Kh

Vc/.,

Q[

far tie^/^mSx^ of a. CeKegt^ "^^^ *'^4H J

J90(o

SB

THE PRAYER BOOK
ARTICLES AND HOMILIES
SOME FORGOTTEN FACTS
IN THEIR HISTORY WHICH MAY DECIDE
THEIR INTERPRETATION.

BY

J. T. TOMLINSON.

LONDON •
ELLIOT STOCK, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.
1897.

PREFACE.

The fragmentary character of the following papers
is due to the fact that several of them appeared
originally in a periodical as replies to current
fallacies. Additions and corrections have, however,
been freely introduced, and it is believed that much
of the information is either new, or not otherwise
accessible to ordinary readers. Documents quoted
from Strype, Cardwell and the Parker Correspondence
have been carefully collated with the originals in
the libraries of Lambeth, Corpus Christi, Cambridge,
the Inner Temple, and the British Museum.
The photozincographs from the Durham Book are
due to the courteous assistance of Canon Tristram
and the Rev. H. E. Fox.
Every contribution, however humble, to a more
intelligent understanding of the history and meaning
of the Liturgy of the Church of England may hope
for a share of that " favourable allowance " which the
Preface to the Prayer Book itself bespeaks.

USEFUL MEMORANDA.

Regnal Years of Edward VI. {New* Style.)

I Began January 28th, i547

23

1548 1549

4 Began January 28th, ij^o
.5 „ „ .. 155'

6 Began January aSth, 1552
7 „ ,. „ 1553
" The latter year of Edward VI."
{Edward Died July 6th, 1553-)

Session I.
„ IL
„ in.
.. IV.

Se.ssion I.

Parliaments of Edward VI.
Parliament I.
I Edward VI. ¦¦• 1547, November 4th— December 24th, 1547
2 & 3 Edward VI. ... 1548, November 24th— March 14th, 1549
3 &4 Edward VI. ... 1549, November 4th— February ist, 1^5 o
_5 & 6 Edward VI. ... 1552, January 23rd— April 15th, 1552

7 Edward- VI.

Parliament II.
ij53, March ist— March 31st, 1553 (dissolved)

* Up to A.D. 1751 the year commenced on March 25th, so that (for example) any day in 1897 from January ist to March 2.
both inclusive, would be reckoned as belonging to 1896 " Old Style."

Dates of Successive Prayer Books.

Year.

Title.

Enacted.

First Printed.

Use made compulsory.

1549

" First " Prayer Book of Edward

January 22nd

March 7th

June 9th

1552

" Second " Prayer Book, Edward! VI.
(Continued in use till December 20th,
^553)

April 14th

August

November ist

1559

Elizabeth's version of Second Book of
Edward VI.

May 8th

May i_5th (?)

June 24th

1604

James's version of Second Book of

(Not enacted)

March

To come into use " Within

Edward VI.

Letters Patent
February 9th

such time as the Bishops
shall think good to limit.'

1662

Our present Book.

May 19th*

June ?

August 24th

* {Subscribed by Convocation, December 20th, 1661.)

CONTENTS.

PAGE
I. The Black-letter Holy Days  '
II. The "Ministers and Mistakers " of the
First Prayer Book  ^^
III. The Injunctions of Elizabeth, i559  34
IV. The Advertisements of Elizabeth, 1566 ... (>i
V. The Ornaments Rubric (Elizabeth,
1559-1661)  91
VI. The Ornaments Rubric (Charles II. , 1662) 137
VII. The Ornaments Rubric (The Great Cosin
Myth)  167
VIII. "The Breaking of the Bread"  212
IX. The First Book of Homilies  229
X. The Second Book of Homilies  240
XI. The Declaration on Kneeling  254
XII. The Ordinal and Article XXXVI  269
XIIL Article XXXI  384
Index  309

THE PRAYER BOOK
ARTICLES AND HOMILIES

I

LONG before the Reformation in England, the
interference with trade and agriculture which
resulted from the frequent feast days of the
Church had become a great social evil. Archbishop
Langton, in 1222, and Archbishop Meopham, in
1328-33, had already sought to cut down the number
of the non-working days ; ' and Archbishop Islip, who
followed their example, explained the reason of the
retrenchment to be —
" That disorderly meetings and negociations and other
unlawful exercises are practised on such days, and what was
intended for devotion is converted to lewdness, forasmuch
as the tavern on these days is more frequented than the
' Goulburn's Meditations on the Liturgical Gospels, p. 15. I

2 THE black-letter HOLY DAYS
church . . not to omit that covenant servants . . do abstain
from work on holidays (though of their own making) and
on the vigils of saints, and yet take no less on that account
for their weekly wages." ^
Cardinal D'Ailly, in 1417, had advocated at the
Council of Constance the reduction of the number
of feast days,^ and Erasmus proposed to abolish
all festivals save the Lord's day and a few principal
feasts. Mr. Denton, in his England in the Fifteenth
Century, shews that these " Feasts " were a direct
source of impoverishment and misery to the working
classes. He says, "The wages of an agricultural
labourer, man, woman, or child, were directed by
Parliament to be paid daily, or perhaps all that is
meant by the statute was that their wages should be
paid after a daily^ not weekly, reckoning. This, as the
statute tells us, was to prevent labourers making any
claim for payment for labour on festivals of the
Church, or for more than half-a-day's wages on
Saturdays and on the eves of their holy days." *
The words of this statute (4 Henry IV., cap. xiv.)
throw light incidentally upon the meaning of the word
" Noon " — " none other labourers shall take any hire
for the holy days, nor for the evens of fasts, when they
do not labour but till the hour of noon, but only for
the half day, upon pain" — of a fine equivalent to £20
in our present money !
The State Paper ^ which was presented to Henry
VIII. as a petition from the Commons was drafted by
Cromwell himself, and in it complaint is made to the
2 Johnson's Canons, II. -427.
¦* 'PioxiWi.ss, Christendom's Divisions, ¦p. i-^'^,. ' p. 221.
¦^ Brewer's State Papers of Henry VIII., V.-468.

the black-letter holy Days 3
King that — " A great number of holy days now at this
present time, with very small devotion, be solemnized
and kept throughout this your realm, upon the which
many great, abominable, and execrable vices, idle
and wanton sports, be used and exercised which holy
days . . . might be made fewer in number.'"'
Accordingly (July 15th, 1536), Convocation acting
under "the King's Highness's authority as supreme
head in earth of the Church of England," declared that
the number of holy days was —
" The occasion of much sloth and idleness, the very nourish
of thieves, vagabonds, and divers other unthriftiness and
inconveniences . . . and loss of man's food many times being
clean destroyed through the superstitious observance of the
said holy days, in not taking the opportunity of good and
serene weather in time of harvest ; but also pernicious to the
souls of many men, which being enticed by the licentious
vocation and liberty of those holidays, do upon the same
commonly use and practice more excess, riot, and superfluity
than upon any other days." '''
That steps were taken by the executive to mitigate
the evil is shewn by the fact that at Warwick the
curate was imprisoned, September 9th, 1536, for tolling
the bell on "St. Laurence's day." ^ Yet Cromwell him
self interceded on behalf of the Cornish men that they
might be allowed still to observe the " festum loci."
When the Reformation movement obtained freer
course under King Edward, the whole of the black-
letter saints were swept away completely. Some who
profess to like the "First Prayer Book" of Edward VI.
scarcely realize this fact, nor the peculiarity that the
•> Froude's History of England, I. -208.
' Stephens' Ecclesiastical Statutes, p. 333.
8 Gairdner's State Papers of Henry VIII., XI. -172.

4 the black-letter holy days
title of " St." was then given to none, even, of the
"red-letter" saints, except Peter. In the Second
Prayer Book of Edward the names of St. George,
St. Laurence, and St. Clement, were added, together
with " Lammas," the " Dog Days," and "Term" days,
obviously for reasons of secular convenience.
At the issuing of the earlier Prayer Book, Royal
Injunctions accompanied it, directing "that none keep
the abrogate holy days other than those that have their
proper and peculiar service."^
In 1552 Dr. Morwen, President of Corpus Christi,
Oxford, was committed to the Fleet "for using upon
Corpus Christi day other service than was appointed
by the book of service," which like our present Prayer
Book was careful to ignore that " feast " altogether."
The Act 5 and 6 Edward VI., cap. iii., which
immediately followed upon the issue of the Second
Prayer Book of Edward, ordered that " all the days
hereafter mentioned shall be kept and commanded to
be kept holy days, and none other." The list corre
sponds with our present "table," and shews by its
omission of the names of George, Laurence, and
Clement, and of Lammas, that these black-letter
insertions, like " sol in aqua," &c., were intended
merely for the convenience of the public, as in our
modern " almanacs."
That statute was repealed by i Mary, Session 2,
cap. ii., and Queen Mary issued on the purely
" Erastian " authority of the Crown, in March, 1554,
Articles commanding " that all such holy days and

" Cardwell's Documentary Annals, No. XV.
'" Strype's Ecclesiastical Memorials, lI.-ii.-52.

the black-letter holy days 5
fasting days be observed and kept, as was observed and
kept in the latter time of King Henry VIII." ^^
On the accession of Elizabeth, a bill was brought in
to re-enact the 5 and 6 Edward VI., but the lofty
notions of Royal prerogative which the Queen enter
tained, especially in matters relating to the Church,
led to the adoption of a more irregular procedure.
After being passed by the Commons and read twice in
the Lords', the bill was dropped on April 30th, 1559
(D'Ewes, p. 27). Yet, as Mr. Perry, in his Lawful
Church Ornaments (p. 140) observes, Edward's igth In
junction was omitted from the Injunctions of 1559, of
even date with the Prayer Book, " because the 5th and
6th Ed. VI., c. 3, A.D. 1552, had regulated the matter."
The Act of Uniformity (i Elizabeth, cap. ii.) gave
the sanction of law to the Calendar of Edward's
Second Book : and we find accordingly that the
earliest copies of Elizabeth's book had no black-letter
days save those above mentioned.-^^ But on January
22nd, 1561, Queen Elizabeth issued letters under her
signet, directing the Royal Commissioners for Eccle
siastical Causes to draw up a new Calendar, which was
ready on February 15th, and on February 27th an
entry in the churchwardens' accounts at St. Michael's,
Cornhill, runs : — " 1559, for paving where the high altar
stood xd. Paid for the carriage of rubbish of the high
" Ca.'cA-weW'sDocnmentary Annals, No. XXX. The black-letter copy in
C. C. C. C. Library (Vol. CCXXI., p. 521) is dated at foot " Excusum
Londini in asdibus Johanni Cawodi typographi Reginse Marias. Anno
1553. Mense Martio," shewing that it was printed before March 25th,
1554. Cardwell misprinted " late time " instead of " the ^affe;- time of
King Henry VIII."
'" See Clay's Liturgies of Queen Elizabeth, Parker Society, pp. xiii. and
47-52, where it will be seen that some astronomical notes had also
been inserted.

6 the BLACK-LETTER HOLY DAYS
altar xvi d. 1560 [i.e. 1561, New Style] Feb. 27 paid
for the new orders of the service book and the X
Commands v s. i. d." ^^
This Calendar contained (all but three of) our present
black-letter list. But it was preceded by a Table of
Feasts, headed " these to be observed for holy days and
none other "; and this list corresponds verbatim with that
given in 5 and 6 Edward VI., cap. iii.^* The mention
in the Acts of the Privy Council of a payment of rent
as " due at thinvention of the Cross," illustrates the
purely secular character of these black-letter days.
That entry is dated "June 24, 1552," when, by statute
5 and 6 Edward VL, cap. iii., any special religious
observance of the day was entirely prohibited. Never
theless as almanacs were unknown, the church kalendar
was relied upon by the common people to furnish all
such needful information ; and as matter of convenience
(tending, moreover, to make people possess themselves

" Parker Correspondence, p. 136. Overall's Accounts of St. Michael's,
Cornhill, pp. 150-5.
'^ Elizabeth was, however, acting ultra vires, as Mr. Droop (Edwardian
Vestments, p. 20) remarks. Strictly speaking, the black-letter days of
Edward's Second Prayer Book alotie had any legal right to be printed in
any Prayer Book until 1662. The " Notes " formerly attributed to
"Bishop Cosin" state that these Elizabethan tables were "but the
printer's work, no order of the Church," and he urged that the 5 and 6
Edward VI., cap. iii., had been repealed by Mary " and not since revived,"
a blunder which Mr, James Parker does not correct in his History of
the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 125. Bishop Stubbs, in his Draft
Report, similarly marks the 5 and 6 Edward VI. as " repealed " (Report
of Ecclesiastical Courts Commission, p. 43). But that Act was revived in
1604 by I James I., cap. xxv. When Cosin grew older he grew wiser,
and not merely adopted the very list which he had formerly denounced,
but suggested various reforms, such as the omission of the names of
St. Catharine, St. Faith, and Conception of Blessed Virgin Mary saying
"better left out" (Nicholls' Appendix, p. 67). Mr. James Parker omits
this pertinent fact, in his History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book,
pp. 121-6.

THE BLACK-LETTER HOLY DAYS 7
of the new book), Elizabeth restored in her kalendar of
1561, a long hst of such traditional memoranda. " Dog
days," " Sol in tauro," &c., are among these black-
letter days.
To prevent any misunderstanding, the Elizabethan
Bishops in April, 1561, drew up some " Resolutions,"
among which was this one :— " That there be no other
holy day observed besides the Sundays, but only such
as be set out in the Act of King Edward, An. 5 et 6
cap. 3." Cardwell notes ^= that those words in italic were
inserted by Archbishop Parker's own hand, instead of
the words crossed through in the original draft, viz.
" in the Calendar of the Service Book, with two days
following the Feasts of Easter and Pentecost." In 1564
it was further explained in the Preces Privatae,^^ published
by authority, that the black-letter days were retained
for secular reasons only —
" We have not done it because we hold them all for saints,
of whom we do not esteem some lo he even among the good. . . .
but that they may be as notes and marks of some certain things,
the stated times of which it is very important to know, and
ignorance of which may be a disadvantage to our countrymen."
In March, 1566, the celebrated " Advertisements " of
Queen Elizabeth appeared, directing "That there be
none other holy days observed besides the Sundays, but
only such as be set out for holy days, as in the
statute 5 and 6 Edward VI. , and in the new Calendar
authorised by the Queen's Majesty." ^^
The Bishops who acted as " Commissioners under
the Great Seal for causes ecclesiastical," like the other
'° Cardwell's Documentary Annals, I. -206.
'^^ Parker Society Edition, p. 428.
^'' Cardwell's Documentary Annals, No. LXV. Cf. Cardwell's
Synodalia, I. -124.

8 THE BLACK-LETTER HOLY DAYS
Elizabethan Ordinaries, enforced the Calendar on the
principle that what was " not appointed " by the
Prayer Book, was " abrogated " by it.
A few extracts from their Visitation Articles will
shew this. In 1571 Archbishop Grindal asked through
out the Province of York —
" Whether any holy days or fasting days heretofore abrogated
or not appointed to he used as holy days, or fasting days, by
the new Kalendar of the book of Common Prayer, be either
proclaimed and bidden by your parson, vicar or curate, or be
superstitiously observed by any of your parish, and what be
their names, that so do observe the same : and whether there
be any ringing or tolling of bells to call the people together used
in any of those days more or otherwise than is commonly used
upon other days that be kept as work days .' " i^
Archbishop Parker asks, in 1575, " Whether any
other holy days be kept than such as be appointed in
the book of Common Prayer.""
Aylmer, Bishop of London, in 1577 repeats verbatim
Grindal's inquiry, merely adding, " And whether any
public feasts other than such as be appointed by law
be by any private authority, without order from the
Bishop, commanded or used." ^°
Middleton, Bishop of St. David's in 1583, in asking
whether they are still " bidden to be observed by the
minister in Churches," notifies that " old superstitious
holidays be justly abrogated and put down." "^
Indeed, the Jacobean and Laudian Bishops also
speak of holy days "abrogated by the Book of Common
Prayer " "^ ; referring also to Canon 88, which forbids
18 Appendix to the Second Report of the Ritual Commission, pp. 408-8 and
412-15. " Ibid., 417-41. 20 Hiiii_ 418-7, 21 ;6,-j.^ 427-6.
22 Ibid., 456-17, 515-13. 536-13. 574-17-

THE BLACK-LETTER HOLY DAYS 9
" Bells to be rung superstitiously upon the holy days
or eves abrogated {antiquata), by the Book of Common
Prayer." " The last part of this Canon," says
Mr. Davis, in his edition of the Canons of 1604,
"refers to the black-letter feasts and saints days, &c,,
which are excluded from the table in the Book of
Common Prayer of all the feasts that are to be
observed." The passing of r James I., cap. xxv. (repealing
I Mary, Session 2, cap. ii.), in May, 1604, followed
close upon the issue (in March of the same year) of the
Jacobean revision of the Prayer Book. In this way
the 5 and 6 Edward VI., cap. iii., became thenceforth
the legal standard."^
Lastly, at the final revision of the Prayer Book, the
Bishops at the Savoy Conference declared "the other
names are left in the Calendar, not that they should
be so kept as holy days, but they are useful for the
preservation of their memories, and for other reasons,
as for leases, law days, &c."^* Bishop Cosin in his
Regni Anglice Religio Caiholica, written to give foreign
churches a just idea of our Prayer Book, takes no notice
whatever of the black-letter people, but heads the red
letter days with the words " sacrati Deo apud nos
sunt." 25
Sir Robert J. Phillimore in Elphinstone v. Purchas,
condemned as unlawful the practice of giving notice
for the observance of " the feasts of St. Leonard,
St. Martin, and St. Britius," under the rubric which
bids the announcement of all days that " are in the
week following to be observed."
2^ Coke's Institutes, II. -686. 2* Cardwell's Conferences, p. 341.
-' Cosin's Works, IV.-364.

lO THE BLACK-LETTER HOLY DAYS
All the older commentators on the Prayer Book, like
Wheatly and Nicholls, explained the retention of the
" Romish saints' days " on the ground that "those days
were either quarter-days for payment of rent, or were
days remarkable in the course of the law, or adapted
to some secular account, so that some inconvenience
would ensue if they were totally omitted from the
Calendar." This, of course, was obvious when almanacs
were not to be had, and when men habitually dated
by the name of the day, not as now by the day of
the month. But even in the nineteenth century we
should feel the inconvenience of having no Calendar
at hand when bequests, fairs, guild-anniversaries, wakes
or antiquarian allusions escaped our recognition under
some old-world designation. Hence it was, doubt
less, that the Ritual Commissioners in their "Fourth
Report,"^" decided in 1870 to retain the black-letter
days, but with this " Note — That although some other
days are marked in the Calendar, yet the above men
tioned [i.e. the red-letter days] are the oitly fasts, and
feasts appointed to be observed throughout the year."
\*
The defence set up by Romanisers for the inter
mingling of "joyful stories" of obscure or apocryphal
" saints " with their Sunday sermons (as suggested by
the Kalendar of the English Church) is, that a certain
sentimental beauty, or pious feeling clings to the
legendary "story." But the Act of Convocation in
1536, above referred to, said plainly—" the number of
Holy Days is so excessively grown, and yet daily more
and more by men's devotion, yea rather superstition.

ip.8.

THE BLACK-LETTER HOLY DAYS II
was like further to increase." And the preface to the
Prayer Book tells us " some [ceremonies] entered
into the Church by undiscreet devotion, and such a zeal
as was without knowledge ; and for because they were
winked at in the beginning, they grew daily to more
and more abuses."
All the errors and superstitions of the dark ages
were introduced by pious and well-meaning persons.
And religion has ever suffered most " in the house of
its friends." " Will ye talk deceitfully for God ? " said
Job. Dean Hook admits that-^ —
" Their first great object was to encourage in the
masses the sentiment of rehgion; and, although, as
we shall presently see, the duty of upholding the truth
was not in theory ignored, yet in dealing with the
masses it was forgotten. Thus sanctification was the
one object, but they forgot that man is to be sanctified
through the truth .... this habitual postponement
of the true to the useful, to the emotional, and even to
the beautiful was applied to the ordinances of the
Church, and even to articles of faith. It is not too
much to say, that the almost exclusive regard to
religious sentiment led to the gradual introduction of
those superstitious observances, and those errors in
doctrine, which, being authoritatively established at
the Council of Trent, are the distinguishing character
istics of modern Romanism.
" The question asked, as they were gradually
introduced, was not whether they were in accordancei
with the truth, but whether they tended to excite
devotional fervour, sanctify the imagination, and
"' Sermon before Church Congress at Manchester, 1863, pp. 2, 3.

12 THE BLACK-LETTER HOLY DAYS
conduce to the purposes of civilising the savage mind.
Afterwards when they had been so far established as
to have become part and parcel of the entire eccle
siastical system, the attempt to defend them by
I argument, against the assaults of the Reformers,
] became a necessity — but the origination of the evil is
, to be found rather in the separation of the truth of
( religion from its emotions."
But the nemesis of all falsehood followed, slowly
indeed, but surely. As Dr. Johnson objected to a
chattering deist who admitted that " one half of the
Bible was inspired," — "Yes, but which half?" For,
is it to be believed that the mystery of the Incarnation,
or of the Resurrection, is merely a "joyful story " of
the same kind as the pious fables of hagiologists ?
Superstition was ever the parent of infidelity, and
lying legends, and old wives' fables have largely
alienated the intellect of Europe from the most sacred
truths of the Gospel ; since all alike, according to their
"Catholic" teachers, are made to rest upon the same
"authority." That lesson ought not to be lost upon us.
A methodist friend used to say, when he heard a goody
story, or a missionary platform-anecdote, " Is that a
fact, or an anecdote ? " The first and only question in
laying foundations should be " Is this true ? Is it
written ? What saith the Scripture ? "
" Those who tell us that the Church now sanctions
any rehgious observances of the days of St. Brice,
St. Blaise, St. Valentine, &c., insult our understanding ;
and if they attempt to enforce such observance on
the people, they aggrieve the conscience of the well-
informed among them. They inflict on them, though
Hi a less degree, the same annoyance and distress

THE BLACK-LETTER HOLY DAYS I3
which the myths of the Roman breviary inflict on the
learned and conscientious priests of France." -^
In the Abyssinian Church, Pontius Pilate, together
with his wife Procla, is commemorated on June 25th.
Even the Greeks reckon the wife among the Saints.
The "conception B. V. M." was a festival "intro
duced by private and unauthorised zeal in the eleventh
century, [which] spread rapidly in spite of reason and
the indignant remonstrances of St. Bernard, but, was
not authorised by Rome until 1483. Fostered by this
observance, an irrational heresy, which was utterly
unknown when it commenced, gradually obtained and
secured a footing, until at length in our own time, this
day has been solemnly canonised as the feast of the
Immaculate Conception."-"
These "joyful stories " have been scouted even by
educated Romanists.
Tillemont in his Histoire Ecclesiastique, Vols. IV. and
v., throws many of them over-board. Thus he says
of St. Valentine " nothing certain " was known about
him ; of St. Blaise " we have many histories, but not
one of which we dare make use ; " and of St. Katharine,
that it would be hard to find any Saint more generally
reverenced, and of whom so little is known. Even
Mr. Blunt's Annotated Prayer Book, admits that the
history of St. Prisca is " uncertain " ; that of St.
Fabian, a " materialising allegory " ; that of St. George,
" so obscure that some have doubted his existence."
In fact, St. George is in exactly the same category as

-^ See Lettres Parisiennes of the Abbe Laborde, Paris, 1855, cited by
Scudamore, Exposure of the English Church Union Reply, p. 6.
^ Scudamore's Remarks on English Church Union Petition, p. 5.

14 THE BLACK-LETTER HOLY DAYS
his dragon. Mr. Scudamore says, "It may be thought
certain that there was a martyr of this name ; but his
age, country, and history are alike unknown. His
early fame rested on a lying legend, that was con
demned as apocryphal by a Council held at Rome in
494. All subsequent accounts of him are pure fictions "
(p. 5). Whereupon, Dr. Littledale directs this rubbish.
to be sung (" To the praise and glory of God " ?)—
" O noble martyr, thee we sing,
O soldier worthy of thy king :
St. George our patron saint," &c. {Hymn 246.)
The Invention of the Cross, however, it seems " has
not been disproved," {sic)— a. faint praise, which might
be applied to many other doubtful " inventions."
Bishop Cosin,^" however, notes that "this feast the
Greeks lack"; that Dunstan "after his death was
Sainted, but, God knows why 1 " and that " All
Souls' " Day, " in ours and other reformed Churches
viras deservedly abrogated by us all."
Yet in obedience to the so-called Kalendar of the
English Church, pubhshed by the "Church Printing
Company," the adulteration of Christianity with "pro
fane fables " goes on apace. The People's Hymnal
gives four " suitable hymns " for " All Souls' Day," to
commemorate the "joyful story" that certaifi monks
heard at the mouth of the crater of Mount Etna, the
lamentation of the fiends at the loss of " souls taken
out of their hands by the prayers of Cluniac monks "
(Wheatly). The Hymnal, therefore, deprecates pur
gatorial torment in these " suitable " words : —
'» In Nicholls' Appendix, 11-14.

THE BLACK-LETTER HOLY DAYS I5
" Let not penal fire burn them.
Let not binding fetters chain.
Nor the worm which never dieth
Torture them with endless pain," &c., &c.
{Hymn for All Souls, 299.)
In a sermon on " the feast of St. Katharine,"
addressed to the inmates of St. Katharine's Home,
Woodford, by the Rev. N. J. Devereux, " the preacher
illustrated his remarks about the saint by directing
attention to St. Katharine, as depicted in the banner
lately presented to the chapel." To childish minds an
object lesson like this, is very telling. " Seeing is
believing," says the vulgar proverb ; so the banner was
irresistible. Yet Cardinal " Baronius actually brands
the Acta Sanctce Catherince of the Roman martyrology
as a mixture of mendacity and truth {mendacium veris
admixtum)." The following is the "joyful story" of the banner, as
told by Mr. Baring Gould : —
" A wheel set with razors was constructed for the execution
of St. Catherine, but when she was placed on it the wheel broke
and the razors flew about, hacking and cutting the throats of the
bj-standers. Then Catherine prayed that she might suffer death,
and asked only two things — that after her death her body might
be preserved from being touched by profane fingers, and that
the world might be converted. Then her head was struck off
with a sword, and angels came and carried off her body to
Mount Sinai. Maxentius was defeated by Constantine, and the
world became Christian."
Why not ? With the sword of Constantine on the
one side and "joyful stories" on the other, "the
world " could have no difhculty in making its choice.
The only doubt is whether the world would be a pin
the better for a " conversion " of this kind.

M

s

8

^^^^^^M

^^m

II
^be "rnMnistera an^ fIDistatiers " of tbe
jfirst Iprai^er Booli

THE First Prayer Book of Edward VI. proved a
failure. The original commission had to be
cut down to less than half before the book
could be got through committee,'- yet, even then, five
of its "compilers" dishked it; and Bishops Day, Skip,
and Thirlby were among the eight Bishops who spoke
and voted against it in the Lords'. It was rejected
alike by Bonner on the one hand^ and by Hooper on
the other,'' and " religious " rebellions in Devon,
Buckinghamshire, and Oxfordshire attest its continued
unpopularity. When it is remembered that the book
only came into use on June gth, 1549, and that no copy
was printed after that year, it will be seen that the
demand for it could never have been very great. As
Mr. Walton (himself an ardent Ritualist) says : —
" The First Prayer Book, in fact, under the circumstances.

' Cardwell's Two Liturgies of Edward VI. compared. Preface, p. xi.
^ Collier's Ecclesiastical History, V.-357.
3 Original Letters, Parker Society, p. 79. See Pocock's Troubles
connected with the Prayer Book of 1549, p. 26, and Original Letters, pp. 391,
467.

THE FIRST PRAYER BOOK I7
and at the time of its actual publication, was an expedient, or
temporary compromise, which can have really satisfied no one;
nor is it now easy (if we except the deprived Bishop Day)
to point to any individuals or any party whose opinions or
convictions it any longer expressed. It is surely as mistaken
as it is ungenerous, in the present day, to quote the qualified
approval of the First Prayer Book which was extorted, under
the pressure of an iniquitous persecution, from Bishop Gardiner.
An assent to its principles, under his circumstances, must be
admitted as worth very little indeed." *
Mr. Walton had not seen the Great Parliamentary
Debate which has only been brought to light since his
death, or he could never have imagined that Bishop
Day's " convictions " were expressed by this book.
As Prebendary Humphry truly said in his
Student's Commentary on the Book of Common Prayer,^
" The First Prayer Book of Edward appears to
have been received with irreverence, and disregarded
by a great portion of the clergy, with the connivance
of the Bishops."
Within a twelvemonth it was already under revision,
for the people of England evidently would not have it.
This is clear from the official statements both of
the Privy Council and of the very same Parliament
which had so recently enacted that book.
The second Parliament of Edward VI. did not meet
till March ist, 1553; so that the same parliament which
had enacted the First Prayer Book was compelled (on
April 14th, 1552) to rescind it, and to substitute for it
the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI., which in all
substantial respects is identical with our own.
Nothing but dire necessity, we may be sure, could
'' Letter to Canon Carter, second edition, p. 51. * p. 16,
2

l8 THE " MINISTERS AND MISTAKERS OF
have induced Parliament to consent to such a step.
"It is ill swapping horses while you are crossing
streams." And the danger of such a flank movement
in face of a wary foe was obvious. It became necessary
therefore to minimise as far as possible the nature and
importance of the changes actually made. Hence the
language of the Second Act of Uniformity (5 and 6
Edward VI. , cap. i.) was almost apologetic. After
admitting (what could not be denied) that " a great
number of people in divers parts of this realm . . do
wilfully . . refuse to come to their parish churches,"
the third section went on to say, — •
" And because there hath arisen in the use and exercise of
the aforesaid common service in the Church heretofore set
forth, divers doubts for the fashion and manner of ministration
of the same, rather by the curiosity of the minister^np
MISTAKERS, than of any other worthy cause ; therefore, as well
for the more plain and manifest explanation hereof, as for the
wore perfection of the said order of common service, in some
places where it is necessary to make the same prayers and
fashion of service more earnest and fit to stir Christian people
to the true honouring of Almighty God; the King's most
excellent majesty . . hath caused the aforesaid order of common
service, entitled 'The Book of Common Prayer,' to he faithfully
and godly perused, explained, and made fully perfect."
According to this account, the Second Book was the
First Book "godly perused" and made "fully perfect,"
especially in places where it needed to be " explained,"
or it was " necessary to make the same more earnest
and fit." Moreover the First Book was repealed, and
its future use was made illegal under penalties,^'
so that the preference of the Second Book, by the
very framers of the First Book, was marked and decided.
" Ibid., Sec, 6.

THE FIRST PRAYER BOOK I9
I have shewn elsewhere'' that before the First Prayer
Book was adopted, the Reforming Bishops who were
its advocates publicly denied any "objective presence,"
or any reception by the wicked, or any " oblation" of the
body of Christ. The sworn testimony of Bishop Day
given on Gardiner's trial, in 1551, was that " My Lord
of Canterbury hath made a book against the verity of
Christ's body and blood in the sacrament : and that
the Bishop now of London [Ridley] did openly impugn
the verity of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament,
in the parliament at Westminster." ^ I have shewn
also that the First Prayer Book was regarded at the
time as merely provisional until the English Reformers
could give full effect to their own predilections.** On
June 20th, 1549, i.e. within a fortnight of its coming
into use, Ridley presided at a public disputation at
Cambridge, which Alban Langdale, one of the dis
putants on the "Catholic" side, afterwards described
in these terms. "Nor did they profess the heresy of
the Lutherans (as they had put forth in their first
axiom), but publicly before the world and pertinaciously
adopted that of the Swiss." ^°
It has been contended, however, by the admirers of
the ^^semi-reformed bo^ that the Act just quoted
admits the First Book to have been " agreeable to the
word of God and the primitive Church." That,
however, is a mistake. Those words referred gji]^

' Great Parliamentary Debate in 1548 (J. F. Shaw), pp. 15-1S.
8 Foxe's Acts and Monuments, VI. -240. ' Great Debate, p. 19.
'" Neque enim Lutheranorum (uti axiomate primo prae se tulerunt)
sed Helvetiorum haeresim pertinaciter palam mundo profitebantur."
Catholica Confutatio, p. 8. Compare Foxe's report of "Rochester's"
(i.e. Ridley's) interpellations during this Disputation. — Acts and
Monuments, VI.-311-318.

20 THE " MINISTERS AND MISTAKERS OF
to Divine Service, being "used in the Mother tongue
within the Church of England" — a practice rejected
by the Papal party, yet in the main highly popular and
therefore reaffirmed, and credit taken for it, in this
unmistakable fashion by Edward's lay Parliament.
Anyone who compares the language of our Twenty-
fourth Article as to " the word of God and the custom
of the primitive church," with the very first pro
position publicly debated in Westminster Abbey on
March 31st, 1559, viz. " It is against the Word of God
and the custom of the Primitive Church to use a
tongue unknown to the people in Common Prayers and
administration of the sacraments,"" will recognise the
special allusion in Edward's second Act of Uniformity.
The words " a very godly order set forth by authority
of Parliament, to be used in the mother tongue within this
Church of England, agreeable to the Word of God and the
Primitive Church," were but the usual and accepted
formula in vindication of the principle of a vernacular
service book.
As Mr. Milton justly observes ¦}^
" The words of praise contained in this act must be taken as
applying to the book as a whole, of which the parts to be altered
constituted in extent, a very small portion, not one- fiftieth of the
whole volume. They must be regarded as dictated by policy.
It was policy to say what they could 'for the book, but it was
necessary to get rid of it ; and they did get rid of it most effec
tually. The act made it an offence not only to read the service
in that book, but even to be present and to hear it read."
It is true that the " Ministers and mistakers " of the
First Prayer Book were censured by this later Act for

" Cardwell's Conferences, p. 24. " Church Perplexities, p. 79.

THE FIRST PRAYER BOOK 21
having necessitated the revision of the book. But it
is " unhistorical " to fancy, as Cosin and Wheatly have \
done, that foreigners like Bucer, Martyr, or Alasco
were the persons intended. Yet it has been imagined
that a concession to the scruples of these people caused
the changes of 1552, and that the English Parliament
in reluctantly making such changes, desired to brand
their " curiosity " by using the words above quoted.
We can show, however, that this was not the case.
Bucer, and the rest never were "Ministers" {i.e.
officiants) under the Prayer Book of 1549. Up to the
day of his death (February 28th, 1551) Bucer, like
Martyr, could not even read the Prayer Book except by
means of a Latin version, and had to rely upon an
" interpreter," probably Fagius' son.-'^
Alasco never held office of any kind as a " Minister "
of the Church of England. The "Ministre" of the
service was clearly the ordinary Incumbent : the
" Mystakers " were those who mistook, or wilfully
misunderstood and wrested the meaning of the First
Prayer Book. And there is really no difficulty in
identifying these persons. Even in the earlier stages
of reform, when the Cup so long monopolised by the
clergy was being restored to the church, we find a
letter from the Privy Council to the Bishops com
plaining that " a great number of the Curates of the
realm, either for lack of knowledge cannot, or for want
of good mind will not be so ready to set forth the
same as we would wish." Similarly under Elizabeth a
Royal proclamation was issued on March 22nd, 1559,

" See Clay's Preface to Elizabethan Liturgies, p. xxv. note. Compare
Original Litters, pp. 332, 535.

22 THE " MINISTERS AND MISTAKERS OF
bidding the parishioners who at the ensuing Easter
might be (illegally) refused the cup by their own
Minister, to " resort to some other honest, discreet,
and learned priest and Minister." "
That illustrates what was meant by the " curiosity "
{i.e. crotchetty scrupulosity) of the Incumbents.
Unluckily, it was not confined to them. The Bishop
of London, about a fortnight after the First Prayer
Book began to be "ministered" at St. Paul's, was
censured by the King's Council for allowing "Apostles'
Communion " and " Our Lady's Communion " to be
celebrated at side-altars, which they regarded as " a
scorn to the reverence of the Communion of the Lord's
body and blood." In any case, they said, it must be
done " as it is appointed in the book of the public
service without cautele or digression from the common
order." ¦'^ These cautels, which occupy nine pages in
Maskell,^^ were the minute and punctihous directions
given in the missal, and they were in every sense of
the word highly " curious." The " Curiosity of the
Minister," then, was the regard paid to such
"abolished" cautels. Not only Bonner, but many of
the other Bishops, were conniving at " curiosity " of
this kind. Strype tells us ^^ that he took from Bishop
Thirlby's Register the letter which Cardwell ^* prints as
directed also to Bonner on July 23rd, 1549, and con
cludes that " it was a common letter to them all." In
this " common letter " to the Bishops, the Council

'¦I Dyson's Proclamations of Queen Elizabeth. Compare Documentary
Annals, No. XIV.
'* Cardwell's Documentary Annals, No. XVI.
'' Ancient Liturgy of the Church of England, pp. 168-176.
'' Ecclesiastical Memorials, II. -1.-331. ^^ Documentary Annals, No. XVII.

THE FIRST PRAYER BOOK 23
complain that the First Prayer Book " remaineth in
many places of this our realm either not known at all,
or not used, or at the least, if it be used, very seldom,
and that in such light and irreverent sort, as the people
in many places have heard nothing, or if they hear, they
neither understand nor have that spiritual delectation
in the same, that to good Christians appertaineth : the
fault thereof like as we must of reason impute to you,
and other of your vocation called by God through our
appointment." A hint is given to the Romanising Bishops that the
King might through their neglect " consequently be
occasioned thereby to see otherwise to the redress of
these things, whereof we would be sorry."
Bonner took no heed, however, and on September
13th, he was duly articled before the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners on the information of Latimer and
Hooper, for nonconformity. Two of these articles ran
" Item, that ye know, or have heard say, that certain persons
within your diocese, sith the time that the said Injunctions were
given unto you, have heard, been at, or celebrate mass, or even
song in the Latin tongue, and after the old rite and manner,
other than according to the King's majesty's book."
" Item, that the rites of the common service of the Church,
now set forth, be in some parts of your diocese diversely used ;
and you, knowing or hearing of the same, have not called any
ministers of the service before you for the redress of such
diversity, nor corrected the misusers thereof." ^^
The proceedings were protracted, but on October
1st, 1549, sentence of deprivation was pronounced,
because, among other things, Bonner " had utterly
neglected to search out those who followed the foreign
'^ Foxe's Acts and Monuments, V.-753.

24 THE " MINISTERS AND MISTAKERS OF
and rejected {non probatos) rites whereof his diocese of
London was specially complained of." ^^
The fall of the Duke of Somerset (October 12th,
1549) gave new hopes to the Romanists.^^ Hooper
wrote anxiously,''^ " We hope that no alteration will be
made." He complained of the negligence of the
Bishops in enforcing the Prayer Book, saying "it is
only the fear for their property that prevents them from
reforming their churches according to the rule of God's
word." Yet, oddly enough, this very letter which
complains of, and describes the nonconformity of the
Romish Incumbents and the negligence of the Romish
prelates has been adduced as evidence of the authorised
practice as prescribed by the Prayer Book !
Two days, however, before Hooper wrote this letter
it had become necessary to call in and destroy the old
service books " and all other bokes of service, the
keeping whereof shold be a let to the usage of the said
boke of commene prayers," so that the Commissaries
of the Archbishop were everywhere to destroy them
" that they never after may serve eyther to anie soche
use as they were provided for, or be at anytime a let to
that godly and uniforme Order." ^^
This Royal Order was soon afterwards enforced by
the added " authority of Parliament," viz. The Act
3 and 4 Edward VI., cap. 10. Ridley's Visitation
Articles of May, 1550 (followed verbatim in Hooper's
of the following year) and based upon the Royal Visita-

2" Foxe, V,.795. "Externos et non probatos ecclesiae ritus," Some
' abolished " and some " retained."
^^ Documentary Annals, No. XX. 22 Original Letters, p, 71.
-^ Documentary Annals, No. XX.

THE FIRST PRAYER BOOK 25
tion Articles of 1549,-^' may be read in Miller's Gtiide
to Ecclesiastical Law. They shew that all such practices
were denounced at the time as being a violation of the
First Prayer Book by one of the leading framers ofi
that Book. Yet the Romish party then, as now,i
proved too strong for the law. Though Bonner had
been deposed, "popery" still reigned at St. Paul's.
Strype tells us that " even under Ridley, who was now
Bishop, the communion was celebrated with such
superstitions, as though it were a mass." The Privy
Council then sent competent experts to vouch for the
actual practice complained of. On October nth, 1550,
it was ordered "that Thomas Astely join with two
^ The Injunctions of 1547 had lost their Parliamentary authority (if
they ever had any) by the passing of i Edward VI. cap. 12, which took
place on December 24th, 1547, in the first year of King Edward.
Consequently they had no " authority of Parliament in the second year."
Their Royal authority was, however, unaffected, and they were required
to be read once a quarter by every incumbent. These Injunctions of
1547 were adapted to the altered litual of the First Prayer Book by
simply directing the clergy in 1549 to "Omit in the reading of the)
Injunctions all such as make mention of the Popish Mass." Such)
"omissions " in publishing official documents were the customary way \
of rescinding the older directions. Thus Archbishop Peckham when I
required by the King to withdraw certain excommunications, directed
that " deleatur, et pro non pronunciata habeatur ills, cluusula." (Makower,
Constitutional History of the Church of England, p. 32.) The Articles of
1549 are shewn to be later than the Prayer Book by their mentioning
it, and its "catechism"; yet, prior to the second book, by their
referring to " going to the sick with the sacrament." They must have
been prior to Ridley's, which verbally correspond, inasmuch as no
authority less than that of the Crown could have authorised an
" omission " to read Royal Injunctions. Doubtless, Collier is right in
saying they were Articles for the Royal Visitation set on foot in 1549
and intended to enforce the new Prayer Book. (Collier, V.-324.)
Cardwell holds the same view (Documentary Annals, p. 75, second edition).
" For an uniformity " they direct to " use no other ceremonies than are
appointed in the King's book of common prayers." All the "omitted"
ceremonies are described as "counterfeiting the Popish Mass": and
thus the proof is complete that the "ministers" who were then violating
" uniformity," were the crypto-papal incumbents.

25 THE " MINISTERS AND MISTAKERS " OF
or three more honest gentlemen in London for the
observation of the usage of the communion in Paul's :
whereof information was given, that it was used as the
very mass." " Such a secret goodwill did many of the
priests and churchmen belonging to the Cathedral still
bear to the old former usages." =' This was the more
marked an instance of non-conformity, because in the
previous April, Bishop Ridley " Commanded the lytt
of the aulter to be put owte or he came into the
qwere " -" at St. Paul's, and in his diocesan Visitation
in May, he had forbidden any setting of lights upon
the Lord's board, &c., as being contrary to the Prayer
Book of 1549-
Perhaps the best account of the situation is to be
found in Bucer's letters, written as they were at the
time, and without any thought of publication. On
Whit-Sunday, 1550, he wrote to Calvin —
" Many of the parochial clergy so recite and administer the
service, that the people have no more understanding of the
mysteries of Christ, than if the Latin instead of the vulgar
tongue were still in use. And when complaints respecting
these shocking abuses of the church are laid by godly men
before the rulers of the kingdom, they say it is the business of
the bishops to remedy the evil : when they are laid before the
bishops, those, namely, who have long since made a profession
of the gospel, their reply is, that they cannot rectify them
without an act of parliament." '^^
In November of the same year he writes to his friend
the martyr-bishop Hooper —

2' Strype's Ecclesiastical Memorials, II. -1.-372,
"^ Greyfriar's Chronicle, p. 67. The marginal heading was " Puttynge
ovte the lyttes ' (plural) 'at the [a]ulter in PowUes." Hewlett's
Monumenta Franciscana, II.-227. 2' Original Letters, p. 547.

THE FIRST PRAYER BOOK 27
" All the Divine offices are recited by many pseudo Parish-
priests or vicars, so frigidly, slovenly, and mumbliiigly, that
they are understood by the common people just as well as if
they had been read in an African or Indian dialect. . . In many
places the Lord's Supper so takes the place of Mass, that the
people do not know in what respect it differs from it, except
that it is celebrated in the vulgar tongue." -^
During the same year Bucer wrote his De Regno
Christi for presentation to King Edward on New Year's
I^s-Y) 155 1, in which he said —
" Some turn the prescribed form of service into a mere
papistical abuse. Although it is now in the vulgar tongue, the
' sacrificers ' recite it of set purpose so indistinctly that it cannot
be understood, whilst the people altogether refuse to understand
or to listen. Not a few of the priests show forth the sacred
communion of Christ as the papistical mass and the people are
present with no other intention than to assist at the mass itself.
Hardly anyone takes the sacrament from the table of the Lord,
except the sacrificer alone, or a churchwarden, and even he
does so unwillingly — {sacrificulum unum, vel aedituum euwque
invitum"). Fox, who was ordained a deacon at St. Paul's by
Ridley on June 24th, 1550, describes as an eye-witness
this " curiosity of the ministers." He says —
" Through theperverse obstinacy and dissembling frowardness
of many of the inferior priests and ministers of the Cathedrals
and other churches of this realm, there did arise a marvellous
schism and variety of fashions in celebrating the common
service and administration of the sacraments and other rites and
ceremonies of the Church. For some, zealously allowing the
king's proceedings, did gladly follow the order thereof : and
others, though not so willingly admitting them yet dissemblingly
and patchingly use some part of them ; but many, carelessly
contemning all, would still exercise their old wonted popery."
— Acts and Monuments, V.-720.
^ Gorham's Reformation Gleanings, p. 201.

28 THE "MINISTERS AND MISTAKERS " OF
We have no difficulty then in identifying the
"Ministers"; but who, it may be asked, were the
" Mistakers " mentioned in the Act ?
Bishop Cosin tells us in his " Second Series of
Notes," 29 that—
"In the first edition of the Liturgy, indeed, under King
Edward "VI. even the name of ' Mass ' (as it was commonly then
called) had been retained ; but when men leavened with the
doctrine of the Papists were twisting it to a^bad sense, it seemed
good to the bishops that in the second publication of that
Liturgy, it should be altogether omitted."
That mention of " homines papistarum doctrina
fermentati" who "ad pravum sensum detorqiiebant "
exactly hits off the "mistakers" of the statute. Of
these Gardiner was the chief. Gardiner's own attitude
toward the Prayer Book was very characteristic. He
had no part whatever in the " consultations " which
resulted in its being adopted, and he must have taken
some pains to avoid seeing it, since even so late as
June, 1550, he still refused even to look at it.
" Whereupon it was agreed, that the said book should be
brought unto him by the lieutenant of the Tower : who within
a day or two, by order of the whole Council, brought the said
bishop not only that book of common prayer, but also the
book for making of bishops, priests, and deacons." ^°
The new Ordinal came out in March, 1550,'^ and
this mention of two separate books (which is noticed
also in the testimony of several of the witnesses) shews
that the First Prayer Book was the one under discussion ;

2« Works, V.-301.
s" Foxe, VI.-172. He had, however, been careful to read the Act of
Uniformity itself. Ibid., p. 72.
^' Original Letters, p. 81.

THE FIRST PRAYER BOOK 29
for, ill the Second Prayer Book, the Ordinal was
incorporated into the same volume. On the occasion
above referred to, Gardiner —
" Said, that albeit at the beginning, he would not give his
assent to the making the said book in such form as it is made,
yet the same book being now set forth as it is, he would both
observe the same himself, and cause all others to do the like in
all his diocese."
But he refused, all the same, to subscribe a I
declaration to this effect when tendered to him for
signature. " And touching the Book of Ordering of
Priests, &c., he saith, he misliked the same." ^^
Lawyer-like, though disliking the new Liturgy,
Gardiner for polemical and strategic reasons sought
to put on the new book a Roman gloss. And it is
very instructive to observe that in every instance in
which this was done the Prayer Book was altered to avoid
what Cranmer insisted was, if not a wilful "mistaking,"
yet a real perversion of its true meaning. When,
therefore, we find that Gardiner's " mistakings " were
obviated by a series of alterations which eliminated all
possibility of such " mistakings " in the future, we can
hardly refuse to recognise in " wily Winchester " the
type and leader of the " mistakers " denounced in the
second Act of Uniformity .^^
Among such alterations were the following.
I. Gardiner deduced an argument in favour of
masses for the dead from the fact that prayer for the
departed was incorporated into the "Prayer of Con
secration" of 1549." All such prayers were accordingly
removed, and the prayer itself transposed.

Foxe, VI., p. 172. '' 5 and 6 Edward VI., cap. i.
3' See Cranmer on the Lord's Supper, p. 84.

30 THE " MINISTERS AND MISTAKERS OF
2. Again, take the alteration made in the Prayer of
Consecration itself —
1549- I.S52-
Hear us, O merciful Father, Hear us, O merciful Father,
we beseech thee, and with thy we beseech thee, and grant that
Holy Spirit and word vouch- we receiving these thy creatures
safe to bl-f-ess and sanc-f-tify of bread and wine according
these thy gifts and creatures of to thy Son our Saviour Jesus
bread and wine that they may Christ's holy institution, in re-
be unto us the body and blood membrance of his death and
of thy most dearly-beloved Son passion, may be partakers ,of
Jesus Christ, who, in the same his most blessed body and
night that he was betrayed, blood^&c.
Bishop Gardiner, in 1550, argued in favour of
transubstantiation from the
" Prayer which is ordered to be made in the Book of
Common Prayer now set forth. Wherein we require of God,
the creatures of bread and wine to be sanctified, and to be to us
the body and blood of Christ, which they cannot be, unless
God worketh it, and maketh them so to be."
To which Cranmer replied —
" The bread and wine be made unto us the body and blood
of Christ (as it is in the Book of Common Prayer) but not by
changing the substance of bread and wine into the substance of
Christ's natural body and blood, but that in the godly using of
them they be unto the receivers Christ's body and blood. . . .
And therefore, in the book of the Holy Communion, we do not
pray absolutely that the bread and wine may be made the body
and blood of Christ, but that unto us in that holy mystery they
may be so : that is to say, that we may so worthily receive the
same, that we may be partakers of Christ's body and blood." ^^
Who that reads these concluding words, and
remembers the share taken by Cranmer in the
'^' On the Lord's Supper, p. 79,

THE FIRST PRAYER BOOK 31
liturgical reforms of Edward VI. can fail to identify the
" mistakers " to whom the alteration was attributed
by the Act.
3. Another instance is the Rubric of 1549 bidding
the wafers to be
" divided in two pieces at the least, or more, hy discretion of the
minister, and so distributed. And men must not think less to he
received in part than in the whole, hut in each of them the whole
body of our Saviour yesus Christ."
This rubric had been designed no doubt to forestall
the superstitious prejudice of those who had been wont
to have an unbroken wafer placed within their mouths
by the celebrant. It is worth notice that in Ireland
so late as 1867 a Maynooth professor recommends
priests to divide the wafer, if necessary, but "it is
recommended that, if possible, the parts thus broken
be given to the better instructed, for some ignorant
persons might suppose that there is an important
difference between one of these and the whole
particle." ^^ Gardiner adroitly availed himself of the
seeming admission of a local residence within " each "
fragment. " And where in the Book of Common
Prayer it is truly said, in each part of the bread
consecrate broken to be Christ's whole body," &c.
Cranmer could only reply that —
" As for the Book of Common Prayer, although it say, that
in each part of the bread broken is received the whole body of
Christ, yet it saith not so of the parts unbroken, nor yet of the
parts or whole reserved, as the Papists teach." ^7
The objection still remained which Bucer pointed
out,^^ viz. that it was "as though in these words it
'"' O'Kane's Notes on the Roman Rubrics, sec. 691.
^' On the Lord's Supper, p, 64. ^ Censura, p. 459.

32 THE "MINISTERS AND MISTAKERS OF
were affirmed that the body of Christ is offered as
locally shut up in the particles of the bread."
The rubric was struck out in the Second Prayer
Book, and the Romish " ministers " who still clung
to their benefices had no longer any chance of
"mistaking" this ambiguous sentence.
4. Gardiner had claimed " the prayer of humble
access " as being an act of adoration paid directly to
the Flesh of Christ then lying upon the altar, because
in the First Prayer Book this prayer stood after the
consecration and before the distribution. Gardiner
wrote —
"As touching the adoration of Christ's flesh in the
sacrament . . (it) is well set forth in the Book of Common
Prayer, where the priest is ordered to kneel and make a prayer
in his own, and the name of all that should communicate,
confessing therein that is prepared there." *^
Cranmer replies that such adoration is " idolatry " :
nevertheless the prayer itself was transposed so as to
be used thenceforth only while the elements remained
Mwconsecrated. 5. The words of "distribution" were alleged (in
correctly) by Gardiner as teaching his doctrine of
"the presence."*" Cranmer disputed the accuracy of
the citation, but for all that the words themselves
were changed.
6. Gardiner insisted before the Privy Council " that
although the elevation was taken away, yet the
alteration, in one special place, was indeed reserved :
and showed it to them, adding it must needs be so."*^

^ On the Lord's Supper, p, 229. '"' Ibid., pp. 51-53.
¦•i Foxe's Acts and Monuments, YI.-114. No. LXIV.

THE FIRST PRAYER BOOK 53
The allusion was to the Rubric of 1549 : —
"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."
Gardiner was ordered (July 14th, 1550) to subscribe
a declaration that " it is ordered in the said book and
Order that the sacrament should not be lifted up, and
shewed to the people to be adored." '^ Gardiner
refused to subscribe : the rubric, however, was not
merely struck out, but the jrianual acts, which under
pretence of " taking " the bread were often used as a
pretext for elevating the host, were also abolished.'"'
In each of the above instances, Cranmer denied that
his opponent was giving the true meaning of the First
Prayer Book, and as the drafting of the Second Act of
Uniformity was exclusively in the hands of his own
friends, it is clear that the " Mistakers," blamed in it
for having rendered changes necessary, were the
" sesqui-conforming " clergy who to-day are known as
the " Romanisers."

''^ Dasent's Acts of the Privy Council, III.-75 : or Foxe, VI. -83.
¦" See Hooper's Early Writings, p, 534; and Bishop Middleton's
Injunctions of 1583, quoted below at p. 218.

Ill
^be Jnjunctions of lEUsabetb

THE right of the Crown to issue Injunctions
binding on the clergy has long been recognised
in English law. "Prerogative" and "custom"
were reinforced at the Reformation by statutory decla
rations professing to be declaratory of constitutional
law, but certainly claiming very wide if not arbitrary
powers for the Civil ruler.^ Under Elizabeth, the title
of the Sovereign was changed from that of " Supreme
Head " to that of " Supreme Governor ; " but the
authority vested in the " Governor " by the statute
I Elizabeth, cap. i., was not a whit less than that
claimed by Henry and Edward ; indeed, it explicitly
added " schisms " to the subjects which were to be
thenceforward liable to Regal correction. And the i8th
section of that Act gave the Queen authority to dele
gate her jurisdiction to " visit " ecclesiastical offences
to " Commissioners under the great seal for causes
ecclesiastical." These Royal Commissioners constituted
a court of first instance, whose decisions were without
appeal. Their powers were wide, and extended even
to deprivation ; and the process of their Court was
' Makower's Constitutional History of the Church of England, p. 258.

THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH 35
comparatively swift and summary. It followed that
the " Royal Supremacy " was then a thing in every
day evidence before the whole nation.
The 17th section of the Act, which is still
unrepealed, is —
" Such jurisdictions, privileges, superiorities and pre-emi
nences, spiritual and ecclesiastical, as by any spiritual or
ecclesiastical power or authorit}"- hath heretofore been, or may
lawfully be exercised and used for the visitation of the eccle
siastical state and persons, and for reformation, order and cor
rection of the same, and of all manner of errors, heresies,
schisms, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities, shall for
ever, by authority of this present parliament, be united and
annexed to the imperial crown of this realm." ^
The Government decided to hold a Royal Visitation
of the whole country simultaneously with the issue of
the Prayer Book, so as to make clear what were the
requirements of the altered Liturgy.
The second Prayer Book of Edward was to come
into use again on June 24th, 1559, and preparations
had been made to ensure its prompt enforcement. On
May 28th, 1559, a letter was written by a clergyman
in Kent to John Abel at Strasburg, which stated that
fourteen persons named were to be Visitors, " and
also the Queen's Commissioners for all ecclesiastical
matters." ^ On June 13th, Cecil, the Prime Minister,
writes to Throckmorton, the Ambassador, that Injunc
tions and Articles were " already framed for general
Visitation."* Dr. Lewis thinks these were prepared
"probably in April." ° At any rate, printed copies were

- Section 17. * ChMxton's Life of Nowell, Appendix, 394.
¦* State Papers, Foreign, Elizabeth, p. 313.
¦^ Reformation Settlement, p. 198. 3 *

36 THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH
" annexed " " to the Commission dated June 24th (i.e.,
of even date with the Prayer Book itself), and copies were
also to be delivered by the Royal Commissioners to
every incumbent. In North's Chronicle of St. Martin's,
Leicester,'' the entry " paid for the service book " comes
just after the fee paid to the Visitors.
The clergy were required to subscribe a declaration
"acknowledging" the two Acts of Supremacy and
Uniformity (i Elizabeth, cap. i. and ii.)," and the orders
and rules contained in the Injunctions given by the
Queen's Majesty and exhibited in this present Visitation,
to be according to the true Word of God," &c.^
Dr. Stephens, in the Introduction to his Notes Legal
and Historical on the Book of Common Prayer,^ following
Burnet,^" says the Royal Visitors of 1559 constituted
the " first High Commission."
Richard Cosin, Dean of the Arches and Vicar-General
under Archbishop Whitgift, says the Injunctions were
"under the great seal of England ";^i and in a later
work published in 1591, An Apology of and for sundrie
proceedings by Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical ,^^ he described
them as " Injunctions which were set out by the
Queen's majesty in the first year of her reign, and are
under the great seal of England for better record of
the matter, her Highness being thereunto authorised
by act of parliament."
Two Commissioners were added to the Visitors for

" " Injunctiones presentibus annexas." Cardwell's Documentary
Annals, No. XLV. ' p, 149.
* Siry^e's Annals, 1.-1.-255. " P- ciii.
'" History of the Reformation, II. -i. -800.
" Answer to an Abstract, p. 63, a.d. 1584.
'¦^ p. 22 ; or p. 45 of the edition of 1593.

THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH 37
the North on August I4th,^^ and that Commission was
opened at Nottingham on August 22nd, 1559." Mean
time, at St. Paul's Cathedral, a like Commission sat
on August nth, 1559,^^ the reserved wafer having been
removed from St. Paul's as early as June iith,^" and
from the Royal Chapel on May 9th, i.e. the very next
day after the Royal Assent had been given to the Act
of Uniformity. ^^ The like was done throughout
England, and the list of Commissioners included the
names of the revisers of the Prayer Book, the Secre
taries of State, and the newly-nominated Bishops,
Privy Councillors, &c.
"This thing was not done in a corner," nor by
persons either ignorant or uninterested as to the
requirements of the restored Prayer Book. We
naturally turn, therefore, to their Articles and Injunc
tions to see how "ritualism" was then^^ dealt with.
Among the Articles were these :—
" Whether they minister the Holy Communion any other
wise, than only after such form and manner, as it is set forth
by the common authority of the Queen's Majesty and the
Parliament.'' " Item, whether you know any man in your parish secretly,
or in unlawful conventicles say or hear Mass, or any other
service prohibited by the law." ¦"*
Mr. James Parker says that the Injunctions were

'¦'* State Papers, Domestic, Elizabeth, p. 136.
'* Zurich Letters, I. -73. '^ Strype's Grindal, p. 36.
^^ Hall's Letters from Simancas, p. 62. '' Fronde, VI. -209.
1* The Visitors under Edward VI. had their Commission " passed
under the Great Seal." Dasent's Acts of the Privy Council, IV. -219,
under date February i6th, 1552.
" C3.xdLVie.\l's Documentary Annals, I. -213, 216.

38 THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH
"almost entirelya repetition of those of Edward VI."-"
But this is not so. Ten of Edward's were altogether
omitted, while twenty-four of Elizabeth's were entirely
new; and among these new ones was the Thirtieth,
which ran as follows : —
Thirtieth Injunction, 1559.
" Item, Her Majesty being desirous to have the prelacy and
clergy of this realm to be had as well in outward reverence, as
otherwise regarded for the worthiness of their ministries, and
thinking it necessary to have them known to the people in all
places and assemblies, both in the church and without, and
thereby to receive the honour and estimation due to the special
MESSENGERS AND MINISTERS OF AlMIGHTY GoIJ ; wiUcth and
commandeth, that all Archbishops and Bishops, and all other
that be called or admitted to preaching or ministry of the
Sacraments, or that be admitted into vocation ecclesiastical, or
into any society of learning in either of the Universities, or
elsewhere, shall use and wear such seemly habits, garments, and
such square c.^ps, as were most commonly and orderly received
in the latter year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth;
not thereby meaning to attribute any holiness or special
worthiness to the said garments, but as St. Paul writeth :
' Omnia decenter et secundum ordinem fiant,' i Cor. 14 cap."
Now, the out-door garb of the clergy underwent no
change whatever from the earlier to the later years of
Edward VI. The reason for so emphatically fixing
" the latter year " is to be found in the fact that in
that year alone during the whole reign of Edward was
the surplice "only" prescribed as the exclusive dress
of ministration. It will be observed that the regnal
year — "the year of the reign"— is mentioned: and
regnal years are always computed from the monarch's
-° History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 46.

THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH 39
accession to the throne. The sixth regnal year of I
Edward ended on January 27th, 1553, so that the ;
SEVENTH year of his reign, commencing from that
date, was the period fixed on. And we have quite a (
considerable number of assignments by the Edwardian
Royal Commissioners dated "in the seventh year""
of his reign. The Surrey Inventories, published by
Mr. Tyssen, shew how the copes were converted intO'
table cloths or " carpets," and the albs into surplices
by direction of the Royal Visitors.-^
The Commissions for the last Royal Visitation
under Edward are commonly dated after the enactment
of the Second Prayer Book : and even when the
Commission itself is of an earlier date, the Commis
sioners' return is dated "in the viith yearre of the
raingne of our Sovereign Lord Edward the Sixth." ^^
The Act of Uniformity itself (i Elizabeth, cap. ii.),
in its opening words, refers directly to the order of
common service which " remained at the death of
our late sovereign lord King Edward Vlth." On
March 17th, 1559, a still earlier Bill had been read
twice in the Commons, " that no persons shall be
punished for using the religion used in King Edward's
last year."-' So Jewel, writing in 1559, soon after the
passing of the Act of Uniformity, told Peter Martyr
that religion was to be " restored to the same state
as it was during your latest residence among us, under
Edward."-*

=' See Inventories of the Goods and Ornaments of Surrey, published by
Wyman and Sons ; and Second Report of Ritual Commission, p. 57.
22 Cussans' Hertfordshire Inventories, p. 22. Peacock's English Church
Furniture, pp. 221, 225-7.
=> D'Ewes' Journal, p. 52. ¦* Zurich Letters, I.-23.

