DIVINE SERVICE
1. Every deacon and priest before his ordination, and, as mentioned
above, every incumbent, before he is admitted to his benefice, and every
stipendiary curate, on entering upon his curacy, declares that in public
prayer and administration of the sacraments he will use the form
prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer and none other except so far as
ordered by lawful authority.[162] This uniform use is enjoined by the
Acts of Uniformity and the Prayer Book itself, which has legal force as
part of the Act of 1662, and by the 14th Canon, except so far as
modifications are permitted under the Act of Uniformity Amendment Act of
1872, which, like the Act of 1662, was passed at the instance of
Convocation.[163] No clergyman, therefore, may alter, add to, or
diminish the form of worship therein prescribed, including the
lessons.[164] The expression "lawful authority" occurs in the Act of
1662, which directs that in those portions of the Prayer Book which
relate to the King, Queen, or Royal progeny the names shall be altered
from time to time as occasion requires according to the direction of
lawful authority. This is explained by Bishop Gibson to mean, according
to practice, the authority of the Sovereign in Council.[165] The
archbishops and bishops have no authority, combined or singly, to order
modifications of or additions to the forms of Divine service, except to
the extent permitted by the Act of 1872. The Preface to the Prayer Book
"Concerning the Service of the Church" expressly contemplates that in
lieu of diversity of use in different dioceses and parts of the realm,
all shall henceforth have but one use. The only function of the prelates
which it recognises in the matter is the power of the bishop to set at
rest any doubts which may arise as to the construction of the Prayer
Book and the proper practice thereunder, with liberty to him, if he is
himself in doubt, to refer to the archbishop. But the Act of 1872
permits (_a_) the use, upon a special occasion approved by the ordinary,
of a special form of service approved by him, and containing nothing
except anthems or hymns, which does not form part of the Holy Scriptures
or Book of Common Prayer, and also (_b_) the use, on any Sunday or holy
day, as supplementary to the services prescribed by the Prayer Book, of
an additional form of service, approved by the ordinary as to its form
and mode of use, and containing no portion of the Communion Service and
nothing except anthems or hymns which does not form part of the Holy
Scriptures or Book of Common Prayer. The same Act authorises the use of
a shortened order for Morning or Evening Prayer on any day except
Sunday, Christmas Day, Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, and Ascension Day;
and the use of the Morning Prayer, the Litany, and the Communion
Service, in varying order as separate services,[166] and the saying of
the Litany after the third collect in Evening Prayer, without prejudice
to any legal powers vested in the ordinary, and either with or without a
sermon, lecture, or homily; and also the preaching of a sermon without
being preceded by a service appointed by the Prayer Book, provided that
it be preceded by a service authorised by the Act, or by a collect from
the Prayer Book with or without the Lord's Prayer.
2. The Prayer Book contains an "Order for Morning and Evening Prayer
daily to be said and used throughout the year"; and under the prefatory
heading "Concerning the Service of the Church," it is directed that all
priests and deacons are to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer
either privately or openly, not being let by sickness or some other
urgent cause. And the curate who ministers in a parish church, being at
home and not being otherwise reasonably hindered, is to say the same in
the church, after summoning the people by a bell to come and hear God's
word and pray with him. A bishop, however, has no power to enforce daily
services;[167] and daily service has been held not to be requisite under
a trust to perform the service "in strict and literal accordance with
the order of the Book of Common Prayer."[168] But the Act of Uniformity
of 1662, s. 1, expressly enacts that the morning and evening prayers
contained in that Book shall, on every Lord's Day, and on all other days
and occasions, and at the times therein appointed, be openly read by
every minister or curate in every church, chapel, or other place of
public worship.[169] And the 14th and 15th Canons direct that the Common
Prayer shall be said or sung distinctly and reverently upon such days as
are appointed to be kept holy by the Prayer Book and their eves, and
that the Litany shall be said or sung when and as prescribed in the
Prayer Book; and in particular on Wednesdays and Fridays weekly, though
they be not holy days, the minister at the accustomed hours of service
is to resort to the church and say the Litany after warning the people
by tolling a bell. A later enactment empowers the bishop, at his
discretion, to order two full services (each, if he so directs, to
include a sermon or lecture) on every Sunday throughout the year or any
part of the year in the church or chapel of any benefice, whatever its
annual value or population, and also in certain cases where a benefice
is composed of more than one parish or chapelry, in the church or chapel
of each of them.[170] And where he considers that the population
requires it, he may direct the celebration on Sundays and the great
festivals of a third service, being either the Morning or Evening
Service with a third sermon, and for the performance of this third
service may insist on a curate being nominated, whose salary is to be
provided by the pews being specially let for the service or by
subscription.[171] It is rarely necessary in the present day to put in
force these powers, since in most parishes the number of services
considerably exceeds the legal _minimum_.
