thought necessary, of
curious inquiry into the warrant for things which come
to us recommended by the nearest authority. Parker
writes to Cecil, " Whatsoever the [Queen's] ecclesi
astical prerogative is, I fear it is not so great as your
pen hath given it in the injunctions [of 1559]."
(Doc. Ann. i. 178). Yet these injunctions were re
ceived and obeyed as having sufficient authority ;
they, the advertisements of 1565, and the canons of
1571 and 1604, were never called in question as con
tradictory to the Prayer-Book, in points where the
one rule relaxed or exceeded the other; where, for
example, the rubric seemed to order a cope, and the
advertisements or canons prescribed a surplice, no
parochial clergyman appears to have thought that it
was his duty, or even that he was at liberty, to wear
the more gorgeous garment. Indeed the Prayer-Books
from 1559 to 1662 rested only on " regal and parlia
mentary authority." (Brett on Liturgies, ed. 1838, p.
399.) This was the case, not only with King Ed
ward's second Liturgy (which it would be useless to
speak of in an argument directed against persons who
condemn in the mass all the men and all the measures
of the time when that Liturgy was in force,) but with
the Book of 1559 also; and further, the alterations
which were made in that Book after the Hampton
Court Conference,15 had no other authority than a

1S James I. says in his proclamation that he had empowered
commissioners to revise the Common Prayer and explain certain

304 Conclusion.
royal proclamation. What would have been said
of such authority by the gentlemen who now-a-
days send indignant letters to newspapers because
the printers of the Prayer-book have altered the

points " according to the form which the laws of this realm in
like case prescribe to be used," (Keeling, p. ix.) Thus he claims
for the alterations the sanction of the Act of Uniformity, 1. Eliz.
which reserved to the Queen and her commissioners the power of
ordering rites and ceremonies ; but, as is observed by Watson,
(Clergyman's Law, p. 321,) and Burn, (iii. 415,) the act appears
intended to give this power to Elizabeth only, and not to her suc
cessors. Heylyn argues for the continuance of the authority as
given by the act to succeeding sovereigns, (Coal from the Altar,
58, 63.) Archbishop Williams (Holy Table, p. 25,) quotes an
opinion of the judges, that it " was not a statute introductory of
a new law, but declaratory of the old." (This view appears too
similar to that embodied in the statute of Henry the Eighth's sub
servient parliament, 31 Hen. VIII. c. 8, which, in investing royal
proclamations with the authority of law, professes to be merely
declaratory of " what a king by his royal power might do").
Williams seems to regard the power of regulating such matters
as inherent in the sovereign's prerogative, as does also L'Estrange,
(Alliance, p. 22.) Archbishop Sharp (Life, i. 238,) holds it most
correct to say that " the king alone hath all church power ; but
in some cases he cannot exercise it without the three estates,''
(Lords, Commons, and Clergy). Neal objects to the alterations
of 1604, that "by the same power that his majesty altered an
article in the Liturgy, he might set aside the whole ; every sen
tence being equally established by act of parliament," (i. 404).
This does not appear correct, as the alterations were declared to
be of a merely ritual kind, and to come within the power in ritual
matters which had been reserved to the Queen in 1559. " How
ever," adds Neal, " the force of all proclamations determining
with the king's life, and there being no subsequent act of par
liament to establish these amendments, it was urged very justly,
(hy puritans) in the next reign, that this was not the Liturgy of
the Church of England established by law, and consequently,
not binding upon the clergy."
On the right of Christian princes in such matters, see Palmer,
Origines, ii. 3—9. The spirit of eminent churchmen in the seven
teenth century as to questions of this nature was, indeed, so

Conclusion* 305
the rubric as to the time of banns, in compliance with
an act of parliament?16 Yet we do not hear that An
drewes, Laud, or any- other churchman in the reigns
of Elizabeth, of James, or of Charles I. pretended a

decidedly different from that of the party with which I am now
concerned, that it might very easily have run into an error of an
opposite kind. See Gladstone, Ch. and State, ii. 214, ed. 4.
16 The history of this subject is as follows. In the earlier
books, it was ordered that " the banns must be asked three several
Sundays or holydays, in the time of service, the people being
present." At the revision of 1662, it was appointed that the
publication should take place " immediately before the sentences
for the offertory." Lord Hardwicke's Act, 26 Geo. II. c. 33,
directed that " the banns shall be published upon three Sundays
during the time of morning-service, or of the evening-service, if
there be no morning-service in such church or chapel on any of
those Sundays, immediately after the second lesson." The object
of this act was to prevent clandestine marriages, for which purpose
the existing laws had been found insufficient. Hence the procla
mation on holydays, not being Sundays, was no longer allowed,
as it would not have secured due publicity. Where there should
be no morning-service, publication in the evening-service was
allowed ; and at the same time it was declared that marriages
should be void unless preceded by banns or license, whereas mar
riages contracted without these formalities had previously been
valid. (See Burn, Art. Marriage). The alterations were evidently,
as a whole, in favour of the Church, and they appear to have
been framed as well as possible, on a consideration of existing
circumstances. The restriction of banns to the communion-office
had not been ordered before 1662, and could not, therefore, be
spoken of as essential in the Church's view ; and it is held by
some lawyers that Lord Hardwicke's act was intended to fix the
time of publication in the evening-service only, and does not
affect the rubric which orders that, when published in the morning,
the banns shall immediately precede the offertory. I have been
led to mention this subject in connexion with the practice of those
writers who fill our newspapers and magazines with dicta on
ritual matters, and by the confidence of their tone force grossly
erroneous opinions on readers who do not suspect their igno
rance. The alteration of the rubric, however, is also censured by
persons of a very different character from these, nor am I pre-
x

306 Conclusion.
right to neglect the usual Liturgy of his own time,
and to use the only English service-book which had
ever received all the necessary sanctions, viz. the first
Book of King Edward. Those who would most have
wished to restore some things from that Book, never
imagined that they were free to use it without fresh
legislation ; much less that they were bound to use
it, as the only Book that had a valid claim to their
obedience.17 And let it be remembered that every clergyman,
before he can become such, must submit to take the
present oath of supremacy, which rests only on the
authority of parliament, whereas another form has the
full sanction of the Church as well as the State.

pared entirely to justify it. It is, of course, desirable that the
Prayer-Book should not lead us into error as to the actual state
of the law ; and it is most likely that the printers did not intro
duce the change without the sanction of some authority to which
they believed themselves bound to defer; still, it would have been
better to intimate the alteration of the law by a note at the end
of the book, leaving the rubric untouched. But, great as is my
respect for some of their number, I cannot agree with those who
think it well to object to indifferent or beneficial changes, because,
while the most satisfactory authority is dormant, and therefore
unable to provide for actual circumstances, these changes are in
troduced by such authority as has the power of action, — by the
best authority which can be had. The real and serious grievance
involved in the late case of Mastin v. Escott, is inflicted on the
clergy, not by any recent act of the temporal legislature, (although
it arises, in fact, from the want of a provision in the Toleration-
acts), but by a judicial construction (or misconstruction) of our
rubrics and canons. It may be some comfort to know that the
clergy in some parts of Roman Catholic Germany suffer a similar
grievance at the hands of the temporal power, that power being
of their own communion. (Schmid. i. 607.)
w Bp. Overall's chaplain observes that the Preface Of Cere
monies " is the same verbatim with that which is in the [first]
service-book of King Edward VI. The preface, then, being the

Conclusion* 307
Let it not be supposed that I am for any Erastian
Church-government, or would advise compliance in
anything which the Sovereign or the law may -require
of us, if the matter of it go against our conscience as
churchmen ; in such cases, our part is to endure the
consequences of noncompliance ; but it certainly
appears very unlike the ways of our wisest forefathers,
if we make scruples in things indifferent merely be
cause we receive them from something less than the
combined authority of convocation and parliament.
An examination will prove to any one that in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the canons and
injunctions were always supposed to be sufficient
interpretations of the rubric ; adapted to the needs
of the times when they were issued, and enough to
justify to his own conscience any one who was bound
by the rubric, provided he did as much as they
required. And while we talk about the Church's laws, let us
not forget the moderation which marked the conduct
of those who made them, and administered them in
former times ; how carefully they shunned everything

same, it seems all the ceremonies of that book are still justified
by our Church, though some of them, at Calvin's and Bucer's
instance, were omitted in the review of the book, 5 Edw. VI. as
not accounted absolutely necessary." (Nicholls, App. p. 7.) I
quote this, not with any view of discussing the question, but as a
proof that the writer, who is in general a strenuous opposer of
state usurpation, supposed the First Book of Edward to have
been fairly abrogated by the sanction of Elizabeth's Liturgy. It
has, indeed, been questioned whether even the First Book had
the sanction of convocation. (Clay on the C. P. ; Neal, i. 38.)
If not, what form would our scrupulous rubricians have used, had
they lived between 1549 and 1662? Was there any form, Eng
lish or Latin, fully authorized at first, and not since fully abro
gated ?