40 THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH
It will be seen by-and-by that the Thirtieth Injunc
tion, above quoted, was understood by everybody in
authority at the time of its issue to relate to the
If I ministerial dress, and to require the " surplice only,"
^^ which was exclusively the legal standard of the " latter
year of the reign of King Edward Vlth." This fact is
felt to be so inconvenient that Ritualistic writers can
hardly ever bring themselves to divulge the actual
wording of this Thirtieth Injunction. Their method
of citing it is peculiar. First, they habitually quote
the Injunction omitting the words printed above in
capitals, for which words they are careful to substitute
ajow of dots. Mr. James Parker does this at pages
21 and 156 of his Letter to Lord Selborne, and also at
page 44 of his Ornaments Rubric. At page 73 of his
Letter, he says the Thirtieth Injunction " relates
wholly to the ' apparel,' " and he marks with inverted
commas the word " apparel," as though it were taken
from the Injunction, in which, however, no such word
occurs. Next, he quietly assumes-' that the " si.xth
year" {i.e. the penultimate year), was " the latter year
of the reign." The motive is obvious. The "sixth"
year of Edward began January 28th, 1552, whereas
Edward's " second " Prayer Book did not come into
fuse till November, so that for nine months of that
"sixth year" the Mass ornaments were in legal use.
Hence, Mr. James Parker on his own authority sub-
^ stitutes the "sixth" year, i.e. the last year but one for
" the latter year of Edward VI."
The Rev. T. W. Perry, in his Notes on the Purchas
Judgment,"^ quotes the Injunction in this fashion, " Her
-' Letter to Lord Selborne, p. 21. 26 „ ,g

THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH 4I
Majesty . . . willeth and commandeth," &c. ; thus
omitting altogether the first half of the Injunction :
and in his Lawful Church Ornaments,''''' he summarises
the Injunction thus: — "30. Orders a particular dress
for the members of the universities and for the clergy
when not officiating" (!). Canon MacColl is, however,
facile princeps, for he actually quotes a statement from
the Zurich Letlers,^^ Viz. that " in the Injunctions, how
ever, published by the Queen, after the Parliament, there
are prescribed to the clergy some ornaments such
as the Mass-priests had and still retain " to prove
that Eucharistic vestments, properly so called, were
enjoined I -' And by suppressing the words given above
in italics he makes it appear as though the Act of
Uniformity were the document referred to in 1560
by Lever.
From the pains systematically taken to suppress the
witness of this Thirtieth Injunction, it is evident that
it is felt to be a formidable foe to the contention of
the Ritualists. *
A more difficult question, however, arises, viz. whether
the Injunctions of 1559 derived their authority from
the Supremacy Act, i Elizabeth, cap. i., or from the
Act of Uniformity, i Elizabeth, cap. ii. If from the
former, the Injunctions must be regarded as executive
and administrative acts of the " Supreme Ordinary "
enforcing the rubric of the second Prayer Book of
Edward, which had just been re-enacted under
penalties by the second, third, and fourth sections
of the Act of Uniformity.

^ p. 141. ^ Zurich Letters, I. -84.
" MacCoU's Lawlessness, pp. 70, 71, third edition.

42 THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH
That view would be consistent with all that was
done at the time, except so far as a local and partial
connivance at the wearing of copes here and there in
the "great churches" must be admitted to conflict
with it. But then this wearing of copes by Epistoler
and Gospeller was an irregularity equally inexplicable
on any other hypothesis : it was a relaxation of the law,
and not a sample of law-abiding, whatever explanation
we may choose to adopt.
But, if we prefer to suppose that the Injunctions
were issued under the final provisoes of the Act of
Uniformity (i Elizabeth, cap. ii.), we may regard them,
with Mr. Reunion, as being "other order taken " under
the 25th section of that Act.
That section ran —
"Provided always, and be it enacted, that such ornaments of
the church and of the ministers thereof, shall be retained and
be in use, as was in this church of England by authority of
Parliament, in the second year of King Edward the Sixth,
until other order shall be therein taken by the authority of
the Queen's majesty, with the advice of her commissioners
appointed and authorised under the great seal of England for
causes ecclesiastical, or of the metropolitan of this realm."
The " advice" of the MetropoHtan could not then be
had, for Archbishop Parker was not " confirmed " till
December gth, 1559, his first act of "jurisdiction"
being dated December nth, i.e. six days before his
consecration.'" But it is by no means so certain that " Commis
sioners under the Great Seal for causes ecclesiastical "
did not exist at the date of the issue of the Injunctions.
The Fifty-first Injunction expressly refers to " such

^" 'Hz.dida.-a.'s Apostolical Succession, p. 323.

THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH 43
Her Majesty's Commissioners, or three of them, as be
appointed in the City of London to hear and determine
divers causes ecclesiastical tending to the execution of
certain statutes made the last Parliament for Uniformity
of order in rehgion." The Commission to the Royal
Visitors in the north, dated June 24th, authorises them
to appoint persons to present the disobedient to " Our
Commissioners sitting at London, and Delegates for
reformation of ecclesiastical affairs.^^
And the Royal Visitors were themselves also " Com
missioners under the Great Seal " appointed by Letters
Patent not merely to "visit ecclesiastical persons,"
but the laity also, and " to examine, hear, and finally
determine causes of every kind," to sequestrate or
deprive incumbents, who " obstinately and peremptorily
refused to subscribe to the religion received," to inflict
censures, and suitable penalties on those who dis
obeyed the Injunctions, to examine letters of orders,
give licenses to preach, and to restore those who had
been deprived under Mary.'-
These Visitors might legitimately be described as
" Commissioners appointed under the Great Seal of
England for causes ecclesiastical," and, if so, their
official acts in the Visitation of 1559 would be the
"taking further" or "other order" contemplated by
the statute. But, before the Injunctions issued, there
were also, in addition, other " Commissioners " quahfied
to give the statutory " advice " needed. Lord Coke
says that the Marian Bishops were deprived by

¦" Documentary Annals, I. -221.
••^ Cardwell's Documentary Annals, No. XLV., " Statum tam ecclesi-
asticum quam laicum visitare , clerumque et populum," Compare
the subsequent Commission of 1562, price one penny, published as Tract
CVII., by the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, W.C,

44 THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH
Royal Commissioners under a Commission "said to
be lost, and enrolled it is not as it ought to have been,
and it is affirmed by some that have seen it that it
passed not above twenty sheets of paper copywise." '^
Moreover, on May 5th, 1559, an Act was passed,
" That the Queen's Majesty by Commission may examine
the deprivation of spiritual persons, and restore them
again." ^* On May 6th, Bishop Bonner's last collation
was given,'" on May 29th he was deprived,'" and
the spiritualties of his see were in the hands of
the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury on June 2nd."
On June 22nd, the conge d'elire to elect his successor
recited the vacancy of the see " by the privation and
deposition of Edmund Bonner."'^ On June 21st the
Bishops of Lichfield (Baynes), Worcester (Pates),
CarHsle (Oglethorpe), Chester (Scot), and Llandaff
(Kitchen) were deprived.'" On June 25th the Bishop
of St. Asaph was deprived, the spiritualties being
seized July 15th ;'" and on June 26th the Bishops of
Winchester and Lincoln were deprived.*^ On the
i8th of July the conge d'elire for Ely mentions " the
lawful removal of Thomas [Thirlby] the last bishop," '-
™ Coke's FoKrt/i Institute, Ed. 1681, pp. 322-326.
'¦'* D'Ewes' Journal, p. 31-I.
¦^'' Burnet, History of the Reformation, II. -791.
•'" Machyn's Diary, Camden Society, p. 200.
•'^ Collier, VI. -252. ^^ Rymer, Fcedera, XV. -532.
•''J Machyn, p. 200. Strype, Annals, I.-i.-2io. Bramhall's Works,
A-C.L. III., p. 232. On July 12th the Spanish ambassador reported
that " it is feared he [Kitchen] may take the oath, as he is wearing a
bishop's garb again." On July i8th Kitchen 'gave a written promise
to enforce the oath of supremacy upon his clergy, the Queen consenting
to "defer" his own taking of it: and on that same day the Queen
issued her licence to elect Parker. Hume's Spanish State Papers, I. -86.
Lamb's History of the Thirty~nine Articles, p. 11.
¦•o Bramhall, p. 232.
^' Machyn, p. 201. Strype, p. 210, says June 25th.
*2 Rymer, XV. -537.

THE INJUNXTION'S OF ELIZABETH 45
who was deprived along with Archbishop Heath on
July 5th.'^' On July 13th, the Spanish Ambassador
reported to Philip that " the}' have deprived the
Bishops of St. David's [Morgan] and Exeter [Tuber-
ville] this week." "
The subsequent Act, 39 Elizabeth, cap. viii., refers
to the " sentence and sentences of deprivation " which
had been pronounced. This Act was passed in 1597,
when Coke was Attorney-General, and when the
Parliament also must have known all the facts.
Strype says, " the venerable Commissaries went to
the Chapter House of the said Cathedral, and there
sat judicially. The Queen's Letters Commissional
signed by her own hand and seal, were read by Peter
Lylly, Principal Register of the Queen in that
behalf."^' So Lord Coke said, "sentence is given by
Commissioners Delegates by the Prince, as by the
late Visitors, Ann. I., Elizabeth, &c.**'
Hence we may feel certain that " Commissioners '
under the Great Seal for causes ecclesiastical " must
have been in existence at the time when the Injunctions
issued : and seeing that the actual Visitation did not |
commence till August, there was ample time for the
Injunctions to have received the formal sanction of
the " High Commission."

*o'

*

Archbishop Parker wrote to Cecil, the prime minister,
on January 8th, 1571, that "thelnjunction hath authority
by proviso of the statute," and " by virtue of which law

*" Machyn, 203. Strype, 211.
¦" Hume's Spanish State Papers, Vol. I.-S9.
¦*¦' Annals, I., Part I., p. 249. ^" Fourth Institute, p. 340.

45 THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH
she pubhshed further order in her Injunctions." He adds
that Queen Elizabeth herself told him that she had
insisted on the addition of this proviso to the Act of
Uniformity expressly with a view to such " orders " as
the Injunctions contained*^; and that this was also the
recognised view taken of the Injunctions by the nation
at large is shewn by the language of the Order respect
ing " the tables in the church " which was appended
to the Injunctions. It says that " 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." Archbishop Parker, writing to
Cecil, expressly mentions this order " for the placing
of the tables within the quire" as being a "further
order " under the Act of Uniformity. Mr. Maskell
recognises that " Elizabeth, in her Injunctions which
were supplemental to her Act of Uniformit}', and
were grounded upon an especial clause in that Act,"
took order as to singing.*'' And even Mr. T. W.
Perry admits that Archbishop Parker's letter " shews
that the Injunctions were an exercise of the powers
given in the 25th section relative to ornaments, no less
than to {sic) the 26th section." ="
Whether, however, the Injunctions were issued under
the Act of Uniformity, or under the Supremacy Act, is
matter rather cf antiquarian, legal, and literary interest.
What Churchmen are more concerned to know is that
their legal, authority was undoubted, ^^ and that from

•"• Archbishop Parker's Correspondence, Parker Society Edition, p. 375.
¦" Ancient Liturgies, Preface. XIV.
'" Notes on Purchas Judgment, p. 14.
'"'¦ See Article XXXVII. of the Thirty-nine Articles.

THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH 47
the first they were held to require the surplice to the
exclusion of all " massing gear."
The evidence of this may be conveniently thrown
into the form of a
Chronological Catena.
tj59, October 20th. — Queen Elizabeth to her Commissioners
respecting " certain Ecclesiastical persons who refuse
to observe the Rites, Ceremonies, and Divine Service
ordained and provided by our laws, statutes, and
Injunctions." ^- Recusants were to be certified to the
Queen in Chancery, i.e. to the Delegates.
1560, April 1st. — Sandys, then Bishop of Worcester, one of the
Royal Commissioners for the North, reports, after his
visitation, that "all images of every kind were at our
recent visitation not only taken down, but also burnt,
and that too by public authority. . . . There remain
only in our church (Ecclesia), those Popish vestments
/ mean copes (copas intellige) ; which we hope will
not continue long." '' In October of the same year
he writes to Archbishop Parker : — " I visited with
your consent ; I proceeded orderly, according to
laws and Injunctions ; I innovated nothing ; I was
altogether led by laws." ^*
1561, September. — Archbishop Parker visiting the cathedral
and collegiate churches within his Province inquires,
" Whether your Divine Service be used and the
Sacraments ministered in manner and form prescribed
by the Queen's Majestie's Injunctions, and none
other ¦way." ''¦'
1-62. — Alle)', Bishop of -Exeter, said, " I know one preacher,
not of the basest sort nor estimation, which did glory

'- Rymer, Foedera, XV. -547.
'"' Zurich Letters, I., Appendix 43. Canon Raine observes " our
church " would mean Worcester Cathedral.
'^ Parker Correspondence, p. 126. '"'" Strype's Parker, I. -146.

48 THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH
and boast that he made eight sermons in London
against surplices, rochets, tippets, and caps, . . . matters
indifferent ; which are made politic by the prescribed
Order of the Prince." ""
1563, August 16. — Humphrey virites to Bullinger to ask,
"Whether at the command of the Sovereign (the
jurisdiction of the Pope having been abolished) and
for the sake of order and not of ornament {cultus),
habits of this kind may be worn in church (vestes
ecclesia;). ... I am speaking of that round cap and
Popish surplice, which are now enjoined us, not by-
the unlawful tyranny of the Pope, but by the just and
legitimate authority of the Queen." =7
1563.— Archbishop Parker issued his own injunctions asking,
" Whether your . . . prestos, curates or ministers do
use in the time of the celebration of Divine Service to
wear a surplice prescribed by the Queen's Majesty's
Injunclioris^^d the Book of Common Prayer." »^
1564, January. — Archdeacon Mullins, sitting by commission
from Grindal, Bishop of London, at St. Sepulchre's
Church, " Signified to them the Queen's pleasure,
which was that all orders should wear the square cap,
surplice and gown. They were therefore prayed in
a gentle manner to take on them the cap, with the
tippet to wear about their necks, aiid the gown ; . .
and to wear in the ministry of the Church the surplice
ONLY." '''' This was not subsequent to Archbishop
Parker's letter of January 30th, 1564-5, as Dr. Lewis
(p. 237) supposed, for the plague had ceased in
London on January 23rd, 1564 — see Gairdner's
Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles, pp. 125, 128.
" And it is certain from Strype's remark that the
plague was then ' slacking,' that the London clergy
were summoned in January, 1564, and not 1564-5."

¦''" Strype, Annals, I.-i.-520. , "'^ Zurich Letters, I. -154.
»s Parker's Letter to Lord Selborne, p. 195.
•¦''' Strype's Grindal, p. 144.

THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH 49
Grindal's " Form of thanksgiving to God for ceasing
the contagious sickness of the plague" is dated
January 22nd, and was published January 26th,
1563-4.GO
1564. — " On the 24th of March following," Archbishop
Parker, with Grindal and other Commissioners, sat at
Lambeth when the chancellor is reported by Strype to
have said,*"! "My masters and the ministers of London,
the Council's pleasure is that strictly ye keep the unity
of apparel like to this man. . . . that is, a square cap, a
scholar's gown (priest-like), a tippet, and in the church
a linen surplice : and inviolably observe the rubric
of the Book of Common Prayer and the Queen's
^Majesty's Injunctions."
1565. — Bishop Horn, who had returned to England early
in 1559 and took part in the public dispute " in
Westminster Quire" on March 31st, 1559, was not
a member of the House of Lords until after the
passing of the Act of Uniformity, having been made
Bishop of Winchester on February i6th, 1560. On
July 17th, 1565, i.e. prior to the issue of the "Adver
tisements," he wrote to Gaulter respecting" The Act
of Parliament, which passed before our reinstatement,
{restitutionem,)^^ by which, though the rest of the
dregs were taken away {sublata reliqua fcece) , the use
of square caps and surplices remained to the clergy,
though without superstitious conceit which was
e.vpressly guarded against in the very terms of the Act
{decreti). It was enjoined us {Injunctum) who then
had not any authority to sanction or repeal, either
to wear the caps and surplices, or to give place to

™ See Grindal's Remains, pp. 115, 267, and Clay's Liturgies set forth
in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, p. 518. Stow's Memoranda, Camden
Society, p. 128.
" Life of Grindal, p. 144.
¦¦2 The Deanery of Durham which he had held under Edward, was
restored to him in 1559. Le Neve's Fasti, 111.-299.

50 THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH
others.""' The mention of "caps'' and "the
express words " relating to " superstitious conceit " are
not found in the Act, but in the concluding sentence
of the Thirtieth Injunction, which is regarded by
Bishop Horn (who was himself one of the Visitors in
1559) as practically identified with the Act and as of
the same purport and authority.
1565, May. — Humphrey writes to the Bishops against the
apparel now ordered to be adopted. See above under
1563.M
1565, August. — Gualter writing to Humphrey: — ¦" Yt troblyth
me not a lytle that the Quenes Mai. Ordynaunce
for ye weryng of the surplisse and prests cappe,
whereas ther had bene greater nede of the reforma-
cyon and amendment of other thinges at this tyme
then to sett up agayne such Ordnances." "^
1565, November 3rd. — Bullinger writes to Bishop Horn, " It is
expressly provided, as you write, in that decree that
square caps with surplices are to be retained {reteneri)
without any superstition."'"'
1565, November 26th. — " Beaumont, Kelke, Matthew Hutton,
Longworth, respectively Masters of Trinity, Magda
lene, Pembroke, St. John's, and Whitgift, Lady
Margaret Professor, addressed Cecil their Chancellor,
that they had heard that all the students were
to be placed under a necessity of obeying an
old injunction {prcescriptum vetus') in regard to
vestments." *^
1565, December i8th. — Richard Longworth, Master of St.
John's, Cambridge, speaks of the " Queen's In
junctions for wearing surplices." ''^

''•¦' Zurich Letters, I. Appendix, 84.
''* State Papers, Domestic, Elizabeth, No. 64, p. 253.
"' Lansdowne MSS., IX., Article I.
"'' Burnet's History pf the Reformation ,' l\l.-\i.-^2&.
"!¦ Swainson's Historical Inquiry, p. 52. Strype's Parker, Appendix,
No. XXXIX.
^ State Papers, Domestic, Elizabeth, p. 263.

THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH 5I
1565. — Bishop of Lincoln (Bullingham, a Commissioner
under the Great Seal and one of the framers of
the Advertisements) visited King's College, Cam
bridge, and gave injunctions to the Romish Provost,
Dr. Philip Baker, " to destroy a great deal of
Popish stuff, as mass books, legends, couchers,
and grails, copes, vestments, candlesticks, crosses,
pixes, paxes, and the brazen rood ; which the Provost
did not perform, but preserved them in a secret
corner. . . . He used one Mr. Woolward very ex
tremely (who was afterwards Fellow of Eton) because
he would not execute the service at the Communion
with his face towards the east and his back towards
the congregation"' according to the manner of the
Mass ; for the denial of which he was like to be
expelled, and had been, had not one of the Queen's
Injunctions been his warrant." ™ This Ritualistic
Provost was deprived by the Royal Commissioners
and bolted to Louvain.
1565, December 22nd. — -Bishop Jewel declined to institute
Humphrey " in respect of this vain contention about
apparel." '^ (See above under " 1563.")
1565. — Bishop Geste " in the month of December, this year "
{i.e. 1564-5), drew up for the Prime Minister, a paper
to shew "that the apparel of priests may be worn." ''-
In it, he says the Puritans " have been borne withal
herein almost these six years." ^' He twice expresses
the wish that " it were in print declared " that the
priest's dress was worn "not for religion, but for
order and obedience." This (coupled with the
" 6 years ") fixes the date, because the Advertisements

''° This word "congregation " in the Lansdowne MSS., VIII., No. 53,
has been carelessly altered by Strj-pe into " table."
'" Strype's Grindal, p. 210. Grindal's Remains, p. 308.
¦' Jewel's Works, IV. -1265. '^ Strype's Life of Parker, I.-339.
~' Dugdale's Life of Geste, p. 204. A *

52 THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH
of 1566 contained this very declaration " in print." '¦*
Geste urges " It is most plainly known, that [it] is
the Queen's Majesty's Injunction and commandment,
that we ministers should wear priests' apparel." '=
That this related to the dress of " ministration " is
shewn by the "third reason " attributed by Geste to
Puritans in which they cite Romish writers on ritual
to prove " tha:f priests' apparel hath many superstitious
significations: and hath been and should be sanctified'
[which the outdoor dress never was]: 'and judgeth it
so necessary, that ministers cannot serve God well in
the church without it."''" In reply Bishop Geste
takes each of the items of dress complained of and
parallels it with an existing secular usage of the same
vesture by laymen. He says : —
"The lawyer weareth a tippet and. a gown, like a
-papistical priest; yet no man judgeth him to sin,
or to be a papist therefore. The mourner weareth
a cap like a priest : yet no man reproveth him, or
thinketh him to be a papist for it. The porter,
the horsekeeper, som^tirtie wear a linen garment, like
a surplice, yet no man judgeth them to do amiss,
or to be 'papists for it. Therefore, it is not the
fashion of priests' garments that hath the appearance
of evil." ''''
1566, January 20th. — The Vice-Chancellor to Cecil: "Mr.
Beaumont wished to know if he can deprive a man
for not wearing a surplice." ™
1566, 'February 8th. — Bishop Jewel writes: "The contention
respecting that linen church dress (de Ecclesiastical
veste linea) is not yet at rest . . . but the Queen can

¦' Cardwell's Documentary Annals, I.-289. Strype's Parker, III.-S5.
'•' Dugdale, p. 205. '^ Ibid., ¦p. 206.
" Ibid., p. 208. Crowley, the Puritan Vicar of St, Giles', Cripple-
gate, called the choristers' surplices " porters' coats," Parker Corre
spondence, p, 276, Gairdner's Three Fifteenth-Century Chronicles, p, 136.
'' State Papers, Domestic, Elizabeth, p, 267.

THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH 53
bear no change in religion at this time." 79 He
had spoken of it as " ista Xi.vo<tto\m" on February
/th, 1562.80
1566, March 20th.— Archbishop Parker and Grindal write
-to Cecil, stating that "we intende particulerly to
examine every of them, whether they will promyse
conformytie in there mynistrations and outwarde
apparel], stablished by lawe and Injunction." ^i
1566. — "The xxvj day of Marche, in anno ~i 5 66, beyng
Twesday, ye parsons and mynystars of ye churches in
and aboughl London were , (by commaundyment)
at Lambethe, before ye Archebyshoppe of Caunter-
bury and othar of ye cownsell, wher charge was gyven
to them to sarve theyr churchis and were theyr
aparayll accordyng to ye quens Injunctions, or ells
to do no sarvyce. And that same weke or ye
begynyng of ye next came forthe a boke in print
subscribyd by ye Archebyshope of Cauntorbury, ye
Byshopps of London, Wynchester, Elii, and dyvers
othar," viz. the " Advertisements (see below, p. 62) of
Queen Elizabeth." *** .
All the instances above cited, it will be observed,
were prior to the publication of the Advertisements,
when the Rubric and the Thirtieth Injunction were
the only " laws" regulating the dress of the clergy at
" all times of their ministration." Mr. Reunion is of
opinion that the Thirtieth Injunction of 1559 was
that " other Order " by the Queen contemplated in the
proviso of her Act of Uniformity. If so, a statutory
authority supplanted from the very first the provisional
adoption of the vestments of the First Prayer Book —
supposing, that is, that the popular theory is correct

'•'^ Zurich Letters, I., Appendix p. 89, ^ Ibid., p. 59,
»' Lansdowne MSS., VIII,, No. 86.

54 THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH
which assumes that such ornaments were authorised
either by the proviso itself, or by thejllegitimate fraud -
rubric which in Elizabeth's printed Prayer^ Books had
been, without authority, substituted for the statutory
Rubric of 1552, then freshly enacted by the third section
I Elizabeth, cap. ii.
For myself, I prefer the alternative theory, viz. that
the Rubric of 1552 was designed by the Elizabethan
Act of Uniformity to stand in full legal force from the
first, and that the proviso in the Act merely related to
the retention and utilisation of the discarded and illegal
ornaments of 1549 by the legal custodians of the
parish goods, until "order" could be "taken" by the
Royal Visitors to ensure their disposal without waste
or loss. That theory, however, will require separate
treatment in another paper. See p. 91. But if, for the
moment, we may assume that theory to be true, the
Injunctions of 1559 will be seen to fall into line as
administrative enforcements by the executive of the
\ Statutory Rubric of 1552 which, until 1661, remained
in law (and, very nearly, in fact) the sole standard of
\ ministerial dress.
But the proof that the Thirtieth Injunction related
to the dress of the Officiants in Divine Service, and
coincided with the standard of the Advertisements of
EHzabeth (instead of conflicting with it, as has been
popularly supposed), would be incomplete without
further evidence of the action of the authorities during
the reign of Elizabeth, subsequent to 1566. We there
fore continue our chain of witnesses. At the very
moment of issuing the Advertisements, Archbishop
Parker (in his official letter to the Dean of Booking,
enclosing a copy of the new book), wrote on

THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH 55
1566, March 28th. — " Divers parsons . . . have not conformed
themselves to the Queen's Majesty's laws and
Injunctions in the administration of public prayers
and sacraments and in outward apparel."^- And an
undated letter of George ^\'ithers to the Elector
Palatine about the same time said : " In what way
the Sacraments are disfigured by human inventions,
M ill easilv appear from the public form of prayer, the
royal Injunctions, and the admonitions, or (as they
call them) the Advertisements of the Bishops." ^'
1566, Mav ist. — Bullinger replying to two letters of February
9th and i6th says: " Sureh" I like it not in an}-wyse
that (if ye were commanded) ye should say service at
an altar, rather burthened than beautified with the
image of a crucifix, in massing apparel, that is in an
alb and in a Vestment, which hath the pictuie of
Christ hanging on the back." This is quoted from
the cfficial translation put forth by Archbishop
Parker '^ and his brother Bishops, and printed by
Jugge cum privitegio in 1566, of ^^•hich there is a
copy in the British Museum "877.6.3." In the
margin opposite the word "vestment" is printed
" casula." In the Lansdowne JISS., IX. -44, is a
copy which reads " in veste missatica, hoc est in alba
et casula." Strype also correctly gives the -^^ord
" casula." ^^ Bishop Burnet, however, carelessly
misprinted the word as " copa," and was followed by
the Parker Society's translator.^" But Mr. Pocock in
his edition of Burnet {XI.-48g) has ascertained that
the original letter at Zurich reads " casula." Burnet's
blunder, however, misled the counsel employed on
both sides in the Case and Opinion published by

'^- Archbishop Parker's Register, I.-257. *^ Zurich Letters, II.-163.
^ Strj-pe's Annals, I.-ii.-i75. Both Grindal and Horn claim to have
"printed" Bullinger's letter (Zurich Letters, I.-16S, 175!, and this is
explained by Abel's letter of June 6th, 1566, in which he says it was
done " by order of the Commissioners " (Zurich Letters, II. -120).
^ Annals, I.-ii., AppendLx, No. 24, * Zurich Letters, 1,-345.

56 THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH
"several Archbishops and Bishops," and by the
English Church Union, respectively, in 1866. The
true reading is important, because the cope never was
a " mass garment," and the meaning of the rubrical
j word " Vestment " (which Dr. Lewis had questioned)
is conclusively shoAvn to be the Chasuble. Bullinger
enclosed a copy of his letter in another (dated May
3rd, 1566) to Bishops Horn, Grindal, and Parkhurst,
by whom it was published, greatly to the disgust of
the Puritans.87 Bullinger goes on to say that he
learns from his English correspondents that there
"is now no dispute concerning habits of this kind,
but the question is, whether it be lawful for ministers
of the Gospel to wear a round or square cap, and a
white garment, which they call a surplice."
1566, July. — In their reply to Bullinger, the Puritan leaders do
not pretend that the alb or chasuble were in question,
but they complain " the surplice and cope are being
brought back " {revocantur) by the Advertisements.^^
1566. — The Vicar of Southbemfleet was presented, "because
he doth not observe the Injunctions, and will not
minister in a surples." Other like instances will be
found in Hale's Precedents in Criminal Cases, pp. 126,
149, 177, i^6, 210, 226, 243.
1567. — Archbishop Parker inquired from each of the Cathedral
and Collegiate churches of his Province — I. " Whether
they use seemly or priestly garments, according as
they are commanded by the Queen's Majesty's
Injunctions to do?" — "III. Whether your Divine
Service be used, and your sacraments ministered in
manner and form prescribed by the Queen's Majesty's
Injunctions, and none other way ? " ^^
1569. — Archbishop Parker's articles for his diocese — " III.
Whether your priests, curates, or ministers do use in

'^ Zurich Letters, 11,-124. "' Ibid., I., Appendix, p. 94.
"' Cardwell's Documentary Annals, 1,-304.

THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH 57
the time of celebration of Divine Service to wear a
surplice prescribed by the Queen's Majesty's Injunc
tions and the Book of Common Prayer ? " '^"
i5<5y.— Parkhurst's Visitation Articles, "Imprimis, whether
your Divine Service be said or sung in due time and
reverently, and the sacraments duly and reverently
ministered in such decent apparel as is appointed by
the laws, the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions, and
other Orders set forth by public authority in that
behalf." 91
1570, September 25th. — Queen Elizabeth wrote to Bishop
Parkhurst to take proceedings against any that had
" in any of the rites of the Church, as in the
ministration of the sacraments or other ceremonies,
used any innovation, by making alterations from the
orders prescribed and established by the statutes and
ordinances of the realm, or explained by the Queen's
Injunctions. "9-
1571, August 20th. — Queen Elizabeth writes to Archbishop
Parker, directly rtferring the Advertisements to her
letter if January i^th, 1565 (see below, p. 77) —
" ^^^le^e we required you, as the Metropolitan of our
realm, and as the principal person-in our Commission
for causes ecclesiastical, to have good regard that such
uniform order in the Divine Service and rules of the
Church miglit be duly kept, as by the laws in that
behalf is provided, and by our Injunctions also declared
and explained," charging him " by all means lawful
to proceed herein as you have begun," and insisting
on " the observation of our laws. Injunctions, and
commandments." ^3

*> Cardwell's Documentary Annals, 1,-321,
" Ritual Commission, Second Report, Appendix, p, 405,
"^ Strype's Parker, 11,-36,
'^ Parker Correspondence, p. 386, Cardwell has misprinted "require "
instead of required, and thus obscures the Queen's reference to her
former letter of January, 1565,

58 THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH
157 1. — Bishop Cox, Visitation Articles for Ely, " Every parson,
vicar, and curate shall use in the time of the cele
bration of Divine Service to wear a surplice, prescribed
by the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions and the Book of
Common Prayer, and shall keep and observe all other
rites and orders prescribed in the same Book of
Common Prayer and Injunctions, as well about the
celebration of the sacraments, as also in their comely
and priestlyke apparel, to be worn according to the
precept set forth in the book called Advertisements." "¦*
1573, November 7th. — The Privy Council write to urge the
Bishops " to the keeping of the orders allowed by the
said Parliament and by Her Majesty's Injunctions." •"
1573, November 24th. — Archbishop Parker directs Sandys,
Bishop of London (as Dean of the Province of
Canterbury), to require each of his suffragans to see
" that one uniform order in the celebration of Divine
Service and ministration of the Sacraments should be
used and observed in all places of this Her Highness'
realm and dominions, according to the Book of
Common Prayer set forth by public authority and
Her Majesty's Injunctions."'"'
^573- — Archbishop Parker's Visitation Articles for the Diocese
of Canterbury are in the British Museum (^-M).
Questions i and 4 speak of the "Advertisements
lately set forth by public authority " ; and Question 3
asks for the surplice "prescribed by the Injunctions
and the book of common prayer."
1574- — Cartwright, speaking of the surplice, says: "They
pretend, I confess, the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions,
and obedience to them." "''
15 75-— Archbishop Parker in Visitation of Winchester asks,
"XVI. Whether they . . . minister the Sacraments
reverently in such sort as is set forth by the laws of

" Second Report of the Ritual Commission, Appendix, 406,
'¦'¦' Cardwell's Documentary Annals, 1,-352.
'¦'" Parker Correspondence, p, 451, '^ 'Whitgift's Works, 11,-7.

THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH 59
this realm, the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions, and
the Advertisements." ^8
1576. — Archbishop Grindal, Visitation Articles, "Whether your
Divine Service be used, and the Sacraments ministered
in manner and form prescribed in the Queen's
^Majesty's Injunctions, and none otherwaies." ^^
1578, July [St. — Williams, a Fellow of Manchester Collegiate
Church, was bidden to " Wear the surplice . . .
according to the Queen's Injunctions." i""
1584. — Archbishop Whitgift Visitation Articles, " Whether doth
your minister in public prayer-time wear a surplesse
and go abroad apparelled, as by Her ^Majesty's
Injunctions and Advertisements prescribed." ^"^
1585. — Archbishop Whitgift, in Articles for Chichester, repeats
verbatim the last inquiry. i'^-
158S. — Archbishop Whitgift, Articles for Salisbury, "Whether
have you in your church all things necessary for
the common prayer, and due administration of the
Sacraments according to Her Majesty's laws and
Injunctions ? " i*'^
1589. — Archbishop Whitgift repeats verbatim the above in his
Visitations of Canterbury and Rochester. i*^*
159&. — Chaderton, Bishop of Lincoln, asks in his Visitation
" Whether your parson . . administer the sacraments,
wearing a surplice according to the Queen's Injunc
tions." ^"^
At that date the printing of the Injuiic^ons had
probably ceased, their place having been taken by the
Advertisements, as afterwards by the Canons of 1604.

''^ Second Report of the Ritual Commission, Appendix, p, 416.
'" Cardwell's Documentary Annals, 1,-364.
"" Raine's Chetham Miscellanies, Vol. V., p. 6,
"" Droop's Edwardian Vestments, p, 17,
'°- Cardwell's Documentary Aitnals, II.-35, Edition 1844,
"° Documentary Annals, 11,-14.
^0* Strype's Whitgift, 1,-594.
'"» Article 15, British Museum, "5155, -x. 20."

60 THE INJUNCTIONS OF ELIZABETH
They continued to be cited, however, in the Visitation
Articles down to (and long after) the latest of those
reprinted by the Ritual Commission. Strype in 1709
spoke of " the apparel prescribed to ministers by the
Queen's Injunctions, viz. ... in their ministration the
surplice." "'"
Archdeacon Sharp in 1735 said, " Her Injunctions
have the sanction of that Parliament which granted
her the said power, and the sanction too of the Act of
Uniformity after the restoration, which by this Rubric
now under consideration refers, according to the
explanation now given to it, to her Injunctions." ^'^^
And Mr. Droop in his latest edition says,i'-^ " The most
probable view seems to me to be, that when the
Injunctions were issued in July, 1559, Elizabeth and
her advisers intended their Thirtieth Injunction to apply
' both in the Church and without,' and to prescribe
only the surplice in church." It will be noticed that in
the extracts dated after 1566 the identity of the require
ments of the Injunctions and Advertisements and the
undoubted application of both to the dress of minis
tration, is always assumed.

""" Annals, I.-ii,-i25, Edition 1824, '"' On the Rubric, p. 66,
1"* Edwardian Vestments, p, 80.

IV
^be advertisements of ©uecn ]Ell3at>etb

DR. Littledale wrote in the Times of January 26th,
1886, as follows : —
"It is certain, and the Court had the fact laid before
it, that these Advertisements were not issued by Queen
Elizabeth at all, since Archbishop Parker declares, in
a letter to the Prime Minister, Sir William Cecil, on
March 28th, 1566, that he had not been able to get the
Queen's authority for the Advertisements, which he
thought had nothing in them against the law of the
realm, and that he had been obliged to assay his own
authority in issuing them ; while Strype tells us that
Cecil's own copy was endorsed with the words
' These not authorised nor pubhshed.' Here then is
indisputable evidence from the chief personages in
Church and State at the time, entirely overthrowing
the inferential guesswork with which the Privy Council
sought to establish the ro^al character of these
Advertisements." The statement bristles with mistakes. "Cecil's own
copy," of what Strype called "Articles or Ordinances,"
was in MS. only, bearing the above "endorsement"
made in "1564" (Old Style), and was not "The"
Advertisements, but was a document differing from the

62 THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH
printed book sent by Archbishop Parker for Cecil's
perusal on March 28th, 1566 (New Style). It was the
former, and not the latter which Parker said had
failed to gain the Queen's approval ; for which very
reason it had been in the interval extensively altered.
Archbishop Parker does not say a word about ' ' assaying
with his own authority to isstts " the book, but to
execute and administer the laws which were in force
prior to that " issue." And at least five separate
Elizabethan editions still remain out of the many
" published " during Cecil's lifetime, which he himself
personally assisted in enforcing.
Since the Ridsdale Judgment was delivered, the
Camden Society have published a contemporary
chronicle by John Stowe, which enables us to fix the
date of the Advertisements with tolerable certainty.
In Gairdner's Three Fifteenth -Century Chronicles, p. 135,
we have the following entry in Stowe's diary : —
" The xxvj day of Marche, in anno 1566, bejmg
Twesday, y'= parsons and mynystars of y" churches in
and abought London were (by commaundyment) at
Lambethe, before y'^ Archebyshoppe of Caunterbury
and othar of y" cownsell, wher charge was gyven to
them to sarve theyr churchis and were theyr aparayll
accordyng to y" quens injunctions, or ells to do no
sarvyce. And that same weke or y' begynyng of y^ next
came forthe a boke in print subscribyd by y"
Archebyshope of Cauntorbury, y" Byshopps of London,
Wynchester, Elii, and dyvers othar, whiche apoynted
y'= sayd mynistars to were theyre gownes and clokes
with standynge colars and corneryd capse, and at theyr
servyce to were syrplysys, or els not to mynstar, &ct.'
This corresponds with the date fixed in Archbishop

THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH 63
Parker's letter to Cecil of November 15th, 1573, in
which he says " Order hath been taken publicly this
seven years by Commissioners, according to the statute,
that fonts should not be removed." ^
"Seven years" from 1573 brings us back to 1566;
and the allusion was to the direction of the
Advertisements, "that the fonte be not removed, nor
that the curate do baptize in parish churches in any
basons," &c.- Mr. James Parker tries to evade this
by suggesting that the Order of 1561 may be the one
referred to, or that it is a " reference to nothing more
than the Rubric " ! ^ But the Rubric (which says
nothing about "removing" fonts) was not an "Order
by Commissioners " ; and 1561 was not " seven years "
before 1573 : so that we may reasonably prefer to the
ingenuit}'^ of Mr. James Parker the candour of the
Rev. T. W. Perry, who admits that "the 'Order'
here referred to is, no doubt, the direction of the
Advertisements." *
We know also from the very letter referred to by
Dr. Littledale as having been sent by Archbishop
Parker to Cecil on March 28th, 1566, that the " new
printed " book and the draft letter issuing it had both
been submitted to Cecil and were "yet stayed " for
Cecil's approval. It had been previously sent to him
in the rough, on March 12th, 1566.° Alterations had
been made by Cecil, as, for instance, the penalty of
"sequestration, not deprivation," which on March 12th

' Parker Correspondence, p. 450. - Documentary Annals, 1,-292.
^ Letter to Selborne, pp, 164, 208.
¦• On Purchas Judgment, p. 70. See Zurich Letters, II.-149.
* Parker Correspondence, p. 263.

64 THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH
had Stood as part of the MS. draft," was struck out
before the book was " new printed," and finally
submitted to Cecil on March 28th. No penalty
whatever was retained in the Advertisements as
"issued." In the form ultimately agreed upon between Cecil
and the Metropolitan, the "new printed book" (having
been found to agree with the draft previously settled
between them) was " issued " by the Archbishop (in a
formal series of letters to Grindal, Bishop of London,
to the Dean of the Arches, and to three Ordinaries of
Peculiars) immediately on his getting back the " printed
book " from the Queen's Secretary. These letters are
all entered in Archbishop Parker's Register at Lambeth,
Vol. I., p. 257, et seq. On April 4th, Archbishop
Parker writes to Cecil that " my lord of London and
I dismissed them all' [the London nonconforming
Ministers] ' with our Advertisements." ' Before this,
on March 26th, Parker had told Cecil that he and
Bishop Cox were of opinion that "if London were
reformed, all the realm would soon follow." ^
Having therefore thus dealt, by way of example, with
the " London ministers," Grindal (as Dean of the
Province) sent out on May 21st to the other Bishops
of the Province of Canterbury, and to the Dean and
Chapter of St. Paul's, for their own " deanery," the
printed book. The covering letter to the Dean of
St. Paul's is printed in the State Papers, Domestic,
Elizabeth, Vol. XXXIX., No. 76.
" After my hartie comendacyons these are to require

" Parker Correspondence, p, 264. Strype's Parker, III, -92,
' Parker Correspondence, p. 277. ' Ibid., p. 270.

THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH 65
and to give yo" in especyall charge that w"' all
convenyent speed yo" call before 3'0" all & singuler the
mynisters and Ecchasticall ^sons wth'" 3-0'^ deanry of
Poules and office, and to pscribe & enjo3-ne everie of
them upon payne of deprivation to prepare forthw"' and
to weare such habit and apparell as is orde3-ned by the
Queenes majesties authoritie expressed in the treaty
intituled the advertisemen'% &c. which I send heerein
enclosed unto yo'' and in like to injoyne everie of them ,
under the said pa3'ne of deprivacon as well to observe
the order of m3-nistracon in the Church with surples,
and in such forme as is sett forth in the saide treatie,
as alsoe to require the subscription of every of them
to the said Advertisem'^ And yf 3-0" shall pceive anj' of
them to be disobedient w"^"" shall refuse to conforme
themselves heerein, that then w"'out an3' delay yo"
certifie me the names of all such before Tr3'nitie
Sundaie next ensuinge to the intent I male |iceed to
the reformacon and deprivacon of everie of them-as
appertaj-neth in this case with a Certificate allsoe of
the names of such as pmiseth conformytie. And thus
I bidd 3'0" farwell from my bowse in London, this
xxith of Male, 1566."
• Yo'' in Christ,
Indorssed EDM. LONDON.
To the right-worshippfull the Deane & Chapter
OF PowLES, Yeve theise.
This fixes the date of the "issue" as between
March 28th and April 3rd, 1566, for London (compare
Stowe as above cited), and May 21st for the rest of the
Province of Canterbury. In the interval (just before
April 28th) " the Queen's Majesty willed my lord of

66 THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH
York to declare her pleasure determinately to have the
Order go forward," i° and thus the Northern Province
also came under the same rule.
The following chronological table may enable the
reader to take a bird's-eye view of the changes which
preceded the " issue " of the Advertisements : —
TABLE.
A,D. 1561 1^ (March?).— "Interpretations" (in MS) of the
Injunctions partially drafted by Bishop Cox
(according to Strype ; the C. C. C. Cambridge copy
being also annotated by Archbishop Parker), but
never finished, nor authorised. These may possibly
be the " Articles partly of old agreed upon amongst
us," mentioned in Archbishop Parker's letter of
March 3rd, 1565. Portion^ have been published
by Strype and Cardwell, but the whole of them
have never yet been printed.
A.D. 1562, Ju'y aoth. — Letters Patent appointing as Royal
Commissioners the first four signatories of the
Adverti sements .1-
A.D. 1565, January 25th. — Queen's Letter to Archbishop
Parker, saying, " We do by these our present letters
require . . . you being the Metropolitan . . (as
the like we will order for the province of York) to
confer with your brethren, namely, such as be in
commission fur causes ecclesiastical . . so to
proceed by Order, injunction, or censure, according
to the order and appointment of such laws and
ordinances as are provided hy Act of Parliament . . .

1° Parker Correspondence, p. 280. The High Commissioners enforced
"the Advertisements" by name in the diocese of Durham in 1577.
Balme's Church and the Ornaments Rubric, p. 78,
" That this, and not 1559, is the true date. See Perry on Purchas
Judgment, p, 450. Parker's Letter to Selborne, p, 98.
'^ Prothero's Select Statutes, p. 232.

THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH 6/
so as uniformity of order may be kept in every
church, and without variety and contention."!'^
A,D. 1565, February 2&th. — Certificates sent in from every
church as to "varieties in the Service." Archbishop
Parker had written for these on January 30th.!''
A.D. 1565, March 3rd. — Rough draft of " Ordinances " as
devised by the Commissioners under the Great
Seal for Causes Ecclesiastical, sent by Parker to
Cecil.i5
A.D. 1565, March 8th, — Fair copy of revised MS. "Ordinances"
endorsed by Cecil as "not authorised nor
published."!" Da Silva said "the order has been
dropped by Leicester's help." ^^
[An interval of twelve months remains without record.]
A.D. i5'55, March loth. — Archbishop Parker's " first " interview
with Queen Elizabeth respecting enforcement of
discipline. {Parker Correspondence, p. 278.)
A,D. 1566, March 12. — Archbishop Parker sends rough draft of
the Advertisements to Cecil. {Parker Correspon
dence, p. 263.)
A.D. 1566, March 17 circa. — Archbishop Parker's special inter
view (Grindal being also sent for) with Queen
Elizabeth. {Parker Correspondence, p. 273.)
A.D. 1566, March 28th. — Parker sends the printed Advertise
ments to Cecil, and writes to Grindal an official
letter reciting how "The Queen's Highness hath
expressly charged both you and me, of late being
therefore called to her presence, to see her laws
executed, and good Orders decreed." He charges
'¦' Parker Correspondence, p. 223.
" Parker Correspondence, p, 227. Lamb's Lctfers from C, C, C. Library,
P- 314- 1° Parker Correspondence, p. 233.
'^ This endorsement is not on the Petyt MS., but someone has
added at the beginning the date " 14 Marcii, 1564 " (i.e. 1564-5).
Strype says his copy was dated "Mar. 1564," The outside wrapper
may have been lost. Strype's Parker, I. -314,
'' Hume's State Papers, Spanish, I. -401, Compare State Papers,
Foreign, Elizabeth, under date June 4th,

68 THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH
him as he will answer " To Her Majesty, to see
Her jNIajesty's laws and injunctions duly observed
within your diocese, and also these our convenient
Orders described in these books," &c. {Parker Cor-
resp07idence,-pp. 2'ji, 273.) This letter also fixes
the date of the Advertisements by speaking of the
Queen's letterof January 25th, 1565, as "addressed
to them now, a year past and more."
A.D. 1566, April 4th. — The Advertisements publicly enforced in
London. {Parker Correspondence, p. 276.)
A,D. 1566, April 28th. — The Order to go forward in Province of
York. (Parker Correspondence, p. 280.) Archbishop
Parker and (May 4th) Grindal write to Cecil to get
members of the Privy Council to sit with the Com
missioners. {Parker Correspondence, p. 280, and
Grindal's Remains, p. 2S9.)
A.D. 1566, May 2 ist. — Advertisements issued by Grindal to
Bishops of Canterbury Province, "according as
hath been heretofore used." {Parker Correspon
dence, p. 273-)
A,D. 1566, May 27th. — Privy Council enforced the Advertise
ments for " Crossed Caps." {State Papers, Doineslic,
Elizabeth, Vol. XXXIX., No. 82.)
A.D. 1566, June 6th. — Ditto for Surplice, &c. (2 Zurich Letters,
pp. 119, 143. Parker Correspondence, p. 285.)
,\.D. I ^65, June 6th. — Before this date Parker and the Commis
sioners published Bullinger's " Resolutions." See
p. ^5. {Zurich Letters, 1 1.- 120, 124.)
Looking back over the above table, it will be readil3-
perceived that Dr. Littledale has transferred Cecil's
" endorsement " upon the rejected MS. " Ordinances "
of March 8th, 1565, to the printed Advertisements
which alone were " authorised and published, '' and
which were issued for London between March 28th and
April 4th, 1566. The title, preamble, form, penalties,
provision for doctrinal subscriptions, and ver3- mam-
other details had been changed in the "printed book'"

THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH 6g
which was signed by Geste, Bishop of Rochester, and
"others": whereas the MS. "Ordinances" of 1565
were devised " only " by the Bishops of London,
Winchester, Ely, Lincoln, and Parker himself.^*
Let us next examine Dr. Littledale's statement that
" evidence from the chief personages in Church and
State at the time " overthrows " the Royal character
of the Advertisements."
Who were these " chief personages " ? Clearly not
the anonymous Puritan pamphleteers who published
without either printer's or author's names, and without
even a date. These unscrupulous and obscure contro
versialists would have readily appealed to the Court of
Queen's Bench for protection against any unlawful
attempts to " deprive " them of their freeholds, if there
had been the smallest substance in their fanciful con
tention. In Sampson's case praemunire was, in fact,
threatened.^" We know that under Elizabeth, prohibitions habitu
ally and frequently took causes not only " out of the
Archbishops' and Bishops' Courts, but even out of the
hands of the Queen's Ecclesiastical Commissioners and
her Court of Delegates."-" But in no single instance!
did a Nonconformist venture to challenge before the
courts of law the " Royal authority of the Advertise
ments." Like Dr. Littledale, they preferred to make
their appeal from the decisions of the Queen's Courts
to the ill-informed " religious " public. But, unhke
Dr. Littledale, they abused " the chief personages in

'* Parker Correspondence, p, 233, Geste's name (alone) is added at foot
of the Petyt MS,, p, 521, after those of "the devisers,"
" Strype's Cra«m«;', Ecclesiastical History Society Edition, II, -129
note, 20 Strype's Whitgift, 11,-427.

70 THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH
Church and State" for procuring a "Royal edict" as
they habitually call the Advertisements. True, they
sometimes affect to doubt the Royal authority; but
the insincerity of this inconsistent conduct is laid bare
by Withers (one of their leaders), who warned the
Prince Elector Palatine "you must take especial care
to transfer all the blame from the Queen unto the
Bishops, who do not act the part of her advisers with
the freedom that becomes them, and which it is right
they should exercise. For as to their asserting both
at home and to foreigners that they do not themselves
approve these measures, but that they execute them
at the instigation of the Queen, they both themselves
command them in books pubhcly set forth for that
very purpose, and state that it is done by the Queen after
a good and pious counsel." =^ The " chief personages
both in Church and State" were quite alive to this
Puritan device. Archbishop Parker wrote to Cecil :
" As for the Queen's Majesty's part, in my expostula
tion with many of them I signify their disobedience,
wherein, because they see the danger, they cease to
impute it to Her Majesty." ""
Bishop Cox, in 1572, makes this very charge against
them.-^ Barrow and Greenwood practised the same
course, carefully exempting the Queen in order to
fasten blame upon the Bishops."'
No respectable writer on the Puritan side who pub
lished anything with his own name to his book ever
adopted this shabby artifice. Cartwright, and the
" Admonition to Parliament " ignore it. On the other

2' Zurich Letters, 11,-164, - Parker Correspondence, p. 237,
"' Zurich Letters, I. -235. -' Strype's Whitgift, II.-1S7,

THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN" ELIZABETH 7I
hand, let us see what the responsible Ordinaries
who had to administer the law (at their own risk if
the3' exceeded their powers) publicly_stated in Eliza
beth's own lifetime as to the " Royal character of
the Advertisements."
That the risk was keenly felt is shown by a memor
andum (in Cecil's handwriting) of a Privy Council
meeting on June 4th, 1565 — " The Bishops complain
that they dare not execute the ecclesiastical laws to
the furtherance of religion for fear of the praemunire
wherewith the judges and lawj-ers of the realm being
not well affected in religion, threaten them, some
authority might be given them from the Queen to
continue during her pleasure."--' Leicester's influence
steadily declined from this time.-"
1566, !May 2ist. — In the letter before referred to as
sent by Grindal with the copies distributed to the
Bishops of the Province of Canterbur3', he said : Ever3-
minister " upon pain of deprivation to prepare forth
with and to wear such habit and apparel as is ordained
by the Queen's Majesty's authority expressed in theTreat3-
intituled the Advertisements, &c., which I send herein
enclosed to 3'ou."
Now, to obviate the force of these words, Mr. James (
Parker has first of all, at p. 56, interpolated a comma
after the word " authorit3' " and before the word (
"expressed," and then further interpolated the word
"as "before "expressed" {ibid.), for which he finally

*' Stevenson's State Papers, Foreign, Elizabeth, June 4th, 1565.
^^ See Lewis' Reformation Settlement, p, 255. This same fear of prae
munire was felt in 1562, and even in 1571 on the part of subscribers
lo the Thirty-nine Articles. See Bennet's Essay, pp, 208, 270,

ll

72 THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH
substitutes the word " and ". So that at p. 207 of
his "letter to Lord Selborne" he prints in parallel
columns the Ridsdale Judgment and his own counter-
statement as follows : —
Mr. Jas. Parker's " Synopsis," p. 207.

Immediately after their issue
on May 21st, Bishop Grindal
wrote to the Dean of St Paul's,
stating they were issued by the
Queen's authority. Ridsdale, p. 9.

Grindal does not state this.
He says : " Such habit as is
ordeyned by authority and
expressed in the Advertise
ments." Letter ^6, SI-

This method of quotation is adopted in order to show
how the " chief personages " repudiated " Royal "
authority !
1566, May 25th. — Guzman da Silva, the Spanish
ambassador, reports to his master : " Although by
order of the Queen, and after much exhortation,
measures have been taken to make clergymen wear
their ancient garb as I wrote some time ago, not only-
have many refused to obey, but have written against
it, and even against the Queen, who, they say, had no
right to make such an order." He mentions too that
"the Queen believed, or was informed that the Bishop
of London [Grindal] would not execute the order very
zealously, and she rated him soundly, and threatened
to punish him for an anabaptist, with other expressions
of the same sort.""^ It is interesting to compare this
with the Parker Correspondence, p. 278.
1566, June 6th. — Abel writes of "the Queen's com
mand respecting the cap and surplice."-^
-'' Hume's Spanish State Papers, 1,-553. ^ Zurich Letters, 11,-119.

THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH 73
1566, June 29th. — The Privy Council put forth an
order that no one " should print any book against . . .
any injunction, letters patent, or ordinances passed or set
forth, or to be passed or set forth by the Queen's grant,
commission, or authorit3-." x\nd a Royal pardon spoke
of divers, who " for refusing to wear such distinct and
decent apparel as by public Order is commanded, by
due order of law alread3' are deprived." -'''
This explains why the criticism of the Advertise
ments was anonymous, why no printer dared to put
his name to these " books," and also the view taken of
them b3' the " chief personages in Church and State at
the time."
1566, October (27th?).— In a minute of the Privy
Council, Mr. Crowley was said to have been com
mitted "in summer last," "for disobeying such Orders
as were thought requisite by the Queen's Majesty."-®
Now Crowley's committal took place on that 4th
of April, 1566, when " my Lord of London and I
dismissed them all with our Advertisements." ^^
Crowley immediately published "A Declaration of the
doings of those ministers of God's Word and Sacra
ments in the city of London, which have refused to
wear the upper apparell and ministering garments of
the Pope's Church." As a side-heading is the title
"The Bishop's Advertisements." Thus what the
Puritans (for strategic reasons) called " the Bishop's
Advertisements " were recognised by the Privy Council
as " Orders " emanating from the Queen.
'^^ Strype's Parker, I. -442, 111,-154. Dasent's Acts of the Privy
Council, VII, -315,
^ Shaw's Argument in Ridsdale Case, p, 529. The Lansdowne MS.,
982, folio 104, gives the date as October 28th.
^^ Parker Correspondence, p, 277.

74 THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH
1567. — Archbishop Parker's articles forthe visitation
of Norwich are in the British Museum. T -%-¦ They
are preceded by " instructions to the Commissioners,"
the first of which is " to reduce the clergy unto one
uniform order in their ministration and preaching; and
that without any partial respect you will put in due
execution the Queen's Majesty's ecclesiastical laws,
statutes, injunctions, and her Highness's other com
mandments given and published in that behalf." The
fifth was the articles " together bound with the Adver
tisements, fourpence." Cardwell, who correctl3' says'^
that these same articles were designed for all the
Cathedrals in the Province of Canterbury, unfortunately
omitted these preceding directions.
In answer to the " Third Article " the return from
Canterbury Cathedral made by George Gardyner,
Prebendarj^, was — " The communion is administered
in a chalice contrar3', as he saith, to the Advertise
ments of the Queen." ^-
1569. — Archbishop Parker^^ and Bishop Parkhurst^*
both refer to the Advertisements as " set forth by
public authority " ; Parkhurst specifying for use at
perambulations in the Rogation Da^'s " homilies as be
appointed by the Queen's Majesty's authority." ^^
Now, " the use of homilies at perambulations was
prescribed, not by the Injunctions of 1559, but by the
Advertisements." In these same Articles of 1569,
No. xxv.. Archbishop Parker spoke of " the Queen's

'^ Documentary Annals, 1,-303,
'''^ Strype's Parker, Appendix No. LIV, As to the unlawfulness of
the chalice, see below, p. 95. ^3 Documentary Annals, 1,-320.
^* Second Report of the Ritual Commission, Appendix, p. 405-1.
^ Ibid., p. 404-4.

THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH 75
Majesty's ecclesiastical laws, statutes, injunctions, and
all Her Highness' other commandments." " Public
authority " is a phrase constantly used for the highest
authority common to the whole community.'''' A good
example of this is seen in Canon Ixv.
1571- — The authority of the Advertisements was
repeatedly recognised by Convocation,^'' as also by
Canon xxiv. of 1604, which adopts the direction of
the Advertisements for the dress of epistoler and
gospeller just where the Advertisements contradict and
contravene the requirements of the Rubric of 1549
(First Book of Edward). See p. 120.
1571, August 2oth. — Queen Elizabeth to Archbishop
Parker refers to her former letter of January 25th, 1565,
and to Bishops Horn and Cox, as Commissioners
for the "observation of Our laws, Injunctions and
commandments." ^^
1573) November 15th. — Archbishop Parker's lan
guage as to the Order relating to fonts has already
been cited, p. 63. His Diocesan Visitation Articles
of this year are in the British Museum,^^ in which he
twice refers (Queries i and 4) to "the Advertisements
lately set forth by public authority."
During the same year, Queen Elizabeth herself
stated that she had " caused at several times since the
beginning of her reign certain Injunctions and other
Orders to be pubhshed by the advice of her clergy." '*''
In 1574 (Archbishop) Whitgift, then Vice-Chancellor

^' See Mr. Benjamin Shaw's Argument, p. 536. Compare Bishop
Cox in Zurich Letters, I.-236, Strype's Parker, 111,-154,
•'' Cardwell's Synodalia, I. -119, 124, 126, 127.
^ Parker Correspondence, p, 387. ™ British Museum, ^J't.
'"' Strype's Parker, II.-352.

76 THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH
of Cambridge, wrote in reply to the " Second Admoni
tion " of the Puritans as follows : —
" They note certain contrarieties in this church as betwixt
.... the Communion Book and Advertisements concerning
church vestures  But in these same matters they are
much deceived; for, as I suppose, iu matters of Ornaments of
the Church and of the Ministers thereof, the Queen's Majesty,
together with the Archbishop or the Commissioners in causes
ecclesiastical, have authority hy Act of Parliament to alter and
appoint such rites and ceremonies as shall from time to time be
, thought to them most convenient." "^"^
In 1573, the year before the above was published,
Dr. Thomas Sparke was ordained, who acted as one
of the Puritan representatives at the Hampton Court
Conference in 1604. In 1607 he published A Brotherly
Perswasion to Unitie, dedicated by permission to King
James, and " commanded by publicke authoritie to be
printed." In chapter v. of this work he says —
1 " It can never soundly be proved that a surplice, as it is
prescribed to us, with long and large sleeves, hath been at all
any of their idolatrous Mass garments  Her Majesty, by
virtue of the said statute, with the consent of the Archbishop
and High Commissioners, in the seventh year of her reign (as
it appears by the book of Advertisements then by authority
published), belike of purpose to remove the scandal taken by
the Popish alb, appointed the surplice in this form and manner
that we wear it, to be used instead thereof." ^^
1575. — Archbishop Parker's Articles for Winchester*''
speak of " the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions, and
other Her Highness' commandments, orders, decrees,
and Advertisements."

¦" 'Whitgift's Works, 111,-510, "- p, 20,
•••' Second Report of the Rit.ial Commission, Appendix, p, 41S-50.

THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH 77
1576.— Grindal, as quoted by Strype,-** speaks of not
opposing "the Queen's Injunctions, nor the Ordina
tions, nor Articles made by some of the Queen's
Commissioners, . . . January the 25th, in the seventh
year of the Queen's reign." ¦*¦'
This is very interesting as showing the sense in
which the undated Advertisements of 1566 came to be
spoken of as " made " the seventh year. It was " by
virtue of the Queen's Alajesty's letters commanding
the same," her letter being dated "January 25, 1564'
{i.e. 1565, New St3-le). Grindal, who was himself a
" Commissioner under the Great Seal for Causes
Ecclesiastical," and as such was one of the signatories
of the Advertisements of 1566, refers their " making "
to the Queen's Letter of the preceding yea.T, which, he
said, empowered the Commissioners to " decree good
Orders." Thus the Bishops' Advertisements and the
Commissioners' Advertisements were also the Queen's
Advertisements, as being " made " by her Commission.
This also explains what had misled Str3-pe, Cardwell,
&c., and puzzles so man3- people, viz. why Archbishop
Parker placed on the forefront of the Advertisements
at the time of their being " newly printed," in March,

'" Life of Parker, 1,-319.
¦•^ " Item volumus et injungimus ut Decanus, Prebendarii, et minores
Canonici ubique (nisi valetudo impedierit) eo vestitu, habitu, et piliis
utantur quibus ecclesiasticas personas uti decet, Neque vel Injunc
tiones Regise ilajestatis vel Ordinationibus aut Articulis per nonuUos
Regiae Majestatis Commissarios videlicet Mattheum Cantuariensem
.\rchiepiscopum, Edmundum Londiniensem episcopum, Ricardum
Eliensem, Edmundum Roffensem, Robertum "Wintoniensem, Nicholaum
Lincolniensem respective episcopos subscriptis et vicesimo quinto die
mensis Januarii anno serenissimae dominae nostrae reginae Elizabethse,
&c., septimo datis et publice editis in hac parte sub poena in dictis,
injunctionibus contra veniant." — Grindal's Register, fol. no.

