circumstance of discredit. For the pious have always believed that whatever they undertake is assisted by the prayers of the Church.

Mr. Wheatley has also found a feast for the 2nd of November, of which the Anglican Kalendar now knows nothing. He seems to go out of his way to find legends to eke out his histories, as if he had not prepared the minds of his readers to find enough of them in the Kalendar itself. Every such addition helps more completely to confuse the true and fabulous stories. And nothing does so more effectually than relating a legend of a true character, as of S. Benedict, instead of giving the simple particulars of his life. These legends may be individually true or false; and so may the serious histories; but the former have an air of improbability upon the face of them, and therefore increase the suspicious and Popish appearance of the whole narrative. A legend is generally presumed to be fabulous; while unprejudiced minds are inclined to believe the unadorned biography of a holy man. Hence in order to create a presumption at first sight against the whole history of the saints and holydays, it is only necessary to relate an occasional legend, which strengthens the incredulous in their disbelief in the narrative, and acts unfavourably on the minds even of those who are inclined to believe much. And no one can read Mr. Wheatley's chapter on the Kalendar without being painfully convinced that this was his design throughout. Yet this manner of narrating these histories supplies us with an encouraging reflection. If those who choose to do so may thus transfer from the fabulous some of its romance to the historical, others may claim for what is pronounced at first sight to be feigned a more careful examination, for the sake of what is allowed by all to be authentic.

According to Mr. Wheatley's theory an inevitable necessity was imposed upon the framers of the present Kalendar to retain many of the Romish holydays in it; 1st, for the sake of the courts of justice; 2nd, for the tradesmen who had tutelar saints among them; 3rd, for fixing the time of wakes and fairs; and 4th, for determining the dates of events which had been referred to a holyday instead of to the day of the year. If this theory be true, a natural question arises, how the

people were so easily persuaded in 1548, immediately after King Edward's accession, to forego all their favourite saints and holydays, and to allow the Kalendar to be reduced to the present red-letter days? And how did they so patiently suffer this loss from the year 1559, when the Kalendar of King Edward VI. was restored on Queen Mary's decease, till 1604, when King James gave them back their tutelar saints. How also did the courts of justice, and the wakes and fairs, and the historians go on so long without a record of these holydays in the Kalendar? The same influence, which in 1559 thus reconciled those who had seen the ancient observance of them, to their total suppression, might surely after the lapse of nearly half a century, have also persuaded their children and grandchildren in 1604, who had never seen the ancient observance, to live contentedly without a record of the saints' days, or at least to keep their memories alive in their own way, without being grievously "displeased if their favourite saint's name were left out of the Kalendar." Had a monarch such as King Edward VI. filled the throne instead of King James I., or King Charles II.," the histories which were writ before the Reformation" must have remained sealed books till this day, as far at least as the Kalendar of the Prayer-Book could have given any assistance. And the courts of justice must have suffered a total loss of all record of their "days of return." For it is evident that the people, the lawyers, and the decipherers of dates had much less influence in the framing of the Kalendar than the king and the convocation, or else they would not so silently have borne the act of the sovereign and the clergy which deprived them of it.

Again, Mr. Wheatley's theory does not explain the titles of distinction and respect which were added to the names of the saints in 1662, which were not added in 1604. The nativity of our Ladye is as well recorded for all popular, legal, and historical purposes under the title of Nativity of Mary (1604) as under the more honourable title of Nativity of Blessed Virgin Mary (1662). The festival of S. Anne is not better preserved as S. Anne Mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary (1662) than as Anne (1604). And Hierome (1604) is as distinct mention of the saint as S. Jerome, Presbyter, Confessor, and Doctor (1662).

These names I take by chance; the Kalendar supplies an abundance of other examples.

Of the four reasons which Mr. Wheatley gives, the first can apply only to those holydays which fall within the law Terms, and which commonly regulate their days of return. Very few of the lesser holydays are used for this purpose. And the number of days to which the second reason refers is also small. So that the third and fourth are really the most important. But if the third reason has any weight, where shall we find a guide to the principle of selection which influenced the framers of the present Kalendar in rejecting many names while they admitted others. Either all the saints to whom churches were formerly dedicated, and in whose honour wakes and fairs were on that account held, are now in the Kalendar; or there must have been an additional reason for the omission of some of them, which this theory does not account for. Stow, in his Survey of London, says that in the city of London, in the reign of King Henry II., 1154—1189, there were thirteen great conventual, and one hundred and twenty-six smaller parish churches. Among these, there were four under the invocation of S. Buttolph; four, of S. Olave ; one, of S. Christopher; one, of S. Gabriel; one, of S. Magnus; one, of S. Pancrate; one, of S. Mildred; one, of S. Fauster; one, of S. Bridget; one, of S. Parnel; and one, of S. Anthony. That these remained till later times is proved by the fact that, after the great fire in 1666, among the churches that were ordered to be rebuilt were S. Olave's, S. Buttolph's, S. Pancras', S. Magnus', S. Mildred's, and S. Vedast's. And in London at this day there are churches dedicated in honour of S. Sepulchre, S. Olave, S. Antholin, S. Vedast, S. Magnus, S. Pancras, and S. Mildred. Many other names of saints not now included in the Kalendar, but in whose honour churches have been dedicated, might be found by searching in other cities and towns in England; but this example is sufficient to show that the Kalendar does not contain all such saints. And if one chief reason for retaining the holydays in it was that churches had been dedicated in honour of them, why were these omitted? For many of these are at least quite as celebrated as some that are now in the Kalendar.