308 Conclusion.
that might cause needless offence or alienation ; how
strongly they shew a sense that they were dealing,
not with brute matter, but with human wills ; how
desirous they appear to use persuasion rather than
force ; how willing to make allowance even for un
reasonable prejudices, so that there were no real harm
in bearing with them or using them tenderly.
Thus Cranmer writes to Henry VIII. — "In my
opinion, when such things be altered, or taken away,
there would be set forth some doctrine therewith,
which should declare the cause of the abolishing
or alteration, for to satisfy the conscience of the
people. If the honouring of the cross, as creeping
or kneeling thereto, be taken away, it shall seem to
many that be ignorant, that the honour of Christ is
taken away, unless some good teaching be set forth
withal, to instruct them sufficiently herein." (Works,
ed. Jenkyns, i. 318.) In like manner during the
reign of Edward, before the removal of altars, an
order of council was sent to the bishops, with a col
lection of reasons for the measure, which, with such
others as they might be pleased to set forth, " in
order to persuade the weak," they were prayed to
" cause to be declared to the people by some discreet
preachers before the taking down of the said altars,

18 See a letter of Jewel's about the habits. (Burnet, H. R.
iii. 291.) He afterwards viewed the matter differently. One of
the many misrepresentations contained in the article on the " De
velopment of the Seventeenth Century," (See p. 33,) relates to
the opinion of a distinguished living writer respecting Bishop
Jewel. " Mr. Hallam," it is said, "in his quiet impartial way,
gives Jewel his proper character, when he says that he was ' a
precisian or puritan.'" (Brit. Crit. Oct. 1842, p. 331.) Mr.
Hallam's words are these — "Jewel's Letters to Peter Martyr
throw considerable light on the first two years of Elizabeth's reign ;
and shew that famous prelate to have been what afterwards would

Conclusion. 309
so as both the weak consciences of others may be in
structed and satisfied as much as may be, and this
our pleasure the more quietly executed." (Doc.
Ann. i. 90.) And so in the Second Book of that
reign it was provided that " the chancels shall remain
as they have done in times past."
Such, too, were the counsels that prevailed at the
accession of Elizabeth, greatly to the anger of more
violent reformers.18 So many of the ornaments as
had been used in her brother's earlier years were to
be " retained ;" prayer was to be said " in the accus
tomed place;" the chancels were still to "remain as
in times past ; " the prayer for deliverance " from the
tyranny of the bishop of Rome, and all his detestable
enormities," was struck out of the reformed Liturgy.
When, at a later time, Laud found the Church
overrun with puritanism, he proceeded to take decided
steps against the evil ; but his own articles were very
moderate ; and even those bishops who most outran
him required much less than what is now called for.
Even the orders for sports on the Lord's Day, which
are commonly represented as having originated in a
wish to annoy the puritans, profess, both under James
and under Charles, a far different motive, viz. a de
sire to facilitate the conversion of Romanists to the
have been called a precisian or puritan. But the unreasonable
ness of the discontented party, and the natural tendency of a man
who has joined the side of power to deal severely with those he
has left, made him afterwards their enemy." (Const. Hist. i.
169.) The reviewer, indeed, supposes that Jewel changed his
tone only out of deference to the Queen and Archbishop Parker,
without any real change of opinion ; but this is no warrant for
attempting to impose on us, as Mr. Hallam's judgment of the
Bishop's character on the whole, words intended by the historian
to apply only to a certain part of it, which preceded a change of
which he does not question the sincerity.

310 Conclusion.
English Church, by clearing her from the suspicion
of puritanism or Judaism with respect to the Sabbath.
(Rushworth, ii. 193 — 6.) 19 The attempt to introduce
a Liturgy into Scotland was, perhaps, more incau
tiously managed than any other great public act of
those who have governed our Church; but even there
an allowance was made in a point which many now
would consider vital ; the black gown was allowed to
be used instead of a surplice, until the people should
be able to take a rational view of the matter. (Gor
don, "Scots Affairs," ed. Spalding Club, ii. 63.)
We have, indeed, been told of late, that any one
who objects to insisting on gestures and other such
matters, " does so in the teeth of our standard divi
nity." (Brit. Crit. Oct. 1842, p. 337.) It would,
however, probably be difficult to produce any " stan
dard divinity" which maintains such things as being
of the importance With which they are now invested.
Look at what may be considered to set forth Laud's
own views, — the canons of 1640. Do they insist on
such matters ? Are they not rather full of a charity
founded on a sense of their indifference in themselves?
And listen to Sanderson : — " The taking away of the
indifferency of anything that is indifferent, is in truth
superstition; whether either of the two ways it be
done ; either by requiring it as necessary, or by for
bidding it as unlawful." (Sermons, p. 64.) Again,
(p. 545,) " Some have been blamed for bringing into
the Church new forms and ceremonies ; or (which is

'9 The practice before the Reformation may be guessed at from
an act of Rich. II. (1838), which, evidently with a view to military
training, directs, that labourers and servants shall use only bows
and arrows on Sundays and holydays, " and leave all playing at
tennis or football, and other games called quoits, dice, casting

Conclusion, 311
all one in the apprehensions of men that consider not
much, and so is liable to the same censure) for re
viving old ones, but long disused and forgotten;"
and both to such, and to the opposite extreme party,
he gives solemn advice not to profess too loudly a
zeal for God's glory, when less sacred motives may
be mixed up in their actions. " Many a man," he
Writes elsewhere, (Pref. 79,) " when he thought most
to make it sure, hath quite marred a good business
by overdoing it." He declares (Pref. p. 70) that " no
true son of the Church doteth on any ceremony,20
whatsoever opinion he may have of the decency or
expediency of some of them. If any do, let him an
swer for himself. Among wise men he will hardly
pass for a wise man, that doteth upon any." He
maintains the ceremonies, as Parker had long before
maintained the habits, (Collier, ii. 548,) for the sake of
obedience. Taylor in the same spirit directs (Advices,
No. 39) that no minister of a parish introduce any
strange rites, and that the clergy shall explain such
rites as they make use of.
As an example of the moderation which I have
been speaking of, let us look at the case, (already con
sidered with, perhaps, undue fulness,) of lights on the
altar. The injunction ordered the clergy to take down
all candles in churches, " but only two lights upon
the high altar, which for the signification that Christ
is the very true Light of the world, they shall suffer
to remain still ;" — suffer, out of consideration for the

of the stone, kailes, and other such importune games." (Gibson,
Codex, 273, where a similar act of Hen. IV. is also given.)
80 A quotation of these words by the Quarterly Reviewer, is
strangely tortured by the writer of the article on the " Develop
ment in the Seventeenth Century." (Brit. Crit. Oct. 1842, p.
337.)

3i2 Conclusion.
feelings of people who had been used to see lights in
their churches, to remain in places where they had
previously been. I believe that the authority for the
use of these lights has been entirely done away with ;
but if it were not, I should hold a clergyman perfectly
justified in not attempting now-a-days at once to re
store them. For a permission that they may remain
is not an order that they shall be set up where they
were not before ; lighted candles are as offensive to
the popular religion of this day as they were con
genial to that of the year 1547, modern illumination
considering them to have been fit only for "the dark
ages : " — " More proper for the cloudy night
Of popery than gospel light," — sl
and pleasing itself with Fuller's sentiment, (Waltham
Abbey, 16,) " under the Reformation, more light and
fewer candles;" and whereas they were suffered to
remain " for the signification that Christ is the very
true Light of the world," our flocks too commonly
will see nothing in them for the present but badges
of popery, or, in the language of Cartwright and his
brethren, "remnants of Antichrist," (Bancroft, Dang.
Pos. b. ii. c. 9), "a very sacrament of abomination,"
(ap. Hooker, v. 29. 5.) Would it be wise, then, to
vex people with an offensive symbol of a truth which
they profess fully to believe, and which they refuse
to see in the symbol ?
And in fact the mystical meaning for which the
lights were suffered to remain is now needless. For
let it be observed, that when two candles were re
tained on the high altar, the polemical direction was

« Hudibras, iii. 2. 301.

Conclusion. 3 13
not against such persons as might deny the great
truth that in Christ light is come into the world, but
against those who had many lighted altars, and
among whom were entertained opinions inconsistent
with a right belief in Him as the One Light.22

55 Nor can it be said that we are bound by primitive authority
to burn lights on our altars. Bishop Andrewes writes, (Answer
to Perron's xviiith chapter, p. 18) that the early Church made use
of lights, not for any mystical meaning, " but, as it is thought,
for this cause, that where the Christians, in time of persecution,
had their meetings in cryptis, in caves and grots under ground,
places dark, and so needing light, — after, when peace came,
though they had churches then above ground, with light enough,
yet retained they the lights, to shew themselves to be the sons
and successors of those ancient Christians which in former times
had used them, though upon other occasion — shewing their com
munion in the former faith by the communion of the former
usages ; whereto the after ages devised meanings and significa
tions of their own, which from the beginning were not so."
(Comp. Jewel, Def. Apol. p. 2 1 ; Hospinian de Templis, 1. ii. c.
22; Gavanti, i. 134; Schmid, i. 65.) The English reader will
hardly be won to an opposite opinion by the romancing of Gue
ranger (i. 25) ; nor can I consider Dr. Rock's argument in the
same cause more successful. (Hierurgia, Pt. ii. c. 11.) The
council of Trent (Sess. xxii. i. 5) refers lights to apostolical
tradition. The first witness for their being placed on the altar at
mass is Innocent III. who became pope in 1198 ; earlier testi
monies not reaching to this point. (Schmid, ii. 39.) St. Jerome
says, that the Western Church in his time burnt candles only
when it was dark, although in the East the practice was other
wise. (Bingham, xiv. 3,11; Poole, p. 24.) It does not follow
that because the Church at one time attached a particular signi
fication to any usage, we are bound to keep up the usage for the
sake of that signification. Thus the Convocation of 1536, (Wil
kins, iii. 822), and Gardiner's party in 1539, gave the very same
reason for " bearing candles on Candlemas-day," — a practice
forbidden in 1547 (Doc. Ann. No. viii.), — which the Injunction
of that year assigns for the two lights on the altar; — " It is a
very good usage, in memory of Christ, the spiritual Light, of
whom Symeon did prophesy, as is read in the church that day "
(Collier, ii. 197). Mr. Poole and Dr. Hook tell us that the

314 Conclusion.
Our Reformers at once soothed the people by
allowing candles to remain for a time, and took away
the occasion of error which the multitude of lights
had furnished ; and we may be sure that even if the
letter of their order were still unrepealed, we should
act more wisely by neglecting it, and imitating the
spirit by which it was dictated. " When a contrary
reason does arise," says Bishop Taylor (xiv. 243),
" there is no peradventure but the law ceases." " To
persist in an old observation," writes Abp. Bramhall,
(ed. Anglocath. Lib. ii. 185,) " when the grounds of
it are quite changed* and the end for which the
observation was made calleth upon us for an altera
tion, is not obedience but obstinacy." If this be the
case as to persisting in things which are established,
what is to be said of persons who, in such circum
stances as the Archbishop describes, attempt, against
a general feeling, to revive something which has long
been obsolete ?
And it is no good reply to these arguments to say
that the Reformers allowed too much weight to the

number two signifies our Lord's twofold nature. But in Lynde-
wood, after mystical explanations of the wax and the wick, we
find this same sense put upon a single candle; — "Lumen signi-
ficat Ejus Divinitatem carni unitam." (Ed. 1679, p. 236. See
many such things in Durandus, lib. i. § 40, or Gavanti, i. 128.)
The advocates of lights often remind us that they are used by the
Lutherans. This may be an argument with those who defer to
the Lutherans as a standard ; but it may also suggest some doubts
as to the efficacy of the lights in preserving the truth for the sake
of which our Reformers suffered them to remain. In Germany
they have been found no more effectual for the maintenance of
orthodoxy as to the Light of the world than has the title of
" Evangelical Church." Would that we could all be brought
to take Luther's own view of the matter, (quoted by Cosin, in
Nicholls, App. p. 18,) — " Nee candelas nee thurificationem pro-
hibemus, sed nee exigimus; esto hoc liberum."

