{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_48278/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_48278","id":"gutenberg_48278","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48278","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church of England -- Customs and practices","Church of England -- Liturgy","Rites and ceremonies","Ritualism","Sacraments"],"text":"Transcriber's note:\n\nText enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).\n\nSmall capital text has been replaced with all capitals.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n  RITES AND RITUAL;\n\n  A PLEA FOR\n  APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE AND WORSHIP.\n\n  BY\n\n  PHILIP FREEMAN, M.A.,\n\n  VICAR OF THORVERTON, DEVON; ARCHDEACON AND CANON OF EXETER;\n  AUTHOR OF \"THE PRINCIPLES OF DIVINE SERVICE.\"\n\n  WITH AN APPENDIX\n  CONTAINING THE OPINIONS, ON CERTAIN POINTS OF DOCTRINE,\n  OF\n  HENRY, LORD BISHOP OF EXETER.\n\n                    \"O Mother dear,\n    Wilt thou forgive thy son one boding sigh?\n      Forgive, if round thy towers he walk in fear,\n    And tell thy jewels o'er with jealous eye?\"\n\n  _FOURTH EDITION, REVISED._\n\n  LONDON:\n  JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.\n  1866.\n\n\n  LONDON: PRINTED BY W. CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET,\n  AND CHARING CROSS.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe following pages had been prepared, for the most part, for\npublication, before it was known that the question of Ritual would\nbe discussed in Convocation, or a Committee of the Lower House\nappointed, by the direction of the Upper House, to report upon it.\n\nBut the suggestions here offered are of so general a character, that\nit seemed to the writer that they might still without impropriety\nbe put forth as a contribution, of however humble a kind, to the\ngeneral ventilation of the subject.\n\nIt was the writer's hope, as expressed in the original announcement\nof the Pamphlet, that his Diocesan, the venerable Bishop of Exeter,\nwould have been able to prefix, in an Introduction, his opinion\non the leading points, whether of Ritual or Doctrine, involved in\nthe present controversy. And, although that hope has been in part\nfrustrated, he has still been privileged to embody, in an Appendix,\nhis Lordship's deliberate judgment on some of the weightier matters\nof Eucharistic Doctrine; and to receive an assurance of his warm\ninterest in the subjects dwelt upon in these pages.\n\nThe writer has to apologise for having occasionally referred\nthe reader to a larger work of his own. He begs that this may\nbe understood to be merely a guarantee, that detailed proof is\nforthcoming on points which could only be cursorily treated of in\nthe present publication.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n  RITES.--Importance of them above Ritual--Serious departure of the\n    English Church from primitive practice--Abeyance of Weekly\n    Celebration--Proofs that Weekly Communion is part of the Divine\n    Ordinance--Practical advantages of restoring it--Origin and\n    history of the present unsound practice--Vigorous protest of the\n    English Church against it--Difficulties in the way of a\n    reformation, how to be met--Recent Eucharistic excesses--Worship\n    addressed to Christ as enshrined in the Elements--Proof that this\n    was not the primitive doctrine or practice--Recent origin of it\n    among ourselves--Non-communicating attendance unknown to\n    antiquity.\n\n  RITUAL.--Law of the English Church about it, how ascertainable--\n    Vestments--An alternative recognised--The Vestment Rubric\n    preserved--The Surplice permitted--Ritual advance at the present\n    day--Choral Festivals--Church Decoration--History and rationale of\n    the Eucharistic Vestments, and of the ordinary ones--Position of\n    the Celebrant--Two lights on the Altar--Incense--The \"Mixed\n    Chalice\"--The Crucifix--Minute ceremonial disallowed by the\n    English Church--Suggestions as to the present controversy--Hopeful\n    circumstances, and grounds of union.\n\n  1.--APPENDIX A. Opinions of the BISHOP OF EXETER on certain\n            points of Doctrine                                Page 101\n\n  2.--APPENDIX B. Former judgment of the BISHOP OF EXETER on\n            Vestments                                              103\n\n  3.--APPENDIX C. On Saying and Singing, by the Rev. J. B. DYKES.  105\n\n[Illustration: cover]\n\n[Illustration: titlepage]\n\n\n\n\nRITES AND RITUAL,\n\nETC.\n\n\nThe position of affairs in the English Church, at the present\nmoment, is such as may well call forth from her children such\ncounsel as their affection may prompt, or their experience justify.\nAnd, whatever be the intrinsic value, if any, of the suggestions\nabout to be offered here, the writer can at least testify that,\nthough called forth by a particular conjuncture of circumstances,\nthey are not the hasty or immature thoughts of the moment, but\nrather an outpouring of the anxious musing of years over the\ncondition and prospects of a beloved and honoured Mother.\n\nIt will be conjectured, from what has now been said, that the writer\nis not among the number of those who perceive, in the present\ncondition of the English Church, or in her rate of improvement of\nlate years, any grounds for satisfaction, much less for complacency\nor congratulation. On the contrary, he very humbly conceives--and\nhis reasons for that opinion shall be given presently--that to the\nspiritual eye, used to rest either on what the Church of God was\n_intended to be_, or on what once, for a few centuries, she _was_,\nthere is, in the practical condition of the English Church one\ndefect of so radical a character, and which has eaten so extensively\ninto her entire system, that until this is, at least in a very great\nmeasure, remedied, all else is little better than a palliative,\nand little else than an illusion. There is surely something deeply\nsaddening in the spectacle (if it indeed be so) of a Church busying\nherself with \"many things\"--making much show of practical activity,\nof self-reparation, of improvement in services and ministries, of\nextension abroad,--when all the while the \"one thing,\" namely,\n_soundness and perfectness in Apostolic faith and practice_, is in\nany serious degree wanting to her. If, while she is manifesting\na feverish anxiety about the more or less of RITUAL, there is in\nher RITES (of which Ritual is but the outward clothing) that which\ndemands repair and readjustment on an extensive scale; then it is\nsurely needful to press upon her, in the first instance, the redress\nof such essentials, before proceeding to speak of the accessories.\n\nAnd this is what the present writer, with all humility, undertakes\nto make good. He is indeed far from denying that, \"by the good Hand\nof our God upon us,\" great things, of a certain kind, have been\naccomplished in our day.\n\n    \"Stately thy walls, and holy are the prayers\n    That day and night before thine altar rise.\"\n\nOur churches have grown to be, to a great extent, the perfection\nof earthly sanctuaries. Our Services are nobler and heartier. Our\nchurch music is more worthy of the name. Better still than this,\nand more to the present purpose, our communicants have increased\nin numbers, our Communions in frequency. Our clergy, as a rule,\nare devoted, beyond the example of former times, to their duty,\naccording to their conception of it. Schools are diligently cared\nfor, and are fairly efficient; foreign missions grow; the home\ncircle of charities is daily widened and rendered more effectual.\nAnd this is \"progress,\" or \"improvement,\" undoubtedly. And,\nwere the Church a mere Machine, or a mere System, it would be\nperfectly reasonable to point with satisfaction to such progress\nor improvement. But the Church is neither the one nor the other.\nShe is a Divine Body. And what if, while some operations of that\nBody are being performed with a certain increase of vigour, her\nvery constitution, as divinely organised by God Himself, is being\nsuffered to fall into habitual and chronic unsoundness?\n\nSurely, as it is the first duty of man to do _right_, and only his\nsecond to do _good_;--as health is the highest of bodily blessings,\nso that activity, apart from it, is but spurious and imperfect;--so\nis it the Church's _first_ duty to be _sound_,--_primum\nvalere_,--and only her second to be, if God enables her, active and\nprosperous.\n\nAnd the Church being, as I have said, a Divine Body--the Body of\nChrist--it is plain that the first condition of her soundness is\n_full_ as well as vital union with Christ through the appointed\nmedium, the Sacraments. Upon these are absolutely suspended her\nexistence in the first instance, and her preservation and growth\nafterwards. What then, I would ask, can possibly be of more\nimportance than that these sacred and wonderful ministries should be\nperformed, _in all respects_, according to the Ordinance of Christ,\nsuch as he delivered it to the apostles?\n\nAnd if it be asked, How are we to _know_ what it was that Christ\ndelivered to the apostles on this subject, seeing that Holy\nScripture is confessedly brief and unsystematic in its teaching\nrespecting it? the answer manifestly is, By looking at the universal\npractice of the Church in the time of the apostles, and during the\nearliest ages after them. We know, with sufficient accuracy, what\nthat practice was. Their customs as to the administration of Baptism\nare known to us; their Liturgies or Communion Offices are in our\nhands. And, though diversities of practice, _outside_ of certain\nlimits, are found existing in those ages, _within_ certain limits\nthere is none.\n\nNow, among the points thus defined for us by universal early usage,\nis the ordained _frequency of celebration_ of both Sacraments. The\nlaw of Holy Baptism, viz. that it should be administered once only,\nwas universally received. This is confessed on all hands.\n\nAnd when we come to the Holy Eucharist, here, too, _the degree of\nfrequency_, as a law and as a _minimum_, of celebration, is defined\nfor us no less certainly. That this was, by universal consent and\npractice, _weekly_,--namely, on every Lord's Day or Sunday--cannot\nbe gainsaid. That it was on occasion administered more frequently\nstill; that in some churches it became, we will not define how\nearly, even daily; that, according to some, the apostles, at the\nvery first, used it daily,--is beside the present question. The\npoint before us is, that there was no Church throughout the world\nwhich failed, for the first three or four hundred years, to have\n_everywhere a weekly celebration on the Sunday_, and to expect the\nattendance of all Christians at that ordinance. Of this, I say,\nthere is no doubt. The custom of apostolic days is perfectly clear\nfrom Acts xx. 7, and other passages. The testimony of Pliny, at\nthe beginning of the second century, is that the first Christians\nmet \"on a stated day\" for the Eucharist; while Justin Martyr (an.\n150) makes it certain that that day was Sunday. And the testimony\nof various subsequent writers proves that the practice continued\nunbroken for three centuries. The Council of Elvira,[1] A.D. 305,\nfirst inflicted the penalty of suspension from church privileges\non all who failed to be present for three successive Sundays; and\nwe know from our own Archbishop Theodore of Tarsus, A.D. 668, that\nin the East that rule was still adhered to, though in the West the\npenalty had ceased to be inflicted.\n\n  [1] Can. 21. It is referred to by Hosius at the Council of Sardica,\n  A.D. 347.\n\nNow the ground which I venture to take up, as absolutely\nirrefragable, is that it must needs be of most dangerous consequence\nto depart from the apostolic and primitive eucharistic practice,\nin _any_ of those things which were ancient and universal, and, as\nsuch, we cannot doubt, ordained features of the Ordinance. Thus,\nwe rightly view with the utmost repugnance, and even sickness of\nheart, the practice of the Western Church in later ages in respect\nof the Elements; viz. her refusing to the laity, and to all but\nthe Celebrant himself, one half of the Holy Eucharist. We pity\nor marvel at the flimsy pretences by which the fearful and cruel\ndecree, originating in the bestowal of exclusive privileges upon\nthe higher clergy,[2] is attempted to be justified, and its effects\nto be explained away. The Western Church, we feel, must answer for\nthat to God as she can. But what right have we, I would ask, to\nchoose, among the essentials of the mysterious Ordinance, one which,\nas we conceive, _we_ may dispense with, while we condemn others\nwho select for themselves another? And yet, what do we? what is\nour practice? the practice so universally adopted throughout our\nChurch, that the exceptions are few, and but of yesterday; so that\nthose who contend for and practise the contrary are deemed visionary\nand righteous over much? Alas! our practice may be stated in few\nand fatally condemnatory words. The number of clergy in England\nmay be roundly stated at 20,000. Now, it was lately affirmed in a\nChurch Review of high standing, that the number who celebrate the\nHoly Communion weekly in England is 200: that is to say, if this\nestimate be correct, that _one in a hundred_ of our clergy conforms\nto the apostolic and ecclesiastical law of the first centuries. This\nstatement, it is true, proves to be somewhat of an exaggeration. But\nto what extent? The real number of churches where there is Holy\nCommunion every Sunday is, by recent returns, about 430.[3] The\nnumber of churches in England is at least 12,000. That is to say,\nthat there are in England at this moment more than _eleven thousand_\nparishes which, judged by the rule of the apostles, are false to\ntheir Lord's dying command in a particular from which He left no\ndispensation. It will be said, the Holy Eucharist is celebrated\nin these parishes from time to time, only less _frequently_ than\nof old. But who has told us that we may safely celebrate it less\nfrequently? How can we possibly know but that such infrequency is\ndirefully injurious? Take the analogy of the human body, which ever\nserves to illustrate so well the nature of the Church's life. Take\npulsation, take respiration, or even food. Is not the _frequency_ of\nevery one of these mysterious conditions of life as certainly fixed,\nas their necessity to life at all? Let pulsation or respiration\nbe suspended for a few minutes, or food for a few days, and what\nfollows but death, or trance at the best? And what know we, I ask,\nof the appointed intervals for the awful _systole_ and _diastole_\nof the Church's heart--of the appointed times of her inbreathing\nand expiration of the _afflatus_ of the Divine Spirit--of the laws\nregulating the frequency of her mysterious nourishment? What know\nwe, I say, of these things, but what we learn from the wondrous\nTwelve, who taught us all we know of the kingdom of God?\n\n  [2] See Mabillon, referred to in Introduction to vol. ii. of 'The\n  Principles of Divine Service.'--P. 79, note _z_.\n\n  [3] See the 'Churchman's Diary' (Masters). Another return makes the\n  number only 328. See the 'Kalendar of the English Church.'\n\nWhat may be the exact injury of such intermittent celebration\nof the Divine Mysteries--of such scanty and self-chosen measures\nof obedience to the commands of Christ,--I pretend not by these\nanalogies to decide. But surely it may well be that continuous and\nunbroken weekly Eucharist is as a ring of magic power, if I may\nuse the comparison, binding in and rendering safe the Church's\nmysterious life; and that _any_ rupture in that continuity is\nexceedingly dangerous to her.\n\nOr if it be contended, as not unnaturally it may, that this\nparticular circumstance of _frequency_, and of _weekly_ recurrence\nmay, notwithstanding the apostolic testimony to its importance,\nbe subject to variation, then I would desire to put the matter\nfrom another point of view. One way of judging of the degree of\nimportance to be attached by us to any given religious element or\nfeature, is to observe what degree of divine care Almighty God\nhas bestowed in inculcating it upon the world. Thus, the Unity of\nGod, and again the necessity of sacrifice to atone for sin, or\nprocure admission to His favour, were attested throughout the whole\npre-evangelic history by special training, imparted, in the one\ninstance, to the Jews, in the other to all mankind.\n\nBut each of these instances of training is even surpassed by that\nwhich God was pleased to impart respecting the mysterious Ordinance\nof the WEEK. Creation, Redemption, Sanctification--the three great\nphenomena of man's religious history--were all visibly based upon\nthe Week. About the Creation, and its septenary commemoration as\na religious ordinance, there is no real doubt whatever. In the\nJewish system the sabbath, or week, is the basis upon which the\nwhole structure rests.[4] And when the awful mystery of Redemption\nitself was to be consummated, it was once more within the limits\nof a single _week_ that the mighty drama was wrought out. From the\nearly morning of Palm Sunday, when our Lord entered Jerusalem as the\nLamb of God, Incarnate in order that He might suffer, to the early\nmorning of Easter Day, when He rose from the dead, a measured week,\nrich in divine incident, ran out. Seven weeks, or a week of weeks,\nagain elapses, and the Spirit is sent down from on high for the\ncompletion of the Church. All this indicates some deep mystery of\nblessedness as attaching to the seven-days period in the matter of\nman's relations to God. It cannot be alleged, indeed, as an absolute\n_proof_ that the celebration of the Eucharist was also meant to be\nof weekly recurrence, or that such recurrence would be the proper\nand indefeasible law of its rightful administration. But it surely\nrenders that conclusion highly probable. For what purpose else, we\nmay ask, was all this training given? Why was the Jewish nation,\nwho were to be the first to receive the Gospel ordinances, and to\ntransmit them to mankind, carefully habituated to a seventh-day\nrendering up of themselves to God? As regards the general principle\ninvolved, it was doubtless because it is good that man should keep\nwith God these \"short reckonings,\" which \"make long\" and eternal\n\"friends.\" But besides this, it was, as the ancient Jewish services\ntestify,[5] that they might keep in remembrance _two_ very wonderful\nweeks of divine operation on their behalf, the week of Creation, and\nthe week of their own deliverance out of Egypt. What more likely\nthan that a seventh-day observance was to be perpetuated still, only\nwith reference to that antitypical Redemption, which itself also\nwas ordained to take place, as if for this very purpose, within the\ncompass of a week?\n\n  [4] See this admirably worked out in Dr. Moberly's Sermons on the\n  Decalogue.\n\n  [5] See this proved at large in 'Principles of Divine Service,' vol.\n  ii., pp. 284, _sqq._\n\nIn this point of view, the Christian Eucharist is the gathering up\nof the memories of that wonderful week, called of old the \"Great\nWeek,\" the \"Week of Weeks.\" That such was its purpose might be\ngathered even from the accustomed Day, no doubt appointed by Christ\nHimself, for its celebration. This is not, as might perhaps have\nbeen expected, the Thursday, the day of the Institution; not a day\nin the middle of the week, but at the close of one week and the\nbeginning of another: that so it may look back on the marvels of the\nGreat Week, ever renewed in memory, and with deepest thankfulness\ncommemorate them. The original time of celebration in apostolic\ndays was at first, as it should seem, on the evening of the old\nSabbath; that is, according to the then reckoning, on the overnight\ncommencement, or eve, of the Sunday, on which the whole mystery was\nconsummated by the Resurrection. In the account of the celebration\nat Troas, we find it to have been, from particular causes, already\npast midnight when the celebration took place. By the time of\nPliny, in the first century, it had passed on to the morning hour\nof Sunday, where it has continued ever since. Surely it is manifest\nthat, in the Divine Intention, the Church ought to pass week by\nweek, in solemn memory and mysterious sympathy, through the great\nseries of redeeming events, and crown her contemplation of them\nby the great act of Oblation and Reception, which Christ himself\nordained for high memorial of these events, and to convey the\ngraces and powers flowing out of them. This is indeed to keep up a\n\"_continual remembrance_ of the Sacrifice of the death of Christ,\nand of the benefits which we receive thereby.\" A weekly Eucharist is\nreally a _continual_ Eucharist, because it makes our whole life to\nbe nothing else than a living over again and again, with perpetual\napplication to our own practice, of those events and memories\nwhich are the staple of the Ordinance. In this respect the Sunday\ncelebration of the Eucharist, viewed as crowning the week, possesses\na fitness, because a close following in the steps of Christ, in his\nIncarnation and Passion, his Death and Burial and Resurrection,\nwhich no other day can lay claim to. This fitness, of course,\nreaches its height on Easter-Day, but is also realized in a very\nhigh degree on our\n\n  \"Easter Day in every week.\"\n\nNor are there wanting more positive and distinct intimations of the\nWill of God in this matter, over and above the general presumptions\nwhich have been adduced hitherto.