The Archbishop of York similarly inquires (1571):

"Whether in your churches and chappels all aulters be utterly taken down and cleane removed, even unto the foundations and whether your rood-lofts be taken down?" &c. &c.*

.

In the diocese of St. David's, later on, the bishop required that "images, pictures, and al monumentes of fained miracles, as well in walles as in glasse windowes be defaced; and namely the Image of the Crucifixe and the two Maries in the chauncell windowes," also that the rood screens should be pulled down.t

In those days at least there was no question as to the force of the Ornaments rubric or the meaning of the English Reformation.

Mr. Nye, we have seen, is here guilty, to say the least, of suppressio veri. But Mr. Wakeman goes further. He indulges in a painfully direct suggestio falsi. For he does not merely write of "the wrecking and pillaging of churches by Puritan mobs" under the Long Parliament, and of its destruction of "painted glass and carved stonework in London churches and streets as monuments of superstition " (pp. 373, 374), while carefully ignoring the above destruction under Elizabeth; but he even asserts that "in September 1560 she issued a proclamation to restrain the defacing of carved monuments and stained glass windows" (p. 334). The reader, therefore, is led to believe that her only action was directly opposed to all such "defacing" as unauthorised, although, as we have seen, it was actually enjoined in her own "injunctions"! We must again imagine Mr. Wakeman's shudder when we dare to test his statement, by examining the "proclamation" for ourselves. We at once discover, on doing so, how its purport is misrepresented. It explains that the authorities "gave or had charge only to deface monuments of idolatry and false feigned miracles," not monuments "which were erected up . . . only to show a memory to the posterity of the persons there buried," &c. . . . "for the only memory of them to their posterity . . . and not for any religious honour." If destroyed, "the true understanding of divers families in this realme . . . is thereby so darkened as the true course of their inheritance may be hereafter interrupted."§ So far, then, was this proclamation from forbidding the destruction described above that it actually confirms the "charge" to destroy such "monuments of idolatry as we have seen systematically "defaced" in the Lincolnshire returns.

One is reminded of Mr. Wakeman's quotation from Laud's speech on the scaffold (p. 372), in which he deliberately suppresses, after

"The Church under Queen Elizabeth," p. 61. Ibid. pp. 127-8. See pp. 348-9. See this proclamation in Fuller's "Church History," Book ix. sec. 36 (ed. 1837, ii. 459), and Strype's Annals of the Reformation" ed. 1824), i. 279. A good illustration of the scandals which made this proclamation necessary is found in Sir J. Harrington's "Brief View of the State of the Church," p. 85, quoted by Dr. Lee. Coventry church was robbed of its tombstone brasses "for avoiding superstition," by a man "with a counterfeit commission."

66

"bosom of the Church of England," the words "established by Law," and ignores, of course, Laud's addition that he had always lived in the Protestant religion established in England."

At doctrine, obviously, I can only glance. But when we read that the "reaction against the Protestant movement of the sixteenth century began with Hooker and Bancroft and the canons of 1601 ” (p. 492), it is well to remember that this movement was directed not against Protestantism, but against that separatist Puritanism, with which Mr. Wakeman would confuse it. Hooker notoriously and explicitly rejected that doctrine of the Real Presence which is that, according to Mr. Wakeman, of the Church of England. Bancroft went further, and gave his sanction to a work in which that docrine is described as an "abominable" error. Of this work Mr. Pocock wrote:

"Rogers' exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, the most valuable work on the subject that has ever been published, and which passed through about twelve editions from its appearance in 1579 to 1668. And it must be remembered that he was chaplain to Bancroft, Whitgift's successor at Canterbury, that his preface published in 1607 $ was addressed to the archbishop, and that the work must be considered to have the primate's imprimatur."

This notable work was entitled:

"The faith, doctrine, and religion professed and protected in the Realme of England and dominions of the same perused and by the lawfull authority of the Church of England allowed to be made publique."

It was printed at the Cambridge University Press, and it quotes, at the outset, from "the canons of 1604." Fearless, indeed, in those days, was the teaching of "the Church of England." It knew well what it meant by its 31st Article; and, in the light of that meaning, all Tractarian sophistries are scattered broadcast to the winds:

.. blasphemous fables. For it is a fable that the Masse is a sacrifice, a fable that the said Masse is any whit profitable for the quick much lesse for the dead.

