survived, even through Elizabeth's reign; viz. the cope (of course
with the alb), chiefly in cathedrals. For so it is recognised in
the 24th canon of 1603. "In all cathedrals and collegiate churches
the Holy Communion shall be administered upon principal feast-days
by the Bishop, the Dean, or a Canon or Prebendary, _the principal
minister_ [_i. e._ celebrant] _using a decent cope_." This was
in accordance, as far as it went, with the original rubric of
Edward VI.'s First Book. "The priest that shall execute the holy
ministry shall put upon him ... a vestment, or _cope_." But during
the Elizabethan period two limitations had, practically, been
introduced; the _cope_, only, was used; and chiefly, though not
exclusively, in cathedral churches only.[27] However, the fact
that to this extent the rubric of Edward VI. was still acted upon,
might well encourage the revisers of 1662 to contemplate a general
return to its provisions.[28] It was but a hundred years ago that
they had fallen into desuetude; and the devout zeal of Bishop Cosin,
and others among the revisers, on behalf of the Eucharist, would
lead them to desire the restoration of whatever, in their judgment,
would tend to its higher honour and more becoming celebration.
Cosin himself was accustomed, as a Prebendary of Durham Cathedral,
to wear the cope, and to see it worn by others; and not by the
celebrant only, but by the attendant clergy. For in his answer to
the articles of impeachment sent to the House of Lords against him
in 1640, he says "That the copes used in that Church were brought
in thither long before his time. One there was that had the story
of the Passion embroidered upon it; but _the cope that he used
to wear_, when at any time he _attended the Communion Service_,
was of plain white satin only, without any embroidery upon it at
all."[29] The canon of 1603 must not, therefore, be understood
as _confining_ the use of the cope to the celebrant, but only as
providing that the celebrant, _at least_, must, in cathedrals, be
so apparelled. It may be added, that the copes still preserved in
Durham Cathedral, and only disused[30] within a century, are a proof
that, in this point at any rate, it is but very recently that the
Edwardian "ornaments" ceased to be used in the English Church in our
cathedrals; while, in a solitary instance, that of the Coronation
Service, the use of copes by the Archbishop, the attendant Bishops,
and by the Dean and Canons of Westminster, survives to the present
day.
[27] 1636. "Must other churches have _copes_, because such is the
guise of cathedrals?" St. Giles' in the Fields and St. Leonard's,
Shoreditch, are named in 1640. An Act of 1644 orders copes to be
sold in parish churches.--(Hierurgia Anglicana, p. 164.)
[28] It is very remarkable, on the other hand, that, as was pointed
out in the recent debate in Convocation, Cosin, and others of the
revisers, especially Archbishop Sheldon, still made inquiry in their
Visitations, not as to the other vestments, but the surplice only.
The only solution would seem to be, that, personally, they wished
the vestments restored, but, finding no response to their wishes,
fell into the usual track of Visitation Articles.
[29] Life of Cosin, prefixed to his Works, in the "Anglo-Catholic"
Library.
[30] By Bishop Warburton, it is said, circ., 1770.
The bearing of these facts upon our subject is, that they prove that
it was in no merely antiquarian spirit that our latest revisers
retained the far-famed rubric of Edward VI. It was as having been
accustomed to see a due access of honour and dignity accruing to the
Holy Rite, that they wished, not merely to retain what had survived,
in practice, of that rubric, but to restore the parts of it which
had fallen into disuse; to bring back, everywhere, with the less
correct cope, that which in the rubric enjoyed a preference--the
"vestment" or chasuble,--and whatever else the rubric involved. They
hoped that the day was come, or that it would come ere long, when
the surplice would, in respect of the Communion Service, yield to
the proper "vestment" its "ancient usual place."[31]
[31] It is remarkable that the Canons which are contrariant to the
Rubric have no existence in the _Irish_ Canons passed in their
Convocation in 1634. The 7th Canon is "All ministers shall use and
observe the orders, rites, ornaments, and ceremonies prescribed in
the Book of Common Prayer, and in the Act of Uniformity printed
therewith, as well in saying of Prayers as in administration of the
Sacrament." (See Mr. Baker's letter to the 'Church Review,' March
17, 1866). The same canon enforces the surplice and hood for deans,
canons, &c., for Prayers, without mentioning the Holy Communion.
And the reason why they did not at the same time procure the formal
abolition of the Canon of 1603, which recognises the surplice
for parish churches, is, we can hardly doubt, that they wished
to leave the practical working out of the change to time, and to
the voluntary action of the parochial clergy. There had existed
ever since the year 1559 a diversity in practice; and, ever since
Elizabeth's "Advertisements," an actual alternative in the Church's
orders about vestments. That alternative they did not care to
remove. It was by desuetude that the irregular habit had first come
in, until it obtained recognition by the Canon of 1604: it was to
desuetude that they trusted for the removal of it. Meanwhile, those
who chose to plead usage and the canon on the one hand, and those
who preferred to plead the statute law of the Rubric on the other,
were both alike in a fairly defensible position. Two modes, in
short, of vesting the clergy for the Holy Communion were practically
recognised at the latest settlement of our Offices; and, until some
new enactment should supersede the one or the other, must continue
to be recognised still.
Such, I say, appears to be the position of the law, and of clerical
duty or obligation, at the present moment. Beyond all question, this
"Church and Realm hath received" and recognised, _practically_, an
alternative in this matter. She has not bound her sons absolutely,
and without choice, either to the older or the later practice.
