themselves, and pretend to exercise any kind of ministerie in the churche of God without imposition of hands and lawful calling by ordinarie authoritie, and whether any admitted but the deaconrie usurpe the office of the minister?" It cannot be pretended even, that the lawful calling, of which Parker speaks, was, as some might perhaps argue, the being set apart by a Presbyterian church; for it is well known, that deacons were not allowed by the Puritans, whereas it is evident from the use of the term "deaconrie" that none but Episcopal orders were contemplated by the article in the preceding extract.

Still it was not easy to correct all the irregularities which had arisen. And although Parker may, in the commencement of the Reformation, have given his sanction to lay preaching in cases of necessity, yet it is evident that he soon set about a correction of a practice which his judgment condemned. Accordingly, in these same Articles, he asks, "Whether any laye persons take upon them to read openly in the congregation divine service without they be thereunto, upon some urgent cause, or great necessity, for a time licensed by the ordinary? Wherefore such have been allowed, and how long they have served, and whether any of them have taken upon them to solemnize matrimonie, or to minister any sacrament?" Undoubtedly several individuals officiated and held preferments in the church, who had only been 'ordained by the Presbyterians abroad; but Parker, and the bishops generally, endeavoured to put an end to such a practice. With men of Presbyterian views acting as ministers in the church, it was not surprising that Puritanism increased. Usually these men were disposed to bring their controversies into the pulpit; and it was no easy task for the bishops to check them in their career. The following inquiry from the same Articles was evidently aimed at the dangerous practice of introducing controversial subjects into the pulpit, so common among the Puritans, and which at length issued in the grand rebellion. "Whether they (the ministers) be curious in moving new needlesse doubts, whereby the people may be sooner styrred to debates and controversies than edified in holesome doctrine, continued in Christian Love, or provoked to Godly Lyfe.'

The question relative to the ordination of ministers occurs in others of the earlier Articles of Inquiry in the reign of Elizabeth--a circumstance which shows, that the bishops were fully aware of the irregularity, and that they were determined to interpose a check. Thus, in the Articles for the archdeaconry

* Articles to be enquired of within the Diocese of Winchester in the Metropoliticall Visitation of the Most Reverend Father in Christ, Matthew, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Metropolitan. At London by John Daye. No date, but they must have been issued in the beginning of the year 1575.

of Middlesex, in 1582, it is asked, whether any persons have been permitted to officiate, "Not beinge ordered at the least for a deacon?" The very mention of the term deacon precludes the supposition even that orders in general, whether Episcopal or Presbyterian, may have been intended. A similar question occurs also in the Articles for the diocese of London, in 1586. Aylmer was the bishop at that time, a man of great moderation; yet he was convinced of the necessity of interfering to check irregular practices. At that time the Puritans of the sterner sort had actually set up their new discipline in certain places, and especially at Wandsworth, not far distant from London. Aylmer asks, in 1577, "Whether any new presbyteries or elderships be lately among you erected, and by them any ministers appointed, without orders taken of the bishops, do baptize, minister the Communion, or deale in any function ecclesiasticall, or contrary to law gather any private conventicle, whereby the people be drawen from the church?"+ This question is repeated by the same prelate in 1586.

Allusion has already been made to the Commination Service in the notice of Grindal's Injunctions in 1571, which specify the times at which it should be read in addition to Ashwednesday. The same custom appears also to have been enjoined by Aylmer, since the question is put to the churchwardens, whether their minister observes the rule by reading the service at the times specified by Grindal. It would appear, also, that it was the practice in the diocese of London, as well as in the province of York, for the clerk to read the First Lesson and the Epistle,

* Articles to be enquired of by the Churchwardens and Swornemen within the Archdeaconrie of Middlesex: and the trueth thereof to be by them upon their oathes certainely presented to M. Doctor Squier, Archdeacon there, or to his Officialles, with particular answeare to everie article. 1582. London: Imprinted by John Wolfe, dwelling at the signe of the Foxe in Olde Fish Streate, neare the Signe of the Swanne.