"Next dangerous deceipts. For hereby men are to believe that the priest offereth up Christ contrary to the Scriptures. .

"All which their fables and deceipts do tend to the utter abolishing of

"Cyprianus Anglicus (1671), p. 500.

"The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament" (Works, ed. 1807, v. 330). Hooker, who thus decisively asserts the Receptionist doctrine of Calvin, is one of the three divines, who according to Mr. Wakeman (p. 330) have given us "English Theology as we now know it" (cf. p. 315).

"Abominable therefore be the Popish errors, viz., that . . . . After the consecration in the wonderfull Sacrament of the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of our Lord is; and that not only in the use, while it is taken, but after also and afore in the Host " (Rogers on the Articles, p. 174). The doctrine here condemned is that which according to Mr. Wakeman (p. 282)" is intended to be taught by the formularies of the Church of England as reformed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries." It is condemned, we should observe, as opposed to the Receptionist ("not only in the use, while it is taken, but after also and afore").

§ I quote from this edition, but I think, from the Preface, that its true date was 1008 (1607 8). "English Historical Review" (1886), i. 692.

true religion. Therefore, justly have we and our godly brethren abandoned the masse" (p. 184).

In dealing, as he does, very carefully with the "Relations of the Evangelicals to the Church" (p. 451), Mr. Wakeman admits that they turned to the formularies of the Church for support, and found in the Articles and Homilies a good deal of language which seemed to tell strongly in their favour. "But the Prayer-book," he insists, "told as strongly the other way," for even under Elizabeth, in spite of its Protestant genesis, he describes it as "a Prayer-book of Catholic doctrine and ceremonial" (p. 334). Now this assertion can be tested in a simple and decisive manner. Mr. Wakeman and his friends would be the first to urge that the Liturgy (i.e., the Communion-service) is the most vital matter in the whole Prayer-book. What are the attitudes towards it, respectively, of the Sacerdotalists and the Evangelicals? The former desire to add to it, to subtract from it, to alter it altogether; nay, they insist on changing its very name.§ For the "incongruities," from their standpoint, are, to quote a phrase of Mr. Wakeman's, "irritatingly obvious." But the latter accept it fully and gladly as a frankly Protestant service.|| Who then are the loyal sons of the Church? Who are the "good Churchmen"?

At the close of Mr. Wakeman's book he throws off at last the mask:

"From the point of view of history the Church revival of the present century is seen to be nothing more than the complete reaction against the Protestant movement of the sixteenth century.

"If the revival of the present century means anything at all, it means the complete restoration of the balance to the point which it had reached when foreign Protestantism began seriously to influence the English Reformation. It means the restoration of the Church of England to the position which it held when Edward VI. came to the throne' (pp. 492, 493).

Habemus confitentem. As Mr. Child has shown in this REVIEW, "the earlier High Church writers" of the Oxford movement professed to be upholding only, against subsequent perversions, the true "principles of the Reformation." Now, at length, we are cynically told that the real aim of the whole movement is exactly what Dean Farrar

* Even the present Bishop of London writes of the "Re-establishment of Protestantism" on Elizabeth's accession ("Age of Elizabeth," p. 17).

† A London clergyman describing himself as "a stickler for law and order" expressed the hope, in the Guardian, that the Bishop would as soon as possible sanction the omission of the second half of the words of administration, which he had already discontinued.

By substituting the "First" Prayer-book or even the Use of Sarum.

To the Mass," described by the Bishop of Chichester to his clergy as "the stupidest" name possible and "certain to raise thoughts in the minds of others which are foreign to your meaning " (Guardian, July 27, 1898). But are they?

The words of administration, pace Mr. Wakeman, might, as even Mr. Pocock is forced as an expert to admit, have been adopted by Zwinglians or Calvinists" ("English Historical Review," i. 689). Grammatically construed, of course, they can only be understood as directly denying the doctrine of the "objective" Presence.

