to be administered at such times and with such limitation as is specified in the book of common prayer."

Can. 26-28 forbids.the admission of notorious offenders, schismatics, or depravers of the book of common prayer, or of the royal supremacy, and strangers, to the communion.

Can. 29 prohibits fathers to be godfathers and children being communicants.

Can 30 explains the use of the sign of the cross in baptism.42 Can. 31-35 regulates the times of ordination, and the titles, quality, and examination of such as are to be made ministers.“

Can. 36-38 require subscription to the celebrated "Three Articles" before the diocesan, and direct revolters after subscription to be censured, non-conformity to be punished by suspension, to be

and does not include "the bishop if he be present." Ante, p. 226, n. 118. This canon (like Can. 20-22) is supplemented by the rubrics of 1662. The enforcing the order of the Advertisements and directing the use of but one cope, and that only in cathedral and collegiate churches, and at communion on principal feast days, and at such time as was limited and specified in the C. P., admits of but one explanation. Convocation appears to have deliberately set aside the requirements of the rubric and proviso, as well as to have forgotten the order of 1573, ordering all copes to be defaced, so that they may not hereafter serve to any superstitious purpose. They appear to have taken it that the order of the Advertisements was law, and also that the retention of the one cope ordered in and by them, was not more inconsistent with the order of 1573 than the lawful exception is with the rule it proves. The few dozen copes allowed by law were as nothing to the host of canons or choral and processional copes destroyed.

41 This, of course, means the book of James I.

42 This canon recognises "The Apology," and states the principle of the Church of England to be: "That it doth with reverence retain those ceremonies which do neither endamage the Church of God nor offend the minds of sober men," and that it only forsook and rejected the practice of other churches "in those particular points wherein they were fallen both from themselves in their ancient integrity and from the apostolical churches, which were their first founders," the sign of the cross being retained, "following therein the primitive and apostolical churches," and "reduced in the Church of England to the primary institution of it." The rubric at the end of the baptismal service (in the book of 1662) expressly affirms this canon.

43 The canons relating to the ordination of ministers were directed in 1689, and by the royal injunctions of 1694, to be "strictly observed," and bishops were ordered to transmit to the archbishop of their province a list of persons ordained, as directed by the canons of 1584. Wilk. Conc. IV. pp. 481, 582, 613, 622, 624, 671; Card. D. A. II. pp. 328, 330, 331; see 50 Geo. III. c. 60, § 1; 15 & 16 Vict. c. 52, § 3.

followed in a month, in case of disobedience, by excommunication, and if no submission within the space of another month, by deposition." Can. 39 cautions bishops not to institute to any benefice unworthy persons.45

Can. 40-44 deal with simony, pluralities, non-residence of ministers and cathedral dignitaries, and with preaching."

Can. 45-47 order that every beneficed man, allowed to be a preacher, shall preach in his cure once each Sunday of the year, and those not so allowed to procure monthly sermons to be preached, if the living will admit of it; on the other Sundays one of the Homilies to be read; but where the incumbent is non-resident his cure to be supplied by a licensed preacher, if able to bear it.47

Can. 48 regulates the appointment of curates.48

Can. 49 forbids ministers, not allowed to preach, to expound, but directs them to read the Homilies.

Can. 50-52 forbid unlicensed and unauthorised strangers preaching either in churches or cathedrals, and direct the names of strange preachers to be entered in a book,49 whilst

Can. 53 directs that there be no public, and of purpose, opposition between preachers;50 and by

+ Can. 36-38. The Roman canon law in correcting the clergy used: 1. A monition, ut desistant. 2. Excommunication, si non paeniteant. 3. Suspension, si differant. 4. Deprivation, si perseverent. 5. Suspension of orders or degrees, si obstinate contendant. 6. Imprisonment in a monastery, etc., si indurati existant. 7. Imprisonment for life, si incorrigibiles existant. 8. Degradation and delivery to the secular power. Fulbecke, Paral. 11. pp. 7, 8. The sanction thus given to the obnoxious "Three Articles" did away with the objections made to their authority and force. Ante, p. 287. On these articles see now the Clerical Subscription Act, 28 & 29 Vict. c. 122, §§ 7, 10, 15; the new canons of 1865; Wilk. Conc. IV. pp. 459, 475, 574.

45 See Can. 95; Bishop of Exeter v. Marshall, L. R. 3 E & I. Ap. p. 17; Gorham v. Bishop of Exeter, Brod. & Free. p. 102.

46 See the Clerical Subscription Act, § 15; the canons of 1865; Wilk. Conc. IV. pp. 624, 440, 444; 3 & 4 Vict. c. 113, § 3; 13 & 14 Vict. c. 94, § 19; c. 98, § 59.

