Rites and Ritual

And even the ordinary vestments, the surplice, and stole, and hood, derive a clear rationale and fitness from the same source. The surplice (superpellicium), as Mr. Skinner teaches us,[44 - Letter to the 'Guardian,' Jan. 24, 1866.] is only the close tunic or "alb," so enlarged as conveniently to cover the pellicium, or coat of fur or skin which the clergy wore in the choir. The stole, 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. The hood is 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 us and 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 wonderful equableness in the use of the two terms by antiquity[45 - The Fathers generally prefer 'Altar,' the Liturgies 'Holy Table.']– was always conceived of as divided into three portions of about equal size. The central one, called the media pars, was exclusively used for actual celebration, and often had a slab of stone[46 - Syriac Liturgy of St. James, "pars altaris in quâ tabula defixa est;" "pars media mensæ vitæ."] let into it, called mensa consecratoria. The other portions were called the latus sinistrum and dextrum, or Septentrionale et Australe.[47 - Syriac Liturgy of St. James, Renaudot; the 'Ancient English and Communion Offices' (Maskell), where "cornu" is used. The Roman 'Ritus celebrandi Missam,' 4. 4; "Thurificat aliud latus altaris."] These would be in English the "midst of the Altar," the "left or north 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 "at the middle" of the Table; the subordinate parts "at the northern or southern portions." In all cases, "at" certainly meant with the face turned eastwards. Now, in the First Book of Edward VI., it was ordered that the very beginning of the Service should be said "afore the midst of 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 the south side. In the Second Book the order was, "the Priest standing at the North-side of the Table shall say the Lord's Prayer," &c. This could not possibly, in those days, be understood to mean anything else than facing 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 the two specified. 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 used is "the North-side: " apparently indicating that a special and well-known part of the Table is meant. The present most incorrect practice, of standing at the north end, 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 - The Rubrics in the Syriac Liturgy of St. James seem plainly to contemplate that the vessels, &c., should be placed on the north or south side until consecration, since they are to be carried from the altar round the chancel, and then placed on the media pars (Renaudot, p. 60, who imagines a credence). And both in England and abroad, ancient credence-tables are very rare.] of old in our Church – of placing the vessels and unconsecrated elements, if there was no credence-table, on the non-consecrating part 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, presented before 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 is being given (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 – "This is my 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 - See on this subject, in Appendix A, a valuable comment of the Bishop of Exeter on 1 Cor. xi. 24, and St. Luke xxii. 19.] 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 the clergy made, and the Confession said, at the middle of the Table.

2. The question of the legal position 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 - Renaudot, Liturgiar. Oriental. Collectio.] (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 associated artificial light – viewed as dispelling natural darkness – 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 - Rev. iv. 5. On the symbolism of candles, lit or unlit, see Dr. Jebb's valuable pamphlet 'Ritual Law and Custom' (Rivingtons). Notes F. H.] 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 the candlesticks themselves, if in any case it is not thought well to light the candles, possess a symbolism of their own: just as e. 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 a sudarium in the labours of the priesthood. It may be remarked, too, that in St. John's vision, what he saw was "golden candlesticks" (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; but if used, it would certainly be in accordance with the mind of the English Church to use it in a very simple manner.[52 - "The suspension of the censer by chains, and waving it, is undoubtedly modern" (Skinner's 'Plea for the Ritual'). Incense was used in Queen Elizabeth's Chapel, and by Bishop Andrewes, and in many parish Churches from 1558 to 1630 at least, and in royal chapels till 1684, and at George III's coronation (Hierurgia Anglicana): also "at the altar in Ely Cathedral, at the greater festivals," till about 1770 (Coles' MSS. 5873 f.)] 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 Holy Eucharist, cannot be called one of high importance. It has been maintained that it is one of those things which, as having been universal throughout the Church from an early period, must be apostolic;[53 - See Dr. Littledale's 'Mixed Chalice,' with reference to its having been discountenanced by the Bishop of Exeter.] 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 - See Neale, Gen. Introduction, p. 307.] Hence it might even 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 were two traditions or habits in the matter; and this is quite sufficient to justify the English Church in having, as far as her rubric is concerned, laid the usage aside in the Second Book of Edward. At the same time, as the custom certainly survived[55 - E.g., under Bishop Andrewes.] in the English Church after the Revision, and is all but universal, and has interesting symbolical meanings[56 - These vary much with different Churches, – an indication perhaps of the indifference of the rite. They are chiefly, – 1. the union in Christ of the Humanity with the Divinity; 2. the pouring forth from His side of Blood and Water. In either sense the act may have been a devout afterthought; and on the whole I think it improbable that our Lord mixed the cup. That the Jews drank their wine mixed is not much to the purpose.] 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 than this, 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 of our 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, two representations 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 it will) in idolatrous veneration – can it be well to divide the mind, in such an hour, between the appointed mode 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, a minutely 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 rubric does specify "ornaments," so that, although, accidentally, usages arising out of 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 are usages, 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 - See 'Directorium Anglicanum,' passim. Mr. Perry's elaborate work 'Lawful Church Ornaments,' (who, however, only lays down certain things as permissible), and Rev. J. Skinner's 'Plea for our Threatened Ritual,' discuss the subject at large.]– 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 a part of what the rubric refers to, and merely "supplemental to the old canons and constitutions."[58 - 'Directorium Anglicanum,' p. xiv.] 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 is implied in the Book, or named in it, is permissible. Certainly the Prayer-book is elsewhere in legal documents (as my friend Mr. Shaw has shown[59 - See an able article in the 'Contemporary Review,' No. 1, Jan. 1866.]) exclusively meant when "the second year of Edward VI." is spoken of. It may be added, that the most recent judicial decision bearing on the point (re Westerton v. Liddell) expressly lays down that the Prayer-book, and the Prayer-book alone, is what the rubric refers to.