3. Under the rubrics following the Nicene Creed and at the beginning of
the Marriage Service, as modified by the Parish Notices Act, 1837,[172]
the minister is alone authorised to give out notices during Divine
service; and he may not publish either during or after Divine service
notices of proceedings in ecclesiastical courts, or of vestry meetings,
or of any other matter except banns of matrimony, announcements of the
Communion, and of holy days and fasting days during the ensuing week,
and of anything else prescribed by the Prayer Book or enjoined by the
King or the ordinary. Other notices must be put up at or near the church
door. Banns are to be published at the time of Morning Service (or of
Evening Service if there is no Morning Service) immediately after the
Second Lesson. Other lawful notices are to be given at the close of the
Nicene Creed.
4. The only rubrical provision for the collection of money during Divine
service is at the time when the offertory sentences are read, whether a
Communion follows or not. The money is then to be received by the
deacons, churchwardens, or other fit person,[173] and is to be disposed
of to such pious and charitable uses as the minister and churchwardens
think fit; wherein if they disagree, it is to be disposed of as the
ordinary shall appoint. Money collected at other times during Divine
service ought to be brought up to the minister to be placed on the Holy
Table, like the offertory money; but, unlike this, it is under the sole
control and disposal of the incumbent; unless it is collected for church
expenses or repairs for which the churchwardens are responsible, in
which case it should be handed over to them.[174] And if the purpose for
which the collection is made is announced beforehand, there is, of
course, a legal as well as moral obligation to apply the money collected
to that purpose. Offertory alms collected in a chapel are at the
disposal of the incumbent and wardens of the parish church.[175]
5. Questions arose during the last century as to (_A_) the legality of
certain ornaments of the Church, (_B_) the dress of the clergy, and
(_C_) ceremonies in connection with Divine service, and especially with
the Holy Communion; having regard, among other considerations, to the
Ornaments Rubric in the Prayer Book. According to the legal decisions on
these questions:[176] (_A_) The Holy Table must be of wood and,
according to Canon 82, should be covered during Divine service with a
carpet of silk or other decent stuff, and with a fair linen cloth at the
time of the ministration.[177] A crucifix, except as a mere
architectural decoration or as part of an historical representation of
the Crucifixion, is illegal; but a cross is legal, provided it be not
upon or in actual or apparent contact or connection with the Holy
Table.[178] Candlesticks and vases of flowers are legal even in such
contact or connection,[179] and so are pictures or sculptures of an
historical or allegorical character, whether in a reredos or elsewhere
in the church, except those known as the Stations of the Cross, which
have been held liable to superstitious abuse.[180] The legality of
isolated figures, whether painted or sculptured, depends on whether from
their character and position there is no likelihood of their being
superstitiously reverenced.[181] A credence table is legal and
proper.[182] A second Holy Table is only legal if placed in a part of
the church closed in, by lattice work or otherwise, as a separate place
of worship for services attended by few worshippers.[183] Chancel gates
are permitted, if required for the protection of the chancel when the
church is accessible for private prayer; but they must be always kept
open during Divine service.[184] The erection of a baldacchino or canopy
over the Holy Table is not permissible.[185] But the introduction of
legal ornaments and additions into a church will not ordinarily be
sanctioned without the approval of the parishioners, expressed by a
resolution of the vestry.[186] (_B_) The legal attire of the ministering
clergy at the Holy Communion, as well as in other ministrations, has
been decided to be that laid down by the Advertisements of 1566, which
are followed in Canons 24, 25, and 58, and prescribe the wearing of a
surplice with the proper hood of the university degree (if any); except
that in cathedral and collegiate churches the celebrant and gospeller
and epistler shall wear copes. The rubric of the First Prayer Book of
Edward VI., had directed that the celebrant should wear a white albe
plain with a vestment (_i.e._ a chasuble) or cope, and any assistant