Conclusion. 315
prejudices of various parties, that they suffered the
Prayer-Book to be tampered with by foreigners of
low theological opinions, and bore with a degree of
inconformity as to habits, &c. which we should be
exceedingly sorry to see. It need be no hindrance
to our acting in their spirit, that later experience has
shown the vanity of some measures in which that
spirit was manifested. We know very well, though
they could not, that a comprehension of dissenters and
an union of all protestants are not to be thought of,
since it has been manifested that any such measure
must involve the abandonment, on one side or other, of
what is considered fundamental. Far be it from us to
think, that the Church should, at Dr. Chalmers' bid
ding, (Lectures on Establishments, fifth " thousand,"
p. 74), " come down from all that is transcendental
or mysterious in her pretensions," — that out of re
gard for any body of men, or for the hope of any
possible gain, she should give up the least part
of the doctrine which she has inherited, or disown
her claims to be the one communion in this land
which has a ministry rightly ordained and sent, and
has sure authority to dispense the Word and Sacra
ments. As to these, let there be no concession ; but
it is even because of these that I would earnestly
deprecate all insisting on things which are of little
or no real importance. Because I wish to see people
brought to believe truly in the Holy Catholic Church
I would entreat that nothing may be done which can
unnecessarily repel persons who have grown up in
uncatholic traditions; and it seems to be wanton
folly, when we have before us the difficult task of
converting men to a belief in the Church's unity and
authority, the apostolical commission, the virtue and
necessity of the sacraments, the good of frequent

316 Conclusion.
prayers and communion, and other like points, to talk
of copes, and candles, and tippets, and mystically
numbered obeisances ; of paxes and roodlofts, stone
altars and decorative flowers, praying eastward and
trine affusion.
Nor can our extreme men require any toleration
or indulgence on the ground of ignorance or pre
judice. To them may fairly be addressed the words
of Hooker (Pref. 4. 4.) —
" Whereas it is the error of the common multitude
to consider only what hath been of old, and if the
same were well, to see whether still it continue ; if
not, to condemn that presently which is, and never to
search upon what ground or consideration the change
might grow : such rudeness cannot be in you so well
borne with, whom learning and judgment hath en
abled much more soundly to discern how far the
times of the Church and the orders thereof may alter
without offence. True it is, the ancienter, the better
ceremonies of religion are ; howbeit, not absolutely
true and without exception ; but true only so far
forth as those different ages do agree in the state of
those things for which at the first those rites, orders,
and ceremonies were instituted."
Mr. F. W. Faber asks triumphantly (p. 302) of
those who object to the Roman ceremonies, as " mum
meries," — What would a heathen, ignorant of our
customs, say of certain English rites ? and by way
of illustration he favours us with a view of some of
these taken from the ludicrous side. For my own
part, I have never, even in conversation, used the
word mummery with respect to the Roman worship,
and, therefore, do not feel myself concerned to
the full in Mr. Faber's reproof; but his illustration
is not to the purpose ; since his supposed spectator

Conclusion. 317
is a heathen, whereas the Romish ceremonies seem
in many parts childish and excessive to persons who
know something of their Bible, and are even not
without some smattering of Christian antiquities ;
who are acquainted with the ideas of sacramental in
fluence and symbolical action. He tells us elsewhere,.
(p. 154) that it was long ere he " became at all recon
ciled to" the Romish worship, and that at last he was
so by means of books;23 whence, of course, it will
be natural for any modest reader to conclude, that
whatever dislike of such worship he may feel must
be the result of ignorance ; that study, and an under
standing of the mystical signification, would produce
in him the same change of feeling as in the author of
" Sights and Thoughts."
That this need not be universally the case, how
ever, is pretty clearly apparent from the following
words of Bishop Cosin, in his comment on the Pre
face to our Prayer-Book ; (Nicholls, App. p. 38.) —
" I doubt the Scots sent him [Calvin] not the Pre
face to read, and described all our rites to him after
the most odious and ridiculous manner that they could
imagine ; indeed, if we had founded ourselves upon
the ridiculous Rationale of Durandus, or put any
religion in them, (more than the obeying of a lawful
command, given for better order and decency in the
Church, was religion), he might have had the more

a Gueranger says (ii. 235) that an explanation of the sym
bolical meaning of rites has been found a powerful instrument for
converting English and American protestants to Romanism. It
would appear, however, from various passages in Schmid, (e. g.
ii. 236) that foreign Romanists very generally neglect the sym
bolical meanings, that interpretations of this kind vary much from
each other, and consequently, that in many cases the meaning is
rather attached to the rite than contained in it.

318 Conclusion.
reason to find fault with us.2* The papists, in a
foolish, theatrical, and superstitious manner, have
brought into the present mass many utensils, vest
ments, actions, motions* and winkings, to signify the
mysteries of the life and death of Christ ; for these
things fill the books of the writers of the latter ages
of the Church, especially of Durandus, the writer of
the Rationale."
This is the judgment of a learned man who was
noted for his love of ritual solemnity, of one who had
endured much slander as popishly affected, the author
of a work abridged in the Tracts for the Times, a
high authority in the Oxford Catenas ; and it is
founded, not on an ignorant bystanding at the ser
vice, but on the perusal of a famous ritualist's expla
nations. It does not follow, that, because there is a very
deep mystical system in Divine things, therefore we
are bound to multiply ceremonies of human devising
for the sake of arbitrary symbolical meanings. Nor
again, that because we profess to reverence the early
Church, to receive its witness as to points of faith,
and even in liturgical matters to strive after con
formity to " the mind and purpose of the old
Fathers," we are bound closely to follow its example
in every particular of ritual detail ; for, although
a party among us would set down all such opinions
to insular pride, I have no hesitation in saying
that the difference of national character would
make an exact imitation of what was practised in
such matters by eastern and southern nations many
centuries ago, no better than absurd in us. Our
xxxiv th Article declares most reasonably, that " tra-

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

Conclusion. 319
ditions and ceremonies may be changed according to
the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners."
" Qui omnia ad unum eundemque modum redigere
conantur," writes Mabillon, " perinde mihi videntur
agere ac si omnes populos ad eosdem mores eadem-
que penitus instituta redu cere ten tarent,"(ap. Schmid,
i. 6 1 .) That there are important differences between
one people and another, no one can pretend to doubt. 2S
They appear in the various systems of heathen reli
gion ; in art, in poetry, and all literature ; in the di£
ferent characters of the heresies which anciently arose
in the east and in the west respectively ; in many
other things which might easily be mentioned, as well
as in the outward manners and the habits of daily
life. Why, then, should it be set down to a narrow
and faulty insular pride, if we say that the difference
of the English character from that of other nations
may not improperly affect the manner of our showing
forth a belief and a reverence which are substantially
the same as theirs ?26 " So that all things be done to
edifying" (Art. xxxiv) — a principle not always kept
in view by those who revive ancient customs among
us — the spirit of true Catholic Churchmanship would

55 An amusing argument from the diversity of national charac
ter may be found in a work of great authority with that party
in our Church which lately had the British Critic for its organ, 
De Maistre's treatise, " Du Pape." He enters into an elaborate
disparagement of the ancient Greeks (b. iv. cc. 7 — 8) with a view
of proving that the Greeks of later times must be in the wrong in
the separation between their Churches and that of Rome.
sfl Compare with the style in which the British Critic and those
who sympathize with it, have of late spoken on this subject, the
following words of Dr. Pusey, in 1838, (Tract 81, p. 33.)_
" The peculiarity of our reformation corresponded with the place
assigned to us by God's Providence, as an island-people, and both
with God's blessing : ' This people shall dwell alone, and shall
not be reckoned among the nations.' "

320 Conclusion.
judge of such varieties according to the sentence of
Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres, — " Nee nos offendit
observantisediversitas,ubi fidei non scinditur unitas."27
At least, if we must have types in everything, let
us be content to have them for our own edification,
without forcing them on others, or charging others
with want of spiritual discernment because they can
not fully enter into the meaning, or receive the sym
bols as something important. Images used to be de
fended on the ground that they were " laymen's
books ;" but this symbolism is very hard reading even
for clerks in general ; and we may be sure that if an
attempt were made to introduce it among the common
people, there must follow a misunderstanding, a con
fusion of type and thing typified, which could not
but lead to wretched superstitions.
Puritanism has always been much afraid of sym
bolical significations. Thus, it is said in 1565, by
those who objected to the habits, that " Popish gar
ments may have many superstitious mystical signifi
cations," (Neal, i. 138) ; again, in 1605, an " argu
ment for the unlawfulness of the ceremonies is taken
from their mystical signification." (Ib. i. 428) Wren
is persecuted because he is supposed to have meant
something mystical by his reforms in the disposition
of churches ; the Scotch Presbyterians, on receiving
the Liturgy, look into Durandus for an explanation
of the rites, and conclude that they must have been
ordained for his reasons and none other (Laud,
Troubles, 116) ; their English brethren, at the
Savoy Conference, (Cardw. Conf. 330) allege that

« Quoted by Bona, Rerum Liturgicarum, 1. i. c. 6, De Div.
Psalmodia, c. xviii. $ 1, and Schmid, i. 61. Fulbert lived in the
eleventh century.

