the third, in May, by Whitchurch; the fourth, May 24, by John Oswen of Worcester, printed from and repeating the mistakes of Whitchurch's first edition; the fifth, June 16, by Whitchurch; the sixth, in June, by Grafton; the seventh, and last, in July, by Oswen.

On the principles which seem to have guided the Committee of Convocation in their condensation of the unreformed Service, I cannot do better than refer the reader to the admirable and complete

Historical Introduction" prefixed by the Rev. J. H. Blunt to his "Annotated Book of Common Prayer."

It may, however, be remarked here that a study of the Book very clearly shows that nothing can have been further from the minds of its compilers than the idea of any interference with the continuity, in all important particulars, of the ancient system of devotion and Ritual. They were merely exercising a power of revision which is inherent in every particular or national Church, and had been largely exercised in time past. The very scantiness of their Rubrical directions shows beyond doubt that they cannot have contemplated a wholesale change of system, and that they in fact counted on the existing ritual knowledge of the

clergy to guide them where their own directions were not complete or precise.

The Act of Uniformity which introduced the new book, states that "the Archbishop of Canterbury, and certain of the most learned and discreet bishops and other learned Men of this Realm," were appointed to prepare it, "having as well eye and respect to the most sincere and pure Christian religion taught by the Scripture, as to the usages in the Primitive Church," and that this "rite and fashion of Common and open Prayer and administration of the Sacraments, has been, by the aid of the Holy Ghost, with one uniform agreement, concluded by them," and was "so godly and good" as to "give occasion to every honest and conformable man most willingly to embrace" it.

It is much to be regretted that a work so truly Catholic and Primitive (especially in its most important portion, the Communion Service,) as this noble product of the genuine English Reformation should not have been tested by a longer use than during only three years. The opposition to it was led by the extremer school of reformers, headed by the impracticable Hooper, Bishop of Gloucester, and the foreigners Laski, or John à Lasco, Poullain, Peter Martyr, and Bucer, who

came to England after Edward's accession, and soon made their way to important posts, the two last, of whom neither could speak English, becoming Divinity Professors at Oxford and Cambridge respectively. The Court, stirred up by "the obtrusive letters of Calvin," and the violent invectives of John Knox, used its influence in the same direction. Cranmer was, as always, weak and vacillating; and, notwithstanding the reluctance of the Lower House of Convocation to proceed afresh, after so short an interval, to the work of revision, another Committee of divines was appointed for the work. The result was the Second Reformed Book of Common Prayer, which came into use on All Saints' Day, 1552, under the authority of a Second Act of Uniformity, which spoke of the Book of 1549 as "a very godly order agreeable to the Word of God, and the Primitive Church, very comfortable to all good People desiring to live in Christian Conversation, and most profitable to the Estate of this Realm," and admitted that "in the Use and Exercise of the aforesaid Common Service in the Church heretofore set forth, divers Doubts for the Fashion and Manner of the Ministration of the same" had arisen, "rather by the Curiosity of

i

the Minister and Mistakers, than of any other worthy Cause." This work was, however, itself superseded within a few months by the revival of the unreformed Latin services at Mary's accession, and is chiefly interesting as forming the basis of the restored Prayer Book under Elizabeth in 1559, and, through that, of the later Revisions. It was not introduced into Ireland at all.

The more important changes made in the Book of 1552 were,

The obligation of "all Priests and Deacons to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer."

The prefixing the Sentences, Exhortation, Confession, and Absolution to Matins and Evensong.

The increase of the number of Days in the year on which the Athanasian Creed was to be sung or said from six to thirteen.

The removal of the Introit Psalms throughout; and of the First Communions on Christmas-day and Easter-day.

The prohibition of Alb, Vestment, and Cope.*

* These were restored by the Elizabethan Act of Uniformity, and by the "Ornaments Rubric" of the Prayer Book of 1559, by which (as was ruled by the Judicial Committee of Privy Council in the case of the Knightsbridge Churches) we are referred to the Vestments enumerated in the Prayer Book of 1549. Yet that year (see note on page xi) was not the second, but the third, year of Edward VI.

The substitution of the phrase “Table” (in the Marriage Service, "Lord's Table") for "Altar."

The "table-wise" position of the Altar, and the consequent direction to the Priest to stand "at the North side."*

The removal of the "Gloria in Excelsis" from the beginning to the end of the Communion Service.

The insertion of the Decalogue.

The re-casting of the Exhortations.

The re-arrangement and dislocation of the Anaphora, (or more solemn portion of the Liturgy, introduced by the Versicle "Lift up your hearts,") by

*

This Rubric has remained unaltered through subsequent Revisions, notwithstanding the discontinuance (in Charles I.'s reign) of the practice of moving the Altar on Communion days, and its universal restoration to its ancient permanent place in the Chancel. The direction therefore to the Priest to stand "at the North side" cannot now be observed in the sense intended by the Revisers of 1552, the side of the Altar at which they desired the Celebrant to stand having now become invariably the West side. Cosin at the Revision of 1662 seems to have desired to make the wording consistent with the altered position of the Holy Table by writing "North side (or end)," but that suggestion was not adopted. Hence it has been supposed that the Revisers of 1662, still desiring to keep the Celebrant at the side (not end) of the Altar at which, through all the changes, he had ever been directed to stand, meant to indicate that he was to begin the service not "in the midst" of the Altar, but at its "proper right," the old "dextrum cornu.”