"O come to our Communion Feast;There present in the heart,Not in the hands, th' eternal PriestWill His true self impart."[15]
"O come to our Communion Feast;There present in the heart,Not in the hands, th' eternal PriestWill His true self impart."[15]
And it is believed that the first appearance in a modern days of theformerdoctrine, viz. that worship is due to the Body and Blood of Christ, was in the year 1856, in the case of Ditcherv.Denison.[16]It was through a chivalrous desire to uphold a cause, with the main aspects of which they naturally felt a deep sympathy, that the writers referred to were drawn into countenancing a doctrine, then new to their theology, but of the truth of which, on examination, they seem to have satisfied themselves. Surely we may believe that it was not without misgiving that they thus abandoned the doctrines which they once taught us.They cannot have felt altogether satisfied thus to break with the Church of the First Ages in a matter so momentous as that of the Object of worship, and of the nature and purpose of the Holy Eucharist.
Closely connected with this doctrine, is a practice not merely defended of late, but strongly urged as being of the very essence of exalted Eucharistic duty:—that of being present at the Ritewithout receiving; for the purpose, it is alleged, of adoring Christ as present under the Elements. But here again the Early Church furnishes thorough condemnation of the practice. In an exhaustive treatise,[17]it has been shown that, except as a deeply penitential act, she knew of no such practice; making no account whatever of attendance on the rite apart from reception: rightly viewing it as a Sacrifice indeed, but a Sacrifice of that class or kind in whichpartakingwas an essential and indispensable feature. And the English Church, it is almost unnecessary to add, though a faint endeavour has been made to disprove it, has given no more countenance than the Church of old to this practice. Contenting herself, at first, at the Reformation, with forbidding non-communicants to remain in the choir, she afterwards so effectually discouraged and disallowed their presence at all, that it became unmeaning to retain the prohibition any longer.[18]
And in truth it is, as might be expected, to the later and corrupt ages of the Church that we oweboth of these positions which it is now attempted to revive among us: viz. that in the language of the decrees of Trent,[19]"our Lord Jesus Christ, God and Man, is truly, really, and substantially contained in the Sacrament of the Eucharist,"i. e.in the Elements, "and is to be adored" as contained therein: and again, that the faithful may be present merely to adore, and may communicate spiritually,[20]though, as has been well said, "they purposely neglect the only mode of doing so ordained by Christ."
The latter position—respecting non-communicating attendance—has been lately discountenanced[21]by one of those eminent divines who are generally claimed as sanctioning the entire system to which it belongs. And though the number of those among the clergy who have embraced these views is not inconsiderable, while their piety and devotedness are unquestionable, yet I cannot doubt that at least an equal number, in no way their inferiors in learning or devotion, deeply deplore these departures from the primitive faith. And it is not too much to hope, that, as the English Church has witnessed a school of postmediæval or unsacramental divinity, which, notwithstanding its piety and earnestness, has ceased to exercise much influence among us, even so it may be with the mediæval and ultra-sacramental school which has lately risen up. Defend their views how they will, what they are seeking to introduceis anew cultus, and anew religion, as purely the device of the middle ages, as non-sacramentalism was the device of Calvin and Zwingle. And the one doctrine as distinctly demands a new Prayer-book as the other does. What the English Church, on her very front, professes, is neither postmediævalism nor mediævalism, but apostolicity. Since choose she must, (for the two are utterly irreconcilable) between symbolising with the mediævalising Churches of the West, and symbolising with the Church of the first ages, she has taken her part, and her deliberate mind is "Sit Anima Mea cum Apostolis."
FromRites, I turn toRitual, which claims at this moment the larger share of attention.
How, then, are the Services of the English Church to be performed, so as to be in accordance with her mind and principles? It will be answered, that the Services ought to be conducted according to "the Book of Common Prayer andAdministration of the Sacraments, according to the use of the Church of England."[22]But this, though at first sight the true and sufficient answer, is not, in reality, either true or sufficient. The duty in question, that of conducting the Services of the Church, is laid upon particular persons: and it is by recurring to the exact terms of the obligation laid on those persons, when they are solemnly commissioned to their office, that we must seek for an answer. Now the engagement exacted by the Bishop from candidates for the priesthood, at theirOrdination, is, in exact terms, this: "Will you give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded,and as this Church and Realm hath received the same?" The italicised words contain the gist of the whole matter. By the interpretation we put upon them must our standard of Ritual be determined.
What then "hath this Church and Realm received," at the present moment, in the matter of Ritual? Not the Prayer-book standing absolutely, and alone, without any comment or addition whatsoever: but that Book, as interpreted and modified, in certain respects, by subsequent enactments, which have in various ways obtained, practically, the Church's recognition. The truth is, that this country has taken a certain line, and the same line, in her ecclesiastical and in her civil polity. In civil matters, Magna Charta is the broad basis and general draught of her free constitution. But the particulars of that constitution have been from time to time regulated and modified, not by interlining the original document, but by separate statutes. And the Prayer-book, in like manner, is the ecclesiastical Magna Charta of the Church and Realm. For upwards of two centuries—since 1662—it has received no authoritative interlineation whatever; and but few and slight ones (subsequently to its first settlement in 1549-1559) for another century before that. The differences which are found at the present moment in any two copies of the Prayer-book are purely unauthorised. They are merely editions for convenience. The SealedBook, settled in 1662—that, and no other—is the English Prayer-book. For more than three centuries, then, we may say that a policy of non-interlineation, so to call it—that is, of leaving intact the original document—has been very markedly adhered to. Such alterations or modifications as have, practically, been made and accepted by the Church and Realm, have been effected by enactments external to the Prayer-book. Injunctions, canons, statutes, judicial decisions, have from time to time been allowed,nemine contradicente, to interpret or even contravene particular provisions of the Book. And, not least of all, custom itself has, in not a few particulars, acquired the force of law, and though not as yet engrossed in any legal document, has long been, in practice, part and parcel of our ecclesiastical polity.
Instances in point are,—1. Of an injunction practically recognised as law, that of Queen Elizabeth, permitting the use of "a hymn or such like song in the beginning or in the end of the Common Prayers;" whereas the Prayer-book recognises no such feature or element. It is on this injunction, and on that alone, that the practice, now universal, is based. Other instances, again, of royal injunctions, constantly acted upon, are those by which the names of the sovereign and royal family,pro re natâ, are inserted and altered; a power given indeed, by implication, in the Prayer-book itself, because necessary by the nature of the case; but not expressly there,[23]and a departure, speaking literally, from the Sealed Book. Such,again, is the use of prayers or thanksgivings enjoined on special occasions by royal authority. These it has so long been customary to accept and use, that no serious question is now made of their legality.
