greatest parishes, but, for lack of surplice and wafer-bread, they did mostly but preach.” (Strype's Life of Parker, Book iii. chap. 12.) They were able to preach without a surplice; but had they read the prayers without a surplice, they would have violated the Advertisements.

During the reign of Elizabeth, the Convocation was never authorized to enact Canons; but upon the accession of James l., the Canons of 1603—4 received the Royal assent, though they were not sanctioned by Parliament. The Purchas Judgment declares that the Act of Uniformity is to be construed with the Canons on this subject. The Canons were evidently intended to carry out the Advertisements to which they refer, and the Injunctions of Elizabeth ; but they are more fully expressed, and, by their titles, seem to exclude all reference to the habit of the preacher in parish churches. The 24th Canon is entitled, “ Copes to be worn in Cathedral Churches by those that administer the Communion.” The 25th, “Surplices and Hoods to be worn in Cathedral Churches when there is no Communion.” The 58th Canon has for its title, “Ministers reading Divine Service, and administering the Sacraments, to wear Surplices, and Graduates therewithal Hoods." This Canon corresponds with the “Interpretation" which refers to "all other ministrations." Yet it excludes the case of the preacher by its title. The Canon also goes beyond the Advertisements in requiring the use of the hood over the surplice.

We have now noticed all the authoritative regulations which refer to the habits of ministers, and we proceed to complete the historical exposition of the law afforded by the practice of the Church.

It is well known that the question of Vestments agitated the Church with increasing violence from the reign of Elizabeth till the troubles of the Commonwealth. The advanced Puritans resisted all distinctions of dress between the clergy and laity, occasionally justifying their conduct by such absurd arguments as that Peter was not known to be one of Christ's Apostles by his dress, but by his speech. The advanced High Church party advocated the surplice in the pulpit; and in the progress of the Laudian movement, when the discipline of the Church was falling into confusion, the surplice was adopted in preaching in many parish churches. But the only Episcopal advocate of the practice was Bishop Wren, of Norwich, who in bis directions to his clergy, 1636, enjoined “That the Litany be never omitted on Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fri. days; and that at all times the minister be in his surplice and hood, whensoever he is in public to perform any part of his priestly function." In 1641 an impeachment was brought against Bishop Wren by the House of Commons, in which one of

Vol. 70.-No. 400.

the charges was, “the more to alienate the people's hearts from hearing of sermons, be in the said year commanded all ministers to preach in their hood and surplice, a thing not used before in his diocese.” Bishop Wren defended himself on the ground that the surplice had been used in preaching in Elizabeth's reign ; for which he cites only an equivocal expression in Hooker's ecclesiastical polity; and “that many living do remember that Dr. Norton, the preacher at Ipswich, did ordinarily there use it (the surplice), and in some places it still continued so, as at the Cathedral at Norwich, at Wilby, Walsingham, aud sundry other places."

There is no reason to doubt Bishop Wren's assertion that in some places in his diocese the surplice had been used in preaching. Probably this was the case throughout the kingdom, as it is well known is the case in the diocese of Durbam at the present day. But these are exceptional cases. That the normal practice is otherwise, is, we think, conclusively established by the practice prevailing in our cathedrals. The argument is well stated by Archdeacon Harrison :

“Though provision was made that the preaching in cathedrals should be constant, yet these same canons allow that in case of sickness or lawful absence, the deans, prebendaries, &c. ... in these churches shall substitute such licensed preachers to supply their turns as by the Bishop of the diocese shall be thought meet to preach in cathedral churches.' And in such cases it is, I think, quite certain, from the evidence of traditionary custom in all cathedrals, that the sermon would be preached, not in the surplice, but always in the gown. Thus it was not the usage of the cathedral as the pattern of correct practice that ruled the point, but rather the status of the individual in regard to the cathedral. Not only would it not be required that the preacher in the cathedral, not being a member of the cathedral body, should wear the surplice,—which would surely be the case if it rested on considerations of ecclesiastical propriety,- it would not even be permitted him to wear, in preaching, this distinctive badge of a member of the cathedral foundation. There is not, I believe, a single cathedral in England or Ireland in which the preacher, not being a member of the cathedral body, would be allowed to preach in the surplice, even though it were the sermon in the morning or communion service. Now at the present day, in any parochial church in which it is the established order for the sermon to be preached in the surplice, a clergyman not of the parish preaching on any occasion in such a church would, I should conceive, ordinarily and as a matter of course adopt the usage which he found established there, and preach in a surplice, not making any distinction on the ground of his not being the parish priest or curate or minister usually officiating in that church. A fortiori, in the case of the model church of the diocese, we should imagine, in the absence of any counter principle, the established usage would be observed by every one admitted to preach there. But, on the contrary, we find the universal custom to be as stated, and this even on the most formal and solemn occasions." (pp. 152, 153.)

Against the substantial facts which we have alleged in support of our position, that the surplice is not required in parish churches, it is vain to refer to ambiguous statements such as an expression of Hooker, quoted by Bishop Wren. Hooker represents Puritans as saying, “We judge it unfit, as oft as ever we pray or preach, so arrayed ;" froin which it was concluded that the same dress was used in preaching as in prayer. But Hooker's words might apply to the case of the cathedral, or generally to clerical vestments in oppo. sition to a layman's dress. At all events, such passages may be met by others, which lead to an opposite conclusion, e.g., Strype quotes a Puritan writer, who aşks, “Why do the Bishops make such a diversity betwixt Christ's Word and His Sacraments, that they can think the Word of God to be safely enough preached and honourably enough handled, without Cap, Cope, or Surplice, but that the Sacraments, the Marrying, the Buryings, the Churching of women, and other Church service, as they call it, must needs be declared with crossing, with coping, surplicing, &c.”

