OF CEREMONIES.

This Preface also is probably due to Cranmer. In 1549 it was placed at the end of the Book, after the Commination Service, and followed by certain Ritual directions; in 1552 it was transferred to its present place.

It vindicates the right of the Church to distinguish between the various Ceremonies previously in use; on the ground that some, originally good, had been abused; some were from the beginning the offspring of" indiscreet devotion" and" zeal without know­ledge;" some were still good both for decency and edification.

The claim of this right for the Church accords with Art. xxxiv. " Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying." Those who act in the name of the Church are" those lawfully called and authorized thereunto." Their action is morally limited by the respect for individual freedom referred to below, and by that desire to break as little as may be from the past, and from the rest of Christendom, which the English Reformation invariably pro­fessed; but, once taken, it is asserted( as in the Article) that it cannot be set aside by individual will. It is notable, as illustrating the true sense of the" middle way" spoken of in Bishop Sander­son's Preface, that the course taken is not a compromise" to please and satisfy" both parties, but dictated by a simple consider­ation how to please God and profit both."

The need of reform of the ancient ceremonial is then urged, against those who are" so addicted to their old customs" as to abhor all change, on three grounds:( a) its exceeding cumbrousness and artificiality, and frequent obscurity of meaning, on which St. Augus­tine's Letter to Januarius( Ep. xliv. in Bened. Edn., Paris, 1836) is quoted;( b) its tendency to foster formalism, and so to fall away from the freedom and spirituality of the Gospel, which are contrasted with the Ceremonial character of the Mosaic Law;( c) its frequent abuse, by superstitious error and corrupt motives, so engrained that it could only be got rid of by cutting away the ceremony itself. All these may easily be proved by examination of the facts of the case. It is obvious that the third will require the most stringent proof, as being against the general rule, Abusus non tollit usum- a rule which, however, cannot be maintained universally by any who understand how largely men are influenced by the power of association.

On the other hand( as against the strong individualism naturally fostered, by reaction, during the Reformation, and afterwards developed in the Puritan party), it is urged that" the wilful and contemptuous breaking of a common order and discipline is no slight transgression." The ceremonial now authorized is defended ( a) by consideration of the need for all Public Worship of Form and Ceremony in the abstract;( b) by the presumption in favour of what has been handed down from antiquity, and tried by the

10