Her position, as defined by the action of some of the wisest and
best of her sons on the last occasion--two hundred years ago--of
reconsidering her constitution, has been one of observation and of
hope; of waiting to see which way, in a matter non-essential, though
far from unimportant, the mind of her sons would carry her.
And now a time has arrived when the question, after slumbering for
two centuries, has awakened, and, in a practical form, demands an
answer.
Hitherto,--that is, from the time of Elizabeth (1559) until now,--no
marked desire has been manifested by the parochial clergy to carry
out the original provisions of the Prayer-book in this matter. But
now that step has--whether by more or fewer of them I stop not
now to inquire--been taken. There are churches in this land where
the long-disused "Ornaments" have been assumed. That which the
First Book of Edward handed on from the past; that which the Book
of Elizabeth restored after its repeal, taking for granted that
it would be operative, though the event proved otherwise; that
which the Revisers of 1603 did not disturb, though the Canon of
the same year authorised a departure from it; that which Cosin and
his fellow-labourers, in 1662, in language of increased strength,
directed the restoration of: this has at length come forth among us,
not in word only, but in act and visible form. And the question is,
how is the Church to deal with this fact, and this phenomenon? It is
obvious and easy to say on the one hand--"There is no doubt about
the matter. The rubric is statute law, and therefore overrides the
canon, which is not." And it is equally obvious and easy to say, on
the other hand--"There is no doubt about the matter: the usage, with
certain exceptions, of two hundred, or even three hundred years,
can be pleaded for the use of the surplice at the Holy Communion.
A rubric which has been in abeyance for that period is and ought
to be considered obsolete." A great deal may be said on behalf of
both these positions; and it is very unlikely that, debating the
matter from this point of view--_i.e._ from mere consideration of
the comparative weight of statute on the one hand, and custom on the
other,--we should ever arrive at a conclusion which would satisfy
the diversely constituted minds with which these two considerations
carry weight respectively. We must, therefore, it is submitted, take
a wider view of the question, and see whether there be not other
considerations besides these, which may lead us to a just and wise
decision about it.
And one very weighty and relevant consideration, though by no means
decisive of the whole matter, is, How far would the restoration
of these vestments--I will suppose it wisely, judiciously, and
charitably brought about--accord with the tone and feeling, either
present or growing up, of the existing English Church? Now, it must,
I think, be admitted, that the experience of the last few years is
such, as to modify very considerably the answer to be given to this
question. The Church has within that period succeeded in making
certain ritual features attractive to the people at large, to a
degree entirely unknown to her hitherto. She has developed, by care
and training, their capacities for the enjoyment of a well-conceived
ritual. And she has exhibited to them phases and modes of Service
to which they and their fathers for centuries had been strangers.
I refer especially to the great movement lately made for the
improvement of parochial music throughout the land. Indirectly
and accidentally, this movement carried with it many results of a
ritual kind. It accustomed the eyes of the generality to Services
on a scale of magnitude and dignity unknown to them before. Instead
of the single "parson and clerk," or Minister and handful of
untrained singers, they beheld, at the Festivals, choral worship,
conducted by a multitude of clergy, and by hundreds or thousands
of choristers. And they were delighted with it. The grandeur of
such a service, its correspondence to the glimpses of heavenly
worship disclosed to us by Holy Scripture,[32] forcibly impressed
the imagination, and enlisted the feelings. These occasions also
raised the question of how large bodies of persons, meeting for a
united act of musical worship, should be attired, how marshalled and
occupied, while moving into their assigned places in the Sanctuary.
Hence the surplice, the processional hymn, the banner to distinguish
the several choirs, became familiar things. They were felt to be
the natural accompaniments of such occasions. And thus was brought
to light what had hitherto been, and with great appearance of
reason, denied, viz. that this nation differs not in its mental
constitution from other nations; that its antipathy (doubtless
existing) to these things, had been founded simply on their being
unusual, and on their supposed connection with unsound doctrine.
Once the _meaning_ of them was seen--Englishmen like to know the
meaning of things--the dislike and the prejudice were overcome.
[32] St. Luke ii. 13, Rev. vii. 9, xiv. 3. Compare 2 Chron. v. 12.
And the larger gatherings at which these things were done have
reacted upon the more limited and ordinary parochial services. Their
proper object was so to react in respect of musical proficiency
only; but they have influenced, at the same time, the whole outward
form and order of things. As one main result, they have in many
instances brought back the proper threefold action so clearly
recognised in the Prayer-book, and so long utterly lost sight of,
except in cathedral and collegiate churches, "of minister, _clerks_,
and people." The appointed medium for sustaining the clergy on the
one hand, and the congregation on the other, in the discharge of
their several parts in the service,--viz. the trained lay-clerks,
the men and boys of the practised choir,--has reappeared and
taken its due place among us. The presence of trained persons so
employed,--securing and leading, as in the Lord's Prayer, Creed,
and Versicles, the due responsive action of the people; conducting,
as in the Psalms, Canticles, and hymns, the "saying or singing;"
supporting, as in the processional Psalm of the Marriage Service, or
in the solemn anthems at the Burial of the Dead, the voice of the
minister; or, lastly, in the anthem, "in quires and places where
they sing," lifting priest and people alike by music of a higher
strain than those unskilled in music can attain to;--such ministry
is assumed by the Prayer-book to have place in every parish church
in the land. And the reducing of this theory to practice is in
reality an important step in ritual. It has enlisted the sympathies
of the laity in behalf of a fuller and richer aspect of Service than
they had heretofore been accustomed to.