78 THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH
1566, the words " by virtue of the Queen's letters
commanding the same, the 25th day of January, in
the seventh year of the reign of our Sovereign Lady
Eliz." Cardwell puts in a second comma after
"letters." Mr. James Parker, who in his Letter to
Lord Selborne, p. 145, introduces a full-stop after
" same," says he is "not called upon to justify, or even
explain, the expression 'Advertisements by virtue of :
it is perhaps vague"!*" Vague? Not a bit! The
Royal Orders of October loth, 1561, were similarly
entitled " Orders . . . by virtue of Her Majesty's
Letters addressed to Her Highness' Commissioners
for Causes Ecclesiastical." *'
1582. — The Privy Council sent to the commissaries
of Archbishop Grindal " a special letter to urge the
Book of Advertisements " which " were commonly at
Visitations printed and dispersed." *^
1583. — Draft of Articles endorsed by Cecil as pre
sented to Queen Elizabeth herself by Archbishop
Whitgift and Bishop Piers, signed by them and four
other bishops, in which they speak of " the Advertise
ments set out by Her Majesty's authorit3'." *^
Before November 6th, 1583, was published An
Abstract of certain Acts of Parliament, which at p. 210
calls them " Advertisements published in the 7th
year of her Grace's reign, and subscribed with the
hands of one Abp. and 5 Bishops, her Highness' Eccl.
Commissioners."

¦'I' Letter, p, 146,
¦" Miller's Guide to Ecclesiastical Law, Sec, 83, An original is in British
Museum, "5155. aa. 7," -"^ Strype's Whitgift, 1,-200.
"" Lord Selborne's Notes, p. 77. State Papers, Domestic, Elizabeth,
Vol, CLXIIL, No, 31,

THE .ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH 79
In 1584 appeared An Answer to an Abstract of certaine
Acts of Parliament, by Richard Cosin, Dean of the
Arches, and " published by authority " in ^\¦hich he
rebuts the contention of the Puritan writer, who had
said that "though Her Majesty's excellent name be
used by the publishers of the said Advertisements for
confirmation of them, and that they affirm Her Majesty
to have commanded them thereunto by Her Highness'
letters," yet they lacked credit because " not printed
by Her Majesty's printer," and "without Her Majesty's
privilege." ''°
The Dean of the Arches, who, at p. 67, speaks of
" Her Majesty^s Injunctions and Advertisements,"
thus replied (p. 74, chapter cxxx.) : " And is any man
to surmise that those reverend and wise Fathers, who
subscribed unto the said Book of Advertisements,
would or durst pubhsh them in Her Majesty's name,
and as by Her Highness' authority and letters, dated
such a certain day, if it were not so : or that they would
enterprise to forbid or restrain that which the law had
so exactly charged and commanded ? "
On this the Rev. T. W. Perry, of the English
Church Union, says : " It is certain that Cosin could
not have been defending their authority as being the
' other order ' of Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity, because
he considered that that order had never been taken."
In proof of this, he refers to John Cosin's notes of 1640
as his voucher for what Richard Cosin in 1584 must
have " considered." "^ Admirable critic !
''" Such a test was, of course, worthless. But the words " cum
privilegio " are on the title-page, and 'Wolfe is called "Nostrum
Typographum " in Queen Elizabeth's letters patent, 1560. Clay's
Elizabethan Liturgies, p. 301. See also Droop's Edwardian Vestments,
p. 95. ^' Perry on Purchas Judgment, p. 155,

8o THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH
1585.— Archbishop Whitgift, in the fifth of his
Articles for Chichester, speaks of " Her Majesty's
Injunctions and Advertisements." °-
In the same year Rishton (who went to Brasenose
College, Oxford, in 1568), wrote: "The Queen issued
Her orders on the apparel and dress of Ecclesiastics,"
evidently referring to the Advertisements. '•'
1587. — Hooker, in a letter to Archbishop Whitgift,
intended to be laid before the Privy Council (of which
Whitgift had been sworn a member in February, 1586),
described the Advertisements as " a decree agreed
upon by the bishops, and confirmed by Her Majest3''s
authority." '"'*
1629. — Bishop Andrewes in his notes on the Common
Prayer says, " for cathedral churches it was ordained
by the Advertisements, in Queen Elizabeth's time (that
authority being reserved, notwithstanding this book, by an
act of parliament), that there should be an epistler and
a gospeller, besides the priest." ^•'
1640. — In Canon ^'II. the Laudian Convocation of
this year appealed to "the Injunctions and Advertise
ments of Queen Elizabeth of blessed memory." ^^ The
Visitation Articles drawn up by Heylyn and authorised
by Convocation in their Ninth Canon, also refer to the
"InjunctionsandAdvertisementsof Queen Elizabeth." '*"
1641. — The Sub-Committee of Divines appointed by
the House of Lords had before them a list of the

'"- Cardwell's Documentary Annals, 11,-6,
^^ Sanders' Anglican Schism, Edition 1877, p, 281.
'"* Keble's Hooker, 111,-587.
¦''•' Nicholls on Common Prayer, Appendix, p. 39.
'"'' Cardwell's Syjwdalia, 1,-404,
^' Second Report of the Ritual Commission, Appendix p, 591,

THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH 8l
" innovations in discipline " complained of by the
Puritans, among which were " by pretending for their
innovations, the Injunctions a.nd Advertisements of Queen
Elizabeth, which are not in force, but by way of com
mentary and imposition."'** The Committee apparently
thought that the Canons of 1604 had superseded these
Orders, but they made no question of their " Royal "
authority. 1641. — Bishop Wren, in his defence written for
presentation to Parliament, says — " Now these Injunc
tions [of 1559] are allowed and confirmed by the
Queen's Advertisements, cap. I. art. 3, and those Adver
tisements are authorized by law, i Eliz., c. 2, sec. penult.'"'''
1655. — Anthony Sparrow, in his Rationale of the Book
of Common Prayer, says: — "The minister at the time
of his ministration shall use such ornaments as were in
use in the second of Edward VI., viz., a surplice in the
ordinary ministration, and a cope in time of minis
tration of the Holy Communion in cathedral and
collegiate churches. — Queen Elizabeth's Articles set
forth in the seventh year of her reign." Sparrow, who
had been a Savoy Commissioner, and took part in
Convocation at the last Revision of the Prayer Book,
re-published this statement in 1664, 1672 (as Bishop
of Exeter), and 1684 (as Bishop of Norwich), the year
before his death.
1659. — L'Estrange, in his Alliance of Divine Offices
(reprinted in 1690 and 1699), says : — " The minister shall
use such ornaments, &c. In the latter end of the Act of
Uniformity there was reserved to the Queen a power
to make some further order, with the advice of her

*" Cardwell's Conferences, 273, °" Parentalia, p, 75,
6

82 THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZ.A.BETH
commissioners, &c., concerning ornaments for ministers ;
but I do not find that she made any use of that
authorit3-, or put her power into exercise further than
is expressed in her A dvertisements of the seventh 3-ear of
her reign, by which it is ordered that ' in cathedrals
the chief minister officiating at the Communion shall
wear a decent cope, with gospeller and epistoler agree
able.' " Edition 1846, p. 104.
1661. — Peter Heylyn, chaplain to Charles the First,
published his History of the Reformation, in which he
said : —
" The Queen thought fit to make a further signification of
her royal pleasure, — not grounded only on the sovereign power
and prerogative royal, by which she published her Injunctions
in the first year of her reign, but legally declared by her Com-
I missioners for Causes Ecclesiastical, according to the Acts and
Statutes made in that behalf ; for then it was to be presumed,
that such as had denied obedience to her sole commands, would
at least give it to the laws. . . . which being accordingly per
formed, presented to the Queen, and by her approved, the said
rules and orders were set forth and published in a certain book,
entituled ' Advertisements,' &c  And that they might
be known to have the stamp of royal authority, a preface was
prefixed before them, in which it was expressed, ' That the
Queen  had required the Metropolitan, by her special
letters, that, upon conference had with such other Bishops as
were authorized by her Commission for Causes Ecclesiastical,
some order might be took, whereby all diversities and varieties
in the premises might be taken away ; ' and finally, that, in
obedience unto her coinm.ands, the said Metropolitan and the rest
there pamed had agreed upon ' the rules and orders ensuing,
which were by her thought meet to be used and followed.' "
[Robertson's edition. Vol. II., pp. 40S-10.J
1661. — Anthony Sparrow presented to Convocation
his collection of Articles, containing the Advertisements,

THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH 83
" to vindicate the Church of England, and to promote
uniformity and peace in the same."
In the same year Prynne published his Sober and
Pacific Examination, at p. 6i of which he mentions
" Q. Eliz. Advertisements in the 7th year of her reign,
by her High Commissioners' advice."
1662. — Archdeacon Pory's Visitation Articles refer
to the " Injunctions and Advertisements of Queen
Elizabeth.""" Pory is the reputed author of the Prayer
for the High Court of Parliament, and had been on many
important committees during the revision of the Prayer
Book in 1661."
1708. — Dr. Thomas Bennet in his Paraphrase and
Annotations on the Common Prayer, after quoting the
proviso from i Elizabeth, cap. ii, continues, — "This
clause explains Queen Elizabeth's Rubric, and, conse
quently, the present one, which is in reality the same.
So that those ornaments of the church and its ministry,
which were required in the second year of King
Edward, were to be retained ijll^ the Queen (and,
consequently, any of her successors), with the advice
before specified, should take Order. Now such Order
was accordingly taken by the Queen in the year 1564,
which was the seventh of her reign. For she did then,
with the advice of her Ecclesiastical Commissioners,
particularly the then Metropolitan, Dr. Matthew
Parker, publish certain Advertisements, wherein are
the following directions. ' Item, in the ministration,
&c  ' From hence it is plain that the parish
priests (and I take no notice of the case of others) are

^^ Second Report of the Ritual Commission, Appendix, pp, 627-3,
"' Parker's History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p, 83,
6 *

84 THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH
obliged to no other ornaments but surplices and hoods.
For these are authentic limitations of the Rubric."' ^-
Thus, during 144 years, up to the date of the publi
cation of this work of Dr. Bennet, not a single wxiter
among the professedly loj-al members of the Church
of England had ever expressed the smallest doubt
as to the Ro\'al authorit}' belonging to the Advertise
ments of Elizabeth. As Lord Selborne truly said,
" No writer of reputation, in an3- work pubhshed before
the Eighteenth Centur3', seems to have suggested a
doubt that the Advertisements were, as matter of fact,
authorized by Queen Elizabeth." * *
*
We come now to a ver3- curious illustration of the
growth of a "tradition." In 1661, as before mentioned,
Anthony Sparrow published an edition of the Adver
tisements (which had by that time become exceedingly
scarce), but, unfortunatety, his reprints were not ver}-
accurate. His alterations in the Thirt3'-nine Articles
of 1571 from the text of John Daj- (which he professed
to follow) have been noted by Dr.I^mb. Similarh-,
I the title-page of the Advertisements was altered by the
omission of four words from the title, and b\' the
addition of the false date, "a.d. 1564," at the foot of
the title-page. In some editions "Anno 7. Eliz. R."
is also added.
Str3pe, who published in 1711 his Life of Archbishop
Parker, tells us that " these Articles were printed with
a preface in 1564, by Reginald Wolf, according to Bp.
Sparrozi''s collections." This, however, was an entire
mistake. The Articles were not printed at all till
'- Cited in Archdeacon Harrison on the Rubric, p, 131,

THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH 85
1566; and the source of the mistake is shewn to bci
this inaccurate reprint of Bishop Sparrow, who mistook'
the date of the Queen's letter for that of the Adver-{
tisements themselves. The result was that Strype, who
had seen the MS. Ordinances of March 8th, 1565 {i.e.'
1564, Old Style, see p. 67 supra), and knew that the3''
"were not authorized or published," confused them.
with the printed Advertisements, to which Bishop ',
Sparrow had given the wrong date, " 1564."
By an odd coincidence, Nicholls also published, in
1709-10, his Comment on the Book of Common Prayer,
which (unluckily for the Church of England) contained
in the Appendix some posthumous notes (made long
before he became a Bishop) by the Rev. John Cosin,/
who died some forty years before their publication.
In many of these Notes, Cosin expressed the opinion
that the pre-Reformation Canons, the usages of 1548, j
and the Rubric of 1549 (which abolished and super- (
seded those usages), were all alike legalized by the so-
called Ornaments Rubric of Elizabeth ! Yet he adopted
Bishop Andrewes' Note mentioned above, viz. that the
authority of Queen Elizabeth's Advertisements was "re
served, notwithstanding this book, by Act of Parliament." "¦'
These crude and inconsistent notions had been (
derived in part from reading an anonymous Purjtan
pamphlet called^ Survey of the Book of Common Prayer,
pubhshed in i6o5, to which the Notes make frequent \
reference. But the point of importance to notice is
that Strype's blunder, plus Cosin's Notes, produced a
complete revolution in the " Tradition of the elders."
CoUier (1714) and Neal (1732) were but the first of a
long line of undiscriminating copyists, who "took over"
"'' Cosin's Works, V,-90.

85 THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH
without examination the Strype-Cosin theory. What
makes this more ludicrous is that Cosin, after he
became Bishop, and indeed in all his official acts, and
Strype himself in his later chapters both of the Annals
and Life of Parker, supported the older view. Bishop
Cosin's Notes will be subjected to a detailed analysis in
another paper. See p. 171. As to Strype, as Lord
Selborne points out,''* "After having spoken of the
rejection of the first draft of the Advertisements . . .
he added that those difficulties were finally overcome
. . . ascribing all that was done, as distinctly as
possible, to the will and commandment of the Queen."
There is one other writer. Archdeacon Sharp, who, as
the son of Archbishop Sharp (who had been chaplain to
Charles II., and was himself made Archdeacon of Berks
in 1672) is a competent witness to the received belief of
the Restoration Churchmen. Writing in 1753 he says :
— " Now putting these things together, that the Rubric
hath an immediate reference to the Act ; and that the
Act is made with exprgss reservation to the Queen's
future appointments; and that the Queen, pursuant to
this power given her, did in the year 1564, publish her
Advertisements (as they are called) concerning the
habit of ministers to be worn by them in time of divine
service ; it will appear that her injunctions thus set
forth are authentic limitations of this Rubric." ^° This
though quoted with approbation by Bishop Mant, is
one of the last witnesses to the older belief. The later
writers, such as Gibson"" (1713), Burn (1763), and

'¦¦' Notes on Liturgical History, p. 15, "¦' On the Rubric, p, 66.
•"Ii Yet even Bishop Gibson speaks of the Advertisements as " Articles
published by the Queen in the 7th year of her reign" (Codex, p,245),
and marks the Ornaments Rubric of 1549 as " obsolete," p, 390,

THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH 87
Cardwell (1839), copy the ipsissima verba of Cosin's
Notes without so much as a pretence of original research.
* *
The directions of the Advertisements which bore upon
" the ornaments of the ministers " were as follows —
Item, In the ministration of the holy communion in
cathedrall and collegiate churches, the principall minister shall
use a cope with gospeller and epistoler agreeably ; and at all
other prayers to be said at that communion table, to use no
copes but surplesses.
Item, That the deane and prebendaries weare a surplease
with a silk hoode in the quyer ; and when they preach in the
cathedrall or collegiate church to weare their hoode.
Item, That every minister sayinge any publique prayers or
ministriuge the sacramentes, or other rites of the churche, shall
weare a comely surples with sleeves, to be provided at the
charges of the parishe ; and that the parishe provide a decente
table standinge on a frame for the communion table.
The original draft (in 1565) proposed to direct that —
" In the ministration of the communion in cathedral and
collegiate churches, the executor, with Pisteler and Gospeller,
minister the same in copes ; and at all other praiers to be said
at the communion table, to have no copes, but surplesses." "^
That draft was reje^ed on other grounds, but this
particular direction underwent merely verbal alterations.
It will be noticed that the Advertisement pointedly
and flatly contradicted the Rubric of 1549. The
First Prayer Book of Edward ordered the cope to
be worn at the ante-communion precisely where the
Advertisements forbad its being so worn. The First
Prayer Book ordered the Epistoler and Gospeller to
wear "albs with tunz.c\es," theiehy cvez-trng 2. distinctive
«' Petyt MS., 538-47, p. 516,

//

7

1-

88 THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH
dress for the celebrant, as such, since he alone might
wear a " vestment or cope." Thus it was no question
of " maximum and minimum," as is sometimes
represented, but of direct conflict, and express
contradiction. If the Advertisements (or the Canons
of 1604) are to be obeyed, the Prayer Book of 1549
cannot be complied with, and vice versa.
"Agreeably" here, and in the 24th Canon, meant
" congrue," " convenienter," "to match." So Spenser
wrote in his Faerie Queen, VI.-vii.-3.
" At last he met two knightes to him unknowne
The which were armed both agreably."
Or to take a pastoral parallel (VI.-ii.-36)
" Both clad in shepherd's weeds agreeably."
In the Latin translation of the Advertisements sent
to Zurich the word is rendered " apposite." '^^ The
Puritan author of the Survey of the Common Prayer,
1606, gives a reference to this Advertisement in the
margin of his commentary^" seeing in cathedral
churches special men (forsooth) in_copes, must read at
the high altar, or communion table, one the epistle and
is therefore called the Epistler, the other the gospel
and is therefore called the Gospeller." "^
Hence, when referred to in official documents of the
period, copes are always mentioned in the plural.
Thus, in the paper of " Varieties in the Service,"
handed in to Cecil the Prime Minister, by Archbishop
Parker, to shew the actual condition of things before
the issue of the Advertisements, under the head of

''* Staatsarchiv . Zurich, Gest VI, -164, fol, 148, m, et seq,
"'-' Ibid., p. 36. See below, p, 120,

THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH 89
" Administration of the Communion " we read, "Some
with surpless and copes." ™ The 24th Canon itself has
the heading "Coenam administrantibus capparum usus
injunctus " : and Bancroft, who drafted that canon
and presided in the Convocation which enacted it,
gave at St. Paul's, in 1608, the direction that the
Epistle and Gospel be read "in copes." '^^ Thus the
meaning of the canon was fixed at the time and on the
highest authorit3'. One of Smart's charges against
Cosin was "the wearing a cope to read the Epistle
and Gospel." '^^ " Without the rich copes the Epistle
and Gospel naked," ''^ grumbled the Puritans in 1640.
And this triple cope-wearing was in strict accordance
with Elizabethan usage. " The sub-dean and Epistler
in rich coaps assistant to the said bishop " is the
direction given in the Cheque Book of the Chapel
Royal, published by the Camden Society. At the
consecration of Archbishop Parker, the Epistoler and
Gospeller (though not Bishops) wore copes ; so, too,
at St. Paul's on September 9th, 1559, at Durham
House in 1626, and on various other occasions (some
of which are detailed in Hierurgia Anglicana, pp. 149,
156, 29S) the rule was observed which is prescribed by
the statutes of Hereford Cathedral "in copis induantur
tam qui celebrat, quam qui Epistolam et Evangelium
recitant." The 24th Canon of 1604 was designed to do honour
to the " principal Feast days," i.e. to those days which
"" Lansdowne MSS., Vol. VIII., Article VII., folio 16, Strype in
copying this carelessly dropped the s.
" 'Wilkin's Concilia, IV.-436.
'- Lew is' Reformation Settlement, p. 397, Mr. Dickenson in his Preface
to the Sarum Missal, p. xiv, admits this usage,
"^ Hierurgia Anglicana, p, 382,

go THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH
have " proper Prefaces " appointed in honour of our
Lord, or of the Blessed Trinit3'. For this purpose (the
" Minister ibidem maxime eminens " as the Latin version
expresses it, i.e.) the highest dignitary on the staff who
could be procured was required to celebrate in a
" Cathedral or Collegiate Church " (for the cope
continued to be illegal in parish churches, and was
suppressed therein by Ordinaries like Bancroft and
Laud), both he and his assistants wearing copes on
such occasions to mark the eminence of the festival.
'Any superstition as to a "distinctive dress " for the
"sacrificer" as the worker of an invisible miracle, was
obviated by attiring the other " ministers of the word
and sacraments" equally and alike in similar garments,
since the Epistoler and Gospeller no less than the
" principal minister " are the administrators and
distributors of the sacred feast which through them is
"given unto us " as the Catechism teaches. It follows
that the action of Bishop Creighton and others in
officiating sometimes with a cope, sometimes without,
but never with " Gospeller and Epistler agreably " is
unhistorical as being contrary to any known law of
this Church and Realm at any period of its history,
and therefore a violation of the Thirty-fourth Article
of Religion.

^be ®rnament0 IRubric. No. I
{ELIZABETH, 1559-61)
IN 1857 it '^^''is ruled by the Supreme Court of
.\ppeal, in Liddell v. Wcstcrton, that " the
authorit3- of Parliament " mentioned in the
rubric means the first Act of Uniformit3' (2 and 3
Edward VI., cap. i.), and that the word Ornaments
"applies, and in this rubric is confined, to those
Articles the use of which in the services and minis
trations of the Church, is prescribed by the [First]
Praj-er Book of Edward VI." ^ The Judges in that
case were careful to sa3' they " had nothing to do
with the ' ornaments of the minister ' or anything
appertaining thereto."- In the subsequent cases of
Hebbcrt v. Purchas, and Ridsdale v. Clifton, the same
doctrine was extended (though with certain modifica
tions) to the dress of the officiating clerg\-.
Nevertheless, the Folkestone Judgment laid down
also as a principle, that no Judgment, even of the
Supreme Court, can bind after an3' " new Light "
has been discovered which destro3-s the (supposed)
' Brooke's Six Privy Council Judgments, p, 51,
Moore's Separate Report, p, 31.

\'

92 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
" historic " basis on which that Judgment had been
made to rest. This principle was again affirmed b3'
the Supreme Court in the Bishop of Lincoln's case ;
and though it has doubtless been abused to bolster up
findings that were politically convenient, the principle
is in itself sound and equitable. For it cannot be
denied that the ritual litigation of the last forty years
has brought to light much buried antiquarian learning,
and has cleared up many obscure passages in Church
history. The net result of the severaj_suits has been to
declare that ever since the introduction of the " Orna
ments Rubric " in 1559, all ornaments of the First
Pra3'er Book became binding by law until 1566, when
the statutory "Advertisements of Queen Elizabeth"
altered that law b3- reducing the dress of ministration
to the "surplice " for ministers " at all times of their
ministration " with a hood according to their several
degrees, except in cathedral churches, for which the
novel arrangement of three copes to be worn simul-
taneoush' was prescribed for use on certain occasions.*
This rule being statutory could not be repealed by
any mere Canons, so that if enacted (directly or
indirecth) " by the authority of Parliament " in 1559,
it must have remained binding (at least) until the
passing of the last Act of Uniformit3- in 1662.
Such is the theory of " Law " as formulated b3' the
Courts, and it is now proposed to shew that if judged
by contemporar3- history it cannot be sustained. For
the moment we apply to it the test of histor3-, that
theory breaks down. • See pp. Sg, 120,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 93
Even as regards the " Ornaments of the Church "
the same Judgment which affirmed the standard of
the First Prayer Book admitted that the " altar " of
that book had been universally discarded by the
executive authorities in both Church and State.
The Judgment therefore ordered the removal of the
"altar," and the substitution for it of an "honest
table," movable, and of wood.
It might be replied that the " altar " itself never
was an "ornament." Indeed this had been judicially
decided beforehand by Sir H. J. Fust in Falkner v.
Litchfield.''' And the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council has further ruled in Parker v. Leach ¦' that no
conclusion of law can possibly be drawn from the
pre-Reformation "altar" to the Lord's "table." But
the latter is, though the former was not, an " orna
ment." Its being now a lawful " ornament of the
Church" depends, however, not at all upon the/
language of the " Ornaments Rubric," or of the First ]
Prayer Book, but upon other rubrics of later Prayer,
Books, all of which required a "Table." Leaving!
the " altar " question on one side, the following hst,
taken from the First Prayer Book, will shew how
inapplicable it became as a standard after the repeal
of the Fir.st Prayer Book in 1552.
''Ornaments of the Church" in 1^49-
I. A Bible, viz. the "Great Bible of Henry VIII.," which
followed the Septuagint, and from which our Prayer Book
version of the Psalms is taken.

* : Robertson's Reports, p, 254,
^ 2 Moore, P. C, N.S, 199.

\l

94 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
2. A Prayer Book, viz. the First Book of Edward VI.
3. The Poor Men's Box, placed near the High Altar, into
which each communicant dropped his separate offering. '' This
was quite distinct from the Parish Chest kept in the Vestry.
(Canon Ixxxiv.)
4. A Corporas, i.e. the linen cloth, about a foot square
(" frequently inserted in the middle of a large piece of coloured
silk," velvet,' &c.), upon which the bread was consecrated. *
This was quite different from the " fair linen cloth " which is
now used to cover the consecrated wine. '^
5. A vessel for oil used at Baptisms.
6. Vessels for oil to anoint the sick (viz. a cruet and cup).^''
7. Vessels in which both the consecrated elements were in
1549 conveyed from the altar to sick inen's houses. (Article
XXVIII.) 8. Chalice.
9. Paten.
10. Bell.
II. Font.
13. Pulpit.
Of these Nos. 2 to 7 were illegal during the first six
3'ears of Elizabeth's reign. Perhaps the water cruet
might be added, for even the eccentric " Lambeth
Judgment " admitted the illegality of any ritual mixing
during the service : and it forms part of the ver3'
definition of an " ornament " that it is for use in the
service by the officiants.
Even the " chalice " was illegal until it was again

" Injunction 29 of 1547, Archdeacon Harrison's Historical Inquiry,
pp, 279-308.
'' Cussan's Church Goods in Hertfordshire, pp. 108, 128,
8 "Laying the bread upon the corporas, or else in the paten."
Rubric of Edward's First Book. See Jewel's Works, 11,-705, Hooper's
Later Writings, p, 146,
" 'Walker's Ritual Reason Why, Q, 241 note.
'" Cussan's, pp, 11, 128.

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 95
restored at the revision of 1661. Hence we find the
two great Elizabethan .\rchbishops of Canterbur3- and
York repeatedl3' forbade the use of "old massing;
chalices," or " chalices heretofore used at Mass,"
and required their clergy to use " no chalice . . . but
a Communion Cup of silver." ^^ Nor was it until 1662
that a change in the law again legitimated an3- use of
the " chalice. "^-
So then, as regards the "ornaments of the Church"
we are entitled to say that the standard of 1549 was
at variance with the requirements of all the later
Liturgies. We come next to the

" Ornaments of the Minister," of the First
Prayer Book.
The following is a list of these dresses, &c.
I. A Surplice, to be worn (as an alternative to Xo. 3") along
with^os. 7 and 8 in "any public ministration" by the Bishop,
^vho also wore Xo. _5 or Xo. 4. Also with Xo. 5, by the
" Minister " in the ante- Communion, on days when there was
no Communion. Also with Xo, 2, in Catliedrals and Colleges.
Also, without any otlier ornament, in Parish Churches by tlie
" Minister " at ^Nl.nins, Evensong, Public Baptisms, and Burials.
2. University Hoods, permitted (but not ordered) to graduates
on the foundation, in their own Catliedrals and Colleges; and
in Parish Churches to tlie Preacher, if a Graduate.
3. An Alb ("white " and " plain '"), to be worn instead of a

'^ SiWvtJ Report of Ritual Commission. Appendix, pp, 40S-7, 411-4.
416-17. Cardwell's Docmncntary Aiik.i^s. I. -321, and British Museum,
" ji Qy, 5, North's Chronicles of St. Mjrt:i:'s, Leicester, p, 169.
^ See Gardyner's return in 1567 above, p. 74,

96 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
surplice with Nos. 4 or 5 by the Celebrant, and with Xo. 6 by
the Assistant Clergy at the Administration of Holy Communion.
Also by Bishops (who might have them of coloured silk and
embroidered), in lieu of No. i.
4. The " Vestment," i.e. Chasuble, worn by the Celebrant
only at the actual Administration of Holy Communion. A
Bishop might wear it at other times ; but neither Protestant nor
Papist would then have thought it seemly to do so.
5. A Cope, to be worn with No. i by a Bishop at any time,
and by a Priest in the Ante-Communion if there iras no
Communion. Also with No. 3 by the Celebrant, in lieu of Xo. 4.
6. A Tunacle, worn (with No. 3) by the Assistant Clergy at
Holy Communion.
7. A Rochette, worn by Bishops with No. i or Xo. 3, and
with No. 4 or No. 5, and with
8. A Pastoral Staff.
It is true that the Advertisements of Queen Elizabeth
afterwards authorised the use of the surplice by the
celebrant at the Lord's Supper, and that these
Advertisements had statutory authority under the Act
(Of Uniformity, i Elizabeth, cap. ii. But this does not
and cannot explain why nobody ever paid the slightest
heed to the standard of 1549 during the six years,
1559-66, which elapsed before the issue.of the Advertise-
' ments. Not a single Bishop then wore alb, or chasuble,
not a single priest wore alb or tunacle, still less a
" vestment," during all those six years when, on the
received theory, those " ornaments " were not merely
permissible but compulsory. That difficulty has never
yet been fairly faced. Although Ehzabeth herself, the
Bench, the Bar, and a majority probably of the House
of Lords with a large section of the people, especially of
the landed gentry, are supposed to have been in favour
•of a high ritual, and although very many of the ]\Iarian
clergy retained their livings — yet we do not find one

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 97
clear instance of the ritual of 1549 being followed in any ( '^
one church during the crucial years 1559-66 when, on 1
the received hypothesis, aW the ornaments of 1549 were
required by law.
That would certainly be "strange if true." But is
the hypothesis true ?
Then again, the received theory would require us to
believe that Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity was so
absurdly framed that it first enacted under a penalty
the Ornaments Rubric of 1552 (" and none other or
otherwise "), and then, as an addendum and after
thought, went on to provide that a totally different set
of ornaments should be worn and used " until other
order be taken by the Queen " ; yet forgetting to
provide any penalty whatever for a disregard of this
subsequent and inconsistent " proviso." That would
have been an exceedingly fatuous thing to do, and very
unlike the style of Elizabethan draftsmanship. But,
the previous question arises — " Is it true ? "
It is not true : and fortunately, the Queen's printers .,
having begun to restore the old Act of Elizabeth which
forms in law part of the present Prayer Book, every reader
can now test this for himself.
The mistake arose from a misunderstanding of the
25th and 26th sections of the Act of 1559. These
ran as follows —
Section XXV. — Provided always, and be it enacted. That such
Ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof, shall be
retained and be in use, as was in this Church of England by
Authority of Parliament, in the Second Year of the Reign of
King Edward the Sixth, until other Order shall be therein taken
by the Authority of the Queen's Majesty, with the Advice of
her Commissioners appointed and authorised under the Great
7

98 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
Seal of England for causes Ecclesiastical, or of the Metropolitan
of this Realm.
Section XXVI. — And also. That if there shall happen any
contempt or irreverence to be used in the Ceremonies or Rites
of the Church, by the misusing of the Orders appointed in this
Book, the Queen's Majesty may, by the like Advice of the said
Commissioners or Metropolitan, ordain and publish such further
Ceremonies or Rites, as may be most for the Advancement of
God's Glory, the Edifying of his Church, and the due Reverence
of Christ's Holy Mysteries and Sacraments.
The " ordaining and publishing " mentioned in the
25th section was a totally different thing from the
"taking order " of the 25th. "Taking order," according
to the usage of that day, merely meant the giving some
practical directions (such as were deemed applicable
in each case), and were executive and administrative
rather than legislative acts. A good illustration of the
difference between "ordaining " and " taking order " is
seen in Archbishop Parker's letter to the Warden of.
All Souls, in which (after reminding him that
"vestments and tunicles serve not to use at these
days ") he says the Royal Commissioners were to
"take such orrfer and direction therein as shall appertain
... to the fulfilling of the Queen's laws and orders."'^^
Thus " taking order " was the giving practical
" directions," at the discretion of the Visitors, in
fulfilment and application (and at times, as the result
bhewed, in exceptional modifications) of the Queen's
Orders. So, in 1549, the Royal Visitors at Cambridge reported
to the Protector that they " had set a stay " at Clare
Hall, " so that they cannot alter, ahenate, or dispose
" Parker Correspondence, pp. 296, 297.

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 99
anything, . . . leaving them in expectation of a further
order to be taken by us, before our departing." ^'^
Archbishop Grindal in his Injunctions for the Laity
(1571) directed the churchwardens to " take some order
among the parishioners, that every one may pay such
a reasonable sum towards " defraying the cost of the
sacramental elements as was expedient.'^
An excellent illustration is found in the wording of
the official " assignments " by the Royal Visitors in
1553. They wrote, " delivered unto the hands of the
said wardens unto the use of the said church there to
be occupied according to the effect of the commission
directed unto the commissioners appointed for the sale
of the church goods and other order to be therein
taken for the same as followeth." ^^
These examples, m /an materia, might be indefinitely
multiplied ; but it is clear that by customary usage the
words " take order " suggested primarily a purely
administrative discretion on the part of some executive
officer, and did not suggest any act of a legislative
character. Now it has been shewn" elsewhere (p. 43)
that the Royal Visitors in 1559 were " Commissioners
under the Great Seal for causes ecclesiastical," having
power judicially to decide a variety of " causes," and
were also executive officers of the Crown charged with
the " taking order " wherever needed to give effect
to the requirements of the new Prayer Book and to

^* Bradford's Writings, Parker Society, II. -370.
^' Grindal's Remains, p. 134.
^* Tyssen's Surrey Inventories, p. 184 et seq.
The Royal Commission itself specified " the honest and comely
furniture of coverings for the Communion Table, and surplice or sur
plices for the minister or ministers," (Cussan's Hertfordshire Inventories,
P-5) J *

lOO THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
secure its acceptance in the particular neighbourhoods
which they respectively "visited." Under the 25th
section of the Act of Uniformity they had to "take
order " as to the (i) retention ; (2) the having " in use "
¦ certain ornaments which by the third and fourth
sections of the same Act (i Elizabeth, cap. 2) had been
expressly forbidden to be used by the minister in HisTmms-
\irations. iThas'been assumed, too hastily, that these
two sections of the Act neutralise and contradict one
another, and, stranger s'till, that the one which had no
penalties attached to it must override the one which had.
But the proviso itself says nothing whatever about
" the minister," nor about~t!ie '^mes of ministration."
, It had in fact nothing to do with either. It had the
; much more pro'saic object of reserving for the Queen
the goods which, being, no longer required by law,
iwould have been wasted or embezzled, as former
experience in the' days of King Edward had amply
demonstrated. The custody of the ornaments was in
the hands of the churchwardens because the ornaments
themselves were the property of the parish, and were in
fact customarily sold and bought by the wardens under
the orders of the Parish Vestry. Toulmin Smith, in
his work on The Parish, gives numerous illustrations of
the control of the Vestry over their church ornaments.
In Peacock^s Lincolnshire Church Furniture, sales "by
consent of the parish " were always returned as being
a sufficient quittance of the churchwardens from further
responsibility. Similar returns were sent in from every
diocese. But a typical illustration is furnished by
Gardiner, who had held the office of Lord Chancellor,
and might be supposed, therefore, to know the law of
the Church. Writing to Ridley, he observes :

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC lOI
" Ever since I was born, a poor parishioner, a layman, durst
be so bold at a .shift (if he were also churchwarden) , to sell to
the use of the church at length, and his own in the meantime,
the silver cross on Easter Monday that was creeped to on
Good^Friday."!''That " retaining " ornaments did not necessarily
imply their use by the officiant is seen from the fact
that things confessedly illegal are constantly described
as "retained." Archbishop Grindal in 1576 inquired
whether an3^ persons " of late have retained or kept
in their custody" any of the prohibited books published
abroad by the recusants at Louvain.^'
^^'hen King Edward's Visitors visited Northampton
they were directed to make complete inventories and
deliver one copy to the Privy Council and another " to
them in whose hands the said goods, pl^te, jewels, bells
and ornaments shall remain to be kept preserved " ;
or, as another version says, " the same goods, &c.,
should be safely kept and appointed to the charge of
such persons as should, keep the same safely and be
read3' to answer to the same at all times."
Another directs that " they and every of them do
safely keep unspoiled and unembezzled and unsold all
such bells . . . the same to conserve until Our pleasure
be therein further known." ^'
King Edward had entered in his own diary how " a
letter was written " to the Captain of the Isle of Jersey
" that he take heed to the church plate that it be not
stolen away, but kept safe till further order be taken." -°

'^ Ridley's Works, p, 498. "> Grindal's Remains, p, 169.
" Stephens' Xotes, Legal and Historical, on the Book of Common Prayer,
1,-355. Seventh Report of Deputy Keeper of Public Records, p. 312.
^ Burnet's History of the Reformation, II,-ii,-86.

102 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
And the Guernsey Commissioners,, under Elizabeth,
recommended a sale of the church bells to be
" employed on fortification of the castle which was
done with Jersey in King Edward's time." ^^
The other phrase, " Be in use," is peculiar. It
seems studiously vague, and it is remarkable that that
precise collocation of words does not occur anywhere else
in the contemporary literature. But the word " use "
, in this connection seems precisely equivalent to " ad
opus " in the old wills when directing money or chattels
to be employed or utilised. In many cases the par
ticular " use " intended was specified ; but in others,
especially where changes consequent upon an alteration
in worship came in, they were directed either to be
" used to the intent that they were first given, or
to some other necessary and convenient service of the
Church." 22
The College of Eton was allowed to " enjoy still
their church goods, the bells only except, so as they
convert the same from monuments of superstition to
necessary iissi_ of the said College." ^^
The old Canon Law had directed "let the chrj^somes
be made use of for the ornaments of the church
only,""* which Johnson explains to mean "they might
be used for the making or mending surplices, amits,
qlbs; or the wrapping up the chalices," &c.^^ So in
the first year of King Edward VI. the churchwardens

'-' state Papers, Domestic, Elizabeth, Addenda, Vol. XIII., No, 117,
45- '
** Strype's Cranmer, Ecclesiastical History Society edition, 11,-90,
^ Dasent's Acts of the Privy Council, lY.-2yo.
^* Constitutions of Archbishop Edmund, No, 13.
^* Johnson's Canons, II.-136,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC I03
of Mortlake returned among their receipts " received
for 2 altar cloths to the use of the Church for making of
the pulpit and seats by the consent of the parish,
3li los." -" This "use of the Church " was understood
in the widest sense ; it included the covering the roof
with lead, glaziftg the windows, repairs of the church,
clerk's house and schoolhouse, the poor men's box,
and indeed any legitimate expense which the church
wardens were then entitled to incur. "Use" meant
simply employment, utilisation. Thus " sold to the use \
of the Church," " sold to the King's use," were phrases
continually recurring. So Archbishop Grindal in 1571
orders the churchwardens to " shew what cost they
have bestowed in reparations and other things for the
use of the Church," and directs that the " rood lofts
be sold by the churchwardens to the use of the Church, so
as no part thereof be kept and observed." 2"
Bishop Horn, as Visitor of Trinity College, Oxford,
ordered in 1570 that the crosses, censers, &c., be
defaced, " and to convert the matter thereof to the
godly use, profit, and behoof of your house." -^
Archbishop Piers in 1590, on learning from the
churchwardens of St. Denis', York, that " there be
certain copes and vestments defaced belonging to the
parish not converted to any good use," orders " that
they be converted to the use of the Church."-^ In
short the albs were made into surplices, table-covers.

^ Tyssen's Surrey Inventories, p, 118; similar entries occur at pp 88,
124, 184, et seq. At Pendock, Worcester, " One cope of green silk,
with a vestment the which is turned to the use to serve upon the table "
(Report of Worcester Architectural Society, Vol. XL, p, 329).
^ Grindal's Remains, pp. 133-4.
^ 'Warton's Life of Sir T. Pope, Appendix XIX.
^ Raine's Vestments in the Northern Province, p. 16,

104 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
font-covers, &c., the chasubles into table-carpets and
' pulpit-cloths, while the tifly chahces were converted
into communion cups.^° Thus all the ornaments of
^ 1549 might " be in use " by the churchwardens, who
"retained" them, without any resulting violation of
i the Ornaments Rubric of 1552 by the clergy.
Now the best way to test whether this theory or the
popularly received view is the truer interpretation is to
see how the law was understood and acted upon at the
time, and especially how it was enforced by those in
authority when the Elizabethan Act was fresh from
the mint. Unless we rigidly exclude the conjectures
of Strype and other writers of the eighteenth century,
whose guesses have too long been mistaken for
" history," we shall never get at the truth.
Perhaps the best way is to arrange the evidence
in chronological order. In 1558 we have, first of all,
the report sent to Cecil by Geste of the recom
mendations made by those who were consulted by
the Government as to suggested alterations in the
Liturgy. That report dissuaded from the use of any
distinctive dress, even the cope, at the Communion,
on the ground that
" Because it is thought sufficient to use but a surplice in
baptizing, reading, preaching, and praying, therefore it is
enough for the celebrating of the Communion. For if we
should use another garment herein, it should seem to teach
us that higher and better things be given by it than be given by
the other service, which we must not believe." ^^
The Protestant party was strong in the Commons,
and as early as February T5th, 1559, "the bill for
3° Tyssen, pp, 75, 133, ^i Dugdale's Life of Geste, p. 145.

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC I05
order of service and ministers in the Church " was read
a first time.^^ Unwilling to wait till this measure had
passed, on March 17th, 1559, " The bill that no persons
shall be punished for using the religion used in King
Edward's last year, was read the first and second'
time, and ordered to be engrossed."'^ The "last"
year of Edward's reign was its " Seventh year," j
commencing January 28th, 1553, when the Second
Prayer Book was exclusively in use. "The latter year'
of K. Edward " was also the standard subsequently
enforced b3' the Thirtieth Injunction of Elizabeth.^'
But the Romish party was known to be strong in the
Lords, so that to aid in getting the Bill through it was
decided to hold a public disputation, to be conducted
as in 1548, by leading representatives of both sides, in
order to debate the Scriptural authority for the sacrifice
in the Mass, the right of National Churches to "take
away and change ceremonies," and the use of the
vernacular, both of which last the Romish disputants
opposed. Probably as a result of the threatened
opposition in the Lords, a fresh Bill was introduced
into the Commons on April i8th, which on May 8th
received the Royal Assent and became the Act
X Elizabeth, cap. ii. Ever3' Bishop then on the
bench spoke and voted against the Prayer Book, and
according to Lingard, the Bill passed the Lords by
a majority of only three : two Bishops of the Romish
party being detained in prison, and Abbot Feckenham,
who spoke against the Bill, being also absent at the
division.^^ It began by reciting that

»2 D'Ewes' Journal, p. 47, '' Ibid., p, 52,
^ See p, 38, ''^ Lingard's History of England, Vol, VI,-i6,

I06 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
" Where at the death of our late Sovereign lord King
Edward Vlth there remained one uniform order of common
service . . which was set forth in one book . . which was
repealed and taken away by act of parliament in the first year
of the reign of our late Sovereign lady Q. Mary, to the
great decay of the due honour of God, and discomfort to the
professors of the truth of Christ's religion ": —
The Act went on to repeal Mary's statute " only
concerning the said book, and the service administration
of sacraments, rites, and ceremonies contained and
appointed by the said book," and to re-enact that book,
eo nomine, " with the alterations and additions therein
added and appointed by this statute." So that no
new MS. or other Liturgy was enacted : and any
alterations, to be legal at all, must be those statutablj'
made " therein," i.e. in the Prayer Book of 1552.
The third section enacted (with the significant
omission of all mention of the " Lords Spiritual ")
that the service should be "in such order and form
as is mentioned in the said book . . with one alteration
or addition of certain lessons to be used on every
Sunday in the year, and the form of the Litany
altered and corrected, and two sentences only added
in the delivery of the sacraments, and none other
OR otherwise."
Those last words indicate the jealousy of the
Commons against any interference by the Govern
ment with the result of their labours ; and their wise
precaution had the effect in law of re-enacting the two
following rubrics of the book of 1552.
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 the people may best
hear. And if there be any controversy therein, the matter shall be referred to
the ordinary, and he or his deputy shall appoint the place, and the chancels shall
remain, as they have done in times past.

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC I07
And here is to be noted, 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 Arch-Bishop, or Bishop he shall have and wear a Rochet, and
being a Priest or Deacon , he shall have and wear a surplice only.
The Crown had no authority to tamper with the book,
and any " printed " variation from the text which had
been sanctioned by the statute was irregular, illegal, and
ultra vires. The fourth section of the Act accordingly
prescribed penalties for using "any other rite, ceremony,
order, form, or manner of celebrating of the Lord's
Supper. . . . than is mentioned and set forth in the
said book." Thenceforward, any celebration in "the
sacrificial vestments " became penal. Hence we have a
very simple test as to the true meaning of the Act, viz.
what did the Ordinaries and the State authorities do
in reference to this question ? Did the Elizabethan)
Bishops wear their mitres, pastoral staves, and vest
ments or copes " at all times of their ministration " ?
Did the Elizabethan clergy wear albs with vestments
or copes, and their assistants wear "albs with tunacles"
during the six years before the Advertisements of
Elizabeth were issued ?
The answer is that not once, anywhere, was the ritual
of the First Prayer Book, in respect of the use of orna
ments, followed by any one Bishop, priest or deacon.
On the other hypothesis which I am vindicating,
these persons would be required to wear the " surplice
only," or (in the case of Bishops) the Rochet.
Let us therefore resume our chronological recital of
the evidence of history.
The earliest commentary is found in a letter written
from London, two days after the passing of the Act, by
Sandys (afterwards Archbishop of York), to his friend
Parker (afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury).

I08 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
" The Parliament draweth towards an end. The last book of
service is gone through with a proviso to retain the ornaments
which were used in the first and second year of King Edward,
until it please the Queen to take other order for them. Our
gloss upon this text is that we' [clergy] 'shall not be forced to
use them, but that others' [churchwardens &c.]' in the meantime
shall not convey them away, but that they may remain for the
Queen." ^8
Sandys was one of those who are reputed to have met
as a " Committee " to revise the Prayer Book, and
according to Camden he was one of the Protestant
representatives at the pubhc debate in Westminster
Abbey .'^ On the very day that the new Prayer Book
became compulsory, Sandys was appointed one of the
Royal Commissioners under the Queen's " own hand
and seal " '^ to visit the churches and to enforce the new
Act. No higher " authority " could be produced as to
its true meaning : and his " gloss," i.e. interpretation,
" turned out to be true."
The Visitors included among their number the Prime
Minister, the Secretaries of State, the noblemen and
Members of Parliament who had voted in favour of
the Reformation, and the future Bishops ; in short, the
list included every name of those most deeply engaged
in securing the success of the new book.
London, the seat of the Court and of the legislature,
was promptly visited by them and the result is recorded
in Machyn's Diary, and in Grindal's Register. Every-

i*^ Parker Correspondence, p. 65.
^' Camden, edition 1688, p, 21. Foxe, VIII,-679, Oglethorpe, whom
Foxe gives as Sandys' opponent, was fined £2$o and compelled to attend
at the Privy Council meetings along with the rest of the disputants.
Dasent's Acts of the Privy Council, VII, -79 et seq.
^ Strype's Annals, 1.-1.-248.

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC IO9
where the roods, crosses, and altars were pulled down,
and at St. Paul's, " they further enjoined and gave in
command that none in the said cathedral church
henceforth use any shaven crowns, amices, or clothes
called copes." ^'
" So that from Bartholomew-tide and so forward,
within a month's time, or less, were destroyed all the
roods, church images, church goods, with copes, crosses,
censers," &c. *°
Strype reprints the Interrogatories issued by some
Ordinary during this visitation which were "joined to"
the Visitation Articles of the Visitors, and inquiring
" whether any images, books of service, or vestments, not
allowed by law, be reserved of any man?"*^ and he
quotes in his Life of Parker (III. -145) from a paper by
" Bishop Cox, or Bishop Jewel" areply to Puritan attacks,
of somewhat later date, in these words — " in that they
are said to be monuments of idolatry, that cannot be.
For if some of the attire wherewith the mumbling Mass
hath been said be put away and abolished, why term they
the like form, and that which never served the like use,
to be monuments of idolatry ? "
On August 12th, Grindal (Bishop Elect of London)
and May (Dean Elect of St. Paul's) ordered the pre
bendaries and petty canons of St. Paul's " to use only
a surplice in the service time."*^

^^ Strype's ^MKaZs, 1.-1.-252. Hume's Spanish State Papers, I.-89.
*" Strype's Grindal, p. 37. Machyn's Diary, p, 208,
•" Strype's Annals, l.-i.-2/^^. I,-ii,-497. Cardwell's Documentary Annals,
I.-2I0. "The use of these Vestments," says Mr, Tyrrell Green, " was
distinctly understood at the time to imply a recognitian of the sacrificial
character of the Sacrament,'' On the Articles, p. 261,
¦•^ "Wriothesley's Chronicle of England. Camden Society, 11,-146.
Holinshed, 111,-1184. ^- edition 1586.

no THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
In 1560, Pilkington, one of the reputed " revisers,"
a Royal Visitor for the University of Cambridge (and,
before the close of the year. Bishop of Durham), men
tions "copes" among distinctively "popish gear." ^
On June 5th of the same year the Canons of Salisbury
commuted the (previously) customary payment of a
cope at the first election of a new member of the
chapter, for a money payment.** In the same year,
Sandys reports to Archbishop Cranmer's old colleague,
Peter Martyr, that " images of every kind were at our
last Visitation not only taken down, but also burnt,
and that too by pubhc authority " ; but, he adds,
" only the popish vestments remain in our church '
{i.e. Worcester Cathedral). ' I mean copes {Copas
intellige), which we hope will not last very long."*^
We learn afterwards from the taunt of Robert Johnson,
the Nonconformist, that Sandys himself " refused the
cope." See p. 134 infra. But this Worcester case is
one of several instances (to be discussed hereafter)
illustrating the dispensing power in respect of the
cope which under the pretext of " taking order " the
executive assumed to itself as matter of public policy.
In 1561, Parkhurst, Bishop of Norwich, asks whether
any " vestments not allowed by law be reserved of any
man," language which could only apply to the Rubric
of 1552.*"
In 1561-2, Alley, Bishop of Exeter, complains (ap
parently to the Privy Council) that he knew

¦•^ Works, pp, 77, 129.
¦*¦' Statuta et Consuetudines, p. 113, B.M. 5155, cc. i.
¦*» Zurich Letters, I.-74 and Appendix, p, 43,
'"' Second Report of the Ritual Commission, Appendix, pp. 402-3.

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC III
" one preacher, not of the basest sort or estimation, which did
glory and boast that he made eight sermons in London against
surplices, rochets, tippets and cappes, counting them not to be
perfect that do wear them. And although it be one in effect to
wear either round caps, square caps, or button caps, yet it is
thought, &c "*'
This is intelligible, if the rubric of 1552 were then in
use, because the dresses mentioned represent accurately
enough the outdoor and ministerial garb of 1553.
Bishop Cooper, in his Admonition to the People of
England, referring to the earliest Puritan objectors,
said, "At the beginning, some learned and godly
preachers, for private respects in themselves, made
strange to wear the surplice, cap or tippet." *^ And
Hooker himself says, " Under the happy reign of her
Majesty which now is, the greatest matter awhile con
tended for was the wearing of the cap and surpHce, till
there came Admonitions directed unto the high court
of Parliament," viz. in 1571.*' George Cranmer's
letter to Hooker also describes the successive stages of
the Puritan revolt. He says, " The first degree was
only some small difference about cap and surplice." ^°
Such complaints would certainly not have been regarded
as the " greatest " on either side had the sacrificial
vestments been either customary or legal. Bishop
Jewel's account given on February 7th, 1562, to Peter
Martyr, quite bears out the same conception of the
situation. He says —
" Now that the full light of the gospel has shone forth, the
very vestiges of error must as far as possible be removed, together

*^ Petyt MSS., Vol. XL VII., p. 448. ^^ Keble's Hooker, I.-142.
¦•' Ibid., p. 141. ™ Ibid., 11,-599,

112 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
with the rubbish and, as the saying is, with the very dust. And
I wish we could effect this in respect to that linen surplice." ^o
In the original Latin, Jewel borrows from Plutarch
the word Xivoo-toXm "linen-dressiness " to express the
grievance of the advanced Protestants.'^ Later on.
Jewel again recurs to the controversy in writing to
Bullinger — " the contest respecting the linen surplice
(ecclesiastica veste linea) is not yet at rest." Jewel
himself wished to abohsh the surplice, " But the Queen
at this time is unable to endure the least alteration." '"
The date of that letter is February 8th, 1566, which is
of interest as bearing on the question whether the
Advertisements of 1566 were designed to change the
vestiarian law.
In 1563 the Second Book of Homilies was published
sometime before August ist. The Homily " On Peril
of Idolatry " was edited by Elizabeth herself (see below,
p. 250), and the " Third Part " " teacheth the sumptuous-
ness amongst the Jews to be a figure to signify, not an
example to follow," adding " Rabanus at large declareth
that this costly and manifold furniture of vestments of
late used in the church was fetched from the Jewish
usage and agreeth with Aaron's apparelling almost
altogether " — whereas it is urged " the vestures used
in the church in old time were very plain and single
and nothing costly."
In the same year the Archbishop of Canterbury asks*-"
" whether your altars be taken down," and " ministers
do use in the time. of the celebration of divine service
to wear a surplice . . and do use all rites and orders

5" Zurich Letters, I,-ioo. ^' Ibid., Appendix, p. 59.
*^ Ibid., I. -149. ^^ Second Report, Ritual Commission, p. 403,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC II3
prescribed in the book of Common prayer, &c., and
none other."
Such language does not point to a law as then
requiring Vestments, albs and tunicles. (See above,
p. 96.)
On August i6th, 1563, Humphrey wrote to Buhinger
" de re vestiarid," asking " Whether at the command of
the sovereign (the jurisdiction of the Pope having
been abolished) and for the sake of order, and not of
ornament [? CuMs'] habits of this kind may be worn
in church by pious men, lawfully and with a safe con
science. I am speaking of that round [sic'\ cap and
popish surplice, which are now enjoined us." '^
In January, 1564, Archdeacon Mullins visited the
London clergy by commission from Grindal, Bishop of
London, and requested them to " wear in the ministr3'
of the church the surplice only. And lastly they were
to subscribe with their hands that they would observe
it." 5*
" On the 24th of March following, this reformation in
ministers' habits began, when the use of the scholar's gown
and cap was enjoined from that day forward : the surplice to
be w^orn at all divine administrations : and the observation of
the Book of Common Prayer as was appointed by statute, and
the rubric of the said book."
The Archbishop, the Bishop of London, and other
Ecclesiastical Commissioners were present when the
Bishop's Chancellor, pointing to the Rev. Robert Cole,
" canonically habited," said —
'^ Zurich Letters, 1,-134.
" Strype's Grindal, p. 144. The plague " slacked " before January 26th,
1564. See Gairdner's Three Fifteenth Century-Chronicles, Camden Society,
pp. 125, 128, which fixes the date to 1564, not 1564-5. Grindal's Remains,
P- 115- 8

Iiq THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
" My Masters and the ^Ministers of London, the Council's plea
sure is that ye strictly keep the unity of apparel like to this man
as you see him, that is, a square cap, a scholar's gown pnest-like,
a tippet, and in the church a linen surplice: and inviolably
observe the rubric of the Book of Common Prayer, and the
Queen's majesty's Injunctions."
Refusal was followed by deprivation f" so that had
these requirements been contrary to law, the Noncon
formists would at once have had a le^l remedy by
appl3-ing for prohibition.
Thus before the Advertisements of Elizabeth were
issued, we have the High Commission declaring the
" pleasure " of the Privy Council {i.e. of the Govern-
, ment of the day) as to the " unity of apparel," and as
to the meaning of the Rubric and Injunctions.
In the foUowing year (July 17th, 1565) a letter was
written by Bishop Horn to Gualter which is only
second in importance to the testimony of Sandys
before quoted. Horn had returned to England in 1559
and took part in the public dispute in Westminster
Abbey, held on March 31st, but he was not in Parha-
ment till after the Act passed, having been made Bishop
of Winchester on February i6th, 1560. Horn had
been deprived by Mary of the Deanery of Durham,
which had not been restored to him on April 28th,
when the Act passed. Hence he describes it as passed
" before our restitution " {restitutionem). The Parker
Society unfortunately mistranslated this " before our
return," which contradicts the previous statements on
pp. 6, II and 15, in the same volume. Horn tells his
correspondent that by this Act —

' Parker Correspondence, p. 270.

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC IIj
" though the other habits were taken away {suhlata reliqud
faece) the wearing of square caps and surplices was continued
to the clergy, though without any superstitious conceit, which
was expressly guarded against by the terms of the Act. . . .
It was enjoined us (who had not then any authority either to
make laws or repeal them) either to wear the caps and surplices,
or to give place to others." ^^
Is it credible that Horn could have spoken of the
"rest of the dregs being taken away" if they were
still notoriously required by law ?
It deserves notice, too, that Horn regards the lan
guage of the Injunctions of 1559, enforcing the new
regime, as identified with the Act itself: for the
" express terms " are not found in the Act, but in the
Thirtieth Injunction. (See p. 38.)
1565. — Bulhngham, bishop of Lincoln, as Visitor of
King's College, Cambridge, ordered the Provost "to)
destroy a great deal of Popish stuff, as mass books . . ,
copes, vestments, candlesticks, crosses, pixes, paxes, I
and the brazen rood." ^''
In the same year, the Commissioners for removing
superstitious ornaments told Downham, Bishop of
Chester, that they had taken away " vestments, albe,
altar cloth, corporas, and other idolatrous gear." ^^
In the same year, Harding the Jesuit published his
Confutation, in which he taunts his opponent, " If
peculiar vestiments for deacons, priests, bishops, be
taken away . . judge ye whether ye have duly kept
the old ceremonies?" To which Jewel replied, "Ye

''^ Zurich Letters, 1,-142, and Appendix, p. 84.
" Strype's Grindal, p. 210,
°^ Gastrell's Notitia Cestrensis, II. -41, quoted in Bailey's Lancashire
Inventories, 11,-31. R *

Il6 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
come in with . . tunicles and chesibles . . as if all
these things had descended directly from the apostles
. . but you have so misused them, or rather so defiled
and bewra3'ed them with your superstitions . . that
we can no longer continue them without great
conscience." °^
The Visitation of Lincolnshire Churches, published by
Mr. Peacock, shews the general destruction of vest
ments, albs, &c., and their conversion into cushions,
carpets, antependiums, &c., and the alteration of albs
to make surplices, or "rochets for the clerk." More
over, they furnish evidence that many had been
"defaced" as the result of the Royal Visitation "Anno
primo Elizabethag."
The returns sent in to Archbishop Parker and
reported by him to Cecil, February 28th, 1565, of
" varieties in the service," do not so much as mention
vestments, albs or tunicles as being known or used
anywhere.^
j All the above instances are taken from the period
; before the issue of the Advertisements ; and they shew
that the framers and enacters of the Prayer Book, as
well as the responsible Ordinaries, had no conception
that the law then in force required or permitted the
sacrificial vestments to be worn by anybody. Whereas
if we assume that the Rubric of 1552 was recognised
as in force, they all fall into line naturally, with the
exception of a certain irregular, partial and inconsistent
employment of the cope.
As to that, however, three things deserve to be
considered.

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC II7
First ; that the cope was never generally worn, and
only on occasions of state when additional pomp might
be thought not out of place.
Second ; that the cope was neutral ground, involving
as it did, no associations with the Mass or the priest
hood. Third ; that when the cope was \\'orn at all, it was
used in a manner quite inconsistent with the Rubrics of
the First Prayer Book.
Before the Reformation, the chasuble was regarded
as the distinctive " Vestment " of the sacrificer : it was
specially "blessed," and at each priest's ordination it was ^
placed on him by the Bishop with the words "receive
the sacerdotal vesture," and was almost immediately
followed by the blessing of his hands to "consecrate
hosts which are offered for the sins and negligences of
the people." ^^ When Sawtre was degraded before
being burnt at the stake, the form ran " we pull from
th3- back the casula (chasuble) and take from thee the
priestly Vestment, and deprive thee of all manner of
priestly honour." ^- Before the issue of the Advertise
ments, the Puritan clergy had written to Bullinger in
the hope of gaining his authority for their refusal of the
surplice and out-door dress ; but he replied in terms '
already quoted, that " the mass vesture, that is alb and
chasuble," were intolerable, but that the surplice and
cap were things indifferent.
In the official translation of Bullinger's letter pub
lished by the High Commission in 1566,^' the word
"casula" is printed in the margin opposite "vestment,"

*' Jlaskell's Monumenta Riiualia, III.-209, 212.
"¦^ Fo.x, III. -227. "^ Given above, p. 55.

/

Il8 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
thus making it perfectly clear what the word " Vest
ment " in the Rubric of 1549 meant. Lyndwood had
described the chasuble as that "with which the priest
is clad when about to celebrate mass," while the cope,
he said, was used "out of the Mass time" {extra tempus
missce).^* In the Lincoln Pontifical the Bishop was
directed to " come to the church in a cope," and at
Mass to "put off the cope and put on amice, alb," and
the rest of the Mass vesture."^
The First Prayer Book, as we know from the "Great
Debate " held in 1548, was a compromise, in which
both parties had an alternative choice of what would
harmonise best with their respective theories. Thus
under the temporary compromise of 1549, the First
Prayer Book of Edward provided for the professors of —
The Old Faith. \ The New Faith.

"The Supper of the Lord,
and the Holy Communion."
The Lord's Table; God's
Board. A fair Cup " if the Chalice
will not serve."
Some comely vessel or plate
prepared for that purpose.
1'he Cope. ^
The Cope for Bishops.
The Surplice.
And we know in part whence this idea had been derived.
For the Kirchen-Ordnung of Nuremberg-Brandenberg
(from which Cranmer translated his "Catechism" of 1548, .
and also borrowed largely for the occasional offices of

" The Mass " (commonly
called) .
The Altar.
The Chalice. /
The Corporas ; the Paten.
The Vestment.
The Tunicle.
The Alb.

