The position of affairs in the English Church, at the present
moment, is such as may well call forth from her children such
counsel as their affection may prompt, or their experience justify.
And, whatever be the intrinsic value, if any, of the suggestions
about to be offered here, the writer can at least testify that,
though called forth by a particular conjuncture of circumstances,
they are not the hasty or immature thoughts of the moment, but
rather an outpouring of the anxious musing of years over the
condition and prospects of a beloved and honoured Mother.
It will be conjectured, from what has now been said, that the writer
is not among the number of those who perceive, in the present
condition of the English Church, or in her rate of improvement of
late years, any grounds for satisfaction, much less for complacency
or congratulation. On the contrary, he very humbly conceives--and
his reasons for that opinion shall be given presently--that to the
spiritual eye, used to rest either on what the Church of God was
_intended to be_, or on what once, for a few centuries, she _was_,
there is, in the practical condition of the English Church one
defect of so radical a character, and which has eaten so extensively
into her entire system, that until this is, at least in a very great
measure, remedied, all else is little better than a palliative,
and little else than an illusion. There is surely something deeply
saddening in the spectacle (if it indeed be so) of a Church busying
herself with "many things"--making much show of practical activity,
of self-reparation, of improvement in services and ministries, of
extension abroad,--when all the while the "one thing," namely,
_soundness and perfectness in Apostolic faith and practice_, is in
any serious degree wanting to her. If, while she is manifesting
a feverish anxiety about the more or less of RITUAL, there is in
her RITES (of which Ritual is but the outward clothing) that which
demands repair and readjustment on an extensive scale; then it is
surely needful to press upon her, in the first instance, the redress
of such essentials, before proceeding to speak of the accessories.
And this is what the present writer, with all humility, undertakes
to make good. He is indeed far from denying that, "by the good Hand
of our God upon us," great things, of a certain kind, have been
accomplished in our day.
"Stately thy walls, and holy are the prayers
That day and night before thine altar rise."
Our churches have grown to be, to a great extent, the perfection
of earthly sanctuaries. Our Services are nobler and heartier. Our
church music is more worthy of the name. Better still than this,
and more to the present purpose, our communicants have increased
in numbers, our Communions in frequency. Our clergy, as a rule,
are devoted, beyond the example of former times, to their duty,
according to their conception of it. Schools are diligently cared
for, and are fairly efficient; foreign missions grow; the home
circle of charities is daily widened and rendered more effectual.
And this is "progress," or "improvement," undoubtedly. And,
were the Church a mere Machine, or a mere System, it would be
perfectly reasonable to point with satisfaction to such progress
or improvement. But the Church is neither the one nor the other.
She is a Divine Body. And what if, while some operations of that
Body are being performed with a certain increase of vigour, her
very constitution, as divinely organised by God Himself, is being
suffered to fall into habitual and chronic unsoundness?
Surely, as it is the first duty of man to do _right_, and only his
second to do _good_;--as health is the highest of bodily blessings,
so that activity, apart from it, is but spurious and imperfect;--so
is it the Church's _first_ duty to be _sound_,--_primum
valere_,--and only her second to be, if God enables her, active and
prosperous.
And the Church being, as I have said, a Divine Body--the Body of
Christ--it is plain that the first condition of her soundness is
_full_ as well as vital union with Christ through the appointed
medium, the Sacraments. Upon these are absolutely suspended her
existence in the first instance, and her preservation and growth
afterwards. What then, I would ask, can possibly be of more
importance than that these sacred and wonderful ministries should be
performed, _in all respects_, according to the Ordinance of Christ,
such as he delivered it to the apostles?
And if it be asked, How are we to _know_ what it was that Christ
delivered to the apostles on this subject, seeing that Holy
Scripture is confessedly brief and unsystematic in its teaching
respecting it? the answer manifestly is, By looking at the universal
practice of the Church in the time of the apostles, and during the
earliest ages after them. We know, with sufficient accuracy, what
that practice was. Their customs as to the administration of Baptism
are known to us; their Liturgies or Communion Offices are in our
hands. And, though diversities of practice, _outside_ of certain
limits, are found existing in those ages, _within_ certain limits
there is none.
Now, among the points thus defined for us by universal early usage,
is the ordained _frequency of celebration_ of both Sacraments. The
law of Holy Baptism, viz. that it should be administered once only,
was universally received. This is confessed on all hands.
And when we come to the Holy Eucharist, here, too, _the degree of
frequency_, as a law and as a _minimum_, of celebration, is defined
for us no less certainly. That this was, by universal consent and
practice, _weekly_,--namely, on every Lord's Day or Sunday--cannot
be gainsaid. That it was on occasion administered more frequently
still; that in some churches it became, we will not define how
early, even daily; that, according to some, the apostles, at the
very first, used it daily,--is beside the present question. The
point before us is, that there was no Church throughout the world
which failed, for the first three or four hundred years, to have
_everywhere a weekly celebration on the Sunday_, and to expect the
attendance of all Christians at that ordinance. Of this, I say,
there is no doubt. The custom of apostolic days is perfectly clear
from Acts xx. 7, and other passages. The testimony of Pliny, at
the beginning of the second century, is that the first Christians
met "on a stated day" for the Eucharist; while Justin Martyr (an.
150) makes it certain that that day was Sunday. And the testimony
of various subsequent writers proves that the practice continued
unbroken for three centuries. The Council of Elvira,[1] A.D. 305,
first inflicted the penalty of suspension from church privileges
on all who failed to be present for three successive Sundays; and
we know from our own Archbishop Theodore of Tarsus, A.D. 668, that
in the East that rule was still adhered to, though in the West the
penalty had ceased to be inflicted.
[1] Can. 21. It is referred to by Hosius at the Council of Sardica,
A.D. 347.