In another point, too, the mental habit of this country has
undergone a change; viz. as regards the festive use and decoration
of churches. Our harvest thanksgivings, and similar occasions,
conducted as they have been, have taught those, to whom the lesson
was perfectly new, to find in the Services of the Sanctuary, in
worship, and attendance at the Holy Communion, a vent and expression
for their sense of thankfulness. At such times the flower-wreath and
the banner, the richly vested and decked altar, the Choral Service,
the processional hymn, have been felt to be in place. And thus
familiarised with them, our people come even to look for them as the
natural attendants on high days of festival.
Now it is a question at least worth asking, whether we have not here
indications of a greater disposition than we have commonly given our
people credit for, to be moved by such things--by sacred song--by
fair vestments--by processional movement--by festal decoration?
whether we have not been foregoing hitherto, to our great loss,
certain effective ways of influencing our people for good? whether
there must not, after all, be less truth than has been commonly
supposed in the received maxim, that Englishmen care nothing about
these things, nor can be brought to care for them; that they have
not in them, in short, the faculty of being affected by externals
in religious matters; that the sober Saxon spirit loves, above all
things, a simple and unadorned worship, and the like? The writer
is not ashamed to confess that he has in time past shared in this
estimate of his countrymen; but that experience has greatly shaken
his confidence in the correctness of it. And he may, therefore,
be accepted, perhaps, as a somewhat unprejudiced witness, when he
testifies to so much as has come under his own notice as to the
effect of the "ritual developments," so to call them, of which
he has above spoken. He can bear witness, then, that with these
accompaniments, the Services of the Sanctuary have become to many,
manifestly, a pleasure and a delight; that these influences are
found to touch and move, even to tears, those harder and more rugged
natures which are accessible to scarce anything else; breaking
even through the crust of formality or indifference which grows so
commonly over the heart of middle age. Is it irreverent to think
and believe that what these simple souls witness to, as their own
experience in presence of a kind of ritual new to them, though
familiar of old to their fathers, and to the Church throughout the
world, is but an anticipation of what our great poet, Puritan though
he was, has described as among the consolations of the blessed? That
which our poor peasants gratefully find provided for them on the
Church's days of festival, is no other, in its degree, than what,
to the poet's thought, awaited his Lycidas "in the blest kingdoms
meek of joy and love:"--
"There entertain him all the saints above,
_In solemn troops and sweet societies,
That sing, and, singing_, in their glory _move_,
And wipe the tears for ever from his eyes."
It will be understood that the writer is not now engaged in
advocating these particular practices as binding upon us, or even
as capable of being introduced everywhere; but only pointing out
that, in the acceptance and welcome with which this whole side of
ritual action has been received, even in unlikely quarters, we have
some indication of the probable effect on the general mind of other
well-considered ritual restorations.
And if it be still contended that the more usual condition of
the English mind is that which has been above described, viz. of
preferring a religion which reaches them mainly through the ear, and
appeals but little to the eye, I venture to suggest that--(granting
this to be so)--if a given nation is wanting in one particular
religious sense, that is the very reason why that sense should be
carefully educated. If the Italian is over-sensuous, as it would
probably be agreed that he is, in his religious constitution, he
is the very person that needs for his improvement intellectual
development. And just so, if the Englishman is, in religious
matters, unsusceptible, comparatively, of æsthetic influences, the
inference is, not that these should be carefully kept from him, but
that he should, as he is able to bear, be subjected to them.
The bearing of what has now been said upon the restoration of the
vestments and the like, is this. The most obvious objection to it
is, that the rubric in question has been in abeyance for long years,
or even centuries; and that this proves that it does not suit the
genius of the English nation. I have shown, indeed, that, as appears
from the history of the period in question,--and other evidence
might be adduced,--the rubric has not been altogether dormant in
times past. Still, the case for desuetude is a very strong one, no
doubt; and there is but one thing that could possibly invalidate
it, and that is, the existence of unmistakable indications that the
revival would, notwithstanding the long abeyance of the rubric,
meet some rising need or aspiration of the hour. If it does that,
then the negative argument, that there is no place or call for the
restoration,--that it is the mere galvanization of a dead thing,
or, at best, the summoning of it back to a life which must be
fugitive and evanescent, because there is not atmosphere for it to
breathe,--is at once done away with.
* * * * *
But let us now briefly inquire what are the _positive_
recommendations, if any, of the eucharistic vestments which it is
proposed to restore.
In the first place, then, it is alleged, that to provide for the
Holy Eucharist special vestures _of any kind_, not only harmonizes
with the transcendent superiority of the rite itself above all
other kinds of worship, but is the proper correlative of much
that has been doing of late years in the English Church. Is it
consistent, it is asked, to give to chancel, and sacrarium, and
altar, all the chastened richness and beauty of which they are
capable, and yet to deny to the celebrant at the holy Rite all
adornment beyond surplice and stole? Even if we had never possessed
any distinct eucharistic vestments, we might well, it is said, as a
matter of consistency, introduce them.
But next, let us ask, do these particular vestments possess any
claim upon us, beyond the fact of their being different from the
ordinary surplice, and of their being prescribed in the rubric?