† Articles to be enquired of within the Diocese of London in the Visitation of the Reverend Father in God, John, Bp. of London. Imprinted at London by William Seres. Anno 1577.

Articles to be enquired of within the Diocese of London in the Visitation of the Reverend Father in God, John, Bishop of London, 1586. In the XXVIII yeare of the raigne of our most gracious soveraigne Lady Elizabeth, by the Grace of God, Queene of England, Fraunce, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith. At London. Printed by Richard Johnes. 1586. The following question, moreover, shews the mind of the Bishop on this subject. "Whether anye man keepeth or readeth any seditious & schismatical Bokes or Pamphlets written by Browne, Harryson, or by any other which inveigheth against the religion now received, or the order of the church now publiquely established?" As early as 1571, Grindal enjoined that "no Parish Clerk, nor any other person, not being ordered, at the least for a deacon, shall presume to solemnize matrimony, &c., and that no person, not being a minister, deacon, or at the least tolerated by the ordinary in writing, do attempt to supply the office of a minister in saying of Divine Service, &c."-Grindal's Remains, 132. So in the Articles for the Province of Canterbury in 1576, "Whether any person not being ordered at least for a Deacon, do say common Prayer, &c. &c."-Ibid. 161.

as well as take his part in the Psalms; for the question is asked by Aylmer, in 1577.

At this period there is a frequent allusion to the Catechism by Nowell, which appeared in Latin and English in 1570. The Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer, called the Short Catechism, was strictly enjoined; but in addition we find such questions as the following: "or Maister Nowell's Catechisme and no other." It is also asked whether schoolmasters teach Nowell's Catechism. In some of the Articles the "Advertisements" set forth by the Queen's authority, are mentioned as an authority on the questions on which they treat.

These advertisements, which occasioned so much controversy, were, in some of the Articles of the period, and especially by Parker in 1575, enumerated among the church books.

One practice seems to have prevailed, which would excite no little commotion in a parish, were the attempt to enforce it now to be made. In the Metropolitical Articles for the province of Canterbury in 1576, Grindal asks: "Whether for the putting of the churchwardens and swornemen the better in remembrance of their duties in observing and noting such as offend in not coming to divine service, your minister or reader do openly every Sunday after he have read the Second Lesson at Morning and Evening Prayer monish and warne the churchwardens and swornemen to look to their charge in this behalfe and to observe who contrary to the sayd statute offende in absenting themselves from their parish church."+ A similar question occurs in various Articles of the same period; as in those for the archdeaconry of Middlesex in 1582, the diocese of London in 1577, and again in 1586. It is evident that the churchwardens were, at all events, occasionally so warned by the clergy; nor can we doubt, that the results of such a practice were most beneficial to the interests of the church and the welfare of the people. Laxity in discipline, not strictness, is the mark of the present age; but a laxity in the morals of the people is the consequence.

It is well known that no particular place is appointed by the

*See Aylmer's Articles, 1586. Parker asks, in 1575, "Whether they move the parishioners and the parents to buy the catechisme lately set forth with the additions by the Queenes Magesties authoritie ?"

† Grindal's Remains, 171. Edwin Sandys also asks the same question in his Metropolitical Visitation for the Province of York in the years 1577 and 1578. See the "Articles to be enquired off within the Province of Yorke, in the Metropoliticall Visitation of the Most Reverend Father in God, Edwin, Archbishop of Yorke, Primate of England & Metropolitane. In the 19 & 20 yeare of the Raigne of our most gratious sovereigne, Lady Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, Fraunce, and Ireland Queene, Defendor of the Fayth. 1577 and 1578. Imprinted at London by William Seres."

The same thing is enjoined in Grindal's Injunctions, in 1571, for the Province of York.

church for the reading of Morning and Evening Prayer. The church or chancel is specified, but neither is fixed to the exclusion of the other, though the general practice, which amounts almost to uniformity, has placed the reading desk somewhere in the body of the church. At the Reformation, and indeed for many years subsequent, the bishops appear only to have considered how the minister might be best heard by the congregation. That end being attained, the clergy were at liberty to read the service in the church or chancel at their own option. Aylmer asks, alluding to the Common Prayer, in 1586, Whether your minister so turn himself and stand in such place of your church or chauncel as the people may best heare the same?" For some years there was undoubtedly a considerable variety in the practice in different churches; but at the Restoration the reading desk was almost always fixed in the body of the church.