Now the ground which I venture to take up, as absolutely
irrefragable, is that it must needs be of most dangerous consequence
to depart from the apostolic and primitive eucharistic practice,
in _any_ of those things which were ancient and universal, and, as
such, we cannot doubt, ordained features of the Ordinance. Thus,
we rightly view with the utmost repugnance, and even sickness of
heart, the practice of the Western Church in later ages in respect
of the Elements; viz. her refusing to the laity, and to all but
the Celebrant himself, one half of the Holy Eucharist. We pity
or marvel at the flimsy pretences by which the fearful and cruel
decree, originating in the bestowal of exclusive privileges upon
the higher clergy,[2] is attempted to be justified, and its effects
to be explained away. The Western Church, we feel, must answer for
that to God as she can. But what right have we, I would ask, to
choose, among the essentials of the mysterious Ordinance, one which,
as we conceive, _we_ may dispense with, while we condemn others
who select for themselves another? And yet, what do we? what is
our practice? the practice so universally adopted throughout our
Church, that the exceptions are few, and but of yesterday; so that
those who contend for and practise the contrary are deemed visionary
and righteous over much? Alas! our practice may be stated in few
and fatally condemnatory words. The number of clergy in England
may be roundly stated at 20,000. Now, it was lately affirmed in a
Church Review of high standing, that the number who celebrate the
Holy Communion weekly in England is 200: that is to say, if this
estimate be correct, that _one in a hundred_ of our clergy conforms
to the apostolic and ecclesiastical law of the first centuries. This
statement, it is true, proves to be somewhat of an exaggeration. But
to what extent? The real number of churches where there is Holy
Communion every Sunday is, by recent returns, about 430.[3] The
number of churches in England is at least 12,000. That is to say,
that there are in England at this moment more than _eleven thousand_
parishes which, judged by the rule of the apostles, are false to
their Lord's dying command in a particular from which He left no
dispensation. It will be said, the Holy Eucharist is celebrated
in these parishes from time to time, only less _frequently_ than
of old. But who has told us that we may safely celebrate it less
frequently? How can we possibly know but that such infrequency is
direfully injurious? Take the analogy of the human body, which ever
serves to illustrate so well the nature of the Church's life. Take
pulsation, take respiration, or even food. Is not the _frequency_ of
every one of these mysterious conditions of life as certainly fixed,
as their necessity to life at all? Let pulsation or respiration
be suspended for a few minutes, or food for a few days, and what
follows but death, or trance at the best? And what know we, I ask,
of the appointed intervals for the awful _systole_ and _diastole_
of the Church's heart--of the appointed times of her inbreathing
and expiration of the _afflatus_ of the Divine Spirit--of the laws
regulating the frequency of her mysterious nourishment? What know
we, I say, of these things, but what we learn from the wondrous
Twelve, who taught us all we know of the kingdom of God?
[2] See Mabillon, referred to in Introduction to vol. ii. of 'The
Principles of Divine Service.'--P. 79, note _z_.
[3] See the 'Churchman's Diary' (Masters). Another return makes the
number only 328. See the 'Kalendar of the English Church.'
What may be the exact injury of such intermittent celebration
of the Divine Mysteries--of such scanty and self-chosen measures
of obedience to the commands of Christ,--I pretend not by these
analogies to decide. But surely it may well be that continuous and
unbroken weekly Eucharist is as a ring of magic power, if I may
use the comparison, binding in and rendering safe the Church's
mysterious life; and that _any_ rupture in that continuity is
exceedingly dangerous to her.
Or if it be contended, as not unnaturally it may, that this
particular circumstance of _frequency_, and of _weekly_ recurrence
may, notwithstanding the apostolic testimony to its importance,
be subject to variation, then I would desire to put the matter
from another point of view. One way of judging of the degree of
importance to be attached by us to any given religious element or
feature, is to observe what degree of divine care Almighty God
has bestowed in inculcating it upon the world. Thus, the Unity of
God, and again the necessity of sacrifice to atone for sin, or
procure admission to His favour, were attested throughout the whole
pre-evangelic history by special training, imparted, in the one
instance, to the Jews, in the other to all mankind.
But each of these instances of training is even surpassed by that
which God was pleased to impart respecting the mysterious Ordinance
of the WEEK. Creation, Redemption, Sanctification--the three great
phenomena of man's religious history--were all visibly based upon
the Week. About the Creation, and its septenary commemoration as
a religious ordinance, there is no real doubt whatever. In the
Jewish system the sabbath, or week, is the basis upon which the
whole structure rests.[4] And when the awful mystery of Redemption
itself was to be consummated, it was once more within the limits
of a single _week_ that the mighty drama was wrought out. From the
early morning of Palm Sunday, when our Lord entered Jerusalem as the
Lamb of God, Incarnate in order that He might suffer, to the early
morning of Easter Day, when He rose from the dead, a measured week,
rich in divine incident, ran out. Seven weeks, or a week of weeks,
again elapses, and the Spirit is sent down from on high for the
completion of the Church. All this indicates some deep mystery of
blessedness as attaching to the seven-days period in the matter of
man's relations to God. It cannot be alleged, indeed, as an absolute
_proof_ that the celebration of the Eucharist was also meant to be
of weekly recurrence, or that such recurrence would be the proper
and indefeasible law of its rightful administration. But it surely
renders that conclusion highly probable. For what purpose else, we
may ask, was all this training given? Why was the Jewish nation,
who were to be the first to receive the Gospel ordinances, and to
transmit them to mankind, carefully habituated to a seventh-day
rendering up of themselves to God? As regards the general principle
involved, it was doubtless because it is good that man should keep
with God these "short reckonings," which "make long" and eternal
"friends." But besides this, it was, as the ancient Jewish services
testify,[5] that they might keep in remembrance _two_ very wonderful
weeks of divine operation on their behalf, the week of Creation, and
the week of their own deliverance out of Egypt. What more likely
than that a seventh-day observance was to be perpetuated still, only
with reference to that antitypical Redemption, which itself also
was ordained to take place, as if for this very purpose, within the
compass of a week?