\n\nIt is always a somewhat delicate task to gather from the provisions\nof the Old Law sure and certain conclusions as to the destined ones\nof the New; because some of the former were, as the event proved,\nto be entirely abrogated, or however absorbed, while others were to\nabide to the end, only with new powers. Thus, the multitude of slain\nsacrifices was to disappear, being absorbed and done away in the One\nSlain Sacrifice. But the bread and wine of the Elder Economy were\nto survive, with added powers, in the New. We cannot, therefore,\nassume with certainty that the seventh-day recurrence of any feast\nof the Old Law, however close its resemblance to the Eucharist in\nother respects, enforces of necessity a like seventh-day recurrence\nof the Christian Ordinance. But thus much may be observed, as a law\npervading the transference of the old ways of service to the new\nsystem, that there was to be no going back, or falling short, in\nthis point of frequency, but an equality at the lowest, and even\nsome advance in that respect. Thus, the great Continual Sacrifice\nof the Tabernacle and Temple, consisting in the renewal, morning\nand evening, of a lamb as a burnt offering, has passed on into\nthe _really_ continual, and not merely _renewed_, Offering and\nPresentation in Heaven of the true Lamb once for all slain. The\neucharistic or peace-offerings, again, personal or congregational,\nwhich bear so close an analogy to the Holy Eucharist, were only\noffered and partaken of, as an absolute rule, three times in the\nyear, though they might be, and were, offered and eaten more\nfrequently. So that the frequency of the Christian Eucharist, once\na week as a _minimum_, was a clear advance upon this.--But there\nwas another Ordinance very closely resembling the Eucharist. This\nwas the Shewbread. The materials of it were bread and wine; it was\noffered and eaten as a memorial of the one continual sacrifice,\nand as a means of presenting before God the Church of that day,\nthe twelve tribes of Israel. The analogy, therefore, is perfect;\nespecially in that no part of the offering was consumed by fire,\nbut the whole of that which was offered was also eaten, exactly as\nin the Eucharist. That this particular Ordinance was to survive,\naccordingly, with the least possible amount of transformation, in\nthe Gospel economy, was foretold, apparently, by Malachi. For to\nthis we may most safely refer his prediction, that \"in every place\nincense should be offered, and a pure offering;\" the terms \"pure\noffering,\" and \"incense,\" being especially applied to this rite;\nand the subject treated of being the negligence of the priests,\nto whom this ordinance was confined. _How often_, then, was this\noffering presented and partaken of? weekly--neither more nor less;\nnamely, on the Sabbath morning; it having been placed on the Table\nof Shewbread the Sabbath before, and being now consecrated, or\noffered, by burning, upon the altar of incense, the frankincense\nwhich had been placed on the top of the loaves for that purpose.\nThis \"Weekly Celebration and Communion,\" then, as it may rightly\nbe called, certifies to us, on the principle above laid down, that\nthe Christian Eucharist, its very counterpart or continuation, was\nto be weekly as a _minimum_. The same analogy would suggest, what\nwe know to have been the case from very early times, that the\nChristian rite was not, like the Jewish, to be _limited_ to a weekly\nperformance. In this respect, as well as in the extension of the\nrite to all Christians, now become \"Priests unto God,\" the antitype\nwas to rise, on occasion at least, above the type; even to the\ndegree, at high seasons, or under special circumstances, of a daily\ncelebration. And the fact that the bread and wine offered on each\nSabbath had already lain there a week, gives much countenance to\nthe view advocated above, that the Christian rite is, on the Lord's\nDay, retrospective, inclusive of the memories of the preceding week.\nFor the idea manifestly was that, in the twelve loaves, the twelve\ntribes lay in a mystery all the week long, with all their actions,\nbefore the Divine Majesty.\n\nBut we may, with much probability, go one step further, and say that\nOur Lord himself, in the very words of the Institution, gave no\nobscure intimation that the law of recurrence of the Ordinance was\nto be that which is here contended for. Among those words there is\none, though but one, which bears upon the question of frequency. It\nis, \"Do this, _as oft as ye drink_, for My memorial\" \u1f43\u03c3\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5]). What is the allusion here? Had the Jews any custom\nat that time of \"drinking\" wine in solemn religious \"memorial\" of\nnational mercies; for which this greater \"Memorial,\" of world-wide\nmeaning, was henceforth to be substituted? and if so, how often did\nthat rite recur, and what law would thus be suggested or prescribed\nfor the New \"Memorial\"?\n\nNow, that they had such a rite[6] at that time, is rendered\ninfinitely probable by the fact that they have such a one at this\nday; and of such a structure, and involving such reference to the\nancient system of sacrifice, as though actually going on, that it is\ninconceivable but that it must have existed before the destruction\nof the temple, and abolition of the law. It consisted of offering\nand consecrating, at the Synagogue Service, _on the eve of every\nSabbath_, a cup of wine, which was then drunk of, first by the\nconsecrator, and then by the orphan children there present:--a\ntouching rite, signifying (as appears by the prayers accompanying\nit) the fatherless condition of the nation when in Egypt, and God's\nmercy in bringing them out of it, to drink of the fruit of the vine\nin their own land. There were also prayers for the acceptance of the\ngreat continual sacrifice of the nation, then lying on the altar in\nthe temple; for peace; for grace to keep the commandments. In all\nrespects, therefore, this rite bore a very close resemblance, in its\nown sphere, to that which our Lord was instituting: He, too, having\noffered a cup of wine, presenting thereby the Sacrifice of His\nBlood, and enjoined that it should be then and ever after drunk of\nin thankful memorial and all-powerful pleading of that sacrificial\ndeliverance. And there was yet another Sabbath-eve rite, nearly\nakin to this one, only that it was a domestic rite, and performed\n_at supper_, and with _bread_ as well as wine; features which, of\ncourse, assimilated this latter form of the rite still more closely\nto what our Lord was doing.\n\n  [6] See 'Principles of Divine Service,' vol. ii., pp. 284-298.\n\nLet it be supposed then,--and it seems to be incontestable, if the\nexistence of the rites at that time may be safely assumed,--that\nto these rites our Lord alluded, both generally in the whole\nInstitution (though of course he referred to many other and greater\nrites too), and specially in the words--\"As oft as ye drink.\" We\nthen have from Himself a plain intimation as to the degree of\nfrequency of Celebration. Such an intimation would, apart from\nsubsequent instructions during the Forty Days, account for the\n\"First day of the week\" being mentioned for celebration, as if a\nfixed habit, in the Acts of the Apostles.\n\nThese things considered then;--the deep mystery for good attaching,\nfrom the very Creation downwards, to the seventh-day recurrence\nof religious ordinances; the special fitness of such a law of\nrecurrence in the case of the Holy Eucharist, because it is the\nsumming up of a Divine Week's Work of Redemption and Salvation;\nthe sharply defined presignification, by means of the Law and the\nProphets, the shewbread and Malachi, of a seventh-day rite of\nuniversal obligation, and blessedness yet to come; lastly, and chief\nof all, the brief but pregnant command of Our LORD Himself, gathered\nwith the utmost probability from the very words of the Institution;\nand all this, not left to our inference, but actually countersigned\nby the unvarying practice of the Church throughout the world for\nthree hundred years:--all this considered, I conceive that we have\nvery strong grounds indeed for affirming the proper obligation of\nthis law of recurrence, and for earnestly desiring that it might\nplease the Great Head of the Church to put it into the mind of this\nbranch of it to return, with all her heart, to the discharge of this\nmost bounden duty.\n\nI have preferred, in what has been said, to place this duty on\nthe lofty ground of zeal for the integrity of the great Mystery\nof our religion, and of reverence for the commands of Christ, and\nthe practice of His Apostles, rather than on the lower ones of\nexpediency and advantage. And in this light I would earnestly desire\nthat it may be primarily regarded. The _only_ question for any\nbranch of God's Church ought to be, What is commanded? What did God\nAlmighty intend, and types foreshadow, and Christ enjoin, and the\nApostles practise? Whatever _that_ was, it must be right for us to\naim at, and to strive for it with all our hearts.\n\nYet I would not have it supposed but that there is every reason\nto hope for the largest measures of blessing, and of spiritual\nresults, from a return to this practice. I will mention one very\ngreat scandal, the very canker and weakness of our whole parochial\nsystem, which has a fair likelihood of being removed by this means.\nNext to the infrequency of our Communions, the fewness of our\ncommunicants,--that is, in fact, of our _bon\u00e2 fide_ members of the\nChurch,--is our greatest and most inveterate evil. When this fewness\nis allowed its due significance, we must see and confess that the\nnominally Christian condition of this country is but an illusion\nand an untruth after all. Judged by our own Church's rule (which\nis the rule of Christ Himself), our _communicants_, and they only,\nare our people. The rest may call themselves what they will; or we\nmay for euphony call them \"our flocks,\" or God's people. But one\nthing is certain, that in those apostolic or early days to which\nwe ever appeal, and rightly, as our standard, they would have been\nheld to be reprobates, and no faithful members of Christ's body at\nall. Such then is our condition:--a miserable handful, even among\nthose who are nominally members of the Church, having any claim to\nthe title in reality. Now, how are these wanderers to be brought\nback? these abortive or moribund Christians to be induced to accept\nthe gift of life, through the indispensable Sacrament? Surely, for\nthe most part, even in the same way as converts are brought in, one\nby one, in heathen lands. Public ministrations, sermons, services,\nwill not do it. It is a personal effort, a personal rendering up\nof self, that is needed; and it is only by seizing and pressing,\nin private intercourse, the chance occasions of speech, the day of\nsorrow, or of conviction of sin, that we can induce men to make this\neffort. But, unhappily, when they are prepared to make it, in the\nvast majority of our parishes, the \"Communion Sunday\" is too often\na far-off event: and before it arrives the favourable impression\nand disposition has passed away. While, on the other hand, the\never-ready rite secures the communicant. In saying this, I am not\nmerely theorizing, but describing what I have found to take place\nwithin my own experience. It has been found that in this way nearly\none-third of the entire population of a parish may be brought in a\nfew years to Holy Communion. Surely some may be induced to try the\neffect, were it with this view only, of the restoration of Weekly\nCelebration.\n\nI am well aware, indeed, of the difficulties which, in many cases,\nstand in the way of such a restoration, and on these I would venture\nto say a few words.\n\nIn the first place, then, the state of things which prevails\namong us, and of which I have above ventured to speak in such\nstrong language of deprecation, is one which we of this generation\nhave not made, but inherited. It is not we, God be thanked, that\nhave diminished, but rather, in almost all cases, increased, the\nfrequency of our celebrations. The guilt of this evil custom is\nshared by the whole Church of fifteen hundred years past; and\ntherefore we must not be surprised if very great difficulties are\nfound in correcting it. The history of the desuetude, which we\nbehold and deplore, is simply this. For nearly three centuries,\nscarcely any breach was made in the Church's Eucharistic practice.\nNot only was there universal weekly celebration, but universal\nweekly reception also; with only such abatement, doubtless, as\neither discipline or unavoidable hindrance entailed. But the ninth\nof the so-called Apostolic canons, belonging probably to the third\ncentury, speaks of some \"who came in to hear the Scriptures, but\ndid not remain for the prayer (_i.e._ the Communion service) and\nholy reception.\" All such were to be suspended from Communion,\nas \"bringing disorder into the Church,\" _i.e._ apparently (with\nreference to 2 Thess. iii. 6), as \"walking disorderly, and not\nafter the tradition received from the Apostles.\" By about A.D.\n305, the Council of Elvira, as cited above, orders suspension\nafter absence from the Church _three successive_ Sundays: a\ncurious indication of \"monthly Communions\" having been an early,\nas it continues to this day a favourite, form of declension from\nprimitive practice. But by St. Chrysostom's time (c. 400) so rapidly\nhad the evil increased, that he speaks of some who received but\ntwice a year; and even of there being on occasion none at all to\ncommunicate. But this seems to have been but local, since we find\nthe Council of Antioch, A.D. 341, reiterating the Apostolic canon:\nand even three centuries later, the old rule of suspension for three\nabsences was still in force in the East; as Theodore of Tarsus,\nArchbishop of Canterbury in 668, testifies of the _Greek_ Church,\nfrom which he came. But even in the East the decline was rapid.\nThe Apostolical usage, confirmed by the ninth canon, was admitted\nto be binding; but obedience to it was given up as hopeless. Nay,\neven the laxer rule of Elvira was stretched by Canonists,[7] so as\nto recognise _attendance without reception_ as sufficient. In the\nWest the habit was all along laxer still than in the East. At Rome,\nas Theodore tells us, no penalty was inflicted for failing to\ncommunicate for three Sundays; but the more devout still received\nevery Sunday and Saint's-day in the time of St. Bede; whereas in\nEngland, as St. Bede tells us, even the more religious laity did\nnot _presume_ to communicate--so utterly had the Apostolic idea of\nCommunion perished--except at Christmas, Epiphany, and Easter. Some\nattempt was made in Spain and France[8] in the sixth century to\nrevive the pure Apostolic rule. But meanwhile the Council of Agde,\nheld in 506, discloses the actual state of things by prescribing,\nas the condition of Church membership, _three_ receptions in the\nyear--at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost.[9] The recognition of\nthis miserable pittance of grace, as sufficient for membership in\nChrist, was rapidly propagated through East and West; and remains,\nunhappily, as the _litera scripta_ of two out of the three great\nbranches of the Church--the Eastern and the English--to this day. In\nthe Roman Church, ever since the Fourth Lateran Council in 1214, but\n_one_ reception a year is enjoined under penalty; viz. at Easter.\nThe English Church, however, never accepted the Lateran decree;\nbut by Canons of Salisbury (about 1270), and of Lambeth (1378),\nre-affirmed the thrice-a-year rule. By the time of the Reformation,\nhowever, as is evident from the rubric attached to the Communion\nOffice in Edward VI.'s First Book, reception once a year had become\nthe recognised minimum in this country also. Meanwhile the miserable\npractice grew up, as a result of the lack of communicants, of the\npriest celebrating a so-called \"Communion,\" on occasion at least,\nalone. It is probable that in the earlier days, as _e. g._ of St.\nChrysostom, there were always clergy to receive; the \"parochial\"\nsystem of that time being to congregate several clergy at one cure.\nBut in the ninth century, solitary celebrations existed extensively,\nand were forbidden,[10] in the West. Not, however, to much purpose.\nIt soon became the rule, rather than the exception, for the priest\nto celebrate alone; and thus it continued until the Reformation.\nThe Council of Trent contented itself with feebly wishing things\nwere otherwise; and justified the abuse on the ground of vicarious\ncelebration and spiritual communion.\n\n [7] So Balsamon, in the twelfth century: \"Though some desire by\n means of this Canon to oblige those who come to Church to receive\n the Sacraments against their will, yet we do not; for we decide that\n the faithful are to stay to the end of the Divine Sacrifice; but we\n do not force them to communicate.\"--See Scudamore, 'Communion of the\n Faithful,' p. 58. Yet later writers acknowledged the true meaning of\n the Canon, though they thus condemned the existing practice of the\n Church.--Ibid.\n\n [8] Council of Lugo, A.D. 572; of Ma\u00e7on, A.D. 585.\n\n [9] \"S\u00e6culares qui natale Domini, pascha et pentecosten non\n communicaverint, catholici non credantur nec inter catholicos\n habeantur.\"--Concil. Agath., c. 18.\n\n [10] Council of Paris (829).\n\nIt was in her gallant and noble protest, single-handed, against this\nvast and desolating perversion of the Ordinance of Christ, that the\nEnglish Church, far from her own desire, and only borne down by the\naccumulated abuse of ages, lapsed into that unhappy desuetude of the\nWeekly Celebration, which prevails so widely to this hour. In her\nFirst Revised Communion Office she provided that, in order \"that the\nreceiving of the Sacrament may be most agreeable _to the Institution\nthereof, and to the usage of the Primitive Church_, some one, at the\nleast, of that house in every parish, to whom it appertaineth to\noffer [at the Offertory] for the charges of the Communion, or some\nother whom they shall provide, shall receive the Communion with the\nPriest.\"[11] It is added, that \"on _week-days_ he shall _forbear\nto celebrate except he have some that will communicate with him_.\"\nAnother rubric provided, that \"on Wednesdays and Fridays\" (which\nhad traditionally[12] been the great week-days for celebration in\nthis country), \"though there might be none to communicate with the\npriest, yet on those days\" (after the Litany ended) \"he should\nput on a plain albe or surplice, with a cope, and say all things\nat the altar appointed to be said at the celebration, until after\nthe Offertory.\" And this rule was extended to \"all other days,\"\nmeaning apparently customary high holydays, occurring in the week,\n\"whensoever the people were customably assembled to pray in the\nchurch, and none disposed to communicate with the priest.\"\n\n [11] Rubric at the end of the Communion Service, 1549.\n\n [12] Thus, in the Sarum Use, separate Epistles and Gospels are\n provided for those days throughout Advent, Epiphany, and Easter,\n till Whitsuntide; for Wednesdays only throughout the Trinity period.\n\nThus was a solemn protest made, and not in word only, as in other\nparts of the Church, but by outward deed, against the unpardonable\nand fatal neglect of the people to avail themselves of the ordinance\nof Christ. On _Sundays_ only (so the rubric seems to mean) a\npeculiar provision was made, so that there should, without fail, be\nattendants at the celebration. But on week-days, on which there was\nno such Divine obligation to celebrate, the Church would carry her\nprotest still further. While vesting her ministers, as if ready, for\ntheir parts, for the rite, she would refuse to volunteer a mode of\ncelebration, for which there was no precedent in the early and pure\ndays of Christianity.\n\nSuch appears to have been the intention of the First Book of\nEdward VI. The expedient of performing the Communion Service up to\na certain point only, on Wednesdays and Fridays, was manifestly\nadopted from the ancient Church of Alexandria, where, as Socrates\nhas recorded, exactly this usage prevailed on those days. In the\nSecond Book of Edward VI. (revised, be it remembered, in part by\nmembers of the same Committee of Divines as the First was, and\nprofessing the same doctrine),[13] the provision for the compulsory\nattendance of each household in turn was laid aside, probably as\nbeing found impracticable. And now at length the step was taken, to\nwhich sound principles of action had in reality pointed all along;\nand it was ordained that, if the people, appealed to as they had\nbeen, and would continue still to be, persisted on any given Sunday\nin excommunicating themselves, they should even be permitted to\ndo so. The great unreality of a Communion, which was no Communion\naccording to the Ordinance of Christ, should be done away. The\nminister should still be ready on all Sundays and holydays at\nthe altar; but it would be left, awfully left, for the people to\nsay whether Christ's ordinance should have place, or whether its\ncontinuity should be violated, and its benefits so far forfeited.\n\n  [13] See 'Principles of Divine Service,' Introd. to Part II., p.\n  123-129. Mr. Perry ('Declaration on Kneeling') arrives at the same\n  conclusion.\n\nAnd who will deny that such a course was, though a choice of evils,\nthe right one? What had the other practice done, but lull the Church\nof God into a fatal satisfaction with a state of things as widely\ndifferent from primitive Eucharist and primitive Christianity, as\nany one thing can well be from another? And if those other sad\nresults have followed, which we behold before our eyes, let not\nthe blame be laid on the age which has inherited, but on the ages\nwhich had accumulated and transmitted, such an inveterate habit\nof neglect to receive the Holy Communion. Be it remembered, too,\nthat (as has been well pointed out of late) the period of the\nGreat Rebellion caused an entire suspension of the Church's proper\nrites. \"The Sacrament was laid aside, in those distracting times,\nin many parishes in the kingdom, for near twenty years.\" (Bishop\nPatrick.) \"This solemn part of religion was almost quite forgotten;\nthe Remembrance of Christ's Death was soon lost among Christians.\"\n(Archbishop Tillotson.) \"The Sacrament was laid aside, in Cromwell's\ndays, in most parishes in the nation. In many churches there was no\n_speaking_ of the Sacrament for fifteen or sixteen years; till it\nwas feared the Lord's Supper would come to be ranked among those\nsuperstitious ceremonies that must be abolished.