priests or deacons should wear albes with tunicles.[187] Stoles, as
distinguished from the scarves of chaplains, have no legal
authority.[188] A biretta (the foreign form of a college cap) must not
be worn during the Communion Service.[189] In preaching (except,
possibly, during the Communion Office) the surplice or the black gown
are equally legal.[190] (_C_) The ceremonial use of incense and
processions with lighted candles are illegal,[191] but a celebration of
Holy Communion with two lighted candles on or above the table is
permissible.[192] The administration of the mixed chalice is legal, but
the wine and water must not be ceremonially mixed during the
service.[192] Wafers, not consisting of bread "such as is usual to be
eaten," have been held illegal.[193] The singing of the Agnus Dei or of
any other hymns during the administration of the elements is
permissible.[194] A minister may stand either on the north or the west
side of the table during the service; but not so as to hide the manual
acts from the people.[192] He must not kneel or bow before the elements
during the Prayer of Consecration, or elevate them above his head during
administration; nor may he use the sign of the cross during the
absolution or benediction.[195] Ablutions of the paten and chalice
after the benediction, being no part of the service, are not
illegal.[196] Reservation of any parts of the consecrated elements at
the close of the Communion Service is illegal.[197]
6. No minister is to refuse or delay to christen according to the form
of the Book of Common Prayer any child brought to him to the church for
that purpose on a Sunday or holy day, after notice given to him
overnight or in the morning before the beginning of Morning Prayer. The
ceremony should take place immediately after the second lesson at either
Morning or Evening Prayer. The congregation can then testify the
receiving of the newly baptized into the number of Christ's Church, and
all present are reminded of their own profession made to God in their
baptism. But if necessity requires, children may be baptized on any
other day.[198] The law is the same as regards children of Church people
and of Dissenters, and as regards legitimate and illegitimate children.
If a minister is duly informed of the weakness and danger of death of an
unbaptized infant in the parish, and is desired to go and baptize him,
he must not refuse or so delay that the infant dies through his fault
unbaptized.[199] But in every other case a male child must have two
godfathers and one godmother, and a female child one godfather and two
godmothers; and a minister will, of course, not admit as a sponsor a
person notoriously leading an immoral life or otherwise manifestly unfit
for the office. Godparents must have received the Holy Communion, and a
father cannot be godfather for his own child.[200] In 1865 the
Canterbury Convocation, with the Royal licence, framed a new canon
repealing this prohibition; but the canon was never ratified by the
Crown, nor was any similar canon passed by the York Convocation. The
Form for the ministration of Private Baptism in houses contains a
service for the public reception in church, as one of the flock of true
Christian people, of a child who, in case of emergency, has been
baptized at home, and also a formula of conditional baptism to be
substituted for the words of actual baptism in cases where there is a
doubt whether the essential parts of the Sacrament were observed in the
private performance of the ceremony. The rubrics direct immersion in the
case of the public baptism of infants, if the godparents certify that
the child can endure it, and affusion, if they certify that the child is
weak. Naturally, affusion alone is directed in the case of private
baptism. In the case of the baptism of adults, immersion or affusion are
directed as alternatives, the discretion being left with the minister
and not with the godparents. The rubric directs that, before adult
persons are to receive baptism, not less than one week's previous
notice shall be given to the bishop, or a person appointed by him, by
the parents or some other discreet persons, in order that due care may
be taken for their examination as to their knowledge of the principles
of the Christian religion, and that they may be exhorted to prepare with
prayers and fasting for the reception of that holy Sacrament. The
baptismal services throughout contemplate the performance of the
ceremony by a priest; but in the Form of Making of Deacons a deacon is
expressly authorised to baptize infants in the absence of the priest.