^' Provinciate, p. 252, Edition 1679.
^° Scudamore, Notitia Eucharistica, p, 70.

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC II9
the First Prayer Book), directed that " the priest is not
to wear a chasuble, but a cope onh^ . . . lest simple
folk should imagine it was intended to celebrate Mass,
after the former fashion, without communicants."*^
Hence in the Greyfriars' Chronicle, we have the sorrow
ful record*^ that on July 21st, 1549, Cranmer "did
the office himself in a cope and no vestment." When
Queen Mary's Commissioners visited Cambridge, the
fellows and scholars of each college were clad in copes,
but the Provost himself "in the ordinary habit in
which the celebrants at Mass are clad, except that he
wore topmost a cope like the rest." ^
On the other hand, the cope (like the surplice) was '
a mere choral and out-door processional dress worn
by clerks and singers, and even by nuns^^ and children.™
It had ue^r been worn by the celebrant at Mass.'^
Dr. Gasquet justly observes that
"A cope was not specifically a sacerdotal vestment but might
be worn by any cleric, A great number of these clerics were
in mediaeval England practically laymen, living in secular
avocations." Hence "those who desired change would adopt
the cope which broke with past ecclesiastical tradition and the
universal practice, and enabled them to display their rejection
of the sacrificial character of the service." '''-
Migne's Encyclopedic Theologique, Vol. VIII., p. 301,
article "Chape," says: "II n'est pas d'ailleurs neces-

'^ Droop's Edwardian Vestments, p. 43, ^ Camden Society, p. 60,
^ Bucer's Scripta Anglicana, p. 922, ^' Johnson's Canons, 11,-93.
70 "Five copes for children." Peacock's Church Furniture, p. 220.
" Capae puerorum," Dugdale's History of St. Paul's, p. 318,
'' Rock's Church of our Fathers, 11,-44, 45 • ^^^ Hierurgia, pp, 436,
439 ; Bishop Gardiner's Rationale of 1540 in Strype's Ecclesiastiml
Memorials, I.-i«,-42o; or p. 277 of the Cotton MS.
'2 Edward VI. and the Boek of Common Prayer, pp, 189, 190,

//

I20 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
saire que la chape soit benite, ce que prouve qu'elle
n'est pas proprement un habit sacerdotal." ''^
Hence it was that the Royal Visitors in 1559, being
empowered by the statute to " take order " {i.e. to
give practical directions as to what should be done),
connived at a certain indulgence in the matter of cope-
wearing, which was designed to soften the blow given
to the men of the " old religion " in' certain districts,
and in Cathedrals or Collegiate churches where pomp
had always been a distinctive characteristic. With
the traditions and habits of that generation, the cope
would seem to lend a certain dignity to the new service,
while it was wholly free from "sacrificial" associations.
Hence in Elizabeth's own private chapel, at the con
secration of Archbishop Parker, and at the communion
which was celebrated at the obsequies in honour of
Henry II. of France, on September 9th, 1559, copes
were worn by the Epistoler and Gospeller, in defiance
of the Rubric of 1549, which required these persons to
wear "albs with tunicles." In this way the "dis
tinctive " dress of the celebi^ant-" sacrificer " was as it
were cheapened, by raising the office of the teacher
and preacher to a like symbolic dignity. For, as the
Reformatio Legum expressed it, "we retain for the
Eucharist no greater veneration than for Baptism and
the 'Word of God." 7*
By the Rubric of 1549 a bishop had to wear at "any

'2 Compare Maskell's Monumenta Ritualia, I. -144, The blessing of
the chasuble was " that all clad with this chasuble may have power to
perform a sacrifice acceptable to Thee for quick and dead,"
'¦* De Hseresibus, cap, xix,, " nuUam relinquimus majorem
Eucharistiae venerationem, quam baptismi et verbi Dei," See above,
pp, 89, 90, 104,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 121
other public ministration " the same dress as " whenso
ever he shall celebrate the Holy Communion," "^^ and
when a priest officiated, the cope was. not put on till
" after the Litany ended." ''^
Whereas on September 8th, 1559, " the Archbishop
of Canterbury, in his surplice and doctor's hood
on his shoulders, who did execute, began the service,
assisted by the Brshops of Chichester and Hereford,
apparelled as the Archbishop " ; "" and on April
23rd of the following year, thirty Court Chaplains
in copes "sang the Litany in procession.""''^ Grindal
preached at Paul's Cross in " rochet and cymar,"
on March 3rd, 1560, as did Scory on March loth,
Jewell on March 17th, and Barlow on March 24th,
each being in "ys rochet and chimmer." So, too.
Bishop Scambler on February 21st, 1561.'^^ Arch
bishop Parker, with the Bishops of Lincoln and
Rochester, and his own "Suffragan," officiated before
the Queen at Canterbury in 1575, in " our chimmers
and rochets." "* No pastoral staff was given to Parker,
or used by any of his successors. The surplice used
by the Elizabethan clergy from the first at celebrations
of Holy Communion was not even permitted by the First
Prayer Book.
It is clear, therefore, that contemporaneous usage
did not recognise the Rubric of 1549 as in any way
binding. The cope was used (when used at all) not in

'' Liturgies of King Edward VI., Parker Society, p, 157, Original
Letters, p. 87,
'^ Edwardian Liturgies, p. 97, '" Strype's Annals. 1,-189,
"a Bishop Forbes on the Thirty-nine Articles, Preface XIX,, cf, Hierurgia
Anglicana, p. 152,
^ Milman's Annals of St. Paul's, p. 275, Machyn's Diary, pp,
226-51. '' Parker Correspondence, p. 475,

122

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

compliance with any rubric, but on State occasions, as
when Ehzabeth visited King's College, Cambridge, in
1564, and the Provost " began Evensong, which also
was solemnly sung, every man standing in his cope." ""
On the other hand, the bare toleration of the cope
by the authorities was naturally matter of complaint
to those advanced Protestants who dishked even the
surplice ; which abundantly accounts for the cope
figuring occasionally among the things which they
desired to see " taken away." Their silence as to alb,
tunicle and vestment clearly proves that the sacrificial
dress had already disappeared.
But, it may be said, "you are forgetting the Orna
ments Rubric which appeared in all printed Prayer
Books from 1559 downwards till 1662." For conveni
ence of comparison it is here printed side b3' side with
the Statutory Rubric of 1559-

Statutory Rubrics of i559'
The morning and Evening Prayer
shall be used in such places of the
Church, Chappel, or Chancel, and the
Minister shall so turn him as the people
may best hear. And if there be any
controversie therein, the matter shall
be referred to the Ordinary, and he
or his deputy shall appoint the place,
and the Chancels shall remain, as they
have done in times past.
And here is to be no-

Elizaheth's alteration.
The morning and Evening Prayer
shall be used in the accustomed place
of the Church, Chappel, or Chancel,

except it shall be otherwise deter
mined by the Ordinary of the Place :
and the Chancels shall remain, as they
have done in times past.
And here is to be no-

^ Hierurgia Anglicana, p. 150,
pp, 163, 184,

Nichol's Progresses of Queen Elizabeth,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

123

ted that the Minister at
the time of the Commu
nion, and at all other
times in his ministrati
on, shall use
neither Alb,
Vestment, nor Cope :
but being Archbi
shop, or Bishop, he
shall have and wear
a Rochet : and being
a Priest or Deacon,
he shall have and
wear a surplice only.

ted, that the Minister at
the time of the Commu
nion, and at all other
times in his ministrati
on, shall use
such ornaments in the Church
as were in use by Au
thority of Parliament in
the second year of the reign
of King Edw. VI.
according to the act of
Parliament set in the be
ginning of this Book.

It will be seen that the Elizabethan or " fraud-rubricj^'
went beyond the Proviso annexed to the Act of Uni
formity (Section 25), which was " set in the beginning "
of the Prayer Book of 1559 (see above, p. 97).
I. By requiring that ^' the Minister shall use" the ovnsLments.
2. By adding that they were to be used " 171 the Church."
3. By specifying " times of ministration."
4. By substituting " as were in use'' for the words " as was
in this Church of England."
5. By recognising a distinctive dress for " the Communion,"
apart from " all other times in his ministration."
The change thus surreptitiously attempted will be
readily seen by placing side by side the proviso itself,
and the fraud-rubric.

Proviso added to Act of Uni
formity {i Elizabeth, cap. 1,
section 25).

" Provided always, and be it
enacted, that such ornaments

Fraud-Rubric of 1^59 {substi
tuted without authority forthe
Rubric qfi^^2, re-enacted by
I Eli%aheth,cap. 2, section 3).
" And here is to be noted
that

124

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

of the Church, and of the
ministers thereof

shall be retained and be in use

as was in this Church of
England by the authority of
Parliament
in the second year of the reign
of King Edwdrd VI.
until other order shall be
therein taken by [the] authority
of the Queen's majesty, with
the advice of her Commis
sioners appointed and author
ised under the great seal of
England for causes ecclesias
tical, or of the Metropolitan of
this realm."

the Minister at the time of
the Holy Communion, and at
all other times in his minis
tration shall use such ornaments in
the Church
as were in use by authority of
Parliament

inthe second year of the reign
of King Edward the VI.
according to the- Act of Parlia
ment set in the beginning of
this book."

But Elizabeth's fraud-" rubric " had no legal value
whatever. This was clearly laid down by the Privy
Council in Ridsdale v. Clifton, when, after quoting the
Proviso (Section 25th) of the Act, they added —

" The authorities whose duty it was to issue to the people, in
1559,^ printed ^ook of Common Prayer, made conformable to
the Statute, prefixed to the Book so issued by them a copy, in
extenso, of the Statute of Elizabeth itself ; and they^also of their
oum authority, not by way of enactment or order, but by way of
a memorandum or reference to the Statute, substituted a new
admonitory note or Rubric for the note immediately preceding

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 125
the order of Morning Prayer in the Second Book of King-
Edward. ^1
That note or Rubric, as is pointed out by Bishop Gibson,^-
\va.snot inserted hy any authority of Parliament. It was meant
to be a compendious and convenient summary of the enactment '
on this subject. If it was an accurate summary, it was merely
a repetition of the Act. If it was inaccurate or imperfect, the 1
Act, and not the note, would he the governing rule."
We are not concerned to conjecture what Elizabeth's/
mcitive may have been. Through life she held the
view that Parliament ought to leave to the Crown all
Church regulations, and her battle with the Commons
as to the_enactnient of the Thirty-nine Articles has
been graphically described by Dr. Lamb.^^ She
altered the Hamilies, the Articles, and the Canons of
1571 after they had left the hands of their respective
framers, so that it was quite in keeping with her
individual notions of prerogative to tamper with an
authorised text. She may have really wished for the
ritual of 1549, and this has been confidently asserted
by .Strype and others : but no particle of contemporary
evidence goes to prove this, and it is remarkable that
she herself never followed it, though indulging freely in
a showy fancy ritual of her own from time to time.
We kngw that in .1559 she was intriguing with the
Spanish ambassador, endeavouring to persuade him
that she was not far removed from " cathohcism," and
even pretended to be contemplating a marriage with

*' This -was, of course, ultra vires : as the Crowncoald not alter the
statutory wording of the Prayer Book, especially with the words "and
none other or otherwise " staring them in the face, (See above, p. 106,)
^^ Godex, Edition 1761, p, 296.
^ Historical Account of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 24. See also-
Professor Swainson's Essay on the History of Article twenty-nine.

126 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
Philip himself, or with his " cousin " the Archduke
Charles. She may have feared that the ornaments
would be wasted, and " embezzled " unless their actual
use were insisted upon until the Visitors could go their
rounds, or she may have merely wanted to keep a free
hand to enable herself to turn either away as seemed
I most politic. But what is certain is that her Injunctions
issued at the same time with the Prayer Book, classed
"Vestments and copes," with the illegal books and
ornaments which the Visitors ordered to be defaced ; ^*
and we have seen that the thirtieth of these Injunctions
was understood by every one at the time to enforce the
Rubric of 1552, i.e. the standard of the Second Prayer
Book, which alone was legal in the "latter year of K.
Edward." (See p. 38.) Mr. Reunion has even thought
that immediately after inserting the fraud-rubrics in
lieu of those enacted by Parliament, Elizabeth felt she
had made a mistake and gave instructions to her
Visitors to remove the distinctive ornaments of the
First Prayer Book. On this view, the Injunctions
of 1559 were the "other order" contemplated or
sanctioned by Section 25 of the Act. (See p. 97.)
We know that she herself regarded the "Orders"
printed at the end of the Injunctions of 1559 as the
"further orders" contemplated by Section 26 of
the Act.
" Her Highness talked with me once or twice in that point,
and signified that there was one proviso in the act of the
uniformity of Common Prayer, that by law is granted unto her,
that if there be any contempt or irreverence used in the
ceremonies or rites of the Church by the misusing of the orders
*' Injunction, No. 47. See above, p. 36.

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 127
appointed in the book, the Queen's Majesty may, by the advice
of her commissioners, or metropolitan, ordain and publish such
further ceremonies, or rites, as may be most for the reverence
or Christ's holy mysteries and sacraments, and hut for which
law Her Highness would not have agreed to divers orders of the
hook. And by virtue of which law she published further order
in her injunctions both for the communion-bread, and for the
placing of the tables within the quire." ^^
The " Order for the placing of the tables " illustrates
also Elizabeth's own notion of what the phrase " other
order " involved. It recites that in some places " the
altars be not yet removed, upon opinion conceived of
some other order therein to be taken by her majesty's
visitors." *^ And it appears on the face of this Order
that "in many and sundry parts of the realm the altars
of the churches be removed, and tables placed for the
administration of the holy Sacrament, according to the
form of the law therefore provided," i.e. according to the
Rubrics of the Second Prayer Book which recognised a
table only.^'' But it seems to have been thought by some
that under the Act of Uniformity the Royal Visitors,
being " Commissioners under the great seal for causes
ecclesiastical," had power to dispense in particular
cases, for local reasons, with a strict observance of the
^ Archbishop Parker to Cecil, Prime Minister, in Parker's Corre
spondence, p. 375. In the original MS. Parker had written " the orders
of this book," Petyt MS, No, 47, fol, 53,
^ Cardwell's Documentary Annals, I. -201. Gee and Hardy, p. 439.
^' Among the Petyt MSS., "Vol, 538, 38, p, 29, are " Certeyne reasones
to be offered to the Queue's MaM^s consideration why it is not
convenient that the Communion should be ministered at an altar," in
which the " Divines " (whom Strype supposes to be the Committee of
Revisers, Annals, 1.-1.-236) urged "that in a great number of places
altars are removed and a table set up already, according to the wordes
of the book now published." Strype had altered the title, and changed
" wordes " into " rites." The whole paper deserves study.

128 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
law : ^** and this accords precisely with what was
actually done in some cases as to the cope, and with
the explanation given above of the meaning of "other
order." Mr. James Parker has indeed endeavoured to
account for the anomalous action in regard to the cope
by assuming that certain " Interpretations," so called,
drafted in 1561, which proposed to use the cope by
itself^^ at Communion, and the surplice by itself at
other services, may have been tacitly accepted as
a valid act of legislation. But this is absurd, for two
obvious reasons. First, the proposal was never
adopted anywhere by anybody. Second, the document
exists only as a draft unsigned by anyone, of unknown
authorship, differing widely in the two copies still
extant and manifestly not even finished. The version
given by Strype is an extremely inaccurate blend of
the Petyt MS. with the C. C.C. Cambridge copy.
Lord Selborne conjectures that this unfinished draft
was a " suggestion for future legislation," ^ but it
was never printed or published and is of no
authority whatever. Mr. Parker himself regards these
" Resolutions" (as one copy terms them) as "the basis
of the first draft of the Advertisements,"^^ and as such
they have merely a literary value.
However, the use actually made of the cope was
equally irregular and anomalous whatever theory
may be adopted : while its official destruction and

¦"* For six months the Commissioners wielded the sole ecclesiastical
jurisdiction of the country.
"^ This is clearly the meaning of the words " That there be used but
only one apparel ; as the cope in the ministration of the Lord's Supper,
and the surplice at all other ministrations," Cardwell copies all
Strype's blunders,
^^ Notes on the Liturgy, p. 12. " Letter to Selborne, p. 98.

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC I29
defacement by the Ordinaries or Visitors in 1559-66
can only be explained on the view that the legal rubric
forbad the use of these dresses. Thus " the exception
proves the rule."
My own view is that the Injunctions of 1559 were
but administrative and executive directions intended
to enforce the new, or rather the re-enacted Prayer
Book of 1552, although the " Orders " appended at
the end of those Injunctions may well have been
"Further orders" under Section 26. Similarly, the
Advertisements of 1566, having Royal authority,
would undoubtedly operate as a repeal of the 1549
standard, if we are to admit the common interpreta
tion of the meaning of the proviso. But a close
scrutiny of all the contemporary estimates points
rather to their having been issued under the 26th
section, as a "further order," i.e. by way of addition
to the standard of 1552. We know from the Spanish
State papers, that in 1564 and 1565 the surphce was
enforced just as exclusively before the Advertisements
were issued, as afterwards, ^^ and the Puritan com
plaints all point to a raising of the legal standard,
not to any lowering of it.'' The Advertisements gave
for the first time a legal sanction to the hitherto
merely tolerated cope-wearing, and made wearing
the hood compulsory in cathedrals, while for parish
churches the use of the surplice in the occasional
offices (other than Baptisms and funerals) was also
clearly prescribed. In 1571, long after the Advertise-
'^ Hume's Calendar of State Papers from Simancas, 1,-401, 406, 416,
See also above, pp, 48-53 and 109-122.
^^ Zurich Letters, II. -121, I. -158. " Gapa, quae tum lege abrogata
est, nunc (July, 1566) publico decreto restituta est," L'Estrange,
supra p. 81, regarded the Advertisements as a. further order, 9

130 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
ments had been enforced, Grindal wrote to Zanchy
saying : " The law itself allows the Queen's majesty,
with the advice of some of the bishops, to alter some
things. Nothing, however, of the law has been either
changed or diminished {de lege nihil nee mutatum nee
imminutum est), nor, as far as I know, is there a
bishop, who does not himself obey the prescribed
rules, and also lead and persuade the rest to do the
same."'* This statement is inconsistent with the notion
that a law requiring alb, tunicle, and Chasuble ("vest
ment ") had been repealed in 1566 by the power
which Grindal here mentioned as reserved to the
Queen by the statute. Yet Grindal himself, as his
Register, p. no, testifies, was one of the " Com
missioners of her Royal Majesty " by whom the
Advertisements were published.
Another evidence that the Rubric of 1552 was then
recognised as being in force may be found in the
pretext constantly put forward by the Nonconformists
for disobeying the orders of the Bishops as to the
observance of the Liturgy.
In 1583 was published An abstract of certain Acts of
Parliament, of which there are two copies in the
British Museum. "= On p. 224 the writer says of the
Advertisements : —
" The article that the minister shall wear a cope with
Gospeler and pisteler agreably, smelleth of superstition, and
as far as I can find both against her Highness' Injunctions,
and besides the book of Common Prayer."

s-" Grindal's Remains, pp. 334, 339. Compare Bullinger's Letter,
Zurich Letters, I. -348,
"» "T. 2108," and "697, f. 15,"

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC I3I
In 1584, Robert Beal, Clerk to the Privy Council,
and a statesman of some eminence, presented to Arch
bishop Whitgift a " book " in MS. in which, discussing
the Act of Uniformity, he said : —
" Seeing the statute made i- of her majesty's reign is
penal, and therefore to be literally and strictly understood
(and it alloweth but of a book with 3 additions, and not
otherwise) if there be no first book, nor ever was with such
3 additions, and not otherwise, then there is no allowance or
confirmation of any law : and forasmuch as this book which we
have, hath more additions, it is another book, and diverse from
that which the law requireth and confirmed. And so hitherto
there hath been no book published according to law at all."^^
Strange as it may seem, it is literally true that no i
book printed during Elizabeth's long reign eyei;_agreed
with that prescribed by statute;®'' nay, more, the
several editions differ, so that no two are exactly
alike. It was Edward's Liturgy with the alterations
made " therein," and not any of the varying printed
books of Elizabeth, which the Act of Uniformity had
sanctioned. Among the Petyt MSS. now in the Inner Temple
library is " Certaine motions whereupon a Conference
is humbly desired before the Lords of the higher
house, and a committee of the lower house," which
has never yet been printed. At p. 320 '^ it is urged —
" Seeing the statute requireth a book of common prayer
with the 3 additions only and not otherwise differing from

" Strype's Whitgift, I.-285,
'¦'' Clay's Liturgies and Occasional forms of Prayer set forth in the reign
of Queen Elizabeth, Preface, pp, xii, xiv, James Parker's History of the
Revisions of the Liturgy, p. xliii,
's Petyt MS,, 538, 36, No, xxi, n *

132 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
the booke of j Ed. VI. forasmuch as themselves in their
Advertisements, articles confesse an alteration in the calendar
since the 5 year of her Ma*'^ reign : 'Whether the prelates have
by the law of England any authority to alter the book at all."
At p. 322 there is an inconsistent grumble, asking —
" By what authority the bishops omit the use of copes and the
bearing of their pastoral staff'e which the book of the Q. and
3 Ed. VI. prescribeth, and whereunto the plat of the primo
referreth for Rites as well as the minister for ornaments."
Evidently the Puritan draftsmen were more anxious
to put the Bishops in the wrong, than to maintain
any consistent position, as it is quite untrue that even
the printed book of Elizabeth referred to the First
Prayer Book for any " rites."
In 1605 appeared "A short dialogue, &c., where
unto are annexed certain considerations."®' Among
these considerations the fifteenth is —
"As for the ceremonies, though the book of Common
Prayer used in the late Queen's time require them, yet neither
is it the book which is by law established (differing in many
things from K. Edward's book, whereas it should differ but
in 3 only), as is elsewhere proved, neither doth the statute
supposed to establish that book appoint any penalty for the not
using of them."
In the same year appeared " Certain considera
tions drawn from the Canons of the last Sinod,"i°"
which at p. 7, observes : —
" The book which the minister of the said church is bound
to use should differ from the book of Common prayer authorised
by the Act of parliament, 5 and 6 Ed. VI. but in 4
points, that is to say, ' one alteration, &c., and none other or
otherwise.' "

British Museum, T, 499, ""' British Museum, T, 49,993,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC I33
In 1641 the sub-committee appointed by the House of
Lords specify among the " Innovations in discipline " —
" By pretending for their innovations, the Injunctions and
Advertisements of Queen Elizabeth, which are not in force,
but by way of commentary and imposition : and by putting
TO the Liturgy printed ' secundo, tertio Edwardi sexti,' which
the parliament hath reformed and laid aside."
Dr. Cardwell, who reports this,i°i scarcely seems to
have understood the point of this contrast (viz. of Eliza
beth's "printed book," and its reference to the 2 and 3
Edward VI. , cap. i.), with the statutory book of
1552 and 1559, i.e. of the " 5 and 6 Edward VI," which
contained no such reference till it was " put to " the
legitimate text in the " printed " copies.
In 1660, Dr. Cornelius Burges, who had been one of
the Lords' sub-committee in 1641, published Reasons
shewing the necessity of Reformation, ^"^ in which, after
mentioning various ceremonies objected to, he says —
"all which were laid aside in 5 and 6 Edw. VI,
as appears by the rubrics, and the Act of Uniformity
in I Eliz. II. compared together, which allows
nothing but what was in the book of 5 and 6
Edw. VI., save only the alterations mentioned in the
said Act." Prynne and Zachariah Crofton adopt
Burges' strictures on this point.
At the Savoy Conference in i65i "exception" was ) »)
taken to the fraud-rubric of Elizabeth on the ground
that- " Forasmuch as this rubric seemeth to bring back the cope,
albe, &c., and other vestments forbidden by the Common Prayer
Book, 5 and 6 Edw. VI . . we desire it may be wholly left out.''
"" Conferences on the Book of Common Prayer, p. 273.
'"2 British Museum. " E. 764, (4);" quoted also in Hierurgia
Anglicana, p. 328,

//

134 "^^^ ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
And, still more explicitly, they objected to the other
fraud-rubric as to the " accustomed place," by saying
— " We desire that the words of the first rubric may
be expressed as in the book established by authority of
Parliament, 5 and 6 Edw. VI. "^°^
It is curious to notice the difficulty in which the
bishops and their apologists found themselves when
cfealing with these objections. Under Elizabeth they
were afraid to say that her printed book was a fraudulent
misprint, not only because " Great Eliza " had a high
handed way of dealing with ecclesiastics who incurred
her displeasure (as Archbishop Grindal and others
found to their cost), but, beside this, parties were then
so evenly balanced, and the diplomatic pressure of
foreign powers upon the Queen of England was so
urgent, that every one feared to repel her Majesty lest
she should join the enemy's camp. Even the extreme
Nonconformists, who were treated with great harshness
by the Queen, were always most devoted, in words at
least, to the Sovereign. Indeed it was a settled part
of their policy^"* to throw all the blame of her action
upon the bishops. They frequently taunted the bishops
/ with the fact that the rubric of the printed book which
' they required them to use, gave a verbal sanction to
the " mass gear " which neither the bishops themselves
nor the conforming clergy ever used.
' However telling as an argumentum ad hominem that
might be, it really furnishes proof that the sacrificial
vestments were not in actual use, for the complainants
admitted that the bishops were quite as hostile to the
'"^ Cardwell's Conferences, p. 314.
"" See Zurich Letters, I. -235, II.-164 ; Parker Correspondence, p. 237 ;
Strype's Whitgift, 1,-414

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

135

Mass as themselves. More than this, they state
expHcitly that the sacrificial vestments were discarded
by their opponents. Thus the Answer for the Time,
published in 1566, says —
"What popish ceremonies you reject they are unholy, and
what you will receive, that is good and orderly : you reject the
vestment and retain the cope : you reject the alb and retain
the surplice : you reject the stole and retain the tippet : you
reject the shaven crown and retain the square cap " (p. 30).
Robert Johnson, a Puritan minister, and domestic
chaplain to Lord Keeper Bacon, wrote to Bishop
Sandys —
"You must yield some reason why the tippet is commanded
and the stole forbidden : why the vestment is put away and the
cope retained : why the alb is laid aside and the surplice used. . .
why we may not with as good conscience refuse the surplice,
as you refused the cope." {Part of a Register.)
" A Petition to her Majesty " was published in
London in 1590 in which the petitioners speaking of
the ordination of bishops, said " they retain the sur
plesse, seldom the coape, but they never use their
pastoral staves " : of the " tunick " they observe " this
vesture is scarcely known at this day." ^°^
Or, as Archbishop Whitgift in 1574 put it shortly,! /
" all the popish apparel which they used in their massl
this church hath refused" and " neither do we retain 1^
the massing Levitical apparel." ^"^
The Act of Uniformity " set in the beginning of the

'"» British Museum, " 108.6.2," pp. 64, 66, That the pastoral staff
never came into use under Elizabeth, see Estcourt's^«^HM» Ordinations,
p. 106 ; 'Whitgift's Works, 1,-488 ; Pilkington's Works, pp. 584, 586.
'"6 'Whitgift's Works, 111,-550,

136 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
book" and referred to by name in the printed "orna
ments rubric" of Elizabeth, was the only law then
recognised by the courts or the ordinaries, and the
only law obeyed by the clergy, with of course the
additions made from time to time by subsequent
Orders of the Crown or by the Canons of 1604. No
change was made in this respect under James, for, as
Lord Selborne observes, " those rubrics were not
mentioned or referred to in any of the alterations or
additions then made, or in the King's Letters Patent
or proclamation. The order to reprint the book, with
the alterations and additions specifically mentioned,
could not make anything not so mentioned (and as to
which the King had not received the advice required
by the statute) part of the book of Common Prayer, unless
it was so before. The subsequent republication, there
fore, of those rubrics did not alter their effect, or their
relation to the law."^"'''
In other words, EHzabeth's illegal fraud-rubric never
became any part of the statutory Prayer Book, though
at the Revision of 1661 a modification of the wording
of the 25th section of the Act was substituted for it.
j But the history of that Revision is so absolutely distinct
and separate that it ought to be treated in a separate
paper by itself.

'"? Notes on the Liturgy, p. 31.

VI

^be ©rnaments IRubric. No. ii. (1662)

ALTHOUGH the Prayer Book was proscribed
from 1645 until the accession of Charles II.,
it did not cease to influence the minds of
churchmen. In 1655 appeared (anonymously) the first
commentary on it, to which in 1657 Sparrow attached
his name, a third edition being called for in 1661.
L'Estrange, a layman, published in 1659, his Alliance of
the Divine Offices, exhibiting, as the title-page intimates,
"All the Liturgies of the Church of England since the
Reformation." In 1661 Sparrow published his Collection
of Articles, &c., which included the Advertisements of
Elizabeth. To the men of that generation, these reprints were
the only sources of information practically available on
a subject which had not as yet interested any large
class of students. The Prayer Books of Edward had
been burned in every diocese under the proclamation of
Philip and Mary in 1555, when the mere possession of
a copy endangered the life of its owner under the

r

138 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
revived Heresy Act of Henry IV.^ The scarcity which
naturally resulted accounts for the almost universal
ignorance which prevailed in the seventeenth century
as to what the Use of " the second year of Edward
VI." actually impHed. L'Estrange, in his preface,
and Collier in his history,^ testify to the difficulty of
procuring a sight of the Edwardian Liturgies which
had never been reprinted. Even Cosin's son-in-law,
Dean Granville, could not get sight of a copy until
1683, when he found it in the Bodleian after he " had
searched for it a great while with diligence." ^
L'Estrange's reprint became the fountain of a new
tradition, which will be readily understood from this
facsimile of page 63 of the original edition of 1659 — as
shewn on the next page.
In the first column " Common Prayer " meant, of
course, the printed book of KingJainesJ. referred to
in the Eightieth Ganon ; and the " Certain Notes " at
the end of the First Prayer Book were printed by them
selves in a column parallel to the (so-called) Elizabethan
" Rubric." It will be seen that these " Certain Notes " (as
printed in column i) required only the surplice and
hood for clergymen under the degree of a Bishop.
Hence arose a tradition widely prevalent in 1661 that
the surplice only was prescribed by the First Prayer
Book. Strange as it may seem to us, that view was
taken by the compiler of the MS. Notes made in an
' Cardwell's Documentary Annals, I.-i6y. Even Archbishop "Whitgift
had not seen a copy. (Strype's Whitgift, III.-92.) "Very few copies
of the First Prayer Book were ever printed. See p. 16.
^ Collier's Ecclesiastical History, 'V.-282. " The book is very scarce.
I grant it may be met with by parts " in L'Estrange.
^ Granville Correspondence ,' SurTees Society, I.-172,

The Alliance of Divine Offices.

63

Chap. 3

CHAP. III.

The order where Morning and
Evening Prayer fhall be used and faid.

Common Prayer.

Omitted in the i
B. of Edw. 6.

The morning and E-
vening Prayer Ihall be
used in the accuftomed place of the
Church, Chappel, or Chancel, (B) ex-
cept itjkall he otherwise determined by
the Ordinary of the Place. (C) And
the Chancels Jhall remain as they have
done in times past.

I. B. oiEdw. 6,
In the saying of Mat-
tens and Evenfong, Baptizing &•
Burying, the Minister in Parijli
Churches and Chappels annext to
the fame (K)Jkall ufe a Surplice.
And in all Cathedral Churches
and Colledges, the Arch-Deacons,
Deans, Provojls, Majlers, Pre
bendaries and fellows being Gra
duates, may ufe in the quire, be/ides
their Surplices, fuch hoods as per-
taine to their feveral degrees,
which they have taken in any uni-
ver/ity within this Realm. But in
all other places every Minister
/Itall be at liberty to ufe any Sur-
plici or no. It is also seemly that
Gradual! when they do preach
/Jiould ufe such hoods as pertaine
to their feveral degrees.
And whenfoever the Bijhop
/hall celebrate the holy Commimi-
on in the Church, or execute any 0-
ther publick minijlration : hej/iall
have upon him befide his Rochet a
Surplice or Alb, and a Cope or
Vejiment, and alfo his Pajioral
fiaffe ni liis hand, or elfe born or
holden by his Chaplain.

2 B. of Edw. 6,
The morning and Evening Prayer
fhall be used in such places of the
Church, Chappel, or Chancel, and the
Minister thai fo turn him as the people
may beft hear. And if there be any
controverfie therein, the matter fhall
be referred to the Ordinary, and he
or his deputy fhall appoint the place.
And the Chancels ftiall remain as they
have done in times paft.

The Common Prayer.
And here is to be no
ted, that the Minifter at
the time of the Commu
nion, and at all other
times in his ministrati
on fhall use (D) such or
naments in the Church
as were in use by Au
thority of Parliament in
the 2, year of the reign
of King Edw. the 6th,
according to the act of
Parliament fet in the be
ginning of the Book,
Scotch Liturgy.
And here is to be noted,
that the presbyter or Mi
nifter at the time of the
Communion, and at o-
ther times of his mini-
ftration, fhall ufe fuch
Ornaments in the
Church, as are prefcri-
bed, or fhall be by his
Majefty or his fucceffors
according to the Aft of
Parliament provided in
that behalf.

2, Book of Edw. 6.
A nd here is to be
noted, that the Mi-
nijier at the time of
the Communion and
at all other times in
his minijlration Jhall
uje neither Alb,
Vestment, nor cope,
but being Arch-Bi-
Jhop, or Bishop he
JJiall have and wear
a Rochet, and being
a Prieji or Deacon,
he Jliall have and
wear ajurplice only.

140 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
interleaved Prayer Book of 1625 which now forms
Harleian MS. 731 1 in the British Museum.* The
writer appears from internal evidence to have been
a member of Convocation, and makes a variety of
suggestions for the (then) forthcoming revision. The
same view was taken also by Dr. Cornelius Burges
(1660) and Prynne (1661) on the side of the Puritans,
as well as by Savage, the Master of Balliol and Chaplain
to Charles II. , who replied to them.^ Even Bishop
Wren, when he wrote in 1641, held the same view."
And the really learned Joseph Bingham, when replying
directly to Baxter's attack on the new Ornaments Rubric
in the book cited on p. 145 quoted the Rubric from the
end of the First Prayer Book, and added : —
" This it was that led Mr. B. into his mistake. He had
heard something of albes and other ornaments in use in King
Edward's time, but he unluckily put the Bishop's robes upon
every private minister : whereas no other ornament belonged to
them but only the hood or surplice, the one enjoined, the other
allowed or recommended."
He then quotes the Fifty-eighth Canon, and concludes
triumphantly, "Where is now the contradiction between
this canon and the rubrics ? They all speak of surplices
and hoods, but of no other ornaments belonging to
private ministers." '' Nor was this peculiar to Bingham.

¦* The reference is on p, 45, For some account of this MS,, formerly
attributed to Cosin, see Cosin's Works, 'y,-xxi,, Parker's History of the
Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 427, On p, 152 he explains " North side "
as designed " to avoid the fashion of the popish priests, who stand with
their faces to the East ; " and at p. 159 he says " we never use any
water in the sacramental wine,"
* Droop's Edwardian Vestments, pp, 65-70,
" Parentalia, p. 92, Edition 1750,
' Bingham's Works, 'VIII. -114,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 141
Dr. C. Burges, who had been one of the Committee of
Divines in 1641, writing in 1660, said, " The book of
2 Ed. VI. enjoins only a surplice in parish churches
and chappels. See last page of that book, where are
Notes for explanation." ^
Archdeacon Sharp, writing in 1753, said : —
" So that thelnjunction concerning the habits and ornaments of
ministers, which is at the end of King Edward's first Service Book,
with^ite^xglanationjn the Act of Uniformity by Gl, Elizabeth,
is the legal or statutable rule of our Church habits at this day." '•>
A very popular book at one time was " The Clergy
man's Vade Mecum," by John Johnson of Cranbrook,
of which the second edition appeared in 1706. The
writer said : —
"There must likewise be in every parish church and chapel,
a surplice, which the minister is obliged to use, in saying mattins,
evensong, baptizing, burying, etc., in churches and parochial
chapels ; the minister in other places shall have liberty to use
any surplice or no, by a Rubric at the end of Ed. VI. 's Common
Prayer Book authorized in the second year of his reign, and
enforced by the Rubric immediately before Morning Prayer in
our present Liturgy" (p. 19).
In the third edition (1709) the writer had at length
discovered —
" The occasion of which mistake was, that we looked no
further, than to the long rubric at the end of that book " (p. 21,
note). Nicholls in 1710 gives only the final rubrics from
Edward's First Book in his own commentary on the

^ Reasons shewing the Necessity of a Reformation, p. 12, The chapter is
headed "some of the differences and alterations in the present Common
Prayer Book from the Book established by Law, in quinto and sexto
Edw. 6, and r Eliz,"
' Sharp on the Rubric, p. 208,

142 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
Ornaments Rubric, though he published Cosin's Notes
in an Appendix.
In our own day Canon Trevor has vindicated this
view,^" urging that the special rubrics at the beginning
of the Communion Office of 1549 disappeared together
with that special Office just as the " chrysome " and
the " chrismatory " disappeared with the Baptismal
Office of 1549. The Sacrificial Vestments were never
in the Church " by authority of Parliament " in the
sense in which the surphce and hood and the eucharistic
cope exclusively were : they rested on older canons and
rubrics which had no " authority of Parliament."
It is highly probable that this behef (whether mistaken
or not) made the acceptance of the revised " Ornaments
Rubric " a mere matter of course in 1662. No debate
or discussion whatever appears to have arisen respecting
it in Convocation.^^ The hst of " alterations " prefixed
to the book in which all the important changes were
carefully entered up during the revision of 1661 does
not even allude to any change in the wording of the
Ornaments Rubric. A footnote to the list, explains :
" These are all ye materiall alterations : ye rest are
onely verball : or ye changing of some Rubrics for ye
better performing of ye service : or ye new moulding
of some of ye collects." ^^
The slight regard paid by Convocation to the changes
made in the wording of the rubric is fajal to the
'" In his Disputed Rubrics, p. 45, Hence Cosin in his younger days
had proposed that the rubrics of the Communion Service in Edward's
First Prayer Book be "heremseried and repeated," viz, at the beginning
of the Communion Office, See below, p, 196.
^' Parker's History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 409.
'^ See the facsimile Black-letter Prayer Book of 1661 published for
the Ritual Commission in 1870, p, 4,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC I43
contention that Cosin and his brother bishops designed
to repeal, by means of it, the Injunctions of 1559, the
Royal Advertisements of 1566, and the Fifty-eighth
Canon, in order to reinstate in 1662 the sacrificial
vestments of 1548-9. The Committee of Revision,
presided over by Bishop Wren, expunged from the
Elizabethan " Rubric " the words which, by differen
tiating "the Holy Communion" from "all other times,"
might have seemed to imply a distinctive dress for
Holy Communion. Wren had himself urged in 1660 —
" But what is now fit to be ordered herein, and to preserve
those that are still in use, it would be set down in express words,
without these uncertainties which breed nothing hut debate and
scorn. The very words too of that Act, 2 Ed. VI., for the
minister's ornaments, would be set down, or to pray to have a
new one made; for there is somewhat in that Act that now may
not be used." ^^
"These uncertainties," and the "somewhat," indicate
the thickness of the fog in which all parties found
themselves ; which was owing to the crooked policy of
Elizabeth (or her Council), in tampering with the
(Ornaments Rubric of 1552, which had been re-enacted
in 1559 by the third section of i Elizabeth, cap. ii. \
The timidity which prevented the Elizabethan bishops
from stating publicly that the printed Prayer Books issued
by the Government were inaccurate and unauthorised
as regards their non-Parliamentary " alterations and
additions " may have been politic, but it seriously
embarrassed their successors in office. Before the death '
of Elizabeth the sacrificial dresses had disappeared so
completely that at the Hampton Court Conference the
only " ornament of the minister " complained of was

Jacobson's Fragments, p, 55.

144 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
" the" 1* surplice. In 1641 there appeared a manifesto
entitled "The abolishing of the book of Common
Prayer by reason of above 50 gross superstitions in
it . , being the substance of a book which the ministers
of Lincoln diocese delivered to King James I., the first
of December, 1605,"^^ in which there isjio mention of
the Ornaments Rubric nor of any dress save "the"
surplice which is coarsely abused as " injoyned in their
idolatrous masse." ^^ As the same allegation is some
times made by Ritualists, for a like polemical purpose,
it may be well to quote Pugin's comment on the
Council of Cologne, a.d. 1260, which directed a vestis
camisialis to be worn at mass under the alb, which, he
says, " can hardly mean the surplice, but rather an
under garment of some sort." ^^ " The surplice " of
the Injunctions, Advertisements and Visitation Articles
is described as " large " and " with large and wide
sleeves," in contrast with the tight-fitting alb, which was
essentially an under garment. The two official apologies,
viz. Durel's Vindicice, dedicated to Charles 11.,^^ and
Falkner's Libertas Ecclesics,^^ dedicated to Archbishop
Sheldon, both point out that the surplice was neither
a " consecrated " nor a Mass ornament.
Laud's unpopular "restorations," however, revived
the older complaints which, as in the time of Parker
and Whitgift, had always been treated as too unreal
to deserve any formal reply. Englishmen knew that
neither alb, vestment, nor tunicle had been heard of
since the Act of Elizabeth had been "set in the

'¦* Cardwell's Conferences, p. 163. '° BritishMuseum, E, 178-2.
'* Ibid., p. 4, '' Glossary, p. 222,
'' p, 123. '^ Book II,, cap, iv,, sec, 1-9,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC I45
beginning of the book " ; while the High Commission
was seen day by day enforcing the wearing of " the
surphce " at Communion in despite of the contrary
directions of the First Prayer Book. To maintain the
status quo ante bellum, it seemed to them unnecessary
to make any change ; indeed the pride of the Tory-
Cavaliers, as well as of the strong Churchmen, opposed
any alteration which might seem to admit that their
predecessors had ever been in the wrong, or that their
opponents had ever been in the right. The exaspera
tions of the recent civil war rendered the Episcopalian
clergy but ill-disposed to make concessions.
Hence, at the Savoy Conference, the curt answer
was returned, " We think it fit that the rubric continue
as it is."-" The rejoinder of the "Presbyterians,"
which Cardwell does not print, spoke of the cere
monies of 1549 as " absolute,""'- j.e. obsolete: and in
1690 Baxter admits that —
""We know not what was then in use". ""We meet with
few Conformists that know what was then in use. And we
see that all those that subscribe or consent to this, yet use them
not." — " We must know what it was, and whether no act of
Parliament have since reversed that which then was used."^^
If Baxter, the leader at Savoy, knew nothing about
the "Vestments," it is not likely that at that time
anyone else knew much more.
Wiser counsels afterwards prevailed. It seems to
have struck somebody that by adopting "the very

"'¦' Cardwell's Conferences, p. 351,
^' Bayne's English Puritanism, p. 305.
" English Nonconformity, second edition, chapter XX., Point X'VII.
The proofs of Cosin's ignorance will be found below at pages 177 to 190.
10

^Th

 'ki~ )UiXlt*fn
order, wtei^e Morning

<-s<

and Eucning prayer
^ vfcct and Tdil^

"be

^He Morning aqd Eucning prayer (halbe vfed in tbe accnflotned
place ofthcChurch, Chappel], or Chaunctll, crccpt ii (hall bco
thcrwife detmnmed by the Ordinanc of the place; And the
Chancels ftiallremaioe as.they hatie done mnmes fail.
And here is tobe noted, •yvj^-iW\tv\mat"Hfmi\m«h'"~~~'""'
¦ J  "-iHnJ-

aiit-?'^

, f Ag^oraerior

4^- 9<-^'^><^j(C-I
-»-««*»» *Ov.^ »*.«« tVj, I

:tSl. a_'*''^ ¦^^

-J'yure. .
irMoniitis^^^CTrana^^^S

AT thcbegmni'ng'^eSt^otMomi^ f^ro. aild lauMilfcaf Eue-
ning prayer, the Mimller (hallrcade with a loude voice feme one
"f^efe Sentences of the Scnptnrej that folJow jt»d rhcW ft- ftnU
liiythac ¦rfhi^'- --¦^"•n tfrrr rbf faJiiSenttfljar
-E tbeatttrticroencraGiittetBoMO ekl.s,
ccpciu 1)1111 of t)is Dnnt from tl)c
ootsome of J)i3 Ijcatt , 3vmu piu
ail t)is {DttbtDnede oat of mt w-
mmib^nre.fayt!) tfte fLo^o.
g t^f unom mint nnwt lliiti pm 51,
beDnelTt.ant)m;Iinnt tsaliba; a?
gainflme. ^Lncne tO^factatbai) (torn our Fi^.51.
Onttcs, €> ILo;d , ano blot ont ad
out offences.
aifoztotbfulUpiritiB a[amfiteto(SoD:DefptfenotL^)Uo» pws- ¦
Jumble ano contrite Ijearts.
1&entvoucl)earts ano not pour gatmcnts.anbtnmetotOt locu, 1
ILojOpout (PoD bctaufebeis stntleanbmttnfull, bets pa»
tjtnt, aiiD of mutt) nurty , anb fuel) a one itJai is fojrp foj
fOR5£ffllttlOU5. ^^

From the "Durham Book" shewing the first staqe in the revision of issi.

And the
nmrn 11111-

moments ^^)\ /^^ (n/r^a^nA^^nl^
m the \£- of^fK- Cio^ci^h< af-}(^

^iii^

Enlargement of the draft Ornaments Rubric" shewn on last page.

148 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
words" of the statute, they might obviate the objection
of irregularity which undoubtedly did attach to Eliza
beth's " fraud-rubric." Clarendon tells us that —
" The bishops had spent the vacation ' [which lasted from
July 30 to Nov. 20, 1661] 'in making such alterations in
the Book of Cominon Prayer as they thought -would make it
more grateful to the dissenting brethren."-^
The result of the labours of this informal Committee
are embodied in the " Durham Book," of which an
account is given at page 191.
The above photographic reproduction of a page of
this book, together with the enlarged facsimile of the
new wording, will shew the steps by which the present
form of the rubric was reached. First, it had been
proposed to insert as a heading, " Of Ornaments to
be used in the Church," which was after corrected
L into " An order for Ornaments," &c. Lastly, this was
I struck out again. Then the word "all" (carelessly
^ omitted by the Jacobean printers) was inserted before
" times of ministration " with the object of retaining
the rubric unchanged ; as, indeed, had been threatened
at the Savoy. But, after debate, this has been again
^changed by strikin^out ^ajl_th^_words j)eculiar to
Elizabeth's fraud-rubric (thus getting rid of any allusion
to a distinctive dress for the Holy Communion) and by
' substituting the words of the Proviso (sec. 25 of Eliza
beth's Act) with the (after ?) addition of the words
"that is to say . . . ." The blank left was doubtless
intended to be filled up afterwards: but after further
7 debate a line was dashed through the row of dots, and
the words "A Surphce, &c.," were filled in. Com-
2» Life, Vol, II., p. 118.

THE 0RX.\MEXT3 RUBRIC

149

paring this with the ^'isitation. articles of the Bishops
which were published during the next twelve months,
the "&c." clearly meant "with tippet and hood
according to his degree." The Revisers could not
have intended to lump the Mass ^'estments under a
mere " &c." as appendages to "A Surplice."
Underneath the new rubric were written (with the
dotted hne under to shew that it was a mere direction
to the printer, and not to be printed), the explanatory
words, " these are the words of the Act itself v. supra," '
i.e. the Act of Elizabeth, "set in the beginning."
The rubric thus recast appears to have been adopted
by Convocation without debate.-^
It may be regretted that the intention to enumerate
the lawful ornaments was not carried out, but it was
probably found to be more difficult than at first sight
appeared. The " magpie " of the bishops did not rest
upon the " Ornaments Rubric " either for its scarf or
its chimere, which were really portions of the outdogr
dress, retained in service time by custom alone.
Similarly the customary "tippet" or scarf of the
" inferior clergy " was a portion of their Qutdoor attire,
though specially extended to non-graduates by the
Canons of 1604 ; while the compulsory use of the hood
rested on the Advertisements and Canons alone.
Lastly the dress of the preacher might have to be
prescribed, and all these would be difhcult to weld
into a borrowed sentence professing to relate in some
way to an Act of " Parhament in the second year of

"^ Mr, James Parker has shewn that on November 22nd between the
hours of 8 and 10 a.m., the Book was read as far as the end of the
Litany, involving the change of over three thousand words, — History
of the Revisions of the Prayer Book. p. 409,

150 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
Edward VL" Beside, the wearing of copes having
been ordered by the Canons cf 1604, still in force,
would also have to be recognised ; and this, as we have
seen, pp. 117-122, was a totally different " Use " from
that of the First (or any other) Prayer Book. Cosin
was present, and it is possible that he may have aired
the theories which in his younger " Notes " he had
copied from the " Survey " ; and if so, it might be
found convenient to evade their discussion. But there
is no evidence that Cosin at any time communicated
his earlier theories to any of his contemporaries ;
whereas Sparrow"" and Wren-" are known to have
held a view opposite to his.
A more interesting inquiry is, in what sense were the
words "retained and^bejrruse " taken over from the old
Act, in the revision of 1661 ? It is not probable that
the antiquarian learning of the revisers would sulfice to
make them understand the restricted meaning of the
older language ; while Parliament would assuredly
enact the newly introduced words in their modern
sense, as if speaking from 1662. Mr. Justice Coleridge
in The Queen v. The Justices of Kent (2 Q. B., p. 6gi)
says "words used in a consolidation act may have a
different meaning from that of the same words when
used in any one of the acts comprehended." The
Parhament of 1662 could not order to be " retained "
ornaments which had long ceased to exist. It must
be remembered that on the accession of Charles, the
Prayer Book had immediately regained its legal status ;
for, as the Preface to the present book reminds us, the
" laws -had never been repealed." During the long

^' See pp, 81, 199, 26 s^e p, 19S,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 151
interval from May 29th, 1660, to August 24th, 1662,
the Liturgy with its appropriate " ornaments " had
been restored and in actual use. In the British Museum
alone there are seven separate editions of the Prayer
Book (beside an Ordinal of 1661) issued during those
two years which preceded the publication of the revised
book; and Mr. Parker mentions some others. "A
whole year before the Act of Uniformity commenced,"
proceedings were taken against a Mr. Oliver Heywood,
of Coley, in Yorkshire, who was suspended ab officio.
for not reading the old service." The word " retained "
then, would be understood, in 1662, to mean the
perpetuation of what (had long been and) then was in ,
actual and accredited existence. This is proved,
moreover, by the fact that the Canons of 1604 (the
fifty-eighth of which ordered the surplice at Communion)
were reprinted in 1660 ; and again in July, 1662, they
were " published for the due observance of them by
His Majesty's authority." =« Nearly every Ordinary
asked for the " Book of the Canons " at the ensuing
Visitation. The intention of the legislature is shewn beyond
doubt by the proposal of the House of Lords to
give the King power to dispense clergymen from
wearing "the surphce," which was rejected by the
Commons on the ground that it was incongruous
" at the time you are settling uniformity, to establish
schism." 29 Again, in 1667-8, two rehef bills were
brought in, each making "the surplice" optional, and
both ahke ignoring the reputed " ornaments " of 1549.

-' Kennet's Chronicle, p, 722, ^ Ibid., p. 725,
^ Swainson's History of the Act of Uniformity, pp, 45, 59,

152 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
Yet the Lord Keeper, the Lord Chief Justice, and
Lord Chief Baron, all of whom had been parties to
the passing of the Act of Uniformity, were among the
promoters of this " rehef." ^°
After 1662, as well as before it, the^t of Elizabeth
remained, as it still remains the primary law of Orna
ments. This was recognised in a variety of ways.
In the " Durham Book," the Act was numbered "i"
in the Table of Contents, and its title was completed
by the addition of the words " made in the first year
of the reign of Queen Elizabeth." In Cosin's writing
appear several proposed amendments of the wording
of the Act, which were afterwards erased, but Sancroft
has written against the erasures " stet," as if desiring
to have them reconsidered ; and the same passages
are marked " q " in his Bodleian fair copy. The
proposal was dropped, and indeed it was inherently
absurd : yet it shews how the continuity of the Act
was taken for granted. On the other hand, the
proclamation of James was struck out by the revisers,
and his action, having been ultra vires, was completely
ignored in the subsequent statute.
On January 24th, 1662, the House of Bishops
" discussed of and about the Act of Parhament
concerning the Book of Common Prayer," '^ which
may mean whether the Act of Elizabeth should be
retained in the Prayer Book already subscribed by the
[ Convocations, or not. At any rate this statute, unlike
every other on the statute book, was subscribed by
every member of Convocation and has the full
'^ Thorndike's Works, Anglo-Catholic Library, 'V, -301-8,
'' SynQdus Anglicana, p. 98, Appendix,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC .153
" spiritual " authority of the " sacred synod " added to
that of the Crown and Parhament ! On Tuesday,
April 15th, 1662, the Commons also debated as to
making " the Act of Primo Elizabethae for enjoining
it to be used" apply to the revised book.^^ That Act'
remains therefore in full force and is an essential parti
of the Prayer Book to this day, and it has been
invoked as "the governing rule" in all the ritual suits )
which professed to deal with ornarnents.
It deserves to be remembered also that the House
of Commons desired to enact Edward's Second book,
and caused it to be searched for, but in vain. Failing
that, they next selected a book of 1604^^ in order to
get behind the supposed Laudian alterations. That
book of 1604 was, accordingly, read three times and
sent up to the Lords who also read the Bill relating to
it a first time and then waited for the Convocation
Book, which, however, the Commons refused to adopt
until a Committee of their own House had minutely
scrutinised it to see what the alterations were. This
jealousy of Laudian changes (such as Cosin's "Notes"
had suggested, and Convocation had rejected) is in
itself proof that it was not the intention of Parliament

•** History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 470,
^ In the British Museum, numbered " C. 25, ;H, 13," is a copy of the
edition thus adopted. It is identiiied by the " two " prayers which had
to be partly " taken out " and partly " obliterated " because they had
been printed (without authority) on the back of the last leaf which
contained the end of the Commination Service and the word " Finis,"
Mr, Wayland Joyce fancied that the Commons proposed to enact
Sternhold and Hopkins (!), not having observed that these last were by
a different publisher and are printed on different paper, though
accidentally bound up with the British Museum copy. His statements
about the language of the Earl of Dorset on this point are simply
untrue (Acts of the Church, p. 241) and his account of the action of the
various Committees is altogether inaccurate.

154 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
in 1662 to go back an entire century, and to render
the Canons of 1604 inoperative and inconsistent with
their new book.
But the crucial test is to see what was done by the
responsible Ordinaries when the Act of Uniformity
was recent and while the framers of both the rubric
and the Act were looking on as keenly interested
spectators, under the vigilant criticism of the disestab
lished nonconformists. We are able to call as
witnesses nearly every Bishop who sat on the bench at
the time of the last Revision of the Prayer Book.
At the head of these, stands the aged
Archbishop Juxon whose Articles, issued in 1663,
were overlooked in the Report of the Ritual
Commission.^' The Primate asked —
"Doth your Parson, 'Vicar, or Curate, saying public prayers,
ministering Sacraments, or other Rites of the Church, wear
a decent Surplice with a hood (if he be a graduate) agreeable
to his degree iii the University ? "
Archbishop Frewen had issued in the year 1662,
Articles for the diocese and province of York which
also escaped the Ritual Commissioners. He asked —
" Have you ... a decent Surplice, one or more, for your
Parson, Vicar, Curate, or Lecturer, to wear in the time of public
ministration? " Again, "Doth he wear the Surplice while he
performs that office, or other offices mentioned in the Common
Prayer Book ? " 35
Next to these we may place the Bishop who
presided both at the "Savoy Conference'' (owing,
perhaps, to the accident that he was himself then

" A copy is in the British Museum, " 5515, c. 54,'
'^'' Archdeacon Harrison on the Rubrics, p. 176,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 155
" Master of the Savoy ") and in Convocation (owing
to the great age of Archbishop Juxon). The Ritual
Commission give no Articles of Archbishop Sheldon's,
but Cardwell publishes his " Letter concerning the
King's Directions to the Clergy," ^o 1670, in which
Archbishop Sheldon charges his clergy that —
" In their churches they do decently and solemnly perform
the Divine Service by reading the prayers of the Church, as
they are appointed and ordered in and by the Book of
Common Prayer, without addition to or diminishing from the
same, or varying, either in substance or ceremony from the
order and method, which by the said book is set down,
wherein I hear and am afraid too many do offend ; and that in
the time of such their officiating, they ever make use of, and
•wear their priestly habit, the surplice and hood."
Wren deserves to be mentioned next, because at
his house, " Ely House," an important stage of the
revision was perfected, and to him is due a larger
number of alterations than to any other of the
Bishops. (See p. 193.) In 1641, he prepared for
Parliament a statement that Queen Elizabeth's
Advertisements "are authorised by law, i Eliz.
c. ii., sec. penult."^'' — words which almost decide the
meaning of Bancroft's " these are the words of 'the
Act itself sec. penult, ut supra." Nothing is more likely
than that these words were dictated by Wren as
Chairman of the Committee meeting at "Ely House."
In 1662 Wren simply repeated the language of his
former Articles of 1636.
"Doth your minister and curate, at all times ... in
administering the Holy Sacraments . . . and all other offices

^^ Cardwell' s Docummtary Annals, II. -278. Compare Bishop Gibson,
Synodus Anglicana, p. 242, S7 Parentalia, p. 75,

156 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
of the Church, duly observe the orders and rites prescribed,
without omission, alteration, or addition of anything ? And
doth he, in performing all and every of these, wear the
surplice duly, and never omit the wearing of the same, nor of
his hood, if he be a graduate ? " ^^
CosiN had asked as Archdeacon in 1627 — ¦
" Doth he . . when any sacrament is to be administered
or any other rite or ceremony of the Church solemnised, use
and wear the surplice, without excuse or pretence whatsoever?
And doth he never omit the same ? " 39
After the New Prayer Book had been enacted he
visited his diocese in 1662, asking
" Have you a large and decent surplice (one or more) for
the minister to wear at all times of his public ministration in
the Church?
" Have you . . a hood or tippet for the minister to wear
over his surplice, if he be a graduate ?
" Doth he always at the reading or celebrating any divine
office in your church or chappel, constantly wear the surplice,
and other his ecclesiastical habit according to his deuree ?
And doth he never omit it ? "''^
Both in 1662 and in 1668 Cosin's only question under
this head to his Cathedral staff was
" Does every one that is bound to ccme to church put on
his habit of surplice, tippet and hood according to his
degree ? " *1
Hacket, Bishop of Lichfield, in 1662, asks —
" Hath he read the Book of Common Prayer as it is enjoined
by the late Act of Uniformity, . . and did, and doth he,
¦«'ear the surplice while he performed that office, nnd other
offices mentioned in that Common Prayer Book ? "•'^-

•'" Second Report of the Ritual Commission, pp, 559-8, cf, 561, foot-note,
•" Cosin's 'Works, 11,-8, 9,
'"' Second Report of the Ritual Commission, p. 601,
¦" Granville Correspondence, Surtees Society, I.-256, 270.
*^ Second Report of the Ritual Commission, p, 609,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 157
Ironside, Bishop of Bristol, 1662, asks—
" Doth your minister, when he readeth publique prayers or
administer the sacrament, wear a comly surplice with sleeves?
And if he be a graduate, such hood as by the orders of the
University is agreeable to his degree ? " '^'^
Earle [?] , Bishop of Worcester, 1662 —
" Have you a fair surplice and other ornaments, according
to his degree, for your minister to use in his public admin
istrations, only for outward decenc}', order, and distinction ? " "
***
The next series of Visitation Articles has a special
history of its own. On June 21st, 1661, the Upper
House of Convocation appointed a committee to pre
pare a standard book of Articles ; and on February 2nd,
1662, this task was further relegated to Cosin. On
March 8th, 1662, Cosin, " according to the order given
to him and the charge committed to him, introduced
and delivered into the hands of the Lord President "
(Sheldon) his draft Articles, and " it was unanimously-
agreed that the same Articles should be sent to the
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury ' (Juxon) ' for his
perusal and due consideration of them, and for his
emendation, reformation, and correction of them." '*•'
On June 26th, 1662, Skinner, Bishop of Oxford, wrote
to Sheldon to inquire about them, saying, " I well
hoped to have seen that uniform book of Articles (viz.
for Visitations) before this day, resting assured that no
pretences could take of [f ?] your lordship's resolution

*' Second Report of the Ritual Commission, Appendix, p, 614.
'^ Ibid., p. 604, See Note 52, below<
*' History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 463. Lord Selborne's
Notes, p. 53. Swainson's Rubrical Question, pp. 33, 113. Droop's
Edwardian Vestments, p. 76, note.