\" (Dr. Durell.)\nThese testimonies considered, the real wonder would be if there had\n_not_ been found very great difficulty in bringing back, at the time\nof the Restoration, the primitive habit of Weekly Celebration. And\nnow that we have added two hundred years more of neglect, we have to\nface the mighty difficulty of awakening a whole nation, of clergy\nand laity alike, to a due sense of our very grievous departure from\nthat Apostolic model, to which professedly we appeal as our standard\nof duty.\n\nAnd the task would seem to be hopeless, were it not, 1st, that a\ngreat and powerful movement tending to this result has already\nfor many years been going forward; and, 2nd, that there is reason\nfor believing that vast numbers of the clergy are really anxious\nto restore the primitive practice, and are only held back by\ndifficulties, either real or imagined. Of this latter fact it is in\nmy power to speak with some confidence; since I have been frequently\nurged, by no inconsiderable number of my brethren, to set forth, as\nI have now very imperfectly endeavoured to do, the grounds for such\na restoration.\n\nWhat then, supposing the clergy to be really anxious for it, are\nthe difficulties in the way? The first and most obvious is that of\nfinding a sufficient number of Communicants. This is to be overcome\nin a great measure by careful heed to that pregnant charge given to\nthe clergy at their Ordination, \"So to sanctify the lives of _them\nand theirs_, and to _fashion them after the Rule and Doctrine of\nChrist_, that they\" (that is the clergy and their households) \"may\nbe godly examples and patterns for the people to follow.\" And again\nthey are charged \"to frame the manners of _them that specially\npertain to them_.\" These injunctions suggest, that in the families\nand dependences of the parochial clergy ought to be found a nucleus\nand centre of all Christian living. Frequent Communion, at the\nleast--weekly, if possible--should be the normal condition of the\nClergyman's household, and of all who are allowed any special part\nin, or connexion with, the Services of the Church. Care being taken\nof this, it may well be hoped that at least a gradual reform might\nbe made: the stereotyped monthly Communions being exchanged for\na fortnightly, and finally for the full \"orbed round\" of Weekly\nCelebration.\n\nBut there is also a _vis inerti\u00e6_ to be overcome, among the middle\nclasses more especially, in the form of an objection to frequent\nCelebration at all. This, being founded in misapprehension, and\na vague general distrust of the object of such changes, must be\nremoved, in part by full and earnest setting forth of the grounds\nfor them; but still more by extending to those classes a fuller\nmeasure of education, including, as it cannot fail to do, a juster\nconception of the Church's duty and claims.\n\nAnother difficulty is the increased amount of labour which a weekly\nCommunion, if largely attended, as it ought to be, would entail\nupon the clergy. This may in part be compensated for by keeping\nthe eucharistic sermon within more moderate limits. Even so,\nhowever, the service is to the full long and laborious for a priest\nsingle-handed; while the great majority of benefices are unable to\nmaintain a second clergyman, even in Deacon's Orders. And the true\nremedy for this, and for the kindred difficulty of maintaining the\nDaily Service, would seem to lie in that revival of the Order of\nSubdeacons which has of late been so much urged, and which seems\nlikely to be countenanced by our ecclesiastical authorities.[14]\nThe duties of a Subdeacon might, it is thought, include the reading\nof the daily Office (excepting, of course, the Absolution), of\nthe Epistle, and some other subordinate portions of the Communion\nService. And it may be worth considering (though I offer the\nsuggestion with much diffidence), seeing that the Diaconate, as used\namong us, trenches so largely upon the duties of old assigned to the\npriest (such as preaching), whether it would not be proportionate\nthat the Subdeacon should be advanced, in some cases, to a\nrestrained Diaconate, and administer the Cup also. Such a provision\nwould diminish by one-half the time and labour of administration.\n\n  [14] See 'The Revival of the Subdiaconate,' a pamphlet; and the\n  Suggestions of the Archdeacon of London, put forth in his Charge\n  of 1850, and lately revised at a meeting of his Clergy of his\n  Archdeaconry, \"not without the full knowledge and sanction of the\n  Archbishops and of the Bishop of London.\"\n\nOn the whole, I cannot but hope that, if our Right Reverend Fathers\nin God, the Bishops, should think fit to press upon their clergy,\nand they upon their flocks, the duty of Weekly Celebration as alone\nfulfilling the commandment of Christ, a great deal might be done\ntowards rolling away this heavy reproach from us.\n\nAnd let it be borne in mind, as an encouragement, that this is the\n_only_ point absolutely wanting to complete our agreement, in every\nparticular, with the apostolic practice. Such of our churches as\nhave already, week by week, a fairly attended Celebration, to which\nall the faithful are heartily invited and urged to come,--such\nchurches exhibit a spectacle of really Apostolical Eucharistic\nService, such as the whole world beside cannot produce. Neither in\nEast or West, but in the English Church only, is weekly Communion,\nas the bounden duty of all Christians, so much as dreamt of; so\nutterly has the apostolic model, throughout Christendom, faded from\nthe memory of the Church of God.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI turn now to another form of eucharistic error which has obtained\nsome footing among us. In what has been said above, the mind and\npractice of the _first ages_ have been appealed to as the absolute\nstandard of eucharistic duty. And on this point we cannot, surely,\nbe too solicitous, or too firm in resisting any departure from it.\nSuch is, at any rate, the mind of the English Church. \"Before all\nthings we must be sure that this Sacrament be ministered in such\nwise as our Saviour did, and the good fathers in the primitive\nChurch frequented it.\" The position amounts to this,--that whatever\nwas then held to be true, and was acted upon, must be true, and\nought to be acted upon still. And the converse position is no less\nimportant,--that whatever was demonstrably _not_ held nor was acted\nupon then, cannot be true at all, and ought not to be acted upon now.\n\nBut this position has now, for some few years past, been, in\npractice, abandoned by some who have interested themselves in the\neucharistic condition of the English Church. Doctrines have been\nmaintained, and practices founded upon them, about which, whatever\ndefence may be set up for them, thus much at least is certain, and\ncan be proved to demonstration, that they find no recognition in the\nritual of the primitive ages.\n\nI speak more especially of the tenet, that one purpose, and a\nvery principal one to say the least, of the Holy Eucharist, is to\n_provide the Church with an object of Divine Worship, actually\nenshrined in the Elements--namely, our Lord Jesus Christ_; and\nthat the Church ought accordingly to pay towards that supposed\npersonal Presence of Christ on the altar, and towards the Elements\nas containing Him, that worship, which at other times she directs to\nHim as seated at the Right Hand of God. Such is the position laid\ndown and acted upon.\n\nNow, it might be shewn that there are infinite objections to this\ntenet, and that it involves vast difficulties and perplexities. But\nthe one answer which is _instar omnium_, and must be held to be\nabsolutely decisive against it, is that it was evidently _unknown to\nthe mind, because unrecognised by the Ritual, of the first ages_.\nThe altar, we are told, is, for the time being, the Majestic Throne\nof Christ; His Presence there (I cite the language of the upholders\nof this view) is of such a nature as to demand at our hands the same\nworship as we commonly pay to the Holy Trinity in Heaven. Now, if\nthis be really so, it necessitates, as a matter of course, acts of\nService, of Worship, of Prayer, of Invocation, addressed to Christ\nso present and so enthroned. Let, then, the upholders of it produce\na _single instance_ from the Ancient Communion Offices of a prayer,\nor even an invocation, so addressed. It cannot be done. Or if there\nbe found such an one lurking in some remote corner of a Liturgy, its\nmanifest departure from the whole tone and bearing of the rest of\nthe Office stamps it at once as late and unauthoritative.\n\nAnd this is the leading consideration,--that the entire drift and\nstructure of the Eucharistic Service is against such a view. _Its_\nkeynote is \"_Sursum corda_.\" This we are now called upon to give\nup, and to turn our worship, and the direction of our hearts, to\nan object enshrined on earth.--But besides this, the Liturgies\nthroughout speak of that which is consecrated, and lies upon the\naltar, as _Things_, and not as a person. But if it be indeed Christ\nHimself that lies there, is it reverent to speak of HIM as \"Things,\"\n\"Offerings,\" or even as \"Mysteries\"? Yet what is the language of the\nancient Liturgies, after the consecration? \"Bestow on us benefit\nfrom these Offerings\" (Lit. S. Chrys.). \"That we may become worthy\npartakers of Thy holy Mysteries\" (Syr. Lit. S. James). \"Holy Things\nfor holy persons:\" or (as it is otherwise rendered) \"The Holy\nThings to the Holy Places;\" or in the Western uses, \"Desire these\nThings (_h\u00e6c_) to be carried up by the hands of Thy Holy Angel\nunto thy sublime altar, into the Presence of Thy Majesty.\" It is\nintelligible, that for the divine and mysterious _Things_, the Body\nand Blood of Christ, we should desire contact with the mysterious\nheavenly altar, on which \"the Lamb that was slain\" personally\npresents Himself; but that we should desire this for Christ Himself\nwould be incomprehensible, if not irreverent.\n\nAnd let these words of S. Chrysostom's Liturgy be especially\npondered: \"Hear us, O Lord Jesus Christ, out of Thy Holy\nDwelling-place, and from the _Throne of the glory of Thy kingdom_;\nThou that sittest above with the Father, and here art invisibly\npresent with us: and by thy mighty Hand _give us to partake_ of Thy\nspotless Body and Thy precious Blood.\" Is it not perfectly certain\nfrom hence, that, in the conception of antiquity, Our Blessed Lord\nwas _not_ lying personally upon the altar? that, personally, He was,\nas regards His Majestic Presence, on His Throne in Heaven? and as\nregards His Mysterious Presence on earth, it was to be sought, not\nin or under the Elements, but (according to the proper law of it) in\nand among the faithful, the Church of God there present? For He is\ninvited to come, by an especial efflux or measure of that Presence,\nand to give the mysterious Things, His Body and Blood.\n\nThe same conclusion follows from the language of the Fathers, taken\nin its full range. Let any one examine Dr. Pusey's exhaustive catena\nof passages from the Fathers, concerning the \"Real Presence,\" and he\nwill find that, for one instance in which That which is on the Altar\nis spoken of as if it were Christ Himself, it is called a hundred\ntimes by the title, \"His Body and Blood.\" The latter is manifestly\nthe exact truth; the former the warm and affectionate metonymy,\nwhich gives to the mysterious Parts, the Body and Blood, the titles\ndue only properly to the Divine and Personal Whole.\n\nVain then, and necessarily erroneous, because utterly devoid of\ncountenance from the ancient Apostolic Rites, are the inferences\nby which this belief is supported. Though, indeed, the fallacy of\nthe inferences themselves is sufficiently apparent. It is said that\nChrist's Body, wherever it is, and under whatsoever conditions\nexisting, must demand and draw Divine Worship towards it. Is it so\nindeed? Then why, I would ask, do we not pay Divine Worship to the\nCHURCH? for the Church certainly is \"His Body, His Flesh, and His\nBones.\" Nay, why do we not worship the individual communicant? for\nhe, certainly, has received not only Christ's Body, but Christ's\nvery Self, to dwell within him. The truth is, that inferences, in\nmatters of this mysterious nature, are perfectly untrustworthy,\nunless supported and countersigned by apostolic practice.\n\nI am aware that this doctrine has been embraced, of late years, by\nsome of the most devout and eminent of our divines. But the history\nof their adoption of it is such, that we may allege themselves, in\nthe exercise of their own earlier and unbiassed judgment, against\ntheir present opinions. The names of those divines are named with\nreverence and affection, and justly so, wherever the English\nlanguage is spoken. But the works, on which that estimate was first\nfounded, upheld, explicitly or tacitly, the opposite of that to\nwhich they now lend the high sanction of their adhesion. A sermon\non the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Eucharist was called forth\nfrom one of them by a sentence of suspension from preaching in\nthe University pulpit at Oxford. But this full exposition of his\neucharistic views at that time is absolutely devoid of any claim\nfor Divine Adoration as due to the Body and Blood of Christ, or to\nChrist Himself as present under the Eucharistic Elements. Again, in\na well-known stanza of the 'Christian Year,' another honoured divine\nhas said,--\n\n    \"O come to our Communion Feast;\n      There present in the heart,\n    _Not in the hands_, th' eternal Priest\n      Will His true self impart.\"[15]\n\n  [15] It is true that another part of the same exquisite volume\n  speaks of--\n\n        \"The dear feast of JESUS dying,\n        _Upon that altar ever lying_,\n        Where souls, with sacred hunger sighing,\n      Are called to sit and eat, while angels prostrate fall.\"\n\n  But this is exactly an instance of the warm metonymy above spoken\n  of, and cannot be pressed against the distinct disallowance,\n  contained in the passage quoted in the text, of there being a\n  _personal Presence_ of Christ in the Elements.\n\nAnd it is believed that the first appearance in a modern days of\nthe _former_ doctrine, viz. that worship is due to the Body and\nBlood of Christ, was in the year 1856, in the case of Ditcher _v._\nDenison.[16] It was through a chivalrous desire to uphold a cause,\nwith the main aspects of which they naturally felt a deep sympathy,\nthat the writers referred to were drawn into countenancing a\ndoctrine, then new to their theology, but of the truth of which, on\nexamination, they seem to have satisfied themselves. Surely we may\nbelieve that it was not without misgiving that they thus abandoned\nthe doctrines which they once taught us. They cannot have felt\naltogether satisfied thus to break with the Church of the First Ages\nin a matter so momentous as that of the Object of worship, and of\nthe nature and purpose of the Holy Eucharist.\n\n  [16] See note at the end.\n\nClosely connected with this doctrine, is a practice not merely\ndefended of late, but strongly urged as being of the very essence\nof exalted Eucharistic duty:--that of being present at the Rite\n_without receiving_; for the purpose, it is alleged, of adoring\nChrist as present under the Elements. But here again the Early\nChurch furnishes thorough condemnation of the practice. In an\nexhaustive treatise,[17] it has been shown that, except as a deeply\npenitential act, she knew of no such practice; making no account\nwhatever of attendance on the rite apart from reception: rightly\nviewing it as a Sacrifice indeed, but a Sacrifice of that class\nor kind in which _partaking_ was an essential and indispensable\nfeature. And the English Church, it is almost unnecessary to add,\nthough a faint endeavour has been made to disprove it, has given\nno more countenance than the Church of old to this practice.\nContenting herself, at first, at the Reformation, with forbidding\nnon-communicants to remain in the choir, she afterwards so\neffectually discouraged and disallowed their presence at all, that\nit became unmeaning to retain the prohibition any longer.[18]\n\n  [17] Rev. W. Scudamore's 'Communion of the Faithful.'\n\n  [18] This is fully proved by Scudamore, 'Communion of the Faithful,'\n  pp. 107-120.\n\nAnd in truth it is, as might be expected, to the later and corrupt\nages of the Church that we owe both of these positions which it\nis now attempted to revive among us: viz. that in the language of\nthe decrees of Trent,[19] \"our Lord Jesus Christ, God and Man, is\ntruly, really, and substantially contained in the Sacrament of\nthe Eucharist,\" _i. e._ in the Elements, \"and is to be adored\" as\ncontained therein: and again, that the faithful may be present\nmerely to adore, and may communicate spiritually,[20] though, as has\nbeen well said, \"they purposely neglect the only mode of doing so\nordained by Christ.\"\n\n  [19] Council of Trent, Session 13, c. 1. See 'Principles of Divine\n  Service,' Introd. to vol. ii., pp. 158-187.\n\n  [20] Session 22, c. 6.\n\nThe latter position--respecting non-communicating attendance--has\nbeen lately discountenanced[21] by one of those eminent divines\nwho are generally claimed as sanctioning the entire system to\nwhich it belongs. And though the number of those among the clergy\nwho have embraced these views is not inconsiderable, while their\npiety and devotedness are unquestionable, yet I cannot doubt that\nat least an equal number, in no way their inferiors in learning or\ndevotion, deeply deplore these departures from the primitive faith.\nAnd it is not too much to hope, that, as the English Church has\nwitnessed a school of postmedi\u00e6val or unsacramental divinity, which,\nnotwithstanding its piety and earnestness, has ceased to exercise\nmuch influence among us, even so it may be with the medi\u00e6val and\nultra-sacramental school which has lately risen up. Defend their\nviews how they will, what they are seeking to introduce is a _new\ncultus_, and a _new religion_, as purely the device of the middle\nages, as non-sacramentalism was the device of Calvin and Zwingle.\nAnd the one doctrine as distinctly demands a new Prayer-book as the\nother does. What the English Church, on her very front, professes,\nis neither postmedi\u00e6valism nor medi\u00e6valism, but apostolicity. Since\nchoose she must, (for the two are utterly irreconcilable) between\nsymbolising with the medi\u00e6valising Churches of the West, and\nsymbolising with the Church of the first ages, she has taken her\npart, and her deliberate mind is \"Sit Anima Mea cum Apostolis.\"\n\n  [21] See Mr. Keble's letter in the 'Guardian,' Jan. 24, 1866.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFrom RITES, I turn to RITUAL, which claims at this moment the larger\nshare of attention.\n\nHow, then, are the Services of the English Church to be performed,\nso as to be in accordance with her mind and principles? It will\nbe answered, that the Services ought to be conducted according to\n\"the Book of Common Prayer and _Administration of the Sacraments_,\naccording to the use of the Church of England.\"[22] But this, though\nat first sight the true and sufficient answer, is not, in reality,\neither true or sufficient. The duty in question, that of conducting\nthe Services of the Church, is laid upon particular persons: and it\nis by recurring to the exact terms of the obligation laid on those\npersons, when they are solemnly commissioned to their office, that\nwe must seek for an answer. Now the engagement exacted by the Bishop\nfrom candidates for the priesthood, at their Ordination, is, in\nexact terms, this: \"Will you give your faithful diligence always\nso to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of\nChrist, as the Lord hath commanded, _and as this Church and Realm\nhath received the same_?\" The italicised words contain the gist of\nthe whole matter. By the interpretation we put upon them must our\nstandard of Ritual be determined.\n\n  [22] Preface concerning the Service of the Church.\n\nWhat then \"hath this Church and Realm received,\" at the present\nmoment, in the matter of Ritual? Not the Prayer-book standing\nabsolutely, and alone, without any comment or addition whatsoever:\nbut that Book, as interpreted and modified, in certain respects,\nby subsequent enactments, which have in various ways obtained,\npractically, the Church's recognition. The truth is, that\nthis country has taken a certain line, and the same line, in\nher ecclesiastical and in her civil polity. In civil matters,\nMagna Charta is the broad basis and general draught of her free\nconstitution. But the particulars of that constitution have been\nfrom time to time regulated and modified, not by interlining the\noriginal document, but by separate statutes. And the Prayer-book,\nin like manner, is the ecclesiastical Magna Charta of the Church\nand Realm. For upwards of two centuries--since 1662--it has\nreceived no authoritative interlineation whatever; and but few and\nslight ones (subsequently to its first settlement in 1549-1559)\nfor another century before that. The differences which are found\nat the present moment in any two copies of the Prayer-book are\npurely unauthorised. They are merely editions for convenience.\nThe Sealed Book, settled in 1662--that, and no other--is the\nEnglish Prayer-book. For more than three centuries, then, we may\nsay that a policy of non-interlineation, so to call it--that is,\nof leaving intact the original document--has been very markedly\nadhered to. Such alterations or modifications as have, practically,\nbeen made and accepted by the Church and Realm, have been effected\nby enactments external to the Prayer-book. Injunctions, canons,\nstatutes, judicial decisions, have from time to time been allowed,\n_nemine contradicente_, to interpret or even contravene particular\nprovisions of the Book. And, not least of all, custom itself has,\nin not a few particulars, acquired the force of law, and though not\nas yet engrossed in any legal document, has long been, in practice,\npart and parcel of our ecclesiastical polity.