New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-01-21

utterly destroy all shrnes, coverings OF shrlnes,
all tables, candlesticks, trindles or rolls OF
wsI. pictures, paintings. and all other monuments
Of feiared miracles, pilerimages, idOlatry and
superstition go that there remain no memory oil
the sane in wslk, glass windows, or else where,
within their churches or houses. Il was true there
was here no direct mention made Of crosses but in
a letter TO Cranmer Henry VIII. himself had de-
nounced the custom Of creeping to the cross on
Palm Sunday, as the very worst OF ldolatry and
superstition. and there could thus be no doubt in
Sir ]. Dedsons opinion, that the ibjunctiOns of
Edward were intended to abolish the use OF the
cress, among the other things which were con-
sidered monuments Of idOlatoy and supersti-
ton" The object of these ipjunctiOns was to take
away that which was not essential TO the perform
snce Of Divine worship, and which had been
abused. And that crosses had been abused, who,
after reading the Roman missal, could que'-
ton He found moreover, that while an e1cep-
ton was made in the Homilies in favor OF hstori-
cal paintings, or groups of figures, none whatever
was made in favor either of the crnci6I or the plain
cross. How strong was the determination Of the
authorities in the days Of Edward VI to get nd of
everything which had been abused, might be
learned from the fact that in February, l5ic,
another set Of njunctiols were issued, in which
orders were given 10 remove al the remaining.
There had been dispute. as TO whether, in particu
lar cases, images had been censed, prayed, or
offered to: but the Council preferred removing all
those which had not been abused to leaving one
which had. Having shown that the cross
was priOri an ornament which had been
abused there was no sufficient evidence
of its having been legally used aferward.
In the time of Queen Elizabeth it was clear,
from the closeness with which the DjunctiOns of
Edward were copied, that the precedent of her
brothers reign was followed; while, on the other
hand. what was done in the reign of Queen Eliza
beth afforded no bad illustration Of the curse
which had been previously pursued Commission
ers were appointed 10 hold yistations throughout
the country, and it was clear from their reports
that the crosses which had been restored under
Queen Mary, were all taken away 1t was true
that the Queen retained crucifI in her private
chapel but il was a source of great anxiety to
her bishops, and she at length yielded to their re-
monatrances. Whitgift, who was employed to
answer the admOntiOn Of the Puritans, drawn up,
as was supposed, by Carter, wrote to the folio wing
effect: I'VE differ much from the Papists. They
picture the sign of the cross and worship it, 80 do
"not we. They use it to drive away spirits and
devils: so do not we. They have it in their cham
bers; so have we not. They use it entirely for
"relision and for religions sake; we only 10 bap-
4" tsm and for a sign or token
In the reign of Elzabeth's successor, conference
was held with the Puritsns at Hampton Court.
DR.. Reynolds having wished that the cross be put
away Ike the brazen serpent, James himself asked,
in reply, what resemblance there was between the
brazen serpent, material thing, and the sign Of
the cross made in the air : He moreover said to
REYNOLDS "The sign of the material cross is
abolished, as you desire"
In the conference held at Savoy after the Resto-
ration Baxter objected TO the adoption of the pres
ent rubric, on the ground that it would seem to
bring back the cope the alb, and the other vest
ments He objected, also, to the sign of the cross
in baptism; but not one word did he say about the
material cross. Was it credible that he would have
Cmitttd to protest agans. that if crosses we're at
that time in in the churches, or if there was any
suspicion that they were intended to be introduced
Various passages had been cited from Hooker, but
they bad reference not TO the material cross but to
the cross in baptism. Hooker h;msef never at
tempted to set up cross in his own churches. So,
too, as regarded the case of Butler He might
have had cross in his private chapel land even for
that he had been blamed by Seeker; but, at all
events, he had never introduced it or allowed it to
be introduced into any church in his diocese. II
notorious that for very many years crosses had
not been in general use in the Church of England.
If any evidence were necessary to support this pO-
,itioD, that of Mr.. Hope, whose affidavit had been
introduced by the appellants themselves, would
alone be almost sufficient for that purpose. That
gentleman mentioned thirteen churches only in
which crosses we're 10 be found-whether Of recent
introduction or not he did not say; aud out of this
number two were described by him as situated in
Scotland. So that, with the extensive knowledge
that Mr.. Hope was supposed to possess in matters
Of this kind, and with the deep interest which he
was believed to take in them, he was unable TO
specify more than eleven churches in all England;
and out of those eleven four only were described as
having crosses attached to or placed upon the COM
munion table II must be confessed that this num-
Der was very uncomfortable especially when CON-
pared with the number Of churches and chapels
belonging to the Establisted Church, which, ac-
cOrding to the last census, was upward of $4,000
On the whole, therefore, Sir j. Dodson came to the
conclusion, first, that there was no parliamentary
authority for ally church ornaments except those
mentioned in the fret Prayer Book of Edward VI
The acts of Henry Will, relating to matters Of