Conclusion. 321
" Romish ritualists give such reasons for the use and
institution of the ring [in marriage], as are either
frivolous or superstitious ;" and, not to multiply in
stances, the reader may see in Bingham's " Apology
of the French Church," Book ii. c. 6, a strong proof
of the extent to which this horror was entertained by
the party for whose conviction that learned writer
called in the witness of foreign protestants.
On the other hand, our Church has declared her
mind in the preface " Of Ceremonies, why some be
abolished and some retained." Bishop Cosin does
not the less call the Romish worship " foolish, thea
trical, and superstitious," because the " utensils,
vestments, actions, motions, and winkings" intro
duced into it were intended " to signify the myste
ries of the life and death of Christ," — a purpose which
would be more than a justification of any ceremonies
in the opinion of the reasoners with whom I am now
concerned. Bishop Wren, in his answer when im
peached, denies that his orders for raising the floor
of chancels and the like had any other motive than a
wish to make the eucharistic rites generally visible.
(Parentalia 74). Laud thus answers the Scotch pres
byterians' imputation of reasons from the Rationale,
— " What warrant have they for this ? Why, Durand
says so. Now, truly, the more fool he. And they
shall do well to ask their own bishops what acquaint
ance they have with Durand. As for myself, I was
so poorly satisfied with the first leaf I read in him
that I never meddled with him since ; nor indeed do
I spend any time in such authors as he is." And
the episcopal divines at the Savoy say in behalf of
the ring, that " the reasons mentioned in the Romish
ritualists" are not " given in our Common Prayer-
book." (Conf. 360.) In like manner Bishop Taylor

322 Conclusion.
writes that certain ceremonies " are to no purpose ;
not only for the levity and theatrical gaieties andrepre-
sentments, unbefitting the gravity and purity and
spirituality of Christian religion ; but also the manner
of teaching these truths by symbolical things and
actions is too low, too suspicious, too dangerous, to
be mingled with the Divine Liturgies. A symbolical
rite of human invention, to signify what it does not
effect, and then introduced into ihe solemn worship
of God, is so like those vain imaginations and ^pre
sentments forbidden in the second commandment,
that the very suspicion is more against edification than
their use can pretend to." (xiv. 111.)
On the part of the Church's enemies, there is a
continual endeavour, to connect her and her truest
sons with that system of exaggerated symbolism which
we are now taught to regard as an essential element
of Catholicism;28 on the part of the Church herself,
and of the best expositors of her mind in her best
days, there is a steady, and often a contemptuous,
disavowal of it. 29

28 As there appears to be a design in some quarters of making
a belief in the fancies of Durandus the test of a Catholic mind,
it may be worth while to quote the opinion of Schmid, who must
be above the suspicion of protestant prejudice, as to the ritual
writings of the middle ages generally. — " An imperfect acquaint
ance with history, and an eager straining after mystical interpre
tations, are almost invariably among the leading characteristics
of these works. Much, therefore, as they are entitled, from the
pious spirit of their authors, to full belief respecting every thing
which these writers saw and heard with their own eyes and ears
in the Church, they are in a corresponding degree untrustworthy
in their derivations of the ecclesiastical usages inherited from the
earlier times of Christianity, and unsatisfactory, and sometimes
unnatural, in their explanations of them." (i. 85.) See too Jebb,
Choral Service, p. 509, on the merits of Durandus.
-o Mr. Ferrar, indeed, seems to have been a man of mystical

Conclusion. 323
In former times, the rage about dress and similar
trifles was a mark of puritanism ; the objectors were
the "fanatici superpelliceani et galeriani" whose
" ineptias aut potius fiXavrlav," whose perversity in
causing time which might have been better employed
to be wasted in " futilissimis de lana caprina alterca-
tionibus," one of Cecil's correspondents complains of.
(Strype, Parker, App. p. 74.) The governors of the
Church did not enforce the habits and ceremonies as
if they were any thing in themselves, but as lawful
for Christians, and a trial of obedience. Now, when
all have long worn the surplice, when some professed
dissenters of their own will adopt it, (as we hear), and
probably few among them would much object to it,
when the followers of our popular religion within the
Church are content to communicate in the chancel,
to kneel at prayers and communion, to bear with the
cross in baptism, and the ring in marriage, when they
not only tolerate the music of organs, but are perhaps
in some cases, disposed to give it an undue pro
minence in public worship, — while assuredly there
is no lack of really important subjects of contention
— it is strange that we hear a cry about the essential
importance of dress and attitudes and such like matters
from an opposite quarter ; from some who would re
present themselves as the followers of Hooker and
Sanderson, of Hammond and Taylor. How would
this have appeared to the venerable man who wrote

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

324 Conclusion.
thus on the subject of gestures — " By them which
trouble us with these doubts, we would willingly be
resolved of a greater doubt ; whether it be not a kind
of taking God's name in vain to debase religion with
such frivolous disputes, a sin to bestow time and labour
about them?" (E. P. v. 30. 1.)
If one part of the Church revive such questions,
now long forgotten, the puritanical side of them will
be revived too ; and let it be remembered that in one
thing which we should be sorry to' see interfered with
— the position of the holy table at communion-time,
— the letter of the law is really with the fiercer puri
tans of former days, and against the custom which
has long been allowed to pass" without question.
I am very well aware that a regard for the con
science of others ought not to lead us into any thing
that may hurt our own ; and that, after all, we must
reckon on offending some ; for, as Wall forcibly,
although somewhat coarsely, says, (Infant-Baptism,
ii. 574, ed. Cotton,) " those that promote division for
interest, keep their consciences, as beggars do their
sores, raw and open on purpose, and would not have
them healed for any money." There is grievous sin
in those who invent and propagate the popular slan
ders, and, in truth, there is exceedingly little virtue
in the practice of those who so readily catch them up,
without taking the trouble of inquiry into either facts
or principles ; but it is our duty not to put any need
less hindrance in the way of our people's coming to a
true belief of the Church's doctrines ; nor to give any
pretext unnecessarily to those whose delight is in lies.
And as for our own consciences, let us endeavour to
have them better instructed than that they should run
into (what used to be) the puritanical folly of consi
dering all things equal in importance.

Conclusion, 325
Let us, too, beware lest by any fault of character,
any rashness or violence, we render the doctrines
which we wish to promote more unpalatable than
they would otherwise be. Laud and Wren appear
to have erred in this way — the former, at least, feel
ing sorely and deeply regretting his own defects of
temper. Let the quality of their reputation now-a-
days with the vulgar, and with liberals who are not
vulgar, let the odium thereby cast on their opinions
with persons who will not take the trouble to do the
justice of a candid examination either to their belief
or to their characters, be a warning to us, lest through
fault of ours the Truth be evil spoken of and men be
alienated from it. While we pay the martyred Arch
bishop high honour for his zeal, his orthodoxy, his
many virtues and great sufferings, we may yet fairly
doubt whether his way of pursuing his objects were
always the wisest. At all events, let us not suppose
that his example binds us to outdo him.
Most especially, let us beware of affectation and a
wish to be more refined than our neighbours ; for it
would be fearful indeed if for such motives we should
cause any one to stumble. And, if the truth may be
spoken, there is much need of this caution. This is
what I chiefly dread — not Romanism as such, or
formalism, but conceit and affectation. There seems
to be reason for thinking that many are now forward
" catholics " who a dozen years ago would have been
rationalists ; and Romanism may very possibly have its
turn next with this class ; — coxcombry being the true
essence of their character, and any particular set of
opinions only the dress. It would seem that there are
some by whom " Catholicism" is adopted for the sake,
not of fellowship with the Communion of Saints, but
of likeness to the people of the middle ages ; — they

326 Conclusion.
seeking by religion the same end which Fashionable
Youth lately strove after by the very different mea
sures of donning antique armour, mounting barbed
steeds, and, in the view of breathless Beauty, pic
turesquely shivering lances. What I apprehend is,
the substitution of a poetic, romantic, " aesthetic"
Something for plain duty to God and our neighbour ;
and perhaps most people who have read some late
writings will agree in thinking that my apprehensions
are not causeless.30 And observe how persons of
susceptible years and character are now dealt with.
They are told that it is a mark of a " high, tender,
affectionate mind," to long after splendours of wor
ship unknown in the English Church of this day, after
what Mr. Newman speaks of as in some cases " al
most theatrical,"31 and Bishop Cosin does not scruple
to call outright by that name, and by others quite as
unfavourable. And then, instead of being desired to
30 It appears, by the way, that pilgrimages, for which the Re
viewer of Rio in the British Critic for October, 1842, (p. 283,) is
so very earnest on imaginative grounds, were not revived in Eng
land during the ascendancy of " foreign Catholicism" under Mary.
(Doc. Ann. i. 180.) Schmid does not hesitate to say that in coun
tries of the Roman obedience at the present day " the majority
of pilgrims are spiritually injured by their pilgrimage." (i. 696.)
31 Tract 75, p. 13. Mr. Newman's Letter to the Bishop of
Oxford, p. 32, warrants me in connecting his name with this
Tract. Schmid, in many places, complains of a theatrical cha
racter in the ministrations of his brethren, (e. g. ii. 110.) He
speaks of priests who (hudeln) huddle or juggle through the ser
vice, and turn its language into a gibberish (Kauderwelsch, ii.
289.) Although any commendation of the Anglican system as a
happy medium is now considered pitiably obsolete, I venture to
observe that it appears to provide better than any other against
theatrical ministration ; which is readily generated in the Roman
worship, by the excessive abundance of ceremonies, and in that of
protestant sectaries, by the entire dependance of the service on
the qualifications of the individual who officiates.

Conclusion. 327
keep their imaginations and feelings in check, they
are actually taught to think it something creditable
that these are not under the control of their judgment ;
and for the sake of ladies and young gentlemen thus
tutored, we "cannot much longer dispense with
copes," and our service must be made such as English
service never has been, to the disgust of sober people,
and the utter estrangement of multitudes whose un
reasonableness takes an opposite direction. We hear
of things as now revived and boasted of by our ex
treme churchmen, which we might rather have ex
pected to find the Church's enemies dragging forth
from obscurity in order to shame her.
Within the last two or three years we have had to
notice the rise of a new spirit among some of those
who profess themselves Anglo-Catholics (if, indeed,
they still care to retain the national part of this com
pound title) — a spirit sadly different from that which
used to mark the character of Anglo-Catholicism.
Whereas it once had for a chief principle the duty of
walking by faith and not by sight, of bearing with
imperfections and unpleasant circumstances, of being
content to forego those excitements by which the
so-called " religious world " contrives to mix up the
mind of the world with religion, — now-a-days, we
hear of shows, and pomps, and playthings as neces
sary ;33 of a temper which " cannot much longer dis-

32 As a specimen of the extravagances now enacted— the most
extravagant specimen, certainly, that has fallen under my notice—
I abridge a narrative drawn up in the usual self-complacent and
authoritative style of the party to which the writer and his heroes
belong. The names of the place and the persons are from charitable
motives omitted.
" On the anniversary of the festival of St. James, the celebra
tion of the dedication of the Church of St. James,  , was