2. An instance of a canon obtaining recognition by common consent, though irreconcilable with the rubric of the Prayer-book, is that of the 58th of 1604, which orders any minister, when "ministering the sacraments," to wear a surplice; whereas the rubric recognises for the Holy Communion far other "Ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers thereof."
3. A case of statute law being allowed to supplement rubrical provision, by adding an alternative, is that which orders Banns of Marriage to be asked after the Second Lesson at Evening Service, if there be no Morning Service. Such too, as the Dean of Westminster lately pointed out in Convocation, was the Act of Toleration; as is also the Act empowering bishops to require a second sermon on Sundays.
4. Judicial decisions, once more, are from time to time unavoidable. By these a certain interpretation is put upon the rubrics of the Prayer-book; and unless protested against, as sometimes they are, in some weighty and well-grounded manner, they are practically embodied in the standing law of the Church.
5. And lastly, apart from any legal prescription whatever, various usages and practices, especially in matters not expressly provided for in the Prayer-book, have obtained so generally, as to be a part of what may be called the "common law" of the Church, though liable to revision by the proper authority. Such is the alternate recitation, in Churcheswhere it obtains, of the psalms, between the Minister and the people. Such too is, in reality, the use of any other mode of saying the Service than that of reciting it on a musical note; for none other was intended by the Church, nor is recognised in the Prayer-book.[24]Such, once more, is the having any sermon beyond the rubrical one.
On the whole, it cannot be gainsaid, that what "this Church and realm hath received," and what her Ministers, therefore, undertake to carry out in their ministrations, isnotthe Book of Common Prayer, pure and simple,butthat Book as their main guide and Magna Charta, yet interpreted and modified here and there, and in some few but not unimportant points, by provisions or considerations external to it. When, therefore, the candidate for Holy Orders, or for admission to a benefice, undertakes, by signing the Thirty-sixth Canon, that "he will use the form in the said Book prescribed in Public Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments,and none other," it cannot be understood that the directions of that Book are, without note, comment, or addition, his guide in every particular. For he is about, if a candidate for Ordination, to promise solemnly before the Church that he will minister "as this Church and Realm hath received;" a formula, as has been shown, of much wider range than the letter of the Prayer-book. And in like manner, if a candidate for a benefice, he has already, at his Ordination,made that larger undertaking, and cannot be understood to narrow it now by subscribing to the Canon. And if it be asked, Why were the terms of the Thirty-sixth Canon made so stringent originally by the addition of the words "and none other;" or why should these words be retained now? the answer is, that originally, as a matter of historical fact, the Canon was directed against wilful depravers and evaders of the Book and its rules; not against such interpretations, or even variations and additions, as had all along obtained on various grounds, and are in fact unavoidable by the nature of things. "No one," says the late Bishop Blomfield, "who reads the history of those times with attention can doubt that the object of the Legislature, who imposed upon the clergy a subscription to the above Declaration, was the substitution of the Book of Common Prayer" (subject, even then, to Injunctions, Canons, and customs already modifying it here and there) "for the Missal of the Roman Catholics, or the Directory of the Puritans." And the present retention of the wording of the Canon stands on the same grounds. It is necessary that a promise, and that of a stringent kind, should be exacted of the clergy of a Church, or licence would be unbounded. But on the other hand, it is perfectly intelligible, and has the advantage of practicability, that the words should be understood to speak of the Book as modified in the way in which it has all along, by universal consent, been held to be modified. If it be replied that this, too, opens a door to endless licence, I answer, No. The modifications are, for the most part, as definiteas the document itself, and are in number few, though they cover, on occasion, a considerable range of actions. The Prayer-book, in short, is not unlike a monarch, nominally absolute, and for the most part really such; but on whom a certain degree of pressure has from time to time been brought to bear, and may be brought to bear again. But its actualstatusis at any given time fairly ascertainable. It might be well, indeed, that all this occasional legislation should be digested by the only proper authority, viz. the conjoint spiritualty and temporalty of the realm, into one harmonious and duly authorised whole. But for the time being the position of things is sufficiently intelligible.
And now to apply this view of Prayer-book law, so to call it, to the matter which especially engages attention at this moment,—that of the manner of administering the Holy Communion; and first to the vestments of the clergy.
1. Now, if there be any one point in which the English Churchis, what she has most untruly been asserted to be in other points, namely, broad andalternativein her provisions, it is this one of the ornaments or dress of her clergy. While, in the matter of doctrine, Heaven forfend that she should have two minds, and give her children their choice which they should embrace—seeing that so would she forfeit the name and being of a "Church" altogether;—certain it is, that, from peculiar causes, she does, in this matter of officiating vestments, give, by her present and already ancient provisions, a choice and an alternative. With her eyes open, andat periods when she was most carefully scanning, for general adoption, those provisions, has she deliberately left on her statute-book (meaning thereby her entire range of rules), and admitted into her practical system, two diverse rules or practices. We may confine our attention for the moment to the period of the latest revision of the Prayer-book in 1662. On that occasion the Fifty-eighth Canon of 1603,—derived from certain "Advertisements" of Elizabeth, and probably supported by the universal custom of the realm,—was allowed to stand unaltered. This Canon provides, as has been above mentioned, that "Every minister, saying the public prayers, orministering the sacraments, or other rites of the Church, shall wear a decent and comelysurplicewith sleeves;" only with a special exception, recognised in another Canon, in the case of Cathedrals. And yet on the same occasion was retained the rubric of Elizabeth (1559), about "the ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers thereof," with only such variation as fully proves that it was not an oversight, but a deliberate perpetuation of the law concerningvestmentsmore especially. For the previous form of it,—dating from 1603, and but slightly altered from that of Elizabeth,—was, that "the minister at the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his ministrations,shall use such ornaments in the Churchas were in use by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI., according to the Act of Parliament set in the beginning of this Book." But the altered form was, "Such ornaments of the Church,and of the ministersthereof, at all times of their ministrations,shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England in the second year," &c.; omitting only the mention of the Act of Parliament. It will be observed, that in lieu of "ornaments of theChurch," which might have seemed to be irrespective of vestments, was now substituted "ornaments of the Church,and of the ministersthereof." And again, compare the words "shall be retained, and be in use" with "shall use." In truth, the new rubric is a citation from the Act of Elizabeth, only omitting the limitation "until such time, &c.," and it cannot be taken as expressing less than a real desire and earnest hope, on the part of our latest revisers, that the original Edwardian "ornaments" might really be used; that they should—gradually, perhaps, but really—supersede, in the case of the Communion Service, the prevalent surplice.