Vol. Ixii. pp. 738-9.

has asserted in these pages-the overthrow of the Reformation.* And included in that overthrow is not only the existing Prayer-book -that which Mr. Wakeman professes to exalt-but every one of those which have appeared since "Edward VI. came to the throne." Is it true, or is it not, that, in the words of Archbishop Tait, there is "what I feel obliged to call a conspiracy within our own body against the doctrine, the discipline, and the practice of our Reformed Church"?

Here is Mr. Wakeman's book openly confessing the fact, and greeted, we find, with a chorus of praise by bishops, by canons, and by heads of theological colleges. The issue is clear: it is recognised by accuser and accused alike that there is no question of subjection to the rejected domination of Rome. "We are going," said the typical clergyman quoted by Sir William Harcourt, "to have everything here except the Pope." For, as has been grimly observed by one of his supporters in the Press:

"The extreme Ritualists of to-day may be acquitted of any leaning to the Roman obedience,' or, indeed, to any other obedience."

Mr. Wakeman himself repudiates (p. 493) the domination of the Pope as explicitly as the rest of his party.

It is then a clear question, an unmistakable issue, on which the nation turns to the Primate of all England for an answer at the present crisis. And here is his reply. Asserting-doubtless with a view to the words of his great predecessor-that "it is absurd to speak of conspiracy," he thus addresses his assembled clergy:

"It is said that there is a great conspiracy to Romanise the Church of England and to bring us back into subjection to the domination from which we freed ourselves at the period of the Reformation . . . but that the great body of the clergy of the Church of England have the smallest desire to submit themselves to the domination of Rome I am quite certain is not the fact." S

Even the loyal Guardian, in its leading article on the speech, was compelled to observe frankly that the Primate was beating the air:

"We have never met the extremist who desired any domination except his own, and possibly that of his 'master of the ceremonies.'" ||

The real charge we have seen is notorious: it is made by the Primate's own Dean. Surely there is, to the thoughtful observer, no more disquieting sign of the times than that the Archbishop of Canterbury himself should deliberately raise a false issue, presumably because, for reasons of his own, he dares not face the true one.

*

J. HORACE ROUND.

Undoing of the Work of the Reformation," CONTEMPORARY REVIEW, vol. lxiv. + Quoted by Sir W. Harcourt.

pp. 60-73.

I only quote the words (whether accurate or not) as illustrating what Sir William's charge really is. It was definitely formulated by him at the outset ; "There is at present in the Church of England a conspiracy to overthrow the principles of the English Reformation" (Morning Post, June 17, 1898). Ibid. p. 1121.

§ Report in the Guardian, July 20, 1898.

THE LIKENESS OF CHRIST

REX REGUM.

T

HE Dean of Canterbury has been examining my "Rex Regum in the light of the opinions of the Fathers from the third to the ninth century; and I am not at all surprised that he should have discovered differences between the conclusions of an artist of the present day and the views of theological disputants of the Middle Ages. What does surprise me a little is that the Dean should not have perceived that while I limit myself to the simpler question of the authenticity of the commonly received likeness of Christ, they address themselves rather to the more complex question whether it should be used in religious ceremonial. It is, of course, quite true, as my courteous opponent says, that many of the Fathers, particularly those of the third and fourth centuries, did protest-some of them vehemently-against bringing the likeness into the churches. But it is equally true that these protests, while still "hot i' the mouth," were ignored, or overruled, or rejected, by the universal practice of Christendom. From the beginning of the fourth century, when Constantine emancipated the Christians from Pagan tyranny, to the days of St. John of Damascus, when Dr. Farrar admits that the fullest sanction of the Church was given to pictorial representations of our Blessed Lord, there was not a basilica erected without the face of Christ being emblazoned on its walls, in the sight of all men, priests and people, as the most precious of their possessions, the most splendid of the visible evidences and declarations of their faith. The Fathers may have steadily argued against it, but the builders of the churches as steadily persisted. What does it avail now to say that Eusebius, or Epiphanius, or Augustine, or anybody else during this period, objected to the likeness, and proposed its destruction from the churches, when we know that it was not destroyed, but, on the contrary, was cherished,