1548. Edward VI. Other Ornaments those mentioned in 8. Setting up the Easter Sepulchre on Good Friday. 9. A prescribed use of Candles on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday nights in Holy Week, in the "Tenebrae " Service. 10. Hallowing of the Font on Easter Eve. 11. Benedictions, with the sign of the Cross, by Bishops and Priests. 12. Processions in or out of Church-the Cross (and it seems 13. Litany to be said in the midst of the Church. 16. Observance of days and times of Fasting or Abstinence. 18. Chanting to be used in all these (see p. 20.) It must be remembered that many other Ornaments of the &c. in use, riz. Church, and of the Ministers remained; also various other Ceremonies besides those enumerated in this list: e. g., all such Ornaments of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and all such Ceremonies as were ordered by the "Pontificale,"-all that was directed by the Rubrics of the Missal,-all that was enjoined by the Provincial Constitutions and the Canon law-unless they Constitutions and were included among the things abolished in the orders now examined. The Pontificale, The Provincial Canon Law; e. g. Mitres, Cro siers. Altars, Altens, Censers, &c. tar-Cloths, Pa These legally usable now, if Thus for instance, special Episcopal adornments, viz., the Mitre and Crosier; Altars, of any material, fixed or moveable, Altar coverings, Altar linen, the Paten, Incense, Censers, and whatever else was requisite for carrying out the Church Ritual as it then stood by law, these things "were in this Church of "England, by the authority of Parliament, in the Second "year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth,"-and the inference seems unavoidable, that all of them may be legally not contrary to used now, unless they have, any of them, been disallowed since then by any authority equivalent to this "authority of any later law. Parliament," which the last Act of Uniformity (1662) recognizes. Surely, therefore, this is an abundantly sufficient answer to the question of Dr. Lushington, when he asks (p. 36), "Assuming the enquiry to be, what was in use de facto in the Second year of King Edward the Sixth, and for such purpose omitting the words 'by authority of Parliament,' how, after the lapse of 300 years, are we to ascertain what Ornaments were then in use, and especially whether crosses were at that period generally introduced into our Parish Churches?" 1548. Edward VI. The enquiry might stop here, but better to con tinue it. Now here the examination might cease; and it would be sufficient to compare the present Prayer Book with this list of retained Ornaments and Ceremonies, in order to ascertain which of them are INCONSISTENT with the altered Ritual: this would at once shew what Ornaments, &c. of those "which were in this Church of England, by the authority of "Parliament, in the Second year of the reign of King Edward "the Sixth," are legally in use now. But it will be more satisfactory to examine the course of changes in the subsequent reigns, and to see whether any of the Ornaments now objected to were removed by authority during that period. The next question, therefore, is-Did these Ornaments and Next step in the Ceremonies undergo any further equally authoritative sifting, and if so, what residuum was thereby left? There can be no doubt that they did: for some of these things were afterwards expressly forbidden "by authority of Parliament:" it will be desirable therefore to examine all that was done, from the end of the Second year of Edward the Sixth, to the passing of Charles the Second's Act of Uniformity, i. e., from Jan. 28th, 1548-9 to May 19th, 1662, in order to ascertain which those Ornaments, &c., left by "authority of Parliament," at the end of Edward's second year were not removed, and were therefore meant to "be retained and be in use," after the last revision of the Book of Common Prayer. of enquiry. viz. Which of the left at the end of afterwards re Ornaments, &c. 2 Edw. VI. were moved. 1548-9. Act of Uniformity c. 1. 3RD YEAR OF KING EDWARD VI., JANUARY 28, 1548-9. The first thing to be noted in this year, 1548-9, is the Act 2&3 Edw. VI. of Uniformity, already referred to, (p. 9), and known as 2 and 3 Edward VI. c. 1.-of this it must be remarked (as indeed of other similar Acts) that, whatever doubt may exist 1548-9. Edward VI. "Uses," as to the legal force of Edward's Injunctions, or of any Proclamations of the Privy Council, there can be no question of the legal force of this Statute in anything which it abolishes. 66 Now the Act opens by stating that "Where of long time "there hath been had in this realm of England and in Wales, mentions various" divers forms of Common Prayer, commonly called the Ser"vice of the Church; that is to say, The Use of Sarum, of "York, of Bangor, and of Lincoln; and besides the same "now of late, much more divers and sundry forms and fashions "have been used in the Cathedral and Parish Churches of England and Wales, as well concerning the mattens or "morning prayer and the evensong, as also concerning the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass, with divers and "sundry rites and ceremonies concerning the same, and in "the administration of other Sacraments of the Church;"-it which, as they then goes on to notice that as some" were pleased therewith," while others "were thereby greatly offended," the Archbishop of Canterbury and others had "by the aid of the Holy Ghost, "with one uniform agreement," "concluded a Book, intitled were to be super-The Book of the Common Prayer, and Administration of the did not satisfy all persons, seded by a Book of Common Prayer, at the Feast of Pentecost, 1549. 