If it be asked, how it came to pass that the surplice had superseded the proper eucharistic vestments prescribed by Elizabeth's rubric? we can only answer, that the prevailing tendency during her reign was decidedly in favour of simpler ways in the matter of ritual; and that, theSecondBook of Edward VI. (1552), having distinctlyforbiddenthose vestments by the words, "the minister at the time of the Communion, and at all other times of his ministration,shall use neither alb, vestment, nor cope, but, being a bishop, a rochet; and being a priest or deacon, he shallhave and weara surplice only:" the Elizabethan clergy would, owing to the reaction after Queen Mary's reign, be inclined to recur to thatposition rather than to retain the other vestments. Some, indeed,didretain them, as appears by allusions to them as in use in the beginning of Elizabeth's reign;[25]but, as a general rule, their use was discouraged, and apparently put down. "For the disuse of these ornaments we may thank them that came from Geneva, and, in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, being set in places of government, suffered every negligent priest to do as he listed." (Bishop Overall.)[26]
On the other hand,oneform of the Edwardian "Ornaments" had survived, even through Elizabeth's reign; viz. the cope (of course with the alb), chiefly in cathedrals. For so it is recognised in the 24th canon of 1603. "In all cathedrals and collegiate churches the Holy Communion shall be administered upon principal feast-days by the Bishop, the Dean, or a Canon or Prebendary,the principal minister[i. e.celebrant]using a decent cope." This was in accordance, as far as it went, with the original rubric of Edward VI.'s First Book. "The priest that shall execute the holy ministry shall put upon him ... a vestment, orcope." But during the Elizabethan period two limitations had, practically, been introduced; thecope, only, was used; and chiefly, though not exclusively, in cathedral churches only.[27]However,the fact that to this extent the rubric of Edward VI. was still acted upon, might well encourage the revisers of 1662 to contemplate a general return to its provisions.[28]It was but a hundred years ago that they had fallen into desuetude; and the devout zeal of Bishop Cosin, and others among the revisers, on behalf of the Eucharist, would lead them to desire the restoration of whatever, in their judgment, would tend to its higher honour and more becoming celebration. Cosin himself was accustomed, as a Prebendary of Durham Cathedral, to wear the cope, and to see it worn by others; and not by the celebrant only, but by the attendant clergy. For in his answer to the articles of impeachment sent to the House of Lords against him in 1640, he says "That the copes used in that Church were brought in thither long before his time. One there was that had the story of the Passion embroidered upon it; butthe cope that he used to wear, when at any time heattended the Communion Service, was of plain white satin only, without any embroidery upon it at all."[29]The canon of 1603 must not, therefore, be understood asconfiningthe use of the cope to the celebrant, but only as providing that the celebrant,at least, must, in cathedrals, be soapparelled. It may be added, that the copes still preserved in Durham Cathedral, and only disused[30]within a century, are a proof that, in this point at any rate, it is but very recently that the Edwardian "ornaments" ceased to be used in the English Church in our cathedrals; while, in a solitary instance, that of the Coronation Service, the use of copes by the Archbishop, the attendant Bishops, and by the Dean and Canons of Westminster, survives to the present day.
The bearing of these facts upon our subject is, that they prove that it was in no merely antiquarian spirit that our latest revisers retained the far-famed rubric of Edward VI. It was as having been accustomed to see a due access of honour and dignity accruing to the Holy Rite, that they wished, not merely to retain what had survived, in practice, of that rubric, but to restore the parts of it which had fallen into disuse; to bring back, everywhere, with the less correct cope, that which in the rubric enjoyed a preference—the "vestment" or chasuble,—and whatever else the rubric involved. They hoped that the day was come, or that it would come ere long, when the surplice would, in respect of the Communion Service, yield to the proper "vestment" its "ancient usual place."[31]
And the reason why they did not at the same time procure the formal abolition of the Canon of 1603, which recognises the surplice for parish churches, is, we can hardly doubt, that they wished to leave the practical working out of the change to time, and to the voluntary action of the parochial clergy. There had existed ever since the year 1559 a diversity in practice; and, ever since Elizabeth's "Advertisements," an actual alternative in the Church's orders about vestments. That alternative they did not care to remove. It was by desuetude that the irregular habit had first come in, until it obtained recognition by the Canon of 1604: it was to desuetude that they trusted for the removal of it. Meanwhile, those who chose to plead usage and the canon on the one hand, and those who preferred to plead the statute law of the Rubric on the other, were both alike in a fairly defensible position. Two modes, in short, of vesting the clergy for the Holy Communion were practically recognised at the latest settlement of our Offices; and, until some new enactment should supersede the one or the other, must continue to be recognised still.
Such, I say, appears to be the position of the law, and of clerical duty or obligation, at the present moment. Beyond all question, this "Church and Realm hath received" and recognised,practically, an alternative in this matter. She hasnot bound her sons absolutely, and without choice, either to the older or the later practice. Her position, as defined by the action of some of the wisest and best of her sons on the last occasion—two hundred years ago—of reconsidering her constitution, has been one of observation and of hope; of waiting to see which way, in a matter non-essential, though far from unimportant, the mind of her sons would carry her.
And now a time has arrived when the question, after slumbering for two centuries, has awakened, and, in a practical form, demands an answer.
Hitherto,—that is, from the time of Elizabeth (1559) until now,—no marked desire has been manifested by the parochial clergy to carry out the original provisions of the Prayer-book in this matter. But now that step has—whether by more or fewer of them I stop not now to inquire—been taken. There are churches in this land where the long-disused "Ornaments" have been assumed. That which the First Book of Edward handed on from the past; that which the Book of Elizabeth restored after its repeal, taking for granted that it would be operative, though the event proved otherwise; that which the Revisers of 1603 did not disturb, though the Canon of the same year authorised a departure from it; that which Cosin and his fellow-labourers, in 1662, in language of increased strength, directed the restoration of: this has at length come forth among us, not in word only, but in act and visible form. And the question is, how is the Church to deal with this fact, and this phenomenon? It is obvious andeasy to say on the one hand—"There is no doubt about the matter. The rubric is statute law, and therefore overrides the canon, which is not." And it is equally obvious and easy to say, on the other hand—"There is no doubt about the matter: the usage, with certain exceptions, of two hundred, or even three hundred years, can be pleaded for the use of the surplice at the Holy Communion. A rubric which has been in abeyance for that period is and ought to be considered obsolete." A great deal may be said on behalf of both these positions; and it is very unlikely that, debating the matter from this point of view—i.e.from mere consideration of the comparative weight of statute on the one hand, and custom on the other,—we should ever arrive at a conclusion which would satisfy the diversely constituted minds with which these two considerations carry weight respectively. We must, therefore, it is submitted, take a wider view of the question, and see whether there be not other considerations besides these, which may lead us to a just and wise decision about it.
