The Tract, a "FEW WORDS TO CHURCH-BUILDERS," writes:The Reading-Pue is a modern innovation: very ugly, very 'inconvenient, and quite repugnant to all real principles of devo'tion....It was not generally adopted before the CANON of 1603. In its stead we ought to adopt two things: the Litany-Stool, (improperly called, by many, the Fald-stool), and Eagle or Lettern' (p. 25).-Pub. by The Cambridge Camden Society.

*For further information on this subject the Reader is requested to peruse the authorities cited in our observations upon the "PLACE, AND POSITION OF THE MINISTER," "The LECTERN," "The PULPIT," and "The SEDILIA."

[The Clerk's Desk.]

THERE exists no authority, beyond that of custom, for the erection of a distinctive Seat or Desk for the PARISH CLERK: we occasionally therefore find the Clerk's Desk omitted in modern Churches and in lieu of it, one of the ordinary seats near the Officiating Minister is generally assigned to him. Sometimes a kind of Lectern or Fald-Stool is employed. Where, however, a Desk exists, it cannot legally be removed without the sanction of the Ordinary and the Churchwardens.

The Rev. G. A. Poole is of opinion, that the Clerk's Desk, as it 'is ordinarily called, is in almost all cases, a mere encumbrance, of no earthly use, and without any sufficient apology. Wherever 'there is an old one, it may with propriety be removed; and 'wherever there is none, it can scarcely with propriety be sup'plied.' (p. 97.)-Churches, their Structure, &c.

[The Royal Arms.]

It appears to have been a very common practice ever since the days of Edward VI., and extending down to our own times, to set up on the walls of our Protestant Churches the 'Royal Arms,' with the intention, doubtlessly, of recognizing the supremacy of the Crown in matters Ecclesiastical, as well as Civil. There exists, however, no temporal law, and neither

CANON, nor RUBRIC, authorizing their erection. The first introduction of the 'King's Arms' into our Churches seems likewise to have originated more in the loyal zeal of the people, than in any authoritative order of the Legislature. Moreover, the absence of documentary evidence on this point would lead us to suppose that it was effected very gradually and unobtrusively. The earliest mention of the usage that we have met with is in BP. BURNET's reply to NICHOLAS SANDERS's 'Book of the English Schism' ('De Origine ac Progressu Schismatis Anglicani,' L. III. Cologn. 1585. 8vo), to be found in the Appendix to his History of the Reformation.' There is also an incidental allusion to their introduction in the text

of the History. From what we there read, it may be concluded, that the Royal Arms' were first set up at the beginning of the reign of Edward VI., probably within the first fortnight, (before Feb. 13th. 1546-7), at the time of the clamorous and unauthorized removal of Images.

It may be stated, therefore, that the absence of the Royal Arms,' which has been remarked in some of the newly built Churches of the present day, is not in subversion of any rule of Law; and that their erection indeed could not be legally enforced. But, with respect to older Churches, where the 'Royal Arms' are still remaining; their removal, should such be contemplated, must not be attempted without the permission of the Ordinary.

We will quote the few authorities we possess on this subject.

A. D. 1546-7. BP. BURNET, in recording the history of this period between the accession of Edward VI, and the burial of the late King his father, thus remarks:- The Curate and Church'wardens of St Martin's, in Ironmonger-Lane, in London, took 'down the Images and Pictures of the Saints, and the Crucifix, 'out of their Church, and painted many texts of Scripture on the 'walls; some of them, "according to a perverse translation," as the complaint has it; and in the place where the Crucifix was, they set up the KING'S ARMS with some texts of Scripture about it upon this the Bishop (Bonner), and Lord Mayor of London, 'complained to the Council.' (Hist. of the Ref. Nare's edit. Vol. ii. p. 13.).

Again,-GARDINER, hearing that, on May-day the people of "Portsmouth had removed and broken the Images of Christ and 'the Saints, writ about it, with great warmth, to one Captain 'VAUGHAN, that waited on the Protector, and was then at Ports'mouth.' The PROTECTOR wrote in answer:-'That he 'allowed of his zeal against innovations, but there were other things 'that needed to be looked to as much. Great difference there was 'between the civil respect due to the King's Arms' and the wor'ship given to Images.' &c. (ib. p. 17.).

66

·

In the Appendix we find the following quotation from SANDERS'S Book, and BURNET's reply:- SANDERS says: "They ordered all "Images to be removed, and sent some lewd men over England for "that effect; who either brake or burnt the Images of our Saviour, "the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints; therein declaring against "whom they made war; and they ordered the King's Arms,' three leopards and three lilies, with the supporters, a dog and a serpent, "to be set in the place where the Cross of Christ stood; thereby "owning that they were no longer to worship Jesus Christ, whose "Images they broke, but the KING, whose Arms they set up in the room of those Images." BURNET answers:-'In this period 'there is an equal mixture of falsehood and malice. (1) The 'Parliament did not order the removal of Images; it was done by 'the King's Visitors before the Parliament sat. (2) The total 'removal of Images was not done the first year, only those Images 'that were abused to superstition, were taken down, and a year 'after the total removal followed. (3) They took care that this should be done regularly, not by the Visitors, who only carried 'the King's Injunctions about it, but by the Curates themselves. (4) They did not order the 'KING'S ARMS' to be put in the place where the Cross had stood. It grew indeed to be a custom to set them up in all Churches, thereby expressing, that they acknowledged the 'King's authority reached even to their Churches; but there was " no order made about it. (5) I leave him to the correction of the heralds, for saying, the King's Arms' are three leopards, when every body knows they are three lions, and a lion, not a dog, is one supporter, and the other is a dragon, not a serpent. (6) By 'their setting up the 'KING'S ARMS,' and not his picture, it is plain they had no thought of worshipping their King, but did only acknowledge his authority. (7) It was no less clear, that they had no design against the worship due to Jesus Christ, nor 'that inferior respect due to the blessed Virgin and Saints; but 'intended only to wean the people from that, which at best was but pageantry: but as it was practised, was manifest idolatry. And the painting on the walls of the Churches, the Ten-Command'ments, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, with many other passages of Scripture that were of most general use, shewed, they intended only to cleanse their Churches from those mixtures of heathenism, 'that had been brought into the Christian Religion.'-History of the Reformation. Nares's Edit. App. Vol. IV. p. 402.

