"Our 105. 0, Jean Christ, which Saviour and Redeemer, Jesu Curat, which in thy laat supper with thine Apostles füst deliver 1945. onaurds thy biewed body and biced under the form of brand and wine; Grant us, we beseech thee, ever stedfastly to behere, and xindig to acknowledge, thy infinite and almighty power, toy incomprehensive love towards us, and that we may alway worthy receive the same blessed Sacrament, according to thy boly ordinance, that thereby we may occain increase of al goodness [1545. godiynes] in onity of spirit with thee our head, and, by thee and thy Spirit, with all the company of them that be truly thine, which be thy spiritual and mystical body, and our spiritual and Christian brethren. Hear us, our Saviour Christ, for thine 1545. thy name sake. Amen. name's sake.”—Private Prayers. Q. Elizabeth, Parker Society, 1851, p. 86.

Now this Prayer first appeared (so far as any known Edition shews) in Hen. 8th's reformed Primer of 1545: several Editions of that Book were subsequently published down to the year 1575; omitting, however, the reign of Mary: the Book is wholly different both from the Sarum Primer (of which many Editions were printed, before and after 1545, in England and on the Continent) and also from Edward 6th's Primer of 1553; these therefore, as not furnishing any evidence either way, need not here be considered: but it seemed to me important to compare the different existing Copies and Editions of the Primer of 1545 and to note any variations of the phrase now under consideration. The result of this collation is shewn in the following Table which

will, I think, materially aid the enquiry as to the authority of
the phrase itself. The Copies in the British Museum I have
myself examined; for the rest I am partly indebted to the
kindness of friends upon whose accuracy I can rely.

All the Copies which are noticed in this Table were printed
in London: the Continental Editions (of which there are
many), being of no value in this enquiry, are not included.

No. 1-Wants Title, supplied in M.S. to agree with No. 2: the Colophon gives the date. No 2-"The Primer set forth by ye Kinges majesty and his cleargy, and none other to be used throughout his dominions. 1545." The date xix. day of June 1545" occurs in the Colophon.

Having thus tabulated the results of the examination of these Primers, let us see to what conclusion they lead us: but, first, I must own that, confident as one felt of the

No. 3-"The Primer in Englishe and Latyn, set foorth by the Kynges majestie and his Clergie to be taught, learned, and read: and none other to be used throughout all his dominions. Lond. Richd. Grafton, vi. Sept. 1545. Cum priv."

No. 10-"The Primer set forth by the Kinges majestie and his Clergie to be taught, learned, and red: and none other to be used thorowout all his dominions.

"Imprinted at London the last daye of Nouember, in the first yere of the reign of our souereigne Lorde the Kyng Edward the vi. by Richard Grafton printer to his moste royall majestie, cum priv." &c.

No. 13-No title: in Colophon "The ende of the Primer. Imprinted at London by Richard Grafton, Printer to the Kynges majestie, 1551. cum priv."

No. 14- The Primer set furth by the Kynges hyghness and hys Clergie, to be taught, learned and read, of all his louying subjectes, all other set aparte, corrected accordyng to the Statute made in the third, and, iiii. yere of our soueraigns Lord the Kynges Majesties reigne. "Cum priuilegio ad imprimendum solum."-Colophon. "Imprynted at London in Fletestrete, by me Willyam Powell, dwellynge at the sygne of the George, next to saynt Dunstans Churche."

The book has no date: it is supposed to be 1551: it may be later, but it must be subsequent to the Stat. of 1549-50, in pursuance of which it was printed.

The "Statute" here referred to is the 3 & 4 Edw. vi. c. 10. A.D. 1549-50. "An Act for the abolishing and putting away divers Books and Images." Section v. of which Provides that any person or persons may use, keep, have, and retain any Primers in the English or the Latin tongue, set forth by the late king of famous memory, King Henry the Eighth, so that the sentences of invocation or prayer to saints in the same Primers be blotted or clearly put out of the same; . .