And here, certainly (when we come to inquire into their history)
their wonderful antiquity, universality, and probable rationale,
cannot but make a deep impression upon us. They have been so fully
described in recent publications,[33] to which the reader can refer,
that there is the less need to enter into particulars about them
here. The most interesting circumstance hitherto brought to light
respecting them, is this; that there is no reason for doubting that
they are, as to their _form_, no other than the _every-day garments
of the ancient world in East and West, such as they existed at the
time of Our Lord_, and for many ages before. Mr. Skinner has proved
this to demonstration. There was, 1st, the long and close "coat,"
"tunic," or "vesture," called from its colour (as a ministerial
garment), the "alb;" 2nd, the broad "border" of this coat, often
of the richest materials, which developed, ecclesiastically, into
the "orarium" (probably from _ora_, a border) or "stole;" 3rd,
the girdle, combining easily with the "stole;" 4th, the "garment"
or "robe" (ecclesiastically the "casula" or "chasuble"), covering
the tunic down to the knees, and so allowing the ends of the
"border" (or "stole") to appear. "Such," says Mr. Skinner, "were
the ordinary vestments in daily common use in East and West."[34]
These would be, naturally, the garments in which, like our Lord
himself, the Apostles and others would officiate at the Holy
Eucharist, and then reverence would preserve them in subsequent
ages. No other supposition can account for their universality, as
ministering garments, throughout the world. And how wonderful the
interest attaching to them, even were this all! How fitting that
the Celebrant, the representative, however unworthily, of our Lord
himself, in His most solemn Action, should be clad even as He was!
[33] See Palmer's 'Origines Liturgicæ,' vol. ii., Appendix; the
'Directorium Anglicanum;' Lee 'On Eucharistic Vestments;' and the
Rev. Jas. Skinner's 'Plea for the Ritual' (Masters): but especially
the last-named writer's most able dissertations in the 'Guardian' of
Jan. 17 and Jan. 24, 1866; and the Dean of Westminster's speech in
Convocation, Feb. 9, 1866.
[34] Compare the well-known passages, "If any man will take away
thy _cloke_ (outer robe), let him have thy _coat_ (or tunic) also."
"Ye pull off the _robe_ with the _garment_ from them that pass by
securely."--Micah ii. 8. "His _garments_ ... and also his _coat_ ...
without seam, woven from the top throughout." "The _cloke_ that I
left at Troas ... bring with thee."
But this is _not_ all. There are circumstances which this rationale
of the vestments, though correct as far as it goes, does not account
for.
First, in the vestment-customs both of East and West there is
recognition, though in different ways, of some covering for the
_head_. In East and West a bonnet or mitre is worn by Bishops. In
celebrating, in the West, a small garment called the "amice," _of
fine white linen, with a very rich edge or fillet_, is first placed
on the head of the Celebrant, and then removed to his shoulders,
so that the _rich edge_ rests at first on the forehead, and then
appears from under the alb and chasuble.[35] Now the prayer, with
which this singular appendage is put on ("Place on my head, O Lord,
the helmet of salvation"), proves that it represents a bonnet or
head-covering.
[35] 'Directorium Anglicanum,' pp. 16, 21. "The amice is an oblong
square of fine white linen, and is put on upon the cassock or
priest's canonical dress. It is embroidered or 'apparelled' upon
_one_ edge. In vesting, it is placed for a moment, like a veil, upon
the crown of the head, and then spread upon the shoulders." "The
_apparel_ of the amice _cannot be too rich_ in its ornamentation."
_Amice_ is the Latin _amictus_--"the covering," referring to Psalm
cxl. 7, "Thou hast covered my head in the day of battle."
Again, the fact that the _stole_ is not a mere border, but
_detached_, both in East and West, from the tunic or alb, and in the
West, rests on the _shoulders_, is singular. In the East it is a
broad double stripe of costly silk, richly embroidered, hanging down
in front of the wearer; and often[36] _adorned with gems and gold_;
while in the West it is crossed[37] _on the breast_ in celebrating:
and throughout the East and West extraordinary importance has
from early times attached to it, it being worn in every sacred
function.[38]
[36] See Neale, Introduction to 'History of Eastern Church,' vol. i.
p. 308.
[37] The very ancient Syriac Liturgy of St. James has the loose
stole, as in the West, and crossed too upon the breast.--_Renaud._
p. 15.
[38] "In all prayers, even in those recited at home preparatory
to the public Office, the Epitrachelion (_i.e._ stole) is
worn."--Neale, 'Eastern Church,' p. 313. And St. Dunstan's Canons,
A.D. 979, order "That no priest ever come within the church door, or
into his stall, without a stole."--Hook's 'Lives of the Archbishops
of Canterbury,' vol. i. p. 488.
Now there is but one way of accounting for these curious
arrangements. It is, that, at a very early period, the course
was adopted of assimilating the ministering vestments of the
clergy--especially in celebrating--to those of the _Jewish High
Priest_. This could with great facility be done, because these
vestments themselves were only the usual Eastern dress, glorified
and enriched, with some especial additions. There was (Exod.
xxviii.), besides the ephod, which was a rich under-garment--1.