328 Conclusion,
pense with" whatever it may be pleased to set its
fancy on. And as the shameful injustice which ca
tholic opinions have met with, has doubtless been the
means of disposing many favourably towards them,
and adding to the number of those who hold them,
so we may now reckon with certainty that this lately-
arisen spirit will repel very many, not only from the

observed there last week as a public holiday, as was anciently the
case throughout the kingdom. The attempt to revive this custom
in the same religious spirit in which it formerly originated, deserves
especial notice ; for puritanism has entirely destroyed the remem
brance of such events among us, and for two entire centuries the
real village wake has been a thing unknown  After a
public breakfast at the parsonage, the clergy, vested in surplices
and stoles, formed into procession, and moved towards the church,
headed by a boy in surplice, carrying a square silk banner, dis
playing a white cross upon a red field. The church was hung
with garlands ; and numerous banners with religious devices were
ranged along the western gallery, amongst which was a very beau
tiful one of cloth of gold, with the holy Name upon it in crimson
velvet. The altar was solemnly ornamented with its own peculiar
plate, the elements for the holy communion being placed upon
the table of prothesis. Service commenced at half-past ten, the
rector, the Rev. A  B  with the Epistler and Gospeller,
the Revs. C  D  , and E  F  taking their seats
within the rails ; the remaining clergy was seated stallwise ....
The prayers were intoned by the curate, the Rev. G  • H 
assisted by the choir. The lessons were read from a lettern, by the
Revs. I  K  and L  M  . The services throughout
were performed with the most exact propriety. One point of or
der, which is very much neglected, calls for notice. Before be
ginning the Gospel, the Rev. E  F  crossed the altar to the
north side, where a lettern was placed for the purpose. [As the
Epistle and Gospel were not " intoned," from the roodloft (see
Pt. II. c. xvi. § b.) we may conclude that the Church is without
this feature.] The sermon, unencumbered by collect and the
usual tiresome formalities, was preached by the Rev. N 
O — — of Trinity College, Cambridge. The holy eucharist was
afterwards celebrated, the alms being collected by two deacons.

Conclusion. 329
extravagant notions of the particular sections in which
it has appeared, but from the sound and sober doc
trines of which these are a caricature.
A very different treatment of certain characters
seems more advisable than that which has just been
described. If one says to us, "I cannot pray unless
I may turn my face eastward, unless I may kneel on

Service being ended, the children of the schools formed into rank
in the churchyard, carrying garlands, boys in surplices, bare
headed, carrying crosses and banners, followed by the clergy and
a long line of laymen in orderly procession, for the schoolrooms,
about a mile distant. As the procession moved slowly along the
road, the Litany was solemnly chanted by priests and people.
After dining at the rectory, the company returned to the school
rooms, and were addressed by the Rev. A  B  ." . . . The
children sang a " ballad written for the occasion, by the Rev.
E  F  ." [I omit this composition, (which has considerable
spirit, and expresses a fervent admiration of the Church in the
middle ages, according to Mr. F  's conception of it,) as also
a hymn for St. James' day, by the same author.] After music,
examination, prize-giving, and speeches, " the company and chil
dren dispersed into the large field at the back of the schoolrooms.
Here the rest of the afternoon and evening were spent in sports
and merriment, the clergy taking an active part in promoting and
directing it. There were games of every variety, and of all ages.
A black monster in one corner of the field, labelled ' The Spirit
of Evil,' furnished material for a bonfire, and this, with fireworks,
closed the evening. The children were then assembled in the
schoolroom, to receive the benediction, and dispersed to their
homes. The above is a very feeble description of a day, which,
all who were present will long remember. The proceedings were
well sustained ; the more difficult parts, such as the procession,
were directed by men versed in antiquity, and were entirely free
from the vulgarity which generally characterises such things in
modern times." &c. (English Churchman, Aug. 3. 1843.)
Can these Clergymen really think it right to play in this manner
with God's house and service ? And what is to be said of the bon
fire ? what effect might such an amusement be expected to pro
duce on the children ?

330 Conclusion.
encaustic tiles of profoundly mystical device, unless
the light which falls' on me be tinted by the rich
hues of holy figures and emblems in surrounding
windows, unless two fair candles of purest wax flame
conspicuous amid jewelled plate on a garlanded altar,"
— [pardon me, reader, if I but poorly imitate the
prose-run-wild which our more imaginative " Ca
tholics" delight in!] — surely it would be wiser, and
far better for his own soul, that, instead of humour
ing him in such fancies, and telling him to think well
of himself intellectually and morally because of them,
we should desire him soberly to school himself, to
strive after a mastery over this fantastical childish
ness, to study to learn that of which he now professes
himself incapable.
Our simpler rites have their own beauty and so
lemnity, if, instead of longing after something else, we
will study to profit by what we have. Holy Herbert
prefers the " Fine aspect in fit array,
Neither too mean nor yet too gay,"
of his own spiritual Mother, to the painted looks of
Rome, as well as to the neglected dress of Geneva.
(Poems, 111. ed. 1835). Our English service may
be found to have a charm in it, even although, unlike
'the magnificent Latin of the Breviaries,"33 it can
be understood by the bulk of our congregations.
Bishop Jebb quotes " the testimony of a Roman Ca

ss Brit. Crit. Oct. 1842, article on Rio, p. 274. The zeal of
some Romanists for service in a tongue " not understanded of the
people," is a striking exemplification of Professor Smyth's remark,
that " no cause is so unreasonable for which something like rea
soning may not be produced." — (Lectures on Mod. Hist. i. 112.)

Conclusion. 331
tholic foreigner, long habituated to the splendid ritual
of her own communion, as exhibited on the Continent,
that the most awful and impressive ceremony she ever
witnessed was the administration of the Lord's Supper
to about twelve communicants, by a single minister,
in a plain, retired, Irish country church." (Pastoral
Instructions, 207.) And while we see that our
Church's tone is more penitential than that of foreign
communions,3* let us not teach ourselves to look on
this as if it were the sins of the Church and the na
tion only that require it ; let us consider whether the
humblest words may not fit ourselves personally, better
perhaps than that language of angels (in Latin) which
is said35 to be the characteristic of foreign service-
books. This, surely, is not only the truer, but by far
the more profitable application. Let it be remem
bered, too, that we of this day have a better Prayer-
Book than that which served for the devotion of
Hooker and Andrewes, and which Laud did not
attempt (at least in the English Church) to
alter. 36
Submission to authority, thankfulness for what we

— See a bull of Alexander VII. in Gueranger ii. 163, and that
writer's own observations ib. pp. 56 — 58 — 66. Schmid, on the
contrary, pleads with a truly creditable earnestness and feeling
for the adoption of the vernacular language in some part, at least, of
the services, (ii. 36—288.) Bona's argument in favour of a tongue
not generally understood does not harmonize well with his candid
and rational history of the subject. (Rer. Liturg. i. 5. 4.)
34 Tract 86. Nothing that is here said is intended against
that Tract, although I must disagree with many of the views
advanced in it.
35 Faber's " Sights and Thoughts," p. 614.
3,5 Laud's own wish was, that the English Prayer-Book should
be introduced into Scotland without alteration. It was only in
compliance with the earnest desire of the Scottish bishops, who.

332 Conclusion.
have, resolution to use it well, willingness to see a
fault in ourselves rather than in our Church, if with
in her we do not speedily grow up to the highest
saintly character — these become us better than im
patience and complaint of deficiencies.37 And let us
not overlook the fact, that Romanism too has its de
ficiencies. We are bound to deal with it as it actually
is, and not, by an unnatural partiality, measure it ac
cording to its ideal while we compare it with the sys
tem of our own Church as seen in the imperfect reality,
or conclude, as some appear to do, that wherever any
good is rare or wanting among ourselves, it must neces
sarily be found to pervade the entire communion of
Rome. Let us remember, also, that Romanism has diffi
culties of its own ; and if, while we have not our
selves sounded the depths of the great controversy, —
which young men must not too readily allow themselves
to suppose that they can have done — if, while we un

represented the danger of alarming the jealousy of their country
men, that he agreed to share in framing a new Liturgy, which, as
is generally known, was drawn up in Scotland, and afterwards
revised by Laud and Wren. (Collier, ii. 755—767.) Unfortu
nately, however, while a new Book was prepared lest the national
feeling of the Scots should be offended, it does not appear to have
been apprehended that their puritanical tastes might be equally
ready to take offence at the nature of the variations from the
English service.
¦'7 The experience of every one who has travelled in countries
of the Roman obedience must have furnished him with proofs of
this ; but, as it might be supposed that the observations of Angli
can Churchmen must be affected by ignorance or prejudice, it is
well that we are able to refer to such authorities as the very able
architect Mr. Pugin, a zealous proselyte and advocate of Ro
manism, (See Dub. Review, No. xx. 322; xxiii. 102. Apology
for Christian Architecture, 23 — 29,) as Gueranger, and Schmid.
It is proved by the testimony of these writers, that Romanism in
the last century was, at least, as far from satisfying its ideal as

Conclusion. 333
derstand the matter but in part, we should feel dis
posed to make light of these difficulties in compari
son with the gain which might result from union —
let us call to mind how serious they have appeared
to the holy, learned, and clear-sighted divines of for
mer days38 — that by those men, whom we cannot
without presumption cease to reverence, they have
been regarded as insuperable ; let this thought warn
us against rashly drawing near to Rome, " till," in the
language of Laud, " it be other than it is."
If, again, we feel disposed to set about reforms in
the ritual, and restoration of practices which Laud
and Andrewes used, let it be remembered what they
were ; men of years, of gravity and great learning,
the chief rulers of the Church ; that Andrewes, Laud,
Juxon, and Wren, held in succession the deanery of
the chapel-royal, and there and in their own cathe
drals they first exemplified that " beauty of holiness "

our own Church during the same period — to say nothing of those
fearful outbreaks of infidelity and anarchy in some Roman Catholic
countries, from all resemblance of which we have through God's
mercy been exempt. It is proved that all our present defects may
be parallelled, and, perhaps, more than parallelled, by the defects
of the existing Roman communion, judged according to its own
standard. There is an admirable section on the comparative
working of the two systems, in Mr. Gladstone's " Church- Prin
ciples, considered in their Results," pp. 322 — 400.
38 The writer of the article on the " Development of the
Seventeenth Century" endeavours to prove that our great con
troversialists had no real dislike of Romish Theology, and wrote
against Rome only because political reasons made it convenient
to do so. Such sophistry needs no refutation ; indeed there is
reason to believe that the authority of the Anglican divines is now
got over by that writer's party in another way — not by misrepre
senting, but by disregarding them. This course involves so much
of presumptuous self-confidence that persons of right feeling do
not require to be warned against it.

