We read through the great part of Thoughts on the Resurrection, (Bosworth and Harrison,) in a spirit of indolent acquiescence, only wondering why the author should have given himself the trouble to publish the pamphlet. Nor was our wonder dispelled on finding that he attributed the non-realization of the doctrine to the absence of "Apostles" in the Church. Can the writer imagine that such a mere inconsequential ipse dixit can bring converts to Irvingism? and if not, what can be the use of such pamphlets?

The Rev. A. F. has done well, we think, to conceal his name in connection with "Confirmation according to Scripture." (J. H. Parker.) In so far as he advocates early Confirmation, and believes in the reality of the gift, we are of course one with him; but his argument "according to Scripture" is really absurd, and sometimes ludicrous, as when he says, "In Baptism we are made new bottles;' in Confirmation the 'new wine' is poured into us." Catholic truth is scarcely thankful for the aid of these "private interpretations."

We are glad to recognize a fellow-labourer in defence of the freedom of Education in Mr. UNWIN, the Principal of Homerton Dissenting College. In his pamphlet on Prussian Primary Education, (Ward and Co.) he shows, on the admission even of Germans themselves, the superiority of the English system over all the state systems of the Continent.

The Second Adam, (Bell and Daldy.) This is a perspicuous and forcible tract on "the doctrine of Baptism," by the author of the "Sacrament of Responsibility," and it embodies a large part of that earlier tract, which is now in a fifth edition. It is well adapted to the temper of the English mind, as it rests its arguments almost exclusively on Holy Scripture; concerning which, however, the author is led into some unwarrantable statements. Thus he says, (p. 93) that for the development of the Baptismal Gift there "must be the possession of the written Word, as that by which the seed is internally nourished." Now, as a matter of fact, Holy Scripture puts forth no such claim in its own behalf. And it would be strange if it did; for no Apostle ever saw what we mean by Holy Scripture; nor was any Apostolic Church privileged to receive that great gift, which was reserved for men of a later generation; and yet we presume that the grace of Baptism was not stunted or unfruitful in them. Parallel with this error is the mis-interpretation of 1 S. Peter i. 23, where Christians are described as "being born (it should be having been born) again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of GOD. "The Word" in this place, according to the common popular theology, the author interprets to mean Holy Scripture. Now it happens that the language of the Apostle may admit of two interpretations; it may mean our LORD personally as the Author of the Gospel, or it may mean the Invocation of the Holy Name over the person baptized; but we may certainly affirm, on grounds both historical and doctrinal, it cannot mean Holy Scripture. These, and such like, imperfections in the author's theology, however, we would add, will not prevent his tract being of very great use amongst that large class of persons who, calling themselves by the name of "Evangelicals," have really received "another Gospel," which indeed is not the Gospel at all, from what Holy Scripture teaches.

LAWFUL CHURCH ORNAMENTS.

Lawful Church Ornaments: being an Historical Examination of the Judgment of the Right Hon. Stephen Lushington, D.C.L., in the Case of Westerton v. Liddell, &c., and of " Aids for Determining some disputed points in the Ceremonial of the Church of England," by the Rev. W. Goode, M.A. With an Appendix on the Judgment of the Right Hon. Sir John Dodson, D.C.L., in the appeal Liddell v. Westerton, &c. By the Rev. THOMAS WALTER PERRY. London: Masters.

