question with regard to the occasional services is certainly more difficult, because in those cases other prayers are used instead of those appointed by the Rubric. Early in the last century a clergyman, Mr Johnson, refused to read the service appointed for the King's Accession. For this omission he was cited to appear before the Bishop. Proceedings were taken by which the point might have been tried, but in fact it was never decided, inasmuch as Mr Johnson retracted and submitted. 'XII. It does not appear that the power of the Crown to order these special services has since been questioned. Three of them were discontinued by Royal Order, countersigned by the Secretary of State, when the Acts of Parliament enjoining the observance of the 30th of January, the 29th of May, and the 5th of November were repealed'. The fourth service, namely, that which relates to the Accession, the inauguration service as it is technically called, was not in any way affected by the change. It had been ordered (as the others had been ordered) by the Queen's pleasure being signified to that effect through the Secretary of 1 These services were discontinued in consequence of addresses to the Crown from the two Houses of Parliament. The State to the Archbishop of Canterbury. It may here be noted that these special services never formed part of the Sealed Book: and as two of them were introduced at the very time when the Act of Uniformity was passed, the power of the Crown to order such services can hardly be questioned, and usage has sanctioned the exercise of the power from that time to this. Other occasional services, such, for instance, as that appointed for a Solemn Fast on the occasion of the Indian mutiny, or for a public thanksgiving on the restoration of peace after the Crimean war, have been ordered by Royal Proclamation. In all these cases the Crown directs a form of service to be prepared, and the preparation of it is usually intrusted to the Primate. On a recent occasion the Secretary of State informed the Archbishop of Armagh that so much doubt was found to exist as to whether the Crown could authorize the use of a special Thanksgiving Service after harvest, that Her Majesty's Government declined to advise Her Majesty to make an order to that effect.' (See Par liamentary Paper, House of Commons, 1864, No. 562, p. 26.) Statute which repealed the Acts enjoining the religious observance of these particular days was the 22 Vict. c. 2. The new formula of clerical subscription has, after the words, and none other, the words, except so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority. Mr Walpole, commenting on this exception, in the paper above mentioned, says, 1. By the 21st section of the Act of Uniformity it is provided that "in all "those prayers which in any way relate "to the King, Queen, or Royal Progeny, "the name be altered and changed from "time to time, and fitted to the present "occasion, according to the direction of "lawful authority.' Lawful authority in this case has been considered practically to mean the command or order of the Crown, signified to the Metropolitan through the Secretary of State, by whom the order is countersigned. '2. With regard to the Occasional Prayers and Services, these have been ordered in a similar manner; but the order has been varied in point of form to this extent, that it has sometimes been made by Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual, sometimes by Royal Proclamation, and sometimes by the King or Queen in Council. How far the recent opinion of the law officers of the Crown may have affected this power, it is impossible to say!. tain things to be done which indirectly affect the form prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer, as that the words of the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy should be changed, or that the publication of the Banns of Marriage should be made at a particular part of the service, the form prescribed has so far been altered as to give effect to the new enactment. Thus the old Oath of Sovereignty in the Ordination Service was changed for the new Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy at the time of the revolution: and the rubric which directed the Banns to be published "immediately before the Sentences of the Offertory" was ultimately omitted, and another rubric introduced, stating, according to the requirement of the Statute, that the Banns must be published "immediately after the Second Lesson." 