158 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
from what so much concerns the honour and peace of
the Church." «
It seems probable that Cosin's Articles, quoted above,
represent the draft as originally sent to Juxon, and
that the series published by the Ritual Commission,
p. 615, are the same Articles after their correction by
Juxon. Morley was confirmed Bishop of Winchester
on May 14th, 1662, just five days before the statute
enacting the new Prayer Book received the Royal
Assent.Morley's Articles were also used by nine other bishops
in 1662, viz. Bishops Piers, King, Ward, Croft,
S.\nderson, Lloyd, Skinner, Laney, and Lucy, as
well as by various archdeacons in 1662, and by other
Ordinaries in after years. This gives special import
ance to their " uniform " inquiry.
" Doth your minister at the reading or celebrating any
Divine office in your church or chappel wear the surplice,
together with such other scholastical habit as is suitable to
his degree? "'*''
Henchman, Bishop of Salisbury, however, preferred to
issue Articles of his own. He asked, in 1662,
"Doth your Minister reading Divine service and adminis
tering the Sacraments and other Rites of the Church, wear the
surplice according to the Canons ? "*^
Those last words are very important, and may be
compared with Bishop Juxon's Articles of 1663 before
mentioned. Juxon asked —
"Art. XXII. Doth your Parson, Vicar, or Curate reade in
^ Tanner MS. quoted in Cosin Correspondence, Surtees Society,
Il.-xvi. ¦''^ Second Report of the Ritual Commission, Appendix, pp, 616-vii,
•"^ Ibid., p, 611, Kennet, p, 771, shews that Henchman's 'Visitation
was in September, 1662,

the ornaments rubric 159
your parish-church or chapel the Canons of ths Church upon
some Sundays or holy days in the afternoon before Divine
service ; so dividing the same that one half may be read one
day and the other half the other day ? "
Cosin, Henchman, Ironside, and the twenty-two
Ordinaries cited in the Ritual Commission Report, p. 615,
insist on each Parish having "the Book of the Canons."
It is clear therefore that they knew nothing of the
theory that the Canons of 1604 could have been
repealed by the later Act of Uniformity.
Reynolds, in November, 1662, merely asks — ¦
" Have you a large Surplice for the use of the Minister in
his pubhc Administrations ? "¦*'
Griffith, Bishop of St. Asaph, asks in general terms
whether the Minister duly observes the Orders, Rites
and Ceremonies " as in the said Book of Common
Prayer is enjoyned? " But he asks for catechising
"before Evening Prayer," shewing that he held the
Fifty-ninth Canon to be still in force and unrepealed
in 1662.''°
Nicholson, Bishop of Gloucester, at his Visitation in
1661, had asked —
" Doth your Minister, at the reading or celebrating of
any solemn divine office in the church or chapel wear the-
Surplice "^i
He calls it a " comely large surplice." But his later
articles have not been met with.
Gauden, Bishop of Exeter (afterwards Bishop of
Worcester), in his "Considerations touching the

¦" Second Report of the Ritual Commission, Appendix, pp, 619-vi.
"" Ibid., pp. 607-11,
'' Harrison on Rubrics, p, 176,

i6o the ornaments rubric
Liturgy," °^ describes the ceremonies " retained " as
" the cross (in Baptism), surplice, standing up at the
creed, or kneeling at the Lord's Supper."
DuppA died, March 26th, 1662, before issuing any
Articles : and the bishopric of Sodor and Man was
vacant till 1665.
Sterne, of Carhsle, Roberts, of Bangor, Fearne,
of Chester, and Warne, of Rochester, are the only
missing links in this episcopal catena. There is no
reason to think that they differed from the rest of
their brethren.
However, from Carlisle diocese, we can produce ^^
the Visitation Articles of Bishop
Rainbow. As Dean of Peterborough he had taken
part in the Revision, and signed the MS. Prayer
Book in 1661. As Bishop of Carlisle, he asked in
i655 for " the Canons," and a " surplice for the
Minister to wear at all times of his public ministra
tion." Again, " Doth he make use of the surplice
when he reads Divine service, or administer the
Sacraments" (plural).
Bishop Warner, of Rochester, was succeeded by
Dolben, who (as Proctor for Christ Church, Oxford)
had also been an active reviser in 1661. In 1664,
being then Prolocutor, Dolben was one of those
appointed by Convocation to translate the new Prayer
Book into Latin. His "primary" Visitation Articles
as Bishop of Rochester in 1668 are therefore of the' first

" p, 19. There is a copy in the British Museum, E, "'yxi: as Earle
was not consecrated till November 30th, 1662, it is possible that the
Articles assigned to "John, Bp. of Worcester," were Gauden's.
Kennet, p, 728, places the 'Visitation of 'Worcester in July,
*' British Museum, " 5155, b,"

the ornaments rubric l6l
rank as evidence.^* He, too, asks for " the book of the
Canons," and whether the minister " doth read the
Canons once a year as directed." Also, " Doth he
perform all his ministrations with decency, gravitj',
and reverence, wearing his surplice with a hood (if he
be a graduate in the University) as he is directed b}-
authority and the laudable customs of the Church ? "
Gunning, who had been a Savoy Commissioner,
asked in 1679 for " a large and decent Surplice for
the Minister to wear at all times of his public
Ministration."' -¦' *
In the Lower House of Convocation in 1661 the
three most influential and active members were Arch
deacons Poiy, Pearson, and Sparrow.
PoRY, in August, 1662, asks —
" Have you a comely decent Surplisse with sleeves for the
use of your Minister in saying the public prayers, or
ininistering the sacraments, and other rites of the Church ;
together with an university -liood according to the degree of
your said minister ? ""''
Pie refers by name to "the Advertisements of
Q. Elizabeth."
Pearson, when Bishop of Chester in 1674, inquired —
"Doth he make use of the Surplice when he reads divine
service or administers the sacraments ? "^'
Sp.\rrow republished in 1661, 1664, 166S, 1672 (as
Bishop of Exeter), 1676, and 1684 (as Bishop of
Norwich), the following statement : —

^^ British Museum, "5155, c, 61,"
" Second Report of the Ritual Commission, Appendix, pp, 651-S.
^ Ibid., p. 625, 627-3, =^ Ibid., p. 642, II

l62 THE ornaments RUBRIC
" The Minister in time of his ministration shall use such
ornaments as were in use in the second of King Edward VI.,
Rub. 1, viz. : a Surplice in the ordinary ministration, and a
cope in time of ministration of Holy Communion in Cathedral
and Collegiate Churches, Queen Elizabeth's Articles set forth
in the seventh year of her reign." ^^
Archdeacon Basire had taken part in the revision.
His Visitation Articles^" vouch for the Use of the
diocese of Durham under the vigilant regime of Bishop
Cosin. Several times he refers to " the late Act of
Uniformity." He asks for " the surplice and other
ornaments appointed according to his degree in time
of officiating."
One other witness of the highest authority may be
cited, viz. Sancroft, who as secretary during the first
stage of the revision entered up the final changes in
the so-called " Cosin's Book," at Durham. The
" Bodleian Book " embodying the second stage of the
revision, is exclusively in Sancroft's handwriting.^"
The MS. additions in the black-letter book of 1636
(which was photozincographed for the Ritual Com
mission) were also made by Sancroft. Lastly, in the
manuscript " annexed " to the Act of Uniformity (in
nine places) the final alterations in the known hand
writing of Sancroft are believed to have been ordered
by the King in Council. Thus it will be seen that
Sancroft was " in at " the revision of the Prayer Book
at every stage of that revision from first to last.

^ Rationale, p. 387, The edition of 1684 (the year before his
death) instead of being the "second" as Lord Selborne calls it, was
the eighth. And as the 1664 edition was modified in some points, the
persistence of the above quotation was not due to accident or oversight.
^ British Museum (" 698. b, 27"),
* Press mark "Arch, D. Bodl, 28,"

the ornaments RUBRIC 163
Now it happens that in the Bodleian Library beside
the Prayer Book of 1634 referred to above (and at
p. 196) there is another Prayer Book, dated 1684,
containing MSS. notes also by him. On the fly-leaf
opposite the " Ornaments Rubric " Archbishop
Sancroft has written —
" Ornaments of the Ministers. Dr. Grove's Persuasive to
Communion with the Church of England, 27. A Letter to a
friend relating to the present Convocation, p. 10."
In the two publications here named the only
" Ornament " to which any reference is made in
either is the surplice.
For a knowledge of this fact we are indebted to
Mr. Kennion, and it has since been verified indepen-
dently."! Two years before this Prayer Book of 1684 had been
printed, Sancroft, as Archbishop, had inquired in his
Visitation, '•' Doth your Parson . . . publicly administer the Holy
Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist ... in such manner
and form, as is directed by the Book of Common Prayer, lately
established, and the Act of Uniformity therewith published,
without addition, diminution, or alteration ? And doth he in
those his Ministrations wear the Surplice, with a Hood or
Tippet befitting his Degree? " ^^
As to the bishops themselves, who must be supposed
to have been craving for the "vestments" if they
contrived the rubric in a ritualistic spirit, not one ever
adopted the dress prescribed by the First Prayer Book.
They adhered to the same " episcopal surplice " (as
Parker's register calls the Rochet) as had been worn
*i Grove's Persuasive. Second Edition. London, 1685 p, 25, and
Vol, II., p. 46.
'2 Second Report of the Ritual Commisson, Appendix, p, 654, II *

l64 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
by Grindal and Sandys. (See p. 121.) Durel in his
Vindicice describes (chapter xv.) the " episcopalis
ornatus " in the following terms —
" Primo enim episcoporum vestitus excogitatus est diversus
ab eo quo utuntur Ecclesice Romance pontifices. . . . Nam
posita toga, qui eorum vestitus communis superior est, tunicam
ex lino byssino manicatam laxamque, quae paululum infra
genua dimittitur, sumunt, eique superinduunt aliam nigram
holosericam absque manicis atque anterius apertam, adeo ut
byssinae manicae et ipsa tunica byssina per anteriora, con-
spiciantur,'' p. 125.
r In all the long line of witnesses adduced there is not
one who could have been ignorant of the meaning of
the newly revised rubric. Nor is there the smaUest
discrepancy in their testimony. Hence we learn with
certainty that —
(i.) "A Surplice, &c.," meant a surplice with a tippet
or hood, "pro cujiisque gradu."
(2.) " The " surplice is always spoken of as the one
universally recognised dress.
(3.) No distinction whatever between the Holy
Communion and any " other times in his ministration "
was recognised or tolerated by any Ordinary. No alb,
chasuble, dalmatic or tunicle is anywhere recognised,
nor, in fact, did any such then remain in any church
• so as to be " retained."
(4.) The^Actitsdf, v. supra," viz. i Elizabeth, cap. ii.,
I was regarded as the standard, of which the newly
' framed rubric aspired to be an abridgement, in virtue
of its employment of the " words of the Act itself, sec.
penult." But the Act 1 Elizabeth, cap. ii., was also
* printed as part of the Prayer Book, into which it was
I now for the hv^ time incorporated ; the authority of

the ornaments RUBRIC 165
Convocation being superadded to its ancient Parlia-l
mentary sanctions. Hence the Elizabethan Statute I
has Synodical authority equal to that of the rest of the ;
Prayer Book, and is now (with the Canons of 1604)
the SH^tvw^JiegaLstandard for the " Ornaments of the
j\Iinister." See above, p. 125.
(5.) So far from any dual standard of " ^laximum "
and " Minimum" being tolerated, the Visitation Articles
everywhere insist upon the absence of any " diminution "
or " variation " from the statutoiy standard.
(6.) It has been suggested indeed that the revising
bishops wished to open a door for the reintroduction
of the abrogated Mass gear, and for that purpose
craftily omitted the concluding words of section 25,
viz. " until other order shall be therein taken," &c.
But that hypothesis would not only blast their
character for honest dealing with the Nation and the
Parliament which trusted them ; it would further shew ,
that they were fools as well as knaves, seeing that the 1
statute containing the omitted words remained the
primary authorit}', and would supplement any defects
in their inaccurate summar}-. The true reason for the
omission of the words " until . . . shall be," Sec, was
that the}' had ceased to be appropriate, seeing that a
centur}- had elapsed since the contemplated " other
order " had, in fact, been "taken." Hence the removal
from the Elizabethan rubric of the words " at the time
of the Communion, and all other times," and the
substitution of " at all times," words by no means
synonymous with "at the several times of their
ministration." I\Ien like Bishop Reynolds would have
been no parties to a wretched trick of the kind
suggested above. Cosin, the only man who ever gave

i66 the ornaments rubric
ground for suspecting him of having wished it, will be
vindicated in the next chapter. He never wore alb,
tunicle, or chasuble, nor in any public or official act per
formed by him as "bishop," did he ever recognise any
standard for Ornaments higher than that of the Canons.
\ The theory and practice of the Ritualists was not even
recognised in the Church of Englaiid at the time when
the Ornaments Rubric assumed its present shape.
To appreciate the cumulative force of the above
, evidence it must be borne in mind that the Visitation
Articles were the official interpretation of the Orna
ments ' Rubric,' given at the time by the very men who
had taken part in the recent framing of it. By the
\ Rubric of Edward's First Prayer Book it would have
been illegal for "the celebrant" (unless he were a
bishop) to wear a surplice : yet the surplice (often
described as "large" and with " large sleeves ") was
required as compulsory from all the clergy. No
" distinctive dress " for holy communion is ever hinted
at ; " both the sacraments " are put in this respect on
the same footing. The hood is required as a dress
of ministration, yet the combination of hoods with
chasubles would be too absurd for even ritualists to
attempt. If the ritualistic interpretation -were correct,
the Ornaments Rubric of 1662 would operate as a
repeal pro tanto of the Canons of 1604 which had no
" authority of Parliament," and were of course of older
date. Yet every Ordinary required the Canons of
1604 to be procured, directed them to be read, and
adduced them as binding precisely where they conflict with
the rubrics of 1549. It is simply impossible to imagine
a more complete consensus of authoritative opinion or
a clearer proof of the intention of the legislature.

1

!!£i

^^^m^^t^^^^

M

^^

^^

O

m

YII
^be ©rnaments IRubric. No. ill
THE GREAT "COSIN" MYTH
DOWN to the year 1708, no single Anghcan writer
admitted that the Eucharistic vestments (alb
tunicle, ^and chasuble) of the First Prayer Book
had ever been required by law, since the Elizabethan
settlement of rehgion in 1559. That theory had,
indeed, been broached after a fashion, in certain
anonymous pamphlets arguing against conformity or
subscription, though chiefly as an argumentum ad
hominem against the Bishops. But no printer's name
or date appeared on any of the^wild polemical squibs.
On the other hand the responsible defenders of " the
religion established bylaw" invariably treat the plea
as artificial, unre,al, far-fetched, and undeserving of any
serious reply.
But in the opening years of the eighteenth century
a change came over the Church of England. Some
unpublished "Notes" attributed.to Bishop Cosin, and
written or copiec^ by him more than half a century
before, feU into the hands of Dr. Nicholls, who pub
lished them about forty years after Cosin's death.
The effect was marvellous. Though Nicholls himself

i68 THE ornaments rubric
adhered to the older view which prevailed at the last
revision of the Prayer Book in 1661, viz. that the
reference in the " ornaments rubric " was to the
general rubrics at the end of the First Prayer Book of
Edward VI. (which prescribed only a surplice and hood
for clergymen under the rank of a bishop), yet his
contemporaries at once adopted, though only as a
speculative theory, what may be termed the " Ritual
istic " interpretation. Thus John Johnson in the third
edition of his Clergyman's vade mecum, published in 1709,
and Wheatly (who did not even know, any more than
- Baxter did, the difference between a "cope" and a
"vestment") in 1710, Colher (1714), and Neale (1732),
were the first of a long line of followers who " took
over " without any attempt at criticism the supposed
"new hght." Lord Selborne says^ Cosin's "Notes"
became the "fountain-head of a new tradition": so that
Gibson (1713), Burns (1763), and Cardwell (1839) copied
the ipsissima verba of Cosin's reputed " Notes " without
so much as a pretence of original research.
Cosin himself had learned what now forms the
" Ritualistic theory of the ornaments rubric " from a
polemical tract • by an anonymous Puritan lawyer,
published in 1606 under the title of The survey of the book
of Common Prayer, the views advocated in which Cosin
for the most part sought to combat. But it was not
till 144 years after Elizabeth had " taken order" that
this notion found any lodgment among the clergy.
In our own day, the authority supposed to attach to
Cosin's views has greatly increased. The subject is

' Notes on some passages in the Liturgical History of the Reformed English
Church, p. 28.

the ornaments rubric 169
presented commonly in this form : — " Bishop Cosin
was a man very learned in liturgical matters, his
influence was paramount at the last revision of the
Prayer Book in 1661, and we may with confidence
reason from the views expressed in his ' Notes ' to the
' mind of the Church' as expressed in the Prayer Book,
at least so far as regards the changes introduced into
the Prayer Book in 1661."
No part, however, of that estimate is correct ; on the
contrary it deserves to be called "The great Cosin
Myth," because it involves and rests upon a long train
of fallacies.
In the first place, as we shall see, Cosin was not
learned, according to the modern standard of Prayer
Book learning. It could hardly have been otherwise.
For, as Canon Robertson (the historian, and editor cf
Heylin) remarks, " The divines of Charles the First's
reign appear to have had exceedingly little traditional
information — the line of historical and antiquarian
investigation was as yet unopened. The earliest
histories of the Reformation (after Foxe), by Fuller
and Heylin, — the earliest regular commentaries on the
Prayer Book by Sparrow and L'Estrange, — were not
published till the time of the Usurpation."^ When
Cosin was a young man (he was only twenty-four when
the first series of " Notes " was written up) he began to
make " notes " in the margin of a " large paper " folio
Prayer Book dated 1619, which he had interleaved to
serve as a commonplace-book. These notes are in
Bishop Cosin's earlier — " very fine and minute " — hand-

- How shall we Conform ? p. 117.

170 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
writing and appear to have been copied by him for the
most part from a similar Prayer Book printed in 1617,
the Notes in which had been made by " a friend or
Chaplain" of Bishop Overall, conjectured to be a
"Mr. J. Hayward of Coton," of whom nothing is known.
In one of the " Chaplain's " notes (as Bishop Hickes,
the non-juror, pointed out). Bishop Overall is spoken of
as then Bishop of Norwich. Now, as Overall died on
May I2th, 1619, and the book in which Cosin copied
the " Notes " was not printed before March, 1619, at
the earliest, it seems pretty certain that Hickes' book
of 1617 was the original, and Cosin's merely a copy,
as Mr. James Parker justly infers.'" Nicholls (who
did not attribute this " First Series " to Cosin), says
"nine parts in ten" are the same in both books,* from
which it follows that only a tithe of these notes are of
Cosin's own making. Unluckily Hickes' book is not now
extant, so that we cannot tell which were the additions
made by Cosin himself to the " Chaplain's " entries.
Oddly enough, these very same Notes have again and
again been attributed to Bishop Overall, though the
"Chaplain" says in one of them, "I have heard my
Lord Overall preach it a hundred times." Such is the
value of " tradition " !
Now, it is precisely this " First Series" of Notes, the
authorship of which is unknown, that contains the most
strongly Romish pronouncements for which " Bishop
Cosin's " authority is ever claimed. Mr. James Parker
' History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 324 and 326 note " h,"
Canon Meyrick in his Letters to the Bishops on the Neo-Eucharistical System
(Rivmgtons, 1886), disputes the handwriting of this " First Series," and
denies that Cosin even copied this " Series" which he merely annotated,
¦* Cosin's Works, Anglo-Catholic Library, Vol. V,, p. xiii., note. The
page references in this paper are made throughout to this edition.

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 171
(who is concerned to magnify the influence of Cosin to
the utmost) says, " The notes in this book perhaps, on
the whole, have the most direct bearing of any upon
the alterations Cosin made in the Rubrics."" Yet he
admits that " few of the notes seem to be original " '^
and that the book " affords but very few notes which
seem to have suggested any corrections in the Offices." '^
Audit is from this same "First Series" that we often
see quoted long extracts from the Jesuit Maldonatus,
which Bishop Cosin is alleged to have " adopted as
his own " by merely copying them at second hand, for
future use, into his " Notes."
It seems worth while, therefore, to test in some
detail the value of this
" First Series."
The compiler, whoever he was, had undoubtedly a
great admiration for Maldonatus, whom he describes
as " their greatest divine that I meet with." ^ From
that Jesuit polemic the writer accepted the practices of
Chrism, and the blow upon the cheek in Confirmation,
which " being so significant," he says, " it were better
we had them : neither were it any fault, for aught I
see, if any man should use them in our Church,"
though he admits that " we omit " them.^ From the
same source he mentions "another custom of the
Christians, now also used among many, that they
touched their eyes, their nose, their temples and fore
head, with the Sacrament before they did eat it, as
being confident that there was such virtue and force in
it, that it would make all their senses the more happy
by it, and less subject to evil desires. And these
* History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 366, ^ Ibid., p, 325.
' Ibid., p. 367. 8 Cosin's Works, 'V,-i63, ' Ibid., p. 149,

172 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
things men did and do naturally, more than out of any
injunction."^" The genuine Cosin, by the way, repudiated these
same practices as being " new fashions brought in,
without any example of the Apostles." See " Third
Series " of the " Notes," p. 486.
His juvenile loyalty to Maldonatus reached its
highest point, perhaps, when he gravely wrote, " we
are so disposed that we would rather go wrong with so
many and great authors than speak that which is true
with the Puritans." ^^ It is hard to say whether the
folly or the wickedness of that frank avowal is the
more amazing; but it is clear that the writer (whoever
he was) was " keeping a diary " intended for no other
eye than his own or that of some familiar spirit. The
" Anglo-Catholic " editor (Dr. Barrow) shows that the
authorities quoted are often spurious,-'" while the
quotations themselves are commonly inaccurate,^^ and
he points out in the Preface that " statements respect
ing ecclesiastical antiquities, are derived' from works
which are of little or no authority, and cannot be relied
on as matter of historical truth."
When the writer of these Notes had occasion to
allude to the past history of the Prayer Book, he
blunders amusingly. For instance, at pp. 21 and 38
he tells us that the Act 5 and 6 Edward VI. , cap. hi.,

'" Cosin's Works, V,-iii. " Ibid., p. 120,
''- See notes on pp, 64, 74, 87, loi, 103, 105, no, 113, 121, 128, bis,
130, 131, 133, 167, 172,
" Ex. gr. pp, 91, 95, 109, 124, 139, 141, 150, 157, 164, Other blunders
not noted by Dr, Barrow are such as the mistake of " the Council of
"Venice" ["Venetum] for that of "Vannes [Veneticum], a mistake of some
four hundred years. Compare Works 'V.-g, with Dr. Stephens' Notes on
the Common Prayer, I. -305,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 1 73
repealed by i Mary, cap. 2, was " not since revived."
Whereas, it had been revived m May, 1604, by the
passing of i James I., cap. xxv., during Cosin's own life
time, only a few }-ears before the annotation was made.
In the same passage he suggests that some particulars
in Queen Elizabeth's published Order of 1561, for the
new Calendar, may have been due to the printer's
pleasure and " ignorance." (So also at p. 17 and
elsewhere.) At p. 47 he suggests that the introductory sentences,
exhortation, confession, and absolution, were added to
Morning and Evening Prayer in Edward's Second
Prayer Book, " in imitation of the Liturgy and Mass
of the Church of Rome " ! At p. 91 he quotes the
language of i Elizabeth, cap. ii., as though it had
re-enacted the First Prayer Book of Edward. At p. 93
he gravely observes, " The author of the Homilies
wrote them in haste," evidently fancying that the two
books (which have a perfectly separate history) were
written by one man.
At p. 114 he suggests that the transposition of the
" prayer of oblation" in the Communion Office of 1552
was due to the "printer's negligence," and he adds,
" the Consecration of the Sacrament being ever the
first, it was always the use in all Liturgies to have the 1
Oblation follow." That statement is utterly erroneous. |
The Oblation always preceded the Prayer of Invo
cation.^* At p. 170, he says a communion at funerals " was
appointed in King Edward's Service (before Calvin's
" See }ia.mmond's A7icient Liturgies, Preface, pp, xxvi.-xxviii. Pro
fessor Cheetham's Article on "Canon of the Liturgy" in Smith's
Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, p. 271,

174

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

letter to the sacrilegious Duke of Somerset got it
yielded) that there should be a celebration of the
Sacrament at the burial of the dead." The " Anglo-
Catholic" editor in his footnote, points out that
Calvin did not speak of the burial service ; and that
the date of his letter was October 22nd, 1548, i.e.
five months before the First Prayer Book of Edward
was printed. He might have added that Somerset fell
from power before the First Prayer Book was four
months old, and he never regained his former in
fluence, but was beheaded, January 22nd, 1552, before
the commencement of the session in which the Second
Prayer Book was enacted, with which "the sacri
legious Duke " had nothing whatever to do. Now all
these blunders occur in one series only of the
" Notes ; " and they illustrate the truth of Mr. Droop's
criticism that " the references, not very numerous,
which Cosin makes in his Notes to what had happened
¦during Elizabeth's reign, and the earlier part of the
sixteenth century, show that he had only a very
limited and superficial acquaintance with the history
of that period."
It is evident that the writer of the Notes was some
youthful pioneer on a new and untrodden path of
inquiry, fresh from reading Maldonatus whom he
quotes at inordinate length, and simply recording his
own first impressions, and accumulating stores for
after-sifting and adjustment. As the "Anglo-Catholic "
editor observes, " Cosin used his interleaved Prayer
Book very much as a commonplace-book," and " left
them incomplete " ; Dr. Barrow is " disposed to think
that all the Latin notes (except some short ones, and
others that are manifestly Bishop Cosin's own) are

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC I75
extracts." Bearing in mind the above data, it will be
seen that Bishop Cosin's responsibility for the " First
Series " of notes is of the very slightest. In some
instances we can prove that on second thoughts he
modified or rejected the views originally drafted by
the unknown compiler. For instance, at p. 43 (on
the supposed contradiction between the Ornaments
Rubric and the 58th canon) Cosin has added in a later
hand 1° — " But the Act of Parliament, / see, refers to
the canon, and until such times as other order shall be
taken." Thus, as Lord Selborne expresses it, " at
some time afterwards, not ascertained, he corrected
this last passage, as having been written in forget -
fulness of the statutory power " ^^ to "take other order."
Unfortunately Nicholls, who first published these Notes,
and whose edition was the only one available till 1855,
omitted this " later " correction, and thus contributed
to build up the erroneous " tradition."
So again, on p. 118, after a long random defence of
the application of the title "sacrifice" to the Lord's
Supper, there comes a wiser after-thought added in the
margin — " Not in strictness and rigour of speech ; for
so, was there never sacrifice, nor never shall be any,
but Christ's alone." So, on the Te Deum, his Editor
interjects — " these statements are corrected in the next
series of notes " (p. 64).
But it must not be inferred that where no such
footnote has been added, Cosin necessarily adopted.

''¦ Both Dr, Barrow, p, 43, and Mr, James Parker, History of the
Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 130, agree as to this,
1^ Selborne's Notes on the Liturgy, p. 27. So when Bishop Andrewes
had written, " Mention is there made of cope, surplice, tippet, hood,
pro cujusque gradu ; " Cosin added, " I.C. I find not that." p, 44,

176 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
still less retained, the views contained in these crude
jottings. For example, on p. 131, the " Notes" say —
"upon the words of consecration, the Body and
Blood of Christ is really and substantially present, and
so e.xhibited and given to all that receive it. . . . But
yet there remains this controversy . . whether the
Body of Christ be present only in the use of the
Sacrament, and in the act of eating, and not otherwise.
They that hold the affirmative, as the Lutherans, in
Conf. Sax., and all Calvinists, do seem to me to depart
from all antiquity, which place the presence of Christ
in the virtue of the words of consecration and
benediction used by the priest, and not in the use of
eating of the Sacrament." Not a hint is given either
in these " Notes," or by the Editor, that these were
not the mature views of Bishop Cosin. Yet in
i his History of Transubstantiation, written in 1656,
intended for publication, and published with Cosin's
expressed permission, in 1675, by his executor. Dean
Durel, he defends the Lutheran teaching on this very
point,^'' and says, "We deny that the elements still
retain the nature of Sacraments when not used
according to Divine institution, that is, given by
Christ's ministers, and received by His people ; so
that Christ in the consecrated bread ought not, cannot
be kept and preserved to be carried about, because He
is present only to the communicants."^^ In his Second
Series of the " Notes," ^^ he says, " Though the bread
and wine remain, yet the consecration, the Sacrament
of the Body and Blood of Christ, do not remain longer
'' Brewer's edition, p, 29, n,
1** History of Transubstantiation , Ed, Brewer, p, 61,
'" Cosin's Works, 'V,-357,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC I77
than the holy action itself remains for which the bread
and wine were hallowed ; and which, being ended,
return to their former use again? "
And, again, after referring to his History of
Transubstantiation, he says, " that the body and
blood is neither sensibly present — nor otherwise at all
present but only to them that are duly prepared to
receive them, and in the very act of receiving them
and the consecrated elements together, to which they
are sacramentally in that act united." ^^
Thus, to sum up the evidence as to this " First series
of Bishop Cosin's (?) Notes " — their authorship is
unknown ; only " one part in ten " is alleged as
traceable to him ; it was not until 1855 that they were
for the first time attributed to Cosin by Dr. Barrow
solely on the ground of handwriting ; which is no proof
of authorship. When examined minutely in detail
they prove to be crude and incomplete annotations by
some hot-headed partisan, ignorant as to the history
of the Prayer Book upon which for purposes of private
study he was making such illustrative comments as his
reading from day to day happened to suggest. Such
of the " Notes" as can with certainty be referred to
Cosin himself, are in the nature of additions demurring
or hesitating as to some of the conclusions of the
original Annotator. Few of them can be shewn to
represent Cosin's matured views. It was a grievous
¦wrong and injury both to Bishop Cosin and to the
Church of England when Nicholls in 1709-10, nearly
forty years after poor Cosin's death, published
these private memoranda. For, what statesman or
^ Cosin's Works, V,-345,

178 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
theologian could bear to be thus made responsible
for the " sins of his youth " ? Which of us has not by
him in some secret drawer an " essay " or a " note
book " which he would feel heartily ashamed to see
published with his name to it, though it may have
represented truly enough the fervid and confident
dogmatism of his hot youth ?
The " Second Series "
of the Notes was made in a Prayer Book of 1638,
"wherein be inserted leaves of white paper through
the whole book, for my own notes and observations
upon it, both doctrinal and practical." There is no
question that this is Cosin's. The authorities cited
are " nearly all different from those used in the former
volume." ^^ The inaccurate citations are much fewer.^^
He speaks much more respectfully of Calvin as " laude
sua dignum,"^^ and warmly of Luther as "the man of
God, Doctor Martin Luther, ever to be observed as
our preceptor," ^* and of the " Protestants in Germany
whose example we also in England have for the most
part foUowed." 25
In these Notes Cosin rejects the sacrifice of the
Mass,2« the Elevation ^7 and Adoration of the Host,^^
Purgatory, 2'' and expresses himself as to the ritual of
consecration in a way which illustrates the meaning of
the words "before the people" in the rubric before
the Prayer of Consecration. He says : " Our Lord
willed the blood to be received apart, and as separated
from the Body, and willed the blessed bread, which is
-^ Parker's History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 369,
22 Cosin's Works, 'V,-23S, 240, 351, -^ Ibid., p. 306,
^ Ibid., p. 374, 26 Ibid., p. 302 ^^ Ibid., pp. 333, 343, 347.
« Ibid., p. 340, 2B /Jj^^ p 342 23-jrjj-^ _ p 2^3^

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC I79
the communion of the body of Christ, to be broken,
and the wine poured into the cup to be poured out,
that thus the Passion and Death, and the sufferings of
the body, and the outpouring of the blood, might be
represented and reproduced, not only to the mind, but
to the very eyes also, by signs and actions of this sort." ^°
"The character of the later part at least of this second
series of notes is to oppose the Anglican view of doc
trine to the Roman, and there is a controversial tone
in them which is in marked contrast with that of the
former series," says Dr. Barrow.^^ Cosin's ignorance of
liturgical matters comes out in the statement that the
Injunctions put forth in July, 1547 {i.e. the first year of
Edward VL), " were set forth about that time, and
mentioned or ratified by the Act of Parliament here
named " {i.e. in the words " authority of Parliament in
the second year of the reign of K. Ed. VL"). For,
as Dr. Barrow ^2 and Mr. James Parker'' both admit,
" it cannot be said that these Injunctions are
directly either mentioned or ratified by it, as Cosin
implies." Again,^* he regards the First Prayer Book,
(which was not printed till March, 1549) as having been
" in use " in the second year of Edward, i.e. 1548.
But this "Second Series " of Notes need not detain
us, since even controversialists have not ventured to
build anything upon them. Mr. James Parker says :
" It has not been easy to find many passages in the
1638 Notes bearing upon the rubrics at all, and, even
where they do so, they seem to have influenced his
alterations but little." '^ We pass on, therefore, to
^'' Cosin's Works, V,-343, ^i preface, p. xix. ""^ Ibid., p. 231.
•'''* History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 132.
'^ Cosin's Works, V,-305,
^ History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p, 369, 12 *

l8o THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
The " Third Series,"
which is perhaps the oldest of the three. It consisted
of an octavo MS., printed by Nicholls in 1709-10, but
now lost. It seems to have been commenced after the
Hampton Court Conference in 1604, and the latest
event referred to is " the 17th of Charles I.," i.e. 1642.
Mr. Parker says " it is not possible to say that any
one note especially influenced a correction in Cosin's
corrected copy." Dr. Barrow conjectures that this
"Series" was made about 1640. They are chiefly
historical, and, as such, illustrate the slenderness of
Cosin's information. At that time he had not so much
as seen a copy of Edward's First Prayer Book, but had
access only to the notoriously inaccurate translation of
Aless. This leads him into making a number of absurd
conjectures, attributing to Bucer divers changes which
never happened, and explaining the origin of others
which existed only in his own re-translation.^® To
Bucer, who was his pet aversion, he attributes^'' the
declaration on kneeling, or " black rubric," with
which Bucer had nothing to do, its history com
mencing after Bucer's death. See p. 254. To
' Bucer again, he imputes Cranmer's Catechism, which
notoriously had a different origin, and had been
published in England at least nine months before
Bucer's arrival.'^ He states'^ that Nowel's Catechism
"was never received by any public authority,"
although Convocation in 1562, and again in 1571,

^^ Cosin's Works, 'V,-4i6, 445, 446, 489, 497,
''^ Ibid., p. 479,
^ See Original Letters, pp, 381, 643, Yet Cosin speaks of it as later
in date than the Catechism of 1549. »3 Ibid., p. 491,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC l8l
had revised it, and, so recently as 1604, had
required it to be taught in schools."*" As to the
Ornaments, he fancied that under the First Prayer
Book a priest might wear " his surplice " at Com
munion 1*^ and that "albs or tunicles" were alterna
tives offered to the assistant clergy ; *- while a Bishop
might wear " Rochet or Alb."*^ He imagined that
under that book "the people go up to offer at the
altar, and besides go to put somewhat into the poor
man's box;"** the fact being, of course, that the
only money offering then made by the people at
" the offertory " was to the box.**» He repeated*^ the
mistake mentioned above, as to the Injunctions of
1547 having Parliamentary authority in 1548 : also
(p. 437) as to the Duke of Somerset getting the Second
Prayer Book " confirmed in Parliament," which did
not meet until after the Duke's head had been taken
off. He says*® the " new book was set out in the 5th
and 6th years of King Ed. VI. , a little before the Pro
tector was beheaded." The Protector was beheaded
January 22nd, 1552, Parliament met the day after that
event, the Act of Uniformity passed April 14th, and
the " new book " was printed in August, 1552, to come
into legal use November ist, 1552 — i.e. eight months
later than Cosin's reckoning. At p. 441 he has a

¦"> Cardwell's Synodalia, pp, 128, 291, 495, Dr, Grove's Preface to
the Little Catechism, p. xvi,, or Dr, Corrie's Preface, p, v., Parker Society.
¦" Cosin's Works, Y.-^rj. ""^ Ibid., p. 440.
*' Ibid., p. 439, " Ibid., p. 459, ¦"" See p, 94, supra.
••' Ibid., p. 440. Probably Cosin never saw these Injunctions, for
Sparrow's reprint had not yet been published, and Cosin never quotes
the crucial words "lights before the Sacrament." Hence "VVheatly
fancied the two lights were for use at Evening Service.
¦•5 Ibid., p. 474,

l82 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
characteristic passage on altar-lights. He says, " In
the latter end of King Edward's time they used them
in Scotland itself, as appears by Calvin's epistle to
Knox, and his fellow-reformers there anno 1554-" The
blunders in that sentence are exquisite. First, 1554
was not " in King Edward's time." Second, Knox was
not " in Scotland." Knox had remained in England
from 1549 until Edward's death ; and there was no
public Protestant service in Scotland until 1558 at
earliest. Third, the letter in question was not written
to " Knox," but to Dr. Cox, afterwards Bishop of Ely.
Fourth, so far from its " appearing that they used "
altar-lights, both parties wrote to Calvin to tell him
that he had been misinformed. Cox wrote : " As for
lights, we never had any;"*''' while the Puritans
eagerly disclaimed the authorship of the slander.**
" By cause that Maister Calvin in his letter maketh
mention of lights, some might gather he was untruly
informed that in the English Book hghts were pre
scribed, the contrary whereof appeareth by the descrip
tion before." By the time he wrote his " Second
Series," Cosin had learned that Knox was at Frankfort
(though he still fancied that altar-lights were " used "
there, and were so " represented " in the letter signed
by Knox, which does not so much as hint at them),
but he still assumes that the Ornaments of the First
Book were retained in 1554.*'
It is instructive to notice that Dean Durel, the
personal friend and literary executor of Cosin, pub
lished his Vindicice in 1669, three years before Cosin's
'*'' Original Letters, p. 757.
''* Troubles at Frankfort, p. liv,, or Gorham's Reformation Gleanings,
P- •^47- "s Cosin's Works, ¥,-306,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 183
death, and pointed out this very blunder (in mistaking
"Knox" for "Cox") as a Puritan falsehood. From
this we may safely infer, either that Cosin did not let
his intimates know of the crude theories embalmed in
his private " Notes " which were never designed for publi
cation : or else, that before he died, Cosin had outgrown
these mistakes, for the sake of which, his professed
admirers now usually quote these Notes. Durel says,
" Denique ex Calvini epistola ad Coxum (non Knoxum
prout mendose vulgo legitur) data, qui pro Liturgia
Anglicana stabat, manifestum est, in ea liturgise
descriptione quam a Puritanis acceperat, quorundam
mentionem factam, Luminum scilicet, quae usurpata
non sunt in Ecclesia Anglicana, ex quo prodiit Edwardi
regis Liturgia posterior."^"
Durel's Vindicice, which was written partly in vindi
cation of "the Bishop of Durham" (Cosin) against
the Puritans, being published some years after the last
revision, is a much more reliable "authority" as to
the requirements of the new Prayer Book, than
Cosin's " Notes."
Durel, Chaplain to the King, and Dean of Windsor,
was entrusted in 1662 with the duty of translating the
Liturgy into French, and was grobably acting under
the authority of Convocation when making his Latin
translation of it. Both versions had been published
before the Vindicice was written. The "proof sheets of
this last work were submitted to Sancroft before
publication, and also to the Judge of th? Prerogative
Court ; and the work itself was dedicated to the King.
Its statements are a complete refutation of the theory
^ Vindicics, p. 97; cf, 489.

184 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
once privately embodied (but never acted upon) by
Cosin. Thus after enumerating the Mass garments
(amice, stole, alb, girdle, maniple, chasuble), he adds
that the Enghsh Reformers "when they came to the
correction of abuses in Church vestures . . . desired
these to be reformed in such wise that the whole
entire theatrical mass-gear (such as before described)
' has been clean removed from the Church of England
(Choragium missaticum universum . . . ab ecclesia
Anglicana penitus sublatum est)."" He repeats this
on p. 156, saying the Reformers " were not of opinion
that a distinction of dresses should be retained from
the first:" and in proof of this he refers to the Thirtieth
Injunction of 1559 as ordering the surplice.^^ Lastly,
he described the Bishops' "magpie" as "differing
from that used by the prelates of the Roman Church,"
and " plainly not the same as is used by the bishops
of the Roman Church." ^^ This published and quasi-
official Vindication of the Church of England against
the Nonconformists proves that the theory secretly
embalmed in Cosin's private " Notes " had not even
been made known to the public in 1669 : and those
" Notes " having been made prior to the Revision,
most of them long before it, cannot be evidence of
anything beyond the first-thoughts (or wishes) of a
student at the time when he jotted them down for
after consideration.
Such blunders as those above enumerated would not
now be perpetrated by a pupil teacher who professed
to have any knowledge whatever of the history of the
Prayer Book, and they are not merely erroneous in
«' Vindiciu-, pp, 124, 125, *- Ibid., p, 127, ^' Ibid., pp, 125, 159,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 185
themselves, but imply unfamiliarity with the Eccle
siastical history of the period. At p. 454, Cosin
informs us that the collects at the end of the Litany,
which were all printed in Edward's Second Prayer
Book of 1552, were "added only by virtue of the
Queen's injunctions of 1559," which, however, do not
in any way refer either to the "Collect for the Queen "
or to any other collect.
There are one or two passages in this "Third
Series " worth quoting, as throwing light upon
the rubrics. On the title of the Church Militant
Prayer, for instance, he says, "Those words ' militant
here upon earth,' were added to exclude the prayers
that were used in the ancient Liturgies, and in the
former edition of this Liturgy, 2 Ed. VI." °* And
"in like sort, because the very term of 'offering' and
' sacrifice ' though well used of old, and in a far
different meaning from that sense wherein the Papists
used them, seemed nevertheless to sound their meaning,
and therefore to give offence, it is altered into another
expression of ' Christ's precious death ' only." "
Cosin's "Considerations." (1640?)
Together with the above Three Series of Notes, both
Nicholls and Dr. Barrow (the "Anglo-Catholic" editor)
print also a list of " Particulars to be considered,
explained, and corrected in the Book of Common
Prayer," which Cosin is believed to have drawn up
with a view to an expected revision in 1640. The
suggestions are numbered from i to 67, as far as the
^ Cosin's Works, "V,-464. " Ibid., p. 471,

l86 THE ornaments RUBRIC
end of the Communion Service, and there follow 24
unnumbered ones at the end. More than half of these
I proposed changes were ultimately adopted either in
! substance, or in part, at theTast re'vision of the Prayer
Book ; but of these many were merely typographical ;
others related to the substitution of the then "new
version " of King James' Bible ; others relate to tech
nical objections as to the legality of changes made in
1604 by the authority of the Proclamation and Letters
Patent of King James. Twenty^eight of Cosin's
\ " Considerations " found no place in the so-called
, " Cosin's corrected " Prayer Book (the " Durham
Book " to be mentioned hereafter), yet fourteen of
these were ultimately adopted. Many are to be found
also in the perfecth' independent suggestions of Bishop
Wren, and of the "Puritans" at the Savoy Conference.
In " Consideration " No. 29 he states that Queen
Elizabeth's Injunctions appointed the Litany to be
said "inthe midst of the choir," ^^ though the Eighteenth
Injunction of 1559 merely spoke of "the midst of the
Church." In No. 61 Cosin repeats the very grave error
of stating that in " Ancient Liturgies " the oblation
came "after" consecration. In No. 47 he imputes to
the First Prayer Book of Edward a direction which is
only found in the Scotch Liturgy of 1637. To that
same Scotch Liturgy are due also his "Considerations"
numbered 28, 40, 46 and perhaps 13.
We come now to a much more interesting inquiry,
viz. as to the true character and importance of what
has been called

*" Cosin's Works, 'V,-509,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 187
" The Durham Book"
CONTAINING THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE REVISION
OF 1661.
Our knowledge of the above "Notes" is derived from
the editions published by Nicholls (1710) and the
Anglo-Catholic edition of Cosin's works. Vol. V. (1855).
But there is another book connected with Bishop
Cosin's name which is of vastly greater importance
than any of the above. This is practically inaccessible
to the pubhc except through Mr. James Parker's
History of the Revisions of the Book of Common Prayer,
1877. It is a Prayer Book printed in 1619, and now
in the Durham Library, which it is most important to
distinguish from that other "Prayer Book of 1619,"
previously mentioned as containing the " First Series "
of Notes, and which also is in the Durham Library.
The latter has, according to Dr. Barrow (p. xvi.), the
press mark " c. i. 2," but the press mark of the more
valuable and important book is " D. iii. 5." It has
never been published by its custodians the Warden and
Fellows of Durham University, as its importance surely
demands. For the sake of distinction we shall speak
of it henceforth as "The Durham Book." Its appearance
is thus described by Mr. James Parker. " This book
of Bp. Cosin's was evidently prepared for the
printers, for on the fly-leaf, in the Bishop's own hand
writing, we find" a series of "directions to be given
to the printer." ^7 Next, in Sancroft's handwriting
comes a revised version of these " directions." On a
third leaf "inserted, but evidently belonging to the

"' History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 94.

l88 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
book," comes " the rough draft of the form of assent
of Convocation to the corrections, together with notes
how the signatures are to be attached." ^* As this form
(given by Mr. Parker at p. 445) was settled after a four
hours' debate on December 19th, 1661,=' it throws light
on the nature and date of the work. Throughout,
"though the writing of Bishop Cosin when erased
is not always legible, the greater part is very clear.
Still many of the pages have a very confused appear
ance, not only on account of the obliteration of the text
and the marginal additions, but from these marginal
additions being in many cases struck through and
others added in their stead." ^° "There are a great
many entries, in different styles of writing, and evidently
at different times, though all undoubtedly by Cosin
himself; and these constitute a great proportion of
the whole of the corrections in the book. The rest
are in one hand, apparently written at or about the
same time, and sometimes ov£r Cosin's writing, and
all by Sancroft." "
Mr. James Parker chooses to entitle this book
" Cosin's Corrected Copy, 1640-61," a date purely
arbitrary and intended to establish a theory that the
whole book was in the first instance a private revision
by Cosin. Mr. Parker thinks " the book was brought
to the provisional committee with none but Cosin's
writing in it." ^^ Yet, even so, it would not follow that
Cosin had been compiling these amendments for
twenty-one years. Mr. Parker says,^^ " There are good

^ History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 95, ^^ Ibid., p. 90,
™ Ibid., p. 96, ^' Parker's Letter to Lord Selborne, p. no,
"2 Letter to Selborne, p, no,
^ History of the Revisions of the'frayer Book, p. 385,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 189
grounds for supposing that the corrected copy was
commenced as early as i6ig " ; but though he italicises
the words " good grounds," he gives no hint as to
their nature. It is more reasonable to suppose that —
just as Article XXVIII. was said to be of Bishop
Geste's "own penning," not in the sense of authorship,
but because he may have acted as clerk at the revision
in 1563 of the Edwardine articles, which Archbishop
Parker had previously altered and re-drafted °* — so, the
"Durham Book" was commenced about 1660, and
contains merely the minutes of the revision of 1661 in
its preliminary stage, embodying the results of the
informal Committee which sat during the abortive
Savoy Conference, but earlier than the formal meetings
of the bishops " at Ely House."
It has been calculated that "of the corrections finally
made in the revision of 1661, about ninety out of every
hundred are due to the suggestions which are found in
Bishop Cosin's corrected copy," i.e. this very "Durham
Book." On the Parkerian hypothesis that the Durham
book was compiled, in private, by Cosin, during the
years from 1640 downwards, it would follow that his
individual influence upon the revision of 1661 had
proved overwhelming. Mr. Parker fancies, for instance,
that the Ornaments Rubric, as shewn in our photo
graph, " had been made probably some twenty years
before the Savoy Conference was thought of."^*'' That
would take us back to 1641 when Wren, Sanderson,
Hacket, and Warner — all of whom took part as bishops
in the subsequent revision of 1661 — were even then
engaged (together with Archbishop Ussher and Bishop
^ See Lamb's History of the Thirty-nine Articles.
^^ History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, Preface, p. 15.

igo THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
Wilhams) in advising a committee of the House of
Lords as to possible emendations of the Prayer Book.
At that time (1641), as Izaak Walton tells us in his
Life of Sanderson, Sanderson "and two others did meet
privately twice a week at the Dean of Westminster's
house, for the space of five months or more" — to " draw
up some such safe alterations as he thought fit in the
service book, and about some of the ceremonies that
were least material for satisfying their consciences."^^
It is possible, therefore, that Cosin's " Considerations,"
mentioned above at p. 185, may have been begun about
this time : the " First series " of Notes contains some
references to books published in 1656 : his Second
series mentions his History of Transubstantiation, written
in 1656 : and the " Considerations," Mr. Parker thinks,
were probably revised by him in 1661, " as there are
additions in a later hand."
If Mr. Parker's theory were correct, therefore, Cosin
must have been busy making the " Durham Book " at
the same time that he was compiling the First and
Second series of Notes and the " Considerations."
And, if that were true, it would follow that we should
find marked up in the Durham Book the changes
which were at that very time being indicated by Cosin
as desirable, in his " Notes " and " Considerations."
Yet if we analyse the " Particulars to be considered,
explained, and corrected in the Book of Common
Prayer" (which for the sake of brevity we have spoken
of above as the " Considerations "), we shall find that
they were dealt with in the Durham Book (and
subsequently) just as though after a discussion they
^ Sanderson's Works, Jacobson's edition, '¥,-300,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC I9I
had been rejected, modified, postponed or adopted by
a Committee on precisely the same footing as other
private suggestions made by other of the Revisers in
1661. If the reader will take the trouble to prefix consecu
tive numbers to the suggestions as printed in Cosin's
Works, V. -502-525, the following table will show what
became of these " Considerations."
Out OF Cosin's Ninety-one " Considerations,"
*^ (a) 14 were never entered in the Durham Book nor finally
accepted.
{h) 16 others — not entered in Durham Book — were accepted
at some later stage of the Revision.
(e) 8 were modified [by the Committee ?] before being
entered.
{d) 8 were in part accepted, and in part rejected.
(e) 22 were entered in Durham Book and finally accepted.
(y)2i were entered in Durham Book but ultimately
declined.
{g) 2 erased after being entered in Durham Book, were
accepted at some later stage.

"'' (a) viz. Nos. 17, 21, 31, 78, 88, all of which related to James l.'s
revision in 1604; and 5, 26, 27, .33, 34, 62, 67, 74.
(b) viz. Nos, I, 7, 8, 9, 10, II, 12, 13 in part, 14, 15, all of which
related to calendar; and 24, 35, 42, 53 (at very last
stage), 75, 85, 86,
(c) viz, Nos, 6, 22, 28, 43, " Savoy Concession," 48, 49, 68, 71.
(d) viz, Nos, 4, 29, 47, 50, 51, 69, 87, 90.
(e) viz. Nos, 3 (in part), 4 (except latter part not proposed), 20 (in
part), 25, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, 52, 55, 57, 59, 65, 66,
72. 73. 77. 83, 89, 91.
(/) viz, Nos, 2, 16 (in part), 19, 23, 30, 32, 37 (after proposal had
been changed [by Cosin?]), 44, 45, 54, 56, 58, 60, 61,
64, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84,
(g) viz, Nos, 18 in " Sancroft's" Bodleian book only, and 70,
The Nos, in "Clarendon" type alone possess any doctrinal
significance.

192 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
Some of Cosin's most cherished hobbies, it will be
seen, were ignored entirely in the Durham Book.
Thus the Proclamation of King James at which
Cosin gibes in every one of his " series " of private
memoranda, was nevertheless left intact both in the
Durham Book and in Sancroft's " Fair Copy," which
is now in the Bodleian. Again, many other changes
which Cosin advocated, and which were in fact
ultimately adopted, found no acceptance at this stage
of the revision. The transfer, for example, of the
passage about "Judas," from the "third" Exhortation
in the Communion is not indicated, though other
changes in the same Exhortation are duly entered
in the Durham Book. There are in fact but three
entries which from internal evidence seem to suggest
that Cosin had devised them privately out of his own
head. These are the very curious emendations of the
Act of Uniformity, i Elizabeth, cap. ii., against which
Sancroft has written " stet " after erasing the altera
tions ;^^ a rather wordy but very Protestant address on
Confirmation which Mr. Parker thinks was designed as
a Preface to the Confirmation office, but of which " no
notice appears to be taken " by erasure or otherwise
in the "Fair Copy" made by Sancroft ;^^ and a
proposed verbal Oblation after consecration, which was
decisively rejected.
With these possible exceptions, the rest of the
Durham Book must be referred (pace Mr. Parker) to
the post-Restoration period. This is proved by the
fact that many entries in Bishop Cosin's handisjriting

"' History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 109,
'^ Ibid., p. 260.

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC I93
in the Durham Book were taken from Bishop Wren's
suggestions framed in 1660. Bishop Jacobson pub
lished these Notes of Wren's in his Fragmentary
Illustrations of the History of the Book of Common
Prayer, 1874 (Murray) : and in the preface evidently
written after the Restoration, but before the Savoy
Conference to which it points. Wren speaks of " the
loud clamours which for these fifteen years have been
taken up in general terms against the Book by the
several factions." Bishop Jacobson points out that
1645 was the date of the parliamentary ordinance
against the Prayer Book : and " fifteen years " from
1645 brings us to 1660.
The date of Wren's Notes being thus fixed, we
proceed to show that his suggestions were considered,
and in several instances adopted into the text of the
Durham Book as originally written by Cosin. If this
can be established it proves, first that Cosin's hand
writing is evidence merely that he was at one time
acting as secretary to a committee, and secondly, that
for the most part (at least) the Durham Book was not
earlier than i65o. Let us examine, then.

Bishop Wren's Notes embodied in the " Durham
Book."
Bishop Wren is described by Lord Clarendon as
" very learned, and particularly versed in the old
liturgies of the Greek and Latin Churches " ; and
after the Restoration no Bishop stood higher than
he in the estimation of the Prime Minister who
habitually consulted him as to the exercise of the
Royal Patronage. 13

194 '^^^ ornaments RUBRIC
In May arid June, i65i. Committees of Convocation
met at his house—" Ely House " — to discuss the new
Forms of Prayer for May 29th, &c., Sancroft acting on
these occasions as secretary. ^^
In the next Convocation (November 21st, i65i) a
Committee of eight Bishops was ordered to meet " at
the palace of the Lord Bishop of Ely " ; and Wren was
also on the committee for revising the new Preface.
In his Notes on the Ornaments Rubric^'^" Wren had
written : —
" But what is now fit to be ordered herein, and to preserve
those that are still in use, it would be set down in express
words, without those uncertainties which breed nothing but
debate and scorn. The very words too of that Act 2 Ed. VI.,
for the minister's ornaments, would be set down, or to pray to
have a new one made ; for there is somewhat in that Act that
now may not be used."
In accordance with this suggestion the present text
of our Ornaments Rubric appears in the Durham Book,
differing from the preceding rubric (i) By abohshing
the previous distinction between the " time of the
Communion and [at] all other times in his ministra
tion " : (2) By introducing the word "retain" so
as to fulfil Wren's requirement " to preserve those
that are still in use " : to which, in Cosin's hand
writing was added in the Durham Book, " that is to
say . . ." This was clearly intended to fulfil Wren's
wish to have the Ornaments of the Minister "set down
in express words." And lastly, over the row of dots
Cosin has " written in with darker ink than the rest

f'' D'Oyly's Life of Sancroft, p. 112,
69a Fragmentary Illustrations of the Book of Common Prayer, p. 55.

THE ornaments RUBRIC I95
and so at a different time"™ "A Surplice, &c."
Underneath the rubric thus altered, Sancroft has
further written, "These are the words of ye act
itself, v. supra," and this explanation appears also
in Sancroft's "Fair Copy" in the Bodleian. See
above, p. 147. Sancroft has added in the Bodleian
"Fair Copy," "sec. penult ut supra" as a reference to
the I Elizabeth, cap. ii., the Act of Uniformity which
then was always, as it is still by law required to be,
printed "supra."'^ So Wren in his parliamentary
defence had written " those Injunctions ' of 1559 ' are
allowed by the Queen's Advertisements, Cap. I.,
Art. 3, and those Advertisements are authorised by
law, I Eliz. c. 2, sect, penult."''^
Bishop Sparrow, who was both a Savoy commis
sioner and a member of Convocation (being appointed
on several important committees) at the last revision,
and whose book on the liturgy was then the only
commentary published by a clergyman, also under
stood this " sect, penult " in the same sense, viz. as
relating to the Advertisements; as also did Heylin and
L'Estrange.''^

'i" History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 129, The meaning
of the "<&>£," is clearly explained by Bishop Sparrow (who, after
taking part in the revision of 1661, republished his explanation in 1664
and 1668), in these words — "such ornaments as were in use in the
second of Edward "VI,, viz, a surplice in the ordinary ministration,
and a cope in time of ministration of the Holy Communion in Cathe
dral and Collegiate Churches, — Q. Elizabeth's Articles set forth in
the 7th year of her reign," The VisitatioD Articles cited above prove
this. See pp, 154-162.
'' History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 129,
'" 'Wren's Parentalia, p. 75,
"^ Rationale. Alliance of Divine Offices, p. 104, History of the Reformation,
11,-408-10, See pp. Si, 82, above, 13 *

196 THE ornaments RUBRIC
Now Cosin's own private suggestion had originally
been that at the beginning of the Communion office
"here is to be inserted and repeated the order there
appointed, as well concerning the ornaments of the
church, as of the priest or bishop, and other ministers
that celebrate the Holy Communion."^'* When "dis
tinctive " vestments for Holy Communion were in
use they were thus prescribed at the beginning of the
Communion office in the First Book of Edward : but in
the Durham Book, no trace of this proposed Cosinian
revival is to be seen.
Hence it is clear that the influence of Wren
prevailed over that of Cosin (if we are to believe
that Cosin still held his juvenile theory), even in
the re-construction of the Ornaments Rubric, as
drafted in the Durham Book. Yet Mr. Perry coolly
urges that
" Cosin having proposed to use the language of the act, it
follows that whatever he understood the act to mean, that he
must have intended the rubric to mean ; and as his form was
adopted by the revisers in 1662, it is most reasonable to believe
that they adopted it in his sense."'''
Apart from the circumstance that Cosin had in
the meantime changed his mind, the above recital of
the facts of the case will show the untenableness of
this " great Cosin Myth." Mr. Blunt \_Annotated Prayer
Book, p. 3] , says that the words " after me " in the close
of the Exhortation at Morning Prayer "were erased
by Bp. Cosin." But this had been previously urged
by Wren.''"" Mr. Parker has not noticed this alteration,
which was disallowed by the Committee.
''¦' Notes, Second series, p. 305, '^ Perry on Purchas Judgment, p. 93.
75a Fragmentary Illustrations of the Book of Common Prayer, p. 55.

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC I97
In Wren's Notes, p. 64, we have a suggestion for a
new Thanksgiving with this title —
" A Thanksgiving for the Restoring of Public Peace. O
Eternal God, our Heavenly Father, Who alone makest men to
be of one mind in an house, and art the God of peace and unity
in every Nation, we bless Thy Holy Name for this gracious
change among us, and that it hath pleased Thee with so high
a hand to appease those seditions and tumults, which by the
subtlety of the Devil were raised up and long fomented among
us, and so to subdue the oppositions of men of evil minds, as
that, through Thy grace, we may now assemble in peace and
safety, to offer up unto Thee this our sacrifice of praise and
thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
Now if anyone will compare this with the Thanks
giving "for restoring public peace at home "in our
present Prayer Book, he will see that Wren's is mani
festly the first draft of this new collect which appears
in the Durham Book in Cosin's writing, but altered into
its present form, except that the words " grant to all
of us grace " were written by Cosin " grant us all
grace." Yet Mr. Parker claims, on the strength of
the handwriting, that "the prayer was composed by
Bp. Cosin himself"! He omits to explain how a
prayer written by Wren in 1660 came to appear in
"Cosin's corrected copy, 1640-61." Again, the existing
prayer " In the time of any common plague or sick
ness " first appeared among Wren's suggestions, 1660
(p. 63), thus :—
" O Almighty God, Who in Thy wrath in the wilderness
didst send the first Plague upon Thine own people, for the
obstinacy of their rebellion against Moses and Aaron ; and also
in the time of King David, didst slay, &c. . . That like as
Thou didst then accept of an atonement and didst command
the destroying Angel to cease from punishing," &c.

198 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
In this shape, with hardly any change, it appears
also in the Durham Book, in Cosin's handwriting.''''
In the Visitation of the Sick, Wren suggested the
introduction, into the rubric before the absolution, of
the words " if he perceive that he doth humbly and
heartily desire it," which accordingly appear (in their
present form) in the Durham Book.'''
In the same office Wren proposed to insert into the
collect which follows the Lord's Prayer, the words
" strengthen him by the comforts of Thy Blessed Spirit ;
and when it pleaseth Thee to take him from hence."
The words as now read appear accordingly in the
Durham Book " written by Cosin, but very hastily,
and re-written by Sancroft," says Mr. Parker,'*^ which
is just what would be likely to happen upon a change
of secretaries, while Cosin was writing from dictation-
For the Commination service. Wren proposed''' to
add to the title the words " a denouncing of God's
judgments against sinners." This appears to have
been edited by the committee, who added the words
"anger and" before "judgments," and so Cosin
entered it in the Durham Book.^° Wren had written ®^
" that collect for Easter Tuesday, ' Almighty Father,
&c.,' would be reserved for the Sunday after Easter,
and the collect for Easter Day to serve for all this
week." Both changes were adopted in the Durham
Book, Cosin having erased the previous collect, and

'' History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 158,
"' Ibid., p. 287, Fragmentary Illustrations of the Book of Common
Prayer, p. 96,
'^ History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 28S.
'" Fragmentary Illustrations of the Book of Common Prayer, p. 98,
'"' History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 302.
*' Fragmentary Illustrations of the Book of Common Prayer, p, 68.

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC igg
written in the margin "print this for the next Sunday." 8-
Of course, many of Wren's suggestions (like Cosin's)
failed to find acceptance ; but it is curious to note that
(just as happened also to Cosin's " Considerations ")
suggestions which were thrown out in the first stage,
and consequently were not entered in the Durham
Book, were cften adopted at a later stage by subsequent
committees of revision. For instance, the insertion of
" the Conversion of St. Paul," and of " Barnabas,"
into the Kalendar, though suggested by Wren,^^ did
not appear in the Durham Book.^* The adoption of
St. Matthew xxvi. as a second lesson proper to the
sixth Sunday in Lent, and of Acts ii., " to begin at
verse 22," for Easter Day at evening prayer, and of
I John v., for Trinity Sunday at evening prayer,
though ultimately adopted, gained no footing in the
Durham Book. Many changes which were afterwards
disahowed, but which did appear in the Durham Book,
were also due to Wren. Wren proposed for Ash
Wednesday, which previously had no proper Psalms,
those which we still retain ; to these Cosin had added
Psalm xxhi. in the morning, and Psalm Ixix. in the
evening. But his own pen (or that of Sancroft) has
in the Durham Book reduced the list so as to corre
spond with Wren's.^" The title of the second collect
was altered into " for peace and defence " at Wren's
suggestion,^^ but the pen was afterwards drawn through
the addition.®^ The Septuagesima collect received the

"^ History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 170,
fis Fragmentary Illustrations of the Book of Common Prayer, p. 50,
*** Histery of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 121, ^' Ibid., p. 119,
so Fragmentary Illustrations of the Book of Common Prayer, p. 59,
^'' History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 146.