In the Chronology of History, pp. 104-115, there is reprinted from another work on the same subject, a British Kalendar, compiled from the missals of Sarum, York, Durham, and S. Paul's in London. The assistance of those of Hereford, Bangor, and Lincoln is wanting, and yet almost any one month contains the names of as many saints as the whole of the modern Kalendar. Among these surely there must be some that were in ancient days esteemed "favourite saints" by the people.

Against the fourth reason the presumption is still stronger. For besides the numerous saints who are not now found in the Kalendar, and who as is well known gave their names to dates, there are many Sundays and great festivals which are known in chronology by the first words of the introit. Thus Ad Te lecavi is a name frequently given to the first Sunday in Advent; Lætare Jerusalem, to the fourth Sunday in Lent. A list of these, occupying fifteen pages closely printed in double columns, is given in the Chronology of History; and a chronological Kalendar which should want such a list, though it should contain the names of all the saints, would, as every antiquarian knows, be nearly useless. Among such days, the principle of selection is wholly inadmissible, if there is any truth in this fourth reason. For if any day under whatever name has been referred to as marking a date in history, it must be recorded in a Kalendar which professes to be a guide to such dates. And to be of any use at all for the purpose, it must contain every such day. Supposing there were formerly two hundred days referred to by particular names in ancient histories and deeds, and that fifty of them now remain in the Kalendar, is it a sufficient explanation of the presence of these fifty to say that they were intended to fix the date of the transactions which happened upon them? Unless some more important claim can be alleged in their favour, no one can forbear to ask why are not the other one hundred and fifty also in the Kalendar? for they were not less the names of important dates, and their omission cannot be compensated, as far at least as chronology is concerned, by the preservation of the fifty.

But again, and finally, the festival of S. Luke has no vigil, "because," as Mr. Wheatley says, "the eve of that saint was

formerly itself a celebrated holyday in the Church of England, viz. the feast of S. Ethelred 1." Do any of the usual reasons for accounting for the lesser holydays explain the omission of the vigil of so eminent a saint as the holy Evangelist Luke, because it falls on one of them? If the lesser holydays are wholly secular, as Mr. Wheatley labours to prove, surely one of them would not have been allowed to interfere with the due observance of a principal festival, which is altogether religious. This is a difficulty; and Mr. Wheatley thus explains it: "But that reason being now removed, I suppose every one is left to his own liberty as to his private devotions, whether he will observe the eve as a vigil or not." The question is, not what any one may do in his private devotions, but what rule is laid down by the framers of the Kalendar to regulate the practice of the English Church. Can any one doubt, that if they had intended a vigil to be kept on the eve of S. Luke, they would have ordered it, as was done in the Prayer-Book of King Edward, where the only feasts which were appointed without a vigil-fast were those of S. John Evangelist, and of SS. Philip and James? And since they have not done so, does it not follow that they considered the former "reason not removed?" This consideration is much supported by observing that the system of vigils is very different in the present English Kalendar from what it was in the ancient. In the Kalendar of Sarum, the only festivals which had vigils were those of S. John Baptist, S. James, S. Bartholomew, S. Matthew, All Saints, S. Andrew, S. Thomas, and the Nativity. These all fall between Whitsuntide and Christmas; from Christmas to Whitsuntide there were no vigils. And therefore when the framers of the present Kalendar so far departed from former usage as to add several vigils which were not in it before, it is not to be supposed that they acted without consideration when they left the feast of S. Luke as before without its vigil. The reason for its ancient want of it is allowed by Mr. Wheatley; and he neither maintains that the Church has since appointed one, nor has he shown any new reason for its absence; is it possible to avoid the conclusion that the ancient reason is not removed?

1 Rational Illustration, chap. v. Introduction, v. 3.