But, in truth, there are other considerations which take away all justification whatever from nine-tenths of the ceremonies which are now being introduced among us. In the first place, a great many of them, perhaps the greater number, are not old English ceremonies at all, but foreign ones, derived from the existing practice – not always of very great antiquity – of the Church of Rome. Now, without going so far as to say that those who have introduced them have thereby incurred the pains and penalties of a præmunire, as having brought in "the fashions of the Bishop of Rome, his ways and customs," it must be plain that it is impossible to justify such practices upon, the ground alleged. Plainly, you cannot base foreign customs on an English rubric. The rubric legalises "such ornaments … as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of King Edward the Sixth." And this, we are told, includes "usages," and all usages known to the latter part of Henry VIII.'s reign. Be it so, however vast the concession. But will that justify a single usage which was not "in this Church of England," ever since it was a Church at all? Is it not plain that, so far forth as the ceremonies now introduced never were English ceremonies, they break the very rubric to which they appeal? Now it is notorious that a great part of these ceremonies are brought in on the authority of a work frequently referred to in these pages, called 'Directorium Anglicanum.' And in that work the modern Roman usages, to the disregard of the ancient English, and often in direct contravention of them, are to a very great extent recommended. I will take but a single instance, – the very first direction in the book as to the "Order of Administration," p. 23. It concerns the colours for the vestments; – not a matter of the first importance, it may be. But so it is, that the Roman colours are prescribed in the text, and the English ones merely mentioned in a note. And this is but one instance, out of a vast number, of the entire untrustworthiness of that work as a guide to the ancient English usages. Under the delusive title of 'Directorium Anglicanum,' it has presented to the unwary student of ritual, mixed up with our own usages of old time, the most recent Roman ones. It may be hoped that this fact, when pointed out to 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 ancient English ceremonies; 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 and again 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, has expressly abolished some 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 - See Mabillon, Iter. Ital., p. xlix., and 'Principles of Divine Service,' Introd. vol. ii. p. 87. A slight raising of the Elements at the words 'He blessed,' as if making an offering, is ancient and probably universal.] 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.

Again, as to the number of ceremonies. The Preface entitled 'Ceremonies; why some be abolished, and some retained,' prefixed to the First Book of Edward, distinctly announces a new state of things in this respect. The "excessive multitude" of them is complained of; and it is clearly implied that those which remain are few and simple. The only question, in short, is, how many were left. The allegation that none are abolished is simply and utterly untenable. And we have this general principle laid down by that Preface for our guidance, that excess of ceremonies, or any great multiplying of them, such as now recommended, is absolutely irreconcilable with the mind of our Church.