And one very weighty and relevant consideration, though by no means decisive of the whole matter, is, How far would the restoration of these vestments—I will suppose it wisely, judiciously, and charitably brought about—accord with the tone and feeling, either present or growing up, of the existing English Church? Now, it must, I think, be admitted, that the experience of the last few years is such, as to modify very considerably the answer to be given to this question. The Church has within that period succeeded in making certain ritual featuresattractive to the people at large, to a degree entirely unknown to her hitherto. She has developed, by care and training, their capacities for the enjoyment of a well-conceived ritual. And she has exhibited to them phases and modes of Service to which they and their fathers for centuries had been strangers. I refer especially to the great movement lately made for the improvement of parochial music throughout the land. Indirectly and accidentally, this movement carried with it many results of a ritual kind. It accustomed the eyes of the generality to Services on a scale of magnitude and dignity unknown to them before. Instead of the single "parson and clerk," or Minister and handful of untrained singers, they beheld, at the Festivals, choral worship, conducted by a multitude of clergy, and by hundreds or thousands of choristers. And they were delighted with it. The grandeur of such a service, its correspondence to the glimpses of heavenly worship disclosed to us by Holy Scripture,[32]forcibly impressed the imagination, and enlisted the feelings. These occasions also raised the question of how large bodies of persons, meeting for a united act of musical worship, should be attired, how marshalled and occupied, while moving into their assigned places in the Sanctuary. Hence the surplice, the processional hymn, the banner to distinguish the several choirs, became familiar things. They were felt to be the natural accompaniments of such occasions. And thus was brought to light what had hitherto been, and with great appearance of reason, denied, viz. thatthis nation differs not in its mental constitution from other nations; that its antipathy (doubtless existing) to these things, had been founded simply on their being unusual, and on their supposed connection with unsound doctrine. Once themeaningof them was seen—Englishmen like to know the meaning of things—the dislike and the prejudice were overcome.
And the larger gatherings at which these things were done have reacted upon the more limited and ordinary parochial services. Their proper object was so to react in respect of musical proficiency only; but they have influenced, at the same time, the whole outward form and order of things. As one main result, they have in many instances brought back the proper threefold action so clearly recognised in the Prayer-book, and so long utterly lost sight of, except in cathedral and collegiate churches, "of minister,clerks, and people." The appointed medium for sustaining the clergy on the one hand, and the congregation on the other, in the discharge of their several parts in the service,—viz. the trained lay-clerks, the men and boys of the practised choir,—has reappeared and taken its due place among us. The presence of trained persons so employed,—securing and leading, as in the Lord's Prayer, Creed, and Versicles, the due responsive action of the people; conducting, as in the Psalms, Canticles, and hymns, the "saying or singing;" supporting, as in the processional Psalm of the Marriage Service, or in the solemn anthems at the Burial of the Dead, the voice of the minister; or, lastly, in the anthem,"in quires and places where they sing," lifting priest and people alike by music of a higher strain than those unskilled in music can attain to;—such ministry is assumed by the Prayer-book to have place in every parish church in the land. And the reducing of this theory to practice is in reality an important step in ritual. It has enlisted the sympathies of the laity in behalf of a fuller and richer aspect of Service than they had heretofore been accustomed to.
In another point, too, the mental habit of this country has undergone a change; viz. as regards the festive use and decoration of churches. Our harvest thanksgivings, and similar occasions, conducted as they have been, have taught those, to whom the lesson was perfectly new, to find in the Services of the Sanctuary, in worship, and attendance at the Holy Communion, a vent and expression for their sense of thankfulness. At such times the flower-wreath and the banner, the richly vested and decked altar, the Choral Service, the processional hymn, have been felt to be in place. And thus familiarised with them, our people come even to look for them as the natural attendants on high days of festival.
Now it is a question at least worth asking, whether we have not here indications of a greater disposition than we have commonly given our people credit for, to be moved by such things—by sacred song—by fair vestments—by processional movement—by festal decoration? whether we have not been foregoing hitherto, to our great loss, certain effective ways of influencing our people for good? whether there must not,after all, be less truth than has been commonly supposed in the received maxim, that Englishmen care nothing about these things, nor can be brought to care for them; that they have not in them, in short, the faculty of being affected by externals in religious matters; that the sober Saxon spirit loves, above all things, a simple and unadorned worship, and the like? The writer is not ashamed to confess that he has in time past shared in this estimate of his countrymen; but that experience has greatly shaken his confidence in the correctness of it. And he may, therefore, be accepted, perhaps, as a somewhat unprejudiced witness, when he testifies to so much as has come under his own notice as to the effect of the "ritual developments," so to call them, of which he has above spoken. He can bear witness, then, that with these accompaniments, the Services of the Sanctuary have become to many, manifestly, a pleasure and a delight; that these influences are found to touch and move, even to tears, those harder and more rugged natures which are accessible to scarce anything else; breaking even through the crust of formality or indifference which grows so commonly over the heart of middle age. Is it irreverent to think and believe that what these simple souls witness to, as their own experience in presence of a kind of ritual new to them, though familiar of old to their fathers, and to the Church throughout the world, is but an anticipation of what our great poet, Puritan though he was, has described as among the consolations of the blessed? That which our poor peasants gratefully find provided for them on the Church's days of festival, is no other, in its degree,than what, to the poet's thought, awaited his Lycidas "in the blest kingdoms meek of joy and love:"—
"There entertain him all the saints above,In solemn troops and sweet societies,That sing, and, singing, in their glorymove,And wipe the tears for ever from his eyes."
"There entertain him all the saints above,In solemn troops and sweet societies,That sing, and, singing, in their glorymove,And wipe the tears for ever from his eyes."
It will be understood that the writer is not now engaged in advocating these particular practices as binding upon us, or even as capable of being introduced everywhere; but only pointing out that, in the acceptance and welcome with which this whole side of ritual action has been received, even in unlikely quarters, we have some indication of the probable effect on the general mind of other well-considered ritual restorations.