200 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
addition of " with Thee O Father and the Holy Ghost
ever one God " in the Durham Book, which is mani
festly a variation upon Wren's suggestion, " with
Thee and the Holy Ghost ever one God," ^^ which was
ultimately preferred. In the Baptismal service Wren
suggested a rubric : "Let us pray, a^^ the congregation
shall kneel down"; this reappears in substance in the
Durham Book, though only to be rejected. Again,
"these children severally have covenanted," appears in
the Durham Book from Wren,^^ the order of the words
being, however, transposed. At private baptism. Wren
inserted "' to every one of these questions shall answers
be directly given by those that bring the child, as far
as they know." This appears verbatim in the Durham
Book, except "must" for shall, "answer" for answers,
and the omission of the last five words. The insertion
of "or unto marriage" after "communion" in the final
rubric of the Confirmation service, by Wren,'" clearly
occasioned the insertion of " or unto matrimony " in
the Durham Book.'^ "Speaking directly unto the
persons that stand before him," wrote Wren, and these
very words are inserted in the Durham Book.'^ In
the Burial service Wren proposed to insert "the lesson
being ended, they shall kneel down and the priest shall
say." '^ This was entered in the Durham Book, the
word "being" alone omitted, but the rest literally
transcribed. At the close of the Burial office, Cosin

** History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. i66. Fragmentary
Illustrations of the Book of Common Prayer, p. 67,
"^ Fragmentary Illustrations of the Book of Common Prayer, p. 88,
°" Ibid., p. 93, '•" History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 276,
^ Fragmentary Illustrations of the Book of Common Prayer, p. 93. History
of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. z-ji).
'^ Fragmentary Illustrations of the Book of Common Prayer, p. 97.

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 201
had written in the Durham Book "the blessing of
God Almighty," &c. ^^'hereas ^^'ren had proposed
2 Corinthians xiii. ]SIr. Parker says of the former
" but it is erased, and this ' (i.e. ^^'ren's suggestion)
' is substituted for it in Sancroft's hand." "*
*
On the face of it, then, the Durham Book appears to I
be the record of a progressive revision by a committee
to which Cosin himself acted as secretary, until (after thei
Savo}' Conference) Sancroft was permanenth' installed
as secretary to the revisers. An indication of this is 1
furnished by the changes successively made in the first i
rubric of the Communion office. The rubric stood
before revision, " So many as intend to be partakers of the\
Holy Communion, shall signify their names to the curate
overnight, or else in the morning before the beginning of
Morning Prayer, or immediately after." In his fort}'-third
"Consideration" Cosin had urged this rubric as a
reason for allowing a space of time between Morning
Prayer and Communion. But in the Durham Book,
in Cosin's handwriting appears, j/irsf, an erasure of the
words " overnight, or else in the morning," and instead
of them is written " two days before at the least." This
again is erased, and in its stead " some part of the day
before." These successive emendations in Cosin's
handwriting are quite different from his own expressed
wish, and were evidently made by him as the secretary
to the committee. Then, last of all, in this same
Durham Book, comes the final emendation in Sancroft's
handwriting — "At least sometime the day before,"
which was the actual wording of the Savoy
** History of the Revisions of the Prayer Beck, p. 29S, Fragmentary
Illustrations of the Book of Ccmmcn Prayer, p. 97,

202 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
" Concession " No. 5, as given by Cardwell.'^' Cosin
was a Savoy Commissioner, and we know that seven
teen " concessions " were made by the bishops at the
Savoy during the fir.st fortnight of July, 1661. These
concessions are all found in the " Durham Book," and
several of them are in the ipsissima verba as then
agreed upon.'" These entries are in Sancroft's hand
writing,''^ and they illustrate the nature of the "Durham
Book" as being in fact the minute book of a committee
I of revision. Many of the entries in Cosin's writing are
at variance with his own " Considerations," which, as
we saw, dated after 1640, and with his " Second series"
of Notes which could not be earlier than 1638, at which
date the Prayer Book containing them was printed.
For instance, in his " Consideration " No. 20 Cosin
had written that the absolution " is no prayer to God,"
yet in the Durham Book he wrote " shall answer here
and at the end of all other prayers, Amen." Many
other suggestions in the "Considerations" are alto
gether absent from the so-called "Cosin's corrected
copy," i.e. the " Durham Book." Nay, some, such as
63 and the parallel proposal 72 to tighten the rule as
to private baptism'^ were altered in the opposite sense,
being relaxed by alterations which appear for the first
time in this (so-called) " Cosin's corrected copy, 1640-
1661." If we compare still further the text of the
Durham Book with the three series of Notes described
above, we shall be struck by the variances of the latter

"^ History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p, 179.
"" See Cardwell's Conferences, p. 362,
8' History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, pp, 179, 181, 263, 266
276, 280, 294, &c 98 j-j,-^^ p 231, 249, 250,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 203
from the Durham Book which Mr. Parker chooses to
fancy was of even date and of the same authorship.
What is more hkely than that when Charles II. by
his " Declaration " of October 25th, 1660," pubhcly
promised a revision of the Prayer Book, Cosin should
have procured a copy of the 1619 book (if he had it
not by him) to serve as a basis for the coming revision?
Mr. Parker's sole pretext for assuming that Cosin
privately elaborated entries in this book during a
protracted gestation of twenty-one years is that the
" Durham Book," in which they were made, was
printed in 1619 ! But there were two " good reasons "
for Cosin's selection of that book. First, because
being page for page uniform with the " First series of
Notes" it would facilitate reference from one to the
other as the revision progressed. Next, having been
printed before the rise of Laud who was suspected and
openly accused of having tampered with the text of the
printed Prayer Books, the " 1619 " book would obviate
any such delay as the scrutiny of such objectors might
otherwise occasion. We know that the House of
Commons manifested great jealousy of supposed
Laudian alterations, which led them to select a copy
of the Prayer Book printed in 1604.^"°
Probable Date of the Durham Book.
On July 24th, 1661, the very last day before the
Savoy Commission expired. Bishop Cosin brought in a
paper " as from a considerable person," ^"^ urging the
Puritans to propose in writing " what they desire in
9' Cardwell's Conferences, p. 294, and Documentary Annals, 11,-246.
^™ Cardwell's Conferences, p. 376,
^''^ Ibid., p. 265, Baxter's reply is printed in iff/!'jM!«Ba;f.Vmn(?,p, 341,

234 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
point of expediency " — adding, "let that then be
received from them, and speedily taken into considera
tion and judgment of the Convocation." i°- Heyhn,
who was also a Savoy Commissioner, urged that the
business of the Conference was "only to prepare
matter for a convocation," ^"^ and Dr. D'Oyly in his
Life cf Sancroft,^'^ says: "the episcopal divines who
met on this occasion, were satisfied in the result of the
discussions, that some alterations in the Book of
Common Prayer were expedient, and they in conse
quence determined to bring the matter before
Convocation." Nicholls in his preface (p. x.) agrees.
with the statement of Dr. CardweU that "the bishops
had already made preparations for such changes as
they deemed expedient in the Book of Common
Prayer." i°* But the Royal Licence to Canterbury
I Convocation, enabling it to revise the Prayer Book,
j was not read till November 21st, nor that to York till
November 30th, 1661, although the House of Commons
j had already read, for the third time, their Bill for
i Uniformity, and had sent it up to the House of Lords
as early as July loth. The Commons repeatedly
expressed their impatience at the delay of the House
of Lords to give effect to their bill, and the Bishops
became seriously alarmed lest the matter should be
hurried through Parliament before they had completed
their revision.
How are we to explain the delay ? Lord Clarendon
tells us that "the bishops spent the vacation" {i.e.
from July 30th to November 20th, 1661) "in making
"" History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. So,
^"^ Barnard's Life of Heylin, p. 180, ^"^ p. iii.
^™ Cardwell's Conferences, p. 369,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 205
such alterations in the Book of Common Prayer, as
they thought would make it more grateful to the dis
senting brethren." 1''" But it is probable that the
Durham Book and Sancroft's " Fair Copy," now in
the Bodleian, represent a still earlier stage of the
revision conducted by the episcopal delegates at the
Savoy, during the sessions of the Savoy Conference
itself,^"'' and embodying among its latest "corrigenda"
the results of that conference. To take the last point
first. The seventeen " Concessions " made at the
Savoy by the bishops were announced to their oppo
nents on July I4th.i*'^ Every one of these Concessions,
except the second (which, however, was ultimately
conceded, and is really trivial), was entered, in
Sancroft's writing, into the Durham Book, and for the
most part in the very words used on July 14th. They
always appear as the last of several successive altera
tions. This would seem to indicate that the Durham
Book was completed about the date of these " Con
cessions," when the finishing touches were being put
in. Even Sancroft's Bodleian " Fair Copy," which is
later than the Durham Book, does not contain the
" Prayer for the High Court of Parhament to be read
during their session," which had been introduced into
Convocation on May 3ist,^°' and appeared verbatim,
exactly as we now have it, title and all, in the printed

i»« Life, Vol, II., p, 118,
1"? Lucy, Nicholson and Griffiths spoke at the Savoy Conference
although not Commissioners [Kennet's Register, p. 508], Griffiths was
on four Committees and Nicholson on two Committees of Convocation
connected with the Revision.
™ Cardwell's Conferences, pp, 263-4,
™ History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 83,

206 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
form for June 12th, which was drawn up by a Com
mittee of Convocation "at Ely House," on June 7th.^i''
Of course, no trace of it exists in the (earlier) Durham
Book, shewing that its revised version of the " Occa
sional Prayers" had been completed before the new
Prayer for Parliament had been settled. The new
office for Baptism of Adults, settled on May 31st, had
no place in the "Durham Book," though a direction
there to the printer to " print in a new leaf," and an
inaccurate recital of the title of the new Office, both
imply a knowledge that some such Form was then
being prepared. In the Sancroft's Bodleian " Fair
Copy," the new Form was written on two sheets of
paper which were an after insertion.^^^ Another indi
cation of age is found in the circumstance that
Sancroft's Bodleian "Fair Copy" contains an alter
native form of the "Canon" in the Communion service
on a separate leaf, inserted into the printed book, and
preceded by a marginal note, viz. " what follows from
hence to the end of the distribution is somewhat
otherwise methodized in the paper " B," and both left
to censure." Paper " B," which is of some length, is
headed "Another method of the consecration, oblation,
address, and distribution."
Sancroft was not a member of Convocation, but
simply the clerk, and as such he has recorded the fact
that these two alternative forms were "both left to

"" Clay's Book of Common Prayer illustrated. Preface xxvi., History
of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 83, The Royal Order for its
publication is dated June loth. There is a copy in the British Museum
having the press-mark 472. a, 12, An earlier form, not identical, dated
1640, is B, M, E, -'-§-1, and is copied correctly in Blunt's Annotated
Prayer Book.
"' History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 257.

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 207
censure," presumably by some provisional committee,
the members of which were divided in judgment. Yet
in the Durham Book we find this important memo
randum of the " censure " to which the rival drafts
had been "left." "My Lords the Bishops at Ely House
ordered all in the old, manner." This has been added by
Sancroft at some later time and shews that the revision
recorded in the Durham Book was prior to the meetings
"at Ely House" where the subsequent "censure" took
place. If these "Ely House" meetings were the same
of which Lord Clarendon speaks as being held prior
to November 20th, 1661, it increases the likelihood
that the Durham Book was completed by the end of
July. For we know that the Northern bishops (Cosin
being one) first sat with the Southern on June 2i.st,^^^
and that Cosin spoke at the Savoy Conference on
July 24th. Cosin went to Durham in the second week
of August,^^^ leaving his Chaplain, Sancroft, in town
during his absence till, on September 6th, in answer
to an urgent appeal from Sancroft, Cosin writes —
" since my Lord of London [Sheldon] and Ely [Wren]
will have it so, I shall make all the haste I can to be
at London upon the beginning of November." He
accordingly returned to town on October 31st, leaving
an interval of but twenty days before the book came
before Convocation for its final and hasty revision.
It seems probable that Cosin's "handwriting" must
have found its way into the Durham Book before he
left town, and that Sancroft's later emendations may
have been made during Cosin's absence when Sancroft

^'2 Gibson's Synodus Anglicana, p, 210,
"3 Cosin Correspondence, Surtees Society, I, -21.

V

2o8 THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
superseded Cosin in the Secretariat. This would, of
course, explain and account for the unbeneficed
" Chaplain " being left behind in town at Cosin's
formal and stately entry into his new diocese, as well
as for the change of handwriting in the Durham Book.
It is probable that Wren and Sheldon were urgent
for Cosin's return in order that he might take part in
that important debate when " the bishops at Ely
House " decided against the restoration of the
"oblation," before Convocation met. For (as Mr.
Parker and Mr. Milton for once agree), the bishops
did not meet at Ely House during the sittings of Convo
cation, when the formal revision was gone through
after November 2ist.^" Dr. Cardwell, in his History
of the Conferences, p. 371, and Canon Swainson in his
History of the Act of Uniformity, p. 15, also agree that
the bishops abandoned their original intention to meet
at Ely House, during that period; and as the time
spent by the Upper House was far too brief for any
debate of such magnitude and importance — (two hours
at most being then spent on the entire Communion
office — as Mr. Parker calculates ^^¦' — we may regard it
as almost certain that the second stage of the revision
took place between October 31st and November 21st,
and was begun " at Ely House," after the completion
of the Durham Book. The Durham Book therefore
must be dated sometime between October 25th, 1660,
and October, 1661. That it dates from " 1640 "

1" History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 407, Mr, Milton.
Church Perplexities, p. 207, disposes of the objections raised by Lord
Selborne, "^ History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. 409,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 209
is " a fond thing vainly invented " by Mr. James
Parker. * *
*
Fortunately we may deal with Mr. Parker's facts
without accepting any of his inferences and deductions.
Lord Selborne, Canon Swainson, and the Rev. W.
Milton have each carefully investigated the same facts,
and all agree in rejecting Mr. Parker's conclusions.
from those facts. Lord Selborne holds that the 1
Durham Book prior to Sancroft's corrections repre
sents the result of a revision made by the bishops
between July 30th and November 20th, 1661.^^'' Canon
Swainson, who calculates that the so-called " Cosin's
corrected copy," i.e. the Durham Book, "contains
almost two hundred suggestions which emanated from
Bp. Wren," thinks the Durham Book was prepared for
the bishops at Ely House : and Mr. Milton regards
the Durham Book as containing the results of the
revision which ensued as the result of the Savoy
Conference."^ He dates it, therefore, as prior to
July 24th, 1661. No student has accepted Mr. Parker's
theories, which are merely intended to link the worth
less and partially spurious " Notes " of Mr. Cosin with ,
the great reputation of Bishop Cosin, who did not '
become " bishop " till the age of sixty -six. In any case
the influence of Cosin on the Revision of 1661 has
been grossly exaggerated. Lord Selborne observes,
" The influence which Cosin personally exercised over
the work of revision cannot be measured as Mr. Parker
seems, in part at least, to measure it, by the number
of changes entered into his 'book,' which were
ne Notes on the Liiurgy, pp, 44, 47, "' Church Perplexities, p. 163,
14

2IO THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC
ultimately adopted. Very many of these changes —
whatever may have been their origin — were verbal and
trivial. Many others of greater importance were (in one
stage or other of the work of Convocation), rejected,
and of these, some of the most considerable may be
inferred, from their agreement with passages in Cosin's
' particulars ' or ' Notes,' to have been suggested by
him. Contemporary writers, such as Baxter and
Burnet, ascribed the prevailing influence to Sheldon,
Morley, and Henchman, who, above all other bishops,
possessed the confidence both of the king and of Lord
Clarendon. Neal, in the next century, wishing to note
for reprobation those who were reputed by the Puritans
to have been the chief authors and promoters of the
Act of Uniformity, mentions the same three names,
with seven others ; of which Sparrow's is, but Cosin's
is not one." -^^^ Canon Swainson, in his Rubrical Question
of 1874, points out that Cosin was not placed on the
more important Committees of Convocation, that his
very name was unknown to the clerk (who repeatedly
left a blank for it), and that "almost every proposal [by
him] of any important alteration was rejected " (p. 113).
Mr. Bulley, in his Tabular View (p. 142), says "many
were inserted, but the most material were omitted."
These rejected Amendments proposed by Cosin
occupy no less than forty-one pages in the Cosin Corre
spondence published by the Surtees Society. 'Vol. II.,
pp. 39-80. See also Cardwell's Conferences, p. 392.

1" Notes on Liturgy, p. 48, Baxter describes Cosin at the Savoy
Conference in these words : " Bp, Cosin was there constantly, and had
a great deal of talk with so little logic, natural or artificial, that I
perceived no one much moved by anything he said," — Reliquice-
Baxtcriance, p. 363,

THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC 211
The result of our inquiry is that the so-called Cosin's
Notes had no more to do with the revision of the)
Prayer Book in 1661 than the private diary of some
statesman who took part in the passing of an Act of
Parliament has to do with the interpretation of the
Act. If the diary in question had been kept while the
politician was trimming his first feathers as a political
fledgling, the cases would be still more parallel. And
if some busybody were to publish the diary, laying
bare the youthful indiscretions of a man who became
afterwards famous, we should have the exact counter
part of the hard fate of "Bishop" Cosin. Charity
bids us draw the veil of oblivion over these youthful
indiscretions of one who lived to learn, by bitter and
personal experience, the banefulness of Romanism in
his actual contact with its workings in Paris. Mr.
Keble,"' and Neal the Historian of the Puritans,^-"
admit that Cosin changed his doctrinal views. He
came back to England a wiser and a better man. If
we take for evidence his official acts and his public
utterances rather than the back-stairs revelations of
his too-officious post-mortem " friends," we shall find j
that Cosin uniformly and consistently abstain^d^ from
employing the Ritual of the " First Prayer Book of i
Edward VI. ," that he enforced the ritual of 1552
where it conflicted with that book, and that (with one
temporary and doubtful exception) he never adopted
any one of the " six points " of modern Rituahsm.

'" Eucharistical Adoration, p. 139,
1-° The Doctor was " softened in his principles by age and suffer
ings," History of the Puritans, 11,-388, See also Droop's North Side of
the Table, p. 34, Brewer's Memoir, p. xxvii,, and Canon Elliott's North
Side of tlie Table, p. 40. 14*

VIII
''^be ISreaF^ino of tbe Brcab"

THIS is the earliest and most frequent title given
in Scripture to the Lord's Supper. The
Revised Version does not bring out the full
force of the definite article "the"^ bread, in Acts ii.-42.
" We must bear in mind that in the East, and
throughout Holy Scripture, there is no such thing as
" bread," distinct from " loaf." We are accustomed
to cut " bread " from the " loaf," as we cut " meat "
from a "joint," or " flesh" from the "body"; and this
difference of idiom in rendering the same Greek word,
aproQ, has created great confusion of ideas in many
passages, but in none more, perhaps, than in our
Saviour's institution of the Holy Eucharist. Owing
to the custom of baking in large earthenware jars
buried in the earth, "a loaf " in the Holy Land is of the
size and shape of a large bun, or of what is commonly
called a " tea-cake." The crust of it is no thicker, and
is broken or torn, together with the crumb, and eaten
with it, as we do a bun ; whence the expression
1 Although Bishop Middleton " On the Greek Article," p. 183, long
ago called attention to the point.

THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD " 2I3
" breaking bread " which occurs so frequently in Holy/
Scripture. Now, apTO'i, and Syriac "lehem," like;
"panis," " pain," &c., means " a loaf" ; and " bread "
— only in the general sense of " meat " or " food," but,
never as distinct from "loaf." A number of such loaves
always form a part of each day's provision ; therefore
did the disciples reason among themselves, " because we
have taken no loaves" (plural). (St. Matthew xvi. -7.)
So also is the point lost in Matthew iv.-3, "Command
that these stones be made loaves," every stone a
"loaf" and not "bread" (Authorised Version). This
is proved by the parallel passage in St. Luke iv.-3, " Say
to this stone that it become a loaf."^ Again, apToi
irpoOeaeco'i (Matthew xii. -4) are " shew-loaves," a
limited number, and not " bread " in general. Thus
our Saviour at His .supper did not take " bread," but
He took " a loaf." He then gave thanks, or blessed it,
and brake it, saying, "Take, eat, this is My body" (not
"my flesh"), "which is," &c. It is evident that a
square bit of bread-crumb divided into regular pieces,
or a wafer, give no idea whatever of the symbol
intended in the "breaking of a {the'] loaf." ^
" The bread, or loaf, which our Saviour used in
celebrating the Sacrament, was whole and unbroken ;
for He took bread, and blessed it, and broke it. He
did not break it before, but after it was sanctified.*
The Apostle Paul proves the unity of Christians from

2 In St, Matthew vii.-io, the superficial resemblance of a stone to
a loaf (like that of a serpent to a fish), is used to illustrate the mockery
of sham sympathy in contrast with the love of the Father.
^ Malan's Two Holy Sacraments, p. 142,
¦* Palmer's Origines Liturgica, ll.-yj. The " breaking," however, like
the distribution, occurred bef^e He said, " This is my body," See
St. Matthew xxvi, -26,

214 " THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD "
the unity of that 'bread,' of which they were all
partakers." (i Corinthians X.-17.)
" The Pentecostal Christians continued steadfastly in
the ' breaking of bread,' and on the first day of the
week 'the disciples came together to break bread.'
The breaking of the bread is even set forth as parallel
to the ' blessing' of the cup (i Corinthians x.-i6). If
the breaking of the bread had not greater prominence
at the first than it has in most liturgies, it is difficult
to understand how the rite should ever have been
named after it." ¦'
Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Ephesians (cap. xx.)
speaks of "breaking one loaf": and the newly-
discovered "Teaching of the Apostles" (cap. ix.)
directs the thanksgiving at the Eucharist " concerning
the fragment" (using the same v/ord as in Mark vi.-43,
&c.), to be made in these words, " as this broken piece
was scattered over the hills, and having been brought
together became one, so let Thy Church be brought
together from the ends of the earth," &c.^
This symbol of the unity and fellowship- — " com
munion " — of the faithful by their joint participation
at the Covenant Feast is paralleled by St. Paul with
the fellowship which the Jews and Pagans also had
with their respective deities by " part-taking with (not
' of) the altar" upon which a portion of the previously
sacrificed victim had been offered to the deity.
Not, of course, that any worshipper, Jewish or
Pagan, degraded his altar into a cooking stove (as
^ Sadler's Liturgies and Ritual in The Church and the Age, p. 296,
" Horneck's Fire of the Altar, 1619, similarly says, " See here, O my
soul, the bread which is broke. Is it not the Communion of the body
of Christ ? See how many pieces are here, which all make but one loaf"
(p, 73). Compare Cardwell, Documentary Annals, 11,-50, second edition.

"the breaking of the bread" 215
some seem to fancy) by allowing a worshipper to eat
any portion which had once been placed upon the
altar : for this portion was supposed to be consumed
by the god to whom it was offered, and whose own
private " table " the altar was therefore reputed
to be. Where animal sacrifices were required, the
demand for animals became so great, that the only
chance, for a poor man at least, of tasting "butcher's
meat"'' practically depended upon the sacrificial
feasts which followed, and whose value as Covenant
rites rested upon the previous acceptance of the
offering upon the altar, with which they were closely
connected, but from which they were altogether
distinct. Thus it was that the notion of part-taking
with the Deity, and so of holding intercourse and
"communion" with Him, made it a matter of
" conscience " to refuse to share the viands of an alien
Covenant Feast, even though the Christian might
"know that an Idol is nothing in the world"
(i Corinthians vhi. and x.-i8, 28). The "one loaf"
was an apt symbol of the one Bread of Life, ^ inas
much as part-taking of it made all the participants
"one body," as deriving their common nourishment
from one Federal Head.
The " One "-ness of the loaf it was, which made the
" breaking " of it so full of symbolic meaning. As
Hooker' expressed it, " that saving grace which Christ

^ " The Mishna says that the altar was intended to sustain men's
lives. The Rabbins describe it as the town's shambles, surrounded
with all the appurtenances of a slaughter-house, such as rows of beams,
with hooks, supporting a multitude of carcases in process of being
flayed, &c. — Sepher Middoth." (Street,) Compare Proverbs vii.-i4, xvii,-i,
8 St. John vi, -48-58, the same word being translated " loaf" in the
earlier verses of the chapter. " Ecclesiastical Polity, "V.-lvii.-5.

2l6 " THE breaking OF THE BREAD "
originally is or hath for the general good of His whole
Church, by Sacraments He severally deriveth into every
member thereof."
It is a striking proof, therefore, of the worthlessness
[ of " Cathohc tradition " as a voucher for primitive
' usage,i° that the so-called " ancient hturgies " all lack
the ritual " breaking " which appears as a peculiarity
in our English Prayer Book. To find a precedent for it
Sir W. Palmer had to go to the " Alexandrian Liturgy
as used by the Coptic Monophysites," i.e. to an obscure
and heretical sect: and he adds, "I am not aware
that any other Liturgy, except the English, prescribes
a breaking of bread during the Benediction." "
Mr. Scudamore^" bears the same witness: and even
the "Annotated Prayer Book" of Mr. Blunt ^^ says
that, " though apparently ' most agreeable with the
institution of Christ,' [it] is peculiar to the English
rite." In 1881 Mr. Christopher Wordsworth (with Canon
Perry, Mr. James Parker, Dr. Littledale, Mr. J. Fuller
Russell, and other Ritualistic " authorities") published
( a Directorium called " Ritual Conformity" in which
', they testified ^^ that " any breaking of the bread at this
period of the service was then [1661] a novelty, and is
; now peculiar to the English Liturgy."
The "cathohc" (i.e. Mediaeval and Western) substi-
1" "Throughout east and west alike, the officiating clergy, and they
alone, receive in the ordained manner. To the laity the Bread and
'Wine are nowhere given into the hands; worse still, they are in the
East given not even separately but mixed ; saddest of all, and most
fearful to think upon, in the Roman 'West the 'Wine is never given at
all." (Freeman's Principles of Divine Service, II,, Part 11.-367,)
" Origines Litur.-^ic^, II.-145, i'^ Notitia Eucharistica, p. 610,
13 Vol, II., p, 1S7 " p, 37

' THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD " 217
tute for the broken loaf of Scripture was the wafer.
Honorius of Autun, a.d. 1130, says " because from the
people not communicating, it was unnecessary that so large
a loaf should be made, it was settled that it should be
moulded or made, like a denarius," 1° and these tiny
wafers ("nummuli") with unconscious irony are
compared to the pieces of silver of that disciple who
betrayed his Master !
Not only was "the breaking of the loaf" absent
from the Sarum and other missals, it was positively
forbidden by the Ritualistic Rabbis. Thus John de
Burgo, an Englishman, writing a.d. 1385, said " the
sign of a fraction is not to be made here," ^^ and the
Sarum Manual published under the authority of
Cardinal Pole in the reign of Queen Mary (a.d. 1554)
said, "here the Host ought not to be touched by way
of fraction, as some silly {fatui) touch it, and do ill." ¦'''
The previous edition of 1543 (Rothomagi, fol. Ixxix.,
dorso) contained the same direction "hie non debet
tangi hostia modo fractionis sicut aliqui fatui tangunt
et male faciunt " : and Mr. Pearson in his translation
of the Sarum Missal,^^ interpolates at " He brake," the
words — " Here let him touch the host, but not to break
it, as some do ; for although the order of the words
seems to imply that Christ brake before consecrating,
tradition teaches the contrary."
It is clear, therefore, that it is from no (so-called)
" Catholic " source that the Anglican rite of " breaking
the bread" is derived. On the contrary it is
Protestant both in its origin and its history. For,

'^ Notitia Eucharistica, p, 856, "¦ Ibid., p. 607,
1^ Ibid. IS Edition 1868, p, 311,

2l8 "the BREAKING OF THE BREAD"
going back afresh to the fountain-head of Scripture in
despite of all intervening usage is the very essence of
" Protestantism." i'
Yet in the sixteenth century the English Reformers
were confronted with this difficulty, that the manual
acts of "taking the bread into the hand," &c., were
liable to be perverted into a pretext for elevating the
Host; and to minds nurtured in hfe-long superstitions,
even the priest's touching the elements seemed to
savour of magical or mechanical notions : — " basely
objecting and binding ourselves to the earthly elements"
as the Homily-" on the Sacrament expressed it.
Hence Bucer urged the discontinuance of the
manual acts of the First Prayer Book, " lest by this
practice men would think that the minister said these
words to the bread and wine and not to the communi
cants." -1 In the Second Prayer Book of Edward all
manual acts of a merely ritual kind were discontinued.
The Romanizers then took a different line. One
section of them, viz. the honest ones, represented by
Bishop Scot,''^ declared that no consecration was
effected by the revised Communion Office ; the other,
or "Rituahstic" section, are described in the following
extract from Bishop Middleton's Injunctions, issued in
A.D. 1583 :—
" 'Whereas, heretofore in sundry places, it hath been a foolish
use amongst a sort of ignorant blind priests and ministers.

" See Bishop Hooper's Works, II. -465,
^^ N,B, — This is the only recognition of an " objective " presence by
the Church of England : but much stress cannot be laid upon it, since
about an equal number of the editions issued by Jugge and Cawood in
the reign of Elizabeth read " aijecting."
-' See Cosin's Works, 'V,-478 22 Cardwell's Conferences, p. 113.

"the BREAKING OF THE BRE.\D " 219
that at the saying of these words immediately going before the
distribution of the sacramental bread and wine : ' Who, in the
same night he -v^-as betrayed,' &c., they would take the bread
and wine in their hands, lift it up, and shew it unto the people :
whereupon hath ensued horrible idolatries, and religious adora
tion of the sacraments themsehes, or rather-^ of the bread and
wine, as by kneeling, knocking of the breast," &c. . . . "For
the avoiding whereof it is decreed, that no persone, vicar, or
curate, whatsoever, hereafter shall handle, lift up, or shew unto
the people, the bread and wine, but shall let it lie still upon the
table, until the distribution thereof, and then to break it, receive
it himself, and distribute it unto others, according to the orders
of the book, without any addition or detraction." -*
If such caution were needed a quarter of a century"
after the second book of Edward had been reinstated,'
we need feel no surprise that the leading Anglicans felt '
afraid to revive even the Scriptural rite of " taking and
breaking": especially as the use of wafers lingered in'
some churches down to the close of Elizabeth's reign.
For, it is obvious that the cracking or snapping of a
single wafer out of many could be no symbol cf the
Unity of Christ's Church, as shewn by the distributed
" fragments" of the " One loaf" of primitive times.
It was to the school opposed to Laud and Andrewes
that we owe the restoration of the Scriptural usage.
The Director}', which in 1644 was substituted for the
Book of Common Prayer, contains the following
Rubric : —
" The minister, being at the table, is to take the bread into his
hands, and say, ....

-^ Note here the distinction between " Sacraments " and the mere
consecrated elements, as pointed out in the Catechism, — See my
Misprinted Catechism, p. lo, (J F, Shaw, Price One Penny.)
-' Second Report of the Ritual Commission, Appendbc, p, 426.

220 " THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD
" According to the holy institution, command, and
example of our blessed Saviour, Jesus Christ, I take
this bread, and having given thanks, I break it, and
give it unto you." -^
Again, in the substitute which Baxter proposed for
the Communion Office, we read : —
" Then Ut the minister take the bread and break it in the sight
of the people, saying :
" The body of Christ was broken for us, and offered
once for all to sanctify us : behold the sacrificed Lamb
of God, that taketh away the sins of the world." -"
At the Savoy Conference, among the " exceptions to
the Book of Common Prayer," we have this remark: —
" We conceive that the manner of the consecrating
of the elements is not here explicit enough, and the
minister's breaking of the bread is not so much as
mentioned." And, it is curious to note how grudgingly the
" concession " was made.
" We are willing," said the, bishops, " that the
manner of consecrating the elements be made more
explicit and express, and to that purpose those words
be put into the Rubric, ' Then shall he put his hand
upon the bread and break it,' " &c. "''
Yet in the original draft of the revised Rubric (as it
stood in the so-called " Bishop Cosin's Book," now
contained in the Durham Library) the provision for

-' BuUey's Tabular View, p. 190.
^^ Hall's Reliquits Liturgies, I'V,-70,
2' Cardwell's Conferences, p, 321, 363, Bishop Kennett, in his Register,
1,-585, attributes the change to the Puritans,

THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD 221
breaking the bread " before the people" was not admitted.
The draft Rubric ran : —
" When the priest hath so ordered the bread and wine placed
npon the table, as that he may with the more ease and decency
take them into his hands, standing up, he shall say as followeth."
This, in Cosin's own handwriting, was the original
suggestion. But, in committee, successive alterations
were made which are extremely interesting. At present
we shall only notice those which bear upon the " break
ing." First, then, the words " take them into his
hands " were changed into the more explicit words
" break the bread, and take the cup into his hands."
Then, after the interlineated words " break the bread,"
the important words " before the people " were inserted
by continued interlineation. This was doubtless done *
upon the urgent request of the Puritans, who made a
great point of the act of breaking the bread being seen
by the people. The writing shews that this was a
distinct addition and final concession ; for the words
" before the people " were not inserted at the same time
as " break the bread," for, at the time that alteration
was made, the word " cup " was inserted above the
line. But in the after addition of " before the people "
the word " before " ran over the interlined word
" cup," which had then to be written in the margin
instead,-^ as the subjoined facsimile (produced by
photograph}') shews —

-* This fact, which may be verified in the Photograph, is concealed
in Mr, Parker's History of the Revisions of the Prayer Book, p. ccxiii.,
which also makes " break the bread " and " before the people " to form
two separate half lines.

222 "THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD'

^

..a^l^B^m

\^M

These facts, patent on the pages of Cosin's book,
shew that "before the people" cannot mean, as some
suppose, publicly in the church, as opposed to privately
in the vestry, because the ordering of the act in this

"the BREAKING OF THE BREAD 223
part of the service rendered the latter impossible.-^
That is to say, the side Rubric, " And here to break
the bread," secures publicity for the rite; and its
equivalent appeared in Cosin's original draft of the
Rubrics. Though it is impossible to shew by ordinary type
the erasure of the word " Cup " in the fifth hne, the
following reproduction of the "Cosin" Rubric from
the Durham Book may perhaps make these successive
changes clearer ; the old Enghsh lines representing the
original text, and the square brackets indicating
erasures subsequently made by a stroke of the pen ;
while the Itahc type shews the newer insertions ;land
the Roman type the final addition.

standing before y Table
" mi)tn t\)z PrijstAftatl)
so ortietJlJ tfje !3rcalJ & EHinr,
[plateb upon tfie JEable as] tj^at
readines
ijz mag iaiii) tlje mori:A[«ase] Ct
Ireak the Bread before the People &
„ IicrcnrgAtake ti[)e[tn] into fjis ]banti3,
l^tup A
[stanttng ap] f)e s^all sag, as
fallo&jctft":—

It is fair, however, to recognise that from the other
side also, there was a readiness to revert to the Scriptural
command " do this," of which the Catechism of Trent
itself admitted that it referred to what the Lord

^ Milton's Chuich Perplexities (J, F. Shaw), p, i8o.

224

'THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD"

" did " » at the institution of His Supper. The
" breaking " thus solemnly " done " before their eyes,
was a symbolic rite of which, unless the first communi
cants had been observant and attentive eye-witnesses,
no authentic record could possibly have reached us.
Happily, no eastward position or sacrificial vestment
intervened to convert iAai " outward and visible sign"
into a " dumb and dark ceremony." Compare St.
Luke xxiv.-43.
Hence, Cosin himself in the memoranda which he
made of " particulars to be considered," said the
breaking of the bread before the people is " a needful
circumstance belonging to this sacrament " ; ^^ and
Bishop Wren in his very similar memoranda, suggested
that " the Rubric be thus —
Then the priest standing before the table shall so order and set the
Iread and wine that, while he is pronouncing the following
Collect, he may readily take the Bread and break it, and also take
the Cup, to pour into it {if he pour it not before)," i^c. ^^
And in 1641, he repelled the blame thrown upon him
for having altered certain pews so as to face eastward,
by saying " the people would the better hear and see
what the minister said and did in his administration."^^
Ephraim Udall, a writer of the opposite school, in

2" " Nam quod Dominus faciendum praecepit, non solum ad id quod
egerat ; sed etiam ad ea quas dixerat referri debet." (Cat. ad Parochos.,
II.-I"V., i9,p, 185. Ed, Lugd,, 1675.) The Lutheran liturgies contained
no Ritual fraction. Yet Calixtus at the close of the sixteenth century
is quoted by Cosin as urging that the death and passion of Christ are
represented "not only to the mind but to the eyes also" — " Ipsis
quoque oculis " — by the breaking of the bread, &c. (Nicholls' Appendix,
p. 48.) '' Nicholls' Appendix, p. 69.
^^ Bishop Jacobson's Fragmentary Illustrations, p. 81.
33 Parentalia, p. 78.

THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD" 225
his Communion Comeliness (written in the same year,
1641), urges the same argument, " if the people be not
brought to the Table within sight and hearing, to
what end are the sacramental actions of breaking the
bread ? " &c.
But the meaning of the new Rubric is placed beyond
ah doubt by the fact that the Welsh Prayer Book (which
equally with the English, was authorised by Convo
cation and by the Statute of Uniformity), renders the
words " before the people " by " in sight of the people."
This was expressly pointed out by the Bishops of
St. Asaph and St. David's, who sat as assessors in
the Folkestone case. **
Bishop Gauden, who was one of the Anti-Puritan
Divines at the Savoy Conference, published a devotional
work called The Whole Duty of a Communicant, which
received the imprimatur of Mr. (afterwards Archbishop)
Sancroft, who acted as secretary during every stage of
the revision in 1661. The following direction will
shew how these competent witnesses understood the
language of a Rubric which was penned by the latter.
"At the time of the consecration fix your eye upon the
elements and at the actions of the ministers . . . we
ought joyfully to meditate after this manner," &c.'°
Dr. Gunning, another Savoy Commissioner, inquired
as Bishop of Ely, in 1679, whether the minister doth
"break the bread, and lay his hand upon all the bread,
and . . . upon every vessel," &c. {Second Report of the
Ritual Commission, Appendix, p. 648), questions which

** See Dr. Stephens' Speech, p. 117, or p. 501 of Mr. Perry's Report.
35 Cited in Perry on Kneeling, p. 318. Gauden was also the author of
the re-introduction of the Black Rubric in 1662. (Burnet, History of his
Own Times, "Vol. I., p. 1S3.) IS

226 "THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD"
imply that the churchwardens witnessed the prescribed
rites, which they then had to swear to.
In addition to the testimony of Wheatly, Nicholls,
Bishop Mant and Professor J. J. Blunt, among com
mentators on the Prayer Book, Dean Howson cites
many devotional allusions to " seeing " the bread broken,
from Bishops Beveridge, Wilson, Ken, Kidder, as also
from Horneck, The Whole Duty of Receiving (1685),
and other writers.^^
Dr. Littledale in his North Side of the Altar, p. 25, cites
Archdeacon Yardley's Rational Communicant as a witness
that the position " before the Altar " held its ground in
1728, " in spite of innovations." The quotation given
related to the Prayer of Access ; but Dr. Littledale
omits to quote Yardley's remarks two pages later,
which had direct reference to the Prayer of Consecration,
viz. : —
" He doth not stand before the Altar as the Romish priests do,
nor like them, pronounce the words in a low voice, to counten
ance their pretended miracle of transubstantiation, and to make
the people gaze with wonder on those who are thought to
perform it in that secret manner, but the priest in the Church
of England says the prayer with an audible voice, as in the
Primitive Church, that the people may hear and join with him,
and stands so as he may with readiness and decency break the
bread before the people, and take the cup into his hands ; that
they may observe and meditate upon those actions which are
significant and proper to this rite." ^'^

'^'' See Howson's Before the Table, pp. 67-72, 95, 169-175, published by
Macmillan. Bishop Patrick and others are cited in Mr. B. Shaw's
speech in Folkestone Case, pp. 65-74.
3' Yardley's Rational Communicant, p. 96, cited in Droop's North Side
of the Table, p. 41 (Hatchard's), and in Elliott's North Side of the Table
(Parker & Co.), p. 94. It is obvious that " Decency " in breaking the
Bread must have reference to the spectators.

"the BREAKING OF THE BREAD" 227
Although, as Hippolytus says, all modern celebra
tions are designed " to bring to mind that ever
memorable and first divine table of the mystical
Lord's Supper,"'^ yet a merely ritual "breaking" fails
to reproduce literally the action of our Lord. " Break
ing bread " was constantly used in the New Testament
for the distribution of viands at the common family
meal, and among pious Jews was always accompanied
by " Eucharist " (Matthew XV.-36), i.e. " blessing " or
" giving thanks to God." The usage of " the Last
Supper " differed in nothing from this. The " break
ing " took place (not, of course, when the Evangelist
recorded the fact in the words " He brake it," but)
when our Lord was about to give to each disciple
his own separate " broken-fragment." So Bishop '
Jewel quotes from the " Hierarchies " of Dionysius
the Areopagite, the words — " The priest, uncovering
the bread that came covered and in one cake or loaf,
and dividing the same into many portions, and like
wise dividing the unity of the cup unto all, mystically
[a-vfi/3oXi,/c&<;~\ and by way of a sacrament he fulfilleth
and divideth unity :"^^ and so late as the twelfth century
it was usual " while the priest was making the solemn
fraction and communicating himself, for the deacons
and minister to break the other hostice into con
venient pieces for communicating the people. (See
Bocquillot, p. 288, and Humbert, there quoted.)"*"
^^ Eis dva^ui](jLV tFjs dufiviitJTov cat Trpwrtjs 'tKtlurjs rpa7rti^T]s tov
jivaTiKitv Qtiov StiTrvov. Migne, p, 265,
^' Jewel's Works, Parker Society, I.-115, Bishop Hooper urged
that the Minister " as he giveth the bread, let him break it after the
example of Christ," Early Writings, pp, 61, 180, 534,
*" J, D, Chambers, Divine Worship in England in the Xll.-XIVth
Centuries, p. 232, See article "Fraction" in Smith's Dictionary of
Ecclesiastical Antiquities, p. 688, 15 *

228 "the BREAKING OF THE BREAD"
But at the original institution, the bread was broken
and distributed before the Lord said of it " this is My
body which is (given) for you." As TertuUian said,
" Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis, corpus illud
suum fecit, ' hoc est corpus meum ' dicendo, id est
figura corporis mei."*i
No ritual outpouring was ever known, for no thought
of a " libation " ever came in. The only " outpouring "
in the Eucharist was, as St. Augustine said, " into the
mouths of the faithful." -And the dramatic " stabbing "
of the Greek Church was a mere afterthought con
ceived in very childish taste. From the very first the
ceremony of " breaking " was utilitarian and manward,
for purposes of distribution, and not sacrificial or
emblematic of the destruction or death of the
covenant victim. And the essential sacramental
"action" was after all not any ritual "breaking"
but " eating and drinking " of that bread and wine
which "the Lord hath commanded to be received."

^' Adv. Marcion, I'V,-4o,

IX
^be 3fir6t l&ook of Ifjomilies

AT the close of the year 1539 the murderous " Six
Articles " Act was in full swing, and the
Lutherans of North Germany had finally given
up all hope of any possible alliance with Henry ^TII.
on Protestant hues. Melancthon then wrote to the
English monarch (on November ist) an indignant
remonstrance, saying —
" I am pained that you are becoming tlie minister of another's
cruelty and godlessness. I am pained that tlie doctrine of
Christ is being restrained, vicious rites established, and lusts
strengthened. I hear that men of excellent learning and godli
ness, Latimer, Shaxton, Cranmer, and others are held in
custody ; for them I pray courage becoming Christians. And
although nothing better or more glorious could happen to them
than to meet death in the confession of such manifest truth :
yet do I not wish your Royal Higliness to be stained by the
blood of such men, I do not wish the lights of your Church to
be extinguished, I do not wish such concession to be made to
the godlessness and venomous pharisaic hatred of Christ's
enemies, I do not w^ish pleasure to be atforded to the Roman
Anti-Christ, ^\"ho . . hopes by the aid of the Bishops to regain
easily that possession from which he was driven by your
honourable and godly counsels. He sees that the Bishops are
for a time complying -s^ith your will, but that they are joined to
the Roman Pontiff." 1
' Dr, Jacob's Luther.ui Moteir.ent in England, p. 156.

230 THE FIRST BOOK OF HOMILIES
Henry had by that time got all he could out of the
plunder of the Monasteries, and was thenceforth free
to follow his own personal tastes, so that, being still
a papist both in doctrine and ritual, though not in
discipHne, he felt discontented with the " Institution
of any Christian Man" drafted by Cranmer, from
which he had always most cautiously withheld any
direct royal approval.^ That is why the earher formu
lary of 1537 was termed the "Bishops' book": and
why the " King's Book," of 1543, which originated
from a Royal Commission, and was issued by his
Majesty, was a much more Popish production. It
could hardly have been otherwise while the recent
Act of the Six Articles brandished its lighted faggots
before the eyes of the draftsmen.
From that Convocation which met on January 20th,
1542, the first book of Homilies originated. On January
27th in that year the archbishop mooted the drawing
up of Homilies at a joint meeting of the two Houses.
On April 3rd the subject was discussed, and a twelve
month later, on February i6th, 1543, we find the final
entry in the records of Convocation : " there were
produced the Homilies composed by certain prelates
of divers matters : the which books were delivered to
Mr. Hussey to be kept." " Kept" they certainly were,
but, in prison. Not until July 31st, 1547 (still under
the unrepealed Act of " the Six Articles "), did they
see the light. The presumption is that Henry had
refused to authorise their publication. For, when
Bishop Gardiner, in the reign of Edward, formally
refused them, it was on this very ground — ^
^ See Cranmer's Works, Parker Society, 11,-337, note, 469.
3 Strype's Memorials of Cranmer. Ecclesiastical History Society's
Edition, II,-i8 (under date June loth, 1547),

THE FIRST BOOK OF HOMILIES 23I
" I have received this day letters from my lord of Canterbury,
touching certain homilies, which the bishops in the Convocation
holden a.d. 1542, agreed to make for stay of such errors as were
then by ignorant preachers sparkled among the people ; for other
agreement there had not then passed among us. Since that
time God gave our late sovereign lord the gift of pacification in
those matters, which, established by his Highness' authority,
in the Convocation, extinguished our devices, and remaineth of
force with your Grace."
In another letter to the Protector,'' Gardiner wrote —
" I have eftsoons received other letters from my said lord of
Canterbury, requiring the said homilies by virtue of a Convoca
tion holden five years past, wherein we communed of that
which took none effect then, and much less needeth to be put
in execution now, nor in my judgment cannot without a new
authority from the King's Majesty that now is, commanding
such a matter to be enterprised."
Gardiner's plea rested on the objection that the
teaching of the newly published Homilies was contrary
to " the King's book," i.e. the "Necessary doctrine and
Erudition " which had been " established by his High
ness' authority " on May 29th, 1543. No doubt, the
allegation was quite true. The " King's book " which
Mr. Tyrrell Green seeks to pass off as a genuine
Church of England formulary, taught that "justifi
cation may be forfeited or lost, recovered again by the
sacrament of Penance, and increased to an indefinite
extent by fastings, alms-deeds, works of charity, and
general obedience to the commandments of God, until
final justification be attained in the day of Judgment.
In the matter of Justification, therefore, the teaching
of ' the King's Book ' is in substance, and, to some
extent, in detail, the same as that which was after
wards made an Article of Faith by the Council of
* strype's Memorials of Cranmer. Ecclesiastical History Society's
Edition, 11,-19.

232 THE FIRST BOOK OF HOMILIES
Trent." ^ Indeed, so Romish was its teaching, that
Bishop Bonner re-issued the book with but trifling
alterations, under Mary.^ One of Gardiner's argu
ments may make the modern reader smile. He
urged that since King Henry had gone to heaven, the
doctrine of "the King's Book " must needs be right !
" Specially considering it is agreed our late sovereign is received
to God's mercy. And though some would say, he had [his
errors] and saw not perfectly God's truth ; yet for us, it were
better to go to heaven with one eye after him, than to travail
here for another eye with danger to lose both . . . For our
sovereign lord is gone from us to heaven, in his way."
These courtly flatteries of the royal bigot, which
extended even beyond the grave, explain the ascen
dancy which Gardiner gained over Henry during the
later years of his reign.
In reviewing the evidence as given above, it seems
probable that the Homilies which it had taken the
bishops a twelvemonth to prepare, and which were
ready for publication in 1543, were suppressed by King
Henry acting under the advice of Gardiner. On the
other hand, it seems pretty certain that four at least of
the series must be dated from the reign of Edward.
Gardiner repeatedly refers to the celebrated Homily
of Salvation as being Cranmer's, and, apparently, as
recently compiled ^ by the Primate. This Homily, it
will be remembered, has an authority greater than any
other, being specially referred to and incorporated in
Article XI. on " Justification," as " declaring more
largely " the doctrine which every clergyman now
pledges himself to maintain. The Homily against

' Dr, Corrie's Concise History of the Church and State of England, p. 89,
(Hatchards,) " Ibid., p. 98, ? See Foxe, "VI, -45, 49, 55,

THE FIRST BOOK OF HOMILIES 233
" Strife and Contention" is attributed by Dr. Words
worth* to Latimer who, in 1542, was in hiding to save
his life, having resigned his bishopric; so that it is
highly improbable that he would be employed, in 1542,
to prepare any official declaration of doctrine.
Becon was the author of the one against "Adultery",^
and that against " Swearing " is, at least, based on
his Invective, published in 1543 : but as Becon was at
that time "made to recant and burn his books''^" it
is hardly likely that Convocation would then have
employed him as a writer. These four must presum
ably have been added in 1547 by Cranmer to the drafts
" kept by Master Hussey."
The names of the writers of the Homilies on
"Declining from God," and "Obedience," are un
known. Cranmer himself is credited with four or
five, viz. those on the " Reading of the Scriptures,"
" Salvation," " Faith," " Good ^^'orks," and probably
" Against the fear of death." ^^ Two men of the " Old
Learning," as it was called, wrote respectively the one
on the " Misery of Mankind," which was by Arch
deacon Harpsfield, and that on "Christian Love"
which was by Bonner and his chaplain. The former
of these was reprinted b}- Bishop Bonner during the
reign of Queen J^Iary, viz. in 1555. It is verbatim the
same with the Edwardian Homily, except that the
texts are quoted in Latin, and the following significant
changes have also been made. In the " Second part "^-

" Ecclesiastical Biography, III.-188.
" Becon's IForAs, II. -643, It was published by himself in 1560-4.
1° Becon's IForAs, I, -Preface, viii,
" Cranmer's Works, Parker Society, II,-i:;S,
^ p, 16 o
Knowledge.

234 THE FIRST BOOK OF HOMILIES
the words in Italics were left out (by Harpsfield ?) from
the sentence—
" Let us know our own works . . . nor challenge any part
of justification hy our merits or works."
It would be interesting to know whether these words
had been added .in 1547^^ by Cranmer to the original
I Homily of 1542. They certainly mark the dividing
' line between England and Rome : the true watershed
of Romish heresy. On page 18, Cranmer's edition
reads — ~^
" He is that High and everlasting Priest, which hath offered
Himself once for all upon the altar of the cross, and with that one
oblation hath made perfect for evermore them that are sanctified.
He is the alone Mediator between God and man,"
In Bonner's revised version of 1555 the words here
italicised were left out, and instead of them we read —
" offered Himself to God when He instituted the sacrament
of the altar, and once for all, in a bloody sacrifice done ^
upon the cross, with which oblation He " (folio 12) : and,
no less significantly, the word "alone" is blotted out
before " Mediator."
On the last page of the Homily the following
paragraph has been erased by Bonner —
" Hitherto have we heard what we are of ourselves ; verily,
sinful, wretched, and damnableT Again, we have heard how that,
of ourselves and by ourselves, we are not able either to think a
good thought, or work a good deed : so that we can find in
ourselves no hope of salvation, but rather whatsoever maketh
unto our destruction. Again, we have heard the tender kind
ness and great mercy of God the Father toward us, and how
beneficial He is to us for Christ's sake, without our merits or
deserts, even of His own mere mercy and tender goodness.
Now, how these exceeding great mercies of God, set abroad in
" The Homily Of Salvation is said to have been taken from
Melancttion s Loci Communes. Compare Jacob's Lutheran Movement in
England, p. 335.

THE FIRST BOOK OF HOMILIES 235
Christ Jesus for us, be obtained, and how we be delivered
from the captivity of sin, death, and hell, it shall more at large,
with God's help, be declared in the next Sermon. In the mean
season, yea, and at all times let us learn," &c.
All this, save the last three words, is omitted by
Bonner, who alters the latter into " Let us now learn,"
&c. It can perhaps never be cleared up whether
Cranmer, as editor, had added to the original text of
Harpsfield's Homily of 1542; or whether Bonner had
erased words which had been written there from the
first. But what is not by any means uncertain is that
between the two versions there is a wide gulf fixed :
that no " continuity of doctrine " can connect the
Church of England, as reformed, with the Mediaeval
system ; and that modern " Ritualists " elect to stand
with Bonner rather than with Cranmer as to the
precise points involved in the above changes. Bonner
would indeed have been much aggrieved had he been
told that he was not " Undoing the Reformation."
***
It is a pity that the original Edwardian Preface to this
First Book of Homilies is not now reprinted with them,
as it would explain the character of the Notice which
still appears at the end of the book — " Hereafter shall
follow Sermons of Fasting, &c.," ^* a notice which was
in fact merely a continuation of the Royal Preface, and
concluded with " God save the King." In all the nine
editions put forth during the last six months of 1547,
and in Grafton's edition of June 21st, 1548, this
Preface directed a Homily to be read " every Sunday
in the year at High Mass, when the people be most
" Cranmer (Answer to Gardiner, p. 53) and Ridley (Works, p. 196)
expressly repudiated the phrase "under the forms of bread and wine,"
which occur only in this Royal Notice of 1547, In several editions, though
not in all, the Notice appeared on a separate page. See below, p, 245-

236 THE FIRST BOOK OF HOMILIES
gathered together." For, during those two opening
years of Edward's reign, the Latin Mass continued to
be said, and up to Christmas Eve in 1547, people were
even thrown into prison under the still unrepealed " Act
of the Six Articles." It was not until the First
Prayer Book came into use, on June gth, 1549, that
the Mass was finally supplanted. The change was
instantly marked by an alteration in the wording of the
Preface, which in Oswen's edition of the Homilies,
dated at Worcester, October 8th, 1549 (" they be also
to sell at Shrewsbury ") ran thus — " At the celebration
of the Holy Communion, in such order and place as is
appointed in the book of Common Prayer." This
alteration is but another proof that the Mass and the
Communion were not supposed to be convertible
terms, but direct opposites, and it illustrates also the
unfairness of the reasoning in the Lambeth Judgment
which was based on the notion that no breach in
doctrinal " continuity " ever took place at the Refor
mation ! The Preface now usually printed with the
Homilies, dates only from 1560, and directs a Homily
to be read " every Sunday and holy-day in the year, at
the ministering of the Holy Communion, or if there be
no Communion ministered that day, yet after the Gospel
and Creed, in such order and place as is appointed in
the Book of Common Prayer."
But it is important to remember that the "Advertise
ment" which is still printed at the end of the First
book of Homilies was not a theological document
proceeding from any "spiritual" authority, but only
an "Erastian" announcement of what the Government
of that day proposed in 1 547 to issue, a promise which
was never fulfilled. The Homilies themselves were
sandwiched, as it were, between these two, just as the

THE FIRST BOOK OF HOMILIES 237
Canons of 1604 lie embedded in the middle of the
Royal Letters Patent, or the Thirty-nine Articles
between the Royal Preface of one Monarch and the
" Ratification " of another. Had this always been
recognised, the theological importance sometimes
attributed for polemical purposes to this belated
"Advertisement" would have been seen to be misplaced.
* *
Before the Jesuits in the Council of Trent succeeded
in getting their Pelagian theory of Justification passed
by the Italian and Spanish votes, in despite of the
more Evangelical views of Cardinals Pole, Contarini,
and Cajetan, "Justification by faith" continued to be
taught, even within the Church of Rome, as it had
been of old by St. Paul, and by St. Clement of Rome. ;
Canon Jenkins, in his interesting book on Pre-
Tridentine doctrine, has called attention to the close
correspondence of Cranmer's Homily on Justification
with the commentary of Cajetan on Romans iii.
There are two facts, apparently not then known
to Canon Jenkins, which lend plausibility to this
conjecture. The first is that in the MS. Notes on
Justification, now in the library at Lambeth, there is
a list at the end (though not printed in the Parker
Society edition of Cranmer's Remains, p. 203), of the
authorities relied on by the compiler of those Notes,
giving the Greek and Latin writers in two groups, the
last name being " Cajetamus." The other fact is
mentioned by Mr. Burbidge {Liturgies and Offices,
p. xxv.), viz. "that Cranmer's own copy of Cajetan's
commentary on the New Testament, 2 vols, folio,
Paris, 1532, is now at the British Museum, 1277. d. i."
Thus we certainly know that Cranmer had read
Cajetan and noted his testimony in the matter of

238 THE FIRST BOOK OF HOMILIES
justification. Canon Jenkins gives in parallel columns
some illustrations of the close similarity of thought, if
not of language.
If we choose to suppose with Canon Jenkins that
this was the immediate source of the Homily, it is of
course possible that it might have been written in 1542,
and if so the motive for suppressing the First Book of
Homilies becomes obvious. Gardiner's dislike found
expression in his letter to Somerset of November 12th,
1547, in which he said : —
" As for my Lord of Canterbury's Homily of Salvation, it
hatli as many faults, as I have been ^\•eeks in prison . . . and
is handled contrary to the teaching of the Parliament."
This latter suggestion was an adroit reference to the
Parliamentary authority supposed to attach to the
"Necessary Doctrine and Erudition" oi 1543 from the
Acts 32 Henry VIII., cap. x.xvi., and 34 and 35,
Henry "VIII., cap. i. And it very possibly led to a
repeal of those Acts, during the following month, viz.
by the passing of the i Edward 'VI. , cap. xii., on
Christmas Eve, 1547, which (by repealing also the Six
Articles Act) left Convocation thenceforth free to
acquiesce in any reforms which Cranmer could
persuade them to assent to.
But it seems more probable that Melancthon's
\ Commonplaces. De Vocab. gratia:, furnished the quarry
' from which this Homily was dug, as Bishop Fitzgerald
points out in his Lectures on Ecclesiastical History,
11.-215. Homily. Mel.\ncthon.
" This sentence that we be "When Paul says that we
justified by faith only, is not so are justified freely through
meant that the said justifying faith, he does not mean that
faith is alone in man, without contrition does not exist in

THE FIRST BOOK OF HOMILIES

239

true repentance, hope, charity,
dread and the fear of God, at
any time and season. But this
saying that we be justified by
faith only, freely and without
works, is spoken for to take
away clearly all merit of our
works ; . . . and therefore
wholly to ascribe the merit and
deserving of our justification to
Christ only. . . . Justification
is not the office of man, but of
God ; for man cannot make
himself righteous by his own
works, neither in part nor in
whole. . . . The true under
standing of this doctrine, we be
justified freely by faith without
works, or that we be justified
by faith in Christ only, is not
that this our own act to believe
in Christ, or this our faith in
Christ which is within us, doth
justify us, and deserve our
justification unto us (for that
were to count ourselves to be
justified by some act or virtue
that is within ourselves) ; but
the true understanding and
meaning thereof is, that
although we hear God's word
and believe, although we have
faith, hope, charity, &c., we
must renounce the merit of all
such virtues."

those that are converted, or
that the other virtues do not
follow, yea, rather he means
that they are present ; but he
excludes the condition of merit
or worthiness on our part ; he
denies that contrition or any
virtues of ours are the causes
of our reconciliation, and he
testifies that the cause thereof
is the merit of Christ the
Mediator. Nor is the meaning
of our divines different when
we say that we are justified by
faith only. Nor does that
word ' only ' exclude contrition
or other virtues from being
present in him who is justified,
but denies that they are the
causes of our reconciliation,
and transfers the cause to
Christ alone. So that this
saying, 'we are justified by
faith in Christ,' is equivalent
to this, that we are justified for
the sake of Christ, and not for
our own deservings. Faith is
itself a work, Uke love,patience,
chastity, and as these are infirm
and weak, so is faith ; so that
we are not said to be justified
by faith because faith is a virtue
of such dignity as to deserve
justification, but because there
must needs be some instru
ment in us by which we lay
hold upon the Mediator who
intercedes on our behalf."

X
Zbc Seconb :©ooh of Ibomilies

THE history of the Second Book is quite distinct
from that of the First. Edward's Homilies
continued to be reprinted separately down to
the vear 1623, when both books were, for the first time,
included in one volume. At least three editions of
that " First " (Edwardian) book of Homilies had been
issued under Elizabeth before any publication took
place of the later set. The earliest of these reprints
was probably issued before February, 1559, because in
it alone are found the words " Supreme Head," as
applied to Elizabeth inthe "Exhortation to Obedience."
" Supreme Head " had been the legal title of Henry "VIII.
and of Edward VI. under the 26 Henry VIII , cap. i.
That title was used also by Mary in the writs which
summoned her first Parliament ; ^ but it was disliked
both by Papists and by Puritans. Sandys tells us that
" Mr. Lever wisely put it into the Queen's head that she
would not take the title of Supreme Head " (Letter to
Parker,- dated April 30th, 1559), and the word "wisely "
1 Lewis's Reformation Settlement, pp, 139, 154 ; Ingram's England and
Rome, p. 208, Mr. Lunn says, " The 2 documents in Bonner's Register
immediately preceding Scory's rehabilitation, both describe Q. Mary
as ' Supreme Head of the Church of England.' They are both licenses
to preach ; the one issued by Bonner, the other by the Queen herself."
- Archbishop Parker's Correspondence , p. 66.