The long "embroidered coat or tunic of fine linen" (v. 39). 2. The
"curious girdle of the ephod," which appears to have girded in both
ephod and tunic. 3. The singular combination of the _shoulder-pieces
and breastplate_, which together formed one whole, and were among
the richest and _most peculiar insignia_ of the High Priesthood:
the names of the Twelve Tribes being engraven, in the costliest
gems, both on the shoulder-pieces and breastplate, as a means of
making "memorial" of the people, with especial power, before God
(vv. 9-30). 4. The outer garment or "robe of the ephod" (v. 31), all
of blue, of circular form, with a "hole in the top of it, in the
midst thereof," to pass it over the head of the wearer; whereas the
ordinary outer garments were square, and thrown loosely on. On the
hem were pomegranates and golden bells alternating. 5. And lastly,
the "mitre of _fine linen_" (v. 39), and upon it, on the forehead,
the "plate of pure gold" (πέταλον), in virtue of which Aaron
"bore," or did away with, through his ministerial sanctity, the
imperfections of the people's offerings (v. 38).
Now here, at length, we have a _full_ account of the rationale of
the Eucharistic vestments, and specially of those parts of them
which differed from the ordinary clothing of early days. We see that
the "border" of the ordinary tunic was therefore _detached_ from
it, beautified with embroidery, and enriched with gems, because the
Aaronic shoulder-pieces and breastplate were thus detached, and were
so adorned. The Greek name for the stole is still, for priests, the
"neck-garment," for bishops, the "shoulder-piece" (omophorion).
Again, the "bonnet or mitre," or its substitute, the "amice," is
therefore of "fine linen," and has a peculiarly rich "fillet," and
must be placed upon the head for a symbol, so as to bring the fillet
upon the _forehead_, because of the wondrous power and significance
of the Aaronic "plate of gold," similarly placed.
We cannot, in short, resist the conclusion that the Church did,
at some very early period (as the universality of these things
proves), assimilate the old simple vestments, of set purpose, to
the richer and more significant Aaronic ones. And if we ask _how_
early this was done, the answer is, that the first beginnings of it
were made even in the lifetime of the Apostles. For Eusebius cites
Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus (A.D. 198), as testifying of St.
John at Ephesus, that "as a priest he wore the πέταλον, or plate
of gold."[39] And Epiphanius[40] says the same of St. James,
Bishop of Jerusalem. Later (c. 320), Eusebius addresses the
priests as "wearing the long garment, the crown, and the priestly
robe."[41] The plate of gold, on a bonnet or mitre, is still used
at celebration by the Patriarch of Alexandria.[42] And the Armenian
Church, whose traditions, where they differ from those of the rest
of the world, are generally of immense antiquity, actually has the
_breastplate_,[43] only with the names of the Twelve Apostles,
instead of those of the Twelve Tribes.
[39] Hist. Eccl. iii., 31: ὁς ἐγενήθη ἱερευς τὸ πέταλον πεφορεκώς.
[40] 'De Hæresi,' 78. The very ancient Clementine Liturgy has
"exchanging his vestment for a gorgeous one;" αμπρὰν ἐσθῆτα
μετενδύς.
[41] ποδήρη, στέφανον, στολήν.
[42] Neale, 'Eastern Church,' Introd., p. 313.
[43] Ibid., p. 307.
We now see, then, how it came to pass that the stole is what it is
in East and West; why it is so highly symbolical of ministerial
power; why made so rich; why crossed on the _breast_ in celebrating;
why, with all its richness, put _under_ the chasuble: scil. because,
like the Aaronic breastplate, it was a memorial "_before God_" of
the preciousness of God's people, whom the priest bore, as he should
bear still, on his shoulder and on his heart, in his ministry of
labour and of love. We see, again, why the "apparel" of the "amice"
is so rich, because anciently of gold; why placed on the forehead,
the seat of thought, scil. that the priest may be mindful of his
"ministry of reconciliation;" and why accompanied with a prayer for
the "helmet of salvation."
And even the ordinary vestments, the surplice, and stole, and hood,
derive a clear rationale and fitness from the same source. The
_surplice_ (_superpellicium_), as Mr. Skinner teaches us,[44] is
only the close tunic or "alb," so enlarged as conveniently to cover
the _pellicium_, or coat of fur or skin which the clergy wore in the
choir. The _stole_, crossed at celebration, loses its resemblance
to the breastplate, and its allusion to the Cross, at the lower
ministry of the Ordinary Office, being worn pendent. The _hood_ is
the amice in simpler and less significant form, intended originally
to be actually worn on the head, and still capable of being so; its
varying form and colour only indicating the particular sodality to
which the wearer belongs.
[44] Letter to the 'Guardian,' Jan. 24, 1866.
Of the cope it is needless to say more than that it is properly
processional, though recognised in the English Church (as in the
Armenian) for celebration, and for the clergy in the choir on high
festivals.
It may be added that the English vestments differ sufficiently from
those of foreign Churches to have a national character.
It thus appears that the Eucharistic vestments, and even our
ordinary ones through them, are a link of a marvellously interesting
kind between us and antiquity, even Apostolic antiquity; and between
us and the whole Christian world. Nay, our vestments, like our
Services, connect us with the old Mosaic Ordinances. They ought
to be grave reasons indeed, which should induce us to raze them
from our statute-book, whatever became of the question of their
restoration to general use.
Of other usages now under debate, I would mention briefly--1. The
position of the celebrant during the office; 2. The two lights on
the altar; 3. Incense; 4. The mixed chalice; 5. The crucifix.
1. There is no real doubt whatever as to the intention of the
English Church about the position of the celebrant in administering
the Holy Communion.