And if it be still contended that the more usual condition of the English mind is that which has been above described, viz. of preferring a religion which reaches them mainly through the ear, and appeals but little to the eye, I venture to suggest that—(granting this to be so)—if a given nation is wanting in one particular religious sense, that is the very reason why that sense should be carefully educated. If the Italian is over-sensuous, as it would probably be agreed that he is, in his religious constitution, he is the very person that needs for his improvement intellectual development. And just so, if the Englishman is, in religious matters, unsusceptible, comparatively, of æsthetic influences, the inference is, not that these should be carefully keptfrom him, but that he should, as he is able to bear, be subjected to them.
The bearing of what has now been said upon the restoration of the vestments and the like, is this. The most obvious objection to it is, that the rubric in question has been in abeyance for long years, or even centuries; and that this proves that it does not suit the genius of the English nation. I have shown, indeed, that, as appears from the history of the period in question,—and other evidence might be adduced,—the rubric has not been altogether dormant in times past. Still, the case for desuetude is a very strong one, no doubt; and there is but one thing that could possibly invalidate it, and that is, the existence of unmistakable indications that the revival would, notwithstanding the long abeyance of the rubric, meet some rising need or aspiration of the hour. If it does that, then the negative argument, that there is no place or call for the restoration,—that it is the mere galvanization of a dead thing, or, at best, the summoning of it back to a life which must be fugitive and evanescent, because there is not atmosphere for it to breathe,—is at once done away with.
But let us now briefly inquire what are thepositiverecommendations, if any, of the eucharistic vestments which it is proposed to restore.
In the first place, then, it is alleged, that to provide for the Holy Eucharist special vesturesof any kind, not only harmonizes with the transcendent superiority of the rite itself above all otherkinds of worship, but is the proper correlative of much that has been doing of late years in the English Church. Is it consistent, it is asked, to give to chancel, and sacrarium, and altar, all the chastened richness and beauty of which they are capable, and yet to deny to the celebrant at the holy Rite all adornment beyond surplice and stole? Even if we had never possessed any distinct eucharistic vestments, we might well, it is said, as a matter of consistency, introduce them.
But next, let us ask, do these particular vestments possess any claim upon us, beyond the fact of their being different from the ordinary surplice, and of their being prescribed in the rubric? And here, certainly (when we come to inquire into their history) their wonderful antiquity, universality, and probable rationale, cannot but make a deep impression upon us. They have been so fully described in recent publications,[33]to which the reader can refer, that there is the less need to enter into particulars about them here. The most interesting circumstance hitherto brought to light respecting them, is this; that there is no reason for doubting that they are, as to theirform, no other than theevery-day garments of the ancient world in East and West, such as they existed at the time of Our Lord, and for many ages before. Mr. Skinner has proved this to demonstration. There was,1st, the long and close "coat," "tunic," or "vesture," called from its colour (as a ministerial garment), the "alb;" 2nd, the broad "border" of this coat, often of the richest materials, which developed, ecclesiastically, into the "orarium" (probably fromora, a border) or "stole;" 3rd, the girdle, combining easily with the "stole;" 4th, the "garment" or "robe" (ecclesiastically the "casula" or "chasuble"), covering the tunic down to the knees, and so allowing the ends of the "border" (or "stole") to appear. "Such," says Mr. Skinner, "were the ordinary vestments in daily common use in East and West."[34]These would be, naturally, the garments in which, like our Lord himself, the Apostles and others would officiate at the Holy Eucharist, and then reverence would preserve them in subsequent ages. No other supposition can account for their universality, as ministering garments, throughout the world. And how wonderful the interest attaching to them, even were this all! How fitting that the Celebrant, the representative, however unworthily, of our Lord himself, in His most solemn Action, should be clad even as He was!
But this isnotall. There are circumstances which this rationale of the vestments, though correct as far as it goes, does not account for.
First, in the vestment-customs both of East and West there is recognition, though in different ways, of some covering for thehead. In East and West a bonnet or mitre is worn by Bishops. In celebrating, in the West, a small garment called the "amice,"of fine white linen, with a very rich edge or fillet, is first placed on the head of the Celebrant, and then removed to his shoulders, so that therich edgerests at first on the forehead, and then appears from under the alb and chasuble.[35]Now the prayer, with which this singular appendage is put on ("Place on my head, O Lord, the helmet of salvation"), proves that it represents a bonnet or head-covering.
Again, the fact that thestoleis not a mere border, butdetached, both in East and West, from the tunic or alb, and in the West, rests on theshoulders, is singular. In the East it is a broad double stripe of costly silk, richly embroidered, hanging down in front of the wearer; and often[36]adorned with gems and gold; while in the West it is crossed[37]on the breastin celebrating: and throughout the East andWest extraordinary importance has from early times attached to it, it being worn in every sacred function.[38]
Now there is but one way of accounting for these curious arrangements. It is, that, at a very early period, the course was adopted of assimilating the ministering vestments of the clergy—especially in celebrating—to those of theJewish High Priest. This could with great facility be done, because these vestments themselves were only the usual Eastern dress, glorified and enriched, with some especial additions. There was (Exod. xxviii.), besides the ephod, which was a rich under-garment—1. The long "embroidered coat or tunic of fine linen" (v. 39). 2. The "curious girdle of the ephod," which appears to have girded in both ephod and tunic. 3. The singular combination of theshoulder-pieces and breastplate, which together formed one whole, and were among the richest andmost peculiar insigniaof the High Priesthood: the names of the Twelve Tribes being engraven, in the costliest gems, both on the shoulder-pieces and breastplate, as a means of making "memorial" of the people, with especial power, before God (vv. 9-30). 4. The outer garment or "robe of the ephod" (v. 31), all of blue, of circular form, with a "hole in the top of it, in the midst thereof," to passit over the head of the wearer; whereas the ordinary outer garments were square, and thrown loosely on. On the hem were pomegranates and golden bells alternating. 5. And lastly, the "mitre offine linen" (v. 39), and upon it, on the forehead, the "plate of pure gold" (πέταλον]), in virtue of which Aaron "bore," or did away with, through his ministerial sanctity, the imperfections of the people's offerings (v. 38).
Now here, at length, we have afullaccount of the rationale of the Eucharistic vestments, and specially of those parts of them which differed from the ordinary clothing of early days. We see that the "border" of the ordinary tunic was thereforedetachedfrom it, beautified with embroidery, and enriched with gems, because the Aaronic shoulder-pieces and breastplate were thus detached, and were so adorned. The Greek name for the stole is still, for priests, the "neck-garment," for bishops, the "shoulder-piece" (omophorion).