THE SECOND BOOK OF HOMILIES 24I
shews that Sandys himself approved the change. But
all the Puritans were not of this way of thinking.
Robert Beal, Clerk to the Privy Council, raised a
question in the Commons as to "the validity as well
of the Parliaments lately had, as this Parliament,
lacking, in the writ of summons, ' Supremum Caput ' ; "
which shews that even in convoking this very Par
liament Elizabeth had omitted to use the title, from
a regard, no doubt, to the Marian repeal of the
26 Henry VIII., cap. i.^ However, on February 9th,
1559, a bill was introduced, which on May 9th received
the Royal assent, and became the celebrated Statute
of the Royal Supremacy (i Elizabeth, cap. i.). By this
Act the title of Supreme Governor was substituted
for that of Supreme Head.
We learn from the Spanish State Papers, p. 37, that
before March 19th, 1559, the Lord Treasurer, the
Marquis of Winchester, " had promised ' the Spanish
Ambassador ' that the Queen would not take the title
of Head of the Church " ; and on April nth the Count
de Feria reported to Philip : " The Queen has already
declared in Parliament that she will not be called Head
of the Church, whereat the heretics are very dissatisfied.
Cecil went yesterday to the Lower House, and told
them from the Queen that she thanked them greatly
for their good will in offering her the title of Supreme

' The Supremacy Act of Henry "VIII, was repealed by i and 2
Philip and Mary, cap, viii,, which repeal was continued by i Elizabeth,
cap, i,, sec, xiii. It is necessary to state this, because " authorities " so
great as Hale, Coke, and Dyer have stated otherwise. But Elizabeth's
Supremacy Act, i Elizabeth, cap, i., gave to the Crown, in addition to
all the powers of Henry's Act, jurisdiction also in " schisms " ; the title
of the Monarch, with its vague indefinite claim of autocratic power,
being the only subtraction, i6

V I

242 THE SECOND BOOK OF HOMILIES
Head of the Church, which, out of humility, she was
unwilling to accept, and asked them to devise some
other form with regard to the supremacy or primacy." *
So that the earliest Elizabethan reprint of Edward's
Homilies, retaining, as it did, the old title, must have
been printed before March 19th, 1559. Its text was
based on the edition by Whitchurch of 1549. It
seems a pity that the S. P. C. K. do not see their way
to giving on p. no of their octavo edition, a footnote
stating that the original words, " Supreme Head," were
] changed by Elizabeth in 1559. Convocation sanctioned
a similar change in Article XXXVII., which, in King
' Edward's time, ran, " The King of England is Supreme
; Head, in earth, next under Christ, of the Church of
j England and Ireland " ; but, in 1563, this was altered
iinto the present form. "Supreme Head" has not
been the legal title of any English Sovereign since the
year 1554. ^ ^
'*
Date of the Second Book of Homilies.
A curious document, drawn up by some of the
bishops, exists in two separate MSS. now preserved
in the libraries of the Inner Temple, and of Corpus
Christi, Cambridge. Among other provisions suggested
in this draft, came this one : —
" Item, homilies to be made of those arguments which be
shewed in the book of Homilies, or others^ of some convenient

¦> Spanish State Papers, p. 52.
5 The allusion is to the Advertisement appended (in July, 1547, by
the Privy Council) to the First Book of Homilies as described above,
p. 235. " Other arguments " were adopted, in the case of the Lord's
Supper, from what it would have been lawful to publish in 1547, while
the Six Articles Act remained in force.

THE SECOND BOOK OF HOMILIES 243
arguments, as of the' sacrifice of the Mass, of the common
prayers to be in English, that every particular Realm may alter
and change their public rites and ceremonies of the Church,
keeping the substance of the faith inviolably, with such like.
And that these be divided to be made by the bishops." ^
The copy in the Inner Temple,^ reads " Church,"
instead of " Realm," and adds at the end — " every
bishop two, and the Bishop of London ' [Grindal] ' to
have four."
Strype has blended these two versions in his Annals,
1.-1.-319, and has been followed by Cardwell. The
date of this document can be approximately ascertained,
because more than one of the " items " in it were
adopted in the "Articles agreed upon" by the High
Commissioners at Lambeth on April 12th, 1561.^
The Corpus Christi MS. contains, in addition, some
"Resolutions and Orders" (printed by Strype, Annals,
1.-1.-329), which also shew that the Homilies had not
then been composed. The second of these Orders
urges people to frequent Communions " in such form
as is already prescribed in the book of Common Prayer,
and as shall be further declared in an homily concerning
the virtue and efficacy of the said Sacrament."^
Hence we learn that the compiling or selection of
the Homihes to form the "Second Book" had not
been effected much before April, 1561. On the other
hand, they must have been completed before January
12th, 1563, when that Convocation assembled, in

" Parker MSS,, Corpus Christi College Library, Cambridge,
P. 106,"
¦ Petyt MS,, Vol, XXXVIII,
¦* Cardwell's Documentary Annals, 1,-264, Strj-pe's Parker, I.-194.
" CC, CMS,, "P. 106," p, 423.

244 THE SECOND BOOK OF HOMILIES
which, on January 29th, the Thirty-nine Articles were
subscribed by the bishops, containing an endorsement
of the Second Book of Homilies, enumerating each
by name except, of course, the " Homily against dis
obedience and wilful rebellion." This last was occa
sioned by a rising in the North, which commenced in
November, 1569, and was subdued before Christmas.
This latest of the Homilies was written early in 1570,
and ran through five editions before being incorporated,
in 1571, with the rest, in the revised edition of our
thirty-fifth Article, which was then (for the first time)
enacted by Parliament.
Authors of the Homilies — Second Book.
Mr. Griffiths has, with great acuteness, tried to
discern the names of the separate writers. To Jewel
he refers the lion's share. Those on " The right use
of the Church," "Against peril of Idolatry," "For
repairing of churches," "Of Prayer," "Of the place
and time of Prayer," " Of Common Prayer and the
Sacraments," " Of the worthy receiving of the Sacra
ments," " For Whit-Sunday," and "Against idleness "
— are all due to him. Each of these gives the Scripture
quotations from a free translation of the Vulgate, and
the one on "Idolatry" was largely taken from a treatise
by his friend Bullinger {De origine erroris in Divorum et
sacrorum cultii) which had been published in 1528 and
1539. Grindal wrote the Homily on " Fasting" in its
original form; though, as we shall see by-and-by, it
was much altered subsequently. Pilkington probably
wrote the one "Against Gluttony," a few sentences
of it being taken from his exposition upon Haggai,
pubhshed in 1560 ; and a large portion of it being a

THE SECOND BOOK OF HOMILIES 245
translation from Peter Martyr's Commentary on the
Book of Judges. Pilkington, too, is probably responsible
for that "Against excess of apparel." Several passages
in the " Information for them that take offence at
certain places of Holy Scripture," are taken from
Erasmus. The two on the "Passion" and the
"Resurrection" are taken from Taverner's Postils ;
but two instructive and important changes were then
made which deserve especial and separate notice.
Easter Day being the time for " every parishioner
to communicate," the Homily naturahy referred to
that subject ; but the passage, " call to thy mind that
therefore thou hast received into thy possession the
everlasting verity, our Saviour Christ, in form of
BREAD, to confirm thy conscience," was altered, in
1563, by striking out the words in small capitals. Canon
Knox Little should make a note of that erasure, which
is on p. 465 of the S. P. C. K. octavo edition, or p. 436
of Dr. Corrie's. On p. 467 {Corrie, p. 438), may be
found another: " How dare we be so bold as to renounce
the presence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost now RECEIVED IN THIS HOLY SACRAMENT ? "
Here again the words printed in small capitals have
been carefully eliminated. Compare Cardwell's edition
of Taverner, pp. 193, 195.^"
The Homily for " Rogation " week is probably due
to Archbishop Packer ; while that on " Matrimony "
is taken partly from a homily by Chrysostom, and
partly translated from an address by Veit Dietricht, a
Lutheran, of Nuremberg. Two-thirds of the first part

'" " Penance and remission of sins " was altered into " pardon and
remission of sins,"

]\\

246 THE SECOND BOOK OF HOMILIES
of that on "Repentance" are taken from Rodolph
Gualter; and the authorship of the rest has not
hitlierto been traced. The Elizabethan Preface, which
is still reprinted, was draughted by Bishop Cox.^"^
Final Revision by Queen Elizabeth.
Though Elizabeth prudently declined the title of
Supreme Head, she, in fact, acted as such. In hardly
a single instance did she allow Convocation to have
the "last word." According to her own notions, she
succeeded to the powers formerly wielded by the
Pope ; ^^ and in this spirit she altered the Statutory
\ Book of Common Prayer — striking out thejtwonibrics
as to Ornaments and the pTace^for Morning Prayer,
and substituting for them, without any authority, two
brand-new inventions of her own. Other changes
continued to be made throughout her reign, which it
( is difficult to trace, or even specify; for hardly any
two editions of the Elizabethan Prayer Books agree
together. In the same spirit she struck out the
'Twenty-ninth__Article, after it had been enacted by
Convocation in 1563, to say nothing of the famous
introductory clause in Article XX., of which many
deem her the sole author. The Canons of 1571 under
went her careful editorship, though they failed, after
all, to obtain her final approval.^^^ Nor did the
Homilies escape like changes. They had received
formal sanction from Convocation on February 5th,
1563, but were detained in the custody of the Queen
till the following July, though Archbishop Parker had

va. Strype's Annals, I,-i,-5i6, See Lansdowne MS. 982, fol, 6, dorso.
" Strype's Life of Whitgift, I.-495.
''» Cardsi ell's Synodalia, I.-113,

THE SECOND BOOK OF HOMILIES 247
been urgent with Cecil, the Prime Minister, to get
them out for his Visitation " after Midsummer." '^
In the British Museum is the identical copy which
Archbishop Parker had procured to be handsomely
bound for presentation to her Majesty, and which shews
the state in which the book left the hands of the
prelates. The press-mark of this unique copy is " C.
25. h. 3." From this, the original text, Elizabeth,
before sanctioning its publication, made the six changes
following : —
I. " An Admonition to all ministers ecclesi
astical," was prefixed, which affected to give leave to
the clergy to change the appointed lessons at their own
discretion, although the new Kalendar had been issued
under a statutory Order so recently as February 15th,
1561.13 II. In the Homily on " Idolatry " two significant
changes were made by the Royal editor ; an explana
tion of which will be found by comparison with the,
dates of the incidents mentioned, in my Queen Elizabeth's
Crucifix, its secret history and real meaning,^'' as also with
the Spanish State Papers, I. -105, 179. Her own
vacillation in the matter of the crucifix led to the
following changes of a passage in " Part I.," which
may be found on p. 192 of the 8vo. edition. After
quoting 2 Corinthians vi. -14-16, it runs on,
" "Which place enforceth both that
[Synodical Fersion.] \_Ccesars Version.]
neither the material church we should not worship images,
or temple ought to have any and that we should not have

•^ Parker Correspondence, p. 177, " Ibid., p. 135.
" Published by J. F. Shaw & Co. Price One Penny.

248 THE SECOND BOOK OF HOMILIES
images in it (for of it is taken images in the temple, for fear
the ground cf the argument), and occasion of worshipping
neither that any true Christian them, though they be of them-
ought to have any ado with selves things indifferent ; for
filthy and dead images, for the Christian
that he
is the holy temple and lively image of God, as the place will
declare to such as will read and weigh it."
Still more clearly, at the opening of the " Third
Part" of the same Homily, the writer had said "the
word of God speaketh against not only idolatry and
worshipping of images, but also against idols and
images themselves." This was too much for the pro
prietor of the crucifix, so the Queen herself added " (I
mean always thus herein, in that we be stirred" and
provoked by them to worship them, and not as though
they were simply forbidden by the New Testament
without such occasion and danger.) " To make this
addition read smoothly, the next words (which had
originally formed part of the first sentence) were altered
by interpolating " ye " and beginning as a fresh sentence
— " And ye have heard likewise," &c., p. 223 of the
S.P.C.K. octavo edition.
III. The next emendation is of a different kind. It
occurs in the Homily " of Fasting," in which the last
paragraph in the " First Part " (beginning " Lord have
mercy upon us," &c., at the foot of p. 300 of the octavo
edition) and the next five pages of the " Second Part,"
up to " Now shall be shewed briefly what time is meet
for fasting " were added. This very large interpolation
was inserted more than a month after the Homilies
had been in the hands of the Queen, having been

THE SECOND BOOK OF HOMILIES 249
occasioned by a Bill brought in on March 9th, which
ultimately became the Statute 5 Elizabeth, cap. v.
The language of that Act deserves attention. It ran,
" not for any superstition tobe maintained in the choice
of meats : be it enacted that whosoever shall by preach
ing, teaching, writing, or open speech, notify that the
eating of fish and forbearing of flesh mentioned in this
statute is of any necessity for the saving of the soul of
man, or that it is the service of God, or otherwise than
as other politic laws are and be, shall be punished as
spreaders of false news are or ought to be." It is
evident from Archbishop Parker's Correspondence, that
his own views about fasting were in accordance with
the statute.!' This quaint statute was only repealed
in 186S by the 31 & 32 Victoria, cap. .xiv., sec. 71.
IV. A more important addition, though less bulky,
was an interpolation (on page 376 of the octavo edition)
dealing with the theological definition of the word
"Sacrament.'' Both versions read— "And as for the
number of them, if they should be considered according
to the exact signification —
\_Synodical definition.] \_Ccesars definition.]
as fully so expressed and com- of a sacrament, viz. for visible
mended by Christ in the New signs expressly commanded in
Testament, there be but t^vo, the New Testament, where-
viz. Baptism and the Supper unto is annexed the promise of
of the Lord." free forgiveness of our sin, and
of our holiness and joining in
Christ, there be but two, viz.
Baptism and the Supper of
the Lord. For, although Abso-

See Parker C.vrespondence, pp. 216, 235,

250 THE SECOND BOOK OF HOMILIES
lution hath the promise of
forgiveness of sin, yet by the
express word of the New
Testament it hath not this
promise annexed and tied to the
visible sign, which is imposition
of hands. For this visible
sign, I mean laying on of
hands, is not so expressly
commanded in the New Testa
ment to be used in Absolution,
as the visible signs in Baptism
and the Lord's Supper are ;
and therefore Absolution is no
such sacrament as Baptism and
the Communion are. And,
though the Ordering of
Ministers hath his visible sign
and promise, yet it lacks the
promise of remission of sin, as
all other sacraments besides
do. Therefore neither^" it nor
any other sacraments else be
such sacraments as Baptism
and the Communion are."
This interpolation is quoted with much unction by
Ritualistic writers, as by Canon Little in his reply to
Archdeacon Farrar, p. 26, where he employs it to over
rule the plain teaching of Article XXV. What must
be his feelings on discovering that he was actually
i" It was on this ground that Bishop Geste at one time attacked our
Twenty-fifth Article, among others, as being "not true," He urged
" that it cannot be well denyed but that ordering is a sacrament of the
gospel ; but yet not such one as baptisme and y" Lord's Supper be
bycause by orderynge to the person whiche is ordered no forgynes of
synes is offered, nor his faith herein is confirmed."— State Papers,
Domestic, Elizabeth, Vol, LXXVIII, No, 37,

THE SECOND BOOK OF HOMILIES 25I
preferring the theories of the daughter of Anne Boleyn,
to language which had been sanctioned by the "sacred
Synod " of Canterbury !
V. Elizabeth's next excursus into theology was more
happy. In the " Sermon on the Nativity" (p. 432 of the
octavo edition) a sentence runs — " We are evidently
taught in [the] Scripture, that our Lord and Saviour
Christ consisteth of two several natures :
\_Synodical dogma.] [Royal dogma.]
as touching his outward flesh, of his manhood, being thereby
perfect man, as touching his perfect man; and of his
inward spirit Godhead being thereby
perfect God."
Here the Queen has been more accurate than her
prelates in recognising that the " inward spirit " might
belong to the humanity of Christ, so that her language
was less ambiguous than that of the Synod.
VI. A very important tampering with the original is
seen at p. 478 of the octavo edition, where, in the last
paragraph, after the first two sentences, in the original
edition came a sentence which Elizabeth struck out. 1
It will be remembered that she also struck out the
Twenty-ninth Article at the same time, and doubtless
for the same reason, viz. to conciliate the Lutheran as j
well as Romanist believers in a " real," i.e. local
presence. Hence, in despite of Convocation, she got J
rid of the following —
" Wherefore thus saith St. Augustine : ' He
WHICH is at discord WITH ChRIST DOTH NEITHER
EAT His FLESH NOR DRINK HiS BLOOD, ALTHOUGH
HE RECEIVE, TO THE JUDGMENT OF HIS DESTRUCTION,
DAILY THE OUTWARD SACRAMENT OF SO GREAT A

252 THE SECOND BOOK OF HOMILIES
THING.' " ¦ In the margin had been written a reference
to " Lib. de Trinitate," which, of course, was also
erased by " great Eliza," as part of her State policy, if
not also to accord with her own private belief.
Elizabeth's revised version was at length^'' allowed
to appear before the end of July, 1563, for Grindal on
August 1st speaks of the " second tome of homihes,
now lately set forth by the Queen's majesty's authority,"
and orders churchwardens to procure copies with all
speed " at the charges of the parish." ^^
*
One more alteration by Royal hands the homilies
underwent in 1623, when the " English Solomon "
enriched the Homily "Of the right use of the Church,"
Part II., with a couple of footnotes, indicative of that
"statecraft" of which he was so proud to think himself
a master. They were appended to the sentence (on
p. 176 of the octavo edition) relating to the censure on
the Emperor Theodosius, and his excommunication by
a bishop. James gravely notes — " The people's fault
was most grievous : the sentence executed otherwise
and more cruel than it should." Again, "He was
only dehorted from receiving the sacrament, until by
repentance he might be better prepared." These
marginal notes, which are amusing enough in the light
of contemporary history, have been very properly
removed. But have the far greater ones made by
Elizabeth one whit more of "Church authority"
than his ?
^' Dr, Cardwell thinks that Archbishop Parker designed to have
added another of Taverner's Postils relating to the authority of the Pope,
and adds, " it is not improbable that he was prevented by the Queen."
— Preface to Taverner, p. xvi.
'* Grindal's Remains, pp, 8i, 94.

THE SECOND BOOK OF HOMILIES 253
Moral.
At any rate these curious facts add anotherj
illustration of the fact that everv one of the passages'
in our Formularies upon which thePriest-partv most
rely is due to the arbitrary and unconstitutional
interference of " Csesar," i.e. the personal Sovereign.
The Ornaments Rubric of Elizabeth,^ that on the
" accustomed place," the second half of the Catechism
relating to the sacraments, probably the two alterations
above mentioned in the Thirtv-nine Articles, and
certainly the changes in the Homilies in favour of
images, and the " real " presence {i.e. local residence)
of the body of Christ within the consecrated materials
of the Supper, — each and all of these " high " adultera
tions was effected, not by "successors of the Apostles,"
nor by any " Sacred Synod,'' but by the " Erastian "
authority or intervention of the individual layman or
woman who for the mom.ent occupied the throne.
Mr. Gladstone has stated the humble origin of these
" improvements " as coarsely and nakedly as anybody".
He says : —
'¦' To modify the articles of her own mere motion by insertion
and exclusion, to sequester and virtually depose at her will an
xVrchbishop of Canterbury, were lawless acts . . . bv no means
isolated or impulsive, but were parts of a scheme or system. . .
The essence of this scheme or system, undertaken in concur
rence with an arbitrary civil government, it may be in a larger
or smaller degree for the sake of it, ¦was to build up the Cliurch,
beneath tlie shadow of the prerogative. . . The point in \\'hicli
Elizabeth stands alone, as far as I know, is this, that she *
pursued her work, from first to last, mainly I'x opposition to
THE Church's rulers." ^^
1' Nineteenth Century, November, 18S8, pp. 7S3-4,

XI
^be 2)ecIaratiou on IRiieelina

AT the end of our Communion Service, in a
different type from the final Rubrics, is a long
Declaration directed expressly against the
worship of the Host prescribed by the Council of
Trent. Among the canons passed in the thirteenth
session of that Council, on October nth, 1551, were
the following : — ~^
Canon IV. " If any one shall say, that, after consecration, in
the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, there is not the body
and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, but only in the use {' sed
tantum in usu '), while it is being taken, but not before nor
after ; and that in the hosts or consecrated particles which are
reserved or remain after communion, there does not remain the
true body of the Lord; let him be accursed."
Canon VI. " If any one saith that in the Holy Sacrament of
the Eucharist, Christ the only begotten Son of God is not to
be adored with the worship, even external, of lalria; and is
therefore neither to be venerated with a special festive
solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne in processions, accordino-
to the laudable and universal rite and custom of Holy Church,
or is not to be exhibited publicly to the people to be adored,
and that the ^vorshippers thereof are idolaters; let him be
accursed."

THE DECLARATION ON KNEELING 255
These cursory observations did not escape the notice
of Cranmer, who wrote (March 20th, 1552) to Calvin,
saying : " Our adversaries are now holding their
councils at Trent for the establishment of their
errors. . . . They are, as I am informed, making
decrees respecting the worship of the bread (Trepl Tfj<;
upTo\aTpeia<i) ; therefore we ought to leave no stone
unturned, not only that we may guard others against
this idolatry, but also that we may ourselves come to
an agreement upon the doctrine of this sacram.ent."^
He had previously written similar letters to Melancthon
and to Bullinger.
In September he sent a copy of the "Articles of
Religion " which he had been compiling to two
¦distinguished laymen. Sir Wilham Cecil and Sir John
Cheke ; and on October 21st the six Royal Chaplains
— one of whom was the afterwards celebrated John
Knox — were also invited to " report " upon the draft
Articles. Their signatures to the document are still
preserved.^ At the beginning of the month of October, 1552,
Knox preached at Court before the King, "inveighing
with great freedom against kneeling at the Lord's
Supper."^ This caused "some disputes among the
Bishops." Hooper, no doubt, sided with Knox.''
Such dissensions were singularly ill-timed, because
the newly-revised Prayer Book, containing a rubric
requiring all communicants to kneel, was already in
print — two of Grafton's editions being dated " August,

' Cranmer's Miscellaneous Writings, Parker Society, p,-432,
2 Hardwick's History of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 80, p, 75 second
edition, •' Original Letters, p, 591, ¦* Early Writings of Hooper, p. 536.

256 THE DECLARATION ON KNEELING
1552"^ — and the book was to come into compulsory
use on November ist. Evidently no time was to be
lost if a peaceable reception of the new book was to
be ensured. Accordingly, on the 7th of October
Cranmer wrote as follows to the Privy Council : —
Domestic State Papers, Ed. VI. Vol. XV. No. 15.
"After my right humble commendations unto your good
Lordships. ""Where I understand by your Lordships' letters that the King's
Majesty his pleasure is that the book of common service should
be diligently perused, and therein the printer's errors to be
amended. I shall travail therein to the uttermost of my power,
albeit I had need first to have had the book written which was
past by Act of Parliament, and sealed with the Great Seal, which
remaineth in the hands of Mr. Spilman, Clerk of the Parlia
ment, who is not in London, nor I cannot learn w^here he is.
Nevertheless, I have gotten the copy which Mr. Spilman
delivered to the printers to print by, which I think shall serve
well enough. And where I understand further by your Lord
ships' letters that some be offended with kneeling at the time
of the receiving of the Sacrament, and would that I (calling to
me the Bishop of London [Ridley] and some other learned men,
as Mr. Peter Martyr or such like) should with them expend and
weigh the said prescription of kneeling, whether it be fit to
remain as a commandment, or to be left out of the book. I
shall accomplish the King's Majesty his commandment,
albeit I trust that we with just balance weighed this at the
making of the book, and not only we, but a great many Bishops
and others of the best learned within this realm and appointed for
that purpose. And now the book being read and approved by
the whole State of the realm, ia the High Court of Parliament,
with the King's Majesty his royal assent — that this should be
now altered again without Parliament — of what importance this
matter is, I refer to your Lordships' wisdom to consider. I
* 'Whitchurch had one or two editions still earlier. See Cardwell's
Two Prayer Books of Edward, p. xii. ; and History of Conferences, p. 3^, n.

THE DECLARATION ON KNEELING 257
know your Lordships' wisdom to be such, that I trust ye will
not be moved with these glorious and unquiet spirits which can
like nothing but that is after their own fancy, and cease not to
make trouble and disquietness when things be most quiet and in
good order. If such men should he heard, although the hook were
made every year anew, yet it should not lack faults in their opinion.
' But,' say they, ' it is not commanded in the Scripture to kneel,'"!
and whatsoever is not commanded in the Scripture is against the j
Scripture, and utterly unlawful and ungodly.' But this saying
is the chief foundation of the error of the Anabaptists, and of
divers other sects. This saying is a subversion of all order as
well in religion as in common policy. If this saying be true, take/'
away the whole book of service. For what should men travailj'
to set an order in the form of service, if no order can be set but^
that is already prescribed by the Scripture ? And because I
will not trouble your Lordships with reciting of many Scriptures
or proofs in this matter, whosoever teacheth any such doctrine
(if your Lordships will give me leave), I will set my foot by
his, to be tried by fire, that his doctrine is untrue, and not
only untrue, but also seditious and perilous to be heard of any
subjects, as a thing breaking the bridle of obedience, and loosing
them from the bond of all princes' laws.
" My good Lords, I pray you to consider that there be two '
prayers which go before the receiving of the Sacrament, and '
two immediately follow — all which time, the people praying)
and giving thanks, do kneel ; and what inconvenience there is
that it may not be thus ordered I know not. If the kneeling
of the people should be discontinued for the time of the
receiving of the Sacrament, so that at the receipt thereof they
should rise up and stand or sit, and then immediately kneel
down again — it should rather import a contemptuous than a
reverent receiving of the Sacrament.'^ ' But it is not expressly
contained in the Scripture ' (say they) ' that Christ ministered
the Sacrament to his Apostles kneeling.' Nor they find it not

^ Hence the^gsgnd reason assigned inthe " Black Rubric," viz, "For
the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the Holy Communion
as might otherwise ensue " 17

258 THE DECLARATION ON KNEELING
expressly in Scripture that he ministered it standing or sitting.
But if we will follow the plain words of the Scripture, we shall
rather receive it lying down on the ground, as the custom of the
world at that time almost every where, and as the Tartars and
Turks use yet at this day to eat their meat lying upon the ground.
And the words of the Evangelist import the same, which be
dvaKcT/xac and avaTrurTw, which signify properly, to lie down upon
the floor or ground, and not to sit upon a form or stool. And the
same speech use the Evangelists where they show that Christ
fed five thousand with five loaves, where it is plainly expressed
that they sat down upon the ground and not upon stools.
" I beseech your Lordships to take in good part this my long
babbling, which I write as of myself only, because the Bishop of
London is not yet come, and your Lordships required answer
with speed, and therefore am I constrained to make some
answer to your Lordships afore his coming. And thus I pray
God long to preserve your Lordships and to increase the same
in all prosperity and godliness.
"At Lambeth, this 7th of October, 1553.
" Your Lordships to command,
" T. CANTR."
(Indorsed) " To my very Good Lords of the King's most
honourable Council."
The result was that the danger was averted hyjin
Order of Council, dated October 27th, 1552 {i.e. only
four days before the Feast of All Saints, when the book
was to come into use), directing the Lord Chancellor
(Bishop Goodrich) " to cause to be joined unto the
Book of Common Prayer lately set forth, a certain
Declaration signed by the King's Majesty, and sent
unto his Lordship, touching the kneeling at the receiving
of the Communion." " Although the time was short.

¦ MS. Council Book, a.d. 1500-1553, fol, 630, This Declaration is
enrolled upon the Close Roll as a Royal Proclamation, 6 Edward 'Vl,,
pars, 8, Gasquet, p. 297.

THE DECLARATION ON KNEELING 259
this was done with so much care that few copies are
known to exist which do not contain it. On the other
hand, only one edition by Grafton is known in which it
formed part of the book as originally printed.*
Its language should be compared with that of the
Twenty-ninth Article of 1552-3 (to which Knox ^
subscribed) : — ¦
Article XXIX. of Post CoMMuxtoy Declaration of
1552-3- 1552-
" Although no order can be so perfectly de-
" Forasmuch as the ^-^^^ ^ut it may be of some, either for
truth 01 man S their ignorance and infirmity, or else of
nature requireth malice and obstinacy, misconstrued,

^ In the quarto edition by Whitchurch, 1552, of which there are two
copies in the British Museum (C, 23. b. 26 and C. 25. h. 5), the declara
tion forms part of the book. " In one by Oswen (Bodleian) it is printed
on a separate leaf. In four books by Grafton (three of which are in
the Bodleian and one in the possession of Dr. Routh) and in one by
Whitchurch (St. John's) it stands No. 4 amongst the other Rubrics, but
in each of these it seems, from the paging and other marks, clearly to
be no part of the original impression. In one other, however, by
Grafton (Bodleian) in which it also stands No. 4, it is to all appearance
not an after insertion. A learned writer in the Irish Ecclesiastical
Journal, No. 3, states that in five copies by Whitchurch he found it
inserted on a separate leaf, which in one book is placed after the Com
mination ; that in four others by Whitchurch it stands on the face of a
leaf, and is placed after the fourth Rubric." — Bujley's Tabular View,
p. 80 ; compare Cardwell's History of Conferences, p. 34, and Ketley's
Liturgy of Edward VI., p. 283,
" One_change in the wording of Article XXX'VI, (which stood in the
original draft as Article XXX'VIII.) seems due to Knox and one of his
brother chaplains who wrote, "Besides our judgment on the Articles,
. we offer you our confession on the Thirty-eighth Article." After
repeating their objections against kneeling, they conclude " And thougli
some withstand us out of zeal, we suppose, for the truth, yet these, on
considering how necessary it is that kneeling be avoided, will doubtless
persuade you not to bring that thing under a law whereof ye have no
cSmmandment nor example in Christ and His Apostles." — Lorimer's
Knox in England, p. 126, The change in the wording of the Article
mentioned below, p, gjg, note, was the result. 17 *

26o

THE DECLARATION ON KNEELING

(r

that the body
of one and the
self - same man
cannot be at one
time in diverse
places, but must
needs be in some
one certain place :
therefore the body
of Christ cannot
be present at one
time in many and
diverse places.
And because (as
Holy Scripture
doth teach) Christ
was taken up into
heaven, and there
shall continue unto
the end of the
world, a faithful
man ought not
either to believe or
openly to confess
the real and bodily
[realem et corpo-
ralem] presence
(as they term it)
of Christ's flesh
and blood, in the
sacrament of the
Lord's Supper."

depraved, and interpreted in a wrong
part. And yet because brotherly charity
willeth, that so much as conveniently
may be, offences should be taken away :
therefore We willing to do the same,
raii^ereas, it is ordained in the Book
of Common Prayer,* in the administra
tion of the Lord's Supper, that the
Communicants kneeling should, receive
the Holy Communion: which thing being
well meant for a signification of the
humble and grateful acknowledgiwo' of
the benefits of Christ, given unto the
worthy receiver, and to avoid the pro
fanation and disorder, which about the
Holy Communion might else ensue ;
lest yet the same kneeling inight be
thought or taken otherwise, we do declare
that it is not meant thereby that any
adoration is done, or ought to be done,
either unto the sacramental bread and
wine there bodily received, or unto any
real and essential presence there being
of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For
as concerning the sacramental bread and
wine, they remain still in their very
natural substances, and therefore may
not be adored (for that were idolatry to
be abhorred of all faithful Christians).
And as. concerning the natural body and
blood of bur Saviour Christ, they are in
heaven and not here. For it is against
the truth of Christ's true natural body
to be in more places than in one at one
time." * The italics indicate verbal differences
from the present form, which dates from
1662.

THE DECLARATION ON KNEELING 261
The Declaration was signed by the King,^" but being
merely a Royal Proclamation, and forming thus no
part of the statutory Prayer Book, it was not re-enacted
in 1559, when the " Second Prayer Book of Edward "
alone was restored by the Elizabethan Act of Uniformity, j
I Elizabeth, cap. ii. This, however, mattered little until |
the rise of Laudianism, when we find the Lords' sub- j
committee of Divines in 1641 entertaining a suggestion
that it was " fit to insert a Rubric, touching kneehng
at the Communion, that [it] is, to comply in ah humility
with the prayer which the minister makes when he
delivers the elements." ^^ At the Savoy Conference,
1661, the restoration of Edward's Declaration was
strongly urged, ^- but no concession whatever was made
by the Bishops, who held that "the sense of it is
sufficiently declared in the XXVIIIth Article." '^ Neither
" Cosin's Book," now at Durham, nor " Sancroft's
Book," now in the Bodleian, nor the Debates in Con
vocation, nor the " Annexed MS." now attached to
the Act of Uniformity, in its original text, contained
anything corresponding to this. Declaration. The list
of "alterations and additions" prefixed to the photo
zincographed reprint of the book of 1636, as pubhshed
by Government for the Royal Commission on Ritual
in 1870, p. 3, was drawn up by Dr. Pearson (better
known as Bishop Pearson 0?t the Creed), December i6th, /
1 66 1, and contains no allusion whatever to this important!
change. It is clear, therefore, that we are not indebted :
to the " sacred synods" for this valuable restoration.
Its history is given by Bishop Burnet, who, as a

'" Strype's Cranmer, B. II., c. 33.
" Cardwell's Conferences, 275. '^ Ibid., p. 322. '^ Ibid., p. 354.

2^2 THE DECLARATION ON KNEELING
near contemporary, must be accounted a competent
witness. "There were some small alterations made in the
Book of Common Prayer, together with some additions,
the most important [of which] was that concerning
kneeling in the sacrament, which had been put in the
second Book of Common Prayer set out by Edward "VI. ,
but was left out by Queen Elizabeth, and was now by
Bishop Gauden's means_put Jii^at the end of the_office
of the^ Communion. Sheldon opposed it, but Gauden
was seconded by Southampton and Morley.^"'' The
Duke complained of this much to me as a Puritanical
thing, and spake severely of Gauden, as a popular man,
for his procuring it to be added." ^' When we remem
ber that "the Duke" of York was a zealous Papist,
afterwards James II. , and that Gauden (though not on
the Committee of Convocation) was in high favour
with Charles, and, as his chaplain, might be present at
the Council Board, at which the Earl of Southampton
(though not on the Committee of the House of Lords)
yet as Lord High Treasurer and a tried friend of
Charles, would be an influential" Privy Councillor —
" Bishop Morley accounted among the " absurd and blasphemous
consequences " of Transubstantiation, " especially the idolatrous adora
tion of the consecrated elements, " See Goode's Tract XC. Historically
Refuted, p. 183.
'^ Harleian MSS, 6584, p. 158. Burnet adds: " Thus was the Act
of Uniformity prepared for the Parliament." Compare Burnet's
History of his Own Times, 1,-315, ed. 1823.
"" Burnet says (ibid., p. 147): "Southampton was for healing the
Church by concessions on both hands, but when he saw that all the
affair was put into Sheldon's hands, he withdrew from the meetings
that were held about it, and declared against their methods." Burnet
had previously said of Southampton (p. 146), " His gi-eat parts together
with his great merits made him to be considered as one of the first
men of England. He was made Treasurer, and Clarendon was proud
of his friendship and valued himself upon it." Lord Macaulay,

THE DECLARATION ON KNEELING 263
we can well believe that Mr. Milton and Canon Swainson
are right in supposing that this alteration (with certain
others) was made in the Prayer Book after it left Convo
cation, but before it was submitted to ^farliament. Both
Gauden and Morley had been present at the Savoy
Conference, and were acquainted therefore with the
strong feeling which existed in favour of the Declaration.
The Prayer Book had received the final signatures of
the Convocations on December 20th, 1661, and the
book had been forwarded in due course to the King,
but it was not until February, 1662, that it was brought
forward formally in the Council. The following extracts
from the Council Book are given by Bishop White
Kennet in his Register, pp. 631-2.
" February 19, 1661-2. Ordered by His Majesty present in
Council that the Book of Common Prayer lately presented to
His Majesty from the Convocation be brought to the Board on
Friday next."
"February 21, 1661-2. Ordered that the Council meet on
Monday next, at three in the afternoon, to continue the debate
upon the amendments of the Book of Common Prayer, and
that the Right Revs, the Lords Bishops do make choice of four
of their body to attend the Board at that time, whereof the Right
Rev. Father in God, the Lord Bishop of London, to be one."
" February 24, "Whitehall Council. This day, according to
an order of the 21st of this instant February, appeared at the
Board the Right Rev. Fathers in God the Lord Bishop of Lon
don, the Lord Bishop of Durham, the Lord Bishop of Salisbury,
the Lord Bishop of Worcester [Morley], and the Lord Bishop
of Chester, at which time the Book of Common Prayer, with
the amendments and additions a^ it was presented by the Lords
Bishops, was read, and approved, and ordered to be transmitted
to the House of Peers," &c.
referring to this MS. of Burnet's (written ten years before his published
history of William's Reign), says: "I must own that I generally like
his first thoughts best," History of England, III.-19,

264 THE DECLARATION ON KNEELING
The Declaration, in the form in which we now have
it, was added by Sancroft in a handwriting quite
different from that of the rest of the MS., and separated
from it by a broad red line. Sancroft (though not a
member of Convocation) acted as secretary at every
stage of the revision of 1661-2. * *
*
We have seen that the Declaration was essentially
Protestant, both in its source and motive. It was
aimed directly at the Tridentine wafer-vrorship, and
any one who compares it in its present form, as
adopted in 1662, will see that the alterations (to which
attention was called by the use of italics, p. 260) are
merely verbal.
" The only question then is, Why did the revisers
of 1662 substitute the word ' corporal ' for the words
' real and essential,' seeing that they left the meaning
of the clause the same as they found it ? The reason
clearly was, that men were no longer familiar with the
language of the schools, and therefore the denial of any
' real and essential presence ' might be considered a
denial of any true presence whatever, which was very
far from the meaning of those who had employed
that phrase." ^^ The Realistic philosophy of Aquinas,
"which made "essence" equivalent to "substance,"
had, in the seventeenth century, lost its hold on men's
minds ; but in 1552 the scholastic terms " real and
essential," when used of a " body" {corpus), would be
universally understood as equivalent to " corporal,"

1' Scudamore's Notitia Eucharistica, p. 955 ; Dr, Stephens' Notes on
Comnion~Prayei\ p. 1244 ; and Perry, On Kneeling, p. 368, like Archdeacon
Freeman's Principles of Divine Service, II, -i,, p, 127, admit that no change
of meaning was intended by the verbal alterations of 1662.

THE DECLARATION ON KNEELING 265
and were in fact expressed by that word in the Twenty-
ninthArticle. published at the same time by the authors
of this very Declaration.^*
The pivot sentence upon which the whole Declaration
hung remains unchanged, viz. that the body of Christ,
which " is " in heaven, is " not here." That was,
and is, absolutely fatal to any theory of " presence "
in the sense of residence within the elements. It was
not merely a corporal manner of presence (which no
Romanist ever affirmed), but "any corporal presence"
^t all which is expressly rejected.
It deserves notice, moreover, that the reason assigned
for kneeling, viz. " signification of our humble and
grateful acknowledgments of the benefits of Christ
therein given," is precisely the^^ame as for kneeling at
the absolution before consecration, or at the benediction
after. And this was pointed out by the " very authors
of the kneeling, most holy men and constant martyrs
of Jesus Christ," as Bishops Grindal and Horn termed
them.^^ Their letter was written a.d. 1567, and it is
interesting to note that these two leading " revisers of
the Prayer Book" in 1558-9 say that the Declaration
was "most diligently declared, published, and impressed
upon the people," long after its disappearance from
the printed Prayer Books.
'•* Archbishop Parker's draft of the Twenty-eighth Article of 1562,
given in Lamb's History of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 12, is as follows : —
" Christus in coelum ascendens, corpori suo immortalitatem dedit,
naturam non abstulit, humanae enim naturae veritatem (juxta scripturas)
perpetuo retinet, quam uno et definite loco esse, et non in multa, vel
omnia simul loca diffundi opertet. Quum igitur Christus in coelum
sublatus, ibi usque ad finem seculi sit permansurus, atque inde, non
aliunde (ut loquitur Augustinus) venturus sit, ad judicandum vivos et
mortuos, non debet quisquam fidelium, carnis ejus et sanguinis, realem,
et corporalem (ut loquuntur) presentiam in Eucharistia vel credere vel
profiteri." '^ Zurich Letters, I, -180,

/

265 THE DECLARATION ON KNEELING
Cranmer, as we saw, expressly assigns the same
reason. Bishop Ferrar, who was put to death, under
Mary, for saying that the sacrament of the altar "is
not to be ministered at an altar, lifted up, or in any
wise adored," had nevertheless been accused of " super
stition " by certain false brethren, to whom he replied,
that " he kneeleth in the choir bareheaded, as well at
Matins before the Communion, as at Evensong a/ifer, with
out any superstition : he thinketh it not necessary for
the Communion's sake to leave kneeling to Christ. But
he diligently taught the people not to kneel or knock to
the visible show or external show of the Sacrament." -°
In Aless' version, before the words of distribution
addressed to the Communicant in the Order of Com
munion, 1548, the rubric " Shall say these words "
was rendered " utantur hac forma orationis " : and
similarly "shall say," before giving the cup, is rendered
"sic orabit."
The Royal Advertisements of 1566 rested kneeling
at reception upon the Injunctions of 1559, which merely
specify " That in the time of Litany, and all other
collects and common supplications to Almighty God,
all manner of people shall devoutly kneel." -^ Archbishop
Whitgift defended the practice on the same ground :
"It is the meetest manner of receiving this sacrament
in mine opinion, being commonly used in praying and
giving of thanks, both of which are annexed to this
sacrament and are to be required in communicants."
" There is no such peril in kneeling at the communion
as you surmise : for the gospeller is better instructed
than so grossly to err. And as for the learned papist-
-" Foxe's Acts and Monuments, 'VII,, pp. 12 and 25, note,
-' Cardwell's Documentary Annals, 1,-199, The side-heading in the
Elizabethan copies was " Reverence at Prayers."

THE DECLARATION ON KNEELING 267
he is SO far from worshipping that he disdaineth that
Holy Communion, jesteth at it, and either abstaineth
from coming unto it, or else cometh only for fear of
punishment, or pro forma tantum for fashion's sake : and
the most ignorant and simple papist that is knoweth
that the communion is not the mass : neither do they
see it lifted up over the priest's head with such great
solemnity as they did when they took it to be their God.
No truly, the contempt of that mystery is more to be
feared in them than worshipping : and to be short, if
they be disposed to worship, the}' will as well worship
sitting as kneeling." "-
Bishop Andrewes in his Notes on the " prayer of the
priest " urges — " Et quamquam schismatici cavillantur
debitum genuflexionis ritum, orantibus quis alius gestus
usurpandus nisi supplicatorius ? " '^
The anonymous writer who poses under the name of
" Bishop Cosin " urged the introduction of the words,
" the people still kneeling," into the Rubric before the
absolution at Morning prayer on this ground : —
" Else there will be no excuse for us, nor no reason left us
to render to the Puritans, why our Church should more punish
them, or hinder them from the benefit of the Sacrament for not
kneeling then, than it doth to punish other men, or hinder
them of the benefit of absolution, for not kneeling in time of
confession. It is a like case." ~*
Bishop Wren also — at whose house the committee for
revising the Prayer Book met — urged that the "bene
diction," as the Scotch Liturgy calls the words of
distribution, "is a proper prayer, and of blessing;
whereby it is a sufficient reason why every one
-- Whitgift's Works, Parker Society edition, III. -90, 95,
-¦' Cosin's Works, Anglo-Catholic Library, "V,-ii3.
-¦' Nicholls' Appendix, p. 18.

26S THE DECLARATION ON KNEELING
should kneel when they receive." "'" " Now to stand
at Communion, when we kneel at prayers, were not
decent," was the strongest argument of the Bishops at
Savoy.-" Thus, the reasons uniformly assigned by
authority for the posture of kneeling at reception
exclude all conception of worship such as Bishop Cosin
himself declared "neither is nor ought to be directed to
any sensible object, such as are the blessed elements." ^^
Edward Reeve, b.d., vicar of Hayes, Middlesex (a
Laudian controversialist attacked by Prynne in his
Quench Coal), wrote The Christian Divinity, published in
1631,^^ at p. 168 of which he defends kneeling at
reception on the ground that the words of administra
tion are a prayer. " Is it seemly, decent, or orderly,
that people both before and after the receiving of the
sacrament should continue kneeling, and in the very
act of receiving should stand or sit, especially whereas
it is now taken with and in prayer."
The author of the Declaration on Kneeling is
supported by every school of Anglican Divines (till
Newman)-" in his teaching that " our Saviour Christ . . .
hath given us warning . . . that we should not give
credit to such teachers as would persuade us to worship
a piece of bread, to kneel to it . . . to follow it in pro
cession, to lift up our hands to it, to light candles to it,
to shut it up in a chest or box . . . having always this
pretence or excuse for our idolatry, ' Behold, here is
Christ ! '" 30

-' Jacobson's Fragmentary Illustrations, p. 82.
2" Cardwell's Conferences, p. 350.
2' Cosin's Notes on Common Prayer, Works 'V.-345.
^ British Museum, 472, a, 17 ; 4to,
"^ Pusey and Keble hesitated long before adopting the Rcmish
novelty of " adoration," See Liddon's Life of Pusey, 'Vol, III,, p, 461.
¦"> Cranmer's Works, 1,-238, '^ " '

XII
^be ©rbinal anb Hrticle XXXVI

IN the Prayer Books which one can purchase
nowadays in the shops, the Psalter, Ordinal, and
Thirty-nine Articles, together with any hymns
which a bookseller may choose to add, are commonly
bound up in the same volume. But, until the last
Revision of the Prayer Book in 1662, none of these
formed any part of the " Prayer Book " properly so
called. The title-page then contained only the words
"The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration
of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of
the Church of England ;" and the table of "Contents"
then ended with the Commination Service. A partial
exception is found only in the " Second" Prayer Book of
Edward, which enumerated as one of the " Contents,"
" The Form and Manner of Making and Consecrating
of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons": the Ordinal being
bound up with these later Edwardine books, though
with a separate title-page and a separate imprint.
Although this may seem at first sight a very trivial
matter, it gave rise at one time to serious difficulties,
which could only be met by passing a special Act of

270 THE ORDINAL AND ARTICLE XXXVI
Parliament, and by a material alteration of the Thirty-
sixth "Article of Religion." Yet the circumstances
are so little known that various- writers have sought to
construct an "argument" in favour of Ritualism out
of the language of Article XXX'VI. !
The words of that Article (as drawn up in 1562) are
these : —
" The Booke of Consecration of Archbyshops and Byshops,
and Orderyng of Priestes [Praesbyterorum] and Deacons, lately
set foorth in the tyme of Edwarde the Syxte, and confyrmed at
the same tyme [illis ipsis temporibus] by aucthoritie of Parlia
ment, doth conteyne all thynges necessary to suche consecration
and orderyng : neyther hath it any thyng, that of itselfe [ex se]
is Superstitious or ungodly. And therefore, whosoever are con
secrate or ordered accordyng to the Rites of that Booke, sence
the seconde yere of the aforenamed King Edwarde unto this
tune, or hereafter shalbe consecrated or ordered according to
the same Rites, we decree all such to be ryghtly, orderly, and
lawfully consecrated and ordered."
"See!" says the Ritualist, "Your Protestant parsons
in subscribing this Article have to declare that there
was ' nothing superstitious ' in an Ordinal which ' since
the second year of Ed. VI. ' included a celebration of
Holy Communion according to the ' First Prayer Book
of Ed. VI.', which, at that time, involved the use of
the ' High Altar' and of the sacrificial vestments."
But will this " argument " bear investigation ?
I The Ordinal did not exist at_3ll in the " First "
Prayer Book of Edward, nor did it come into being
till long after the close of the third year of Edward "VI.
On January 31st, 1550, i.e. in the beginning of the
fourth year of Edward "VI. , was the Act (3 and 4
Edward VI., cap. xii.) passed in despite of the protests
^of five of the bishops, to authorize the appointment of

THE ORDINAL AND ARTICLE XXXVI 27 1
twelve Royal Commissioners to draw up an Ordination
Service. The text of the Act may be seen in Collier's
History, V.-375. In the minutes of the Privy Council
(February 2nd, 1550) ^ these Commissioners are
described as "Appointed by the Lords to devise orders
for the creation of bishops and priests." The draft
form had been previously prepared by Cranmer and
Ridley," so that the signatures of the Commissioners
were ready by February 28th ; Heath, Bishop of
Worcester, alone refusing to sign. The book was
printed in March, ^ 1550, and was used for the fijst
time* June 29th, 1550, at the consecration of Bishop
Ponet. The office for the celebration of Holy Com
munion formed no part of this " Book," nor did that
office constitute any part of the ordination proper :
though (as in the case of newly-married persons) it was
directed that after the Ordination "then shall the bishop
proceed to the Communion, and all that be ordered shall
tarry and receive the Communion the same day." Or,
as it was expressed in the " Ordering of Bishops,"
" then shall the Archbishop proceed to the Communion,
with whom the new consecrates? bishop shall also
communicate."

' Dasent's Acts of tin Privy Council, II. -379, Convocation stood
prorogued from Monday, February 3rd, to April 22nd, (Wilkins,
I'V.-eo, apud Lewis' Reformation Settlement, p. 91,)
^ Estcourt's Anglican Ordinations, p. 25. Clay's Book of Common
Prayer Illustrated, p. 194, note.
¦* Before March 27th, Original Letters, Parker Society, p, 81, and
being dated " 1549," must have been prior to March 25th, 1550, New
Style, ¦• Foxe, however, says that in the third year of Edward VI, Robert
Drakes was "admitted minister of God's holy word and sacraments,
not after the order then in force, but after such order as was afterwards
established," {Acts and Monuments, "VIII, -107,) The "third year" of
Edward expired January 27th, 1550.

272 THE ORDINAL AND ARTICLE XXXVI
The terms of Article XXXVI. bind every subscriber
to the doctrine that to "proceed to Holy Communion"
and to "communicate the same day" is neither a
" superstitious nor ungodly " requirement from newly-
ordained persons. But the " book " itself {i.e. the
! Ordinal of 1550) neither names nor specifies the
Communion Office of the First Prayer Book, the
requirements of •which were, in fact, abolished by the
very same Royal Commission which put forth the
Ordinal of 1550 — a "book" which derived its sanction
solely from a Royal Commission based upon a previous
" Act " of Parliament. To this " Erastian " book, then.
Ritualists profess to feel bound by Article XXXVI.,
although the Litany (which, unlike the Communion
office, did form part of the Ordination Service proper)
then prayed for deliverance " from the tyranny of the
Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities" !
The official sweeping away of "altars" preceded in
every instance the use of the new Ordinal. Cranmer's
action in 1549 will be seen from the " Memorandum "
which is reproduced verbatim on p. 282. Ridley, one
of the draughtsmen of the " book," assisted Archbishop
Cranmer at the first consecration held under the
"book" on June 29th, 1550, at which, we are told
by Strype,' that, after the ordination " the Lord's
Supper was celebrated upon a table, covered with a
white linen cloth." We know that this was subsequent
to the issue of Ridley's celebrated injunction substi
tuting tables for altars, because King Edward's journal ¦
mentions that Sir John Yates, the Sheriff, had gone
down to Essex the week before Ponet's consecration,
* Life of Cranmer, Book II., cap. xxiv. See Trevor On the Disputed'
Rubrics, p, 15 note.

THE ORDINAL AND ARTICLE XXXVI 273
viz. June 23rd, "to see the Bishop of London's in
junctions performed, which touched upon the plucking
down of superaltaries, altars, and such like ceremonies
and abuses." " On November 19th in the same year
(1550), the King's journal adds: "There were letters
sent to every bishop to pluck down the altars." These
"letters" mention that even at that date "the altars
within the more part of the churches of the realm
upon good and godly considerations are taken down,"
and then ordered the remaining altars to be similarly
" taken down, and instead of them a table to be set up
in some convenient part of the chancel." ^ It was not
until this order had been executed that the remaining
consecrations under the Ordinal of 1550 took place.
Ritualists will decide for themselves whether "all
such were rightly, orderlj', and lawfully consecrated "
or not. The oath in the unrevised Ordinal of 1550,
" So help me God, all saints, and the holy evangelist,"
was struck out by King Edward himself, before thcj
Ordinal was used, upon the application of the martyr-
bishop Hooper. Professor Jelf in his Lectures on the
Thirty-nine Articles,^ observes, " As the delivery of
the chalice with the bread was omitted in the Revised
Prayer Book of 1552, which was published before even
the first edition of the Articles, it is clear that the
present article is in no way concerned with it. It was
a very natural ceremony to introduce into such a rite,
but was apparently discontinued as not having been
contained in the most ancient rituals, and perhaps in
part as having been connected in the Roman church

Burnet's History of the Reformation, II,-ii,-24.
Ca.rdviell's Documentary Annals, No. XXIV, ^ p. 386.
18

274 1"HE ORDINAL AND ARTICLE XXXVI
j with the commission to offer sacrifice." The Second
PHyer Book was enacted April 14th, 1552: the
Thirty-nine Articles were not ready till November
23rd, 1552, and were not published till May 20th, 1553.''
The only remaining bits of "Ritualism" left in the
Ordinal of 1550 were that lay candidates for deacon's
orders were to wear a "plain albe," while the one who
read the Gospel was to "put on a tunicle"; each of
the bishops at the consecration of a new bishop
wearing, Mo^ the sacrificial "vestment," but "a surplice
and cope," i" the pastoral staff being also then used.
Now, it is to be observed that the Thirty-sixth
Article gives no sort of commendation or approval
even to this diluted Ritualism. It only maintains that
¦ the validity of the Edwardian ordinations was not
destroyed by any such imperfection in the temporary
"book "of 1550 as "of itself " (gar sg) could be considered
intrinsically "superstitious and ungodly." And this
/ contention is most reasonable. For the symbolism of
ritual depends solely upon association of ideas ; and
the abolished "altar," the abrogated stole, chasuble,
and mitre (like the expunging from the old Pontifical
of unction, exorcism, crossings, and of the pretended
conveyance of " power to offer sacrifice "), all alike
witnessed to a fundamental change in doctrine from
'¦¦ Cardwell's Synodalia, 1,-3, note,
'" " It is noticeable that these two vestments are the only two which
in the Catholic rites are given no significance by a form of investiture.
Moreover, though the alb is now strictly a sacerdotal dress, yet both it
and the cope had been commonly worn by lay assistants in the ancient
worship." (Hutton's Anglican Ministry, p. 99, note.) He adds, p. 192 :
"It is certain that in England Mass was never said in a cope." The
testimony of this Priest of the Oratory of StTPETIIpTlerirXwbo writes
with the express sanction of Cardinal Newman) is corroborated by
jMr. Scudamore in the second edition of his Notitia Eucharistica, p, 67,
note. See above pp, 117, 119, for detailed proofs.

THE ORDINAL AND ARTICLE XXXVI 275
the Popish Mass-sacrifice to the Evangelical Sacra
ment of the Lord's Supper.
To prove that the Thirty-sixth Article gives no
direct commendation to the Ordinal of 1550 but only
maintains its sufficiency, it needs but to contrast its
cold, guarded, and purely negative language with thej
warm and cordial positive approval bestowed upon the!
Second Prayer Book and upon the revised Ordinal of,
1552, by the Thirty-fifth of the " Forty-two Articles "
drafted by Cranmer, and published in May, 1553. It
was intitled " Of the Booke of Praiers, and Ceremonies
of the Churche of Englande," and said —
" The booke whiche of very late time {nuperrim.e) was geuen
to the Churche of Englande by the Kinges aucthoritie, and the
Parlamente, conteining the maner and fourme of praiying and
ministring the Sacramentes in the Churche of Englande, likewise
also the booke of ordring ministers of the Churche {similiter et
lihellus eddem authoritate editus) set foorth by the forsaied
aucthoritie, are godlie, and in no poincte repugnant to the
holsome doctrine of the Gospel but agreable thereunto, ferthering
and beautifiyng the same not a litle, and therfore of al faithful
membres of the Churche of Englande, and chieflie of the
ministers of the "Worde, thei ought to be receiued, and allowed
with all readinesse of minde and th;inkes geulng, and to be
commended to the people of God."ii * *
•if-
It may seem strange that the thoroughgoing
approbation of the Second Prayer Book and of the
Ordinal as revised in 1552 thus given by the Synod of
London (under the guidance of Cranmer, Ridley and
the rest of the compilers of the " First " Book, and of
the unrevised Ordinal of 1550, both of which books
" Hardwick, History of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 312, or 322, second
edition, 18 *

276 THE ORDINAL AND ARTICLE XXXVI
they themselves ;had deliberately superseded), should
have been withdrawn in 1562 in order to substitute in
its stead a frigid affirmation of the bare validity of all
ordinations effected "since the second year of Ed. VI."
Most assuredly this was not due to any preference
felt in 1562 for the Ordinal of 1550 ; for at the
consecration of Archbishop Parker, and at each of
the subsequent consecrations during the reign of
Elizabeth, the revised Ordinal of 15^ was exclusively
followed. No pastoral staff, alb or tunicle was used at
any ordination after the accession of Queen Elizabeth.
Copes were used at the administration of the Lord's
Supper which followed Parker's consecration; but even
this was not in accordance with the Prayer Book of
1549, for the priests who read the Epistle and Gospel
also wore surplices and copes instead of " albs with
tunacles," thereby destroying the " distinctive" dress of
the celebrant.
The explanation of the change is found jji-_a_yeuiy
curious leg;al ancl^ historical episode. The Prayer
Book of 1549 (" First" Prayer Boole of Edward) and
the Ordinal of 1550 were compiled at different dates
and enacted by two separate statutes — viz. 2 and 3
Edward VI. , cap. i. ; and 3 and 4 Edward VI., cap. xii.
By the second Act of Uniformity, however (1552), i.e.
5 and 6 Edward VI. , cap. i., both the revised books were
"annexed" to the statute which, after enacting the
"Second" Prayer Book, went on, "adding also a forme
and manner of making and consecrating of archbishops,
bishops, priests, and deacons to be of like force,
auctoritie, and value, as the same like foresaid book
entitled The Boke of Common Prayer, was before " ; the

THE ORDINAL AND ARTICLE XXXVI 277
penalties of the former Act, 2 and 3 Edward VI. ,
cap. i., being made applicable to — " also the said form
of making archbishops, &c., thereunto annexed." It
will be remembered that the Thirty-fifth Article of
1552 cited above, similarly discriminates the " libellus
de ordinatione " from the Prayer Book as being
"similiter . . . eddem authoritate editus." Under Mary,
the statute Mary i, Session 2, cap. ii., repealed/
separately the Ordinal and the Prayer Book ofj
Edward. Yet, under Elizabeth, the Act of Uniformity,!
I Elizabeth, cap. ii., enacted that, " the said statute
of repeal, and every thing therein contained only ^-
concerning the said book," i.e. the Prayer Book, " shall
be void and of none effect." It was probably owing
merely to the carelessness of the lawyers in drafting
the Bill that the need of a separate mention of the
Ordinal had been overlooked ; though curiously enough,
the mention of it was also omitted from the Table of
"Contents" in Elizabeth's inaccurate reprint of
Edward's Second Book.^''

'^ Several other statutes of Edward repealed by i Mary, session 2,
cap. ii., were left untouched by the Elizabethan Act of Uniformity,
" Elizabethan Liturgies, Parker Society, p, 26, It would be too harsh
a conjecture to suppose that Elizabeth designed to keep the Bishops
dependent upon her future statecraft by leaving their legal position
open to cavil; but, as Canon Estcourt remarks (Anglican Ordinations,
p. 100), " it seems strange that nothing had been done in the Parliament
of 1559 to obviate these legal difficulties. The attempt, however, was
made, for a Bill was passed through the Lower House 'for Collating of
Bishops by the Queen's Highness, and with what rites and ceremonies '
{Commons' Journals, Vol, I„ p. 58). In the House of Lords it was also
read a first time on the 22nd of March (Lords' Journals, Vol, I,, p. 568),
and described as a Bill ' for the Admitting and Consecrating of Arch
bishops and Bishops ' ; but there is no other notice of it in the Journals,
though D'Ewes states that it was read a second and third time,"
(D'Ewes' Journal, p. 26, edition 1682,)

278 THE ORDINAL AND ARTICLE XXXVI
Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity had received the royal
assent on May 8th, 1559 ; but when, in December of
the same year, it became necessary to consecrate
'Archbishop Parker, it was found that the legal
[authority of the Ordinal of 1552 was then disputable.
/Canon Estcourt has reproduced in facsimile a State
\paper detailing the steps intended to be taken in
Parker's consecration, with side-notes in the hand
writing of Cecil and of the Archbishop elect. The last
of the memoranda was in these words : " The order of
King Edward's book is to be observed, for that there
is none other special made in this last session of
Parliament " ; upon which Secretary Cecil minutes :
"This book is not established by Parliament." '^^
However, as the Ordinal of 1552 was in fact used,
the Romish controversialists naturally seized upon this
technical weakness in the Anglican position, and (as
the~Xct of 8 Elizabeth witnesses) their cavils greatly
disturbed the minds of "the common sortof people."
j It became necessary therefore to exact from all would-
: be clergymen a profession of their acquiescence in the
; validity of every ordination " since the second year of
; Edward VI. ", when the old Pontifical ceased to be used,
inasmuch as it was essential to include the five (or six)
episcopal consecrations which had been pelebrated in
accordance with the unrevised Ordinal of 1550, because
(the strength of a chain depends upon its weakest part,
and) two of Parker's consecratbrs, viz. Scory and
Coverdale, had themselves been consecrated under the
uni'evised Ordinal of 1550. Hence, Puritan candidates

" Stryp'e's Life of Archbishop Parker, I, -81, edition 1821, Cf.
Palmer, Origines Liturgicee, II.-285.

THE ORDINAL AND ARTICLE XXXVI 279
for ordination were required to profess that there was
nothing " superstitious " ^' ; while Romishly inclined
persons had to admit that there was nothing "ungodly"
in the rites actually used which could "of itself" have
been so essential as to invalidate the Anglican
succession. Matters were brought to a crisis by Bonner's refusal
to take the Oath of Supremacy before Bishop Horn,
his diocesan, on the ground that the latter was not
legally a Bishop at all,' since the statute of Mary
repealing the Ordinal of Edward had never been legally
set aside.^" The objection puzzled the judges, and to
obviate its force the^tatijte 8 Elizabeth, cap. i., was
passed, declaring all past as well as future consecrations
under the Ordinal of 1552 to be in good law. Hence
it is that the present Act of Uniformity, 14 Charles II. ,
cap. iv., rested the authorisation of the then existing
Prayer Book upon i Elizabeth, cap. ii., and that of the
Ordinal upon 8 Elizabeth, cap. i., "respectively."
The Act 8 Ehzabeth, cap. i., section 2, similarly
described how Edward caused a book " intituled " the
Prayer Book to be enacted, " but also did add and put
to the same book a very godly " form of ordination
which, the i Elizabeth, cap. ii. being passed, the Queen
had ordered all consecrations to be thenceforth " accord-

'^ The original draft of the Article in 1552 had contained the words
" quoad ceremoniarum rationem salutari Evangelii libertati, si ex sua
naturiX ceremonise illae asstimantur, in nullo repugnant " ; but Knox and
his friends having protested against kneeling at the Supper as " seeming
to allow idolatry to triumph " the wording was altered by leaving out
all mention of " ceremonies " and retaining only the " quoad doctrines
veritatem pii sunt," Dr. Lorimer's Knox in England, p. 126, Hardwick's
History of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 322, Appendix iii.
'" Strype's Life of Archbishop ParMr, 1,-122,

280 THE ORDINAL AND ARTICLE XXXVI
ing to such . . orders annexed to the said book of Common-
Prayer." The third section confirmed the re-enacted
Prayer Book of 1552, and " such order . . as set forth
(I. . and added to the said book of Common Prayer . .
in 5 and 6 Ed. VI."" The Canons of 1571 still
/continued to treat the Ordinal as a separate "liber."''^^
Canon Swainson in his History of the Act of
Uniformity shews that many interlineations and amend
ments had to be adopted in the draft bill of 1662,
to prevent a recurrence of a similar objection in the
future ; and the thirty-first section of the existing Act
of Uniformity expressly provides "that all subscription
shall be applied for and touching the said six-and-thirtieth
Article unto the-booke containing the form and manner
of making, ordaining, and consecrating of bishops, &c.,
in this Act mentioned," i.e. to the present Ordinal,
" anything in the said Article to the contrary in any
wise notwithstanding."
To sum_up then the foregoing evidence, the Thirty-
sixth Article could not have been designed to express any
approbation whatever of the thrice-discarded Com
munion Office of Edward's " First " Prayer Book (a.d.
1549) for the following reasons : —
First. — That office had been rejected by the framers
of the Thirty-sixth Article in favour of the Revised
Book of 1552, from which, as Archbishop Whitgift
points out, even the ornaments of the Ordinal of 1550
had been excluded. He said, " In the book now
allowed of making deacons and ministers, and con
secrating of bishops, there is neither required 'alb.