[4] See this admirably worked out in Dr. Moberly's Sermons on the
Decalogue.
[5] See this proved at large in 'Principles of Divine Service,' vol.
ii., pp. 284, _sqq._
In this point of view, the Christian Eucharist is the gathering up
of the memories of that wonderful week, called of old the "Great
Week," the "Week of Weeks." That such was its purpose might be
gathered even from the accustomed Day, no doubt appointed by Christ
Himself, for its celebration. This is not, as might perhaps have
been expected, the Thursday, the day of the Institution; not a day
in the middle of the week, but at the close of one week and the
beginning of another: that so it may look back on the marvels of the
Great Week, ever renewed in memory, and with deepest thankfulness
commemorate them. The original time of celebration in apostolic
days was at first, as it should seem, on the evening of the old
Sabbath; that is, according to the then reckoning, on the overnight
commencement, or eve, of the Sunday, on which the whole mystery was
consummated by the Resurrection. In the account of the celebration
at Troas, we find it to have been, from particular causes, already
past midnight when the celebration took place. By the time of
Pliny, in the first century, it had passed on to the morning hour
of Sunday, where it has continued ever since. Surely it is manifest
that, in the Divine Intention, the Church ought to pass week by
week, in solemn memory and mysterious sympathy, through the great
series of redeeming events, and crown her contemplation of them
by the great act of Oblation and Reception, which Christ himself
ordained for high memorial of these events, and to convey the
graces and powers flowing out of them. This is indeed to keep up a
"_continual remembrance_ of the Sacrifice of the death of Christ,
and of the benefits which we receive thereby." A weekly Eucharist is
really a _continual_ Eucharist, because it makes our whole life to
be nothing else than a living over again and again, with perpetual
application to our own practice, of those events and memories
which are the staple of the Ordinance. In this respect the Sunday
celebration of the Eucharist, viewed as crowning the week, possesses
a fitness, because a close following in the steps of Christ, in his
Incarnation and Passion, his Death and Burial and Resurrection,
which no other day can lay claim to. This fitness, of course,
reaches its height on Easter-Day, but is also realized in a very
high degree on our
"Easter Day in every week."
Nor are there wanting more positive and distinct intimations of the
Will of God in this matter, over and above the general presumptions
which have been adduced hitherto.
It is always a somewhat delicate task to gather from the provisions
of the Old Law sure and certain conclusions as to the destined ones
of the New; because some of the former were, as the event proved,
to be entirely abrogated, or however absorbed, while others were to
abide to the end, only with new powers. Thus, the multitude of slain
sacrifices was to disappear, being absorbed and done away in the One
Slain Sacrifice. But the bread and wine of the Elder Economy were
to survive, with added powers, in the New. We cannot, therefore,
assume with certainty that the seventh-day recurrence of any feast
of the Old Law, however close its resemblance to the Eucharist in
other respects, enforces of necessity a like seventh-day recurrence
of the Christian Ordinance. But thus much may be observed, as a law
pervading the transference of the old ways of service to the new
system, that there was to be no going back, or falling short, in
this point of frequency, but an equality at the lowest, and even
some advance in that respect. Thus, the great Continual Sacrifice
of the Tabernacle and Temple, consisting in the renewal, morning
and evening, of a lamb as a burnt offering, has passed on into
the _really_ continual, and not merely _renewed_, Offering and
Presentation in Heaven of the true Lamb once for all slain. The
eucharistic or peace-offerings, again, personal or congregational,
which bear so close an analogy to the Holy Eucharist, were only
offered and partaken of, as an absolute rule, three times in the
year, though they might be, and were, offered and eaten more
frequently. So that the frequency of the Christian Eucharist, once
a week as a _minimum_, was a clear advance upon this.--But there
was another Ordinance very closely resembling the Eucharist. This
was the Shewbread. The materials of it were bread and wine; it was
offered and eaten as a memorial of the one continual sacrifice,
and as a means of presenting before God the Church of that day,
the twelve tribes of Israel. The analogy, therefore, is perfect;
especially in that no part of the offering was consumed by fire,
but the whole of that which was offered was also eaten, exactly as
in the Eucharist. That this particular Ordinance was to survive,
accordingly, with the least possible amount of transformation, in
the Gospel economy, was foretold, apparently, by Malachi. For to
this we may most safely refer his prediction, that "in every place
incense should be offered, and a pure offering;" the terms "pure
offering," and "incense," being especially applied to this rite;
and the subject treated of being the negligence of the priests,
to whom this ordinance was confined. _How often_, then, was this
offering presented and partaken of? weekly--neither more nor less;
namely, on the Sabbath morning; it having been placed on the Table
of Shewbread the Sabbath before, and being now consecrated, or
offered, by burning, upon the altar of incense, the frankincense
which had been placed on the top of the loaves for that purpose.
This "Weekly Celebration and Communion," then, as it may rightly
be called, certifies to us, on the principle above laid down, that
the Christian Eucharist, its very counterpart or continuation, was
to be weekly as a _minimum_. The same analogy would suggest, what
we know to have been the case from very early times, that the
Christian rite was not, like the Jewish, to be _limited_ to a weekly
performance. In this respect, as well as in the extension of the
rite to all Christians, now become "Priests unto God," the antitype
was to rise, on occasion at least, above the type; even to the
degree, at high seasons, or under special circumstances, of a daily
celebration. And the fact that the bread and wine offered on each
Sabbath had already lain there a week, gives much countenance to
the view advocated above, that the Christian rite is, on the Lord's
Day, retrospective, inclusive of the memories of the preceding week.
For the idea manifestly was that, in the twelve loaves, the twelve
tribes lay in a mystery all the week long, with all their actions,
before the Divine Majesty.