4. Under the 26th section of the 1st Eliz. c. 2, it was enacted that "if there "shall happen to be any contempt or "irreverence to be used in the Ceremo3. When Parliament has directed cer- "nies or Rites of the Church, the Queen's See supra, Paragraph XII. rubrics were continued for many years 2 26 Geo. II. c. 11. s. 33. The old after this Act was passed. "VICTORIA R. "OUR Will Thirtieth of January, the Twenty-ninth of May, and the UR Will and Pleasure is, That these Four Forms of Prayer and Service, made for the "Twentieth of June, be forthwith printed and published, and annexed to the Book of Common "Prayer and Liturgy of the United Church of England and Ireland, to be used Yearly on the "said Days, in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and Chapels; in all Chapels of Colleges "and Halls within our Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, and of Our Colleges of "Eton and Winchester, and in all Parish Churches and Chapels within those Parts of Our "United Kingdom called England and Ireland. "Given at Our Court at Kensington, the Twenty-first Day of June, 1837; "VICTORIA R. WHEREAS, by Our Royal Warrant of the Twenty-first Day of June One thousand eight WH hundred and thirty-seven, in the First Year of Our Reign, We commanded that certain "Forms of Prayer and Service made for the Fifth of November, the Thirtieth of January, and "the Twenty-ninth of May should be forthwith printed and published and annexed to the Book "of Common Prayer and Liturgy of the United Church of England and Ireland, to be used "yearly on the said Days in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and Chapels, in all Chapels "of Colleges and Halls within Our Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, and of Our "Colleges of Eton and Winchester, and in all Parish Churches and Chapels within those Parts "of Our United Kingdom called England and Ireland: "And whereas, in the last Session of Parliament, Addresses were presented to Us by both "Houses of Parliament, praying Us to take into Our Consideration Our Proclamation in rela"tion to the said Forms of Prayer and Service made for the Fifth Day of November, the "Thirtieth Day of January, and the Twenty-ninth Day of May, with a view to their Dis"continuance: "And whereas we have taken into Our Consideration the Subject of the said Addresses; and, "after due Deliberation, We have resolved that the Use of the said Forms of Prayer and Service "shall be discontinued:" "Now, therefore, Our Will and Pleasure is, that so much of Our said Royal Warrant of the "Twenty-first Day of June One thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven, in the First Year of "Our Reign, as is herein before recited, be revoked, and that the Use of the said Forms of Prayer "and Service made for the Fifth of November, the Thirtieth of January, and the Twenty-Ninth "of May be henceforth discontinued in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and Chapels, in "all Chapels of Colleges and Halls within Our Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, "and of Our Colleges of Eton and Winchester, and in all Parish Churches and Chapels within "the Parts of Our United Kingdom called England and Ireland, and that the said Forms of "Prayer and Service be not henceforth printed and published with or annexed to the Book of "Common Prayer and Liturgy of the United Church of England and Ireland. "Given at Our Court at St James's, the Seventeenth Day of "Majesty may, by the advice of Com"missioners (appointed and authorized "under the Great Seal of England for 46 'causes Ecclesiastical) or Metropolitan, "ordain and publish such further Cere"monies or Rites as may be most to the "advancement of God's glory, for the edifying of His Church, and due reverence of Christ's Holy Mysteries and 66 Sacraments. "Pursuant to this Clause, Queen Elizabeth anthorized the Archbishop and certain Commissioners to peruse the order of the Lessons throughout the whole year, and to cause some new calendars to be imprinted, whereby chapters of less edification might be removed, and others more profitable might supply their room; and since the whole Statute has been kept alive by the Act of Uniformity, it may be contended that for some purposes this power might still be exercised. If that be so, lawful authority, would mean such a power as that which was reserved by this section of the Statute of Elizabeth; but for what purposes it might still be exercised is extremely doubtful. As regards the Lectionary, probably it would be held that the power was exhausted by what was done in the reign of Elizabeth. As regards other matters, it does not appear to have been exercised at all, and, therefore, without a declaratory statute, it might be questionable whether such a power could now be put in force. '5. Lawful authority would lastly mean, according to long-established usage, the power of the Diocesan to relax the strict letter of the Rubric in certain cases; e.g., to sanction one instead of two ser 1 Gibs. Codex, p. 271, ed. 1761, and see Strype's Life of Parker, p. 29. vices where the circumstances of the parish do not require more; or to allow the Communion Service to be read at a different hour from the rest of the Morning Service. The rule upon this subject has thus been stated by Sir J. Nicol2; "The Church Service, according to the "form prescribed in the book of Com"mon Prayer, is to be regularly per"formed every Sunday in the morning "and evening; if less duty is required, "it is to be supposed that the relaxation "has been adopted with the approbation "of the Diocesan, and has been per"mitted owing to the circumstances of "the parish; and as the service is to be "performed for the use of the parishion"ers, such relaxation may properly be "granted in certain cases; but if it be "so granted, the minister must strictly "adhere to the terms prescribed, and "must not vary them at his own plea"sure, for his own convenience, and on "his own authority. It is for the Dio"cesan who is to judge of the degree of "relaxation to be allowed." 