Lay baptism is valid in case of emergency; but, of course, a layman is
not at liberty to use the baptismal service.
7. The Holy Communion is to be administered in every parish church and
chapel so often and at such times as that every parishioner may
communicate at least twice in the year (whereof the feast of Easter
shall be one).[201] Warning is to be given to the parishioners "publicly
in church at Morning Prayer" on the Sunday before every time of
administering the Holy Communion,[202] and the present rubric requires
that so many as intend to be partakers of the Sacrament shall signify
their names to the curate, meaning the incumbent, at least some time the
day before. In the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. this rubric ran: "So
many as intend to be partakers of the Holy Communion shall signify
their names to the curate overnight or else in the morning afore the
beginning of Matins or immediately after."[203] The incumbent must not
deny the Sacrament, without lawful cause, to any person that devoutly
and humbly desires to receive it.[204] But he is directed both by the
Canons and by the rubric to repel from Communion, until repentance, open
and notorious evil livers, and those who have wronged their neighbours
by word or deed so as to offend the congregation, and those between whom
he perceives malice and hatred to reign. The Canons add to the list
common and notorious depravers of the Book of Common Prayer, or the
Ordering of Bishops and Priests, or the Thirty-nine Articles, or
depravers of the sovereign authority of the King in causes
ecclesiastical, and those who refuse to kneel when receiving the
Communion or to be present at public prayers according to the order of
the Church of England. When any one is so repelled, the incumbent must
report the matter to the ordinary within fourteen days, or sooner if
required by the offending person or by the ordinary himself, and must
obey his order and direction in reference to it. The rubric directs that
the ordinary shall proceed against the offender according to the Canon,
that is to say, by such ecclesiastical censures and punishments as can
be inflicted.[205] In Jenkins _v._ Cook[206] the meaning of a "common
and notorious depraver of the Book of Common Prayer" was discussed, and
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that it did not include
a person who omitted certain parts of the Bible from his family reading
because he held them, in their generally received sense, to be
incompatible with religion or decency. But while they assumed that being
a depraver of the Prayer Book would be as valid a cause for denying
Communion as being an open and notorious evil liver, they did not
actually decide whether the Canons, which do not as such bind the laity,
can of their own authority prescribe causes, sufficient or lawful, for
denying Communion within the meaning of the Act of 1547.[207] It would
not be expedient in the present day for an incumbent, under Canons 28
and 57, to refuse the Communion to persons merely because they came from
outside his parish to communicate in his church instead of in their own
parish church. Nor can he lawfully refuse it to a person who
occasionally attends or even communicates in a dissenting place of
worship.[208] The question of admitting to Communion persons who have
been baptized in another communion or Christian body, and have not been
confirmed in the Church of England, is one of more difficulty. The
rubrics in the Communion Office itself are silent on the subject. But
the exhortation at the close of the Public Baptism of Infants directs
that the child shall be brought to the bishop to be confirmed without
delay after a sufficient course of instruction. The rubric at the close
of the Baptismal Service for Adults declares the expediency of every
person so baptized being confirmed by the bishop with all convenient
speed after baptism, that so he may be admitted to the Communion; and
the rubric at the end of the Order of Confirmation prescribes that there
shall none be admitted to the Communion until such time as he be
confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed. These rubrics must
be read together, and are clearly framed with a view to persons baptized
in the Church of England. In fact the Prayer Book nowhere contemplates
the case of a person who, having been validly baptized in another
communion or body, afterwards joins the Church of England, or the case
of a person belonging to some other communion who, while temporarily
resident in England, desires, without forsaking his own communion, to
communicate with his fellow Christians of our Church. As the rubrics
stand, such persons, unless and until actually confirmed, have no right
to require a clergyman to admit them to Communion, and he commits no
legal offence by refusing to do so. On the other hand, a considerable
number of such persons do, as a matter of fact, communicate in our
Church without having been confirmed or being desirous to be confirmed;
and a clergyman who admits them, in the absence of any direction of the
bishop to the contrary,[209] may be acting in a wise and Christian
manner.