In order to make the matter plain, it is to be observed, that the
slab or surface of the Altar, or Holy Table--there is a wonderful
_equableness_ in the use of the two terms by antiquity[45]--was
always conceived of as divided into _three_ portions of about equal
size. The central one, called the _media pars_, was exclusively
used for actual celebration, and often had a slab of stone[46] let
into it, called _mensa consecratoria_. The other portions were
called the _latus sinistrum_ and _dextrum_, or _Septentrionale et
Australe_.[47] These would be in English the "midst of the Altar,"
the "left or north side," and the "right or south side:" the
term "side" being used with reference to the "middle portion."
The most solemn parts of the rite, then, were performed "_at_ the
middle" of the Table; the subordinate parts "_at_ the northern or
southern portions." In all cases, "at" certainly meant with the
face turned _eastwards_. Now, in the First Book of Edward VI., it
was ordered that the very beginning of the Service should be said
"afore the _midst_ of the altar;" _i.e._ before the "media pars."
As to the rest of the Service, it was doubtless to be said in
the ancient customary places: the old rule being, that all after
the preparatory prayer to the end of the Epistle was said at the
_south_ side. In the Second Book the order was, "the Priest standing
_at_ the _North-side_ of the Table shall say the Lord's Prayer,"
&c. This could not possibly, in those days, be understood to mean
anything else than _facing the left-hand, or northern portion of
the Table_. The reason of the change to the "north-side" probably
was, 1. That permission was now given to stop short on occasion of
celebration; in which case it would hardly be seemly to stand at
the centre or consecrating portion of the Table; and perhaps, 2.
To avoid a change of position beyond the _two_ specified. But it
was doubtless intended that the centre should still be used for
actual consecration, even as it was in the First Book, though no
order was given in either case, to that effect. The order for the
"north-side" was only put in because it was a new arrangement.
And it will be observed that the term used _is_ "the North-side:"
apparently indicating that a special and well-known part of the
Table is meant. The present most incorrect practice, of standing
at the north _end_, probably arose from two causes,--first, the
infrequency of celebrations, which caused the habit to be formed of
standing somewhat northwards; while the old distinct conception of
the position had passed away: secondly, from the practice--probably
in use[48] of old in our Church--of placing the vessels and
unconsecrated elements, if there was no credence-table, on the
_non-consecrating_ part of the altar, where it was found convenient
to keep them still when consecrating. It may be questioned whether
it be not still correct, or allowable however, thus to make use of
the less important parts of the Table to serve as a Credence, if
none other is provided. But the consecration should always take
place at the middle of the Holy Table.
[45] The Fathers generally prefer 'Altar,' the Liturgies 'Holy
Table.'
[46] Syriac Liturgy of St. James, "pars _altaris_ in quâ tabula
defixa est;" "pars media _mensæ vitæ_."
[47] Syriac Liturgy of St. James, Renaudot; the 'Ancient English
and Communion Offices' (Maskell), where "cornu" is used. The Roman
'Ritus celebrandi Missam,' 4. 4; "Thurificat _aliud latus_ altaris."
[48] The Rubrics in the Syriac Liturgy of St. James seem plainly to
contemplate that the vessels, &c., should be placed on the north or
south side until consecration, since they are to be carried _from_
the altar round the chancel, and _then_ placed on the _media pars_
(Renaudot, p. 60, who _imagines_ a credence). And both in England
and abroad, ancient credence-tables are very rare.
The position thus prescribed, by unbroken ancient rule, for
consecration, is by no means unimportant. By it is signified and
expressed the solemn oblation and sacrificial presentation made by
the celebrant, after the example of Christ,--leading the people,
and carrying them with him in the action. For the primitive view
of the institution, recognised in every ancient Communion Service,
is, that when Our Blessed Lord "took bread, and blessed, and brake
it," He thereby, in a deep mystery, _presented_ before God, through
the medium of the element which He had chosen, the Sacrifice of His
Body. That Sacrifice was to be consummated, indeed, on the morrow;
or by Jewish reckoning, at any rate, at a later hour on the same
day. But it was already, in a mystery, and by the yielding up His
Will, begun, and in operation. This is implied by the exact and
expressive language of the Institution--"This is my Body which is
_being_ given (διδόμενον) or broken (κλώμενον); my Blood which is
being shed, for you." Hence, too, it was that He could say of the
Bread and Wine--"This _is_ my Body, my Blood;" because these had, as
being the medium through which they were offered, been mysteriously,
as regards virtue or power, identified therewith.[49] And what the
celebrant does, at any celebration, is to imitate, in his humble
measure, and as Christ ordained, the action of Christ. In order to
this it is important, and has ever been the custom of the Church,
that he should stand at the midst of the Holy Table as one leading a
common action for all. In the East he stands eastward of the Table,
facing the people; in the West, westward of the Table, and looking
away from them: in both cases alike he is "in the midst," offering
for and with them.
[49] See on this subject, in Appendix A, a valuable comment of the
Bishop of Exeter on 1 Cor. xi. 24, and St. Luke xxii. 19.
In some cathedrals, as Exeter, and at Westminster Abbey, the remains
of the ancient practice are to be seen; the vessels being placed,
the offerings of the clergy made, and the Confession said, at the
middle of the Table.