On the whole, then, to conclude this part of my subject, there ought to be no real difficulty among us as to what is fairly permissible, and answers to the mind of the English Church – taking a wide and liberal view of that mind – in the matter of ritual. Two leading conceptions, NOBLENESS with SIMPLICITY, sum up her general desires on this subject. In the due observance of these, it is her deliberate judgment, (as represented by her wisest sons, – as Ridley, Andrewes, Overall, Cosin), will be found the best security for worthy worship on the one hand, and for devout worship on the other.

And when we come to the carrying out of these conceptions there are yet other two principles by which she is guided, viz. regard for primitive usage; and yet, again, forbearance from pressing even such usage in particular instances where it is likely to do more harm than good. And all along she supremely tenders that purity of Apostolic doctrine, which is dearer to her than life itself, and by its bearing upon which every rite or ceremony must ultimately be tried.

From antiquity accordingly, as has been shown above, she has derived, together with her pure doctrine, "her beautiful garments: " alike her surplice, stole, and hood, and her chasuble, alb, and amice. Yet, as regards the obligatory adoption of these, she has, with a grand charity, more beautiful than the richest of the garments themselves, forborne, for 300 years, to press upon an imperfectly trained people those which, in the judgment of her most learned and primitively-minded sons, best beseemed that high Ordinance. And even now, albeit she has done much towards training this nation in loftier conceptions of what is seemly in the matter of ritual; although she has reawakened the appreciation of music and architecture, of colour and carving, of festival decoration and choral worship; though she has, especially by the superior costliness and beauty lavished on the sacrarium and the altar, by increased care and reverence in administration of the Holy Eucharist, lifted that ordinance into something more of its due pre-eminence over all other Service; though many subordinate considerations point in the way of analogy and proportion, in the same directions; though every step by which she has enriched her ordinary worship, – such as the bringing back, within a very few years, of stole and hood for the clergy, and of surplices for the lay members of the choir – though this all but demands some different vestments, at the least, for the celebrant and assistants at the Holy Communion: nevertheless, she will not, if she is well-advised, withdraw or disallow that wise alternative which has practically existed all along in this matter, but still let surplice and vestment stand side by side for the option of the clergy and people. Nor yet again, on the other hand, strong as is the simpler surplice in its prescription – not, however, unvarying – of 300 years, as a eucharistic vestment in the English Church – in its purity of appearance and gracefulness of form – and in the associations and affections of this generation; – simpler and easier as it is to side with the greater number, and to acquiesce in the less excellent way for the sake of peace: – the Church will not, if well-advised, yield to these considerations either. She will still leave on her statute-book that ancient direction concerning vestments which has been her primary law through the vicissitudes of 300 years; which connects her, even in its abeyance, with the Apostolic Church of old, and with the Church universal now; and which may, if wisely and charitably administered, effectively co-operate in bringing back to the Church of God her lost jewel – nowhere now to be found on earth – of full and thorough conformity, in doctrine and worship, with the Apostolic and Primitive Church.

And as regards other ceremonies, while she expects not, nor desires, a rigid uniformity in minor actions, nor has laid down any such code for the observance of her ministers; she will on the one hand seek to realise a higher standard, in point of care and reverence, than has hitherto, perhaps, prevailed among us: but, on the other, she will continue her 300 years' protest against multitudinous and operose ceremonies, as being full surely destructive, in the long run, of the life of devotion.

I have now accomplished, though in a very imperfect manner, my self-imposed task: dwelling, in all humility and anxiety, on our shortcomings and excesses, as well in the matter of Rites and Doctrine, as in that of Ritual.

And if it be asked, in conclusion, What then is to be done? what action does a view of the whole circumstances prompt? or how are we to win our way back, under God, to a more perfect model? my answer and my humble counsel would be as follows: —