Already, in a former paper, we have alluded to the measures adopted on the subject of witchcraft and sorcery. From the following question it appears, that very singular practices were resorted to by the people-practices which afford strong evidence of the popular belief on the subject. "Whether there be any man or woman in your parish, that useth witchcraft, sorcery, charms, or unlawful prayer in Latine or English, or otherWise upon any Christian body or beast ?"*

The following extracts are very curious. They relate, moreover, to a question which has already given rise to much discussion, and which may occasion hereafter no little controversy. In the Articles for the diocese of Litchfield and Coventry in 1583 or 1584, are certain orders or advertisements.

"Certaine advertisements for a continual order to be observed inviolably without any alteration touching the pointes following, within the Diocese of Coventrie and Litchfield.”

"That whosoever shall hereafter bee presented to any benefice shall attend for his publicke examination the first day of everie month only, openly in the consistorie at Lichfield, between the hours of eight and eleven (if it be not a Sonday or holiday) then the next daie following, when the reverende Father in God the now Lord Bishop in person, or the chancellor at the least, or the chancellor's deputee giving attendance, and calling for their assistance foure other preachers at the least, shall and will cause the gifts and learning of the partie presented to be thoroughly examined, and presently upon conference between them of his sufficiencie to set their judgmentes doune solemnly in a boke made and kept for that purpose, to notifie their allowance or disallowance, And for the better and more assured performance of this advertisement *Articles, &c., Metropolitan. York, 1577, 1579. Archdeaconry of Middlesex, 1582. Canterbury, 1616.

greatly heretofore neglected and abused, as well for want of appointing certain sufficient and sincere examiners usually to attend this charge as otherwise, the said reverend Father in his now purposed Visitation will publish to the whole country the names of such preachers, by whose credite and conscience he will chiefly commit this charge and trust, besides the presence of such as being always neere at hande may be used and required."

The bishop, therefore, claimed the power of examining a clergyman presented for institution, and of declining to proceed if he felt dissatisfied with the individual's qualifications. That such power was intended to be given to bishops by the canons of the church, is evident, though for many years it may not have been exercised.

But the bishop did not stop there: for after the individual was examined and approved, he was subjected to another trial from the people. Thus it was ordered:

"Therefore, the partie so presented and allowed as before, shall, with license of the ordinarie, repaire eftsoone to that parish, and aswell acquaint his parishioners with his persone as his giftes that moneth only, reading the first Sunday he cometh thither this publicke advertisement in time of Devine Service. And so the first day of the next moneth following to repaire to the said reverend Father, or by his direction to the office for his institution (if none shall undertake to prove against him some notorious default that day of his appearance) and so without further delay to be dispatched."

The minister was therefore subjected to an examination from the bishop respecting his sufficiency, and the parishioners were to determine on his mode of conducting divine service. practice could never have been common, of thus placing a clergyman at the mercy of the people: nor can I conceive that it was ever sanctioned by the church. As far as I can judge, this bishop stood alone in this dangerous custom. How far it was adopted, it is impossible to say.

This same prelate has also a somewhat severe censure on the practice of private baptism. The words, or the preamble to the prohibition are scarcely decorous. At all events, they are not in the usual style of such documents. "Whereas private baptism in time of necessity seemeth tolerated by the Booke of Common Praier; and, therefore, not onely divers old women and midwives have, both against God's law and the meaning of

* Articles to be enquired of in the Ordinarie Visitation of the Right Reverende Father in God, William, Lorde Bishop of Coventrie & Lichfielde, diligently to be considered of as well by Ministers as Churchwardens and Swornemen, and advisedly to be answered particularly to everie point, by either of them severally in writing, at the Visitation to be holden by the saide Reverende Father or his Officers. Imprinted at London for William Brome. There is no date; but 1584 is written, in an carly hand, on the copy which I have examined.