cathedral or parish church, or other place within this realm, shall be bounden to say and use the Mattins, 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 form and order as is mentioned in the same Book, and none other or otherwise." And then it goes on to enact a penalty on any minister, who shall "refuse to use the said Common Prayers," &c. or "6 shall use any other rite, ceremony, order, form or manner of mass openly or privily, or Mattins, Evensong, Administration of the Sacraments, or other open prayer than is mentioned and set forth in the said Book."

Thus a law was passed, for abolishing the custom which had prevailed in England as to divers forms of service; for bringing the Church of England to uniformity of worship throughout all, and all parts of, her service; and for prohibiting all, and all manner of, deviation. For the enactments of the law are in the most comprehensive language, with respect both to what it enjoins, and to what it forbids. It recognises no distinction between the two departments of the service-praying, that is, and singing as if it intended to take one under its safeguard, and to leave the other at large; to confine ministers to particular forms of prayer, but to allow them in the composition of forms of singing at their own will. Singing indeed, as a distinct and independent member, or other than as an integral part of the prescript form of service, some portions of which were directed to be "said or sung,"was not intended to be introduced at all. The Common Prayer was to be used "in such form and order as was mentioned in the same Book, and none other or otherwise." Accordingly by the Rubric, which now appears after the third collect at Morning and Evening Prayer," In quires and places where they sing, here followeth the anthem," is not a part of this Book. And whereas in the 7th section of this Act it is "provided, that it shall be lawful for all men, as well in churches, chapels, oratories, or other places, to use openly any psalms or prayer taken out of the Bible, at any due time," that indulgence is granted with the conditional addition, "not letting or omitting thereby the service, or any part thereof, mentioned in the said Book."

Two or three remarks upon this provision may be here briefly stated in connexion with our present inquiry. First, the provision is limited to the use of "any psalms or prayers taken out of the Bible." It has been supposed indeed by Bishop Burnet, Collier, Strype, and other ecclesiastical writers, to have been intended as an authority for singing the psalms, then lately turned, or projected to be turned, into English verse. But, however this be, the terms of the provision confine it within the limits of Holy Scripture, and give no license to arbitrary compositions. Again, the provision speaks of these things being used "at any due time." This indefinite term may perhaps be explained, by reference to Queen Elizabeth's Injunction, which will presently be noticed, to mean before or after Morning or Evening Prayer. Certainly, however, it was not intended to make way for the introduction of any additional singing into the course of the service, which, or any part whereof, it was forbidden to "let or omit." Further, if this provision relates to the singing of psalms, it shows the authority for appointing what was to be sung in churches to be the same as that which enacted the Act for Uni

formity for, inasmuch as it makes "the use of any psalm lawful," it is to be reasonably inferred that such use would not have been lawful without it.

Notice having been just taken of the rubric after the third collect, as not occurring (so, at least, it is believed by the present writer) in Edward the Sixth's First Book, this may be a convenient occasion for remarking, that when, at a subsequent period, that rubric relaxed the strictness of Edward's law, so far as to allow" the service to be let" or hindered "by the Anthem," it confined the "letting" to the same sort of singing as had been before made "lawful;" namely, "a psalın or prayer taken out of the Bible," such being the proper material of an anthem," according to the Church's use of the word in her special provision for Easter-day; and it showed that the right of introducing such a provision into the service, belonged to the same authority which enacted the Book of Common Prayer.

Thus much as to the Act of Uniformity relative to Edward's First Book. The Act of Uniformity of 5 Edward VI. c. 1, for establishing his Second Book; the Act of Uniformity of 1 Elizabeth, c. 2, for reestablishing the said Second Book, which had been abolished in the intermediate reign; and the Act of 13 and 14 Charles II. c. 2, enforcing the former Acts, and establishing our present Book of Common Prayer; were, in effect, fresh and equivalent prohibitions against innovating in the service of the Church. On these there is no need to enlarge. But connected with the Act of Elizabeth is a "permission," which calls for a remark, similar to one already made on Edward's provision in favour of " a psalm or prayer from the Bible."