47 See Wilk. Conc. IV. pp. 480, 576-578, 594, 440, 667.

48 This canon applies to curates only. Bishop of Exeter v. Marshall, L. R. 3 E & I. Ap. p. 17; and see Wilk. Conc. IV. pp. 624, 667.

49 Ante, p. 269.

50 See Wilk. Conc. IV. pp. 459, 625, 666; Card. D. A. I. pp. 340, 366. The Bible, the thirty-nine Articles, and the Prayer Book are the standards of doctrine, with which no one is to disagree.

Can. 54. All licensed preachers who refuse to conform to the laws, ordinances, and rites ecclesiastical of the church are to be admonished by the ordinary, and in default of conformity within a month the licence to be void.51

Can. 55 sets out the form of bidding prayer.52

Can. 56 provides that beneficed and stipendiary preachers should read divine service and administer the sacraments twice yearly "with the observation of all such rites and ceremonies" as are “prescribed by the book of common prayer," on pain of suspension and removal. 53

51 Under this canon, still in force, it is the duty of every bishop or ordinary to silence wilful offenders against common order and law.

52 Ante, pp. 181, 206; Wilk. Conc. IV. pp. 460, 518, 526, 667; Card. D. A. II. pp. 201, 367. This canon defines the term "Holy Catholic Church" as meaning, "the whole congregation of Christian people dispersed throughout the whole world,” subject, as was declared at the beginning of the Reformation, to Christ, "the only Head and Governor." Ante, pp. 55, 56. The rejection of the theory that an Italian laic or priest was the Vice-Christ on earth (ὁ ἀντί Χριστοῦ τεταγ μévos), and that, as is still boldly affirmed, the apostolic throne was "God's visible presence seems to have been unanimous, no one of the seculars resigning his office or cure. See Tablet, March 18th, 1876, p. 360. The Vatican council, in making the pope a Vice-God, has formally affirmed: "Romanum Pontificem habere . . . plenam et supremam potestatem jurisdictionis in universam ecclesiam non solum in rebus quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent"; and has charitably damned those who deny it. And the chapter, "De Romani Pontificis infallibili magisterio," gravely lays it down, "Pontificem Romanum, Verum Christi Vicarium, totius que Ecclesiae caput et omnium Christianorum patrem et doctorem existere ; et ipsi in beato Petro pascendi, regendi ac gubernandi universalem Ecclesiam a Domino nostro Jesu Christo plenam potestatem traditam esse." And we read: "quoniam divino apostolici primatus jure Romanus Pontifex universae Ecclesiae praeest, docemus et declaramus, eum esse judicem supremum fidelium, et in omnibus causis ad examen ecclesiasticum spectantibus ad ipsius posse judicium recurri; sedis vero Apostolicae, cujus authoritate major non est, judicium a nemine fore retractandum, neque cuiquam de ejus licere judicare judicio." All such false pretensions the English Church rejected and put aside for ever at the Reformation, as having no warrant of scripture or catholic antiquity. Not that they were then new, for Bernard of Clairvaux had long before written that, "bestia illa de Apocalypsi, cui datum est os loquens blasphemias et bellum gerere cum sanctis, Petri cathedram occupat"; and Gregory I. had foreseen the near approach of the king of pride. Acta et Dec. Conc. Vat. Sess. IV. Const. Dog. 111. IV. pp. 184, 185; Bern. Op. col. 1507.

53 This canon was aimed at those who held livings or lectureships and did not care to conform, and perhaps also, as Sharp observes, at pluralists. See the king's

Can. 57 directs the sacraments not to be refused at the hands of unpreaching ministers.

Can. 58 orders "every minister saying the public prayers, or ministering the sacraments or other rites of the church, to wear a decent and comely surplice with sleeves, to be provided at the charge of the parish." Any question touching the matter, decency, or comeliness thereof to be decided by the ordinary. University hoods to be worn by graduates over their surplices, under pain of suspension; ministers not graduates to wear a decent tippet of black, but not made of silk."

54

injunctions of 1633, and the resolutions of convocation in 1662; Wilk. Conc. IV. pp. 480, 575; Card. D. A. 11. pp. 177, 280; and the 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4, § 7 ; see also Can. 74.