But we may, with much probability, go one step further, and say that
Our Lord himself, in the very words of the Institution, gave no
obscure intimation that the law of recurrence of the Ordinance was
to be that which is here contended for. Among those words there is
one, though but one, which bears upon the question of frequency. It
is, "Do this, _as oft as ye drink_, for My memorial" ὃσακις
αν πινητε]). What is the allusion here? Had the Jews any custom
at that time of "drinking" wine in solemn religious "memorial" of
national mercies; for which this greater "Memorial," of world-wide
meaning, was henceforth to be substituted? and if so, how often did
that rite recur, and what law would thus be suggested or prescribed
for the New "Memorial"?
Now, that they had such a rite[6] at that time, is rendered
infinitely probable by the fact that they have such a one at this
day; and of such a structure, and involving such reference to the
ancient system of sacrifice, as though actually going on, that it is
inconceivable but that it must have existed before the destruction
of the temple, and abolition of the law. It consisted of offering
and consecrating, at the Synagogue Service, _on the eve of every
Sabbath_, a cup of wine, which was then drunk of, first by the
consecrator, and then by the orphan children there present:--a
touching rite, signifying (as appears by the prayers accompanying
it) the fatherless condition of the nation when in Egypt, and God's
mercy in bringing them out of it, to drink of the fruit of the vine
in their own land. There were also prayers for the acceptance of the
great continual sacrifice of the nation, then lying on the altar in
the temple; for peace; for grace to keep the commandments. In all
respects, therefore, this rite bore a very close resemblance, in its
own sphere, to that which our Lord was instituting: He, too, having
offered a cup of wine, presenting thereby the Sacrifice of His
Blood, and enjoined that it should be then and ever after drunk of
in thankful memorial and all-powerful pleading of that sacrificial
deliverance. And there was yet another Sabbath-eve rite, nearly
akin to this one, only that it was a domestic rite, and performed
_at supper_, and with _bread_ as well as wine; features which, of
course, assimilated this latter form of the rite still more closely
to what our Lord was doing.
[6] See 'Principles of Divine Service,' vol. ii., pp. 284-298.
Let it be supposed then,--and it seems to be incontestable, if the
existence of the rites at that time may be safely assumed,--that
to these rites our Lord alluded, both generally in the whole
Institution (though of course he referred to many other and greater
rites too), and specially in the words--"As oft as ye drink." We
then have from Himself a plain intimation as to the degree of
frequency of Celebration. Such an intimation would, apart from
subsequent instructions during the Forty Days, account for the
"First day of the week" being mentioned for celebration, as if a
fixed habit, in the Acts of the Apostles.
These things considered then;--the deep mystery for good attaching,
from the very Creation downwards, to the seventh-day recurrence
of religious ordinances; the special fitness of such a law of
recurrence in the case of the Holy Eucharist, because it is the
summing up of a Divine Week's Work of Redemption and Salvation;
the sharply defined presignification, by means of the Law and the
Prophets, the shewbread and Malachi, of a seventh-day rite of
universal obligation, and blessedness yet to come; lastly, and chief
of all, the brief but pregnant command of Our LORD Himself, gathered
with the utmost probability from the very words of the Institution;
and all this, not left to our inference, but actually countersigned
by the unvarying practice of the Church throughout the world for
three hundred years:--all this considered, I conceive that we have
very strong grounds indeed for affirming the proper obligation of
this law of recurrence, and for earnestly desiring that it might
please the Great Head of the Church to put it into the mind of this
branch of it to return, with all her heart, to the discharge of this
most bounden duty.
I have preferred, in what has been said, to place this duty on
the lofty ground of zeal for the integrity of the great Mystery
of our religion, and of reverence for the commands of Christ, and
the practice of His Apostles, rather than on the lower ones of
expediency and advantage. And in this light I would earnestly desire
that it may be primarily regarded. The _only_ question for any
branch of God's Church ought to be, What is commanded? What did God
Almighty intend, and types foreshadow, and Christ enjoin, and the
Apostles practise? Whatever _that_ was, it must be right for us to
aim at, and to strive for it with all our hearts.
Yet I would not have it supposed but that there is every reason
to hope for the largest measures of blessing, and of spiritual
results, from a return to this practice. I will mention one very
great scandal, the very canker and weakness of our whole parochial
system, which has a fair likelihood of being removed by this means.
Next to the infrequency of our Communions, the fewness of our
communicants,--that is, in fact, of our _bonâ fide_ members of the
Church,--is our greatest and most inveterate evil. When this fewness
is allowed its due significance, we must see and confess that the
nominally Christian condition of this country is but an illusion
and an untruth after all. Judged by our own Church's rule (which
is the rule of Christ Himself), our _communicants_, and they only,
are our people. The rest may call themselves what they will; or we
may for euphony call them "our flocks," or God's people. But one
thing is certain, that in those apostolic or early days to which
we ever appeal, and rightly, as our standard, they would have been
held to be reprobates, and no faithful members of Christ's body at
all. Such then is our condition:--a miserable handful, even among
those who are nominally members of the Church, having any claim to
the title in reality. Now, how are these wanderers to be brought
back? these abortive or moribund Christians to be induced to accept
the gift of life, through the indispensable Sacrament? Surely, for
the most part, even in the same way as converts are brought in, one
by one, in heathen lands. Public ministrations, sermons, services,
will not do it. It is a personal effort, a personal rendering up
of self, that is needed; and it is only by seizing and pressing,
in private intercourse, the chance occasions of speech, the day of
sorrow, or of conviction of sin, that we can induce men to make this
effort. But, unhappily, when they are prepared to make it, in the
vast majority of our parishes, the "Communion Sunday" is too often
a far-off event: and before it arrives the favourable impression
and disposition has passed away. While, on the other hand, the
ever-ready rite secures the communicant. In saying this, I am not
merely theorizing, but describing what I have found to take place
within my own experience. It has been found that in this way nearly
one-third of the entire population of a parish may be brought in a
few years to Holy Communion. Surely some may be induced to try the
effect, were it with this view only, of the restoration of Weekly
Celebration.