'' See Stephens' Ecclesiastical Statutes, I.-417, and 418, 419,
'^ Ca.rd-well's Synodalia, p. 127,

THE ORDINAL AND ARTICLE XXXVI 281
surplice, vestment, nor pastoral staff: read the book
from the beginning to the ending. And therefore
this is a false and untrue report." i" It was not until
1662 that "habits" were enjoined by the ordinal.
No single member of the Convocation of 1562 (which
originated the Article) officiated at an "altar," wore a
sacrificial "vestment," or made any use either of the
Ordinal of 1550 or of the " First " Prayer Book of
Edward. Second. — The Article was aimed at a notorious public
denial of the validity of Anglican orders ; a denial
based in no wise upon the mode of celebrating the
Lord's Supper, but upon the (then recent) omission
from I Elizabeth, cap. ii., of all separate mention of the
Ordinal of 1552, and upon the alleged insufficiency of
the " rites " which had been actually used.
Third. — The Ordinal of 1550 was never contained in I
the same " book " with the Communion Office, which )
Ofiice at no time formed any part of the " book " referred
to in the Thirtyrsixth Article. Indeed, the Communion j
Office of the " First " Book of Edward was so
temporary a makeshift that it was not reprinted after / //
1549 (the date of its issue), at which date the Ordinal
did not exist. The framers of theOrdinal of 1550
were the very men who (at the same session of the
Royal Commission), swept away the ornaments of the
" second year of Edward VI." Ordination did not in
any way consist of a celebration of the Lord's Supper
"^vhich " according to the rites of that book," could
not take place until the "right, orderly, and lawful
ordering" had been completed. Therefore, the exemp-
w Whitgift's Works, I.-488, 111,-472,

282 THE ORDINAL AND ARTICLE XXXVI
tion from censure (for it amounts to no more than
that) of the Ordinal, did not "of itself" include the
supplemental Communion Office {not contained in that
"book") which must stand or fall by its own merit.
Those who "were ordered according to the rites of
that book," did not, in fact, officiate at an " altar,"
nor wear the sacrificial vestments. And it must be
obvious that inasmuch as all the successive generations
who had to subscribe the Thirty-sixth Article were
themselves ordained by the Ordinal of 1552, this latter
is " the book " which, having been specially assailed
in 1561, was directly referred to in the Thirty-sixth
Article composed on that very occasion.
Fourth. — Even though the Thirty-sixth Article were
(for the sake of argument) supposed to refer exclusively
and directly to the Ordinal of 1550, or even to any and
every supplemental or collateral service mentioned or
implied therein, the p_resent Act of Uniformity, 14
Charles II., has nevertheless completely transferred all
such reference to the Ordinal of 1662: — "Anything
in the said Article to the contrary, notwithstanding."
*
MEMORANDUM.
Extract copied from Administration Book of the Consistory
Court of Norwich, 1549- 1555, now in the Probate Registry
at Norwich.
" M'' Quod die Dnica septimo die mensis Decembris Anno
Dni mill™" quingentesimo quinquagesimo Regni vero Illustriss.
ac potestiss. in Christo principis et Dni nostri Dni Edwardi
sexti Dei gra. Angliae Francise et Hiberniae Regis fid. def. and
in terra Ecciie Anglicane & Hiberniae Capitis Supremi Anno
quarto. Reverendus pater Thomas permissione divina Nor-
wicens. Epus in domo Capitulari infra Ecciiam Cathedr.
Sancti Trinitatis Norwicen. (post quamdiu concionem ihm

THE ORDINAL AND ARTICLE XXXVI 2S3
factam) pr" declaravit clero et poplo quod diJus Illustriss' Dns
noster Rex quasdem Ifas sibi scripsit honorabilissimis et
quendam librum impressum cum quibusd" rationibus declar.
" After moost hertie comendacon wlieras I have the second
day of this instant Decembre received the King his moost
honorable Ires undre his Highness signet and signed with his
moost gracious hande concerning the taking down of aulters
w*''in my diocesse and in leu of them a decent table to be sett
up in some convenient place of every chaunsell and also a little
boke imprinted shewing certeyn reasons why the Lord's boarde
shuld rather be after the foorme of a table then of an altar the
copye of which said Ires & boke I send unto you heriii
enclosed and knowing that the moste parte of all altars within
this my diocesse be all redye taken downe by comandment of
my Lorde of Canterbury his Grace's visitors in his late visitation
this diocesse then being voyed yet myndyng moost humblie to
obey the said Ires and to do my dutie in accomplishing the
same as apperteyneth Thes shalbe to require you and in the
Kings majestys behalf to comand you that ymediatlie upon the
receipt hereof with all diligence and celerity takyng with you
such grave precher as shalbe nere unto you you do repayre to
such markett townes and gret townes w'in your archdeconry
where calling before you the curats and churchwardens of the
parishes about the same I charge you to sett fourth the Kings
plesur and procedings in the premises according to the trewe
purpote effecte and meaning of the said most honorable letter
w* such further reasons apte for the same as shalbe thought
most convenient and agreable by you and the said precher as
you woll answer at your parrell I'hus fare you well — at Norwich
this thred daie of Decembre 1550."

XIII
Hrticle ^birt^^one

THE stern and uncompromising language of our
Thirty-first Article has always been a thorn in
the side of Romanisers. They teach (as the
Church of Rome teaches) that in the sacrifice of the
Mass " the priest doth offer Christ for the quick and
the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt."
It is in this belief that "frequent celebrations" are
multiplied, and that non-communicating attendance
{i.e. what Romanists call " hearing Mass ") is en
couraged : for this also it is that two, three, or more
stone "altars" are again set up, and the sacrificial
vestments and "Eastward" {i.e. mediatorial) position
are re-introduced.
Yet, in the midst of solemn functions and gorgeous
pageantry, they seem never able to quite shake off the
consciousness that the Church to which their allegiance
has been pledged, has pronounced the whole thing a
" blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit."
i Dr. Newman, in his celebrated Tract XC, invented
' a theory that authorised Roman doctrine could not be
denounced in the Thirty-first Article for two reasons.

ARTICLE THIRTY-ONE 285
First, that " the sacrifices of Masses " were spoken of
in the plural number, not the sacrifice of the Mass ;
and secondly, that the decrees of Trent relative to
the Mass-sacrifice had not been drawn up when this
Article was drafted.
How such a "non-natural interpretation" could
have satisfied any candid mind passes comprehension.
But Dr. Newman has since "remarked" that
"although the ninetieth Tract for the Times did not
even go so far as to advocate the Saeerdotiuui in the
Cathohc sense, but only the possibihty of inter
preting the Thirty-first Article in a sense short of its
denial. Dr. Routh ' [the Venerable President of
Magdalen College] 'told the Bishop of Oxford, who
consulted him on the point, that such interpretations
generally as those advocated in the Tract were a
simple novelty in Anglican history ; and secondly, that
though in that Tract the liberty to hold it, consistently
with the wording of the Thirty-first Article, was un
doubtedly maintained, still, as far as my memory goes, j
neither the writer of the Tract, nor his friends, distinctly
held the Catholic doctrine themselves." " I had begun
the movement with vague incomplete views, which
cleared as I went on, but were not definite and consistent
tin I joined the ' [Roman] ' Catholic Church." ^
Having thus got himself out of the fog so far as to
understand his own " completed " views. Dr. Newman
frankly owns in his Via Media (reprint of Tract XC,
with notes), II. -316, that the excuse which he had put

' Preface to Hutton's Anglican Ministry, p. xvi, Mr. Hunt, in his
History of Modern Religious Thought, I.-i65n., shews that the Caroline
High Church divines never dreamed of Dr. Pusey's method of
eviscerating the Thirty-first Article.

286 ARTICLE THIRTY-ONE
forth in the first edition of the Tract will not hold
water. He says, " Masses for the quick and dead are
not an abuse, but a distinct ordinance of the Church
herself. ... I do not see how it can be denied that this
I Article calls the sacrifice of the Mass itself, in all its
; private and solitary celebrations — to speak of no other —
' that is, in all its daily celebrations from year's end to
year's end, toto orbe terrarum, a blasphemous fable."
In this view Cardinal Newman is supported by every
theologian of his own Church. Canon Oakley adopts
as his own the language of another distinguished
pervert. Canon Estcourt, who says that Article XXXI.
is both " false and impious, nor can it be defended on ,
the ground of the phrase ' sacrifices of Masses ' being
in the plural number, because the term ' sacrificia
missarum ' is equally correct, and has the same meaning
with 'sacrificium missce.' Thus in the Missa pro defunctis,
' anima famuli tui his sacrificiw purgata, et a peccatis
expedita.' This Article is therefore nothing else than
a charge of blasphemy and imposture on the most holy
Sacrifice of the Eucharist." " Dr. Lingard, in his
History,^ also says, " the Mass is pronounced a
blasphemous forgery by the Article."
\ Though no one would go to Roman Catholic writers
1 for the interpretation of Protestant Articles, they may
fairly be quoted in^jdisproof of the notion that Anglican
formularies are patient of any such meaning as Papists
I could admit to be " Catholic."
Before the Reformation every one of the English
Pontificals agreed in using the following words,, at the
: Ordination of priests : — " Receive power to offer sacri
fice to God, and to celebrate M|^ses [plural] as well for
2 Lciicr to Manning, iS56, p. 73. ^ VI. -677.

ARTICLE THIRTY-ONE 287
the living as the dead." The Sarum, Exeter, Bangor, (
and Winchester Pontificals agreed in this, which was
therefore "commonly said."* The Winchester Pontifical
had also a blessing upon the hands of the priests " to
the consecrating sacrifices [hostias] which are offered
for the faults and negligences of the people." °
Long before the Council of Trent this had beenl
" commonly said " in England. Canon Estcourt says,
" the use of the plural number in the Article raises no
distinction whatever. There is no difference between j
* the sacrifice of the Mass ' and ' the sacrifices of
Masses.' It is not merely ' commonly said ' ; it is a
theological truth ; it is a matter of faith, that ' in the
sacrifices of Masses the priest does offer Christ for the
quick and dead, to have remission of pain and guilt.' ""
" These,' says Bishop Ullathorne, ' are the very words
that the Church has used at various times to profess
the Catholic faith upon the subject of the holy sacrifice.
In the Confession of Faith proposed to the Emperor
Michael Palaeologus by Pope Clement IV. in the year
1267, and again by Gregory X. in 1272, and accepted
and presented by the Emperor to the Pope at the
Council of Lyons, there are these very words. The
Greek terms for ' the sacrifices of Masses ' are
XeiTovpyicJJv leporeXecrTiai [plural]. Afterwards, in the
Council of Florence, in 1439, the terms of the Con
fession of Faith just mentioned were embodied in the
definition of faith then decreed." ^
The language of the Council of Florence was, that
" if any true penitents shall depart this life in the love
• 'Estcourt's Anglican Ordinations, p. 269,
5 Maskell, Mon. Rit., III,-2io, cf. 1,-144.
'' Kstconrt's Anglican Ordinations, p. 276,
' Anglican Theory of Union, pp, 50-2.

288 ARTICLE THIRTY-ONE
of God, before they have made satisfaction by worthy
fruits of penance for faults of commission and omission,
their souls are purified after death by the pains of
purgatory ; and that for their relief from these pains,
the suffrages of the faithful who are alive are profit
able; to wit, the sacrifices of Masses " [plural], &c.^
This, then, was the received and authorised behef
of the Anglo-Roman Church ; whereas the Reformed
Church of England, as Cranmer expressed it,^ " meant
in nowise that it is a very true sacrifice for sin, and
applicable by the priest to the quick and dead."
When, therefore. Archbishop Cranmer drafted, in
1552, the original form of our Thirty-first Article, he
fitly described the Romish belief as being that which
was " cojnmonl^ ja^id," just as in Article XXV. the
RomislT sacraments are said to be " commonly called
sacraments " : the birthday of Christ was " commonly
called Christmas " ; the Athanasian Creed was " com
monly called the Creed of St. Athanasius," and the Prayer
Book itself the Book of "Common" Prayer. "Vulgo
dicebatur " does not mean that it was said by the vulgar,
any more than "the vulgar tongue" in the Baptismal
Office means the language of illiterate persons.
Such being the circumstances under which the
Article was drawn up, it would matter little whether
the decrees of Trent were specifically aimed at, since
no change^" in the "vulgar" doctrine of "sacrifice"

' Session xxv. » Works, 1,-353. Parker Society.
'" Canon Faussett, Margaret Professor of Divinity, pointed this out
in 1841, " What beyond the merest shadow of pretence is there for
insinuating or assuming any essential distinction between the well-
understood doctrines of the Church of Rome before the Council of
Trent and those established by the more formaP decrees of that
Council ? " — Lecture before the University of Oxford, p. 22.

ARTICLE THIRTY-ONE 289
was made at that Council. Nevertheless, as a fact, I
the language of this Article was altered into its present'
form with the view of giving an express contradiction
to the Tridentine decrees.
Thus, the title was altered from " Of the perfect
oblation of Christ made upon the cross " to " Of the one
{unica, i.e. unique) oblation of Christ finished upon the
cross," and the words " forged fables " were altered into
"blasphemous fables" in order ^^ to meet exactly the
requirements of the Fourth Canon of the Twenty-j
second Session of Trent, which, on September 17th,
1562, had laid it down that " if any one shall say that
by the sacrifice of the Mass, a blasphemy is cast upon '
the most holy sacrifice of Christ, accomphshed on the
cross, or that it is thereby derogated from, let him be
accursed." At a later Session the same Council in its
decree concerning purgatory {which followed the publi-;
cation of the English Thirty-nine Articles) adoptedj
the exact phrase " the sacrifices of Masses " as the'
equivalent of " the acceptable sacrifice of the altar." ^^
Another indication is pointed out by Mr. Dimock.
" And, still further, it should be well observed that the
Articles as issued in i^j^s, instead of the word 'propitiation' in
the English version, had the expression 'the pacifying of God's
displeasure,' which was to be attributed to the one Sacrifice of
Christ once offered ; and that the Council of Trent attributes
just this ' pacifying of God's displeasure ' to the Sacrifice of the
Mass, in the words ' Hujus quippe oblatione placatus Dominus '
— words which again are taken up by the Catechism of Nowel,
when it said of the Sacrifice of the Cross, ' Quo solo placatus
nobis Deus efficitur.' " (Dangerous Deceits, p. 20.)

" So in the Twenty-second Article, " The doctrine of School-
authors " (Scholasticorum) was altered into "The doctrine of
Romanists" (Romanensium), Hardwick, p, 89. Oakley's Letter to
Manning, p. 64, . '^ Session xxv, 19

290 article thirty-one
The dates of these theological rejoinders should be
noted. The Articles of 1563 (commonly called 1562,
i.e. Old Style) were not presented by Convocation to
the Queen till February, 1563, nor published till some
months afterwards. The Trent Canons on the Mass-
sacrifice had been emitted on September i^th, 1562.
I Our present English version of the Articles (translated
'¦ by Bishop Jewel) was published, with the alterations
above named, in 1571. Subscription to the Thirty-
nine Articles was then, for the first time, enforced by
Parliament in the Statute, 13 Elizabeth, chapter xii.
'; Cranmer wrote, March 20th, 1552 : " Our adversaries
are now holding theiF cotinciTs aTTrent for the estab
lishment of their errors . . they are making decrees
respecting the worship of the Host : wherefore we
ought to leave no stone unturned that we may guard
others against this idolatry. "^^ On the same day he
1 wrote to Bullinger that a synod was to be held
"especially for an agreement on the Sacramentarian
Controversy." ^*
' On the other hand, as the Court of the General
Synod of the Church of Ireland laid down in their
Judgment (depriving Mr. Hunt for Romish heresy) on
February 20th, 1895 : " The history, and the very
'terms, of these Tridentine Canons would suggest that
^%hey were directed against the language of Article
XXXI., which had been previously used by the English
Reformers," viz. in the Thirtieth Article of 1553.
On Elizabeth's accession the Lower House of
¦ Convocation affirmed, January 24th, 1559, "that in
+bo Mass is offered the true body of Christ, and his
13 Original Letters, 1,-23. " Ibid., p. 24.

article THIRTY-ONE

291

true blood, a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and
dead."'^ As a natural result, in framing the Act for
Establishing the Book of Common Prayer, that Con
vocation was utterly ignored. But after the Romish
bishops had been dispossessed, after the Prayer Book
had been enforced in every parish by Royal Visitors
who scoured the length and breadth of the land for
that purpose, and so soon as the Archiepiscopal See of
York had been filled (on February 20th, 1561, by the
appointment of Thomas Young), the whole of the
bishops, acting under a Royal Commission, drew up at
Lambeth eleven Articles in the form of a "Declaration"
to be publicly made by every clergyman.
These eleven Articles were compiled as a " test of
doctrine," says Hardwick, " under the eye of Arch
bishop Parker with the sanction of the other Metro
politan, and the rest of the English prelates, and the
clergy were required to make a public profession of it,
not only upon admission to their benefices, but twice
also in every year, immediately after the Gospel for
the day." i«
The ninth of these Articles, ah of which are reprinted
from Strype by Burnet, Vs^ilkins, Hardwick, and Card-
well (though Colher "passes them mostly over"), was
as follows : —
" Moreover, I do not only acknowledge that private Masses
were never used amongst the Fathers of the Primitive Church,
I mean public ministration and receiving of the sacrament by
the priest alone, without a just number of communicants,
according to Christ's saying, 'Take ye -and eat ye,' &c. ; hut
ALSO, that the doctrine, that maintaineth the Mass to be a

'' Cardwell's Conferences, p. 23.
"¦ History of the Thirty-nine Artichs, p. 118; or p, 120, Ed, 1859,
19 *

2g2 ARTICLE THIRTY-ONE
propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and dead, and a mean to
deliver souls out of purgatory, is neither agreeable to Christ's
ordinance, nor grounded upon doctrine apostolic, but contrary -
wise, most ungodly and most injurious to the precious redemp
tion of our Saviour Christ, and His only sufficient sacrifice
offered once for ever upon the altar of the cross." ^'
It seems probable that this very document may have
been intended to be denounced^ Trent by Canon iv.
before quoted, as well as by Canon iii. which says : —
"If any shall say, that the sacrifice of the Mass is only one
of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the
sacrifice which was made upon the cross, but not propitiatory ;
or that it only profits him who receives it, and ought not to be
offered for the living and the dead, for sins, pains, sadsfactions,
and other necessities, let him be accursed." '^^
One object of these Articles was, -no doubt, to weed
out from the Convocation which met subsequently on
January 12th, 1563, all supporters of the Mass; with
the result that Canterbury Convocation, which had
affirmed in 1559 what was "commonly said" about the
Mass, rejected that same "vulgar" doctrine in 1563.
"Such," says Strype,^^ "was the pastoral care of
Archbishop Parker, by whom, I believe, this Declaration
was chiefly framed, that so all that came into livings
and served the Church, might be purged of Popish
doctrines and superstitions." -°

1' In addition to this "Declaration" another form in Latin was
drawn up for subscription (in writing) by the ministers, viz. "missa,
quaa consuevit a sacerdotibus dici, non erat a Christo instituta, sed a
multis Romanis pontificibus consarcinata. Nee est sacrificium pro-
pitiatorium pro vi vis et defunctis." MS, Petyt, Vol, 538, Vol, 38, On
the next page follows the "Injunctions for Readers," which Strype,
Annals, 1,-225, has chosen to print separately, as though belonging to a
different year. But evidence is lacking that this latter form was ever
published or enforced, '* Session xxii,
" Annals, 1,-1-329, "'' Compare Strj-pe's Life cf Parker, I,-i8i-2.

ARTICLE THIRTY-ONS

293

The identity in doctrine between these " Eleven "
provisional Articles and the " Thirty-nine " is shewn
by the fact that the former were, even so late as 1566,
still prescribed to Irish clergymen " by order and
authority as well of the Right Honourable Sir Henry
Sidney, General Deputy, as by the archbishops and
bishops, and other Her Majesty's High Commissioners
lor Causes Ecclesiastical in the same realm." -^
In 1615 the Irish Church drew up its own Articles,
the Ninety-ninth of which said : —
" The Sacrifice of the ^lass {sing.}, wherein the priest is said
to offer up Christ for obtaining the remission of pain or guilt
for the quick and the dead, is neither agreeable to Christ's
ordinance nor grounded upon doctrine Apostolic ; but contrary-
wise most ungodly and most injurious to that all-sufficient sacri
fice of our Saviour Christ, offered once for ever upon the cross,
which is the only propitiation and satisfaction for all our sins."^^
Evidently the Irish Convocation had never heard of
any difference between the Sacrifices of Masses and the
Sacrifice of the Mass — a distinction which was abso
lutely unknown till its invention by casuists to excuse
the violation of the subscription by which they had
obtained admission to benefices within the Established
Church. Dr. Bennet, in his Essay on the Thirty -nine
Articles, a.d. 1715, says,-^ that in the original MS. of
1562, the English Article had "the Sacrifice (sing.)
of Masses." And we are able to cite a witness of
"infallible" authority, viz. Pope Pius the Fifth, who,
in his celebrated Bull excommunicating Elizabeth in

'-' Hardwick's History of the Thirty-nine Articles, p, 121,
=-' Stephens' Irish Prayer Book, Preface, p, Ixvii,
=^ p, 117.

\1

294 ARTICLE THIRTY-ONE
A.D. 1569, said : — " She hath abolished the Sacrifice of
the Mass and the Cathohc rites." "^
The Supreme Pontiff may at least be credited with
knowing what "the Sacrifice of the Mass" meant.
Professor Jones, s.j., in his Reply to Dr. Littledale
(Hodges) says : —
" In the Profession of Faith, published by Pius IV. in 1564,
we have the doctrine of the Council summarised in the following
article: — 'I equally profess that in the Sacrifice of the Mass
there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice
I for the quick and dead.' Each Article — that of Trent and the
'  ~~^
Anglican Church — was the outcome of prolonged and notorious
! controversy. It was a question, among all others,' of central
[and conspicuous importance, for on it depended the true notion
j of the priesthood, the Episcopacy, and of the hieratic character
of the Church. What each proposition meant in the mouths of
|its supporters no man in Christendom has ever sincerely doubted."
* *
*
Within the last few years, however, an anonymous
1 writer in the Church Times invented^a theory by which
all reference to Roman doctrine might be evaded. It
seems odd, of course, that this " happy thought "
never occurred to anybody during the centuries when
the Articles were most recent, and when the con
troversy with Rome was uppermost in men's minds.
Yet it is now gravely contended that before the
I Reformation there was a general belief ("it was
commonly said ") that the Mass constitutes " a fresh
propitiation for sin, distinct from that made upon
the Cross of Calvary." =5 Also that the atonement
•^ wrought on Calvary related only to original sin and to

-* " MissEe sacrificium, preces, jejunia, ciborum delectum.ccelibatum
ritusque catholicos abolevit."— Burnet's History of the Reformation,
II,-ii,-532, ^^ Green, On the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 254.

ARTICLE THIRTY-ONE

295

sins committed before baptism, whereas the Mass-
offering was a propitiation for all sins committed after
baptism. "This outrageous fancy having been mis
takenly imputed to Thomas Aquinas was mentioned
in the Augsburg Confession,^'' and was, therefore,
noticed in the Apology of Melancthon,-'' as well as in
the representations made by the Lutheran ambassadors
sent to negotiate with Henry VIII.=^ In this way
it doubtless became known to some of the English
Reformers.^^ And it is not improbable, therefore, that
the separate mention of "original" and of "actual"
-sins in our Second and Thirty-first Articles may have
been due to this apocryphal heresy. But that such an
extreme and preposterous notion ever obtained any
large circle of adherents there is not the slightest
reason to believe. It is certain that in England it
never formed (to say the least) a conspicuous feature
in the controversy. For we have, on the one hand,
the Protestant objections stated with great fulness of
detail by Cranmer, Jewel, Hooper, and others, not one
of whom singles out this particular form of misbelief as
an object of special censure. On the other hand, we
have such representative names as Tonstal, Gardiner,
Joliffe, and Harding, not one of whom lends the least
sanction or even recognition to any such notion.
Nay, more, when the Six Articles Act was in full
force, and Bishop Shaxton was compelled to recant in
order to avoid being burnt, the statement put into his
mouth by the " Catholic " leaders, was that " the
oblation and action of the priest is also a sacrifice of
2" Francke's Libri Symbolici. Ed, 1847, p, 30, -' Ibid., p. 267.
^ Unrnet's History of the Reformation, 1,-11,-505, Ed, 1829,
^^ Becon's Works, iii,-368, 377,

296 ARTICLE THIRTY-ONE
. praise and thanksgiving unto God for His benefits, and
, NOT THE SATISFACTION FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD,
for that is only to be attributed to Christ's passion."^"
This was in 1546, ten years after Taverner had
published in London his translation of the Augsburg
Confession " at the commandment of his Master the
right honourable Mayster Thomas Cromwell Chief
Secretarie to the Kings Grace." ^^
f Bishop John Wordsworth has constituted himself the
patron of the new interpretation, but all his research
(with the aid of the two members of the " Confraternity
of the Blessed Sacrament " whose De Hierarchid
Anglicana, intended for the Pope's own eye, he has
graced with a preface), has been unable to furnish
more than two writers on the Roman side (neither of
them Englishmen, and one of these, as he admits,^^
unknown to the framers of the Thirty-first Article)
whose words might appear ^^ to sanction such an
I extravagant form of anti-Christian error. Indeed,
the Romanists promptly and publicly regiidiated the
charge as being a gross exaggeration and a wanton
misrepresentation on the part of their opponents.
Their official reply given at the time was : " It was
never heard of among Catholics, and very many whom
"^ Foxe's ^cis and Monuments, Vol, V,, App, No, xvii, Burnet's History
of the Reformation, I,-ii,-400,
'' British Museum, " c, 37, c, 9." ^- Responsio ad Batavos, p. 23.
''•' Professor Austin Richardson, in the Dublin Review, 3rd Series,
Vol. XLV,, p, 85, points out that Albertus Magnus, whose words had
been attributed to Aquinas by mistake, merely meant that the merits of
Christ's Death were applied to the baptized by the Mass, just as they
had been applied to the unbaptized by Baptism, That explains (what
might otherwise seem inexplicable) why the dividing line should have
been fixed at "original sin," The universal prevalence of Infant
baptism when Albertus wrote, would make such a division seem to
Romanists to be both scientific and natural.

ARTICLE THIRTY-ONE

297

we have asked deny most constantly that it is so taught
by them. "^' "To us it is assuredly untrue that that
was the opinion of any Catholic doctor, so far is
it from being a common opinion among us " (tantum
abest, ut apud nos vulgata sit ea opinio). ^^
Mr. Dimock has exhaustively examined the writings /
of the Reformation period relating to this question, in'
two valuable works published by Elliot Stock, entitled
Dangerous Deceits and Missarum Sacrificia, and as the j
result of his inquiry he throws out this challenge :^
" I will make bold then, to ask those who would now have us
read this anti-Catharine sense into the Article, whether they can
produce any one saying from any one of the writings of any
one among the divines of any authority on either side of the
controversy, which can fairly be said to give any solid support
to their view, or bear witness to the fact of such a restraint of
the sense of the Article having been regarded as admissible in
the century to which the language of the Article belongs ?"
Even the few eccentric writers who have been claimed
as sanctioning the alleged heresy about " original sin "
or an " independent " sacrifice in the Mass are shewn
by Mr. Dimock to have been misunderstood: Hooker
himself repudiated beforehand Bishop Wordsworth's
charges. He said, " Whom [i.e. Christ] to have
merited the taking away of no sin but original is not
their opinion, which himself will find, when he hath well
examined his witnesses, Catharinus and Thomas."^"
Pighi, to whom Jewel more than once refers as a
leader among his opponents, after quoting the state
ment of the Augsburg Confession referred to above,
says he had never heard of such a notion even in the
^ Responsio ad Conf, Augustanam Pontificia, in Francke's Libri
Symbolici. Appendix, p, 60, Ed, 1847,
'' Quoted by Mr, Dimock, Dangerous Deceits, p. 28,
™ Hooker's Answer to Travers. Works, edited by Keble, 111,-584.

298 ARTICLE THIRTY-ONE
disputes of the schools where the utmost latitude was
always permitted.
" Nor do I think that they will be able to produce anyone,
whether a schoolman or other, who puts forth an opinion of
this kind: and even if they did, they are not acting candidly in
attaching to us all the stupidity of one man, seeing that no such
thing have we either read or heard of among ourselves : and by
monstrosities of this kind they asperse our doctrine, blot and
traduce it among the credulous populace who are ignorant of
such matters." ^^
BeUarmine denounces it as an "impudent he."^^
Bossuet is no less emphatic. In his History of the
variations of Protestants ^^ we read : —
] " IVhat was invented in order to render the Oblation in the
I Mass odious. ^.^^^^~7~In the Confession of Augsburg they even
i attribute to the Catholics this strange doctrine, ' That Jesus
/Christ had satisfied for original sin in his passion, and had
I instituted the Mass for mortal and venial sins which were
\ committed every day ' ; as if Jesus Christ had not equally
\satisfied for all sins ; and by way of necessary elucidation, they
added, that Jesus Christ had offered Him.self to bear the cross
' not for original sin only, but for others too,' — a truth which no
one ever doubted. It is not matter of surprise that the Catholics,
as Lutherans themselves relate, on hearing this reproach, all, as
if with one common voice, cried out against it, saying, that
' never had such a thing been heard among them.' {Chyt.
Hist. Conf.) But the people were to be made to believe that
these wretched Catholics were even ignorant of the first elements
of Christianity."
It is, however, a vulgar error to suppose that our
Thirty-first Article was taken directly from the Augsburg
Confession. The case stands thus. In 1530 the Pro
testants at Augsburg charged their opponents with

'¦'^ Pighii Controversias Ratisponenses. Ed, 1549, p, 116,6,
''^ Op, tom, VII,, col, 604, Ed, 1617,
3" English Translation, Dublin, 1836, Vol, I,, p, 126. Booklll, §§53.

ARTICLE THIRTY-ONE

299

holding that Christ's passion sufficed for original sin,
but that the Mass offering was instituted by Him for
all daily sins after baptism. This error was, however,
not described as being "commonly said"; and our
English Article drawn up twenty-two years later did
not repeat or adopt that statement. It had proved, in
fact, to be untenable. ^lelancthon's Apology found an
excuse for making the charge in what it described as
" the error of Thomas," but which, in fact, was not his
at all, and really belonged to the writings of Albertus
Magnus.^"^ Islv. Dimock shews that even as to this
writer the charge was due to a misunderstanding of
language confessedly incautious : but that, in fact,
neither Aquinas nor Albert did teach that the Alass
had any atoning efficacy apart from and independent
of the Cross.'"'
As a result, the charge was so warmly resented and
hurled back that the Lutherans themselves abandoned
it, and it had disappeared from their subsequent Confessions
long before our Articles were drawn up. Our English
Cranmer was keenly alive to the fortunes of the German
Reformers and was little likely to repeat a blunder
which had been so utterly exploded in the interval
between 1530 and 1552.
The charge so far broke down that it was abandoned
by Melancthon, when ten years later he drew up the
amended " Confessio Variata" in 1540, and our Article
has a closer verbal correspondence with this later

¦fJa Prebendary Gibson in his book on the Thirty-nine Articles, 11,-692,
says, " it now appears that the sermons are not the work of Albertus
Magnus ' ' !
•"' The same thing is shewn from the Roman side in Vol. LIII, of the
Tablet, 1895, pp. 766-804, as regards Catharinus, and p. 805 as to Pighius
and Albert.

30O ARTICLE THIRTY-ONE
amended form.*^ In the Saxon Confession of 1551
drawn up by Melancthon for presentation at the
Council of Trent, the charge was left entirely un
noticed.*- Mr. Dimock justly observes " we seem
called upon here to give the Lutherans credit for
desisting from a charge, the truth of which the papists
had so strongly and indignantly denied. Is there not
that which is full of instruction for us here ? Are we
to suppose it likely that, after this, the English reformers
would have framed an Article for the express purpose
of striking down this repudiated opinion, and that in
language which so entirely failed to describe it ? " He
adds, " indeed all the evidence tends to shew that at
the period of the Reformation, whatever hold the
opinion attributed to Aquinas may still have had on
popular ignorance, it had ceased to have {if it ever had)
any appreciable support from theologians of repute,
and that the imputation of any such notion was
regarded as an insult to the educated mind of Christen
dom, as implying an inconceivable ignorance of the
first principles of the Christian faith." " Is it credible
that our English theologians, with Cranmer at their
head, were concerning themselves to frame an Article
on purpose to discredit a monstrous notion which had
been denounced as nothing but a vulgar error of the
grossest kind by leading divines of the Romish Church ? "
This alleged error was indeed so obscure and unde
fended that it was not even represented at Trent,**
though Catharinus was present.
Not one single Roman Catholic writer or speaker in
England has yet been discovered who appears to have
sympathised with the monstrous doctrine which Bishop
•" Dimoc'n, p. 31. ¦•- Ibid., p. 32. ¦'¦' Dimock, p.6i.

ARTICLE THIRTY- ONE 30 1
John Wordsworth has been at great pains to disinter.'
They all held and taught that the benefits of the Cross
are applied by means of the Mass-" sacrifice," and
this was precisely the error which our English reform
ers denounced as being derogatory to the merits of'
Christ's Death as a " full, perfect, and sufficient "
oblation, though but "once" offered. This was well
expressed in the Confessio Variata — " quum sacramentis
utimur, nostro opere ac nostra fide fit apphcatio, non
alieno opere. Etenim si non contingeret nobis remissio
nisi applicatis missis, fieret incerta, et fiducia trans-
ferenda esset a Christo in opus saeerdotis, idque, ut constat,
accidit." '''^
King Henry VIII. (by the pen of Tonstal) acutely
pointed out to the German ambassadors that their
recital of " abuses " applied equally to the Mass itself
in all its public celebrations every whit as much as
to the "private Masses" — which alone they were
attacking.'*'' Cranmer, in his reply to Gardiner, does
not even notice this heresy, though Bishop John
Wordsworth gives a reference to pp. 361, 362 of his
work On the Lord's Supper, as though it mentioned it.
But what Cranmer denied in that " Fifth Book : Of I
the oblation and sacrifice of Christ " is precisely what i
Bishop John Wordsworth now holds for "Catholic"
doctrine. Cranmer said, for instance (p. 345) —
" Thus, under pretence of holiness, the papistical priests have
taken upon them to be Christ's successors, and to make such
an oblation and sacrifice as never creature made but Christ
alone, neither He made the same any more times than once, and
that was by His Death upon the cross."

' Francke, App. 22,
' Burnet's History of the Rcforma'.icn, I,-ii,-52G. Ed. iS:g.

302 ARTICLE THIRTY-ONE
" The very suppsr itself was by Christ instituted and given
to the whole church, not to be offered and eaten of the priest
for other men, but by him to be delivered to all that would duly
ask it. "^°
" Christ made the bloody sacrifice, which took away sin :
the priest with the church make a commemoration thereof
with lauds and thanksgiving, offering also themselves obedient
to God unto death." " And yet this our sacrifice taketh not
away our sins, nor is accepted but by His sacrifice. The
bleeding of Him took away our sins, not the eating of Him." *''
" And as Christ only made this propitiatory sacrifice, so He
made but one, and but once. For the making of any other,
or of the same again, should have been (as St. Paul reasoneth)
a reproving of the first as unperfect and insufficient. And
therefore, at His last supper, although Christ made unto His
Father sacrifices of lauds and thanksgiving . . . yet- made He
there no sacrifice propitiatory; for then either the sacrifice
upon the cross had been void, or the sacrifice at the supper
unperfect and insufficient."'*^
Again, as if describing the modern "Anglo-Catholic"
position, he said —
" You speak according to the papists, that the priests in their
Masses make a sacrifice propitiatory. I call a sacrifice pro
pitiatory, according to Scripture, such a sacrifice as pacifieth
God's indignation against us, obtaineth mercy and forgiveness
i of all our sins, and is our ransom and redemption from ever-
i lasting damnation. And, on the other side, I call a sacrifice
gratificatory, or the sacrifice of the church, such a sacrifice as
doth not reconcile us to God, but is made of them that be
RECONCILED to testify their duties, and to shew themselves
thankful unto Him. And these sacrifices in Scripture be not
called propitiatory , but sacrifices of justice, of laud, praise, and
thanksgiving. But you confound the words, and call one by
another's name, calling that ' propitiatory ' which the Scripture
calleth but of justice, laud and thanking." *'
"¦¦ Cranmer On Lord's Supper, p. 350. ''' Ibid., p. 356,
¦" Ibid., p. 359, ¦'^ Ibid., p. 361.

ARTICLE THIRTY- ONE 303
There is much more of the same sort, but these last
words sufficiently shew where the shoe pinched. They
prove moreover that the teaching of Article XXXI.
was not primarily directed toward the obscure theory
out of which, for obvious polemical reasons. Bishop,
John Wordsworth seeks to make such capital. He;
refers us^° to Jewel, Works, II.-746-75S. But that very
reference is fatal to his theory. Jewel is there com
bating the theory now called "Anglo-catholic," viz.
that the virtue of Christ's death is " applied " by the
Mass to individuals. Thus Jewel says : —
" It is not the priest, but God only it is, that applieth unto
each man the remission of his sins in the blood of Christ ; not
by mean of the Mass, but only by the mean of faith." "^
"Who ever bade you sacrifice Christ unto his Father? ... or
that Christ in your Mass should evermore appear before God
and entreat for us ? " ^^
The then Bishop of Salisbury might have had his
degenerate successor in his eye when he wrote : —
"Where they say, and sometimes do persuade fools that
they are able by their Masses to distribute and apply unto
men's commodity all the merits of Christ's Death, yea,
although many times the parties think nothing of the matter,
and understand full little what is done, this is a mockery, a
heathenish fancy. For it is our faith that applieth the death
and cross of Christ to our benefit.and not the act of the
massing priest." ^^ " jj jg neither the work of the priest, nor
the nature of the sacrament as of itself, that maketh us
partakers of Christ's Death, but only the faith of the
receiver." ^"^
Archbishop Herman's Consultation, from which so

'" Responsio ad Batavos, p. 8.
51 Jewel, Works II. -748, °- IbU-, P- 753-
S3 Ibid., 111,-556, '"' Ibid., p. 558,

304 ARTICLE THIRTY-ONE
much of the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. was
copied by his friend Cranmer, and of which two^^
editions were pubhshed in an English translation in
1547 and 1548, exactly hits off the Roman heresy.
He says : —
"Before all things the pastors must labour to take out of
men's minds that false and wicked opinion whereby men think
commonly that the priest in Masses ojfereth up Christ our Lord
to God the Father after that sort, that with his intention and
prayer he causeth Christ to become a new and acceptable
sacrifice to the Father for the salvation of men, applieth and
communicateth the merit of the passion of Christ and of the
saving sacrifice whereby the Lord Himself offered Himself to
> the Father a sacrifice on the cross, to them that receive the
same with their own faith . . . the Holy Fathers by the name
! of sacrifice understood not application, which Tvas devised a
. great while after . . . but a solemn remembraijce^ of the
I sacrifice of Christ, as Augustine expoundeth it."
Bradford, who stood up almost alone in the Marian
Convocation to defend the Thirty-nine Articles, and
who suffered death at the stake for a testimony to their
teaching, tells us that the "Romish doctrine" was this,
I that the " unbloody sacrifice " is "the principal mean
I whereby His bloody sacrifice is applied both to the
quick and dead " . . . " the supper of Christ is to
them not only a sacrament but also a sacrifice, and
that not only applicatory, but propitiatory, because it
applieth the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ to whom the
priest or minister will, be he dead or alive""'' . . .
; "whereas they call this sacrifice of the Mass, the
principal mean to apply the benefits of Christ's death
to the quick and dead," which he describes as " an

'"' See Dr, Jacob's Lutheran Movement in England, p. 353.
'" Bradford's Works, 11,-270,

ARTICLE THIRTY-ONE 305
abominable doctrine." ^'^ Geste in 1548 says the
" English Catholiques " (" otherwise termed papistes")
" avouch the full and entire fruit and virtue of the
priest-Mass to consist in the appliall of Christ's merits
unto us." ^^
This was what before the Reformation had been
" commonly said " in England.
Bishop John Wordsworth would hardly venture to
quote to his Old Catholic friends, the words of our
Homily Concerning the Sacrament, —
" This is to stick fast to Christ's promise made in His'
institution, to make Christ thine own, and to applicate His\
merits unto thyself. Herein thou needest no other man's help,
no other sacrifice or oblation, no sacrificing-'pnest, no Mass, no
means established by man's invention."
because he would thereby lay bare what he is labouring
to conceal, viz. that the error combatted in our Thirty-
first Article was not that the Mass was independent of
Calvary, but that it applied the benefits of Christ's
Death to the " quick and the dead, to have remission of
pain or guilt," by a priestly offering of the repro
duced body and blood of Christ on an altar. If such
an offering by priests in the Mass be the sole means
by which Christians may now obtain the benefits of
Christ's Death, it follows that all practical hope and
true p)iety must centre round that Mass-offering, and
the mediation of the Mass-priests : just as men natur
ally betake themselves to the tap or the pump without
wasting a thought on the hidden well or the far off
reservoir from which, in theory, they may know well
enough it " must " derive all its usefulness.

*' Bradford's Works, 11,-287, 289.
^ Dugdale's Life of Geste, p. 97,
20

306 ARTICLE THIRTY-ONE
All the " abuses " of money-making, multiplication
of useless " celebrations," and scandals of whatever
kind flowed from this notion that jiriestly presentation
on an altar on earth is the Divine method for com-
'municating the benefits of the Cross. That was the
evir^hich the Enghsh Reformers set themselves to
combat, and which the Council of Trent tried to
bolster up.
And of it Cranmer says plainly —
" The Popish priests say that they offer Christ every day for
remission of sin, and distribute by their masses the merits of
Christ's passion. But the prophets, apostles, and evangelists
do say that Christ Himself in His own person made a sacrifice
for our sins upon the cross, by whose wounds all our diseases
were healed, and our sins pardoned ; and so did never no priest,
man, nor creature but He, nor He did the same never more
> than once. And the benefit hereof is in no man's power to
' give to any other, but every man must receive it at Christ's hands
j himself, by his own faith and belief, as the prophet saith." ^^
Bishop John Wordsworth, on the other hand, speaks
of— " The work of Christ, our high priest and advocate with the
Father, which he is always doing in heaven, of the sprinkling
of blood within the veil in the Holy of Holies, of the altar in
heaven, and of the union of the earthly sacrifice with the
heavenly work of our fiigii^riest " —
these notions he thinks would open a way of healthy
conciliation which might bridge over the gulf between
Trent and Lambeth. The answer is plain. The pre
sent work of Christ does not consist in ministration
at an " altar," nor In presenting a sin-offering, nor
in making sacrificial atonement for sin, nor even
in sprinkling His blood upon the furniture of the

On the Lord's Supper, p. 47,

ARTICLE THIRTY-ONE 307
heavenly courts. All these are jnere human inventions.
The typical symbolism of the Jewish Day of Atone
ment broke down when the blood had been sprinkled
by a momentary act, and when the finished atonement
began to be applied to the earthly temple and its worship.
The anti-type of the Godward " sprinkhng " was
fulfilled BEFORE Christ "sat down." He "sat down"
because His atonement was finished, and the offering
for sin had ceased. Instead of the High priest " coming
out," as in Jewry, the veil itself was rent so that the
laity might press in " boldly," the very mercy seat
being thenceforth accessible to the meanest laic.
Nor was it ever the work of a priest to be always
offering sacrifices for sin. On the contrary, spiritual
worship only began on the foundation of the previous
acceptance of the finished sin-offering. Till that had
" ceased to be offered," no worship by sinners might
even be thought of as possible. The manward functions
of the High Priest after the order of Melchisedek,
viz. " blessing," succeeded to His transient (Aaronic)
ministration of sacrificing to God "for sin."
Christ is now presenting to the Father His people,
and their gifts and graces, their praises and their
petitions, but no longer any offering for sin. That, as
a priestly act, is wholly a thing of the past both on
earth and in Heaven.
" Christus semel pro peccatis nostris mortuus
EST ut nos OFFERET DeO."
I Pet, iii, -18, Vulgate.

INDEX

Adoration of Host, 32, 260, 268
"Advertisement" in Homilies an
" Erastian " notice, 236, 242 »
Advertisements of Elizabeth, 1566,
on holy days, 7
Advertisements, wrong date of,
explained, 77, 85
Advertisements of Elizabeth a
" further order," 129
Advertisements contradict First
Prayer Book, 88
' ' Agreeably, ' ' meaning of, 88
Altars removed by Cranmer in
1549, 282
Altars needed "other order" in
1559, 6, 46, 127
Altar lights, 26, 182
Andrewes, Bishop, on the Ad
vertisements, 80
"Application" by "offering"
denied by Bradford, Martyr, 304
' ' Application " by " offering ' '
denied by Cranmer, 306
"Application" by "offering"
denied by Geste, 305
"Application" by "offering"
denied by Archbishop Herman,
304
' ' Application " by " offering ' '
denied by Homily, 305
"Application" by "offering"
denied by Bishop Jewel, 303
Article XXXVI, modified by Knox,
259, 2jgn.
Article XXXI., 284
Articles, the eleven of 1561, 291
Aquinas acquitted by Hooker, 297
Augsburg Confession, error of, 299
Baring Gould on S, Catharine, 15
Baronius on S, Catharine, 15
Baxter did not know what " the
Vestment " was, 145
" Be in use,", meaning of, 102
Bishops, dress of, 121, 149, 164
" Bishops' Book, The," 230
Black-letter days, illegal observ
ance of, 9

Black Rubric, The, 254
Bonner as "Minister," 23
" Bread "= loaf, 213
" Breaking bread " not "catholic"
but primitive, 217
Bucer's description of Edwardian
ritualists, 26
Bucer misrepresented, 180
Bullinger on the chasuble, 55
Calvin on Prayer Book, 182
Canon Ixxxviii,, 9
Canon xxiv,, 89
Cecil's endorsement on Ordinal of
1552, 278
Cecil's endorsement on " Ordi
nances " of 1564, 61, 68
Chalices unlawful, 1559-1662, 74, 95
Chasuble, the sacrificial "Vest
ment," 117
" Commissioners under Great
Seal," &c,, 43-5
"Commonly said," meaning of, 299
Convocation on Calendar, 3
Convocation on Advertisements
of Elizabeth, 75, 80
Convocation on Nowell's Cate
chism, 181
Copes tolerated by Sandys, 47
Copes used in sets of three, 89, 120
Copes destroyed by Royal Visi
tors, 109, no, 115
Copes, non-sacrificial, 117, 119
Copes tolerated, though illegal, 42,
116, 120
Copes, why used in Cathedrals, 90
Copes, not used as in 1549, 117-122
Corporas, what, 94
Corpus Christ, illegal observance
of, 4
Cosin, Richard, Dean of the
Arches, 79
Cosin, Bishop, on black-letter
days, 9
Cosin, Bishop, on the word
" Mass," 28
Cosin, Bishop, on Prayers for
Dead, 185

INDEX

309

Cosin, Bishop, on "sacritice," 177,
179. 185
Cosin, Bishop, on ' ' real ' ' pres
ence, 176
Cosin, Bishop, blunders of, 176-
186
Cosin, Bishop, Notes, First
Series, 171
Cosin, Bishop, Notes, Second
Series, 178
Cosin, Bishop, Notes, Third
Series, 180
Cosin, Bishop, " Considerations,"
185, 191
Cosin, Bishop, changed his views,
176, 211
Cosin, Bishop, on Kneeling at
Sacrament, 267
Cranmer abolished " altars," 282
Cranmer denied Mass-offering, 301
Cranmer on "re-presentation,"
302
Cranmer, author of " Black
Rubric," 256, 265
Cranmer on "real" presence, 30,
31
Cromwell, State Paper by, 2
Cromwell preserves dedication
festivals, 3
"Curiosity," what, 22
D'Ailly, Cardinal, 2
Debate in Parliament on First
Prayer Book, 1548, 19
Deprivation of Romish Bishops, 44
Durel's Vindicias quoted, 164 ; its
authority, 184
Durel's Vindiciee on altar-lights,
183
" Durham Book," 187
" Durham Book," its date, 192, 203
"Durham Book," Photo-zinco-
graph from, 146, 147, 222
Elevation, 32
Elizabeth's revision of " Church "
documents, 125, 246, 253
Elizabeth's fraud rubric, 122
Eli^sabeth's fraud rubric compared
with proviso, 123
Elizabeth's letter of June 25th,
1565, referred to, 57, 66, 77, 79
Elizabeth's printed Prayer Books,
125, 131, 277
"Et C£etera" explained, 199, 164
Erasmus on Festivals of Church, 2
First Prayer Book of Edward VI.,
its compilers, 16

First Prayer Book of Edward VI.,
merely provisional, 19
First Prayer Book of Edward VI. ,
copies rare, 138
First Prayer Book of Edward VI. ,
failure of, 16
First Prayer Book of Edward VI. ,
final rubrics in, 138-142
First Prayer Book of Edward VI.,
H, C, rubrics never revived, 142,
196
F'irst Prayer Book of Edward VI,,
on saints' days, 3
First Prayer Book of Edward VI.
not endorsed by Second Prayer
Book, 19
First Prayer Book of Edward VI.
not endorsed by Thirty-sixth
Article, 275
First Prayer Book of Edward VI. ,
changes forced by Gardiner's
"mistakings," 28-33
"Form of Bread " rejected, 235,245
" Further order," meaning of, 46,
129
Gardiner, Bishop, on the First
Book of Edward, 17, 28
Gardiner, Bishop, his " mis
takings," 29-33
Geste, Bishop, on surplice, 52
Geste, Bishop, on " distinctive
dress " at Communion, 104
Homilies, dates of, 232, 242
Homilies, authors of, 233, 244
Homilies altered by Bonner, 234
Homilies in Rogation Week, 74
Homilies on Vestments, 112
Hook, Dean, on " pious " fables, 11
Hooker, 80, in, 297
Injunctions of 1547, 4, 25
Injunctions of 1559 were under
Great Seal, 36
Injunctions under i Elizabeth;
cap. i,, or cap, ii,, 41
Injunctions required ornaments of
1553, 47
Injunctions, "other" or "fur
ther" order, 42, 126, 129
' ' Interpretations ' ' suggested,
1561 (see Resolutions), 128
Islip, Archbishop, on multiplied
holy days, i
James I, revised a Homily, 252

310

INDEX

James I,, his Prayer Book irre
gular, 136
James I., his Proclamation struck
out, 152, 192
'*>-\ Jewel, Bishop, denied "applica
tion ' ' by offerings, 303
Jewel, Bishop, knew only .surplice
in use, 112
Joyce, Wayland, misrepresents
last revision, 153 n.
Kneeling at Holy Communion
explained, 257, 266
Kneeling at Holy Communion,
Knox on, 255
" King's Book," 234
Langdale, Alban, on Ridley's
doctrine, ig
Langton, Archbishop, on saints'
days, I
"Latter year of King Edward,"
what, 39, 40, 105
L'Estrange on Advertisements and
Orders, 81
Littledale on Purgatory, 14
Littledale on Advertisements, 61
MacColl, Canon, misquotes, 41
Mass abolished in 1549, 234, 236
" Maximum and Minimum "
theory, 88, 165
Meopham, Archbishop, on Calen
dar, I
" Ministers," what, 21-8
Missals, &c,, defaced as illegal, 24
"Mistakers," what, 29-33
Newman on Mass-sacrifice, 285
Nicholls on black-letter saints, 10
Nicholls on Ornaments Rubric, 168
Nicholls published papers not
intended for publication, 177,
209, 211
" Objective " presence repudiated,
218
Order, Royal, of 1561, 63, 78
Order for Tables " in every
Church," 46
Ordinal of 1550, 274, 276
Ordinal of 1552, 278, 281
" Ornaments " defined, 91, 94
Ornaments of Church in 1549, 93
Ornaments of Minister in 1549, 95
Ornaments Rubric of 1549, 93, 95
Ornaments Rubric of 1552, 107

Ornaments Rubric of 1559, 123
Ornaments Rubric of 1604, 136
Ornaments Rubric of 1662, 137
" Other Order," 126-9
Overal wrongly cited, 170
Parker, Mr, James, misquotes
Grindal, 71
Parker, Mr, James, misquotes
Injunction, 37, 40
Parker, Mr, James, on the Order
of 1561, 63
Parker, Mr, James, misconceives
Bishop Cosin, 190, 209
Parker, Archbishop, enforces Sur
plice only, A,D, 1563-66, 48, ti2
Parker, Archbishop, issues Adver
tisements as a Royal Commis
sioner, 62, 64, 77 n.
Parliamentary Debate in 1559, 19
Pastoral Staff, 135, 276.
People's Hymnal on Purgatory, 15
Perry, Rev, T, W,, mistakes of, 40,
79, 196
Pontius Pilate canonised, 13
Praemunire dreaded, 71
Prayer of humble access, 32
Prayer of Consecration, 30, 206, 220
Prayer for the Dead, 29, 185
Prayer for Parliament, 83, 205
Preces Privatae of 1564, 7
" Public authority," what, 75
" Real " Presence, 19, 30, 31
Reception by wicked, 251
Relief bills did not touch "Vest
ments," 151
Resolutions of 1561, 7, 128
"Retained," varying meaning of,
loi, 150
Ridley's " Zuinglianism," 19
Ridley on Altar Lights, 26
Ritual Commissioners on black-
letter days, 10
RoyalVisitationof 1559, 35-37, 108
Royal Visitors were " Commis
sioners under Great Seal," 43
Sacrifice of the Mass, Bonner on,
234
Sacrifices of Masses, 284-8, 293
Sancroft's Bodleian Book, 152-3,
162
Sancroft's MS. note, 163
Sancroft's Secretariat, 162, 198,
205, 209, 268
Sancroft's Visitation Articles, 163

INDEX

311

Scudamore on Saints' days, 13, 14
Second Prayer Book of Edward
VI, asked for in 1662, 153
"Seventh year of Edward VI,,"
39. 40
" Shaxton's recantation, 295
Somerset's influence on Prayer
Book, 24, 174, 181
Sparrow, Bishop, 81, 82, 84
Statutes : —
4 Henry IV,, cap, xiv,, 2
I Edward VI,, cap, xii,, 25, 238
2 and 3 Edward VI,, cap, i,, 16,
91
3 and 4 Edward VI,, cap. x,, 24
3 and 4 Edward VI,, cap, xii,,
270, 276
5 and 6 Edward VI., cap, i,, 18
5 and 6 Edward VI,, cap, iii,, 4,
5. 6, 7. 9
I Mariae, session 2, cap, ii,, 4,
9. .277
I Elizabeth, cap, i,, 35, 241
I Elizabeth, cap, ii,, 5, 97, 106,
277
I Elizabeth, cap, ii,, its synod
ical sanction, 105, 106, 153
I Elizabeth, cap, ii,, its present
supremacy, 125, 165
5 Elizabeth, cap, v,, 249
8 Elizabeth, cap, i,, 279
13 Elizabeth, cap, xii,, 290
39 Elizabeth, cap, viii,, 45
I James I., cap. xxv,, 6, 9, 173
14 Charles II,, cap. iv,, 279, 282
Strype's Errata, source of, 84
Supreme Governour, 34, 241
Supreme Head, 240
" Survey of the Common Prayer,"
85, 88, 168
Surplice prescribed by Prayer
Book, 1563 et seq., 48-53
Surplice with sleeves, 76, 87, 144
Surplice not consecrated nor Mass
dress, 117, iig, 144
"Take Order," meaning of, 98, 126
Thirtieth Injunction, 1559, 38, 40,
54, 115, 184
Tillemont on Apocryphal Saints, 13
Tippet, 1562, 48
Tippet, 1564, 48, 49, 52
¦* Trent v. 'Thirty-nine Articles, 255,
289, 290, 292
" Use" = employment, 103, 108

" Use of the Church," what, 102
Vestment, The = chasuble, 117
Vestment, The, illegal, 109, 113
Vestment, The, rejected by
Bishops, 135, 163
Visitation Articles : —
Aylmer, 8
Bancroft, 89
Basire, 162
Chaderton, 59
Cosin, 156
Croft, 158
Dolben, 160
Earle, 157
Frewen, 154
Gauden, 159
Griffith, 159
Grindal, 8, 103
Gunning, 161
Hacket, 156
Henchman, 158
Ironside, 157
Juxon, 154, 158
King, 158
Laney, 158
Lloyd, 158
Lucy, 158
Middleton, 8, 222
Morley, 158
Nicholson, 159
Parker, 8, 47, 48, 49, 53, 56, 58,
74. 75. "2
Parkhurst, 74
Pearson, 161
Piers, 158
Pory, 83, 161
Rainbow, 260
Reynolds, 159
Sancroft, 163
Sanderson, 158
Sheldon, 155
Skinner, 158
Sparrow, 161
Ward, 158
Whitgift, 59, 80
Wren, 155
Visitors were " Commissioners
under the Great Seal," 35, 43
Wheatley on " Romish " saints, 10
Wordsworth, John, Bishop, his
notions, 296, 306
Wren's influence on present Prayer
Book, 198-201
Wren, author of changes in Orna
ments Rubric, 1662, 155, 194

G. NOR-MAN AND SO,\, PRINTERS, FLORAL STREET, COVE,\T GARDEN, LONDON.

other works by the same author.
Pnce 6d. Postage id extra.
THE Great Parliamentary Debate on the
LORD'S SUPPER. Before the adoption of the First Prayer
Book of Edward VI. in 1548.. From a MS. now in the British
Museum :- With an Introduction and Notes by J. T. Tomlinson.
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
"The MS. has been copied afresh in its original spelling, prefaced and annotated by
Mr. J. T. Tomlinson with characteristic fulness of knowledge and with great critical care.
Mr. Tomlinson corrects some not unimportant lapses in Father Gasquet's transcription,
and in a valuable preliminary essay disposes completely it seems to me, of his suggestion
that Cranmer had actually tampered with the draft of the First Prayer Book between its
drawing up and tbe Debate."— Dr. Handley C. G. Moule, in his " Ridley on the Lord's
Supper," p. 184.
" I wish to express my sense of the accuracy and research of the writings of Mr. J. T.
Tomlinson .... and to recommend them to your readers." — Archdeacon Sinclair in
the Church Times of October zoth, 1893.
** If people learn from this latest instance to verify their quotations and take nothing for
granted, Mr. Tomlinson will not have published in vain. We do him the justice also to
thank him for recognizing that at the debate the difference between tbe Real Presence and
Transubstantiation was fully understood. That Cranmer repudiated both during part of
his reforming period is no doubt true." — The Church TimeSf Aug. 18th, 1893.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
THE "Historical" Grounds of the Lambeth
JUDGMENT EXAMINED. With nine facsimiles of the Principal
Pictures. Fifth Edition, too pp. Price 6d: Postage, id.
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
"The arguments which his Grace had adduced in support of the points which were
given in favour of the Bishop of Lincoln had been torn to pieces . . by the criticisms of
Mr. Tomlinson . . prima facie it would seem that he had completely demolished his
Grace's arguments." — Rev. G. Bayfield Roberts in Engliih Church Union Gazette,
May, 1891, p. 167.
" Extensive knowledge and acute criticism." — Quarterly Re'vietv.
"Acute and well-founded criticisms." — Yorkshire Post,
" Mr. Tomlinson has given the lead to the [^Quarterly'] reviewer." — Dr. Wickham Lego.
** We have no wish to depreciate the real learning and industrious research shown in
Mr. Tomlinson's pamphlet ; they are considerable." — Guardian.
" When I wrote to you last, on December 6th, I had not seen Mr. Tomlmson's pamphlet
of 72 pages of exposure of that history, which I do not pretend to have investigated myself,
for I knew that he was doing it, and was sure, from former experience, that he would do
it better than I have now the means of doing, and that nobody had even tried to answer
his similar, but not neartj- so great, exposure of the 'history' on which the Ecclesiastical
Courts Report was based. I knew also the verdict of several most able Bishops on it,
whom I met at Bishopthorpe in 18S4." — Lorii Grimthorpe in Times, January 28th, 1891.
London : J. F. Shaw & Co., 48, Paternoster Row, E.C.
The " Legal History " of Canon Stubbs,
being the Basis of the Scheme of Ecclesiastical Courts proposed by
the Royal Commissioners of 1881-3. Reviewed. Second Edition,
100 pp. Price 6d. OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
" Contains a vast amount of information very carefully tabulated ; the subject is treated
in a calm, thoughtful, and dispassionate spirit, and in a way that must carry conviction to
the minds of reasoning men." — Manchester Courier.
"An ably-written pamphlet." — Churchman.
" How [Mr. Gladstone] the Premier's opinions, hostile to the Judicial Committee, have
been adroitly revived as trie basis of the new scheme . . . can be learnt in this pamphlet."
— Churchman's Maga%irie.
"Canon Stubbs' facts have been subjected to an exhaustive criticism in a pamphlet, full
of erudition, and it is difficult to say that he has come out of the ordeal unscathed," —
Manchester Examiner and Times.
London: Edward Stanford, 26, Cockspur Street, Charing Cross.

c
g