[58] 'Directorium Anglicanum,' p. xiv. The truer view would seem to be that what is _implied_ in the Book, or named in it, is permissible. Certainly the Prayer-book is elsewhere in legal documents (as my friend Mr. Shaw has shown[59]) exclusively meant when "the second year of Edward VI." is spoken of. It may be added, that the most recent judicial decision bearing on the point (_re_ Westerton _v._ Liddell) expressly lays down that the Prayer-book, and the Prayer-book alone, is what the rubric refers to. [59] See an able article in the 'Contemporary Review,' No. 1, Jan. 1866. But, in truth, there are other considerations which take away all justification whatever from nine-tenths of the ceremonies which are now being introduced among us. In the first place, a great many of them, perhaps the greater number, are not old _English_ ceremonies at all, but foreign ones, derived from the existing practice--not always of very great antiquity--of the Church of Rome. Now, without going so far as to say that those who have introduced them have thereby incurred the pains and penalties of a _præmunire_, as having brought in "the fashions of the Bishop of Rome, his ways and customs," it must be plain that it is impossible to justify such practices upon, the ground alleged. Plainly, you cannot base foreign customs on an English rubric. The rubric legalises "such ornaments ... as were in this CHURCH OF ENGLAND, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of King Edward the Sixth." And this, we are told, includes "usages," and all usages known to the latter part of Henry VIII.'s reign. Be it so, however vast the concession. But will that justify a single usage which was _not_ "in this Church of England," ever since it was a Church at all? Is it not plain that, so far forth as the ceremonies now introduced _never were English_ ceremonies, they break the very rubric to which they appeal? Now it is notorious that a great part of these ceremonies are brought in on the authority of a work frequently referred to in these pages, called 'Directorium Anglicanum.' And in that work the _modern Roman_ usages, to the disregard of the ancient English, and often in direct contravention of them, are to a very great extent recommended. I will take but a single instance,--the very first direction in the book as to the "Order of Administration," p. 23. It concerns the colours for the vestments;--not a matter of the first importance, it may be. But so it is, that the _Roman_ colours are prescribed in the text, and the English ones merely mentioned in a note. And this is but one instance, out of a vast number, of the entire untrustworthiness of that work as a guide to the ancient _English_ usages. Under the delusive title of 'Directorium _Anglicanum_,' it has presented to the unwary student of ritual, mixed up with our own usages of old time, the most recent _Roman_ ones. It may be hoped that this fact, when pointed out to