Let me first be permitted to remind the reader of the present aspect of our Church, such as it was presented to view in an earlier page. Let it be remembered and taken home as an anxious and alarming truth, that were an Apostle, or a Christian of early days, to "pass through" the land and "behold our devotions," on our high day of Service, during three-fourths of the year, he could arrive at no other conclusion, from what he saw with his eyes, than that he was not in a Christian land at all. For he would miss, Sunday after Sunday, in more than eleven thousand of our churches, the one badge, and symbol, and bond of membership in Christ, the Holy Eucharist. Such a one could not possibly understand our Christianity; the land would be in his eyes an absolute desolation. And if among these thousands of altars without a sacrifice, and of Christian congregations failing to offer the one supremely ordained Christian worship, he chanced here and there to light upon a happy exception, how would his eyes still be grieved, and his heart pained at the fewness of communicants! He could only conclude that Christianity had very recently been established here, and that the number of the unbaptized and catechumens was still tenfold that of the faithful. But there would be yet one other novel sight that would here and there present itself to him. He would perceive with astonishment that, in some instances, the eucharistic worship was offered not to "Our Father which is in Heaven," or to Christ, as seated with His Father on His Throne of Glory; but as contained in the Elements. But his astonishment would reach its height when he observed, further, that not much account was made, at this Service, of the reception of the life-giving Sacrament, as the crowning and supreme circumstance of the offering; but that it was rather discouraged, in proportion as the Service was designed to be of a loftier strain, and a superior acceptableness.

Is it too much to say that, on view of these things – these vast deflections on the right hand and on the left, in defect and in excess, from Apostolic ways – it would not much grieve or move such an one as I am supposing, whether the "vestment" in which the Service was offered was merely of "fine linen, pure and white," or "a vesture of gold, wrought about with divers colours;" and that all other ritual arrangements, in like manner, would be as nothing in his eyes, in comparison of the truths obscured or imperilled, and of the errors involved, on either hand?

And what therefore I would earnestly desire that the Church of God in this land might draw forth from the present excitement and anxiety about ritual is, a faithful comparison of herself, in point of doctrine and practice, with the Apostolic and Primitive model. There are greater things than these; "The life is more than meat, and the body than raiment." And while we are anxiously discussing whether the life of eucharistic devotion is best fed through the eye or the ear, or how its outward form should be arrayed, it is only too sadly true, that that life and that body are a prey to divers diseases, and need medicine and restoratives, ere they are likely to exhibit much real vigour, nourish and clothe them as we will.

For the second time within our memory, a "vestment" or "ritual" controversy has arisen among us. The last time it was about "the surplice" in preaching, as against the gown; and the "Prayer for the Church Militant," as against the disuse of it. This time it is about the more distinctive eucharistic vestments, as against the surplice; and about a fuller ritual as against a scantier one. Now the last contest was simply a miserable one. I venture to call it so, 1st, because, handled as it was, there was no sort of principle at stake in it, beyond that of assigning to the sermon more nearly its due position and estimate in the rite; and that of adding one more prayer – a touching and valuable one, it is true – to the ordinary Office; – and next, because it utterly misconceived and missed the Church's real mind, in allowing such a thing at all as prayers, or a service at the Altar or Holy Table, when there was to be no Offering and no Communion. To restore the Prayer for the Church Militant, and be content with that, was indeed "to keep the word of promise to her ear, and break it to her hopes." Only as a protest, only as a badge of her rejection – ay, and of Christ's rejection by the world – had she ever condescended to such a Lord's Day Service as that at all.

What was the result and upshot, as might have been expected, of that contest? In the case of some parishes, and almost whole dioceses, successful rebellion against even the letter of the rubric; and in places where the result was different, a contented acquiescence ever since (for the most part) in the victory achieved. Is it not evident that it was not worth achieving? And why? Because all the while the Church's real desire and aim was ignored; she was not one whit nearer to the Apostolic rule, but only proclaimed more distinctly her departure from it.

And now that another "vestment" and "ritual" controversy has arisen, the great anxiety, and the only deep anxiety, of the Church should be, that it too pass not over us barren of all results of value. It will do so, if it only leaves us with a better ascertained law as to the relative obligation of this or that vestment, the lawfulness of this or that mode of ritual. It will have been in vain, unless it brings up our long-standing neglect on the one hand, and brings back our more novel excesses on the other, to the true standard of God's own providing. But on the other hand, if haply, while we are searching for a rule, we shall have found a principle, and begun to act upon it then the present excitement will have done a great work for us.