334 Conclusion.
which they proposed for imitation in other churches
according to their means. That these men did cer
tain things, then, is no warrant for every young priest
to do the like, and plead their names as his authority.
Fra Paolo tells us that the obscurity of Luther's posi
tion was the reason which induced a great German
prelate to declare himself against the Reformation. —
" II Cardinale Mattheo Langi, Archivescovo di Salz
burg, a tutti diceva esser honesta la riforma della
messa, e conveniente la liberta. ne' cibi, e giusta la
dimanda d' esser sgravati di tanti precetti humani,
ma che un misero monaco riformi tutti, non esser co-
sa da sopportare." (Istoria del Cone. Trident, p. 53,
ed. Lond. 1619.) I am very far from justifying such
a sentiment ; but we may be assured that something
like it is very natural and general ; and if we must
provoke it, let charity to those who hold it, if not
a regard for ourselves, persuade us to be very care
ful that we have good grounds for doing so ; that
the occasion be something important, something
necessary, something more respectable than a wish
to " please ourselves," (Rom. xv. 1), than vanity,
or mere love of doing.
For us, who are no bishops, the authority of those
who hold the apostolic office must be a rule. They
cannot, indeed, order anything opposed to the Book
of Common Prayer ; this limitation is expressly put
to their power ; but they may, in the exercise of a
sound discretion, interpret the Book, and, as I trust I
have shewn by precedents, determine in what manner
the objects for which the rubric was made may now
best be answered ; whether by a literal compliance,
or in some other way. It is, we may be sure, an
unsound state of mind that makes men eager to
quarrel with the nearest authority under pretence of

Conclusion* 335
allegiance to one higher but more remote. Even thus
it was that the puritans rebelled against their rulers
ecclesiastical and civil, under colour of zeal for His
cause from whom all earthly authority is derived.
There is, however, another difficulty — that bishops
may not be of one mind ; not only may they differ
in theological opinion, but, when they are agreed
both in principles and in objects, they may think
differently as to practical measures.39 In these cir
cumstances, it is desirable that uniform directions
should be given ; as the preface to the canons of
1640 assigns as a reason for legislation the varieties
which obtained in practice, the censures thence aris
ing against different persons, and the occasion afforded
by the want of uniformity to those who wished to re
present the ancient ceremonies of the Church as
popish and superstitious. And even if the convoca
tion should not meet, (which yet seems not unlikely,)
may we not hope that our Fathers in God may per
haps hold it expedient to consult together, and, after
the precedents of 1561 and 1564, to set forth some
Advertisements for our general instruction and direc
tion? My object has been to show that in some things
the strict letter of the Prayer-Book may be dispensed
with ;*° but there are matters in which I conceive that
no consideration of circumstances ought to prevail

39 Compare, e. g. the advice given respectively by the Bishops
of Exeter and Oxford, in their admirable Charges of 1842, as to
the means of establishing the daily service.
40 Nothing can be further from the purpose of this work, than
to encourage a lax sense of obligation with respect to the pledges
of the clergy generally. There is a wide difference of nature be
tween doctrinal and rubrical obligation. I suppose a clergyman
sincerely attached to the English Church, and desirous of acting

336 Conclusion.
with us for any deviation. Such is the case when
the non-observance would be an irreverence, as the
allowing the elements to be placed on the altar by
any other hands than the priest's ; or an absurdity, as
the reading the churching-service in a private room ;
or a contradiction to the Church's mind, as the use in
houses of the form for public baptism, or the distri
bution of the holy elements without addressing the
words to each communicant. 41 Such is a changing
of the words in the Prayer-Book;42 or a depriving
the people in any degree of that provision which the
Church has made for their instruction, and for inter
cession in their behalf,43 as the omission of anything

on her orders as to rites, &c. in such a manner as may best advance
her influence, and secure those objects for which the orders were
framed; and it is my endeavour to prove that, thus conforming
entirely in heart and will, he may use a measure of discretion as
to establishing outward conformity where he does not find it in its
completeness. There is obviously no likeness between this case
and that of one whose doctrine does not come up to our Church's
standard, or of one whose affections are not with the English
Church but elsewhere, and whose object is to find some ex
pedient for reconciling his alien opinions with the letter of his
Anglican obligations.
41 On this subject, Mr. Crosthwaite's Communio Fidelium
proves abundantly what is the only right practice.
42 The Bishop of Worcester is in favour of altering the word
damnation in the Communion-service (p. 13); but even if we
might be glad to see this sanctioned by full authority, it seems
very dangerous to make the change without such warrant. If one
man may change the word damnation, believing some milder
term to be a better representation of the Greek — (and for my own
part, I am not prepared to say this, or to suppose that our Church
did not intend the more severe interpretation,) — what is to hinder
another from substituting something for regenerate in the bap
tismal offices ?
*3 From what has been said in the Second Part, it will appear
that this is not meant to apply to the non-observance of daily
service.

Conclusion. 337
which is appointed to be said in any kind of ser
vice.44 If any of us have been in the habit of vary
ing in such matters, it appears to me that he should
do so no more, and need neither trouble his diocesan
with an application for advice, nor listen to any ob
jections from his people, or from any others. " Eli-
minata consuetudine, servetur rubrica."45 And it need
hardly be said that in this age, when there is a great
movement for the restoration of the full system of our
Prayer-Book, that man's churchmanship must be
worse than doubtful who allows to drop any Church-
observance which is already established. If, for
example, a clergyman find in his parish a daily service,
or an observation of holy-days or litany-days, he will
incur just suspicion and blame should he substitute for
these, prayers and lecture on Tuesday or Thursday
evenings, or a system of household-lecturing, or should
44 The Bishop of Worcester holds the consent of clergymen
and the tacit allowance of bishops sufficient to warrant the omis
sion in the marriage-service of " certain phrases dictated by the
grossness of a former age, but offensive to the refinement of the
present time." (p. 1 3) But if we mutilate one office lest we should
offend " refinement," others may be mutilated because they con
tain doctrines offensive to some persons. There is, too, reason to
believe that omissions on the ground of delicacy are not the only
omissions that are ever made in this service. And is the " refine
ment" of a kind that the Church would encourage ? If we admit it
here, what shall we do with such of the appointed Lessons as the
commissioners of 1689 style " too natural ?" (Cardw. Conf. 429.)
Are the " causes for which matrimony was ordained" so universally
understood in these days of Socialism and marriage by the Poor-
Law Registrars, (to say nothing of wrong notions in people of a
higher class,) that they need not be recited ? Or do we suppose
that nothing is lost by omission of the prayer for children as a
blessing, and that they " may be Christianly and virtuously
brought up ?"
45 These pithy words are from an order of the Roman Board of
Rites, in Schmid, ii. 256.

338 Conclusion.
he confine the public service in his church to the
Lord's Day.
Our duty is, not to recede in anything, nor even
to rest content with what we find, but to strive that
the Church's mind may be completely carried out.
But in doing so, we ought to use such means as
may tend most surely towards the end in view. And,-
whether our own good, or that of our people, be re
garded, I believe that a gradual and discreet proceed
ing will be found the best.
Meanwhile, " so long as the law remains above
the ordinary practice, it has a perpetual tendency to
attract it upwards, or to prevent or retard its further
depression," (Gladstone, Church and State, i. 83.)
Although we do not at once exhibit the full system
in its working, — which, indeed, cannot be without
the concurrence of the people — we may take pains
to direct attention to the theory of the Church, and
so by degrees prepare our flocks for its being com
pletely realized. Thus may a time come — whether it
be reserved for us to see it, or our office be only that of
paving the way for it, — when they shall desire daily
service, weekly communions, and other such things,
and gladly welcome them ; and surely such a course
will be far better for our people, than if we should
tempt them to reject the system at once, by setting it
before them in its entireness at a time of alarm and
excitement, when they have not been trained to under
stand its blessings, when evil-minded persons have
taught the multitude to look with suspicion even on
what seems best and holiest, if it come to them as a
novelty because it has been disused through some
ages of irreverence.
And for ourselves, individually, it may even be an
advantage that we are called to bear with imperfec-

Conclusion. 339
tions, rather than to live in the full exercise of those
privileges which the Church would bestow on us.
Our faithfulness may be, perhaps, even better proved
and nourished while we labour in the midst of dis
abilities and hindrances. If we may not pray twice
a-day in the congregation, we may use the Church's
prayers in our families or in our closets ; if we may
not enjoy the comfort of a public worship attended
with all that is possible of outward beauty and so
lemnity, yet there is in our circumstances much that
may tend to deepen our inward feelings ; and we may
surely trust, that what we lack through faults not
our own, will not be reckoned against us.46
By quietly serving God according to the means
which are allowed to us, we may hope both to save
ourselves, and to help forward the salvation of others,
more surely than by rashness and impatience, and
unguarded measures of reform and restoration.
" Those things commanded" [in the Prayer-Book],
says the excellent Author of the Tract on its history
(No. 86, p. 76.) "of course a good ehurchman would
observe, if possible. He would also wish to restore
what it implies, though it be not commanded, if
fallen into disuse ; and to carry out as far as possible
the spirit and intention of the Church. Catholic
usages and principles he will aim at, as a Christian

46 There is much good sense and feeling, although not much
of poetry or harmony, in the lines of an old writer, —
" To want a complement of comeliness
Some of my comfort may abate,
And for the present make my joy go less :
Yet I will hug mine homely state,
And poverty with patience richly dress."
" The Synagogue,'' p. 228 in Herbert's Poems,
ed. 1835.

340 Conclusion.
and a churchman ; but in doing so, he will be guided
by the spirit of meek wisdom which is the marked
characteristic of his own Church ; remembering
always the very terrible woe denounced against him
who shall offend one of Christ's little ones."

Chronological Cable.*
A. D.
1533. Cranmer, Primate.
1534. Final rupture of Henry VIII. with Rome.
1536. Dissolution of the lesser monasteries.
1538. The greater monasteries suppressed.
1547. Edward VI. King, Jan. 28.
 Royal Injunctions, having the force of law.+
 The First Book of Homilies printed.
1549. The First Prayer-Book of Edward VI. published, having
been drawn up in May preceding, and ratified by par
liament, Jan. 21. (Cardw. Edw. the Sixth's Liturgies,
p. xi.) It was soon afterwards translated into Latin by
Alexander Alesse.
1550. March. The Ordination-Services published.
1552. The Second Prayer-Book, to be used from Nov. 1.
 Forty-two Articles of Religion.
¦  About this time the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum
was drawn up.
1553. Mary, Queen, July 6.
1556. Cranmer suffers at Oxford, having been deprived in the
beginning of the reign.
 Pole, Primate.
1558. Elizabeth, Queen, Nov. 17.
1559. A new English Prayer-Book, coming into use June 24.
 Royal Injunctions.
 Parker, Primate, Dec. 16.