\n\nInstances in point are,--1. Of an injunction practically recognised\nas law, that of Queen Elizabeth, permitting the use of \"a hymn\nor such like song in the beginning or in the end of the Common\nPrayers;\" whereas the Prayer-book recognises no such feature or\nelement. It is on this injunction, and on that alone, that the\npractice, now universal, is based. Other instances, again, of royal\ninjunctions, constantly acted upon, are those by which the names\nof the sovereign and royal family, _pro re nat\u00e2_, are inserted and\naltered; a power given indeed, by implication, in the Prayer-book\nitself, because necessary by the nature of the case; but not\nexpressly there,[23] and a departure, speaking literally, from the\nSealed Book. Such, again, is the use of prayers or thanksgivings\nenjoined on special occasions by royal authority. These it has so\nlong been customary to accept and use, that no serious question is\nnow made of their legality.\n\n  [23] It is provided for, as is well known, by the Act of Uniformity,\n  13 & 14 Car. II.\n\n2. An instance of a canon obtaining recognition by common consent,\nthough irreconcilable with the rubric of the Prayer-book, is that of\nthe 58th of 1604, which orders any minister, when \"ministering the\nsacraments,\" to wear a surplice; whereas the rubric recognises for\nthe Holy Communion far other \"Ornaments of the Church, and of the\nministers thereof.\"\n\n3. A case of statute law being allowed to supplement rubrical\nprovision, by adding an alternative, is that which orders Banns of\nMarriage to be asked after the Second Lesson at Evening Service, if\nthere be no Morning Service. Such too, as the Dean of Westminster\nlately pointed out in Convocation, was the Act of Toleration; as\nis also the Act empowering bishops to require a second sermon on\nSundays.\n\n4. Judicial decisions, once more, are from time to time unavoidable.\nBy these a certain interpretation is put upon the rubrics of the\nPrayer-book; and unless protested against, as sometimes they are, in\nsome weighty and well-grounded manner, they are practically embodied\nin the standing law of the Church.\n\n5. And lastly, apart from any legal prescription whatever, various\nusages and practices, especially in matters not expressly provided\nfor in the Prayer-book, have obtained so generally, as to be a\npart of what may be called the \"common law\" of the Church, though\nliable to revision by the proper authority. Such is the alternate\nrecitation, in Churches where it obtains, of the psalms, between\nthe Minister and the people. Such too is, in reality, the use of\nany other mode of saying the Service than that of reciting it on\na musical note; for none other was intended by the Church, nor is\nrecognised in the Prayer-book.[24] Such, once more, is the having\nany sermon beyond the rubrical one.\n\n  [24] See, in proof of this, the admirable letter, which, by the kind\n  permission of the Rev. J. B. Dyke, late Precentor of Durham, I have\n  placed in the Appendix.\n\nOn the whole, it cannot be gainsaid, that what \"this Church and\nrealm hath received,\" and what her Ministers, therefore, undertake\nto carry out in their ministrations, is _not_ the Book of Common\nPrayer, pure and simple, _but_ that Book as their main guide and\nMagna Charta, yet interpreted and modified here and there, and in\nsome few but not unimportant points, by provisions or considerations\nexternal to it. When, therefore, the candidate for Holy Orders, or\nfor admission to a benefice, undertakes, by signing the Thirty-sixth\nCanon, that \"he will use the form in the said Book prescribed in\nPublic Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, _and none\nother_,\" it cannot be understood that the directions of that\nBook are, without note, comment, or addition, his guide in every\nparticular. For he is about, if a candidate for Ordination, to\npromise solemnly before the Church that he will minister \"as this\nChurch and Realm hath received;\" a formula, as has been shown, of\nmuch wider range than the letter of the Prayer-book. And in like\nmanner, if a candidate for a benefice, he has already, at his\nOrdination, made that larger undertaking, and cannot be understood\nto narrow it now by subscribing to the Canon. And if it be asked,\nWhy were the terms of the Thirty-sixth Canon made so stringent\noriginally by the addition of the words \"and none other;\" or why\nshould these words be retained now? the answer is, that originally,\nas a matter of historical fact, the Canon was directed against\nwilful depravers and evaders of the Book and its rules; not against\nsuch interpretations, or even variations and additions, as had all\nalong obtained on various grounds, and are in fact unavoidable by\nthe nature of things. \"No one,\" says the late Bishop Blomfield,\n\"who reads the history of those times with attention can doubt\nthat the object of the Legislature, who imposed upon the clergy a\nsubscription to the above Declaration, was the substitution of the\nBook of Common Prayer\" (subject, even then, to Injunctions, Canons,\nand customs already modifying it here and there) \"for the Missal\nof the Roman Catholics, or the Directory of the Puritans.\" And the\npresent retention of the wording of the Canon stands on the same\ngrounds. It is necessary that a promise, and that of a stringent\nkind, should be exacted of the clergy of a Church, or licence would\nbe unbounded. But on the other hand, it is perfectly intelligible,\nand has the advantage of practicability, that the words should be\nunderstood to speak of the Book as modified in the way in which it\nhas all along, by universal consent, been held to be modified. If\nit be replied that this, too, opens a door to endless licence, I\nanswer, No. The modifications are, for the most part, as definite\nas the document itself, and are in number few, though they cover,\non occasion, a considerable range of actions. The Prayer-book, in\nshort, is not unlike a monarch, nominally absolute, and for the most\npart really such; but on whom a certain degree of pressure has from\ntime to time been brought to bear, and may be brought to bear again.\nBut its actual _status_ is at any given time fairly ascertainable.\nIt might be well, indeed, that all this occasional legislation\nshould be digested by the only proper authority, viz. the conjoint\nspiritualty and temporalty of the realm, into one harmonious and\nduly authorised whole. But for the time being the position of things\nis sufficiently intelligible.\n\nAnd now to apply this view of Prayer-book law, so to call it, to\nthe matter which especially engages attention at this moment,--that\nof the manner of administering the Holy Communion; and first to the\nvestments of the clergy.\n\n1. Now, if there be any one point in which the English Church _is_,\nwhat she has most untruly been asserted to be in other points,\nnamely, broad and _alternative_ in her provisions, it is this one\nof the ornaments or dress of her clergy. While, in the matter\nof doctrine, Heaven forfend that she should have two minds, and\ngive her children their choice which they should embrace--seeing\nthat so would she forfeit the name and being of a \"Church\"\naltogether;--certain it is, that, from peculiar causes, she does,\nin this matter of officiating vestments, give, by her present and\nalready ancient provisions, a choice and an alternative. With her\neyes open, and at periods when she was most carefully scanning, for\ngeneral adoption, those provisions, has she deliberately left on\nher statute-book (meaning thereby her entire range of rules), and\nadmitted into her practical system, two diverse rules or practices.\nWe may confine our attention for the moment to the period of the\nlatest revision of the Prayer-book in 1662. On that occasion the\nFifty-eighth Canon of 1603,--derived from certain \"Advertisements\"\nof Elizabeth, and probably supported by the universal custom of the\nrealm,--was allowed to stand unaltered. This Canon provides, as\nhas been above mentioned, that \"Every minister, saying the public\nprayers, or _ministering the sacraments_, or other rites of the\nChurch, shall wear a decent and comely _surplice_ with sleeves;\"\nonly with a special exception, recognised in another Canon, in the\ncase of Cathedrals. And yet on the same occasion was retained the\nrubric of Elizabeth (1559), about \"the ornaments of the Church, and\nof the ministers thereof,\" with only such variation as fully proves\nthat it was not an oversight, but a deliberate perpetuation of the\nlaw concerning _vestments_ more especially. For the previous form\nof it,--dating from 1603, and but slightly altered from that of\nElizabeth,--was, that \"the minister at the time of the Communion,\nand at all other times in his ministrations, _shall use such\nornaments in the Church_ as were in use by authority of Parliament\nin the second year of the reign of King Edward VI., according to\nthe Act of Parliament set in the beginning of this Book.\" But\nthe altered form was, \"Such ornaments of the Church, _and of the\nministers thereof_, at all times of their ministrations, _shall\nbe retained, and be in use_, as were in this Church of England in\nthe second year,\" &c.; omitting only the mention of the Act of\nParliament. It will be observed, that in lieu of \"ornaments of the\n_Church_,\" which might have seemed to be irrespective of vestments,\nwas now substituted \"ornaments of the Church, _and of the ministers_\nthereof.\" And again, compare the words \"shall be retained, and be\nin use\" with \"shall use.\" In truth, the new rubric is a citation\nfrom the Act of Elizabeth, only omitting the limitation \"until such\ntime, &c.,\" and it cannot be taken as expressing less than a real\ndesire and earnest hope, on the part of our latest revisers, that\nthe original Edwardian \"ornaments\" might really be used; that they\nshould--gradually, perhaps, but really--supersede, in the case of\nthe Communion Service, the prevalent surplice.\n\nIf it be asked, how it came to pass that the surplice had superseded\nthe proper eucharistic vestments prescribed by Elizabeth's rubric?\nwe can only answer, that the prevailing tendency during her reign\nwas decidedly in favour of simpler ways in the matter of ritual;\nand that, the _Second_ Book of Edward VI. (1552), having distinctly\n_forbidden_ those vestments by the words, \"the minister at the\ntime of the Communion, and at all other times of his ministration,\n_shall use neither alb, vestment, nor cope_, but, being a bishop,\na rochet; and being a priest or deacon, he shall _have and wear_ a\nsurplice only:\" the Elizabethan clergy would, owing to the reaction\nafter Queen Mary's reign, be inclined to recur to that position\nrather than to retain the other vestments. Some, indeed, _did_\nretain them, as appears by allusions to them as in use in the\nbeginning of Elizabeth's reign;[25] but, as a general rule, their\nuse was discouraged, and apparently put down. \"For the disuse of\nthese ornaments we may thank them that came from Geneva, and, in\nthe beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, being set in places of\ngovernment, suffered every negligent priest to do as he listed.\"\n(Bishop Overall.)[26]\n\n  [25] See note M, p. 49, of Mr. Skinner's recent 'Plea for the\n  threatened Ritual of the Church of England.'\n\n  [26] Skinner, p. 48. Archbishop Grindal, and Bishop Sandys (1571-76)\n  urged their destruction.\n\nOn the other hand, _one_ form of the Edwardian \"Ornaments\" had\nsurvived, even through Elizabeth's reign; viz. the cope (of course\nwith the alb), chiefly in cathedrals. For so it is recognised in\nthe 24th canon of 1603. \"In all cathedrals and collegiate churches\nthe Holy Communion shall be administered upon principal feast-days\nby the Bishop, the Dean, or a Canon or Prebendary, _the principal\nminister_ [_i. e._ celebrant] _using a decent cope_.\" This was\nin accordance, as far as it went, with the original rubric of\nEdward VI.'s First Book. \"The priest that shall execute the holy\nministry shall put upon him ... a vestment, or _cope_.\" But during\nthe Elizabethan period two limitations had, practically, been\nintroduced; the _cope_, only, was used; and chiefly, though not\nexclusively, in cathedral churches only.[27] However, the fact\nthat to this extent the rubric of Edward VI. was still acted upon,\nmight well encourage the revisers of 1662 to contemplate a general\nreturn to its provisions.[28] It was but a hundred years ago that\nthey had fallen into desuetude; and the devout zeal of Bishop Cosin,\nand others among the revisers, on behalf of the Eucharist, would\nlead them to desire the restoration of whatever, in their judgment,\nwould tend to its higher honour and more becoming celebration.\nCosin himself was accustomed, as a Prebendary of Durham Cathedral,\nto wear the cope, and to see it worn by others; and not by the\ncelebrant only, but by the attendant clergy. For in his answer to\nthe articles of impeachment sent to the House of Lords against him\nin 1640, he says \"That the copes used in that Church were brought\nin thither long before his time. One there was that had the story\nof the Passion embroidered upon it; but _the cope that he used\nto wear_, when at any time he _attended the Communion Service_,\nwas of plain white satin only, without any embroidery upon it at\nall.\"[29] The canon of 1603 must not, therefore, be understood\nas _confining_ the use of the cope to the celebrant, but only as\nproviding that the celebrant, _at least_, must, in cathedrals, be\nso apparelled. It may be added, that the copes still preserved in\nDurham Cathedral, and only disused[30] within a century, are a proof\nthat, in this point at any rate, it is but very recently that the\nEdwardian \"ornaments\" ceased to be used in the English Church in our\ncathedrals; while, in a solitary instance, that of the Coronation\nService, the use of copes by the Archbishop, the attendant Bishops,\nand by the Dean and Canons of Westminster, survives to the present\nday.\n\n  [27] 1636. \"Must other churches have _copes_, because such is the\n  guise of cathedrals?\" St. Giles' in the Fields and St. Leonard's,\n  Shoreditch, are named in 1640. An Act of 1644 orders copes to be\n  sold in parish churches.--(Hierurgia Anglicana, p. 164.)\n\n  [28] It is very remarkable, on the other hand, that, as was pointed\n  out in the recent debate in Convocation, Cosin, and others of the\n  revisers, especially Archbishop Sheldon, still made inquiry in their\n  Visitations, not as to the other vestments, but the surplice only.\n  The only solution would seem to be, that, personally, they wished\n  the vestments restored, but, finding no response to their wishes,\n  fell into the usual track of Visitation Articles.\n\n  [29] Life of Cosin, prefixed to his Works, in the \"Anglo-Catholic\"\n  Library.\n\n  [30] By Bishop Warburton, it is said, circ., 1770.\n\nThe bearing of these facts upon our subject is, that they prove that\nit was in no merely antiquarian spirit that our latest revisers\nretained the far-famed rubric of Edward VI. It was as having been\naccustomed to see a due access of honour and dignity accruing to the\nHoly Rite, that they wished, not merely to retain what had survived,\nin practice, of that rubric, but to restore the parts of it which\nhad fallen into disuse; to bring back, everywhere, with the less\ncorrect cope, that which in the rubric enjoyed a preference--the\n\"vestment\" or chasuble,--and whatever else the rubric involved. They\nhoped that the day was come, or that it would come ere long, when\nthe surplice would, in respect of the Communion Service, yield to\nthe proper \"vestment\" its \"ancient usual place.\"[31]\n\n  [31] It is remarkable that the Canons which are contrariant to the\n  Rubric have no existence in the _Irish_ Canons passed in their\n  Convocation in 1634. The 7th Canon is \"All ministers shall use and\n  observe the orders, rites, ornaments, and ceremonies prescribed in\n  the Book of Common Prayer, and in the Act of Uniformity printed\n  therewith, as well in saying of Prayers as in administration of the\n  Sacrament.\" (See Mr. Baker's letter to the 'Church Review,' March\n  17, 1866). The same canon enforces the surplice and hood for deans,\n  canons, &c., for Prayers, without mentioning the Holy Communion.\n\nAnd the reason why they did not at the same time procure the formal\nabolition of the Canon of 1603, which recognises the surplice\nfor parish churches, is, we can hardly doubt, that they wished\nto leave the practical working out of the change to time, and to\nthe voluntary action of the parochial clergy. There had existed\never since the year 1559 a diversity in practice; and, ever since\nElizabeth's \"Advertisements,\" an actual alternative in the Church's\norders about vestments. That alternative they did not care to\nremove. It was by desuetude that the irregular habit had first come\nin, until it obtained recognition by the Canon of 1604: it was to\ndesuetude that they trusted for the removal of it. Meanwhile, those\nwho chose to plead usage and the canon on the one hand, and those\nwho preferred to plead the statute law of the Rubric on the other,\nwere both alike in a fairly defensible position. Two modes, in\nshort, of vesting the clergy for the Holy Communion were practically\nrecognised at the latest settlement of our Offices; and, until some\nnew enactment should supersede the one or the other, must continue\nto be recognised still.\n\nSuch, I say, appears to be the position of the law, and of clerical\nduty or obligation, at the present moment. Beyond all question, this\n\"Church and Realm hath received\" and recognised, _practically_, an\nalternative in this matter. She has not bound her sons absolutely,\nand without choice, either to the older or the later practice.\nHer position, as defined by the action of some of the wisest and\nbest of her sons on the last occasion--two hundred years ago--of\nreconsidering her constitution, has been one of observation and of\nhope; of waiting to see which way, in a matter non-essential, though\nfar from unimportant, the mind of her sons would carry her.\n\nAnd now a time has arrived when the question, after slumbering for\ntwo centuries, has awakened, and, in a practical form, demands an\nanswer.\n\nHitherto,--that is, from the time of Elizabeth (1559) until now,--no\nmarked desire has been manifested by the parochial clergy to carry\nout the original provisions of the Prayer-book in this matter. But\nnow that step has--whether by more or fewer of them I stop not\nnow to inquire--been taken. There are churches in this land where\nthe long-disused \"Ornaments\" have been assumed. That which the\nFirst Book of Edward handed on from the past; that which the Book\nof Elizabeth restored after its repeal, taking for granted that\nit would be operative, though the event proved otherwise; that\nwhich the Revisers of 1603 did not disturb, though the Canon of\nthe same year authorised a departure from it; that which Cosin and\nhis fellow-labourers, in 1662, in language of increased strength,\ndirected the restoration of: this has at length come forth among us,\nnot in word only, but in act and visible form. And the question is,\nhow is the Church to deal with this fact, and this phenomenon? It is\nobvious and easy to say on the one hand--\"There is no doubt about\nthe matter. The rubric is statute law, and therefore overrides the\ncanon, which is not.\" And it is equally obvious and easy to say, on\nthe other hand--\"There is no doubt about the matter: the usage, with\ncertain exceptions, of two hundred, or even three hundred years,\ncan be pleaded for the use of the surplice at the Holy Communion.\nA rubric which has been in abeyance for that period is and ought\nto be considered obsolete.\" A great deal may be said on behalf of\nboth these positions; and it is very unlikely that, debating the\nmatter from this point of view--_i.e._ from mere consideration of\nthe comparative weight of statute on the one hand, and custom on the\nother,--we should ever arrive at a conclusion which would satisfy\nthe diversely constituted minds with which these two considerations\ncarry weight respectively. We must, therefore, it is submitted, take\na wider view of the question, and see whether there be not other\nconsiderations besides these, which may lead us to a just and wise\ndecision about it.\n\nAnd one very weighty and relevant consideration, though by no means\ndecisive of the whole matter, is, How far would the restoration\nof these vestments--I will suppose it wisely, judiciously, and\ncharitably brought about--accord with the tone and feeling, either\npresent or growing up, of the existing English Church? Now, it must,\nI think, be admitted, that the experience of the last few years is\nsuch, as to modify very considerably the answer to be given to this\nquestion. The Church has within that period succeeded in making\ncertain ritual features attractive to the people at large, to a\ndegree entirely unknown to her hitherto. She has developed, by care\nand training, their capacities for the enjoyment of a well-conceived\nritual. And she has exhibited to them phases and modes of Service\nto which they and their fathers for centuries had been strangers.\nI refer especially to the great movement lately made for the\nimprovement of parochial music throughout the land. Indirectly\nand accidentally, this movement carried with it many results of a\nritual kind. It accustomed the eyes of the generality to Services\non a scale of magnitude and dignity unknown to them before. Instead\nof the single \"parson and clerk,\" or Minister and handful of\nuntrained singers, they beheld, at the Festivals, choral worship,\nconducted by a multitude of clergy, and by hundreds or thousands\nof choristers. And they were delighted with it. The grandeur of\nsuch a service, its correspondence to the glimpses of heavenly\nworship disclosed to us by Holy Scripture,[32] forcibly impressed\nthe imagination, and enlisted the feelings. These occasions also\nraised the question of how large bodies of persons, meeting for a\nunited act of musical worship, should be attired, how marshalled and\noccupied, while moving into their assigned places in the Sanctuary.