I am well aware, indeed, of the difficulties which, in many cases,
stand in the way of such a restoration, and on these I would venture
to say a few words.
In the first place, then, the state of things which prevails
among us, and of which I have above ventured to speak in such
strong language of deprecation, is one which we of this generation
have not made, but inherited. It is not we, God be thanked, that
have diminished, but rather, in almost all cases, increased, the
frequency of our celebrations. The guilt of this evil custom is
shared by the whole Church of fifteen hundred years past; and
therefore we must not be surprised if very great difficulties are
found in correcting it. The history of the desuetude, which we
behold and deplore, is simply this. For nearly three centuries,
scarcely any breach was made in the Church's Eucharistic practice.
Not only was there universal weekly celebration, but universal
weekly reception also; with only such abatement, doubtless, as
either discipline or unavoidable hindrance entailed. But the ninth
of the so-called Apostolic canons, belonging probably to the third
century, speaks of some "who came in to hear the Scriptures, but
did not remain for the prayer (_i.e._ the Communion service) and
holy reception." All such were to be suspended from Communion,
as "bringing disorder into the Church," _i.e._ apparently (with
reference to 2 Thess. iii. 6), as "walking disorderly, and not
after the tradition received from the Apostles." By about A.D.
305, the Council of Elvira, as cited above, orders suspension
after absence from the Church _three successive_ Sundays: a
curious indication of "monthly Communions" having been an early,
as it continues to this day a favourite, form of declension from
primitive practice. But by St. Chrysostom's time (c. 400) so rapidly
had the evil increased, that he speaks of some who received but
twice a year; and even of there being on occasion none at all to
communicate. But this seems to have been but local, since we find
the Council of Antioch, A.D. 341, reiterating the Apostolic canon:
and even three centuries later, the old rule of suspension for three
absences was still in force in the East; as Theodore of Tarsus,
Archbishop of Canterbury in 668, testifies of the _Greek_ Church,
from which he came. But even in the East the decline was rapid.
The Apostolical usage, confirmed by the ninth canon, was admitted
to be binding; but obedience to it was given up as hopeless. Nay,
even the laxer rule of Elvira was stretched by Canonists,[7] so as
to recognise _attendance without reception_ as sufficient. In the
West the habit was all along laxer still than in the East. At Rome,
as Theodore tells us, no penalty was inflicted for failing to
communicate for three Sundays; but the more devout still received
every Sunday and Saint's-day in the time of St. Bede; whereas in
England, as St. Bede tells us, even the more religious laity did
not _presume_ to communicate--so utterly had the Apostolic idea of
Communion perished--except at Christmas, Epiphany, and Easter. Some
attempt was made in Spain and France[8] in the sixth century to
revive the pure Apostolic rule. But meanwhile the Council of Agde,
held in 506, discloses the actual state of things by prescribing,
as the condition of Church membership, _three_ receptions in the
year--at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost.[9] The recognition of
this miserable pittance of grace, as sufficient for membership in
Christ, was rapidly propagated through East and West; and remains,
unhappily, as the _litera scripta_ of two out of the three great
branches of the Church--the Eastern and the English--to this day. In
the Roman Church, ever since the Fourth Lateran Council in 1214, but
_one_ reception a year is enjoined under penalty; viz. at Easter.
The English Church, however, never accepted the Lateran decree;
but by Canons of Salisbury (about 1270), and of Lambeth (1378),
re-affirmed the thrice-a-year rule. By the time of the Reformation,
however, as is evident from the rubric attached to the Communion
Office in Edward VI.'s First Book, reception once a year had become
the recognised minimum in this country also. Meanwhile the miserable
practice grew up, as a result of the lack of communicants, of the
priest celebrating a so-called "Communion," on occasion at least,
alone. It is probable that in the earlier days, as _e. g._ of St.
Chrysostom, there were always clergy to receive; the "parochial"
system of that time being to congregate several clergy at one cure.
But in the ninth century, solitary celebrations existed extensively,
and were forbidden,[10] in the West. Not, however, to much purpose.
It soon became the rule, rather than the exception, for the priest
to celebrate alone; and thus it continued until the Reformation.
The Council of Trent contented itself with feebly wishing things
were otherwise; and justified the abuse on the ground of vicarious
celebration and spiritual communion.
[7] So Balsamon, in the twelfth century: "Though some desire by
means of this Canon to oblige those who come to Church to receive
the Sacraments against their will, yet we do not; for we decide that
the faithful are to stay to the end of the Divine Sacrifice; but we
do not force them to communicate."--See Scudamore, 'Communion of the
Faithful,' p. 58. Yet later writers acknowledged the true meaning of
the Canon, though they thus condemned the existing practice of the
Church.--Ibid.
[8] Council of Lugo, A.D. 572; of Maçon, A.D. 585.
[9] "Sæculares qui natale Domini, pascha et pentecosten non
communicaverint, catholici non credantur nec inter catholicos
habeantur."--Concil. Agath., c. 18.
[10] Council of Paris (829).
It was in her gallant and noble protest, single-handed, against this
vast and desolating perversion of the Ordinance of Christ, that the
English Church, far from her own desire, and only borne down by the
accumulated abuse of ages, lapsed into that unhappy desuetude of the
Weekly Celebration, which prevails so widely to this hour. In her
First Revised Communion Office she provided that, in order "that the
receiving of the Sacrament may be most agreeable _to the Institution
thereof, and to the usage of the Primitive Church_, some one, at the
least, of that house in every parish, to whom it appertaineth to
offer [at the Offertory] for the charges of the Communion, or some
other whom they shall provide, shall receive the Communion with the
Priest."[11] It is added, that "on _week-days_ he shall _forbear
to celebrate except he have some that will communicate with him_."