"

No. 16.-"The Primer and Catechisme, set forth at large, wyth meny godly praiers necessarie for all faithfuil Christians to reade. By Q. Elizabeth [these italicized words are written in ink.] Imprinted at London by William Seres. Anno 1566,"

The Colophon reads thus-"Imprinted at London, by William Seres, dwelling at the West ende of Paules Church, at the sygne of the hedgehogge. Cum priuilegio ad imprimendum solum. Anno 1575."

Besides this Copy (which is in the Library of Balliol College, Oxford) there are two other copies, in the Bodleian Library, of which Mr. Lathbury (Hist. Bk. of Com. Prayer, 1858,) thus speaks:-"In 1575 another Primer was published Of this edition, there are two

copies in the Bodleian. They have indeed usually been regarded as different editions, One has no title, the other no colophon. The title to the one has the date of 1566; the colophon to the other that of 1575. After a careful examination, I ascertained that they are of the same edition. The real date of the books is that in the colophon, 1575; and the date in the title of one copy is merely that of some other book, for which the woodcut border had been used in 1566. Such variations between the title and the colophon of books in these times are very common. The woodcut border bore the date of the year in which it was first used; and in taking the block for this Primer the date was either forgotten to be removed. or designedly retained, and the proper year given in the Colophon."-p. 67. Mr. Lathbury informs me that his recollection of these particulars is quite distinct, and that he still adheres to the same opinion as to the real date of the Book.

The Editor of the Parker Society's reprint of the Primer of 1559 (No. 15) also thinks that 1575 after all, may be the true date even of the former volume." i.e. the book of 1566. But, having myself carefully examined these two Bodleian copies (since I communicated with Mr. Lathbury), and compared them with the Balliol copy, I am strongly of opinion that 1566 is the true date at which they were originally printed, and that either there was a further issue in 1575 with a Colophon of that date appended, or that (as is just possible) the type was kept standing and fresh copies were struck off in 1575 That there was no re-composition is clear from little defects of printing (e.g. a lead standing up) which appear in the copies.

With regard to Mr Lathbury's particulars of the Editions I must remark that either he has fallen into an error, or one of the two copies he mentions is missing from the Bodleian : for both the copies now there have the Title Page, whereas Mr. L states that only one, of the two he saw, possessed it.

The two copies (which are both imperfect) are marked "Tanner 63" and "80. C. 85 Line." The Title-page of both agrees exactly with the Balliol copy, except in not having like it the words "Q. Elizabeth" written: the Tanner 63" has no Colophon and ends with a " Prayer. For the desire of the life to come:" the other copy has an additional page containing "Another Prayer. Almighty God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness," &c.; and then comes a notice

Thus endeth the Primer at large now newly Printed with the Kinges Psalmes." On the back of this page is the Colophon which agrees exactly with the Balliol copy. The contents of the Bodleian copies and of the Balliol copy are exactly the same: the Balliol has also the additional Prayer contained on the last leaf of the Bodleian "80. C. 85 Linc."

dayes letter.

The Sun

authority attaching to the dogmatic expression "under the form of bread and wine," I had no idea that so much additional support could be found for it in the successive Editions of this Book of Devotions; and, next, I cannot but

Thus, then, it is clear that all three copies were printed from the same "forms": whether they were composed in 1566 or 1575 is the point to be decided: it could only be absolutely settled that there was an Edition of 1566 by the discovery of a copy bearing that date both in the Title page and the Colophon, or by ascertaining with certainty that the “Tanner 63" (or some similar copy) never had a Colophon.

It appears to me, however, that the following Almanack, which is found in all three copies (but which does not seem to have been considered sufficiently, if at all, before) goes very far to remove any doubt that 1566 is the original date of the Books.

C The yeare hath, 12 months, or 52, weekes and one daye. And it hath in all 3 hundred and, 66 dayes, and 7, houres.