\nHence the surplice, the processional hymn, the banner to distinguish\nthe several choirs, became familiar things. They were felt to be\nthe natural accompaniments of such occasions. And thus was brought\nto light what had hitherto been, and with great appearance of\nreason, denied, viz. that this nation differs not in its mental\nconstitution from other nations; that its antipathy (doubtless\nexisting) to these things, had been founded simply on their being\nunusual, and on their supposed connection with unsound doctrine.\nOnce the _meaning_ of them was seen--Englishmen like to know the\nmeaning of things--the dislike and the prejudice were overcome.\n\n  [32] St. Luke ii. 13, Rev. vii. 9, xiv. 3. Compare 2 Chron. v. 12.\n\nAnd the larger gatherings at which these things were done have\nreacted upon the more limited and ordinary parochial services. Their\nproper object was so to react in respect of musical proficiency\nonly; but they have influenced, at the same time, the whole outward\nform and order of things. As one main result, they have in many\ninstances brought back the proper threefold action so clearly\nrecognised in the Prayer-book, and so long utterly lost sight of,\nexcept in cathedral and collegiate churches, \"of minister, _clerks_,\nand people.\" The appointed medium for sustaining the clergy on the\none hand, and the congregation on the other, in the discharge of\ntheir several parts in the service,--viz. the trained lay-clerks,\nthe men and boys of the practised choir,--has reappeared and\ntaken its due place among us. The presence of trained persons so\nemployed,--securing and leading, as in the Lord's Prayer, Creed,\nand Versicles, the due responsive action of the people; conducting,\nas in the Psalms, Canticles, and hymns, the \"saying or singing;\"\nsupporting, as in the processional Psalm of the Marriage Service, or\nin the solemn anthems at the Burial of the Dead, the voice of the\nminister; or, lastly, in the anthem, \"in quires and places where\nthey sing,\" lifting priest and people alike by music of a higher\nstrain than those unskilled in music can attain to;--such ministry\nis assumed by the Prayer-book to have place in every parish church\nin the land. And the reducing of this theory to practice is in\nreality an important step in ritual. It has enlisted the sympathies\nof the laity in behalf of a fuller and richer aspect of Service than\nthey had heretofore been accustomed to.\n\nIn another point, too, the mental habit of this country has\nundergone a change; viz. as regards the festive use and decoration\nof churches. Our harvest thanksgivings, and similar occasions,\nconducted as they have been, have taught those, to whom the lesson\nwas perfectly new, to find in the Services of the Sanctuary, in\nworship, and attendance at the Holy Communion, a vent and expression\nfor their sense of thankfulness. At such times the flower-wreath and\nthe banner, the richly vested and decked altar, the Choral Service,\nthe processional hymn, have been felt to be in place. And thus\nfamiliarised with them, our people come even to look for them as the\nnatural attendants on high days of festival.\n\nNow it is a question at least worth asking, whether we have not here\nindications of a greater disposition than we have commonly given our\npeople credit for, to be moved by such things--by sacred song--by\nfair vestments--by processional movement--by festal decoration?\nwhether we have not been foregoing hitherto, to our great loss,\ncertain effective ways of influencing our people for good? whether\nthere must not, after all, be less truth than has been commonly\nsupposed in the received maxim, that Englishmen care nothing about\nthese things, nor can be brought to care for them; that they have\nnot in them, in short, the faculty of being affected by externals\nin religious matters; that the sober Saxon spirit loves, above all\nthings, a simple and unadorned worship, and the like? The writer\nis not ashamed to confess that he has in time past shared in this\nestimate of his countrymen; but that experience has greatly shaken\nhis confidence in the correctness of it. And he may, therefore,\nbe accepted, perhaps, as a somewhat unprejudiced witness, when he\ntestifies to so much as has come under his own notice as to the\neffect of the \"ritual developments,\" so to call them, of which\nhe has above spoken. He can bear witness, then, that with these\naccompaniments, the Services of the Sanctuary have become to many,\nmanifestly, a pleasure and a delight; that these influences are\nfound to touch and move, even to tears, those harder and more rugged\nnatures which are accessible to scarce anything else; breaking\neven through the crust of formality or indifference which grows so\ncommonly over the heart of middle age. Is it irreverent to think\nand believe that what these simple souls witness to, as their own\nexperience in presence of a kind of ritual new to them, though\nfamiliar of old to their fathers, and to the Church throughout the\nworld, is but an anticipation of what our great poet, Puritan though\nhe was, has described as among the consolations of the blessed? That\nwhich our poor peasants gratefully find provided for them on the\nChurch's days of festival, is no other, in its degree, than what,\nto the poet's thought, awaited his Lycidas \"in the blest kingdoms\nmeek of joy and love:\"--\n\n    \"There entertain him all the saints above,\n    _In solemn troops and sweet societies,\n    That sing, and, singing_, in their glory _move_,\n    And wipe the tears for ever from his eyes.\"\n\nIt will be understood that the writer is not now engaged in\nadvocating these particular practices as binding upon us, or even\nas capable of being introduced everywhere; but only pointing out\nthat, in the acceptance and welcome with which this whole side of\nritual action has been received, even in unlikely quarters, we have\nsome indication of the probable effect on the general mind of other\nwell-considered ritual restorations.\n\nAnd if it be still contended that the more usual condition of\nthe English mind is that which has been above described, viz. of\npreferring a religion which reaches them mainly through the ear, and\nappeals but little to the eye, I venture to suggest that--(granting\nthis to be so)--if a given nation is wanting in one particular\nreligious sense, that is the very reason why that sense should be\ncarefully educated. If the Italian is over-sensuous, as it would\nprobably be agreed that he is, in his religious constitution, he\nis the very person that needs for his improvement intellectual\ndevelopment. And just so, if the Englishman is, in religious\nmatters, unsusceptible, comparatively, of \u00e6sthetic influences, the\ninference is, not that these should be carefully kept from him, but\nthat he should, as he is able to bear, be subjected to them.\n\nThe bearing of what has now been said upon the restoration of the\nvestments and the like, is this. The most obvious objection to it\nis, that the rubric in question has been in abeyance for long years,\nor even centuries; and that this proves that it does not suit the\ngenius of the English nation. I have shown, indeed, that, as appears\nfrom the history of the period in question,--and other evidence\nmight be adduced,--the rubric has not been altogether dormant in\ntimes past. Still, the case for desuetude is a very strong one, no\ndoubt; and there is but one thing that could possibly invalidate\nit, and that is, the existence of unmistakable indications that the\nrevival would, notwithstanding the long abeyance of the rubric,\nmeet some rising need or aspiration of the hour. If it does that,\nthen the negative argument, that there is no place or call for the\nrestoration,--that it is the mere galvanization of a dead thing,\nor, at best, the summoning of it back to a life which must be\nfugitive and evanescent, because there is not atmosphere for it to\nbreathe,--is at once done away with.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut let us now briefly inquire what are the _positive_\nrecommendations, if any, of the eucharistic vestments which it is\nproposed to restore.\n\nIn the first place, then, it is alleged, that to provide for the\nHoly Eucharist special vestures _of any kind_, not only harmonizes\nwith the transcendent superiority of the rite itself above all\nother kinds of worship, but is the proper correlative of much\nthat has been doing of late years in the English Church. Is it\nconsistent, it is asked, to give to chancel, and sacrarium, and\naltar, all the chastened richness and beauty of which they are\ncapable, and yet to deny to the celebrant at the holy Rite all\nadornment beyond surplice and stole? Even if we had never possessed\nany distinct eucharistic vestments, we might well, it is said, as a\nmatter of consistency, introduce them.\n\nBut next, let us ask, do these particular vestments possess any\nclaim upon us, beyond the fact of their being different from the\nordinary surplice, and of their being prescribed in the rubric?\nAnd here, certainly (when we come to inquire into their history)\ntheir wonderful antiquity, universality, and probable rationale,\ncannot but make a deep impression upon us. They have been so fully\ndescribed in recent publications,[33] to which the reader can refer,\nthat there is the less need to enter into particulars about them\nhere. The most interesting circumstance hitherto brought to light\nrespecting them, is this; that there is no reason for doubting that\nthey are, as to their _form_, no other than the _every-day garments\nof the ancient world in East and West, such as they existed at the\ntime of Our Lord_, and for many ages before. Mr. Skinner has proved\nthis to demonstration. There was, 1st, the long and close \"coat,\"\n\"tunic,\" or \"vesture,\" called from its colour (as a ministerial\ngarment), the \"alb;\" 2nd, the broad \"border\" of this coat, often\nof the richest materials, which developed, ecclesiastically, into\nthe \"orarium\" (probably from _ora_, a border) or \"stole;\" 3rd,\nthe girdle, combining easily with the \"stole;\" 4th, the \"garment\"\nor \"robe\" (ecclesiastically the \"casula\" or \"chasuble\"), covering\nthe tunic down to the knees, and so allowing the ends of the\n\"border\" (or \"stole\") to appear. \"Such,\" says Mr. Skinner, \"were\nthe ordinary vestments in daily common use in East and West.\"[34]\nThese would be, naturally, the garments in which, like our Lord\nhimself, the Apostles and others would officiate at the Holy\nEucharist, and then reverence would preserve them in subsequent\nages. No other supposition can account for their universality, as\nministering garments, throughout the world. And how wonderful the\ninterest attaching to them, even were this all! How fitting that\nthe Celebrant, the representative, however unworthily, of our Lord\nhimself, in His most solemn Action, should be clad even as He was!\n\n  [33] See Palmer's 'Origines Liturgic\u00e6,' vol. ii., Appendix; the\n  'Directorium Anglicanum;' Lee 'On Eucharistic Vestments;' and the\n  Rev. Jas. Skinner's 'Plea for the Ritual' (Masters): but especially\n  the last-named writer's most able dissertations in the 'Guardian' of\n  Jan. 17 and Jan. 24, 1866; and the Dean of Westminster's speech in\n  Convocation, Feb. 9, 1866.\n\n  [34] Compare the well-known passages, \"If any man will take away\n  thy _cloke_ (outer robe), let him have thy _coat_ (or tunic) also.\"\n  \"Ye pull off the _robe_ with the _garment_ from them that pass by\n  securely.\"--Micah ii. 8. \"His _garments_ ... and also his _coat_ ...\n  without seam, woven from the top throughout.\" \"The _cloke_ that I\n  left at Troas ... bring with thee.\"\n\nBut this is _not_ all. There are circumstances which this rationale\nof the vestments, though correct as far as it goes, does not account\nfor.\n\nFirst, in the vestment-customs both of East and West there is\nrecognition, though in different ways, of some covering for the\n_head_. In East and West a bonnet or mitre is worn by Bishops. In\ncelebrating, in the West, a small garment called the \"amice,\" _of\nfine white linen, with a very rich edge or fillet_, is first placed\non the head of the Celebrant, and then removed to his shoulders,\nso that the _rich edge_ rests at first on the forehead, and then\nappears from under the alb and chasuble.[35] Now the prayer, with\nwhich this singular appendage is put on (\"Place on my head, O Lord,\nthe helmet of salvation\"), proves that it represents a bonnet or\nhead-covering.\n\n  [35] 'Directorium Anglicanum,' pp. 16, 21. \"The amice is an oblong\n  square of fine white linen, and is put on upon the cassock or\n  priest's canonical dress. It is embroidered or 'apparelled' upon\n  _one_ edge. In vesting, it is placed for a moment, like a veil, upon\n  the crown of the head, and then spread upon the shoulders.\" \"The\n  _apparel_ of the amice _cannot be too rich_ in its ornamentation.\"\n  _Amice_ is the Latin _amictus_--\"the covering,\" referring to Psalm\n  cxl. 7, \"Thou hast covered my head in the day of battle.\"\n\nAgain, the fact that the _stole_ is not a mere border, but\n_detached_, both in East and West, from the tunic or alb, and in the\nWest, rests on the _shoulders_, is singular. In the East it is a\nbroad double stripe of costly silk, richly embroidered, hanging down\nin front of the wearer; and often[36] _adorned with gems and gold_;\nwhile in the West it is crossed[37] _on the breast_ in celebrating:\nand throughout the East and West extraordinary importance has\nfrom early times attached to it, it being worn in every sacred\nfunction.[38]\n\n  [36] See Neale, Introduction to 'History of Eastern Church,' vol. i.\n  p. 308.\n\n  [37] The very ancient Syriac Liturgy of St. James has the loose\n  stole, as in the West, and crossed too upon the breast.--_Renaud._\n  p. 15.\n\n  [38] \"In all prayers, even in those recited at home preparatory\n  to the public Office, the Epitrachelion (_i.e._ stole) is\n  worn.\"--Neale, 'Eastern Church,' p. 313. And St. Dunstan's Canons,\n  A.D. 979, order \"That no priest ever come within the church door, or\n  into his stall, without a stole.\"--Hook's 'Lives of the Archbishops\n  of Canterbury,' vol. i. p. 488.\n\nNow there is but one way of accounting for these curious\narrangements. It is, that, at a very early period, the course\nwas adopted of assimilating the ministering vestments of the\nclergy--especially in celebrating--to those of the _Jewish High\nPriest_. This could with great facility be done, because these\nvestments themselves were only the usual Eastern dress, glorified\nand enriched, with some especial additions. There was (Exod.\nxxviii.), besides the ephod, which was a rich under-garment--1.\nThe long \"embroidered coat or tunic of fine linen\" (v. 39). 2. The\n\"curious girdle of the ephod,\" which appears to have girded in both\nephod and tunic. 3. The singular combination of the _shoulder-pieces\nand breastplate_, which together formed one whole, and were among\nthe richest and _most peculiar insignia_ of the High Priesthood:\nthe names of the Twelve Tribes being engraven, in the costliest\ngems, both on the shoulder-pieces and breastplate, as a means of\nmaking \"memorial\" of the people, with especial power, before God\n(vv. 9-30). 4. The outer garment or \"robe of the ephod\" (v. 31), all\nof blue, of circular form, with a \"hole in the top of it, in the\nmidst thereof,\" to pass it over the head of the wearer; whereas the\nordinary outer garments were square, and thrown loosely on. On the\nhem were pomegranates and golden bells alternating. 5. And lastly,\nthe \"mitre of _fine linen_\" (v. 39), and upon it, on the forehead,\nthe \"plate of pure gold\" (\u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd), in virtue of which Aaron\n\"bore,\" or did away with, through his ministerial sanctity, the\nimperfections of the people's offerings (v. 38).\n\nNow here, at length, we have a _full_ account of the rationale of\nthe Eucharistic vestments, and specially of those parts of them\nwhich differed from the ordinary clothing of early days. We see that\nthe \"border\" of the ordinary tunic was therefore _detached_ from\nit, beautified with embroidery, and enriched with gems, because the\nAaronic shoulder-pieces and breastplate were thus detached, and were\nso adorned. The Greek name for the stole is still, for priests, the\n\"neck-garment,\" for bishops, the \"shoulder-piece\" (omophorion).\n\nAgain, the \"bonnet or mitre,\" or its substitute, the \"amice,\" is\ntherefore of \"fine linen,\" and has a peculiarly rich \"fillet,\" and\nmust be placed upon the head for a symbol, so as to bring the fillet\nupon the _forehead_, because of the wondrous power and significance\nof the Aaronic \"plate of gold,\" similarly placed.\n\nWe cannot, in short, resist the conclusion that the Church did,\nat some very early period (as the universality of these things\nproves), assimilate the old simple vestments, of set purpose, to\nthe richer and more significant Aaronic ones. And if we ask _how_\nearly this was done, the answer is, that the first beginnings of it\nwere made even in the lifetime of the Apostles. For Eusebius cites\nPolycrates, Bishop of Ephesus (A.D. 198), as testifying of St.\nJohn at Ephesus, that \"as a priest he wore the \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, or plate\nof gold.\"[39] And Epiphanius[40] says the same of St. James,\nBishop of Jerusalem. Later (c. 320), Eusebius addresses the\npriests as \"wearing the long garment, the crown, and the priestly\nrobe.\"[41] The plate of gold, on a bonnet or mitre, is still used\nat celebration by the Patriarch of Alexandria.[42] And the Armenian\nChurch, whose traditions, where they differ from those of the rest\nof the world, are generally of immense antiquity, actually has the\n_breastplate_,[43] only with the names of the Twelve Apostles,\ninstead of those of the Twelve Tribes.\n\n  [39] Hist. Eccl. iii., 31: \u1f41\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03ce\u03c2.\n\n  [40] 'De H\u00e6resi,' 78. The very ancient Clementine Liturgy has\n  \"exchanging his vestment for a gorgeous one;\" \u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\n  \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03c2.\n\n  [41] \u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7, \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd.\n\n  [42] Neale, 'Eastern Church,' Introd., p. 313.\n\n  [43] Ibid., p. 307.\n\nWe now see, then, how it came to pass that the stole is what it is\nin East and West; why it is so highly symbolical of ministerial\npower; why made so rich; why crossed on the _breast_ in celebrating;\nwhy, with all its richness, put _under_ the chasuble: scil. because,\nlike the Aaronic breastplate, it was a memorial \"_before God_\" of\nthe preciousness of God's people, whom the priest bore, as he should\nbear still, on his shoulder and on his heart, in his ministry of\nlabour and of love. We see, again, why the \"apparel\" of the \"amice\"\nis so rich, because anciently of gold; why placed on the forehead,\nthe seat of thought, scil. that the priest may be mindful of his\n\"ministry of reconciliation;\" and why accompanied with a prayer for\nthe \"helmet of salvation.\"\n\nAnd even the ordinary vestments, the surplice, and stole, and hood,\nderive a clear rationale and fitness from the same source. The\n_surplice_ (_superpellicium_), as Mr. Skinner teaches us,[44] is\nonly the close tunic or \"alb,\" so enlarged as conveniently to cover\nthe _pellicium_, or coat of fur or skin which the clergy wore in the\nchoir. The _stole_, crossed at celebration, loses its resemblance\nto the breastplate, and its allusion to the Cross, at the lower\nministry of the Ordinary Office, being worn pendent. The _hood_ is\nthe amice in simpler and less significant form, intended originally\nto be actually worn on the head, and still capable of being so; its\nvarying form and colour only indicating the particular sodality to\nwhich the wearer belongs.\n\n  [44] Letter to the 'Guardian,' Jan. 24, 1866.\n\nOf the cope it is needless to say more than that it is properly\nprocessional, though recognised in the English Church (as in the\nArmenian) for celebration, and for the clergy in the choir on high\nfestivals.\n\nIt may be added that the English vestments differ sufficiently from\nthose of foreign Churches to have a national character.\n\nIt thus appears that the Eucharistic vestments, and even our\nordinary ones through them, are a link of a marvellously interesting\nkind between us and antiquity, even Apostolic antiquity; and between\nus and the whole Christian world. Nay, our vestments, like our\nServices, connect us with the old Mosaic Ordinances. They ought\nto be grave reasons indeed, which should induce us to raze them\nfrom our statute-book, whatever became of the question of their\nrestoration to general use.\n\nOf other usages now under debate, I would mention briefly--1. The\nposition of the celebrant during the office; 2. The two lights on\nthe altar; 3. Incense; 4. The mixed chalice; 5. The crucifix.\n\n1. There is no real doubt whatever as to the intention of the\nEnglish Church about the position of the celebrant in administering\nthe Holy Communion.\n\nIn order to make the matter plain, it is to be observed, that the\nslab or surface of the Altar, or Holy Table--there is a wonderful\n_equableness_ in the use of the two terms by antiquity[45]--was\nalways conceived of as divided into _three_ portions of about equal\nsize. The central one, called the _media pars_, was exclusively\nused for actual celebration, and often had a slab of stone[46] let\ninto it, called _mensa consecratoria_. The other portions were\ncalled the _latus sinistrum_ and _dextrum_, or _Septentrionale et\nAustrale_.[47] These would be in English the \"midst of the Altar,\"\nthe \"left or north side,\" and the \"right or south side:\" the\nterm \"side\" being used with reference to the \"middle portion.\"\nThe most solemn parts of the rite, then, were performed \"_at_ the\nmiddle\" of the Table; the subordinate parts \"_at_ the northern or\nsouthern portions.