Again, the "bonnet or mitre," or its substitute, the "amice," is therefore of "fine linen," and has a peculiarly rich "fillet," and must be placed upon the head for a symbol, so as to bring the fillet upon theforehead, because of the wondrous power and significance of the Aaronic "plate of gold," similarly placed.
We cannot, in short, resist the conclusion that the Church did, at some very early period (as the universality of these things proves), assimilate the old simple vestments, of set purpose, to the richer and more significant Aaronic ones. And if we askhowearly this was done, the answer is, that the first beginnings of it were made even in the lifetime of the Apostles. For Eusebius cites Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus (A.D.198), as testifying of St. John at Ephesus, that "as a priest he wore the πέταλον, or plate of gold."[39]And Epiphanius[40]says the same of St. James, Bishop of Jerusalem. Later (c. 320), Eusebius addresses the priests as "wearing the long garment, the crown, and the priestly robe."[41]The plate of gold, on a bonnet or mitre, is still used at celebration by the Patriarch of Alexandria.[42]And the Armenian Church, whose traditions, where they differ from those of the rest of the world, are generally of immense antiquity, actually has thebreastplate,[43]only with the names of the Twelve Apostles, instead of those of the Twelve Tribes.
We now see, then, how it came to pass that the stole is what it is in East and West; why it is so highly symbolical of ministerial power; why made so rich; why crossed on thebreastin celebrating; why, with all its richness, putunderthe chasuble: scil. because, like the Aaronic breastplate, it was a memorial "before God" of the preciousness of God's people, whom the priest bore, as he should bear still, on his shoulder and on his heart, in his ministry of labour and of love. We see, again, why the "apparel" ofthe "amice" is so rich, because anciently of gold; why placed on the forehead, the seat of thought, scil. that the priest may be mindful of his "ministry of reconciliation;" and why accompanied with a prayer for the "helmet of salvation."
And even the ordinary vestments, the surplice, and stole, and hood, derive a clear rationale and fitness from the same source. Thesurplice(superpellicium), as Mr. Skinner teaches us,[44]is only the close tunic or "alb," so enlarged as conveniently to cover thepellicium, or coat of fur or skin which the clergy wore in the choir. Thestole, crossed at celebration, loses its resemblance to the breastplate, and its allusion to the Cross, at the lower ministry of the Ordinary Office, being worn pendent. Thehoodis the amice in simpler and less significant form, intended originally to be actually worn on the head, and still capable of being so; its varying form and colour only indicating the particular sodality to which the wearer belongs.
Of the cope it is needless to say more than that it is properly processional, though recognised in the English Church (as in the Armenian) for celebration, and for the clergy in the choir on high festivals.
It may be added that the English vestments differ sufficiently from those of foreign Churches to have a national character.
It thus appears that the Eucharistic vestments, and even our ordinary ones through them, are a link of a marvellously interesting kind between us and antiquity, even Apostolic antiquity; and between usand the whole Christian world. Nay, our vestments, like our Services, connect us with the old Mosaic Ordinances. They ought to be grave reasons indeed, which should induce us to raze them from our statute-book, whatever became of the question of their restoration to general use.
Of other usages now under debate, I would mention briefly—1. The position of the celebrant during the office; 2. The two lights on the altar; 3. Incense; 4. The mixed chalice; 5. The crucifix.
1. There is no real doubt whatever as to the intention of the English Church about the position of the celebrant in administering the Holy Communion.
In order to make the matter plain, it is to be observed, that the slab or surface of the Altar, or Holy Table—there is a wonderfulequablenessin the use of the two terms by antiquity[45]—was always conceived of as divided intothreeportions of about equal size. The central one, called themedia pars, was exclusively used for actual celebration, and often had a slab of stone[46]let into it, calledmensa consecratoria. The other portions were called thelatus sinistrumanddextrum, orSeptentrionale et Australe.[47]These would be in English the "midst of the Altar," the "left ornorth side," and the "right or south side:" the term "side" being used with reference to the "middle portion." The most solemn parts of the rite, then, were performed "atthe middle" of the Table; the subordinate parts "atthe northern or southern portions." In all cases, "at" certainly meant with the face turnedeastwards. Now, in the First Book of Edward VI., it was ordered that the very beginning of the Service should be said "afore themidstof the altar;"i.e.before the "media pars." As to the rest of the Service, it was doubtless to be said in the ancient customary places: the old rule being, that all after the preparatory prayer to the end of the Epistle was said at thesouthside. In the Second Book the order was, "the Priest standingattheNorth-sideof the Table shall say the Lord's Prayer," &c. This could not possibly, in those days, be understood to mean anything else thanfacing the left-hand, or northern portion of the Table. The reason of the change to the "north-side" probably was, 1. That permission was now given to stop short on occasion of celebration; in which case it would hardly be seemly to stand at the centre or consecrating portion of the Table; and perhaps, 2. To avoid a change of position beyond thetwospecified. But it was doubtless intended that the centre should still be used for actual consecration, even as it was in the First Book, though no order was given in either case, to that effect. The order for the "north-side" was only put in because it was a new arrangement. And it will be observed that the term usedis"the North-side:" apparently indicating that a special and well-knownpart of the Table is meant. The present most incorrect practice, of standing at the northend, probably arose from two causes,—first, the infrequency of celebrations, which caused the habit to be formed of standing somewhat northwards; while the old distinct conception of the position had passed away: secondly, from the practice—probably in use[48]of old in our Church—of placing the vessels and unconsecrated elements, if there was no credence-table, on thenon-consecratingpart of the altar, where it was found convenient to keep them still when consecrating. It may be questioned whether it be not still correct, or allowable however, thus to make use of the less important parts of the Table to serve as a Credence, if none other is provided. But the consecration should always take place at the middle of the Holy Table.