In 1559, the same year in which Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity was passed, were given "Injunctions by the Queen's Majesty, concerning both the Clergy and Laity of this Realm." In the 49th of these, with reference to certain former endowments for the use of singing in divers collegiate and some parish churches, the Queen gives directions for their proper conduct; and then enjoins, "that there be a modest and distinct song so used in all parts of the Common Prayers in the Church, that the same may be as plainly understanded as if it were read without singing and yet, nevertheless, for the comfort of such that delight in musick, it may be permitted, that in the beginning, or in the end of Common Prayers, either at morning or evening, there may be sung an hymn, or such like song, to the praise of Almighty God, in the best sort of melody and musick that may be conveniently devised, having respect that the sentence of the hymn may be understanded and perceived."

Here, now, the due celebration of the Common Prayer being first enjoined, "permission" is nevertheless given by the Queen for the singing of " an hymn or such like song" before or after the morning or evening service. The compositions thus described, may be well taken to be, and can be hardly any other than, those which are so named in our Book of Common Prayer: such as the "Te Deum laudamus," and the "Benedictus" under the former name, and "The Song of the blessed Virgin Mary," and "The Song of Symeon," under the latter. And it was in all likelihood intended to "permit" the singing of these before or after the Common Prayers, either in their

prose form, as they stood in the Common Prayer-Book, or in the metrical version of them, which soon after appeared, in connexion with the metrical version of the Psalms, bearing on the title-page that they were "set forth and allowed to be sung in all Churches, of all the people together, before and after Morning and Evening Prayer." But in either case, it was the royal "permission" that was given for the separate singing of these "Hymns and Songs," whence, as before, in the case of a psalm being permitted by Edward's Act, we argue, that, without such permission, they could not have been used lawfully; thus confirming the view already taken from the Acts of Uniformity, that the Clergy had been thereby prohibited from introducing such singing of their own will. The use of a Psalm, we have seen, was provided for "at any due time" by Edward's First Act. With respect to the Metrical Version of the Psalms, namely, that commonly known as the Old Version, that was "set forth and allowed to be sung in all Churches," by Queen Elizabeth for, although there is some obscurity about the form in which that allowance was given, the fact of its having been given is proved beyond all reasonable doubt, especially in the "Observations" on that Version, put together with great care and accuracy, and published in 1822, by the Rev. H. J. Todd: whilst the fact of that allowance having been claimed by the title of the work itself, from a period little short of the date of the Queen's Injunctions, shows also the persuasion entertained by the Church of such allowance being necessary to warrant the use of the version. The fact of other versions having been published with the accompaniment of royal privilege, or with the allowance to be used in churches, (in proof of which also reference may be made to Mr. Todd's "Observations,") confirms the same sentiment of the royal permission being esteemed necessary for their use. And the same argument holds good in relation to that which is commonly known as the New Version, put forth as it was with the King's" permission and allowance;" the admitted sense of the necessity of which is apparent from the humble prayer of its composers for "his Majesty's royal allowance that it might be used in such congregations as should think fit to receive it;" and from the subsequent recommendation of it by the Bishop of London, given only in pursuance of the royal allowance.

Thus the history of the metrical versions of the Psalms coincides with the Acts of Uniformity, in showing the prohibitory force of those Acts. As to any variations which may have crept into those versions, and any difference in the number and other circumstances of the Hymns appended to them, an additional argument is thence derived for the interposition of lawful authority to correct the evil.

3. From what has been said it appears that the law prohibited, (certainly it was understood to have prohibited, and in effect for 150 years it did preclude,) the customary right of the Bishops before the Reformation. And hereby we have anticipated the third proposition, that "this right never fell into desuetude." If here and there an instance of irregularity can be adduced to the contrary, the foregoing statement may be taken in proof, that the right did fall into desuetude at the Reformation, in obedience to the 2 Edward VI. c. 1, in 1548; that it so continued during the succeeding reigns, and was in the same state in William the Third's reign in 1696.

4. With respect to those eminent ecclesiastics of the present day, who are represented as taking another view of this subject, it is presumed that no more needs to be said than to express an earnest hope, that a difference of opinion in the writer of this paper, a frank avowal and exposition of such difference, an endeavour to procure satisfaction on the question at issue for his own guidance and that of those with whom he is officially connected, and, above all, an earnest desire and prayer for such a proceeding as may produce uniformity of worship in every particular throughout the National Church, will not appear the slightest diminution of the respect due to the stations and persons of those from whom he may have the misfortune to differ.

R. D. & C. [Our reply to the above shall be given in our next Number.]

WHEN DOES ADVENT BEGIN?