And happily, it is by thus lifting the existing controversy into a higher sphere, we shall have the best chance of reconciling and harmonising positions now ranged over against each other, and even of solving this ritual and vestment difficulty. For let us suppose, on the one side – what it is not too much to hope for – that the close sifting, both of doctrine and ritual, which such a period as this gives rise to, joined to the fatherly counsel of the Bishops, and to considerations of Christian wisdom and charity, should avail to remove such peculiarities of ritual as are plainly either indefensible or inexpedient. And let us suppose, on the other side – what surely we may no less hope for – an earnest effort now made by the clergy, encouraged by their bishops, to return to the Apostolic usage of Weekly Celebration, and in other ways to give due honour and observance to the Holy Eucharist. Suppose this done on either side: and there would at once result a great and essential rapprochement between those who now have the appearance of raising opposite cries, and wearing rival badges.

Nor only so, but those badges themselves would lose, to a great extent, their distinctive hues. It is astonishing, when we come to look into the matter, how much the two rival camps, so to call them, have in common; and how many middle terms there are on which they are agreed. The truth is that, as has appeared above, there is between the vestments (for example), now opposed to each other, an entire "solidarity" or community of interests, arising out of their common origin, and their close relation to each other. The use of the surplice, its existence at all as a ministerial vestment, and its real significance, can only be traced in the eucharistic vestments. It results from removing the chasuble and expanding the alb. The surplice is in fact, an alb. It is an adaptation of the inner eucharistic vestment to the exigencies of the ordinary Office. It was thought good, when it was used as an outer garment, to give it that fulness and comeliness of form, for which the English surplice, more especially, is so justly commended. But its real value, as a memento of the inward purity which it typifies, can only be apprehended by bearing in mind that it is properly an inner garment. – In like manner the stole, taken by itself, is a mere band of ribbon of no particular appropriateness. But let it symbolise, as it certainly was meant to do, the yoke of loving labour laid on the neck of the minister of Christ; or, more exactly, after the Aaronic pattern, the ministerial toil of heart and hand for Christ's people, and the mindful bearing of them before God for acceptance through the One Sacrifice; and we at once see that this simple vestment is indeed worth preserving. – And let the hood, or "amice," be no longer worn as a mere badge of academical degree, but as a token of the dedication of the powers of the head or intellect, and of the need of God's protection against "vain, perverse, and unbecoming thoughts;"[61 - Oratio dicenda ante Divinum Officium. Portiforium Sarisb.] and this, too, acquires a fitness otherwise difficult to recognise. Now, if we thus owe to the full eucharistic vestments the interpretation of our ordinary ones, it is plain that the relations between the two are of the most friendly character.

The stole, it may be added, rests solely on the rubric of 1662: so that, whereas it is commonly imagined that the vestments of Edward VI. have now begun for the first time to be re-introduced, and that by a very few; the truth is that the vast majority of the English clergy have now for many years, though unconsciously, been acting upon the rubric which enjoins them, and tacitly appealing to it.

So, again, the introduction of colour into our vestments is only one step added to what has been already carried out, to a great extent, by all of us, in the rest of our sacred accessories, whether in the way of stained glass, altar-cloths, hangings, or even of books. And whereas, on the other hand, the pure whiteness of the surplice is not among the least of its attractions and sacred associations in English eyes; who, it may be asked, have done more to extend the use of the surplice among us, than those who have advanced farthest in the ritual direction? Who eliminated the "black gown" from the eucharistic rite? Who else have flooded our choirs and aisles, on festal occasions especially, with the white robes of choristers and clergy? Nay, for the Holy Communion itself, for the highest festivals – Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide – the white chasuble is, by the ancient rule of England, added to the white alb. Surely here, again, there is a community of sentiment between ritual schools thought to be opposed to each other. It may be added, that though the strict English rule, or rather its full carrying out, would necessitate colour – red for the most part – for the chief eucharistic vestment, this is not by any means of necessity. White, it is admitted on all hands, is permissible all the year round,[62 - 'Directorium Anglicanum,' p. 17: "It is perfectly unobjectionable to have the sacred vestments of fair white linen, so long as the shape of them be correct."] and some Eastern churches never use any other colour.

And do we not seem to see, in these considerations, joined to others alleged above, a ground for harmonious though diverse action among those of differing minds? We have, as the first and leading fact, that (if the view taken above be correct) none is compelled in foro conscientiæ, by the existing state of the law to which he has bound himself (viz. "what this Church and Realm hath received") to adopt the ancient vestments. This gives room for the exercise of that prudent consideration in the matter, which would be out of place if the law gave no alternative.