\" In all cases, \"at\" certainly meant with the\nface turned _eastwards_. Now, in the First Book of Edward VI., it\nwas ordered that the very beginning of the Service should be said\n\"afore the _midst_ of the altar;\" _i.e._ before the \"media pars.\"\nAs to the rest of the Service, it was doubtless to be said in\nthe ancient customary places: the old rule being, that all after\nthe preparatory prayer to the end of the Epistle was said at the\n_south_ side. In the Second Book the order was, \"the Priest standing\n_at_ the _North-side_ of the Table shall say the Lord's Prayer,\"\n&c. This could not possibly, in those days, be understood to mean\nanything else than _facing the left-hand, or northern portion of\nthe Table_. The reason of the change to the \"north-side\" probably\nwas, 1. That permission was now given to stop short on occasion of\ncelebration; in which case it would hardly be seemly to stand at\nthe centre or consecrating portion of the Table; and perhaps, 2.\nTo avoid a change of position beyond the _two_ specified. But it\nwas doubtless intended that the centre should still be used for\nactual consecration, even as it was in the First Book, though no\norder was given in either case, to that effect. The order for the\n\"north-side\" was only put in because it was a new arrangement.\nAnd it will be observed that the term used _is_ \"the North-side:\"\napparently indicating that a special and well-known part of the\nTable is meant. The present most incorrect practice, of standing\nat the north _end_, probably arose from two causes,--first, the\ninfrequency of celebrations, which caused the habit to be formed of\nstanding somewhat northwards; while the old distinct conception of\nthe position had passed away: secondly, from the practice--probably\nin use[48] of old in our Church--of placing the vessels and\nunconsecrated elements, if there was no credence-table, on the\n_non-consecrating_ part of the altar, where it was found convenient\nto keep them still when consecrating. It may be questioned whether\nit be not still correct, or allowable however, thus to make use of\nthe less important parts of the Table to serve as a Credence, if\nnone other is provided. But the consecration should always take\nplace at the middle of the Holy Table.\n\n  [45] The Fathers generally prefer 'Altar,' the Liturgies 'Holy\n  Table.'\n\n  [46] Syriac Liturgy of St. James, \"pars _altaris_ in qu\u00e2 tabula\n  defixa est;\" \"pars media _mens\u00e6 vit\u00e6_.\"\n\n  [47] Syriac Liturgy of St. James, Renaudot; the 'Ancient English\n  and Communion Offices' (Maskell), where \"cornu\" is used. The Roman\n  'Ritus celebrandi Missam,' 4. 4; \"Thurificat _aliud latus_ altaris.\"\n\n  [48] The Rubrics in the Syriac Liturgy of St. James seem plainly to\n  contemplate that the vessels, &c., should be placed on the north or\n  south side until consecration, since they are to be carried _from_\n  the altar round the chancel, and _then_ placed on the _media pars_\n  (Renaudot, p. 60, who _imagines_ a credence). And both in England\n  and abroad, ancient credence-tables are very rare.\n\nThe position thus prescribed, by unbroken ancient rule, for\nconsecration, is by no means unimportant. By it is signified and\nexpressed the solemn oblation and sacrificial presentation made by\nthe celebrant, after the example of Christ,--leading the people,\nand carrying them with him in the action. For the primitive view\nof the institution, recognised in every ancient Communion Service,\nis, that when Our Blessed Lord \"took bread, and blessed, and brake\nit,\" He thereby, in a deep mystery, _presented_ before God, through\nthe medium of the element which He had chosen, the Sacrifice of His\nBody. That Sacrifice was to be consummated, indeed, on the morrow;\nor by Jewish reckoning, at any rate, at a later hour on the same\nday. But it was already, in a mystery, and by the yielding up His\nWill, begun, and in operation. This is implied by the exact and\nexpressive language of the Institution--\"This is my Body which is\n_being_ given (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd) or broken (\u03ba\u03bb\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd); my Blood which is\nbeing shed, for you.\" Hence, too, it was that He could say of the\nBread and Wine--\"This _is_ my Body, my Blood;\" because these had, as\nbeing the medium through which they were offered, been mysteriously,\nas regards virtue or power, identified therewith.[49] And what the\ncelebrant does, at any celebration, is to imitate, in his humble\nmeasure, and as Christ ordained, the action of Christ. In order to\nthis it is important, and has ever been the custom of the Church,\nthat he should stand at the midst of the Holy Table as one leading a\ncommon action for all. In the East he stands eastward of the Table,\nfacing the people; in the West, westward of the Table, and looking\naway from them: in both cases alike he is \"in the midst,\" offering\nfor and with them.\n\n  [49] See on this subject, in Appendix A, a valuable comment of the\n  Bishop of Exeter on 1 Cor. xi. 24, and St. Luke xxii. 19.\n\nIn some cathedrals, as Exeter, and at Westminster Abbey, the remains\nof the ancient practice are to be seen; the vessels being placed,\nthe offerings of the clergy made, and the Confession said, at the\nmiddle of the Table.\n\n2. The question of the _legal_ position of the \"two lights on the\naltar\" is a somewhat complicated one. But in its general aspect the\nusage derives a sanction and an interest from the fact that \"oil for\nthe light\" is among the things recognised in the 3rd Apostolical\nCanon; and further, that the \"two lights\" are used in the Syriac\nLiturgy of St. James[50] (from which we may have derived them\nthrough Theodore of Tarsus): whereas all the West, except ourselves,\nhas seven lights. In point of effect, not much can be said for them;\nbut the symbolism is beautiful and interesting. The Eastern Church,\nin particular, has always associated _artificial_ light--viewed as\ndispelling _natural_ darkness--with our Lord's coming to the world,\nas its supernatural and heavenly Light. It is well to remember,\ntoo, that the only accompaniment of the shewbread, of which so\nmuch has been said above, was, together with incense, _artificial\nlight_; and even in the blaze of heavenly ritual there were seven\nlamps burning.[51] These considerations, joined to the well-known\nInjunction of Edward VI., for the retention of \"two lights,\"\ncertainly give the usage a good position, when we are considering\nwhat is the mind, fairly and liberally estimated, of the English\nChurch.\n\n  [50] Renaudot, Liturgiar. Oriental. Collectio.\n\n  [51] Rev. iv. 5. On the symbolism of candles, lit or unlit, see Dr.\n  Jebb's valuable pamphlet 'Ritual Law and Custom' (Rivingtons). Notes\n  F. H.\n\nNor is it unimportant to observe, that even the candlesticks\nthemselves, if in any case it is not thought well to light the\ncandles, possess a symbolism of their own: just as _e. g._ the\nmaniple of the Western Church, now disused but still worn, is a\nmemento of that for which (it is said) it was intended, viz. to be\nused as a _sudarium_ in the labours of the priesthood. It may be\nremarked, too, that in St. John's vision, what he saw was \"golden\n_candlesticks_\" (\u03bb\u03c5\u03c7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03b9); not burning candles or lamps (\u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 or\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2) (St. John v. 35; Rev. v. 8, viii. 3).\n\n3. Incense, it may be observed, has precisely the same degree of\nrecommendation from antiquity as the \"two lights.\" It was used with\nthe shewbread and the peace-offerings; it has a beautiful symbolism;\nit is recognised as on a par with \"oil for the lamp\" in the\nApostolic Canon; and it finds a place in the heavenly ritual (Rev.\nviii. 3). Its historical position with us is weaker; but _if_ used,\nit would certainly be in accordance with the mind of the English\nChurch to use it in a very simple manner.[52] Its proper purpose is\ntwofold--1. To purify by its sweetness; and 2. To symbolise both the\npurity of acceptable offering, and its power of ascending, through\nChrist's mediation, to heaven.\n\n  [52] \"The suspension of the censer by chains, and waving it, is\n  undoubtedly modern\" (Skinner's 'Plea for the Ritual'). Incense\n  was used in Queen Elizabeth's Chapel, and by Bishop Andrewes, and\n  in many parish Churches from 1558 to 1630 at least, and in royal\n  chapels till 1684, and at George III's coronation (Hierurgia\n  Anglicana): also \"at the altar in Ely Cathedral, at the greater\n  festivals,\" till about 1770 (Coles' MSS. 5873 f.)\n\n4. The question of the \"mixed chalice,\" or of the mingling of water\nwith the wine in the Holy Eucharist, cannot be called one of high\nimportance. It has been maintained that it is one of those things\nwhich, as having been _universal_ throughout the Church from an\nearly period, must be apostolic;[53] but the assertion is unfounded.\nThere is a very large and important branch of the Church which\ndoes not at this day, and which, we may safely affirm, never did,\nmix water with the wine, viz. the Armenian. The Armenian Church\nis remarkable for the tenacity with which it has, from very early\ntimes, in respect of things indifferent, adhered to old traditions,\nwhen the whole of the rest of the Church have departed from them.\nThe introduction of the observance of Christmas-Day, for example,\ntook place in the East in St. Chrysostom's time, being borrowed,\nas he informs us, from the West. This the Armenian Church declined\nto adopt. Their vestment-traditions, again, as we have seen, are\npeculiar; and they positively assert their immense antiquity.[54]\nHence it _might_ even be, that the Armenian Church had alone\npreserved the apostolic usage in this matter, and that all the other\nChurches had departed therefrom. However, as the term \"mixture\" is\napplied by Justin Martyr to the cup, and as the matter is incapable\nof proof one way or the other, it is best to suppose that there\nwere _two_ traditions or habits in the matter; and this is quite\nsufficient to justify the English Church in having, as far as her\nrubric is concerned, laid the usage aside in the Second Book of\nEdward. At the same time, as the custom certainly survived[55] in\nthe English Church after the Revision, and is all but universal,\nand has interesting symbolical meanings[56] attached to it, it may\nwell be tolerated, should a policy of toleration be adopted at this\njuncture by the English Church.\n\n  [53] See Dr. Littledale's 'Mixed Chalice,' with reference to its\n  having been discountenanced by the Bishop of Exeter.\n\n  [54] See Neale, Gen. Introduction, p. 307.\n\n  [55] _E.g._, under Bishop Andrewes.\n\n  [56] These vary much with different Churches,--an indication perhaps\n  of the indifference of the rite. They are chiefly,--1. the union in\n  Christ of the Humanity with the Divinity; 2. the pouring forth from\n  His side of Blood and Water. In either sense the act may have been a\n  devout afterthought; and on the whole I think it improbable that our\n  Lord mixed the cup. That the Jews drank their wine mixed is not much\n  to the purpose.\n\n5. I come to speak, in the next place, of the crucifix, which is\namong the \"ornaments of the Church\" attempted to be restored at the\npresent day. It is difficult, however, to conceive any two things\nstanding on more widely different ground than _this_, and any one\nof those ornaments or usages before-mentioned. They, in every\ncase, whether vestments, position of the celebrant, altar-lights,\nincense, or the mixed chalice, can plead immense antiquity, and all\nbut universality at the present day; neither are they connected\nof necessity with superstitious usages. But with the crucifix,\nthe reverse of all this is the case. It was utterly unknown to\nthe Church of early days; it is unknown, strictly speaking, to\nthe Eastern Church; and it has given occasion in time past, as it\ndoes at this day, to the grossest superstitions. The use of it, as\nexperience has proved, is in reality the merest tampering with the\nprinciples of our nature; ever ready (as the length and vehemence\nof the Second Commandment sufficiently testifies) to save ourselves\nthe trouble of \"seeing Him who is invisible,\" and to fasten our\nfaith on some outward object instead. And there is this especial\nobjection to associating the crucifix with the Holy Communion more\nespecially, that (as was recently well observed by the Bishop of\nExeter) there are provided thereby, in dangerous rivalry, _two_\nrepresentations or \"shewings forth,\" of the Body of Christ, and\nof the Death of Christ; the one \"ordained by Christ himself, as a\nmeans whereby we receive the same;\" the other, \"that which our own\nfingers have made,\" and moreover, \"a fond thing vainly invented, and\ngrounded upon no warranty of Scripture,\" or of the ancient Church.\nCan it be well, even supposing the usage not to result (though\nfull surely it _will_) in idolatrous veneration--can it be well\nto divide the mind, in such an hour, between the _appointed_ mode\nof contemplating, with deepest awe and love, the Mystery of our\nRedemption, and another mode, which, were it never so defensible\notherwise, may not dare to lift itself into any comparison with that\nfar more touching exhibition of His Dying Love which Christ Himself,\nat every Communion, \"sets forth among us?\"\n\nI know by experience, in particular instances, that this danger\nis by no means imaginary: and I confess to having the deepest\nconviction of the rashness and folly of attempting to reintroduce,\neven among sober Englishmen and Englishwomen--especially in\nconnection with the Holy Eucharist--this snare of medi\u00e6val\nChristendom.\n\nIf it be objected that the Cross is open to the same objection, I\nanswer, No. The Cross, as experience proves, while it reminds us of\nthe Death of Christ, does not draw out that warm feeling, which is\nat once so delightful and so dangerous to some classes of minds. And\nthe same may be said of pictorial or sculptured representations of\nthe entire Crucifixion, where the larger treatment of the subject\nmakes all the difference. It is the concentration of thought and\ndevotion upon the natural resemblance or representation of Christ\nHimself, that renders the crucifix so dangerous, and infallibly\ndraws on its votaries to a breach of the Second Commandment.\n\nOther observances must be spoken of more in the mass, as it would\nbe impossible to detail them severally. Suffice it to say, that\nan attempt is now being made to introduce, in conjunction with\nthe vestments and other \"ornaments\" above mentioned, a _minutely\nelaborated ceremonial_, applying to every part of the eucharistic\nrite.\n\nThe ground taken up for this is, 1st, that \"ornaments\" cannot\nalways be very clearly distinguished from usages, and therefore\ninclude them. But surely it is much to be remarked that the rubric\n_does_ specify \"ornaments,\" so that, although, accidentally, usages\n_arising out_ of these ornaments are involved,--as, _e.g._ the\ncandlesticks and candles involve or suggest the lighting of the\ncandles,--yet the rubric cannot be taken to include usages which\nstand unconnected with ornaments, such as making the sign of the\ncross, or the like.\n\nBut it is contended, further, that not only are usages, as well as\n\"ornaments,\" covered (as no doubt they are to some extent) by the\nrubric, but that it actually legalizes everything, whether ornament\nor usage, which was in use in the twenty-fifth year of Henry VIII.\nThe ground for this startling assertion,--which has been made the\nbasis of a vast and elaborate system of ritual,[57]--is that the\nsecond year of Edward VI. (which is named in the rubric) includes\na considerable period preceding the passing of the Prayer-book\nAct. That year, it is contended, commenced on January 28th, 1548,\nand extended to January 28th, 1549; so that the Prayer-book (which\nwas not established until January 15th, 1549, by 2 and 3 Edward\nVI., c. 1) is only a _part_ of what the rubric refers to, and\nmerely \"supplemental to the old canons and constitutions.\"[58] We\nmust accept, we are told, all that was in use by the authority of\nParliament in 1548-49. Now, the latest enactment of Parliament on\nthe subject, previous to that year, was the 25 Henry VIII., c. 19,\nwhich legalizes everything then in use. So that, in short, we are,\nby the rubric, thrown back upon part of the pre-Reformation period.\n\n  [57] See 'Directorium Anglicanum,' _passim_. Mr. Perry's elaborate\n  work 'Lawful Church Ornaments,' (who, however, only lays down\n  certain things as permissible), and Rev. J. Skinner's 'Plea for our\n  Threatened Ritual,' discuss the subject at large.\n\n  [58] 'Directorium Anglicanum,' p. xiv.\n\nThe truer view would seem to be that what is _implied_ in the\nBook, or named in it, is permissible. Certainly the Prayer-book is\nelsewhere in legal documents (as my friend Mr. Shaw has shown[59])\nexclusively meant when \"the second year of Edward VI.\" is spoken of.\nIt may be added, that the most recent judicial decision bearing on\nthe point (_re_ Westerton _v._ Liddell) expressly lays down that the\nPrayer-book, and the Prayer-book alone, is what the rubric refers to.\n\n  [59] See an able article in the 'Contemporary Review,' No. 1, Jan.\n  1866.\n\nBut, in truth, there are other considerations which take away all\njustification whatever from nine-tenths of the ceremonies which are\nnow being introduced among us. In the first place, a great many of\nthem, perhaps the greater number, are not old _English_ ceremonies\nat all, but foreign ones, derived from the existing practice--not\nalways of very great antiquity--of the Church of Rome. Now, without\ngoing so far as to say that those who have introduced them have\nthereby incurred the pains and penalties of a _pr\u00e6munire_, as\nhaving brought in \"the fashions of the Bishop of Rome, his ways\nand customs,\" it must be plain that it is impossible to justify\nsuch practices upon, the ground alleged. Plainly, you cannot base\nforeign customs on an English rubric. The rubric legalises \"such\nornaments ... as were in this CHURCH OF ENGLAND, by the authority\nof Parliament, in the second year of King Edward the Sixth.\" And\nthis, we are told, includes \"usages,\" and all usages known to the\nlatter part of Henry VIII.'s reign. Be it so, however vast the\nconcession. But will that justify a single usage which was _not_ \"in\nthis Church of England,\" ever since it was a Church at all? Is it\nnot plain that, so far forth as the ceremonies now introduced _never\nwere English_ ceremonies, they break the very rubric to which they\nappeal? Now it is notorious that a great part of these ceremonies\nare brought in on the authority of a work frequently referred to\nin these pages, called 'Directorium Anglicanum.' And in that work\nthe _modern Roman_ usages, to the disregard of the ancient English,\nand often in direct contravention of them, are to a very great\nextent recommended. I will take but a single instance,--the very\nfirst direction in the book as to the \"Order of Administration,\"\np. 23. It concerns the colours for the vestments;--not a matter of\nthe first importance, it may be. But so it is, that the _Roman_\ncolours are prescribed in the text, and the English ones merely\nmentioned in a note. And this is but one instance, out of a vast\nnumber, of the entire untrustworthiness of that work as a guide\nto the ancient _English_ usages. Under the delusive title of\n'Directorium _Anglicanum_,' it has presented to the unwary student\nof ritual, mixed up with our own usages of old time, the most recent\n_Roman_ ones. It may be hoped that this fact, when pointed out to\nsuch of our brethren as have been misled by that learned but most\nunjustifiable publication, will induce them to modify their present\npractice.\n\n\"But,\" it will be contended, \"surely we may claim to reintroduce all\nancient _English_ ceremonies; such as elevating the Elements after\nconsecration; making the sign of the cross in consecrating, and\nagain over the head of each communicant before administering;--or\nsuch, again, as frequent bowing and genuflection;--various regulated\nmovements to and fro,--as at the saying of the Creed;--swinging of\ncensers again and again in various directions; with many other\nceremonies.\" To all this, however, there is an answer which, I\nhumbly conceive, is unanswerable. It is this,--that the English\nChurch, to whose laws they appeal, has _expressly abolished_ some of\nthese ceremonies, and laid her prohibition upon the use of more than\na very moderate number of any kind.\n\nI refer, first, to the fact that she withdrew from her Service-book\ncertain orders previously embodied in it for the performance of\nsome of these actions. Under this head comes the elevation of the\nElements after consecration. This is confessedly, even by the\nadmission of Roman writers, a modern ceremony, not older than the\ntwelfth century.[60] However, in the old English Service-books the\norder was, \"After the words, 'For this is my Body,' the priest shall\nbend himself towards the Host, and afterwards lift it above his\nforehead, that it may be seen by the people.\" But in the Communion\nOffice of 1549, this was forbidden by rubric, \"These words are to\nbe said without any elevation, or shewing to the people.\" And the\nArticles of 1562-1571 confirm this, saying, that \"the sacrament\nwas not by Christ's ordinance lifted up or worshipped\" (Art. 28).\nSo, again, the sign of the cross was, according to the First Book\nof Edward, to be used at consecration; but in the Second it was\nwithdrawn. Nor, I believe, can any rehabilitation of these practices\nbe alleged (as can be done in the case of lights or incense) from\nsubsequent injunctions, canons, or customs. It is in vain to say\nthat there was anything accidental in the omission of the cross\nat consecration, since it was carefully retained at baptism, and\ndefended subsequently in the canons of 1603; or that the \"elevation\"\nor lifting up, \"and worshipping,\" was restored by the omission of\nthe prohibition in 1549, since by 1562 (Articles) it was expressly\ndisallowed. Those who plead, as a support to the rubric, the better\nmind of the Church, as manifested in the wishes of her great\nmen--her Andreweses and Cosins--and even in her canons of 1603--must\naccept the fact, that by that better mind and those canons these\nusages are never advocated.