AND THE

trary, and the Bishops had to consider whether in the event of THE CROSS her persistence they were in duty bound to resign their position CRUCIFIX. as rulers in the Church. "Matters are come to that pass,' says Jewel in the letter quoted above," that either the crosses "of silver and tin, which we have everywhere broken in pieces, "must be restored, or our bishopricks be relinquished." The difference of opinion related not to the propriety of crosses, for they were all agreed in their disapprobation of them, but as to their own duty under such trying circumstances. Parker and Cox recommended conformity, even if the images were set up, provided they were not worshipped, but Grindal and Jewel took the opposite view.

The disputation on the subject took place in February. Sandys, writing on April 1, 1560, says :

"As to myself, because I was rather vehement in this matter, and could by no means consent that an occasion of stumbling should be afforded to the Church of Christ, I was very near being deposed from my office, and incurring the displeasure of the Queen. But God, in whose hands are the hearts of kings, gave us tranquillity instead of a tempest, and delivered the Church of England from stumbling-blocks of this kind."*

The Queen had had some intention of restoring crosses, but was again overruled.

The case, then, is very clear:

1. Elizabeth wished to retain crosses in churches.†

2. They were removed by the royal injunctions and visitations. 3. The Queen used them in her chapel, and wished to restore them everywhere.

4. Parker, Cox, and the other Bishops were opposed to

crosses.

5. The Queen gave reason to apprehend that she would insist upon their introduction.

6. The question now came before the Bishops, how they were to act, whether they could tolerate images.

7. The question was debated in the presence of Cecil by Parker and Cox on the one hand, maintaining that they were not bound to resign, and by Grindal and Jewel, who urged that images were intolerable.

* Zurich Letters, p. 74, vol. i. P. S.

The terms cross and crucifix are indifferently used. The English Reformers made no distinction between them.

CHAP. II.

8. Sandys, by his decision, nearly lost his bishopric. 9. The cause of truth prevailed, and the boldness of Grindal, SECT. III. Jewel, and others in resisting the Queen were rewarded with

PART I.

success.

The Judicial Committee have decided, that while the cross may be used as an architectural decoration subject to the discretion of the Bishop, it is unlawful in the ceremonial. Their words are:

"But although their Lordships are of opinion that the law did not require the removal from churches of crosses merely are such, both Books of Common Prayer have excluded them from use in the service. They were no longer to be employed."

They add :

"Their Lordships hope and believe that the laws in force respecting the consecration of any building for a Church, and which forbid any subsequent alteration without a faculty from the Ordinary, will be sufficient to prevent any abuse in this respect."*

SUMMARY.

SECT. 111. -THE CROSS AND THE CRUCIFIX.

The first decided step as to images was taken when the injunctions of Edward in 1547, ordered the removal of all which had been abused. The next step was a proclamation in 1548 for their entire removal. That crosses are images is proved from the articles of Henry VIII., the reply of Guest to Cecil, and the Homilies.

The injunctions of Elizabeth were in harmony with the acts of Edward, and images were everywhere destroyed. Archbishop Grindal in 1576, in his visitation, inquired if crosses and such relics of idolatry were taken away. The Queen was favourable to images, but the Reformers stood firm, and carried out their views. The Judicial Committee have decided that the cross is not recognised in the services of the Church, and that it is illegal to place it on the communion table. It rests with the Bishop to determine how far it may be used as an architectural ornament.

* Judgment, p. 125, ut supra.

SECT IV.-LIGHTS UPON THE COMMUNION TABLE.

LIGHTS

UPON THE

The injunctions of 1547 are referred to as the authority for TABLE. the lights in the following passage:

"Shall suffer*** only two lights upon the high altar, before the Sacrament, which, for the signification that Christ is the very true light of the world, they shall suffer to remain still."*

It is urged that these suggestions possess statutory force having been issued under the 31st and 34th of Hen. VIII., which gave to royal proclamations such effect. In reply to this, it is sufficient to state, as we do in the words of Mr. Shaw, an eminent Barrister,

"The injunctions were put forth in the summer of 1547, and in the ensuing winter was passed the statute 1 Edward VI. c. 12, which repealed the acts in question, declaring them 'void and of no effect." "+

It is very clear, therefore, that the injunctions do not possess parliamentary authority. On the contrary, the publication of the book of 1549, and the act of uniformity giving it effect completely altered. the ecclesiastical law. Until 1549, the Latin Mass, recognised by the above injunctions, remained, but the first book completely set it aside. A royal proclamation now went forth for the entire removal of lights on the table.‡

"That all parsons, vicars, and curates omit, in the reading of the injunctions, all such as make mention of the Popish Mass, of chantries, of candles upon the altar, or any other such like thing.

Item for a uniformity:-That no minister do counterfeit the Popish mass, so as to kiss the Lord's table; washing his fingers every time in

* Cranmer's Works, p. 499, vol. ii. P. S.

† Contemporary Review, Jan. 1866.