* It is possible that some events in this table may have been misdated by a
year, and that events of the same year may have been placed in a wrong order. I
trast, however, that its accuracy will be found practically sufficient, even if it be
not perfect. The year is reckoned, as at present, from Jan. 1.
t An act of this year, which was later than the inj unctions, expressly took away
the authority of law from royal proclamations. It would appear, therefore, that the
injunctions had such authority ; but it is questionable whether they derived it from
the act 31 Hen. VIII. c. 8. as is stated in the argument reported atp. 79. " The
more correct account of the matter," writes Dr. Cardwell, (Doc. Ann. i. 5.)
" appears to be, that the council acted under the authority of King Henry's will,
which had been made according to the powers given to him by Statutes 28 Hen .
VIII. c. 7, and 35 Hen. VIII. c. 1." The reader will observe that I am not
concerned to maintain any particular view of the subject.

342 Chronological Caole.
1560. The Prayer-Book published in Latin, for the use of Col
leges in the Universities, Eton and Winchester.
1561. Interpretations of the Royal Injunctions are published by
the Bishops.
1563. The Articles of Religion reviewed and altered.
1564. The Second Book of Homilies distributed.
1565. (Jan.) Advertisements relating to doctrine, rites, &c. is
sued by the Bishops. On the authority of these, (which
were usually stated " The Queen's Book,) see Cardwell,
Doc. Ann. i. 287 ; Conf. 38 ; Synod, xii.
1571. The Articles of Religion revised, and reduced to their pre
sent form.
 A Book of Canons issued. These, (which were not sub
mitted to the lower house of convocation), " being con
firmed only for Elizabeth herself, and not for her heirs,
are thought to have lost their authority by her death."
Gibson, Codex, p. x.
1575. Grindal, Archbishop of York, translated to Canterbury.
1583. Whitgift, Primate.
1603. James I. King, March 24.
1604. Hampton Court Conference, (January.) Some alterations
in the Prayer-Book in consequence.
 A Code of Canons drawn up and passed, having the au
thority of convocation and the Crown, but not of parlia
ment.
 Bancroft, Primate.
1610. Abbot, Primate.
1620. Consecration of Jesus Chapel, near Southampton, by An
drewes, Bishop of Winchester.
1622. Royal Injunctions for Catechizing.
1623. Prince Charles goes to Madrid.
1625. Charles I. King, March 27.
1633. Laud, Primate.
1636. Bishop Wren's Articles of Inquiry for Norwich. He was
soon after translated to Ely, in which see he died, 1667.
1637. Unsuccessful attempt to introduce the Liturgy into Scot
land.
1638. Bishop Montagu's Articles for Norwich.
1640. A Book of Canons. Their authority has been generally
disregarded in practice. See Cardw. Synodalia, pp.
xxviii. and 380.
1641. Archbishop Laud committed to the Tower, March 1.
 A committee of ten earls, ten bishops, and ten barons is
appointed by the House of Lords to inquire into the

Chronological Cable. 343
state of religion. The members are afterwards em
powered to associate with themselves any number of
divines, and form a sub-committee. These bodies, of
which Williams, Archbishop of York, was president,
were generally hostile to the Primate.
1645. Archbishop Laud martyred. The Prayer-Book suppressed.
1649. Charles I. martyred, Jan. 30.
1660. Charles II. restored, May 29.
 Juxon, Primate.
1661. Savoy Conference.
1662. The Liturgy, as it now stands, published, with the confir
mation of the Act of uniformity, 1 3 and 14 Car. II. c. 4.
1663. Sheldon, Primate.
1677. Sancroft, Primate.
1685. James II. King.
1688. James forced to abdicate.
1689. William III. King.
 A Committee, including Tillotson, Burnet, and Patrick,
deliberates on a revision of the Liturgy, with a view to
comprehension of Dissenters. Nothing is done in con
sequence.
1691. Tillotson, Primate. The Clergy who refused to take an
oath to the new government had been deprived. Among
the nonjurors were the following persons mentioned in
this work — Sancroft, Ken, Hickes, Kettlewell, and Col
lier. Nelson for a time adhered to the nonjuring com
munion. Brett joined it later.
1695. Tenison, Primate.
1702. Anne, Queen.
1714. George I. King.
1717. The functions of the convocation suspended.

Reference has been made to the following Editions.
Bingham, 2 vols. fol. Lond. 1726.
Bull, ed. Burton, Ox. 1827.
Burn's Eccl. Law, ed. R. Phillimore, Lond. 1842.
Burnet's Hist, of the Reformation, 3 vols. fol. Lond. 1681. —
1683.— 1715.
 Hist, of his Own Time.*
 Collier's Ecclesiastical History. *
• The paging of the folios is given from the margin of late 8vo. editions.

344 list of OBoofes referred to.
Cardwell's* Documentary Annals — Synodalia — Liturgies of Ed
ward VI. — Conferences on the Common Prayer. — The
first edition of each.
Fox, Acts and Monuments, Lond. 1684.
Fuller's Church History — the folio.
Gavanti Thesaurus Sacrorum Rituum, Aug. Vind. 1763.
Gibson's Codex, Lond. 1713.
Hallam's Constitutional History of England, 4th ed. 2 vols. 8vo.
Hammond, Lond. 1684.
Heylyn's Hist, of the Reformation, Lond. 1674.
 Life of Laud. Lond. 1671.
Hooker, ed. Keble, Oxf. 1836.
Jewel, Lond. 1611. (The parts of the volume are separately
paged.)
Johnson. The Clergyman's Vade-Mecum, first ed.
Laud's Troubles and Trial, Lond. 1695.
L'Estrange's Alliance of Divine Offices, Lond. 1699.
(The first edition was published in 1659.)
Martene de Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus, Venet. 1783.
Montagu's Articles, Camb. 1841.
Neal's Hist, of the Puritans, 3 vols. Lond. 1837.
Nicholls on the Common Prayer, Lond. 1712.
Palmer's Origines Liturgicae, Oxf. 1836.
Sanderson's Sermons, Lond. 1689.
Sarum Missal, Paris, 1534.
Sharp on the Rubric and Canons, Oxford, 1834.
Sparrow's Rationale, Oxf. 1840.
Schmid's Liturgik der Christkatholischen Kirche, 3rd ed. Passau,
1840—1—2.
Strype's Annals, vol. i. the second edition, fol.; Annals, vol. ii.
iii. — Ecclesiastical Memorials — Lives of Cranmer, Par
ker, Grindal, and Whitgift, the first editions, fol. ; Life of
Aylmer, Oxf. 8vo. .
Taylor, ed. Heber, Lond. 1828.
Wordsworth's Ecclesiastical Biography, 3rd ed. 4 vols.
There can, I believe, be no difficulty as to the other works which are cited or
referred to.
When articles and injunctions of Bishops or Archdeacons are quoted without a
reference, it is generally to be understood that the papers have not been re
printed, and that the extracts are made from the originals.
* In citing the Doc Ann. and Synod. I have generally omitted the learned
editor's name — the mention of these valuable works being very frequent, in
consequence of my endeavour to refer to them for such things as are contained
in their text rather than to the ress convenient volumes of earlier historians and
collectors.

INDEX.

Abbot, Archbishop, 18
Accession, service for, 271, 275
Affectation, danger of, 325
Affinities, spiritual, 236
Albe, 94, 105, 114
Almsgiving, decay of, at the Re
formation, 193
Altar, (see Communion-table),
152 ; removed temp. Edw.
VI. 152, 308; temp. Eliz.
86, 152, 163; retained in
royal chapels and in cathe
drals, 155, 163 ; controversy
respecting, 159 ; dress to be
worn at, 95
Alteration of words in the ser
vices, 336
Ambon, 212,213
Amen, printing of, 212 ; re
sponse at communicating,
226
Ancient Church, need not be
followed in everything, 138,
318.
Andrewes, Bishop, influence of,
19, 195; his notes on the
Prayer-Book, 19
" Answer," 299
Anthem, 280, 297
Apocryphal lessons, 34, 146
Athanasian Creed, how to be
said, 299
Authority of the Crown as to
occasional offices, 273, 303 ;
of injunctions, proclamations,
&c. 303
Bancroft, Archbishop, 17
Banns, rubric relating to, 211 ;
when to be published, 305
Baptism, 235; in public service,
ib. ; whether the questions
shall be put for each child,
ib. ; manners of administra

tion, 238 ; time of, 240 ;
private, to be used only in
necessity, ib. ; of royal in
fants, 241; hypothetical, 241
Barnabas, St. feast of, 34, 57
Basins, not to be used instead
of or in the font, 238
Becket, Archbishop, 30
" Before the Table," 222
Bidding Prayer, 173; why en
joined, 182
Bowing, see Reverences ; to
wards the King's seat, 138
Bread, used at Communion,
186
Burial of persons not in Com
munion with the Church, 306
Burial, Latin service for, 301
Candles, see Lights.
" Capa, Cappa," 95
Catechizing, 242 ; after second
lesson, 245 ; who to be cate
chized, ib. ; executed by lay
men, 149
Cathedrals, dress worn at ser
mons in, 108
Ceremonies to be retained, 132,
306
Chancel, 155 ; to remain as in
times past, 168, 201, 309
Chanting, 141
Chapels, royal, 155, 302
Chaplains, scarf worn by, 123 ;
named their patrons in bid
ding prayer, 178
Charles I. at Madrid, 22 ;
crowned at Edinburgh, 89 ;
Martyrdom of, 269
Chrisom, 264
Church militant, Prayer for,
when to be said, 202 ; a part
of the offertory, 204
Churches, .consecration of, 20 ;

346

3[nDer.