2. The question of the _legal_ position of the "two lights on the
altar" is a somewhat complicated one. But in its general aspect the
usage derives a sanction and an interest from the fact that "oil for
the light" is among the things recognised in the 3rd Apostolical
Canon; and further, that the "two lights" are used in the Syriac
Liturgy of St. James[50] (from which we may have derived them
through Theodore of Tarsus): whereas all the West, except ourselves,
has seven lights. In point of effect, not much can be said for them;
but the symbolism is beautiful and interesting. The Eastern Church,
in particular, has always associated _artificial_ light--viewed as
dispelling _natural_ darkness--with our Lord's coming to the world,
as its supernatural and heavenly Light. It is well to remember,
too, that the only accompaniment of the shewbread, of which so
much has been said above, was, together with incense, _artificial
light_; and even in the blaze of heavenly ritual there were seven
lamps burning.[51] These considerations, joined to the well-known
Injunction of Edward VI., for the retention of "two lights,"
certainly give the usage a good position, when we are considering
what is the mind, fairly and liberally estimated, of the English
Church.
[50] Renaudot, Liturgiar. Oriental. Collectio.
[51] Rev. iv. 5. On the symbolism of candles, lit or unlit, see Dr.
Jebb's valuable pamphlet 'Ritual Law and Custom' (Rivingtons). Notes
F. H.
Nor is it unimportant to observe, that even the candlesticks
themselves, if in any case it is not thought well to light the
candles, possess a symbolism of their own: just as _e. g._ the
maniple of the Western Church, now disused but still worn, is a
memento of that for which (it is said) it was intended, viz. to be
used as a _sudarium_ in the labours of the priesthood. It may be
remarked, too, that in St. John's vision, what he saw was "golden
_candlesticks_" (λυχνίαι); not burning candles or lamps (λύχνοι or
λαμπάδες πυρὸς) (St. John v. 35; Rev. v. 8, viii. 3).
3. Incense, it may be observed, has precisely the same degree of
recommendation from antiquity as the "two lights." It was used with
the shewbread and the peace-offerings; it has a beautiful symbolism;
it is recognised as on a par with "oil for the lamp" in the
Apostolic Canon; and it finds a place in the heavenly ritual (Rev.
viii. 3). Its historical position with us is weaker; but _if_ used,
it would certainly be in accordance with the mind of the English
Church to use it in a very simple manner.[52] Its proper purpose is
twofold--1. To purify by its sweetness; and 2. To symbolise both the
purity of acceptable offering, and its power of ascending, through
Christ's mediation, to heaven.
[52] "The suspension of the censer by chains, and waving it, is
undoubtedly modern" (Skinner's 'Plea for the Ritual'). Incense
was used in Queen Elizabeth's Chapel, and by Bishop Andrewes, and
in many parish Churches from 1558 to 1630 at least, and in royal
chapels till 1684, and at George III's coronation (Hierurgia
Anglicana): also "at the altar in Ely Cathedral, at the greater
festivals," till about 1770 (Coles' MSS. 5873 f.)
4. The question of the "mixed chalice," or of the mingling of water
with the wine in the Holy Eucharist, cannot be called one of high
importance. It has been maintained that it is one of those things
which, as having been _universal_ throughout the Church from an
early period, must be apostolic;[53] but the assertion is unfounded.
There is a very large and important branch of the Church which
does not at this day, and which, we may safely affirm, never did,
mix water with the wine, viz. the Armenian. The Armenian Church
is remarkable for the tenacity with which it has, from very early
times, in respect of things indifferent, adhered to old traditions,
when the whole of the rest of the Church have departed from them.
The introduction of the observance of Christmas-Day, for example,
took place in the East in St. Chrysostom's time, being borrowed,
as he informs us, from the West. This the Armenian Church declined
to adopt. Their vestment-traditions, again, as we have seen, are
peculiar; and they positively assert their immense antiquity.[54]
Hence it _might_ even be, that the Armenian Church had alone
preserved the apostolic usage in this matter, and that all the other
Churches had departed therefrom. However, as the term "mixture" is
applied by Justin Martyr to the cup, and as the matter is incapable
of proof one way or the other, it is best to suppose that there
were _two_ traditions or habits in the matter; and this is quite
sufficient to justify the English Church in having, as far as her
rubric is concerned, laid the usage aside in the Second Book of
Edward. At the same time, as the custom certainly survived[55] in
the English Church after the Revision, and is all but universal,
and has interesting symbolical meanings[56] attached to it, it may
well be tolerated, should a policy of toleration be adopted at this
juncture by the English Church.
[53] See Dr. Littledale's 'Mixed Chalice,' with reference to its
having been discountenanced by the Bishop of Exeter.
[54] See Neale, Gen. Introduction, p. 307.
[55] _E.g._, under Bishop Andrewes.
[56] These vary much with different Churches,--an indication perhaps
of the indifference of the rite. They are chiefly,--1. the union in
Christ of the Humanity with the Divinity; 2. the pouring forth from
His side of Blood and Water. In either sense the act may have been a
devout afterthought; and on the whole I think it improbable that our
Lord mixed the cup. That the Jews drank their wine mixed is not much
to the purpose.
5. I come to speak, in the next place, of the crucifix, which is
among the "ornaments of the Church" attempted to be restored at the
present day. It is difficult, however, to conceive any two things
standing on more widely different ground than _this_, and any one
of those ornaments or usages before-mentioned. They, in every
case, whether vestments, position of the celebrant, altar-lights,
incense, or the mixed chalice, can plead immense antiquity, and all
but universality at the present day; neither are they connected
of necessity with superstitious usages. But with the crucifix,
the reverse of all this is the case. It was utterly unknown to
the Church of early days; it is unknown, strictly speaking, to
the Eastern Church; and it has given occasion in time past, as it
does at this day, to the grossest superstitions. The use of it, as
experience has proved, is in reality the merest tampering with the
principles of our nature; ever ready (as the length and vehemence
of the Second Commandment sufficiently testifies) to save ourselves
the trouble of "seeing Him who is invisible," and to fasten our
faith on some outward object instead. And there is this especial
objection to associating the crucifix with the Holy Communion more
especially, that (as was recently well observed by the Bishop of
Exeter) there are provided thereby, in dangerous rivalry, _two_
representations or "shewings forth," of the Body of Christ, and
of the Death of Christ; the one "ordained by Christ himself, as a
means whereby we receive the same;" the other, "that which our own
fingers have made," and moreover, "a fond thing vainly invented, and
grounded upon no warranty of Scripture," or of the ancient Church.