See note, p. 46. It appears that an unfair description of the Book of Common Prayer, and its rites, had been given to Calvin by the Anti-Prayer Book party, and that he was misled by the same when he described the service as containing in it "tolerabiles ineptias." Amongst other things, he was told that the English had lights upon the table. That he was misinformed is admitted in the "additional notes" to Nicholls' Common Prayer, attributed to Cosin, Andrewes, &c., which represent the Scots as presenting the book to him “in the worst way they could.” p. 37. Lond. 1712. It is quite true that the Romanizers disregarded the book, and continued many of their objectionable practices, amongst which was the setting of lights upon the Lord's board. Hence the injunction of Ridley, quoted at p. 41, in which he forbids these things, and requires the clergy to use "only the ceremonies of the book of Common Prayer, and none other." Bishop Hooper complained, in a letter to Bullinger, of the way in which semi-conformists evaded the Prayer Book, (Original Letters, p. 71), and this evasion has been referred to as an evidence of the authorised use of lights during that period.

CHAP. II. the Communion; blessing his eyes with the paten or sudary: or crossing his hand with the paten; shifting of the book from one place to another; PART I. laying down and licking the chalice of the Communion; holding up his SECT. IV. fingers, hands, or thumbs, joined towards his temples; breathing upon the bread or chalice; showing the sacrament openly before the distribution of the Communion; ringing of sacrying bells; or setting any light upon the Lord's board at any time; and, finally, to use no other ceremonies than are appointed in the King's Book of Common Prayer, or kneeling otherwise than are appointed in the King's Book of Common Prayer, or kneeling otherwise than in the said book."**

Ridley's injunctions were framed in obedience to this, and correspond with it even verbally.†

As the law now stands the lights on the table are illegal. The rubric, as interpreted by the Judicial Committee, limits the ornaments used in service to the prescriptions of the first book. But the first book does not prescribe the use of lights upon the table. Therefore lights upon the table do not come within the limits of the rubric, and are illegal. Edward's act of uniformity required the service to be performed "in such form as is mentioned in the same book and none other or otherwise."

The question of lights did not come formally before Dr. Lushington, but that of candlesticks without lights. He did not feel it necessary to order the removal of the candlesticks, which might be regarded as subsidiary to the evening service, where it might be required to light the chancel, but on the subject of lights in the day time his reasoning is very conclusive.

"The ordinance of Archbishop Reynolds refers to the celebration of the mass. The mass is gone-root and branch, extirpated by the authority of Parliament, especially in the establishment of the Book of Common Prayer. What becomes then of an ordinance which relates to the mass? The accessary is extinguished with the principal, and all that was prescribed to be done at the celebration of mass is wholly extinguished. Were this otherwise, what would be the result? Protestant worship would be mixed up with Popish rites. Then, as to the injunction of 1547. Two lights upon the high altar, says the injunction. Where is the high altar now? Abolished, if Sir Herbert Jenner Fust be right,‡ and with all the attributes to it not expressly recognized by our Church

*Cardwell's Doc. An. p. 74, vol. i. ut supra.

See Ridley's Injunctions, p. 41.

Abolished, since Sir Herbert's decision, according to the judgment of the Privy Council, 1847.

UPON THE

in its Articles and Prayer Book ;-abolished, and a Communion table LIGHTS established in its stead; and of what kind ?-in its material, in its shape, TABLE. and in its moveability, directly opposed to the high altar of Roman Catholic times. How can lights upon the high altar apply to the present communion table? But does the train of reasoning stop here? That injunction is limited to the placing them before the sacrament. First, then, it is no authority for placing the lights at any other time; secondly, "before the sacrament," thereby meaning the mass,—and not the administration of the holy communion. I hold the ordinance of Archbishop Reynolds and the injunction of Edward the Sixth to be utterly incompatible with the doctrines and ritual of the Church of England. Not that the candles and candlesticks have anything to do with the doctrines and ritual of the Church, but that the use of them was proscribed in conjunction with other Popish observances utterly inconsistent with the doctrine and formularies of our Church, and is altogether abolished by what our Church has substituted. I dismiss, therefore, this consideration, and fall back upon what I have already stated, and especially that even in the early times of King Edward the Sixth it was held that by the first Book of Common Prayer and the Statute respecting it, the use of lighted candles on the altar was prohibited."

The learned Judge goes on to state that lighted candles are unlawful, except for the bona fide purpose of giving light. As ornaments they are irreconcileable with the law. The Church of England ridicules the idea of lights, when she says in her Homilies :-" For in the day it needeth not, but was ever a proverb of foolishness to light a candle at noon time."

This decision, not having been referred to a higher court nor overruled, may be regarded as the declaration of law now existing.

SUMMARY.

SECT. IV.-LIGHTS UPON THE COMMUNION TABLE.

The injunctions of 1547, which directed the use of two lights on the altar, were published at a period when the Reformers were but emerging from Romish errors.

These injunctions recognised the "high altar," and allowed the use of the images which had not been abused. In 1548, an Order of Council directed the removal of all images, and the book of 1549 ignores the lights. The act giving Parliamentary force to injunctions and proclamations was repealed by the 1st of Edward VI. Edward's Act of Uniformity, enacts that ministers shall celebrate the Lord's supper, &c., "in such form

* The Judgment, edited by Bayford, p. 52. London, 1855.

U