MR. PERRY'S work on Church Ornaments has been expected for some time with much anxiety. The brief notice of it which appeared in the January number of the Christian Remembrancer led people to hope for great things. We are thankful to say at once that our expectations are more than fulfilled. Lucid, calm, and charitable in his statements, dignified and modest in his reference to his own labour, Mr. Perry has produced a work for which every dutiful member of the Church of CHRIST in England will owe him the heartiest gratitude, and which, though the decision of the Privy Council on some of the points treated, has perhaps rendered portions of it superfluous, will deservedly rank as the standard book on its subject matter. Unlike other kindred productions, which have commonly been content with exhibiting extracts apart from the context, and with but scanty information respecting the particular objects of the writings whence they are derived, the present inquiry takes the shape of an historical narrative of all that bears upon the questions under discussion, from the beginning of Henry VIIIth's reign, down to the final revision of the Prayer Book in 1662. Adopting Collier's Ecclesiastical History for the groundwork of his proposed summary, the author has introduced statements from contemporary documents, omitting nothing which is available towards compiling a complete history of the subject in debate. Incidentally, the arguments and dicta of Dr. Lushington and Mr. Goode are examined and shown to be very commonly at variance with the authorities produced in the text. Nor is the work confined to the elucidation of the law in use of "Church Ornaments," strictly so called. With this subject ritualism in general is so closely connected, that any efficient survey of the one must necessarily include an account of the other, so that we have obtained by Mr. Perry's labours a very satisfactory review of English ritualism from the earliest time to the present, the ancient Canon Law of England being thoroughly investigated and an abstract of its ritualistic enactments printed with a parallel commentary, for the VOL. XIX.-MAY, 1857.

2 D

purpose of exhibiting their present force and authority. The Book divides itself naturally into three parts. The first inquires what were the ornaments, &c. in the Church of England by authority of Parliament in the second year of King Edward VI. The second proceeds to examine whether these have since been modified by the subsequent alterations which the ritual underwent, or removed by any competent authority, and states the results of such examination. The third part carries us back to the ante-Reformation Constitutions and Canons, with the view of completing the catalogue of ornaments and ceremonies now lawful, showing clearly what are unrepealed, what partly repealed, what obsolete, though not formally repealed, and what are wholly abrogated. An Appendix is added, reviewing Sir John Dodson's judgment, given in December of last

year.

It would be impossible within the limits of this notice to follow Mr. Perry in the necessarily lengthened details which his design compelled him to employ; but we will endeavour to convey to our readers some of the results obtained in the work before us, pointing out the line of argument used, and briefly noting its irrefragability, and this chiefly with reference to the points against which the Privy Council have lately given their verdict. The whole inquiry turns primarily as Dr. Lushington put it, upon the question, what was in use de facto in the second year of Edward VI. by authority of Parliament? which again is resolved into the two further questions, what is meant by the "authority of Parliament ?" and what are the ornaments intended. Now Dr. Lushington, agreeing with, if not deriving his opinion from, Mr. Goode, and followed in his turn by the Privy Council, affirms that the oft-quoted rubric at the beginning of the Prayer Book refers to what was done in the year there mentioned, " and in that year only, or, in other words, to what is prescribed by the First Prayer Book." But Mr. Perry proves unanswerably (pp. 9-11,) that the First Prayer Book was absolutely not in use at that time. The first regnal year of Edward VI. is computed from Jan. 28, 1547 (more correctly 1547-8): the Act of Uniformity ordaining that the order of Divine Service drawn up by the commissioners "with the aid of the HOLY GHOST" should be the only one used after the next ensuing Whitsuntide, (May 20) was read the third time in the House of Lords, Jan. 15, 1549, and the third time in the House of Commons, Jan. 21. Whether it received the royal assent before the 28th is uncertain, but at any rate it remained inoperative till the third year of Edward and the earliest known copy was printed in March, 1549. It is therefore plainly a mistake to refer the words, Authority of Parliament," to Edward's first Prayer Book. What then is the Act alluded to? Is there any Statute prior to this specified date which has regulated or professed to regulate the ritual of churches? Undoubtedly the only enactment which can