54 This canon adopts and enforces the order of the Advertisements, verbatim, as to the surplice. The fourteenth canon directed all ministers to observe the orders, rites, and ceremonies of the book of common prayer without any variation, and so (if the "other order" had not been taken) prescribed the ornaments of King Edward VI.'s first book. The fifty-eighth canon merely directs the use of a surplice at all times of ministration. To Cosin, who was a little boy in 1604, and plainly knew nothing about the matter, the two canons appeared conflicting and contradictory. But, at a later period, he added the curious note, "the act of parliament, I see, refers to the canons, and until such time as other order shall be taken." But the act could, and did, not refer to the canons of 1604, for they were not in existence in 1559; Cosin, however, clearly took it that "other order" had been taken according to the act, and his difficulties ceased. And he enforced the order, not of the rubric but, of the canons in his official capacity as archdeacon and bishop, both before and after the revision of 1662. We must go by his official acts, by what he did and not what he said. The very fact that he was put on enquiry, and that his difficulties then vanished, renders his subsequent official action-which, under any circumstances, would have been conscientious and honest-all the more conclusive and valuable. Cosin was not a man to insist on a mere surplice, when to his own knowledge the law of the church ordered the vestments. But there is one fact that is decisive, and that is the opinion of Bancroft. In his diocesan visitation in 1601, having enquired whether the minister used the rites and ceremonies prescribed in the book of common prayer, he asks (unintelligibly enough, if the "other order" were not taken), "whether there be any in your parish who are noted, known, or suspected to keep hidden in their houses any mass books, portesses, breviaries, or other books of popery and superstition, or any chalices, copes, vestments, albs, or other ornaments of superstition, uncancelled or undefaced, which it is to be conjectured they do keep for a day, as they call it." Now, if Bancroft held the ornaments to be still legal, this enquiry is inexplicable. And as he framed the canons some three years afterwards, there is no difficulty in determining what he, at all events, meant by them. In his 1605 visitation he enforces the form of service prescribed in th

Can. 59-64 deal with Sunday catechizing, confirmation, marriage, and holydays.55

Can. 65-67 relate to recusants, excommunicates, and the visitation of the sick.56

Can. 68-70 regulate christening and burying, and direct a register of both and of weddings to be kept safely in a coffer with three locks.

Can. 71-76 regulate preaching and communion in private houses, and forbid unauthorised fasts, prophesyings, exorcisms, private conventicles, new-fangled apparel, cards, and vain conversation, and the voluntary forsaking of the ministerial calling.57

book by merely requiring, like all the other bishops, a surplice, with a hood for graduates. And his successor, Archbishop Abbot, repeats, in 1611, the enquiry as to the copes or other vestments, and so does King, the bishop of London, in 1612; whilst Bridges, the bishop of Oxford, asks, in October, 1604, "whether all monuments of superstition be defaced and clean removed, as altars, rood lofts, vestments, holy-water stoops, images, and all popish books." Rit. Com. Rep. 11. pp. 438, art. 7; p. 450, art. 12, 32, 42; p. 461, § 63; p. 467, § 31; P. 444, § 5.

55 Can. 59. See Sancroft's articles and the king's injunctions, Wilk. Conc. IV. p. 618, art. 4; p. 624, § 14; Card. D. A. II. pp. 323, 332; also the rubric of 1662, which the articles and injunctions shew was not meant to repeal or supersede the canon.

Can. 61. See royal letter of business to convocation, Wilk. Conc. IV. p. 667. Can. 62. See now the rubric of 1662, the marriage acts, the draft of the canons of 1714, and the king's letter of 1715. Wilk. Conc. iv. pp. 659, 667. Can. 63. See Wilk. Conc. IV. p. 659, and the acts abolishing exempt jurisdictions.

to

Can. 64. See the rubric of 1662.

56 Can. 67.

See Sancroft's articles enforcing this canon, Wilk. Conc. IV.

p. 624, art. 13. 57 Can. 74. This regulates the dress of the preacher. In the king's orders of 1633, lecturers were to read divine service in their surplices and hoods, but ever preach in such seemly habits as belong to their degrees, and not in their cloaks." The royal injunctions of 1674 forbid written sermons, and direct extempore preaching at the university of Cambridge. Wilk. Conc. IV. pp. 480, 594; Card. D. A. II. p. 178. Babington, bishop of Worcester, asks, in 1607, whether "have they, or any other, preached in your church not being soberly and decently apparelled, acccording to the seventy-fourth canon." Rit. Com. Rep. II. p. 453, § 15; and see ante, p. 226, § 38, 4; and the canons of 1571, p. 266, n. 274.

Can. 75. See the articles of 1694 and the declaration of convocation to make this canon "more effectual." Wilk. Conc. IV. pp. 624, 669.

Can. 76. See now 33 & 34 Vict. c. 91; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, §§ 28–31.