Another rubric provided, that "on Wednesdays and Fridays" (which
had traditionally[12] been the great week-days for celebration in
this country), "though there might be none to communicate with the
priest, yet on those days" (after the Litany ended) "he should
put on a plain albe or surplice, with a cope, and say all things
at the altar appointed to be said at the celebration, until after
the Offertory." And this rule was extended to "all other days,"
meaning apparently customary high holydays, occurring in the week,
"whensoever the people were customably assembled to pray in the
church, and none disposed to communicate with the priest."
[11] Rubric at the end of the Communion Service, 1549.
[12] Thus, in the Sarum Use, separate Epistles and Gospels are
provided for those days throughout Advent, Epiphany, and Easter,
till Whitsuntide; for Wednesdays only throughout the Trinity period.
Thus was a solemn protest made, and not in word only, as in other
parts of the Church, but by outward deed, against the unpardonable
and fatal neglect of the people to avail themselves of the ordinance
of Christ. On _Sundays_ only (so the rubric seems to mean) a
peculiar provision was made, so that there should, without fail, be
attendants at the celebration. But on week-days, on which there was
no such Divine obligation to celebrate, the Church would carry her
protest still further. While vesting her ministers, as if ready, for
their parts, for the rite, she would refuse to volunteer a mode of
celebration, for which there was no precedent in the early and pure
days of Christianity.
Such appears to have been the intention of the First Book of
Edward VI. The expedient of performing the Communion Service up to
a certain point only, on Wednesdays and Fridays, was manifestly
adopted from the ancient Church of Alexandria, where, as Socrates
has recorded, exactly this usage prevailed on those days. In the
Second Book of Edward VI. (revised, be it remembered, in part by
members of the same Committee of Divines as the First was, and
professing the same doctrine),[13] the provision for the compulsory
attendance of each household in turn was laid aside, probably as
being found impracticable. And now at length the step was taken, to
which sound principles of action had in reality pointed all along;
and it was ordained that, if the people, appealed to as they had
been, and would continue still to be, persisted on any given Sunday
in excommunicating themselves, they should even be permitted to
do so. The great unreality of a Communion, which was no Communion
according to the Ordinance of Christ, should be done away. The
minister should still be ready on all Sundays and holydays at
the altar; but it would be left, awfully left, for the people to
say whether Christ's ordinance should have place, or whether its
continuity should be violated, and its benefits so far forfeited.
[13] See 'Principles of Divine Service,' Introd. to Part II., p.
123-129. Mr. Perry ('Declaration on Kneeling') arrives at the same
conclusion.
And who will deny that such a course was, though a choice of evils,
the right one? What had the other practice done, but lull the Church
of God into a fatal satisfaction with a state of things as widely
different from primitive Eucharist and primitive Christianity, as
any one thing can well be from another? And if those other sad
results have followed, which we behold before our eyes, let not
the blame be laid on the age which has inherited, but on the ages
which had accumulated and transmitted, such an inveterate habit
of neglect to receive the Holy Communion. Be it remembered, too,
that (as has been well pointed out of late) the period of the
Great Rebellion caused an entire suspension of the Church's proper
rites. "The Sacrament was laid aside, in those distracting times,
in many parishes in the kingdom, for near twenty years." (Bishop
Patrick.) "This solemn part of religion was almost quite forgotten;
the Remembrance of Christ's Death was soon lost among Christians."
(Archbishop Tillotson.) "The Sacrament was laid aside, in Cromwell's
days, in most parishes in the nation. In many churches there was no
_speaking_ of the Sacrament for fifteen or sixteen years; till it
was feared the Lord's Supper would come to be ranked among those
superstitious ceremonies that must be abolished." (Dr. Durell.)
These testimonies considered, the real wonder would be if there had
_not_ been found very great difficulty in bringing back, at the time
of the Restoration, the primitive habit of Weekly Celebration. And
now that we have added two hundred years more of neglect, we have to
face the mighty difficulty of awakening a whole nation, of clergy
and laity alike, to a due sense of our very grievous departure from
that Apostolic model, to which professedly we appeal as our standard
of duty.
And the task would seem to be hopeless, were it not, 1st, that a
great and powerful movement tending to this result has already
for many years been going forward; and, 2nd, that there is reason
for believing that vast numbers of the clergy are really anxious
to restore the primitive practice, and are only held back by
difficulties, either real or imagined. Of this latter fact it is in
my power to speak with some confidence; since I have been frequently
urged, by no inconsiderable number of my brethren, to set forth, as
I have now very imperfectly endeavoured to do, the grounds for such
a restoration.
What then, supposing the clergy to be really anxious for it, are
the difficulties in the way? The first and most obvious is that of
finding a sufficient number of Communicants. This is to be overcome
in a great measure by careful heed to that pregnant charge given to
the clergy at their Ordination, "So to sanctify the lives of _them
and theirs_, and to _fashion them after the Rule and Doctrine of
Christ_, that they" (that is the clergy and their households) "may
be godly examples and patterns for the people to follow." And again
they are charged "to frame the manners of _them that specially
pertain to them_." These injunctions suggest, that in the families
and dependences of the parochial clergy ought to be found a nucleus
and centre of all Christian living. Frequent Communion, at the
least--weekly, if possible--should be the normal condition of the
Clergyman's household, and of all who are allowed any special part
in, or connexion with, the Services of the Church. Care being taken
of this, it may well be hoped that at least a gradual reform might
be made: the stereotyped monthly Communions being exchanged for
a fortnightly, and finally for the full "orbed round" of Weekly
Celebration.
But there is also a _vis inertiæ_ to be overcome, among the middle
classes more especially, in the form of an objection to frequent
Celebration at all. This, being founded in misapprehension, and
a vague general distrust of the object of such changes, must be
removed, in part by full and earnest setting forth of the grounds
for them; but still more by extending to those classes a fuller
measure of education, including, as it cannot fail to do, a juster
conception of the Church's duty and claims.