claim to be the authority required is the Statute 25 Henry VIII., c. 19, (A.D. 1533); and "it must be held that whatever that statute sanctioned was legally in use in the second of Edward VI., unless it had been prohibited expressly, or by implication, in any subsequent statute, or in any canon, injunction, proclamation, &c., having the force of an Act of Parliament."-(Perry, p. 11.) And it is evident that there was no prohibition of the ornaments and ritual lately excepted against from these considerations. In the first place up to the time of Edward's First Book the Missal was used, and it was enjoined by the new Order to be continued without the varying of any other rite or ceremony, save as regarded communion in both kinds. Of course the continuance of the rites and ceremonies presupposes the continuance of the necessary ornaments. But more than this, a reference to contemporary documents proves conclusively that no order was given to abolish any of these ornaments while the Ritual itself lasted, (pp. 12-34.) We are thrown back then upon the authority of this statute of Henry VIII., in order to discover the legality of the things about which the question is raised. Between the years 1533 and 1548, many changes were made; thus were abolished all images, (which, it must be observed, did not include crucifixes, the lawful use of which during the above period may be readily demonstrated,) all relics which were not genuine, or had been abused, shrines, lights before images, and superstitious pictures, and certain ceremonies which had been the occasion of superstitious or irreverent practices. But all that was good and necessary in earlier times remained. The clergy performed their solemn functions in their proper dress, with surplice, cope, amice, alb, stole, girdle, chasuble, and phanon. The churches were fitted with altar, crosses, crucifixes, organ, pulpit, bells, alms-box, rood-loft, lights upon the altar and before the Sacrament, the sanctuary-veil, the pax, chalice, jewels, service books, the Bible in English. Many beautiful ceremonies were still observed,2 such as kissing the pax, sprinkling and crossing with holy water, distributing blessed bread, washing the feet, altar and chancel, and consecrating oil and chrism on Maundy Thursday, setting up the Easter sepulchre on Good Friday, using candles in certain prescribed services in Holy Week, hallowing the font on Easter Eve, benedictions with the sign of the Cross by Bishops and Priests, processions with the Cross, litany said in the midst of the church. In Baptism the candidate was crossed on the forehead, right hand, and breast; hallowed salt was placed in his mouth, he was exorcised, signed with spittle, &c., after the custom of the old offices. The observance of days of fasting and abstinence was strictly enjoined; the services were, besides the Mass, the centre and chief of all, Matins, Prime, "Hours," Evensong, and Compline, 1 It was now that Erasmus' Paraphrases were ordered to be kept in every church. 2 We omit many of the legality of which some doubt exists.

in all of which "sober, decent, and devout" chanting was used. Such was the ritualism, such were the ornaments of the Church and her ministers, which were seriatim enjoined at this time; but it must be remembered that there were many other adornments and ceremonies, which, having never been abrogated by competent authority, were lawfully and commonly in use. Among these may be mentioned particularly the mitre and cròsier, and, as bearing more especially on present controversies, altars of any material, fixed or moveable, altar coverings and linen, enriched and beautified to any amount, and whatever else was necessary to the carrying out of the then existing ritual of the Church, which would include piscine and credence-tables. Thus far the inquiry is simple and easy, a mere question of facts, which it requires only a competent person and ordinary diligence to elucidate. The non-existence of any Act of Parliament on ritualistic questions of the second year of King Edward VI., sends us back, as we have seen, to the 25th of Henry VIII., c. 19. By that Act, the title of which is, "An Act for the better submission of the Clergy, and for the restraint of Appeals," it was ordained "that such Canons, Constitutions, Ordinances, and Synodals Provincial, being already made, which be not contrariant or repugnant to the Law, Statutes, and customs of the realm, nor to the damage or hurt of the King's prerogative royal, shall now still be used and executed, as they were before the making of this Act, till such time as they be viewed, searched, or otherwise ordered, and determined, by the said thirty-two persons, [Commissioners] or the most part of them, according to the tenor, form, and effect of the present Act." These Commissioners, not having completed their task in 1543, the 35th Henry VIII., c. 16, was passed, which, while confirming the protection extended by the former statute to the general Canons and Constitutions, further enacted that all such "other Ecclesiastical laws or jurisdiction spiritual as be yet accustomed and used here in the Church of England. . . . shall be occupied, exercised, and put in use within this or any other the King's Majesty's dominions,"—thus investing the whole Ecclesiastical Law of the land with a Parliamentary sanction.2 Such then is the "Authority" referred to in the rubric of our present Prayer Book; and if we were to institute a comparison between the Catalogue of retained ornaments given above and the ritual of our existing offices, we should see at once what are the Ornaments and what the Ceremonies now legally in use.

Did the matter rest here? everything which was lawful in the second year of King Edward VI., and which could not be proved to be inconsistent with our altered ritual, would be equally lawful at the present time. But we need not take any such strict view.

1 See A Review of Sir John Dodson's Judgment, by C. F. Trower, Esq., a pamphlet which is of much service on the strictly legal side of the question. 2 Trower, p. 18.