Of the names of those upon whom the business of Revision immediately devolved, nothing certain can now be ascertained. "The most that can be done," says the historian Heylin, "is to go by conjecture, and to ascribe it to those who had first composed it." Nor is it at all evident, according to the same writer, that this Book ever passed the Convocation. "Possibly," says he, "it might receive the like authority from the Convocation, as the Articles had,"-(by which is to be understood the sanction of a committee possessed of Synodal authority to determine Ecclesiastical questions in the name of the rest ;) "though no such thing remains upon record in the registers of it"."

It was ratified however by the Parliament in the April of 1552, and enjoined for general use from the Feast of All Saints following, that is, nearly three quarters of a year from the date of its ratification.

Queen Mary succeeded to the throne in July, 1553. Upon her accession, the Offices contained in the Prayer Book of 1552 were virtually abolished by a statute enacted in the October following, which repealed those hitherto in force for administering the Communion in both kinds,-for the ordering of Ecclesiastical Ministers,-for setting aside certain Fasts and Festivals formerly observed, and for the uniformity of Common Prayer and the administration of the Sacraments; and which further provided, that all such Divine Service and administration of Sacraments as were most commonly used in the realm of England in the last year of Henry the Eighth should be frequented from and after the 20th day of December, 1553.

BOOK OF Q. ELIZABETH, 1559.

III. Such was the condition of the Church until the year 1558, when Queen Elizabeth succeeding to the throne, it soon became apparent that Ecclesiastical affairs would not long remain as established in the preceding reign. A Proclamations was issued at the end of December, by which the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and the Litany, as well as the Epistles, Gospels,

r

Heylin's Edw. VI. pp. 108. 121, 122. • Dated the xxviith day of December. This was in consequence of the offensive

preaching of both Gospellers and Papists. See Strype's Annals of Eliz. chap. 1, and App. No. iii.

and Ten Commandments, were allowed to be read in English, but "without exposition, or addition of any manner of sense or meaning to be applied or added." And all further innovation was for the present strictly forbidden. But this was not the whole of the projected reformation. The Queen was already in communication with confidential advisers respecting the Common Prayer, and the result was that the work of revising it was entrusted to Dr. Bill, Dr. May, Dr. Parkert, Dr. Grindal, Dr. Cox, Dr. Pilkington, and Mr. Whitehead, of whom the first three had remained in England during the late persecution, and the remainder were recently returned from exile. To these was added Sir Thomas Smith, Doctor of Law. The Convocation being at the time strongly and generally opposed to the reformation, it was probably on that account thought expedient to submit the question to the few rather than to the many. Dr. Guest" was afterwards associated with the other Theologians, and from a paper concerning the Service Book, prepared by him for Sir W. Cecil, it seems not improbable that the Queen was willing to have the first Liturgy restored. However this may be, the alterations which were made in the Second Book, although few, were material, as shewing a disposition to insist on certain points therein suppressed. 1. Thus, for instance, in the form for the Delivery of the Elements, whilst the Second Liturgy dwelt only upon the simple Remembrance of Christ, the Book of Elizabeth blended this with the primitive form of the first, and by the union represented the whole of the Sacramental verity to the minds of the faithful. II. A further improvement took place in the restoration of clerical vestments, the Rubric relative to which had been materially altered in the edition of 1552. This was a question of externals, as the former was one of faith and conscience, but involving as it did the principle of Ecclesiastical authority, it is to be accounted an important element in the changes then made. The Declaration as to kneeling at the Sacra

III.

ment, which had been inserted into the Second Book after the ratification by Parliament, was omitted. IV. Also a sentence which is found in both Books of K. Edward, "From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities." v. At the end of the Litany, a Prayer was inserted for the Queen's Majesty, another for the Clergy and people, and the ancient Collect, "O God whose nature and property," &c. VI. There was an alteration or addition of certain Lessons to be used on every Sunday in the yearz. VII. A variation in the Rubric before Morning Prayera. VIII. In a Latin book of this time, the Rubric on reserving the Sacrament for the sick, and an office for Communion at Burials, were re-inserted from the Service Book of 1549, and a form was likewise added for the commemoration of Founders.

Various conjectures have been formed as to the principle which gave rise to the above alterations; some assuming that the design was to conciliate the Papal party, and others, to comprehend in a latitudinarian spirit all descriptions of religious belief. The known sentiments however of Queen Elizabeth, and the nature of the alterations themselves, render the latter supposition improbable; whilst the former appears to have been hastily adopted from an unsupported statement in Burnet's History. In questions of this kind however an obvious distinction is to be drawn between the

It is stated by a writer in No. I. of the Irish Eccl. Journal, that there is an edition by Jugge and Cawode 1559, in which the above Prayers are not found, but that another of the same year by the same printers contains them. They are all to be found in an edition by Grafton, 1559. [Bodleian.]

z Hitherto there had been proper Lessons only for Holidays and some Saints' days. There were now added "Proper Lessons to be read for the first Lessons, both at Morning and Evening Prayer throughout the year, and for some also the second Lessons." This Rubric was however considerably qualified by an admonition prefixed to the Homilies of 1564.