66 66 'Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, "after the use of the Church of England,' "—and it enacts "that all and singular Ministers in....the King's dominions, "shall from and after the feast of Pentecost next coming, [i.e. "June 9th], be bounden to say and use the mattens, evensong, "celebration of the Lord's Supper, commonly called the Mass, "and administration of each of the Sacraments, and all their common and open prayer, in such order and form as is "mentioned in the same book, and none other or otherwise." The statute inflicted penalties upon any who "after the said "Feast of Pentecost" should "refuse to use" the said book, or should "use, wilfully and obstinately standing in the same, "any other rite, ceremony, order, form, or manner of mass, "openly or privily, or mattens, evensong, administration of "the Sacraments, or other open prayer than is mentioned * "Open prayer in and throughout this Act, is meant that prayer which is for other to come unto or hear, either in common Churches, or private Chapels or Oratories, commonly called the Service of the Church.” "and set forth in the said book."-Stephens's Eccl. Statutes, p. 310, &c. 1548-9. Edward VI. There are two principal questions which arise out of these Two questions words of Edward's Act of Uniformity :— 1. Do the words "in such order and form as is mentioned "in the same book, and none other or otherwise," mean to limit the Ornaments of the Church, and the Things to be used in Divine Service, to those distinctly enumerated in the book itself? which the Act suggests. 1. Force of the words "in such order," &c. opinion. Mr. Goode contends that they do, and in order to prove Mr. Goode's "The principle on which the legality of Church Ornaments, "Vestures, Ceremonies, and Gestures, is to be determined," says (p. 3): "The Act of Uniformity, authorizing the first Book of Edward VI, expressly limits the things retained to those things which be retained in the said Book;' and extols the advantages which would ensue upon the one and uniform rite and order in such common prayer, and rites, and external ceremonies' (§ 1)” Again, (p.11,) referring to the Rubrical Expression "autho"rity of Parliament," he asks "Now, what Ornaments had such authority? Those only that were mentioned in the first Common Prayer Book of Edw. VI., and were consequently authorized by the Act of Uniformity, 2 Edw.VI. This is an important point; but, as it is impossible to prove a negative, it rests with those who are disposed to deny it, to shew what other Act of Parliament there was authorizing such Ornaments." Statute. Mr. Goode, however, seems to have strangely misread the He misstates the Statute; it makes no such limitation as he states: it does indeed "give to his highness most hearty and lowly thanks" for "gathering and collecting the said Archbishop, Bishops, " and learned men together," who had been appointed to review the old offices, for "the godly prayers, orders, rites, and "ceremonies in the said book mentioned" just before, viz: the new Prayer Book which they had prepared; and for "the "considerations of altering those things which be altered, and "retaining those things which be retained in the said book"; and it does also, as Mr. Goode says, refer to the advantages which would follow from this new Service Book, and accordingly enacts that "from and after the Feast of Pentecost 1548-9. Edward VI. Ornaments, "next ensuing," the Offices provided in that Book should be used in such order and form as is mentioned in the same book, and "none other or otherwise": yet if the words "such "order and form" are, with their context, to be strictly con It does not limit strued as "expressly limiting" Ornaments, &c., to those defined in Edward's First Prayer Book, it needs but few words to prove that the Compilers of that Book left the Church of England in a position so anomalous as to make it a libel upon their common sense to suppose them capable of it. of the Church, or even of the Minister; nor yet Ceremonies and Gestures; For, as to the "Ornaments of the Church," it has been shown (p. 6) what they would amount to, if the Book itself had been the only authority to consult; for that Book names but seven different things, and omits those which even the opponents of Ornaments would, probably, think necessary, e. g., the Linen Cloth for Communion, and the Alms Dish. Or, again, take the Ornaments of the Minister, which are explicitly mentioned in that book, viz., "surplice", "albe", "vestment or cope", "tunicles". Would this direction have been understood to exclude every other ministerial ornamente. g., the Stole? such a supposition is most improbable; nothing can be more unlikely than that this part of the Vestments should have been taken away and the rest left. Moreover, the very Rubric which names some of these Ornaments speaks of them as "the vesture appointed for that min"istration", i. e. "The Holy Communion": Where were they so appointed? Nowhere certainly, save in existing Ecclesiastical Laws, sanctioned too by that "Authority of Parliament" already referred to at pp. 7 and 11. Or, once more if "Ceremonies and Gestures" were "to be "determined," as Mr. Goode says, by Edward's first Act of Uniformity; then, to take a single and very simple instance of Ceremonies, what is to guide us to "to a place " which King Edward's first Prayer Book says was "assigned for the pur"pose" of reading the Epistle? Not, certainly, either that Book or "the Act of Uniformity authorizing it." While as to "Gestures," no direction could well be more indefinite than that one of the "Certain Notes" of King Edward's first Book which refers to them; for it says, "as touching kneel |