.

6

6

6

Our writers on Ecclesiastical Law refer the erection of the Royal Arms' in Churches to the power of the Vestry, and the consent of the Ordinary. After enumerating the more important 'Ornaments of the Church,' they proceed :

'There are many other Articles for which no provision is made by any special law, and therefore must be referred to the general 'power of the Churchwardens, with the consent of the major part of the Parishioners as aforesaid, and under the direction of the Ordinary; such as the erecting Galleries &c....Clock, Chimes, King's Arms, Pulpit-cloths &c.'-BURN's Eccl L. Phil. i. 374; CRIPPS' Laws Rel. to the Ch. & the Cl. 419; STEPHEN'S Laws Rel. to the Cl. 292.

With respect to modern usage we may quote the following:

The BISHOP OF DURHAM (Dr. Maltby), in answer to certain complaints made to him against the practices adopted in the Church of Heworth, stated:-The Royal Arms' having been placed in their present situation at the West end of the said Church, 'without the sanction of the Ordinary, and it having been cer'tified to me that such situation is unbecoming, and that the front of the principal gallery is a convenient and appropriate situation for them, I hereby order and direct that the said Royal Arms' 6 be forthwith removed from their present situation, and placed in ⚫ the front of the said gallery.'-Ecclesiastical Gazette. September, 1852. p. 69.

The REV. F. C. MASSINGBERD says:- The people also began 'in some places to show their expectation and desire of a change, by taking down Images from the Churches, and setting up the King's Arms' where the Holy Rood had been placed....It 'must have seemed irreverent to substitute the 'King's Arms' in 'their place; but it does not appear that this was ever commanded, 'and if so, the universal adoption of the practice seems 'imply that the Royal Supremacy was popular?' (p. 340).—The English Reformation. 2nd. Ed.

to

In a Tract a FEW WORDS TO CHURCHWARDENS' we read:"It is bad to have the Royal Arms' in stained glass in the east window; for though no one loves the Crown more than I do, yet 'I do not like to see its mark where some higher and holier symbol ought to be. And for the same reasons, I would not renew the Royal Arms' painted on board, and put up over the 'Chancel-Arch. I know of no authority for this: and surely it is at least an unseemly successor of the emblems of our redemption 'which used to stand there.' (p. 18.)-Part. II. Published by The Ecclesiological Society.

Scripture Sentences.

ORNAMENTING the walls of Churches with Texts of Scripture, and other Chosen Sentences, is a custom of great antiquity, although, till within the last few years, it appears to have been very much disused. The

practice is enjoined in the 82nd Canon (of 1603-4), which is still binding upon the Clergy of the present day, and indeed it is the only authority advocating its adoption. There is no legal prohibition existing against the revival of the usage; so that, with the sanction of the Ordinary, it may at any time be resumed: the expediency, however, of such a measure must be determined by the peculiar circumstances of each individual Parish; more especially since the expences are to be borne by the Parishioners at large.

The CANON thus reads:

..We appoint....that the "Ten-Commandments" be set 'up &c.....and other chosen Sentences written upon the walls of 'the said Churches and Chapels, in places convenient....all these to be done at the charge of the Parish.'-Canon 82.

Ecclesiastical Lawyers in alluding to this subject merely cite the clause of the CANON above given, as may be seen in BURN'S Eccl. L. Phil. 1. 371; C. G. PRIDEAUX' Chw. Guide, 45; ROGERS' Eccl. L. 156; STEPHEN's Laws Rel. to Cl. 288; also DR. Hook's Church Dict. p. 453.

MR. CRIPPS (Barrister-at-Law) in quoting the CANON slightly differs in the phraseology, saying:- Chosen Sentences are also 'directed to be written upon the walls in convenient places, and 'these most frequently are the Lord's Prayer, the Apostles' Creed, '&c. CAN. 82.'-Laws Rel. to Ch. and Cl. p. 419.

There are many Clergymen who consider the requirements of this CANON to be fulfilled by the setting up of the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer, by the side of the Ten-Commandments, as may so frequently be seen at the east end of our Churches; while others, giving a different interpretation to the CANON, contend, that 'Chosen Sentences' are to be written on different parts of the walls of the Church, and not collectively on one spot, or tablet. Hence

we occasionally see in a few modern Churches, where the custom has been revived, Texts of Scripture painted on scrolls or panels of various forms, and in Lombardick or other peculiar letters of divers colours. These letters, however, ought not to be of such a kind as can neither be read, nor understanded of the people;' nor indeed should the maxims of human composition be allowed to supersede the use of passages from Holy Writ.