'In these five instances the words "law"ful authority" might properly be defined to mean what it has been hitherto considered to mean by express direction or by long-established usage. There would be some difficulty in determining the exact limits to which that authority in the last two instances might be allowed to extend. But that some power should exist of regulating ceremonies which may lead to irreverence, or of relaxing the strict letter of the rubric, where circumstances may require such a relaxation, can hardly be doubted.' 2 Bennet v. Bonaher, 2 Hagg. Eccl. Rep. p. 27. OF THE ARTICLES OF RELIGION. The first sketch of the 42 Articles was prepared in the summer of 1551. It was mainly, if not wholly, the work of Cranmer, who had been ordered by the king and Privy Council 'to frame a book of articles of Religion for the preserving and maintaining peace and unity of doctrine in this Church, that being finished they might be set forth by public authority.' The rough draught was sent to the rest of the bishops for criticism and correction. On the 2nd of May, 1552, the archbishop was required to send to the Council the articles that had been submitted to the Bishops; and to signify whether the same were set forth by any public authority according to the minutes. He obeyed this order; the Articles were soon returned to him, and remained in his hands until Sept. 19. He made revisions, added supplementary clauses and titles, then submitted them to Cecil and Sir J. Chcke for their consideration. The Articles were next forwarded to the king with a request that they might be published and enforced upon the clergy. A fresh delay occurred: on 21st of Oct. the royal chaplains Harley, Bill, Horne, Grindal, Perne, and Knox, were requested to consider the Formulary and to report upon it. On the 20th of Nov. it was remitted to the archbishop for the 'last corrections of his judgement and his pen on the 24th he returned it to the council with a schedule declaring his mind upon the Book, and entreating that the bishops might have authority from the king to require subscription from all their preachers, archdeacons, deans, prebendaries, parsons, vicars, curates, and all their clergy. By this means he trusted that such concord and quietness in religion should follow as else could not be expected for many years. On the 19th of June, 1553, a royal mandate requiring subscription was directed to the officials of the archbishop of Canterbury. This was carried into effect in at least two or three dioceses. The following title is prefixed: 'Articles agreed on by the bishops and other learned men in the synod at London in the year of our Lord God 1552 for the avoiding of controversy in opinions and the establishment of a godly concord in certain matters of religion. Published by the king's majesty's commandment in the month of May, 1553. Rich. Graftonus typographus regius excudebat. Lond. mense Junii, 1553.' This work was in English. At the head of the Articles was placed the announcement, 'Articles published by the King's Majesty.' In another edition of the same year printed by Wolfe the articles in Latin are joined with the Catechism. The heading of the Articles in Wolfe's edition is 'Articuli de quibus in synodo Londinensi, Anno Dom. M.D.LII. ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem, et consensum veræ religionis firmandum, inter Episcopos et alios eruditos viros convenerat: regia authoritate in lucem editi.' Some doubt has been thrown on the statement that the Articles were submitted in their final form to convocation. From an excuse of Cranmer's, that he knew not of the title under which they had been published, it has been supposed that they were not submitted to the whole body of the clergy, upper and lower house. It is difficult to reconcile this disclaimer with the titles of Grafton's and Wolfe's editions. As the record of proceedings of Convocation in that year is lost, we cannot settle the question by an appeal to it. The following account is given by Hardwick of the first formation and promulgation of the Articles: Forty-two Articles were framed, principally by Cranmer, at the command of the king in the summer of 1551. The rough draught was revised by the Bishops, in whose hands it remained until the spring of the following year. It was then returned to the archbishop and again revised by him. After this he sent the draught to Sir John Cheke and Cecil for their approbation. Subsequently a request was made to the king, that the formulary might be published and enforced upon the clergy by subscription. viz. In 1562 four new articles were added, V. On the Holy Ghost. xii. On Good Works. xxix. On the Participation of the Wicked in the Communion. XXX. On Communion in Both Kinds. Additions