Neither must we accept individual assertions, however confidently put forward, as we have seen it affirmed by a dignitary of our own Church, that the Surplice was generally used in pulpits in the reign of George III. As our own recollections extend through the last decade of that reign, we must meet that assertion by a counter assertion; and our memory furnishes a corroboration of our view of the case. Visiting the Lako district, nearly sixty years ago, we were assembled at the church, when the clerk announced that the clerzyman had been taken ill, and the congregation must, therefore, be dismissed. Upon which Bishop Blomfield, then Bishop of Chester, rose up, and said he would take the service. After the prayers had been read, a long interval ensued, which, it was explained, was occasioned by the Bishop having sent to the rectory for a gown. After all, the. Bishop was obliged to preach in the surplice. But he took care to make it known that nothing but a case of necessity reconciled him to preaching in a surplice.

When we further consider that the law has established a variety of practice by requiring the Surplice to be worn by the members of the Chapter in the Cathedral pulpit, we are brought to the conclusion that the law sanctions a variety of practice in parish churches, and that in such case custom should guide the practice.

The question was viewed much in this light by Richard Baxter at the Savoy Conference. He pleaded for a liberty of action in matters not essential, arguing that if each party were allowed to adopt its own course, such matters would create no schism in the Church. His words are,—“Things left indifferent make no schism. One useth the surplice in the pulpit, and another not; one prayeth before a sermon, and one 'bids them pray'; one prayeth after a sermon, and another not; one at the singing of Psalms doth sit, and another stands; and it maketh no schism."

It is in this light that the Ritual Commission have viewed the question, having adopted an unanimous resolution that the black gown or surplice may be used in preaching as hath been accustomed.

Where the law is not explicit, but obscure and ambiguous, established usage is the best exponent of the law. It is a perilous thing for an individual to violate established usage upon his private judgment. An existing and long-continued custom should regulate the practice of individuals, as having a priority of authority over all extra-judicial legal opinions.

“The words of a very high anthority in the Church, Bishop Andrews (1618), will confirm the foregoing remarks. In a sermon on the text 1 Cor. xi. 16, he writes :

"Every Society, besides their laws in books, have their customs in practice, and these not to be taken up and laid down at any man's pleasure. . . . . Now as every Society, so the Church besides her “ habemus legem" hath her “ habemus consuetudinem." There is such a thing as mos populi Dei.

“ The Apostle used divers reasons (against praying covered), but, to say the truth, such as he saw a wrangling wit would elude. The nature of the question afforded none other. It was well observed, and set down for a rule by the Philosophers, that in moral matters men may not look for mathematical proofs. The nature of the subject will not bear them,-if not in moral, in Ritual much less : they of all others are least susceptible of a demonstrative reason. The Apostle saw this, and therefore finally resolves all into the Church's practice by custom, confirmed in matters of this kind, -enough of itself to satisfy any that will “sapere ad sobrietatem.” In so doing, as he took the right course, (we are sure,) so he taught us by his example in points of this nature, of ceremony or c rcumstance, ever to pitch upon “habemus” or “non habemus talem consuetudinem.” This to be final.'"

Had the Ritualists, who almost regard Bishop Andrews as a Patron Saint, attended to this wise advice, they would not have innovated upon the Church's practice for 300 years, by restoring the ornaments of the Church and of the ministers, upon the supposed discovery of a new interpretation of the law. And at the present crisis, in connexion with the Purcbas Judgment, we would earnestly advise the parochial clergy not to change their accustomed dress in preaching upon the apprehension that the law requires it, or in the hope of thereby promoting peace and amity ; for the results of so great a change of practice cannot be calculated. We would, also, most respectfully express our hope that our Bishops will not encourage, still less insist upon, the surplice in preaching. Let them not fall into the wake of Bishop Wren, lest they kindle a spirit of reaction which may be disastrous to the Church. From Baxter's time, for 200 years, the Surplice question has given the Church no trouble, under an undefined law, and with a tolerated variety in the practice ; for our part, we should deprecate a legal decision on either side ; and even if a legal decision should sanction a liberty of practice, many questions might be stirred in the course of law proceedings which might engender strite. It appears to us that there is a far better prospect of repose if the question of the gown or surplice is allowed to rest, as it now does, upon long-established custom and general consent.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

The Athanasian Creed and the Usage of the English Church. A

Letter to the Very Reverend W. F. Look, D.D., F.R.S., Dean of Chichester, from 0. A. Swainson, D.D., Canon of the Ca. thedral and Examining Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Chichester ; Norrisian Professor of Divinity, Cambridge. Rivingtons, 1870.

It is impossible to read this Letter without interest, and, in our judgment, without advantage. It is the unhappy result of almost all controversies such as that which is now being waged over the Athanasian Creed, that both parties are tempted to misrepresent, because they misunderstand, the motives of those from whom they differ.

On the one hand, the advocates of the retention of this Creed are disposed to impugn the orthodoxy of those who desire to see it altered or displaced. On the other hand, the impugners of the Creed are apt to taunt its defenders with the spirit of narrow sectarianism, and with the lack of Christian charity. Between the two parties Dr. Swainson appears to be well adapted, not only by natural temperament and by professional standing, but also by reason of his position as a Theo. logical Lecturer to the Candidates for Holy Orders at Cambridge, to act as mediator. The orthodoxy of the Norrisian Pro