8. The rubrics of the Communion Office prescribe that a sermon or one of
the authorised homilies shall follow the Nicene Creed whenever that
portion of the office is used, whether a Communion actually takes place
afterwards or not. And the 45th Canon enjoins the preaching of one
sermon every Sunday of the year. The power of the bishop to require a
second and even, in certain cases, a third sermon has already been
noticed.[210] But, inasmuch as the Prayer Book contains no direction
that sermons shall follow Matins or Evensong, such sermons may be
regarded as in the nature of separate or additional services. The 55th
Canon prescribes that all sermons, lectures, and homilies shall be
preceded by what is called the Bidding Prayer and the Lord's Prayer. But
this rule is not in practice observed in the case of sermons in the
middle of the Communion Service or immediately following some other
service. Under the Act of Uniformity Amendment Act of 1872, Morning and
Evening Prayer, the Litany, and Holy Communion may any of them be used
with or without the preaching of a sermon or lecture or the reading of a
homily; and a sermon or lecture may be preceded either by one of the
services appointed by the Prayer Book or by a service authorised by that
Act, or by a Collect taken from the Prayer Book, with or without the
Lord's Prayer.[211]
9. Regular catechising is enjoined both by the Canons and by the Prayer
Book. But the direction in the 59th Canon, that it shall take place for
half-an-hour or more before Evening Prayer, is superseded by the rubric
at the end of the Catechism, which requires the incumbent of every
parish diligently upon Sundays and holy days, after the second lesson
at Evening Prayer, openly in the church to instruct and examine so many
children of his parish sent to him as he shall think convenient, in some
part of the Catechism.
10. The Churching of Women is regulated by the rubrics at the
commencement and close of the service for the occasion in the Prayer
Book. It is contemplated as the first service in which a woman takes
part after recovery from childbirth; but no specific time is prescribed
for it beyond the recommendation that she should receive the Holy
Communion if there be a Communion. In former times a woman was not to be
churched after an illegitimate birth unless she had previously done
penance or acknowledged her fault before the congregation at the time of
her churching. Since penance has fallen into disuse, a clergyman must
exercise his own discretion in such cases; but he will, of course,
neither church nor admit to Communion a woman who impenitently continues
a sinful life. The rubric directs that "accustomed offerings" shall be
offered at a churching, but their amount is not regulated by any general
or well-established rule.[212]
Footnotes
[162] Ch. ii. § 6 (i.); ch. iii. § 1; (1865) 28 & 29 Vict. c. 122, ss.
1, 4-8.
[163] (1559) 1 Eliz. c. 2; (1662) 14 Cha. 2, c. 4; (1872) 35 & 36 Vict.
c. 35; Westerton _v._ Liddell (1857) Moore's Special Report, 187; Martin
_v._ Mackonockie (1868) L. R. 2 P. C. 365, at p. 383; 38 L. J. Eccl. 1,
at p. 11.
[164] Newbery _v._ Goodwin (1811) 1 Phill. 282.
[165] Gibs. Cod. 280; see note to ch. ii. § 6 (i.) above.
[166] As to the normal order independently of the Act, see the Rubrics
and note to § 7 below.
[167] Cripps, 576.
[168] _Re_ Hartshill Endowment (1861) 30 Beav. 130.
[169] This applies only to a church served by a distinct minister, and
not where there are two churches in one parish. But even in such a case
the incumbent has no right wholly to close one church and hold all the
Sunday services in the other; Rugg _v._ Bp. of Winchester (1868) L. R. 2
P. C. 223; 38 L. J. Eccl. 23.
[170] (1838) 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, s. 80.
[171] (1818) 58 Geo. 3, c. 45, ss. 65, 66.
[172] 7 Will, 4 & 1 Vict. c. 45.
[173] The appointment of such person rests with the incumbent or
principal officiating minister; a clergyman in priest's orders is not a
"fit" person to collect the offertory money. Cope _v._ Barber (1872) L.