\n\n  [60] See Mabillon, Iter. Ital., p. xlix., and 'Principles of Divine\n  Service,' Introd. vol. ii. p. 87. A slight raising of the Elements\n  at the words 'He blessed,' as if making an offering, is ancient and\n  probably universal.\n\nAgain, as to the _number_ of ceremonies. The Preface entitled\n'Ceremonies; why some be abolished, and some retained,' prefixed\nto the First Book of Edward, distinctly announces a new state\nof things in this respect. The \"excessive multitude\" of them is\ncomplained of; and it is clearly implied that those which remain\nare few and simple. The only question, in short, is, how many\nwere left. The allegation that _none_ are abolished is simply and\nutterly untenable. And we have this general principle laid down by\nthat Preface for our guidance, that excess of ceremonies, or any\ngreat multiplying of them, such as now recommended, is absolutely\nirreconcilable with the mind of our Church.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOn the whole, then, to conclude this part of my subject, there\nought to be no real difficulty among us as to what is fairly\npermissible, and answers to the mind of the English Church--taking\na wide and liberal view of that mind--in the matter of ritual. Two\nleading conceptions, NOBLENESS with SIMPLICITY, sum up her general\ndesires on this subject. In the due observance of these, it is her\ndeliberate judgment, (as represented by her wisest sons,--as Ridley,\nAndrewes, Overall, Cosin), will be found the best security for\n_worthy_ worship on the one hand, and for _devout_ worship on the\nother.\n\nAnd when we come to the carrying out of these conceptions there are\nyet other two principles by which she is guided, viz. regard for\nprimitive usage; and yet, again, forbearance from pressing even\nsuch usage in particular instances where it is likely to do more\nharm than good. And all along she supremely tenders that purity of\nApostolic _doctrine_, which is dearer to her than life itself, and\nby its bearing upon which every rite or ceremony must ultimately be\ntried.\n\nFrom antiquity accordingly, as has been shown above, she has\nderived, together with her pure doctrine, \"her beautiful garments:\"\nalike her surplice, stole, and hood, and her chasuble, alb, and\namice. Yet, as regards the obligatory adoption of these, she\nhas, with a grand charity, more beautiful than the richest of\nthe garments themselves, forborne, for 300 years, to press upon\nan imperfectly trained people those which, in the judgment of\nher most learned and primitively-minded sons, best beseemed that\nhigh Ordinance. And even now, albeit she has done much towards\ntraining this nation in loftier conceptions of what is seemly in\nthe matter of ritual; although she has reawakened the appreciation\nof music and architecture, of colour and carving, of festival\ndecoration and choral worship; though she has, especially by the\nsuperior costliness and beauty lavished on the sacrarium and the\naltar, by increased care and reverence in administration of the\nHoly Eucharist, lifted that ordinance into something more of its\ndue pre-eminence over all other Service; though many subordinate\nconsiderations point in the way of analogy and proportion, in the\nsame directions; though every step by which she has enriched her\n_ordinary_ worship,--such as the bringing back, within a very\nfew years, of stole and hood for the clergy, and of surplices\nfor the lay members of the choir--though this all but demands\nsome _different_ vestments, at the least, for the celebrant and\nassistants at the Holy Communion: _nevertheless_, she will not, if\nshe is well-advised, withdraw or disallow that wise alternative\nwhich has practically existed all along in this matter, but still\nlet surplice and vestment stand side by side for the option of\nthe clergy and people. Nor yet again, on the other hand, strong\nas is the simpler surplice in its prescription--not, however,\nunvarying--of 300 years, as a eucharistic vestment in the English\nChurch--in its purity of appearance and gracefulness of form--and\nin the associations and affections of this generation;--simpler\nand easier as it is to side with the greater number, and to\nacquiesce in the less excellent way for the sake of peace:--the\nChurch will not, if well-advised, yield to these considerations\neither. She will still leave on her statute-book that ancient\ndirection concerning vestments which has been her primary law\nthrough the vicissitudes of 300 years; which connects her, even\nin its abeyance, with the Apostolic Church of old, and with the\nChurch universal now; and which may, if wisely and charitably\nadministered, effectively co-operate in bringing back to the Church\nof God her lost jewel--nowhere now to be found on earth--of full and\nthorough conformity, in doctrine and worship, with the Apostolic and\nPrimitive Church.\n\nAnd as regards other ceremonies, while she expects not, nor desires,\na rigid uniformity in minor actions, nor has laid down any such\ncode for the observance of her ministers; she will on the one hand\nseek to realise a higher standard, in point of care and reverence,\nthan has hitherto, perhaps, prevailed among us: but, on the other,\nshe will continue her 300 years' protest against multitudinous and\noperose ceremonies, as being full surely destructive, in the long\nrun, of the life of devotion.\n\nI have now accomplished, though in a very imperfect manner, my\nself-imposed task: dwelling, in all humility and anxiety, on our\nshortcomings and excesses, as well in the matter of Rites and\nDoctrine, as in that of Ritual.\n\nAnd if it be asked, in conclusion, What then is to be done? what\n_action_ does a view of the whole circumstances prompt? or how are\nwe to win our way back, under God, to a more perfect model? my\nanswer and my humble counsel would be as follows:--\n\nLet me first be permitted to remind the reader of the present aspect\nof our Church, such as it was presented to view in an earlier page.\nLet it be remembered and taken home as an anxious and alarming\ntruth, that were an Apostle, or a Christian of early days, to \"pass\nthrough\" the land and \"behold our devotions,\" on our high day of\nService, during three-fourths of the year, he could arrive at no\nother conclusion, from what he saw with his eyes, than that he was\n_not in a Christian land at all_. For he would miss, Sunday after\nSunday, in more than eleven thousand of our churches, the one badge,\nand symbol, and bond of membership in Christ, the Holy Eucharist.\nSuch a one could not possibly understand our Christianity; the\nland would be in his eyes an absolute desolation. And if among\nthese thousands of altars without a sacrifice, and of Christian\ncongregations failing to offer the one supremely ordained Christian\nworship, he chanced here and there to light upon a happy exception,\nhow would his eyes still be grieved, and his heart pained at the\nfewness of communicants! He could only conclude that Christianity\nhad very recently been established here, and that the number of the\nunbaptized and catechumens was still tenfold that of the faithful.\nBut there would be yet one other novel sight that would here and\nthere present itself to him. He would perceive with astonishment\nthat, in some instances, the eucharistic worship was offered not to\n\"Our Father which is in Heaven,\" or to Christ, as seated with His\nFather on His Throne of Glory; but as contained in the Elements. But\nhis astonishment would reach its height when he observed, further,\nthat not much account was made, at this Service, of the _reception_\nof the life-giving Sacrament, as the crowning and supreme\ncircumstance of the offering; but that it was rather discouraged, in\nproportion as the Service was designed to be of a loftier strain,\nand a superior acceptableness.\n\nIs it too much to say that, on view of these things--these vast\ndeflections on the right hand and on the left, in defect and in\nexcess, from Apostolic ways--it would not much grieve or move such\nan one as I am supposing, whether the \"vestment\" in which the\nService was offered was merely of \"fine linen, pure and white,\" or\n\"a vesture of gold, wrought about with divers colours;\" and that all\nother ritual arrangements, in like manner, would be as nothing in\nhis eyes, in comparison of the truths obscured or imperilled, and of\nthe errors involved, on either hand?\n\nAnd what therefore I would earnestly desire that the Church of\nGod in this land might draw forth from the present excitement and\nanxiety about ritual is, a faithful comparison of herself, in point\nof doctrine and practice, with the Apostolic and Primitive model.\nThere are greater things than these; \"The life is more than meat,\nand the body than raiment.\" And while we are anxiously discussing\nwhether the life of eucharistic devotion is best fed through the eye\nor the ear, or how its outward form should be arrayed, it is only\ntoo sadly true, that that life and that body are a prey to divers\ndiseases, and need medicine and restoratives, ere they are likely to\nexhibit much real vigour, nourish and clothe them as we will.\n\nFor the second time within our memory, a \"vestment\" or \"ritual\"\ncontroversy has arisen among us. The last time it was about \"the\nsurplice\" in preaching, as against the gown; and the \"Prayer for the\nChurch Militant,\" as against the disuse of it. This time it is about\nthe more distinctive eucharistic vestments, as against the surplice;\nand about a fuller ritual as against a scantier one. Now the last\ncontest was simply a miserable one. I venture to call it so, 1st,\nbecause, handled as it was, there was no sort of principle at stake\nin it, beyond that of assigning to the sermon more nearly its due\nposition and estimate in the rite; and that of adding one more\nprayer--a touching and valuable one, it is true--to the ordinary\nOffice;--and next, because it utterly misconceived and missed the\nChurch's real mind, in allowing such a thing at all as prayers, or a\nservice at the Altar or Holy Table, when there was to be no Offering\nand no Communion. To restore the Prayer for the Church Militant, and\nbe content with that, was indeed \"to keep the word of promise to her\near, and break it to her hopes.\" Only as a protest, only as a badge\nof her rejection--ay, and of CHRIST'S rejection by the world--had\nshe ever condescended to such a Lord's Day Service as that at all.\n\nWhat was the result and upshot, as might have been expected, of that\ncontest? In the case of some parishes, and almost whole dioceses,\nsuccessful rebellion against even the letter of the rubric; and in\nplaces where the result was different, a contented acquiescence ever\nsince (for the most part) in the victory achieved. Is it not evident\nthat it was not worth achieving? And why? Because all the while\nthe Church's real desire and aim was ignored; she was not one whit\nnearer to the Apostolic rule, but only proclaimed more distinctly\nher departure from it.\n\nAnd now that another \"vestment\" and \"ritual\" controversy has arisen,\nthe great anxiety, and the only _deep_ anxiety, of the Church should\nbe, that it too pass not over us barren of all results of value. It\nwill do so, if it only leaves us with a better ascertained law as to\nthe relative obligation of this or that vestment, the lawfulness of\nthis or that mode of ritual. It will have been in vain, unless it\nbrings _up_ our long-standing neglect on the one hand, and brings\n_back_ our more novel excesses on the other, to the true standard of\nGod's own providing. But on the other hand, if haply, while we are\nsearching for a rule, we shall have found a principle, and begun to\nact upon it then the present excitement will have done a great work\nfor us.\n\nAnd happily, it is by thus lifting the existing controversy into\na higher sphere, we shall have the best chance of reconciling and\nharmonising positions now ranged over against each other, and even\nof solving this ritual and vestment difficulty. For let us suppose,\non the one side--what it is not too much to hope for--that the\nclose sifting, both of doctrine and ritual, which such a period as\nthis gives rise to, joined to the fatherly counsel of the Bishops,\nand to considerations of Christian wisdom and charity, should\navail to remove such peculiarities of ritual as are plainly either\nindefensible or inexpedient. And let us suppose, on the other\nside--what surely we may no less hope for--an earnest effort now\nmade by the clergy, encouraged by their bishops, to return to the\nApostolic usage of Weekly Celebration, and in other ways to give due\nhonour and observance to the Holy Eucharist. Suppose this done on\neither side: and there would at once result a great and essential\n_rapprochement_ between those who now have the appearance of raising\nopposite cries, and wearing rival badges.\n\nNor only so, but those badges themselves would lose, to a great\nextent, their distinctive hues. It is astonishing, when we come\nto look into the matter, how much the two rival camps, so to call\nthem, have in common; and how many middle terms there are on which\nthey are agreed. The truth is that, as has appeared above, there\nis between the vestments (for example), now opposed to each other,\nan entire \"solidarity\" or community of interests, arising out of\ntheir common origin, and their close relation to each other. The use\nof the surplice, its existence at all as a ministerial vestment,\nand its real significance, can only be traced in the eucharistic\nvestments. It results from removing the chasuble and expanding the\nalb. The surplice is in fact, an alb. It is an adaptation of the\ninner eucharistic vestment to the exigencies of the ordinary Office.\nIt was thought good, when it was used as an outer garment, to give\nit that fulness and comeliness of form, for which the _English_\nsurplice, more especially, is so justly commended. But its real\nvalue, as a memento of the inward purity which it typifies, can only\nbe apprehended by bearing in mind that it is properly an _inner_\ngarment.--In like manner the stole, taken by itself, is a mere band\nof ribbon of no particular appropriateness. But let it symbolise, as\nit certainly was meant to do, the yoke of loving labour laid on the\nneck of the minister of Christ; or, more exactly, after the Aaronic\npattern, the ministerial toil of heart and hand for Christ's people,\nand the mindful bearing of them before God for acceptance through\nthe One Sacrifice; and we at once see that this simple vestment\nis indeed worth preserving.--And let the hood, or \"amice,\" be no\nlonger worn as a mere badge of academical degree, but as a token of\nthe dedication of the powers of the head or intellect, and of the\nneed of God's protection against \"vain, perverse, and unbecoming\nthoughts;\"[61] and this, too, acquires a fitness otherwise difficult\nto recognise. Now, if we thus owe to the full eucharistic vestments\nthe interpretation of our ordinary ones, it is plain that the\nrelations between the two are of the most friendly character.\n\n  [61] Oratio dicenda ante Divinum Officium. Portiforium Sarisb.\n\nThe stole, it may be added, _rests solely on the rubric of_ 1662: so\nthat, whereas it is commonly imagined that the vestments of Edward\nVI. have now begun for the first time to be re-introduced, and that\nby a very few; the truth is that the vast majority of the English\nclergy have now for many years, though unconsciously, been acting\nupon the rubric which enjoins them, and tacitly appealing to it.\n\nSo, again, the introduction of colour into our vestments is only one\nstep added to what has been already carried out, to a great extent,\nby all of us, in the rest of our sacred accessories, whether in the\nway of stained glass, altar-cloths, hangings, or even of books. And\nwhereas, on the other hand, the pure whiteness of the surplice is\nnot among the least of its attractions and sacred associations in\nEnglish eyes; who, it may be asked, have done more to extend the\nuse of the surplice among us, than those who have advanced farthest\nin the ritual direction? Who eliminated the \"black gown\" from the\neucharistic rite? Who else have flooded our choirs and aisles, on\nfestal occasions especially, with the white robes of choristers\nand clergy? Nay, for the Holy Communion itself, for the highest\nfestivals--Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide--the _white_ chasuble is,\nby the ancient rule of England, added to the white alb. Surely here,\nagain, there is a community of sentiment between ritual schools\nthought to be opposed to each other. It may be added, that though\nthe strict English rule, or rather its _full_ carrying out, would\nnecessitate colour--red for the most part--for the chief eucharistic\nvestment, this is not by any means of necessity. White, it is\nadmitted on all hands, is permissible all the year round,[62] and\nsome Eastern churches never use any other colour.\n\n  [62] 'Directorium Anglicanum,' p. 17: \"It is perfectly\n  unobjectionable to have the sacred vestments of fair white linen, so\n  long as the shape of them be correct.\"\n\nAnd do we not seem to see, in these considerations, joined to others\nalleged above, a ground for harmonious though diverse action among\nthose of differing minds? We have, as the first and leading fact,\nthat (if the view taken above be correct) none is compelled _in foro\nconscienti\u00e6_, by the existing state of the law to which he has bound\nhimself (viz. \"what this Church and Realm hath received\") to adopt\nthe ancient vestments. This gives room for the exercise of that\nprudent consideration in the matter, which would be out of place if\nthe law gave no alternative.\n\nWe have next the fact that there are degrees, even where it is\ndesired to return to the ancient system. The _form_ is, as it should\nseem, the great matter, both as regards symbolism, and as making a\ndistinct difference between the ordinary and the eucharistic dress:\nthe material and colour are secondary. Hence arises a simple and\nunobtrusive mode of resuming the old distinction, without risk of\nprovoking serious objection: eucharistic vestments of fine linen\nbeing not very strikingly different in appearance from the surplice;\nmore especially if, as some hold, surplices in place of tunics be\nallowable for the assistant clergy.\n\nAnd if many still entertain a distinct preference for the surplice,\nnone can say that, after 300 years of recognition, it is other than\na seemly and honourable vestment, as an _ad interim_, even for the\nHoly Communion. In one case only can it be said to be a dishonour,\nand a badge of servitude under the world's rejection,--viz.,\nwhenever there is no celebration. It can then only be compared\nto the linen garment in which the Jewish High Priest was clothed\nof old on the one day of Atonement:--the one day in the year on\nwhich Israel mourned over suspended privileges and a desolated\nAltar.[63] It is when the surplice ministers to so dreary a Service\nas that:--when, as a fit accompaniment to it, the position of the\nwearer, at the north _end_ of the Holy Table, indicates at least a\nforgetfulness of his priestly functions:--it is then only that it\ncan be otherwise than honourable among us.\n\n  [63] Leviticus xvi. 4.\n\nNor in like manner, as has appeared above from the venerable,\nbecause primitive and apostolic descent of the eucharistic\nvestments, can any tinge of superstition or unsound doctrine be\nproperly ascribed to them, unless it be through the fault of any in\nwhose persons they minister to eucharistic doctrines and practices,\nwhich were unknown to Apostolic and primitive days.\n\nAnd there is yet one other hopeful feature in the present aspect\nof things as regards Ritual. It is that, taking the long tract of\nyears, the desire for an improvement, and for our acting up to the\ntheory and ideal of our Church in this matter, has begun, as it\nought, with the Episcopate: so that all present endeavours in that\ndirection, (whether in all respects wisely or faithfully made I have\ngiven some reasons for doubting), are intended at least to be a\ncarrying out of their fatherly counsels and admonitions. It is now\na quarter of a century since two of the ablest and most influential\nPrelates that ever sat on an episcopal throne in England, the late\nBishop of London and the present Bishop of Exeter, invited the\nClergy of their Dioceses to carry out the rubrics, with especial\nreference to a particular rubric bearing upon the dress of the\nClergy in one part of their ministrations. It was found impossible\nat the time, owing to a strong feeling on the part of the laity\n(which time has for the most part removed), to carry out those\ninjunctions. But their tones have vibrated ever since in the hearts\nof the English Clergy. It was felt at the time, as it must ever be\nfelt, that our _aim_, at least, should be to carry out the Church's\nbest and deepest mind, and not to acquiesce for generations in a\nlow standard, merely because it is the existing one. And it is my\nhumble belief that, had the present attempt to return, in fuller\nmeasure, to her deep and wise rules for eucharistic celebration been\nmade with more of moderation and considerateness, it would have\ncarried with it, (and may carry with it yet, if these conditions\nbe fulfilled), the assent of our Right Reverend Fathers[64] in\nGod on the one hand, and of our congregations on the other. So\nmanaged, the present might well become a grand and harmonious\nmovement of Bishops, Clergy, and people towards a noble result,--the\nsetting up, namely, in its due place, of the highest ordinance of\nthe Gospel: with variations, indeed, in many respects, as to the\nmode and fashion of administration; but with one happy feature at\nany rate,--a nearer approximation, both in Rites and Ritual, to\nApostolic Doctrine and Worship.