difference of class among
them recognized, 299
Churching of women, 260 ;
whether to be used for un
married or adulterous women,
260 — 2 ; dress of priest at,
104, 109; dress of the wo
man, 262 ; place of, 263 ;
at what part of service, ib. ;
offering at, 264 ; not to be
private, 336
Clerical communion, 225
Clerks, parish, read epistle and
first lesson, 147
Colleges, Latin service allowed
in, 161, 300; its peculiari
ties, 300
Commandments, to be set up
over the Communion-table,
154; where to be read, 171
Communion (see Eucharist, Se
cond Service).
Communion, dress to be worn
at, 95 ; various points in the
office, 210; only annual be
fore the Reformation, 218,
230 ; whether a part of" Di-
vineservice,"210; at funerals,
301 ; at marriage, 104, 126,
256, 294 ; of the sick, 258 ;
on Good Friday, 232.
Communions, number of, 228
Communion of Churches, 283
Communion-table, position of,
152; material of, 1 62 ; .ap
proach to, 216 ; " before the
table," 222 ; " going to the
table," 256 ; (see Altar)
Concurrence of holy-days, 56
Confession in the Communion-
office, 149, 221
Conformity, various views on,
1-8 ; view maintained in this
work, 9 ; history of, 12-35 ;
never yet perfect, 293
Consecration of Churches, plate,
fonts, &c. 20
Copes, 12 ; to be worn at com
munion, 95 ; forbidden by
some bishops, 98 ; worn at
coronations, 101

Coronations, 101 ; " coronation-
day," 271
Cosin, Bishop, perhaps author
of certain notes on the Prayer-
Book, 32, 134; on Romish
service, 317
Crabbe, a witness to customs of
the 18th century, 34
Credence, 201
Crosier, 13, 294
Cross, sign of, 131, 138
Crown, power of as to rites, &c.
273, 303
Crucifix in Queen Elizabeth's
chapel, 87, 155
" Curate," 40
Daily service, 37 ; not general
in the unreformed Church, 41
" Damnation," 336
Deacons holding cure of souls,
1 6; limited in their commission
as to baptizing, 241
"Divine service," 113, 117,
185,210
Division of services, 127
Doxology, before the Gospel,
215 ; after psalms, 299
Dress, &c. not insisted on by our
best divines as important, 323
Durandus,meritsof, 318,321—2
Eagle desks, 238
East, turning towards, 61, 299
Ecclesiastical Almanac, 58, 278
Edward VI. reign of, 12 ; what
meant by his " 2nd year " 78,
94
Elements, eucharistic, 186 ;
placing of, 200, 336 ; to be
given to communicants sever
ally, 336
" Ember," derivation of, 266
Ember-weeks, 266 ; the prayers
to be read throughout the
week, 268
Engagements of the clergy, 3
Epistle, read by laymen, 147 ;
where to be read, 212
Essentials, risked by insisting
on, in different things, 315

3lnDer.
Eucharist, administered in ordi
nary dress, 12 ; received fast
ing, 294 ; celebrated in sight
of non-communicants, 200,
218; intention of the last re
visers as to the doctrine, 209 ;
(see Elements, Communion)
Evelyn, on the state of religion
during the Usurpation, 30

347
Insularity, 318—9
" Intone," 139
Intricacy, 58
Introits, 282
Irregularities now prevalent, 5
Jewel, Bishop, 308

Family Prayer, 38
Ferrar, Nicholas, 25, 160, 238
Flowers, as a decoration, 75
Font, 237
Fronts, 21
Funeral sermons, disallowed by
early puritans, 252
Gloria Patri, 299
Good Friday, Communion on,
232
Gospel, where to be read, 212 ;
doxology before and thanks
giving after, 215
Gowrie conspiracy, 251
Gown, worn in preaching, 102 ;
complained of by puritans,
107, 109, 113, 117; "prea
cher's gown," 119
Grindal, Abp. 17
Gueranger, 42
Gunpowder Treason, 219
Hampton Court alterations of
the Prayer-Book, 303
"Head of the Church," 175
Hierurgia Anglicana, 72
Holydays, 55, 254; Concur
rence of, 56
Hood, 104, 119
Hooker, 18
Hours of Service, 124
Huntingdon, Lady, 123
Hymns, unauthorized, 278
Ignorance of clergy, temp. Eliz.
15,39,48
Images, 155, 320
" Inauguration-day, 271
Innovation, wanton, avoided,
308

Latin Prayer-Book for colleges,
161,300
Laud, Abp. 18; notauthorofan
Introduction to theP.B., 189;
his reforms, 309
Laymen admitted to read in
church, 16, 147—9
Lecterns, 70, 238
Lecturers, 109, 112, 244, 252
Lectures on the catechism, 244
—8
Lessons sung in plain tune, 1 39 ;
to be read" turning to the peo
ple," 63 ; distinctly, 139, 143
Licensed preachers, 107, 109
Lights on the Altar, 78 ; whe
ther to be lighted, 92 ; in
tention of Edward the Sixth's
injunction respecting, 311;
ancient history of, 3 1 3 ; mys
tical meaning of, 314
" Liripipium," 120
Litany read by laymen, 148 ;
" after morning prayer," 54 ;
with communion-office, 126,
130; place for reading, 149
Liturgy, first, of Edw. VI. 12 ;
2nd, ib.; of Eliz. 13; Hampton
Court, 303 ; Scotch, 25, 183,
286; of 1662, 31; imperfect
authority of some forms, 303
Lords' Day, sports on, 309
Lord's Prayer, how to be said
before sermon, 185; in com
munion-office, 210
Madrid, orders for chapel at, 20
Marriage-act, (Lord Hard
wicke's), 305
Martyrs, were Cranmer, &c.
such? 28
Mass, early on Christmas-day,
86

348

Slnoer.

Matrimony, not to be on the same
day with last publication of
banns, 255 ; " in time of ser
vice," ib. ; place of, ib. ; dress
of the priest at, 1 04 — 9
" Ministration," 113, 117, 285
Mixture of the cup, 188
Moderation of our church, 307 ;
consistent with maintenance
of essentials, 315
Monasteries insufficient to main
tain the poor, 192
Monks preach in dress of their
order, 1 1 8
Montagu, Bp. 24
" Mummeries," 316
Names, choice of, 239
National character, 318
Nicholson, Bp. 32
" Non-communicants, whether
allowed to offer alms, 199;
when to be separated from
communicants, 217 ; allowed
to remain in the church, 217,
221 ; intention of the last re
visers, 220
Nonjurors, not sufficient autho
rity on certain points, 188
"Oblation," 204
Occasional offices, 273
" Offering," 206-8, 264
Offering-days, 191
Offertory, 1 90 ; whether on all
Sundays and holy-days, 197
Offices of sister churches, 283
Ordinal, 13
Ordination, times of, 268
Ornaments, 72 ; to be provided
by churchwardens, 77 ; of
the minister, 94 ; rubric res
pecting, 101
Overall's chaplain, 133; use of
prayer of oblation, 295
Parker, Abp. 14
Pastoral staff, 13, 294
Paul, St., Conversion of, 34, 57
Pax, 78
Pilgrimages, 326

Plainsong, 139
Poor-laws, 191
Porch, formerly the place for a
part of marriage-service, 256
Prayer for the dead, 301
Prayer before sermon, 173
Prayer-Book, see Liturgy
Preaching-dress, 102
"Presbytery,' 108
Priest, position of at conse
crating, 222 ; in communi
cating, 224
Psalms, alternate reading of
sanctioned by custom alone,
298 ; metrical, 279
"Pulpit," 212
Pulpit-prayers, puritanical, 178,
258
Pyx, 80, 84
Quignonez' Breviary, partly the
source of our preface, 39, 58
Rails before the altar, 158, 160
" Reading prayers," 61
Readingduringcommunion,227Reading-pew, 61 ; introduction
of, 66 ; recognized by the ru
bric, 69
Receiving into the church, 241
Reformers, whether capable of
martyrdom, 28
Reformation, history of little
known temp. Car. I. 117
Reservation of the Eucharist,
80, 83, 84 ; for the sick, 300
Restoration of the Royal Family,
269
Reverences, 131
Ritual obligation different from
doctrinal 335
Rogation-days, 59
Roman offices united, 130
Romanism lingered in the north,
129, 132
Roodloft, the gospel chanted
from, 213
Rubric, in some points to be
strictly kept, 336
Salzburg, Abp. of, 334

Sinner.
Sancroft's MS. amendments of
the P. B., 32
Sanderson, Bp. on submission
to usurpers, 27 ; on supersti
tion, rashness, &c. 310
" Saying," 145
Scambler, Bp. 16
Scarf, 122, 144
Scottish communion-office, his
tory of, 384 ; duty of Anglican
clergymen respecting it, 283
Schmid, 42
"Second service," distinguished
from communion, 106, 115,
170, 203; place of reading,
168 ; use of on ordinary days,
64, 227
Selden on Laud's measures, 25
Sermons, 249 ; prescribed only
for communion, 104; allow
able at other times, 263 ;
preached innaveof cathedrals,
108; at court, in Lent only,
251
Sick, prayers for, 257
" Side" of altar, not synonymous
with " end," 161
Singing at communion, 226
"Singing-cake," 186
Smart, Peter, 88
Sponsors, number of, 236; com
municants, ib.; registered,
249; why fathers forbidden
to act as such, 237
State holydays, 269
Stole, 121
Surplice, form of, 95
Symbolism, arbitrary, 317; an
exaggerated system of it dis
owned by our best divines,
318, 321—2

Tabernacle for the eucharist, 84
Taylor, Bp. on interpretation of

349
laws, 11; on submission to
force, 30; on symbolism, 322
Tersanctus, 297
Texts on the walls of churches,
155
Thanksgiving after the Gospel,
215
Theatrical ministrations, 326
Tippet, 120
Towels at communion, 21
Traditions peculiar to churches,
301
Traditional practices, 296
Traditions not everywhere alike,
287, 319
Trine immersion or affusion,
239
Tunicle, 94
" Turkey gowns," 107
Uhden, 209
Vagrants, statutes respecting,
192
Veil at churching, 262
Vestment, 94
Voluntary, 146

Wafer-bread, 186
Warner, minister of Christ
church, 248
Washing at communion, 21
Water at baptism to be pure,
238
Waxlights, price of, 82
Whitgift, Abp. 17
Williams, Abp. 159, 164
Wine, eucharistic, 1 88 ; colour
of it indifferent, according to
Romanists, 189
Words to be used by the priest
at communicating, 225
Wren, Bp. 19; his order of
service, 130

C. WHITT1NGIIAM, 21, TOOKES COURT, CHANClillY LANE.

\

w

i

i§

IIIIWI

iWiWi1

t|,r;n ;
si;',M;:.if!

! WES:?,