Another difficulty is the increased amount of labour which a weekly
Communion, if largely attended, as it ought to be, would entail
upon the clergy. This may in part be compensated for by keeping
the eucharistic sermon within more moderate limits. Even so,
however, the service is to the full long and laborious for a priest
single-handed; while the great majority of benefices are unable to
maintain a second clergyman, even in Deacon's Orders. And the true
remedy for this, and for the kindred difficulty of maintaining the
Daily Service, would seem to lie in that revival of the Order of
Subdeacons which has of late been so much urged, and which seems
likely to be countenanced by our ecclesiastical authorities.[14]
The duties of a Subdeacon might, it is thought, include the reading
of the daily Office (excepting, of course, the Absolution), of
the Epistle, and some other subordinate portions of the Communion
Service. And it may be worth considering (though I offer the
suggestion with much diffidence), seeing that the Diaconate, as used
among us, trenches so largely upon the duties of old assigned to the
priest (such as preaching), whether it would not be proportionate
that the Subdeacon should be advanced, in some cases, to a
restrained Diaconate, and administer the Cup also. Such a provision
would diminish by one-half the time and labour of administration.
[14] See 'The Revival of the Subdiaconate,' a pamphlet; and the
Suggestions of the Archdeacon of London, put forth in his Charge
of 1850, and lately revised at a meeting of his Clergy of his
Archdeaconry, "not without the full knowledge and sanction of the
Archbishops and of the Bishop of London."
On the whole, I cannot but hope that, if our Right Reverend Fathers
in God, the Bishops, should think fit to press upon their clergy,
and they upon their flocks, the duty of Weekly Celebration as alone
fulfilling the commandment of Christ, a great deal might be done
towards rolling away this heavy reproach from us.
And let it be borne in mind, as an encouragement, that this is the
_only_ point absolutely wanting to complete our agreement, in every
particular, with the apostolic practice. Such of our churches as
have already, week by week, a fairly attended Celebration, to which
all the faithful are heartily invited and urged to come,--such
churches exhibit a spectacle of really Apostolical Eucharistic
Service, such as the whole world beside cannot produce. Neither in
East or West, but in the English Church only, is weekly Communion,
as the bounden duty of all Christians, so much as dreamt of; so
utterly has the apostolic model, throughout Christendom, faded from
the memory of the Church of God.
* * * * *
I turn now to another form of eucharistic error which has obtained
some footing among us. In what has been said above, the mind and
practice of the _first ages_ have been appealed to as the absolute
standard of eucharistic duty. And on this point we cannot, surely,
be too solicitous, or too firm in resisting any departure from it.
Such is, at any rate, the mind of the English Church. "Before all
things we must be sure that this Sacrament be ministered in such
wise as our Saviour did, and the good fathers in the primitive
Church frequented it." The position amounts to this,--that whatever
was then held to be true, and was acted upon, must be true, and
ought to be acted upon still. And the converse position is no less
important,--that whatever was demonstrably _not_ held nor was acted
upon then, cannot be true at all, and ought not to be acted upon now.
But this position has now, for some few years past, been, in
practice, abandoned by some who have interested themselves in the
eucharistic condition of the English Church. Doctrines have been
maintained, and practices founded upon them, about which, whatever
defence may be set up for them, thus much at least is certain, and
can be proved to demonstration, that they find no recognition in the
ritual of the primitive ages.
I speak more especially of the tenet, that one purpose, and a
very principal one to say the least, of the Holy Eucharist, is to
_provide the Church with an object of Divine Worship, actually
enshrined in the Elements--namely, our Lord Jesus Christ_; and
that the Church ought accordingly to pay towards that supposed
personal Presence of Christ on the altar, and towards the Elements
as containing Him, that worship, which at other times she directs to
Him as seated at the Right Hand of God. Such is the position laid
down and acted upon.
Now, it might be shewn that there are infinite objections to this
tenet, and that it involves vast difficulties and perplexities. But
the one answer which is _instar omnium_, and must be held to be
absolutely decisive against it, is that it was evidently _unknown to
the mind, because unrecognised by the Ritual, of the first ages_.
The altar, we are told, is, for the time being, the Majestic Throne
of Christ; His Presence there (I cite the language of the upholders
of this view) is of such a nature as to demand at our hands the same
worship as we commonly pay to the Holy Trinity in Heaven. Now, if
this be really so, it necessitates, as a matter of course, acts of
Service, of Worship, of Prayer, of Invocation, addressed to Christ
so present and so enthroned. Let, then, the upholders of it produce
a _single instance_ from the Ancient Communion Offices of a prayer,
or even an invocation, so addressed. It cannot be done. Or if there
be found such an one lurking in some remote corner of a Liturgy, its
manifest departure from the whole tone and bearing of the rest of
the Office stamps it at once as late and unauthoritative.
And this is the leading consideration,--that the entire drift and
structure of the Eucharistic Service is against such a view. _Its_
keynote is "_Sursum corda_." This we are now called upon to give
up, and to turn our worship, and the direction of our hearts, to
an object enshrined on earth.--But besides this, the Liturgies
throughout speak of that which is consecrated, and lies upon the
altar, as _Things_, and not as a person. But if it be indeed Christ
Himself that lies there, is it reverent to speak of HIM as "Things,"
"Offerings," or even as "Mysteries"? Yet what is the language of the
ancient Liturgies, after the consecration? "Bestow on us benefit
from these Offerings" (Lit. S. Chrys.). "That we may become worthy
partakers of Thy holy Mysteries" (Syr. Lit. S. James). "Holy Things
for holy persons:" or (as it is otherwise rendered) "The Holy
Things to the Holy Places;" or in the Western uses, "Desire these
Things (_hæc_) to be carried up by the hands of Thy Holy Angel
unto thy sublime altar, into the Presence of Thy Majesty." It is
intelligible, that for the divine and mysterious _Things_, the Body
and Blood of Christ, we should desire contact with the mysterious
heavenly altar, on which "the Lamb that was slain" personally
presents Himself; but that we should desire this for Christ Himself
would be incomprehensible, if not irreverent.