\n\n  [64] See the Bishop of Oxford's opinion, delivered in Convocation.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE TO THE FOURTH EDITION.\n\n\nIn revising the above pages for a Fourth Edition, I have corrected\nthe statement made by me in page 40, as to the doctrine maintained\nby Archdeacon Denison; and I desire to repeat here the expression of\nregret, which I have already made public through another channel, at\nhaving misrepresented his view. A correspondence between us, since\npublished by him (Rivington's), will explain more fully the state\nof the case. It may suffice to repeat here, that the exact position\ntaken up by him in 1856, as regards the points under discussion, is\nexpressed in the two following propositions:\n\n  Proposition III.--\n\n     \"That The Body and Blood of Christ, being present naturally in\n     Heaven, are, supernaturally and invisibly, but Really, Present\n     in the Lord's Supper, through the elements, by virtue of the act\n     of consecration.\"\n\n  Proposition VIII.--\n\n     \"That worship is due to The Body and Blood of Christ,\n     supernaturally and invisibly, but Really Present in the Lord's\n     Supper, 'under the form of Bread and Wine,'[65] by reason of\n     that Godhead with which they are personally united. But that\n     the elements through which 'The Body and Blood of Christ' are\n     given and received may not be worshipped.\"\n\n  [65] End of the 1st Book of Homilies.\n\nWith respect to the presence of non-communicants at the Holy\nEucharist, I had of course seen such publications as have appeared\nin defence of the practice. But they fail altogether in the\nessential point, which is, to show that antiquity viewed the\npresence of such in any other light than either--1. As an utter\ncarelessness and irreverence; or 2. as befitting _penitents_, and\nthem only. The medi\u00e6val doctrine and practice, now being revived by\nsome, is that it is a good and laudable habit for Christian persons\nin a state of grace to come to the Holy Communion, and to decline\nreceiving it.\n\nI have to acknowledge many communications on various points; of\nwhich I have to some extent availed myself in this edition.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX A.\n\nOPINIONS OF THE BISHOP OF EXETER ON CERTAIN POINTS OF DOCTRINE.\n\n\nHaving had occasion to receive from the Bishop of Exeter an\nexpression of his views on the subjects discussed in pp. 31-37, I\nasked and obtained permission to embody it in an Appendix, as his\nlatest and most matured judgment on the matter to which it relates.\n\nThe Bishop says:--\"I regard the Grace of the Eucharist as the\nCommunion of the Death and Sufferings of our Lord. St. Paul (1 Cor.\nxi. 24), in his statement of the Revelation made to him from Christ,\nsitting at the Right Hand of GOD the Father, seems to me distinctly\nto affirm this Truth.\n\n\"His words \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd (they should be rendered \"which is _being_\nbroken\"), in their literal and plain signification, show that the\nLord's Death is one continuous Fact, which lasts and will last till\nhe comes and lays down His Mediatorial Kingdom, subjecting it, and\nHimself, its King, to the Father.\n\n\"I hold that it is, in short, a Sacrament of that continuous Act\nof our Lord's Suffering once for us on the Cross--the punishment\nappointed for sin during the days of His Mediation--that our Lord\nis, in some ineffable manner, present in the Sacrament of His\nSufferings, thus communicated to us, by which He pays for us the\npenalty imposed on our guilt. In such a Presence I do not recognise\nanything material or local, though I most thankfully rejoice in it\nas _real_.\"\n\nNext as to the point dwelt upon in pp. 66-70, as seeming to\nprescribe, and to render important, the position of the Celebrant\nat the Holy Communion: viz. that our Lord's having \"given\" or\n\"presented\" in a mystery, through the Elements, the Sacrifice of\nHis Body and Blood, is the whole secret of their consecration to\n_be_ that which they represent: and that we, too, must \"give,\"\n\"present,\" or \"offer,\" the Elements with the same intention, if we\nwould effectually plead the Sacrifice, and receive the Sacrament:--\n\nThe Bishop of Exeter, still commenting on 1 Cor. xi. 24, compared\nwith St. Luke xxii. 19, speaks as follows:--\n\n\"The use of the present participle in these cases, seems to me to\nshow, that the words ought to be rendered 'which is _being_ given,'\nand 'which is being broken,' and must be referred to the Act of\nCrucifixion. The words, thus understood, seem to me to illustrate\nand to be illustrated by Gal. ii. 20. 'I am crucified with\nChrist [lit., I have been, and continue to be, crucified with\nHim--\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9], and the life which I now live, I live by the\nfaith of the Son of God, who loved me, _and gave Himself for me_.'\n[Comp. 'This is my Body which is _being given for you_.']\n\n\"And again, Gal. iii. 1, 'Before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been\nevidently set forth crucified among you.' I know not where it is\nsaid or implied that we are crucified together with Christ, unless\nin thus feeding on, and receiving, and partaking of the Dying of\nChrist, and the showing forth of His Death, as oft as we eat and\ndrink the Body _being_ broken and the Blood _being_ shed.\"\n\nAgain the Bishop, as regards the Roman Doctrines of\nTransubstantiation and Concomitancy, quotes, as in entire accordance\nwith his own, the following sentiments of the Rev. C. Smith, Rector\nof Newton, Suffolk, and author of the valuable work, 'An Enquiry\ninto Catholick Truths, hidden under certain Articles of the Creed\nof the Church of Rome:'--\"This is a great mystery; but we must\nnot forget that it is the Lord; and, instead of pretending to\nexplain _how_ it is our Lord feeds us on this most real Sacrifice,\nand _how_ He can give us, now he is glorified, His own Body and\nBlood separately, let us rejoice that he nourishes and cherishes\nHis purchased Church by the 'still unconsumed sacrifice (as St.\nChrysostom calls it) of Himself.' How mean and impertinent are\nTransubstantiation and Concomitancy, and the Impanation and\nInvination of Rome and her followers!\"\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX B.\n\nJUDGMENT OF THE BISHOP OF EXETER AS TO VESTMENTS.\n\n\nThe following well-known opinion was delivered by the Bishop of\nExeter many years since. As such it is simply recorded here, not as\ninvolving its author in the present controversy on this subject.\n\n\"The rubric, at the commencement of 'The Order for Morning and\nEvening Prayer,' says '_That such ornaments of the church, and of\nthe ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be\nretained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England by the\nauthority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King\nEdward VI._'--in other words, a white alb plain, with a vestment\nor cope. These were forbidden in King Edward VI.'s Second Book.\nThis was a triumph of the party most opposed to the Church of Rome,\nand most anxious to carry reformation to the very farthest point.\nBut their triumph was brief--within a few months Mary restored\nPopery; and when the accession of Queen Elizabeth brought back\nthe Reformation, _she, and the Convocation, and the Parliament,\ndeliberately rejected_ the simpler direction of Edward's Second\nBook, and _revived the ornaments of the First_. This decision was\nfollowed again by the Crown, Convocation, and Parliament, at the\nrestoration of Charles II., when the existing Act of Uniformity\nestablished the Book of Common Prayer, with its rubrics, in the form\nin which they now stand.\n\n\"Strange indeed is it that in the very teeth of this plain and\nevident intention of the Reformers and Revisers of the Prayer-book,\nthere should be English Churchmen and Clergy, so forgetful of the\nduty they owe the Church, that they are trying with all their\npower to provoke Parliament to do an unjust and unconstitutional\nact, by attempting to set aside this law of the Church, which has\nthe sanction of the _three_ Estates of the Realm: and can only be\naltered by their concurrence.\n\n\"From this statement it will be seen, that the surplice may be\nobjected to with some reason; but then it must be because the law\nrequires 'the alb, and the vestment, or the cope.'\n\n\"Why have these been disused? Because the parishioners--that is,\nthe churchwardens, who represent the parishioners--have neglected\ntheir duty to provide them; for such is the duty of the parishioners\nby the plain and express canon law of England (Gibson 200). True,\nit would be a very costly duty, and for that reason most probably,\nchurchwardens have neglected it, and archdeacons have connived at\nthe neglect. I have no wish that it should be otherwise. But, be\nthis as it may, if the churchwardens of Helston shall perform this\nduty, at the charge of the parish, providing an alb, a vestment, and\na cope, as they might in strictness be required to do (Gibson, 201),\n_I shall enjoin the minister, be he who he may, to use them_. But\nuntil these ornaments are provided by the parishioners, it is the\nduty of the minister to use the garment actually provided by them\nfor him, which is the surplice. The parishioners never provide a\ngown, nor, if they did, would he have a right to wear it in any part\nof his ministrations. For the gown is nowhere mentioned nor alluded\nto in any of the rubrics. Neither is it included, as the alb, the\ncope, and _three_ surplices expressly are, among 'the furniture\nand ornaments proper for Divine Service,' to be provided by the\nparishioners of every parish.\n\n\"The 58th canon of 1604 (which however cannot control the Act of\nUniformity of 1662) enjoins that 'every minister, saying the public\nprayers, or ministering the sacraments or other rites of the Church,\nshall wear a decent and comely surplice with sleeves, &c., to be\nprovided at the charge of the parish.' For the things required for\nthe common prayer of the parish were and are to be provided by the\nparish. If a gown were required, it would have to be provided by the\nparish.\"\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX C.\n\nON SAYING AND SINGING.\n\n\n  MY DEAR ARCHDEACON,\n\n     With regard to the question which you ask respecting the mode\n     of performing Divine Service, it appears to me evident that\n     it never entered into the heads of those who undertook, in\n     the 16th century, the great work of remodelling, translating,\n     simplifying, congregationalising (to use a barbarous word) the\n     old Sarum Offices, and recasting them into the abbreviated form\n     of our Matins and Evensong, to interfere with the universally\n     received _method of reciting_ those Offices. It is quite certain\n     that they never dreamed of so great an innovation in immemorial\n     usage. Their object was merely to simplify the old Ritual music.\n     It had become so tedious and ornate, that it was impossible\n     for the people to join in _their_ part; and the priest's part\n     was rendered unintelligible by means of the wearisome \"neumas\"\n     and flourishes, which had little by little crept in, to the\n     utter ruin of the staid solemnity of the ancient Plain Song. So\n     the great business was to make the _priest's_ part devout and\n     _intelligible_, and the _people's_ simple and _congregational_.\n\n     The first part of our Prayer-book which came out was the\n     _Litany_. But it came out _with_ its beautiful and simple Ritual\n     _Music_. It was thus _originally intended_ to be _sung_; but\n     to music so plain and straightforward that a child may join in\n     it. (It is the same melody as is still generally used for the\n     Litany.) _Only_ the melody was published at first; no harmony:\n     therefore it would be sung in unison.\n\n     But a month afterwards a _harmonised_ edition was published for\n     the benefit of those choirs which were more skilled in music. It\n     was set in five-part harmony, according to the notes used in the\n     \"Kynge's Chapel.\" Tallis's more elaborate version was published\n     twenty years afterwards.\n\n     But this English Litany was harmonised over and over again in\n     different ways, by different composers; the very variety of\n     setting incidentally proving how very general its musical use\n     had become.\n\n     It was in the following year (1545) that Cranmer wrote his\n     well-known letter to Henry respecting the \"Processions\" and\n     Litany Services, which it was in contemplation to set forth in\n     English for festival days; requesting that \"some devout and\n     solemn _note_ be made thereto,\" similar to that of the published\n     Litany: \"that it may the better excitate and stir the hearts of\n     all men to devotion and godliness:\" the Archbishop adding that,\n     in his opinion, \"the song made thereto should not be full of\n     notes, but as near as may be for every syllable a note.\"\n\n     Four years after came out Edward's First Prayer-book, and almost\n     simultaneously with it (at least within the year) the _musical\n     notation_ of the book, published \"cum Privilegio,\" and edited by\n     John Merbecke.\n\n     There seems no doubt in the world that this book was\n     edited under Cranmer's supervision; and was intended as a\n     quasi-authoritative interpretation of the musical rubrics.\n\n     The old ritual words, \"legere,\" \"dicere,\" \"cantare,\" continue\n     in the reformed, just as of old in the unreformed rubrics. They\n     had a definite meaning in the Latin Service Books. There is not\n     a vestige of a hint that they are to have any other than their\n     old meaning in the vernacular and remodelled Offices. They are\n     often loosely used as almost convertible expressions. \"Dicere\"\n     rather expresses the simpler; \"cantare,\" the more _ornate_ mode\n     of musical reading. The word \"legere\" simply denoted \"recitation\n     from a book,\" without any reference to the particular _mode_ of\n     the recitation. Applied to the Gospel in the old rubrics, it\n     would simply express that the Gospel was to be here \"recited,\"\n     according to the accustomed \"Cantus Evangelii.\" The same\n     with other parts of the service. As \"legere\" did not signify\n     _non_-musical recitation in the old rubrics, so neither does it\n     in the revised. In fact, in two or three instances, it is used\n     avowedly as synonymous with \"say or sing,\"--_e. g._ in the cases\n     both of the \"Venite\" and the Athanasian Creed. These of course\n     are definitely ordered to be \"said\" or \"sung,\"--_i. e._ \"said\"\n     on the monotone, or \"sung\" to the regular chant.\n\n     But yet in two rubrics which merely deal with the _position\n     where_, on certain particular occasions, they are to be\n     recited (the rubrics _not_ adverting to the _mode_ of their\n     recitation), the general term \"read\" is applied to them--\"The\n     Venite shall be _read_ here.\"\n\n     Now, as the _rubrical directions_ respecting the performance\n     of the Services are virtually the same in the old and the new\n     Office, so is the _music itself_ as given in Merbecke. His book\n     is nothing more than an adaptation, in a _very_ simplified form,\n     of the old Latin Ritual Song to our English Service. Cranmer's\n     Rule is rigidly followed--\"as near as may be, for every syllable\n     a note.\"\n\n     The Priest's part throughout is very little inflected. Even the\n     'Sursum Corda' and 'Proper Preface' in the Communion Offices are\n     plain monotone; as well (of course) as all the Prayers.\n\n     But the Introit, Offertory Sentences, Post Communion,\n     Pater-noster, Sanctus, Agnus-Dei, Credo, 'Gloria in Excelsis,'\n     in most of which the people would be expected to join, are all\n     inflected, though the music is plain and simple.\n\n     That there was not even the _remotest_ intention of doing\n     away with the immemorial practice of the Church of God (alike\n     in Jewish as in Christian times), of employing some mode of\n     solemn Musical Recitation for the saying of the Divine Offices,\n     is further evident by the rubric relating to the Lessons. Of\n     course, _if_, in _any_ part of the Services, the ordinary\n     colloquial tone of voice should be employed, it plainly ought to\n     be in the Lessons.\n\n     But not even here was such an innovation contemplated.\n\n     The ancient \"Capitula\" were much inflected. The Cantus Evangelii\n     and Epistolarum admitted likewise of a great and wearisome\n     licence of inflection. Now it would have been absurd to inflect\n     a long English lesson. The Rubric, therefore, ordered that the\n     Lessons should be said to _un_inflected song.\n\n     \"In such places where they do sing, then shall the Lesson be\n     _sung_ in a _plain tune_ after the manner of _distinct_ reading\"\n     (_i.e._ recitation); in other words, the \"Lessons, Epistle, and\n     Gospel,\" were to be all alike said in _monotone_.\n\n     You are aware, of course, that it was not till the last Revision\n     in 1662 that this rubric was removed. The Divines at the Savoy\n     Conference at first objected, and, in their published answer,\n     stated that the reasons urged by the Puritan party for its\n     removal were groundless. However, the rubric disappeared; and,\n     I think, happily and providentially. For certainly (except\n     the reader chances to have a _very_ beautiful voice) it would\n     be painful to hear a Lesson--perhaps a chapter of fifty or\n     sixty verses--said all in monotone. Moreover, while in solemn\n     addresses (whether of Prayer or Praise to GOD), the solemn\n     musical Recitation seems most fitting and reverential, in\n     lections or addresses delivered primarily for the edification of\n     _man_, a freer mode of utterance appears desirable and rational.\n\n     Merbecke's book (I should have added) does not contain the music\n     for the Litany--as that had been already published--nor for the\n     whole Psalter. It simply gives a few specimens of adaptation of\n     the old Chants to English Psalms or Canticles, and leaves it to\n     individual choirs to adapt and select for themselves.\n\n     The _intention_ of the English Church to retain a musical\n     service is further confirmed by the often quoted injunction of\n     Queen Elizabeth, 1559 (c. 49), which gives licence for an anthem.\n\n     It first orders that \"there shall be a modest and distinct\n     _song_,\" (_i.e._ the ordinary plain song) \"used in _all parts_\n     of the Common Prayers of the Church;\" while, for the comfort of\n     such as delight in music, it permits, at the beginning or end of\n     the services, \"a hymn or song in the best melody and music that\n     can be devised, having respect to the sense of the words.\"\n\n     The utmost that can be said of our rubrics is, that in cases\n     of musical incapacity, or where no choir can be got, where\n     priest or people _cannot_ perform their part properly, then they\n     _may_ perform it improperly. But, unquestionably, whenever the\n     services _can_ be correctly performed, when the priest _can_\n     monotone his part, and the people sing theirs, then the services\n     ought to be so performed. It is a matter of simple obedience to\n     Church rule. The single word \"Even_song_\" is a standing protest\n     against the dull conversational services of modern times.\n\n     In reference to the popular objection, that the musical rubrics\n     refer merely to cathedrals and collegiate churches, Lord Stowell\n     observed, in his judgment in the case of Hutchins _v._ Denziloe\n     (see _Cripps_, p. 644, 3rd ed.), that if this _be_ the meaning\n     of the rubrics and canons which refer to this subject, then\n     \"they are strangely worded, and of disputable meaning,\" for they\n     _express_ nothing of the kind. The rubrics, he says, rule that\n     certain portions of the service \"be _sung_ or _said_ by the\n     _minister_ and _people_; not by the prebendaries, canons, and\n     a band of regular choristers, as in a cathedral; but plainly\n     referring to the _services of a parish church_.\"\n\n     It is very difficult to say _when_ the use of the monotone\n     generally dropped and gave place to our modern careless\n     unecclesiastical polytone. The change, I suppose, took place\n     gradually; first in one district, then in another. The Church's\n     mode of reciting her Offices would involve more _care_ and\n     _skill_ than the clergy much cared to give. So, little by\n     little,--first in one locality, then in another,--they fell\n     into the modern, loose, irregular way of talking or pronouncing\n     instead of \"saying and singing.\"\n\n  Yours ever,\n\n  JOHN B. DYKES.\n\n  ST. OSWALD'S VICARAGE, DURHAM,\n\n  _January 20, 1866_.\n\n\n     LONDON: W. CLOWES AND SONS, DUKE STREET, STAMFORD STREET, AND\n     CHARING CROSS.\n\n\n\n\n_By the same Author._\n\n\n     1.--THE PRINCIPLES OF DIVINE SERVICE. An Inquiry concerning the\n         Order for Morning and Evening Prayer, and for Administration\n         of the Holy Communion, in the English Church.\n         Two vols., cloth, \u00a31 6_s._ Or the vols, may be had separately.\n\n     2.--PLAIN DIRECTIONS for understanding the Order for Morning and\n         Evening Prayer, 3_d._\n\n     3.--SUNDAY. A Poem, 4_d._ Masters.\n\n\nJ. H. PARKER, OXFORD AND LONDON.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\nMinor typographical and punctuation errors have been corrected\nwithout note. Irregularities and inconsistencies in the text have\nbeen retained as printed.\n\nMismatched quotes are not fixed if it's not sufficiently clear where\nthe missing quote should be placed.","title":"Rites and Ritual: A Plea for Apostolic Doctrine and Worship","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":29127}