R. 7 C. P. 393.
[174] Sm. Churchw. 80; Reg. _v._ O'Neill (1867) 31 J. P. 742; Howell
_v._ Holdroyd (1897) P. 198. An incumbent often takes sole charge not
only of money collected in church but of money collected by appeals
within and outside the parish. He should in all such cases lodge it at a
bank on a separate account, and notify in his appeal that this will be
done. He cannot otherwise reasonably expect to be entrusted with money
by strangers; and if the money is mixed with his own, it may be
difficult or impossible to disentangle it in the event of his sudden
illness and death.
[175] Moysey _v._ Hillcoat (1828) 2 Hag. Eccl. 30, at p. 56.
[176] As stated in ch. i. § 4, these decisions are part of our Church
law, until reversed or altered by future judicial decisions or by
legislation. As intimated in the Preface, no opinion is here expressed
as to their correctness, or as to what the law ought to be on the points
with which they deal. It has been questioned whether in the Ornaments
Rubric and in the Act of Uniformity of 1559 (1 Eliz. c. 2), from which
it is derived, the mention of such ornaments as were in the Church by
authority of Parliament in the second year of Edward VI. refers to the
ornaments sanctioned by the First Prayer Book of Edward VI., the use of
which was enjoined by the Act of Uniformity of 1549 (2 & 3 Edw. 6, c.
1), or to those previously in use. It may be observed that this Act is
referred to as made in the second year of the reign in the later Act of
Uniformity of 1552 (5 & 6 Edw. 6, c. 1, s. 4), and the Book itself is
associated with that year in the 36th Article. In the Bp. of
Winchester's Case (1596) 2 Co. Rep. 40 a, the Payment of Tithes Act of
the same session (2 & 3 Edw. 6, c. 13) is referred to as made in the
Parliament holden in the second year of Edward VI. See also Westerton
_v._ Liddell (1857) Moore's Special Report, 156, 160; Martin _v._
Mackonockie (1868) L. R. 2 P. C. 365, at p. 390; Elphinstone _v._
Purchas (1870) L. R. 3 A. & E. 66, 94.
[177] Faulkner _v._ Litchfield (1845) 1 Rob. Eccl. 184; Westerton _v._
Liddell (1857) Moore's Special Report, 176-185. A variety of embroidered
cloths is permissible; _Ib._188. But the decision in _Re_ St. Luke's,
Chelsea (1904) P. 257, that marble is "stuff" within Canon 82, seems
open to question.
[178] Phill. Eccl. Law, 733-5; Liddell _v._ Beal (1860) 14 Moo. P. C. 1,
14; Durst _v._ Masters (1876) 1 P. D. 373; Ridsdale _v._ Clifton (1877)
2 P. D. 276; Bradford _v._ Fry (1878) 4 P. D. 93, 106; _Re_ St.
Matthias, Richmond (1897) P. 70; _Re_ St. Ethelburga (1900) P. 80; _Re_
St. John Baptist, Paignton (1905) P. 111.
[179] Liddell _v._ Beal, _ubi sup._; Elphinstone _v._ Purchas (1870) L.
R. 3 A. & E. 66.
[180] Boyd _v._ Phillpotts (1874) L. R. 4 A. & E. 297; (1875) 6 P. C.
435; Hughes _v._ Edwards (1877) 2 P. D. 361; _Re_ St. Mark, Marylebone
(1898) P. 115; Davey _v._ Hinde (1901) P. 95; (1903) P. 221.
[181] _Re_ St. Lawrence, Pittington (1880) 5 P. D. 131; _Re_ St. John,
Pendlebury (1895) P. 178.
[182] Westerton _v._ Liddell (1857) Moore's Special Report 187,8;
overruling Faulkner _v._ Litchfield (1845) 1 Rob. Eccl. 184.
[183] _Re_ Holy Trinity, Stroud Green (1887) 12 P. D. 199; _Re_ St.
Mark, Marylebone (1898) P. 115.
[184] _Re_ St. Agnes, Toxteth Park (1885) 11 P. D. 1; _Re_ St. John
Baptist, Timberhill (1895) P. 71.