The position thus prescribed, by unbroken ancient rule, for consecration, is by no means unimportant. By it is signified and expressed the solemn oblation and sacrificial presentation made by the celebrant, after the example of Christ,—leading the people, and carrying them with him in the action. For the primitive view of the institution, recognised in every ancient Communion Service, is, that when Our Blessed Lord "took bread, and blessed, and brake it,"He thereby, in a deep mystery,presentedbefore God, through the medium of the element which He had chosen, the Sacrifice of His Body. That Sacrifice was to be consummated, indeed, on the morrow; or by Jewish reckoning, at any rate, at a later hour on the same day. But it was already, in a mystery, and by the yielding up His Will, begun, and in operation. This is implied by the exact and expressive language of the Institution—"This is my Body which isbeinggiven (διδόμενον) or broken (κλώμενον); my Blood which is being shed, for you." Hence, too, it was that He could say of the Bread and Wine—"Thisismy Body, my Blood;" because these had, as being the medium through which they were offered, been mysteriously, as regards virtue or power, identified therewith.[49]And what the celebrant does, at any celebration, is to imitate, in his humble measure, and as Christ ordained, the action of Christ. In order to this it is important, and has ever been the custom of the Church, that he should stand at the midst of the Holy Table as one leading a common action for all. In the East he stands eastward of the Table, facing the people; in the West, westward of the Table, and looking away from them: in both cases alike he is "in the midst," offering for and with them.
In some cathedrals, as Exeter, and at Westminster Abbey, the remains of the ancient practice are to be seen; the vessels being placed, the offerings of theclergy made, and the Confession said, at the middle of the Table.
2. The question of thelegalposition of the "two lights on the altar" is a somewhat complicated one. But in its general aspect the usage derives a sanction and an interest from the fact that "oil for the light" is among the things recognised in the 3rd Apostolical Canon; and further, that the "two lights" are used in the Syriac Liturgy of St. James[50](from which we may have derived them through Theodore of Tarsus): whereas all the West, except ourselves, has seven lights. In point of effect, not much can be said for them; but the symbolism is beautiful and interesting. The Eastern Church, in particular, has always associatedartificiallight—viewed as dispellingnaturaldarkness—with our Lord's coming to the world, as its supernatural and heavenly Light. It is well to remember, too, that the only accompaniment of the shewbread, of which so much has been said above, was, together with incense,artificial light; and even in the blaze of heavenly ritual there were seven lamps burning.[51]These considerations, joined to the well-known Injunction of Edward VI., for the retention of "two lights," certainly give the usage a good position, when we are considering what is the mind, fairly and liberally estimated, of the English Church.
Nor is it unimportant to observe, that even thecandlesticks themselves, if in any case it is not thought well to light the candles, possess a symbolism of their own: just ase. g.the maniple of the Western Church, now disused but still worn, is a memento of that for which (it is said) it was intended, viz. to be used as asudariumin the labours of the priesthood. It may be remarked, too, that in St. John's vision, what he saw was "goldencandlesticks" (λυχνίαι); not burning candles or lamps (λύχνοι or λαμπάδες πυρὸς) (St. John v. 35; Rev. v. 8, viii. 3).
3. Incense, it may be observed, has precisely the same degree of recommendation from antiquity as the "two lights." It was used with the shewbread and the peace-offerings; it has a beautiful symbolism; it is recognised as on a par with "oil for the lamp" in the Apostolic Canon; and it finds a place in the heavenly ritual (Rev. viii. 3). Its historical position with us is weaker; butifused, it would certainly be in accordance with the mind of the English Church to use it in a very simple manner.[52]Its proper purpose is twofold—1. To purify by its sweetness; and 2. To symbolise both the purity of acceptable offering, and its power of ascending, through Christ's mediation, to heaven.
4. The question of the "mixed chalice," or of the mingling of water with the wine in the HolyEucharist, cannot be called one of high importance. It has been maintained that it is one of those things which, as having beenuniversalthroughout the Church from an early period, must be apostolic;[53]but the assertion is unfounded. There is a very large and important branch of the Church which does not at this day, and which, we may safely affirm, never did, mix water with the wine, viz. the Armenian. The Armenian Church is remarkable for the tenacity with which it has, from very early times, in respect of things indifferent, adhered to old traditions, when the whole of the rest of the Church have departed from them. The introduction of the observance of Christmas-Day, for example, took place in the East in St. Chrysostom's time, being borrowed, as he informs us, from the West. This the Armenian Church declined to adopt. Their vestment-traditions, again, as we have seen, are peculiar; and they positively assert their immense antiquity.[54]Hence itmighteven be, that the Armenian Church had alone preserved the apostolic usage in this matter, and that all the other Churches had departed therefrom. However, as the term "mixture" is applied by Justin Martyr to the cup, and as the matter is incapable of proof one way or the other, it is best to suppose that there weretwotraditions or habits in the matter; and this is quite sufficient to justify the English Church in having, as far as her rubric is concerned, laidthe usage aside in the Second Book of Edward. At the same time, as the custom certainly survived[55]in the English Church after the Revision, and is all but universal, and has interesting symbolical meanings[56]attached to it, it may well be tolerated, should a policy of toleration be adopted at this juncture by the English Church.
5. I come to speak, in the next place, of the crucifix, which is among the "ornaments of the Church" attempted to be restored at the present day. It is difficult, however, to conceive any two things standing on more widely different ground thanthis, and any one of those ornaments or usages before-mentioned. They, in every case, whether vestments, position of the celebrant, altar-lights, incense, or the mixed chalice, can plead immense antiquity, and all but universality at the present day; neither are they connected of necessity with superstitious usages. But with the crucifix, the reverse of all this is the case. It was utterly unknown to the Church of early days; it is unknown, strictly speaking, to the Eastern Church; and it has given occasion in time past, as it does at this day, to the grossest superstitions. The use of it, as experience has proved, is in reality the merest tampering with the principles ofour nature; ever ready (as the length and vehemence of the Second Commandment sufficiently testifies) to save ourselves the trouble of "seeing Him who is invisible," and to fasten our faith on some outward object instead. And there is this especial objection to associating the crucifix with the Holy Communion more especially, that (as was recently well observed by the Bishop of Exeter) there are provided thereby, in dangerous rivalry,tworepresentations or "shewings forth," of the Body of Christ, and of the Death of Christ; the one "ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same;" the other, "that which our own fingers have made," and moreover, "a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture," or of the ancient Church. Can it be well, even supposing the usage not to result (though full surely itwill) in idolatrous veneration—can it be well to divide the mind, in such an hour, between theappointedmode of contemplating, with deepest awe and love, the Mystery of our Redemption, and another mode, which, were it never so defensible otherwise, may not dare to lift itself into any comparison with that far more touching exhibition of His Dying Love which Christ Himself, at every Communion, "sets forth among us?"
I know by experience, in particular instances, that this danger is by no means imaginary: and I confess to having the deepest conviction of the rashness and folly of attempting to reintroduce, even among sober Englishmen and Englishwomen—especially in connection with the Holy Eucharist—this snare of mediæval Christendom.