Now, looking at this Almanack, the question at once suggests itself-if this Book was printed in 1575 how is it that the Almanack only comes down to 1574? For all practical purposes it was wholly useless in 1575 to give the "Easter daye" for the nine previous years: but it would have been important, in a popular book printed in 1566, to furnish the date of that Festival for some subsequent years; and, accordingly, this Almanack gives it for the next eight years after 1566: it seems hardly possible, therefore, to avoid the conclusion that the Primer must have been originally printed in 1566. Moreover the continuance of this same Almanack in the copies with the Colophon date of 1575, (viz. the Bodleian "80. C. 85 Linc" and the Balliol copy,) makes me decidedly think that they were simply a further issue of stock copies to which the Additional Prayer and the Colophon were added in 1575; and that the Bodleian "Tanner 63" is a copy of the Book as it appeared in 1566. This opinion is strengthened by the fact that the Primer of 1559 (No. 15) also contains an Almanack in which "Easter day" is given for the 15 years next following.

The two Bodleian copies contain the Eucharistic Prayer precisely in the altered form which occurs in the Balliol copy (No. 16) if, then, my conjecture as to the date of these three Books is correct (viz. 1566), it is likely that the change in the language of the Prayer was made then, and not in 1575; and this is exceedingly probable, considering the circumstance mentioned by Mr. Griffiths (see p. 265) that similar words, viz. "in form of bread" had been already omitted in the published Editions of the Homily of the Resurrection as it first appeared in 1563-just 3 years before this Edition of the Primer was put forth.

Still it is possible (though, I think, unlikely) that these copies are a revised Edition published in 1575 of one printed in 1566 with the same Title page, and worked off from the old "forms"; and that, consequently, the Prayer remained unchanged until the later date: but to establish this it is necessary to find a copy containing the unaltered prayer with the undeniable date of 1566.

This Edition of 1575 appears to be the latest authorized Edition of that of 1545: there are indeed in the Bodleian four copies of a professed reprint of the Ed. of 1546 (see No. 9), they are marked 8vo. Rawl. 218, and Gough Missal 5, 88, 93: they have no date however; the Typography leads to the belief that they are of or about 1701; but, as there is nothing to shew that this reprint was published by authority so, no conclusion can be drawn from the fact of its containing the Prayer as it stood in 1546.

N N

surmise that Mr. Goode did not contemplate the existence of this kind of evidence, else he must have allowed its force, and so have modified his language about the Phrase, or he would surely have produced it in order to shew, if he could, its inapplicability to the case. Moreover, in weighing the evidence of these Primers, it is of much consequence to rememberthat (like Authors) Printers, and especially Royal Printers, were not free in those days to publish what Devotional or Theological Books they pleased, nor to retain or omit in them what they chose the cum privilegio of that day was not only an inhibition to others, but also a stringent law to those who received it, binding them to print only what was sanctioned by the proper authority: so long, indeed, as that authority was not withdrawn from any given Edition, they were free to print it as often, and in as great numbers, as the demand for it warranted; but self-interest alone was a sufficient check to any departure from this rule by those who wished to retain their privilege. It is, then, worse than useless to allege (as Mr. Goode does of the Advertisement*) or to imply, that the Printers were responsible for the continuance of this Phrase in successive Editions of the Homilies, or of the Primer; for, to say the least, it is highly improbable that a Royal Printer of that period would have taken so venturesome a step as to create a precedent of even such comparative harmlessness as, it seems, Crown and University Printers have hazarded within about the last seventy years: viz., to alter, without I believe any authoritative direction, the Rubrics touching the time of Publication of Banns, in order to make them accord with an Act of Parliament† which was not designed to abolish the Rubrical time of publication (i. e. after the Nicene Creed); but was only meant to legalize another time in cases where compliance with the Rubric might lead to fraud.

"And this Advertisement, though of course forming no part of the Homilies was repeated by succeeding printers in their editions of the Book, even after the Second Book had been added, in which a Homily had been given on the subject, maintaining a totally different doctrine from that implied in these words."-Goode on the Eucharist. Vol. i., p. 41. But, on this alleged difference, see above, pp. 162-5.

+ Stat. 26 Geo. 2, c. 33. A.D. 1753 "An Act for the better preventing of clandestine Marriages."