[185] White _v._ Bowron (1873) L. R. 4 A. & E. 207; 43 L. J. Eccl. 7.
[186] Groves _v._ Rector of Hornsey (1793) 1 Hag. Cons. 188; Clayton
_v._ Deane (1849) 7 Not. of Ca. 46, 53; Vicar of Tottenham _v._ Venn
(1874) L. R. 4 A. & E. 221; Peek _v._ Trower (1881) 7 P. D. 21; Nickalls
_v._ Briscoe (1892) P. 269. See also note (1) on p. 146 below.
[187] Ridsdale _v._ Clifton (1877) 2 P. D. 276. See note (1) on p. 87.
[188] Elphinstone _v._ Purchas (1870) L. R. 3 A. & E. 66.
[189] Enraght's case (1881) L. R. 6 Q. B. D. 376; (1882) 7 A. C. 240.
[190] _Re_ Robinson: Wright _v._ Tugwell (1897) 1 Ch. 85.
[191] Sumner _v._ Wix (1870) L. R. 3 A. & E. 58; The Archbishops on
Incense and Lights in Processions: Hearing at Lambeth (1899) _Times_,
Aug. 1 (also published by Macmillan & Co., 1899, price 1s.)
[192] Read _v._ Bishop of Lincoln (1891) P. 9; (1892) A. C. 644.
[193] Ridsdale _v._ Clifton (1877) 2 P. D. 276. The First Prayer Book of
1549 prescribed unleavened wafers, but directed that each must be
divided and distributed in two or more pieces, in order, no doubt, that
the symbolism indicated in 1 Cor. x. 17 might not be wholly lost.
[194] Read _v._ Bishop of Lincoln, _ubi sup._ The legality of the usual
hymns and music has been long recognised; Hutchins _v._ Denziloe (1792)
1 Hag. Cons. 170.
[195] Martin _v._ Mackonockie (1868) L. R. 2 P. C. 365; (1869) L. R. 3
P. C. 52; Read _v._ Bishop of Lincoln, _ubi sup._
[196] Read _v._ Bishop of Lincoln, _ubi sup._
[197] Archbishops' Hearing at Lambeth (1900) _Times_, May 2. See ch.
viii. § 1.
[198] Canon 68; Prayer Book Rubric.
[199] Canon 69.
[200] Canon 29.
[201] Canon 21; Prayer Book Rubric.
[202] Canon 22.
[203] This rubric, with the substitution of "Morning Prayer" for
"Matins," was repeated in the Prayer Books of 1552 and 1559. On the
other hand, in our present Prayer Book, where the allusion to Morning
Prayer is omitted from the rubric, the intention that it shall, in the
ordinary course, precede the Holy Communion is indicated by the fact
that Matt. xxvi. and John xviii. have been removed from the Gospels for
Palm Sunday and Good Friday, where they had previously stood with the
succeeding passages which form our present Gospels for those days, and
have been made the Second Lessons at Morning Prayer. In the earlier
Prayer Books no special second lessons were assigned for those two days.
But as to the use of Morning Prayer, the Litany, and the Holy Communion
together, or in varying order as separate services, see now § 1 above.
The Prayer Book does not seem to contemplate Communion more than once in
the day. Where the Office is used oftener, it must be repeated entire on
each occasion.
[204] (1547) 1 Edw. 6, c. 1, s. 8.
[205] Canons 26, 27, 109; Prayer Book Rubric.
[206] (1875) L. R. 4 A. & E. 463, rev. on app. (1876) 1 P. D. 80.
[207] See p. 94 above, and note (2) on that page.
[208] Swayne _v._ Benson (1889) 6 Times Law Rep. 7.
[209] The passage in the statement _Concerning the Service of the
Church_ at the beginning of the Prayer Book, respecting the bishop
taking order for the appeasing of doubts concerning the manner of
understanding and carrying out the contents of the Book, might apply to
the treatment of such persons.
[210] § 2 above.
[211] 35 & 36 Vict. c. 35, ss. 5, 6.
[212] Phill. Eccl. Law, Pt. iii. ch. viii. pp. 645-7.