MR. EDITOR, I was lately induced to ask this question, from entertaining a design for the introduction of a weekly lecture during Advent in my parish. Circumstances rendered it desirable that there should be four lectures; but as last Christmas Day fell on the Monday, there were but three weeks from the first Sunday in Advent. Further consideration, however, led me to discover that the commencement of this holy season was not thus left to accident; and, as the point seems to me materially to affect one of the rubrics of our daily service during Advent, I trust it may form an acceptable corollary to the able exposition you gave in December, p. 752, for the selection of the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels, when there happen to be more than twenty-five Sundays after Trinity. According to that exposition, the Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, for the sixth Sunday after Epiphany, would always be read on the last Sunday but one after Trinity; and, like those for the Sunday next before Advent, they have also (if I may use such an expression) a transition character, a turning point between the preceding series and those of AdI cannot but regard this as designed by those who drew up our Liturgy; and that the absence also of any proper lessons for the twentyseventh Sunday after Trinity arose from the same cause, which I shall now attempt to trace.

vent.

In the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer, the Reformers observe that the early Church began to read the Book of Isaiah in Advent, and Genesis at Septuagesima; and, accordingly, we actually find that our Church begins the Book of the Prophet Isaiah at the evening service of the 23d day of November; which (allowing one day for the eve or vigil of Christmas Day, and which, in ecclesiastical computation, would begin with the evening, or rather three o'clock in the afternoon, of December 23) just gives an exact month for the holy season of Advent, being what is usually esteemed the period of its duration. Now, by leaving the twenty-seventh Sunday after Trinity, which must almost always fall subsequent to November 23, and so within the limits of Advent, without a proper lesson, they have provided that the rule of the Church for reading the Evangelical Prophet in Advent should be adhered to, without the in

convenience of beginning Isaiah at the very end of the column of proper lessons. This does appear to me to account for the omission in a satisfactory manner.

If, however, as I think is indisputable, and which I doubt not might be proved by a reference to the Oriental Church, Advent really does begin with three o'clock, P.M. November 23, ought not the Advent Collect, which we now begin to read only on what is called the first Sunday in that holy season, and which is ordered "to be repeated every day with the other Collects in Advent, until Christmas Eve," to be added to the Collect of the day from the evening of November 23, inclusive? The American Church, which has abolished the distinction of Ecclesiastical reckoning from evening to evening, as also that of vigils or eves, begins to read Isaiah at the morning service of November 23. There is another rubrical direction, which might be usefully obeyed, to make a greater variety in the service; I mean the custom of observing the vigils or eves of such holy-days as occur on the Monday, by reading the Collect at the evening service on the Sunday next before. As all holy-days have not such a preparation, I only allude to those which have; where, I think, the strict observance of the rubric might usefully be adhered to. Again; wherever a holy-day occurs on a Sunday, I believe the ancient practice of the Church, with the spirit of the Ritual, demands that we should make the service of the holy-day have preference, only reading the Collect for the Sunday by way of commemoration; the great festivals, (viz. Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost,) with the first Sundays in Advent and Lent, Palm Sunday, Trinity Sunday, and that within the octave of Ascension Day, being alone excepted.

There is also another thing common in existing practice which seems to me quite contrary to the rubric; I allude to the custom of reading the Epistle and Gospel, in churches where there are two Clergymen. The custom is, that the Minister who stands at the south side of the altar, and acts as merely the Deacon or Assistant to the other, should read the Epistle, while the Priest reads the Gospel. Now, contrary to this, the rubric assigns the Epistle to the Priest exclusively, while it leaves the order of him who reads the Gospel undecided. And in the Ordination of Deacons, the office of reading the Gospel is exclusively assigned to a Deacon. So that there can be no doubt the existing custom is in opposition to the rubric; and that the Minister who stands at the north side of the altar, which is that prescribed to the Priest, should read the Epistle, while his Deacon or Assistant should read the Gospel. In the Romish Church, the south side of the altar has the name of cornu epistola, while the north side has that of cornu evangelii; so that, perhaps, the existing custom, which is so clearly opposed to the express rubrics of the Prayer Book, is but a remnant of Popery.

WHAT IS THE ROMAN-CATHOLIC FAITH?

PRESBYTER.

IN examining the nature of Romanism, it can scarcely fail to strike the mind of a diligent and not a superficial inquirer, that different appeals are made by Romanists themselves to different authorities. is generally understood, that the Council of Trent is the standard of

It