Oct. 1. 1853.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



319 



1580. Folio, 



1574. 4to. 



1578. Folio. 



1551. Ordinatio Ecclesiae sen Ministerii, &c. 4to. A 

 Latin translation of the Book of 1549. 



1548. Ordo Distributionis Sacramenti, &c. 12itio. A 

 Latin translation of the Order of Com- 

 munion. 



1571. Liber Precum Publicarum, &c. Londini, 24n}o. 



1574. Svo. 



1596. Svo. 



1604. Book of Common Prayer. Folio. (Royal Arms 



on sides.) The first edit, of the reign of 

 James I. 



1605. Folio. 

 1605. Folio. 



1614. 4to. 



1615. Folio. 

 1618, 4to. 



1616. 12mo., bound in silver by the nuns of Little 



Giddiiig. 

 .1621. 4to. In Welsh. 

 1622. Folio. 



Liturgia Inglesia, 4to , large paper. A Spanish 



translation, made at the cost of Archbishop 



Williams. 

 4to. The same. 

 1616, La Liturgie Anglolse, 4to., large paper. This 



translation was also made at the charge of 



Williams. 

 4to. The same. 

 1625, Common Prayer. Folio. First edition of the 



reign of Charles L This copy was used by 



Secretary Nicholas, in his family, during the 



period of tiie Commonwealth. A clause in 



his own hand is inserted in the Prayer for the 



King. 

 1628. 12mo. 

 1631. Folio. 

 1633. Folio. 

 1633. Edinburgh. 12mo. 



1633, 12mo. The same. 



1634. 4to. 

 1636, Folio, large paper. 



1636. Folio. 



1637. 4to. 

 1637. 12mo. 



1639. 4to. 



1640. 24mo. 



1637. Edinburgh. Folio. (Young.) 

 1713. 8vo., large paper. (Watson's reprint of the pre- 

 ceding.) 

 1660. Folio. 

 1660. Folio. (A different edition.) 



1660. 4to. 

 1690. 12 mo. 



1661. Folio, large paper, with the Form at the Heal- 



ing. 



1662. Folio, large paper, with the Form at the Heal- 



ing. 

 1662. Folio, large paper. 

 1662. Folio. 

 1662. Folio. 

 1662. Folio. Second edition of this year. 



(Young.) 



(Royal Arms on sides.) 



1662. Cambridge. Svo. 



1662. Cambridge. Svo. Different edition. 



1669. Folio. 



1686. Folio. 



1687. Folio, large paper. 

 1692. 8vo. 



1694. Folio. 



1699. Svo. 



1700. Svo. 



1703. Folio, with the Form at the Healing. 



1708. Svo., with the Form at the Healing. 



1769. 12mo , with the Form at the Healing. 



1715. Folio, with the Form at the Healing. 



I have excluded from my list all those thin 

 editions of the Prayer Book, which were usually 

 bound up with Bibles, except in three instances. 

 The exceptions are these: — The folio, 1578; 

 Youpif's edition, 1633 ; and that of 1715. Gene- 

 rally these thin books, which have only references 

 to the Epistles and Gospels, are of no value what- 

 ever. The exceptions in this list, however, are 

 important books. The book of 1578 was prepared 

 by the Puritans, and is so altered that the word 

 p7-iest does not occur in a single rubric. Young's 

 book of 1633 is the first Prayer Book printed in 

 Scotland; and the edition of 1715 is remarkable 

 for " The Healing," though George I. never at- 

 tempted to touch for the king's evil. 



Should you deem this list worth printing, I will 

 send another of occasional forms, now in my pos- 

 session, from the reign of Elizabeth to the acces- 

 sion of the House of Hanover. It may lead others 

 to do the same, and thus bring to light some forms 

 not generally known. The Prayer Books and oc- 

 casional forms in our public libraries are known 

 to most persons ; but it is important to ascertain 

 the existence of others in private collections. 



Thomas Lathbubt. 



Bristol. 



I possess a copy of the Prayer Book of an edi- 

 tion I do not see mentioned in any of the lists 

 published in " N. & Q." It is small octavo, im- 

 printed by Bonhani, Norton, and John Bill, 1627. 



K.L. 



THE CRESCENT. 



(Vol. vill,, p. 196.) 



Your correspondent W. Robson, in asking to 

 have pointed out " the period at which the crescent 

 became the standard of Mahometanism," appears 

 to assume, what Is more than doubtful, that it has 

 been, and still is so. For although " modern poets 

 and even historians have named it as the anta- 

 gonistic standard to the cross," the crescent cannot 

 be considered as " the standard " of Mahometanism 

 — empliatioally, much less exclusively — except 

 In a poetical and figurative sense. That it is one 

 among several standards, I admit ; it is used by 