We have next the fact that there are degrees, even where it is desired to return to the ancient system. The form is, as it should seem, the great matter, both as regards symbolism, and as making a distinct difference between the ordinary and the eucharistic dress: the material and colour are secondary. Hence arises a simple and unobtrusive mode of resuming the old distinction, without risk of provoking serious objection: eucharistic vestments of fine linen being not very strikingly different in appearance from the surplice; more especially if, as some hold, surplices in place of tunics be allowable for the assistant clergy.

And if many still entertain a distinct preference for the surplice, none can say that, after 300 years of recognition, it is other than a seemly and honourable vestment, as an ad interim, even for the Holy Communion. In one case only can it be said to be a dishonour, and a badge of servitude under the world's rejection, – viz., whenever there is no celebration. It can then only be compared to the linen garment in which the Jewish High Priest was clothed of old on the one day of Atonement: – the one day in the year on which Israel mourned over suspended privileges and a desolated Altar.[63 - Leviticus xvi. 4.] It is when the surplice ministers to so dreary a Service as that: – when, as a fit accompaniment to it, the position of the wearer, at the north end of the Holy Table, indicates at least a forgetfulness of his priestly functions: – it is then only that it can be otherwise than honourable among us.

Nor in like manner, as has appeared above from the venerable, because primitive and apostolic descent of the eucharistic vestments, can any tinge of superstition or unsound doctrine be properly ascribed to them, unless it be through the fault of any in whose persons they minister to eucharistic doctrines and practices, which were unknown to Apostolic and primitive days.

And there is yet one other hopeful feature in the present aspect of things as regards Ritual. It is that, taking the long tract of years, the desire for an improvement, and for our acting up to the theory and ideal of our Church in this matter, has begun, as it ought, with the Episcopate: so that all present endeavours in that direction, (whether in all respects wisely or faithfully made I have given some reasons for doubting), are intended at least to be a carrying out of their fatherly counsels and admonitions. It is now a quarter of a century since two of the ablest and most influential Prelates that ever sat on an episcopal throne in England, the late Bishop of London and the present Bishop of Exeter, invited the Clergy of their Dioceses to carry out the rubrics, with especial reference to a particular rubric bearing upon the dress of the Clergy in one part of their ministrations. It was found impossible at the time, owing to a strong feeling on the part of the laity (which time has for the most part removed), to carry out those injunctions. But their tones have vibrated ever since in the hearts of the English Clergy. It was felt at the time, as it must ever be felt, that our aim, at least, should be to carry out the Church's best and deepest mind, and not to acquiesce for generations in a low standard, merely because it is the existing one. And it is my humble belief that, had the present attempt to return, in fuller measure, to her deep and wise rules for eucharistic celebration been made with more of moderation and considerateness, it would have carried with it, (and may carry with it yet, if these conditions be fulfilled), the assent of our Right Reverend Fathers[64 - See the Bishop of Oxford's opinion, delivered in Convocation.] in God on the one hand, and of our congregations on the other. So managed, the present might well become a grand and harmonious movement of Bishops, Clergy, and people towards a noble result, – the setting up, namely, in its due place, of the highest ordinance of the Gospel: with variations, indeed, in many respects, as to the mode and fashion of administration; but with one happy feature at any rate, – a nearer approximation, both in Rites and Ritual, to Apostolic Doctrine and Worship.

NOTE TO THE FOURTH EDITION

In revising the above pages for a Fourth Edition, I have corrected the statement made by me in page 40, as to the doctrine maintained by Archdeacon Denison; and I desire to repeat here the expression of regret, which I have already made public through another channel, at having misrepresented his view. A correspondence between us, since published by him (Rivington's), will explain more fully the state of the case. It may suffice to repeat here, that the exact position taken up by him in 1856, as regards the points under discussion, is expressed in the two following propositions:

Proposition III. —

"That The Body and Blood of Christ, being present naturally in Heaven, are, supernaturally and invisibly, but Really, Present in the Lord's Supper, through the elements, by virtue of the act of consecration."

Proposition VIII. —