were made to ii. iii. vi. x. xii. of our present series from a formulary presented by the Wirtemburg theologians to the Council of Trent, 1552. To v. of 1552 was added the list of canonical books: ix. and x. of 1552 were amplified. In xxvi. the number of sacraments was defined. In xxiv. the Homilies were specified. In xxiii. Errors of Schoolmen were called Errors of Rome. In xxv. condemnation of foreign tongue was more emphatic. Infant Baptism was more completely approved: Priests' Marriage was declared not only allowable but agreeable to Scrip ture. Transubstantiation was condemned and the mode of Christ's presence declared spiritual. Four articles were dropped:viz. x. On Grace. xvi. On Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. xix. On the obligation of the moral law. xli. Against millenarians. After being presented in convocation three more articles were erased, viz. xxxix. xl. and xlii. The quotation in iii. from St Peter was abandoned. A passage in the article concerning the Lord's Supper, which appeared to deny the presence of Christ in any way whatever, was omitted. The On the 12th of Feb. 1563, the signatures of convocation were all affixed. Articles were then read and promulgated by the Queen's authority after that she had herself read and examined them. The Articles of 1552 appeared almost simultaneously in English and in Latin in 1553; in both cases they are described as having been agreed to in the last convocation. Subsequently Waterland's verdict is as follows. 1st. The Articles were passed, recorded, and ratified in 1562, in Latin only. 2ndly. These Latin Articles were revised and corrected by the convocation of 1571. 3rdly. An authentic translation was made by the same convocation, and the Latin and English adjusted as nearly as possible. 4thly. The Articles, thus perfected in both languages, were set forth in the same year by Royal authority. 5thly. Subscription was required the same year to the English Articles by the Act of the 13th of Elizabeth. Subscription to the Articles. By the royal mandate of June 19th, 1553, actual Incumbents were required to subscribe on pain of deprivation; future Incumbents before admission. In two or three dioceses this measure seems to have been carried into effect. The death of King Edward in July interrupted the full execution of it. Gardiner profited by the change of monarch to enforce subscription to 15 articles of his own, before the admission of students to Degrees. the Bishops, commonly subscribed 11 provisional articles of archbishop Parker. The convocation of Canterbury in 1571 unanimously resolved, "That when the book of articles touching doctrine shall be fully agreed upon, that then the same shall be put in print by the appointment of my lord of Sarum (Jewel), and a price rated for the same to be sold. Item, that, the same being printed, every bishop to have a convenient number thereof, to be published in their synods and to be read in every parish church four times every year!' The Articles were then subscribed by both Houses of Convocation. In 1571 an act of Parliament required subscription to the Articles before the ensuing Christmas and a certificate of such subscription. On some Sunday the testimonial and the Articles were to be publicly read. The Articles which concern faith and doctrine are, according to Stephens, i. ii. iii. iv. v. ix. x. xi. xii. xiii. xiv. xv. xvi. xvii. xviii. xxii. It is difficult however to decide, whether the words 'which only concern' were intended to limit the number of articles to which subscription was necessary, or merely to define the general nature of the articles. Convocation was more stringent, and required subscription to all the articles. The Puritans were some of them deprived, and published a remonstrance. Grindal was lax in enforcing subscription, Whitgift severe; the year 1584 was called the woful year of subscription. At the Convocation of 1604, Bancroft presiding, all the clergy of the province of Canter bury subscribed. The test of subscription was required from students at the Universities before taking their Degrees. In 1613 it appears that subscription had not been enforced at Cambridge, even from Bachelors and Doctors in Divinity. On July 7th of that year a Grace was passed (in compliance with the king's letter) requiring subscription from all Doctors and also from Bachelors in Divinity. In 1616 the king's letter required that all who took any Degree in the Schools should subscribe. This was done by the University at once: but, on a petition from the Registrary of that date of the time and labour exacted from him in consequence, a definite time and place of subscription were appointed in 1623. The form was, 'We, whose names are here under written, do willingly and ex animo subscribe to the three articles above mentioned (the 3 arts. contained in the 36th Canon) and to all things in them contained.' At Oxford a Decree of Convocation in 1573 provided that students should subscribe before taking their Degrees, and in During the early part of the reign of Elizabeth, the clergy, at the command of |