And let these words of S. Chrysostom's Liturgy be especially
pondered: "Hear us, O Lord Jesus Christ, out of Thy Holy
Dwelling-place, and from the _Throne of the glory of Thy kingdom_;
Thou that sittest above with the Father, and here art invisibly
present with us: and by thy mighty Hand _give us to partake_ of Thy
spotless Body and Thy precious Blood." Is it not perfectly certain
from hence, that, in the conception of antiquity, Our Blessed Lord
was _not_ lying personally upon the altar? that, personally, He was,
as regards His Majestic Presence, on His Throne in Heaven? and as
regards His Mysterious Presence on earth, it was to be sought, not
in or under the Elements, but (according to the proper law of it) in
and among the faithful, the Church of God there present? For He is
invited to come, by an especial efflux or measure of that Presence,
and to give the mysterious Things, His Body and Blood.
The same conclusion follows from the language of the Fathers, taken
in its full range. Let any one examine Dr. Pusey's exhaustive catena
of passages from the Fathers, concerning the "Real Presence," and he
will find that, for one instance in which That which is on the Altar
is spoken of as if it were Christ Himself, it is called a hundred
times by the title, "His Body and Blood." The latter is manifestly
the exact truth; the former the warm and affectionate metonymy,
which gives to the mysterious Parts, the Body and Blood, the titles
due only properly to the Divine and Personal Whole.
Vain then, and necessarily erroneous, because utterly devoid of
countenance from the ancient Apostolic Rites, are the inferences
by which this belief is supported. Though, indeed, the fallacy of
the inferences themselves is sufficiently apparent. It is said that
Christ's Body, wherever it is, and under whatsoever conditions
existing, must demand and draw Divine Worship towards it. Is it so
indeed? Then why, I would ask, do we not pay Divine Worship to the
CHURCH? for the Church certainly is "His Body, His Flesh, and His
Bones." Nay, why do we not worship the individual communicant? for
he, certainly, has received not only Christ's Body, but Christ's
very Self, to dwell within him. The truth is, that inferences, in
matters of this mysterious nature, are perfectly untrustworthy,
unless supported and countersigned by apostolic practice.
I am aware that this doctrine has been embraced, of late years, by
some of the most devout and eminent of our divines. But the history
of their adoption of it is such, that we may allege themselves, in
the exercise of their own earlier and unbiassed judgment, against
their present opinions. The names of those divines are named with
reverence and affection, and justly so, wherever the English
language is spoken. But the works, on which that estimate was first
founded, upheld, explicitly or tacitly, the opposite of that to
which they now lend the high sanction of their adhesion. A sermon
on the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Eucharist was called forth
from one of them by a sentence of suspension from preaching in
the University pulpit at Oxford. But this full exposition of his
eucharistic views at that time is absolutely devoid of any claim
for Divine Adoration as due to the Body and Blood of Christ, or to
Christ Himself as present under the Eucharistic Elements. Again, in
a well-known stanza of the 'Christian Year,' another honoured divine
has said,--
"O come to our Communion Feast;
There present in the heart,
_Not in the hands_, th' eternal Priest
Will His true self impart."[15]
[15] It is true that another part of the same exquisite volume
speaks of--
"The dear feast of JESUS dying,
_Upon that altar ever lying_,
Where souls, with sacred hunger sighing,
Are called to sit and eat, while angels prostrate fall."
But this is exactly an instance of the warm metonymy above spoken
of, and cannot be pressed against the distinct disallowance,
contained in the passage quoted in the text, of there being a
_personal Presence_ of Christ in the Elements.
And it is believed that the first appearance in a modern days of
the _former_ doctrine, viz. that worship is due to the Body and
Blood of Christ, was in the year 1856, in the case of Ditcher _v._
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.
[16] See note at the end.
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 Rite
_without 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 which _partaking_ was 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]
[17] Rev. W. Scudamore's 'Communion of the Faithful.'
[18] This is fully proved by Scudamore, 'Communion of the Faithful,'
pp. 107-120.
And in truth it is, as might be expected, to the later and corrupt
ages of the Church that we owe both 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."
[19] Council of Trent, Session 13, c. 1. See 'Principles of Divine
Service,' Introd. to vol. ii., pp. 158-187.
[20] Session 22, c. 6.
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 introduce is a _new
cultus_, and a _new 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."
[21] See Mr. Keble's letter in the 'Guardian,' Jan. 24, 1866.
* * * * *
From RITES, I turn to RITUAL, 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 and _Administration 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 their Ordination, 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.
[22] Preface concerning the Service of the Church.
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 Sealed Book, 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.
[23] It is provided for, as is well known, by the Act of Uniformity,
13 & 14 Car. II.
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 Churches where 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.
[24] See, in proof of this, the admirable letter, which, by the kind
permission of the Rev. J. B. Dyke, late Precentor of Durham, I have
placed in the Appendix.
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, is _not_ the Book of Common
Prayer, pure and simple, _but_ that 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 definite
as 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 actual _status_ is 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 Church _is_,
what she has most untruly been asserted to be in other points,
namely, broad and _alternative_ in 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, and at 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, or _ministering the sacraments_, or other rites of the
Church, shall wear a decent and comely _surplice_ with 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 concerning _vestments_ more 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 Church_ as 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
ministers thereof_, 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 the
_Church_," which might have seemed to be irrespective of vestments,
was now substituted "ornaments of the Church, _and of the ministers_
thereof." 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, the _Second_ Book of Edward VI. (1552), having distinctly
_forbidden_ those 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 shall _have and wear_ a
surplice only:" the Elizabethan clergy would, owing to the reaction
after Queen Mary's reign, be inclined to recur to that position
rather than to retain the other vestments. Some, indeed, _did_
retain 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]
[25] See note M, p. 49, of Mr. Skinner's recent 'Plea for the
threatened Ritual of the Church of England.'
[26] Skinner, p. 48. Archbishop Grindal, and Bishop Sandys (1571-76)
urged their destruction.