a K. Edward's Second Book hath it thus; "The Morning and Evening Prayer shall be used in such place of the Church, Chapel, or Chancel, and

the Minister shall 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." Whereas the Queen's Book hath it thus;-"The Morning and Evening Prayer shall be used in the accustomed place of the Church, Chapel, or Chancel, except it shall be otherwise determined by the Ordinary of the place."-Abp. Whitgift to Ld. Burghley.

b Viz. in one of 1560. Collier says, "Dr. Walter Haddon, as some suppose, had a share in this version."-Eccl. Hist. Part ii. bk. vi. The authority on which the Latin books rested was a Royal Proclamation. See Appendix to the Communion Service, No. xxxii., and the Tabular View, pp. 82 and 87. Refer also to Strype's Eliz. ch. 18. p. 223.

desire of conciliating without reference to the value and importance of the doctrines which happen to be involved in the compromise, and that of seeking for unity by the removal of what may be considered a not ill-founded or unreasonable cause of offence. As to the first, there is little foundation for the opinion that it swayed with the Queen and her Council, and still less that it influenced the Reviewers themselves in the corrections of the Service Book. Nor is the notion consistent with a material alteration soon afterwards made in the Articles of 1552. The Revisers of those Articles in 1562 were clearly less scrupulous in their censure of Romish error, than the original composers of them in the reign of K. Edward. For now, to use the language of Dr. Lawrence, "the sacrifices of the mass, which were denominated by their predecessors simply figmenta, they characterized as blasphema figmenta, not hesitating to call that which was universally esteemed the most sacred, and which certainly was the most lucrative doctrine of popery, blasphemouse." Perhaps a more satisfactory clue to the motives of this revision is to be found in the memorable speech of Sir N. Bacon to the Parliament, at the time when this question was under deliberation. His advice was, "that as nothing should be done that might any way nourish any kind of idolatry or superstition, so heed was to be taken, that by licentious or loose handling, any occasion were given whereby contempt or irreverent behaviour towards God and godly things, might creep ind." It seems also to have been overlooked that in the actual changes themselves there was a propriety and fitness apart from mere temporary respects. Thus in the Book of 1552, the form employed in the delivery of the elements certainly fell short of adequately representing the truth of that great mystery. Again, the Rubrics relative to clerical vestments had unreasonably stripped religion of its decent and significant ornaments. Again, the sentence in the Litany was under any circumstances extremely objectionable. Again, the Declaration subjoined to the Communion Service, whilst it was explicit enough in condemning the

See Lawrence's Bampton Lect. p. p. 521. 269, Burnet's Ref. vol. ii. p. 392, and Palmer's Treatise on the Church, vol. i.

d Strype's Annals of Elizabeth, ch. 2. p. 55. Fol.

modern notion of a carnal presence, might possibly have seemed as it was then worded to interfere with the orthodox view of the real presence, or possibly not to present the most satisfactory refutation of the erroneous doctrine; or it might have been omitted for reasons distinct from doctrine altogether; namely, that it was no genuine portion of the Book of 1552, which was to be followed except in cases otherwise expressed by the statutee.

But not to dwell longer on conjectures,-the edition of 1559 having been approved by the Queen and Council, was submitted to the Parliament and passed in the month of April, with much opposition from the spiritual Peers, “but without any amendment," says Collier, "excepting in one circumstance. In the draught laid before the house by the Committee of Divines, it was left at the people's liberty to receive the Communion either kneeling or standing. This posture, it is probable, was restrained to kneeling by the Parliament, and if so, they did no more than follow the direction of the Church, and settle the matter by the Rubric of the Old Book."

The Act of Uniformity provided "that the said Book with the alterations therein added, should be, from and after the Feast of the Nativity of St. John Baptist, in full force and effect, anything in the [Q. Mary's] Statute of Repeal to the contrary notwithstanding."

BOOK OF JAMES I. 1603.

IV. The next Revision of the Service Book took place at Hampton Court in January 160, and was occasioned by the Millenary & Petition of the Puritans to King James I.

In this conference the Church was represented by Abp. Whitgift, Bp. Bancroft, and several other Prelates and Theologiansh; the Puritan party by Dr. Rainolds and three others. On the first day, the king gave audience to the Bishops apart from the rest, in order to obtain satisfaction upon certain

See the Act of Uniformity, Primo Eliz., the Tabular View, p. 80. and App. xxxi.

Collier's Eccl. Hist. Part ii. bk. vi. p. 430.

So called from the great number of signatures attached to it.

h The other Commissioners for the

Church were, the Bishop of Durham (Mathew), Winchester (Bilson), Worcester (Babington), St. David's (Rudd), Chichester (Watson), Carlisle (Robinson), and Peterborough (Dove), the Dean of Westminster (Andrewes), of St. Paul's (Overall), of Chester (Barlow), of Salisbury (Bridges), with some others.