If it be objected that the Cross is open to the same objection, I answer, No. The Cross, as experience proves, while it reminds us of the Death of Christ, does not draw out that warm feeling, which is at once so delightful and so dangerous to some classes of minds. And the same may be said of pictorial or sculptured representations of the entire Crucifixion, where the larger treatment of the subject makes all the difference. It is the concentration of thought and devotion upon the natural resemblance or representation of Christ Himself, that renders the crucifix so dangerous, and infallibly draws on its votaries to a breach of the Second Commandment.
Other observances must be spoken of more in the mass, as it would be impossible to detail them severally. Suffice it to say, that an attempt is now being made to introduce, in conjunction with the vestments and other "ornaments" above mentioned, aminutely elaborated ceremonial, applying to every part of the eucharistic rite.
The ground taken up for this is, 1st, that "ornaments" cannot always be very clearly distinguished from usages, and therefore include them. But surely it is much to be remarked that the rubricdoesspecify "ornaments," so that, although, accidentally, usagesarising outof these ornaments are involved,—as,e.g.the candlesticks and candles involve or suggest the lighting of the candles,—yet the rubric cannot be taken to include usages which stand unconnected with ornaments, such as making the sign of the cross, or the like.
But it is contended, further, that not only areusages, as well as "ornaments," covered (as no doubt they are to some extent) by the rubric, but that it actually legalizes everything, whether ornament or usage, which was in use in the twenty-fifth year of Henry VIII. The ground for this startling assertion,—which has been made the basis of a vast and elaborate system of ritual,[57]—is that the second year of Edward VI. (which is named in the rubric) includes a considerable period preceding the passing of the Prayer-book Act. That year, it is contended, commenced on January 28th, 1548, and extended to January 28th, 1549; so that the Prayer-book (which was not established until January 15th, 1549, by 2 and 3 Edward VI., c. 1) is only apartof what the rubric refers to, and merely "supplemental to the old canons and constitutions."[58]We must accept, we are told, all that was in use by the authority of Parliament in 1548-49. Now, the latest enactment of Parliament on the subject, previous to that year, was the 25 Henry VIII., c. 19, which legalizes everything then in use. So that, in short, we are, by the rubric, thrown back upon part of the pre-Reformation period.
The truer view would seem to be that what isimpliedin the Book, or named in it, is permissible. Certainly the Prayer-book is elsewhere in legal documents (as my friend Mr. Shaw has shown[59])exclusively meant when "the second year of Edward VI." is spoken of. It may be added, that the most recent judicial decision bearing on the point (reWestertonv.Liddell) expressly lays down that the Prayer-book, and the Prayer-book alone, is what the rubric refers to.
But, in truth, there are other considerations which take away all justification whatever from nine-tenths of the ceremonies which are now being introduced among us. In the first place, a great many of them, perhaps the greater number, are not oldEnglishceremonies at all, but foreign ones, derived from the existing practice—not always of very great antiquity—of the Church of Rome. Now, without going so far as to say that those who have introduced them have thereby incurred the pains and penalties of apræmunire, as having brought in "the fashions of the Bishop of Rome, his ways and customs," it must be plain that it is impossible to justify such practices upon, the ground alleged. Plainly, you cannot base foreign customs on an English rubric. The rubric legalises "such ornaments ... as were in thisChurch of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of King Edward the Sixth." And this, we are told, includes "usages," and all usages known to the latter part of Henry VIII.'s reign. Be it so, however vast the concession. But will that justify a single usage which wasnot"in this Church of England," ever since it was a Church at all? Is it not plain that, so far forth as the ceremonies now introducednever were Englishceremonies, they break the very rubric to which they appeal? Nowit is notorious that a great part of these ceremonies are brought in on the authority of a work frequently referred to in these pages, called 'Directorium Anglicanum.' And in that work themodern Romanusages, to the disregard of the ancient English, and often in direct contravention of them, are to a very great extent recommended. I will take but a single instance,—the very first direction in the book as to the "Order of Administration," p. 23. It concerns the colours for the vestments;—not a matter of the first importance, it may be. But so it is, that theRomancolours are prescribed in the text, and the English ones merely mentioned in a note. And this is but one instance, out of a vast number, of the entire untrustworthiness of that work as a guide to the ancientEnglishusages. Under the delusive title of 'DirectoriumAnglicanum,' it has presented to the unwary student of ritual, mixed up with our own usages of old time, the most recentRomanones. It may be hoped that this fact, when pointed out to such of our brethren as have been misled by that learned but most unjustifiable publication, will induce them to modify their present practice.
"But," it will be contended, "surely we may claim to reintroduce all ancientEnglishceremonies; such as elevating the Elements after consecration; making the sign of the cross in consecrating, and again over the head of each communicant before administering;—or such, again, as frequent bowing and genuflection;—various regulated movements to and fro,—as at the saying of the Creed;—swinging of censers again andagain in various directions; with many other ceremonies." To all this, however, there is an answer which, I humbly conceive, is unanswerable. It is this,—that the English Church, to whose laws they appeal, hasexpressly abolishedsome of these ceremonies, and laid her prohibition upon the use of more than a very moderate number of any kind.
I refer, first, to the fact that she withdrew from her Service-book certain orders previously embodied in it for the performance of some of these actions. Under this head comes the elevation of the Elements after consecration. This is confessedly, even by the admission of Roman writers, a modern ceremony, not older than the twelfth century.[60]However, in the old English Service-books the order was, "After the words, 'For this is my Body,' the priest shall bend himself towards the Host, and afterwards lift it above his forehead, that it may be seen by the people." But in the Communion Office of 1549, this was forbidden by rubric, "These words are to be said without any elevation, or shewing to the people." And the Articles of 1562-1571 confirm this, saying, that "the sacrament was not by Christ's ordinance lifted up or worshipped" (Art. 28). So, again, the sign of the cross was, according to the First Book of Edward, to be used at consecration; but in the Second it was withdrawn. Nor, I believe, can any rehabilitation of these practices be alleged(as can be done in the case of lights or incense) from subsequent injunctions, canons, or customs. It is in vain to say that there was anything accidental in the omission of the cross at consecration, since it was carefully retained at baptism, and defended subsequently in the canons of 1603; or that the "elevation" or lifting up, "and worshipping," was restored by the omission of the prohibition in 1549, since by 1562 (Articles) it was expressly disallowed. Those who plead, as a support to the rubric, the better mind of the Church, as manifested in the wishes of her great men—her Andreweses and Cosins—and even in her canons of 1603—must accept the fact, that by that better mind and those canons these usages are never advocated.