Can it be well, even supposing the usage not to result (though
full surely it _will_) in idolatrous veneration--can it be well
to divide the mind, in such an hour, between the _appointed_ mode
of contemplating, with deepest awe and love, the Mystery of our
Redemption, and another mode, which, were it never so defensible
otherwise, may not dare to lift itself into any comparison with that
far more touching exhibition of His Dying Love which Christ Himself,
at every Communion, "sets forth among us?"
I know by experience, in particular instances, that this danger
is by no means imaginary: and I confess to having the deepest
conviction of the rashness and folly of attempting to reintroduce,
even among sober Englishmen and Englishwomen--especially in
connection with the Holy Eucharist--this snare of mediæval
Christendom.
If it be objected that the Cross is open to the same objection, I
answer, No. The Cross, as experience proves, while it reminds us of
the Death of Christ, does not draw out that warm feeling, which is
at once so delightful and so dangerous to some classes of minds. And
the same may be said of pictorial or sculptured representations of
the entire Crucifixion, where the larger treatment of the subject
makes all the difference. It is the concentration of thought and
devotion upon the natural resemblance or representation of Christ
Himself, that renders the crucifix so dangerous, and infallibly
draws on its votaries to a breach of the Second Commandment.
Other observances must be spoken of more in the mass, as it would
be impossible to detail them severally. Suffice it to say, that
an attempt is now being made to introduce, in conjunction with
the vestments and other "ornaments" above mentioned, a _minutely
elaborated ceremonial_, applying to every part of the eucharistic
rite.
The ground taken up for this is, 1st, that "ornaments" cannot
always be very clearly distinguished from usages, and therefore
include them. But surely it is much to be remarked that the rubric
_does_ specify "ornaments," so that, although, accidentally, usages
_arising out_ of these ornaments are involved,--as, _e.g._ the
candlesticks and candles involve or suggest the lighting of the
candles,--yet the rubric cannot be taken to include usages which
stand unconnected with ornaments, such as making the sign of the
cross, or the like.
But it is contended, further, that not only are usages, as well as
"ornaments," covered (as no doubt they are to some extent) by the
rubric, but that it actually legalizes everything, whether ornament
or usage, which was in use in the twenty-fifth year of Henry VIII.
The ground for this startling assertion,--which has been made the
basis of a vast and elaborate system of ritual,[57]--is that the
second year of Edward VI. (which is named in the rubric) includes
a considerable period preceding the passing of the Prayer-book
Act. That year, it is contended, commenced on January 28th, 1548,
and extended to January 28th, 1549; so that the Prayer-book (which
was not established until January 15th, 1549, by 2 and 3 Edward
VI., c. 1) is only a _part_ of what the rubric refers to, and
merely "supplemental to the old canons and constitutions."[58] We
must accept, we are told, all that was in use by the authority of
Parliament in 1548-49. Now, the latest enactment of Parliament on
the subject, previous to that year, was the 25 Henry VIII., c. 19,
which legalizes everything then in use. So that, in short, we are,
by the rubric, thrown back upon part of the pre-Reformation period.
[57] See 'Directorium Anglicanum,' _passim_. Mr. Perry's elaborate
work 'Lawful Church Ornaments,' (who, however, only lays down
certain things as permissible), and Rev. J. Skinner's 'Plea for our
Threatened Ritual,' discuss the subject at large.
[58] 'Directorium Anglicanum,' p. xiv.
The truer view would seem to be that what is _implied_ in the
Book, or named in it, is permissible. Certainly the Prayer-book is
elsewhere in legal documents (as my friend Mr. Shaw has shown[59])
exclusively meant when "the second year of Edward VI." is spoken of.
It may be added, that the most recent judicial decision bearing on
the point (_re_ Westerton _v._ Liddell) expressly lays down that the
Prayer-book, and the Prayer-book alone, is what the rubric refers to.
[59] See an able article in the 'Contemporary Review,' No. 1, Jan.
1866.
But, in truth, there are other considerations which take away all
justification whatever from nine-tenths of the ceremonies which are
now being introduced among us. In the first place, a great many of
them, perhaps the greater number, are not old _English_ ceremonies
at all, but foreign ones, derived from the existing practice--not
always of very great antiquity--of the Church of Rome. Now, without
going so far as to say that those who have introduced them have
thereby incurred the pains and penalties of a _præmunire_, as
having brought in "the fashions of the Bishop of Rome, his ways
and customs," it must be plain that it is impossible to justify
such practices upon, the ground alleged. Plainly, you cannot base
foreign customs on an English rubric. The rubric legalises "such
ornaments ... as were in this CHURCH OF ENGLAND, by the authority
of Parliament, in the second year of King Edward the Sixth." And
this, we are told, includes "usages," and all usages known to the
latter part of Henry VIII.'s reign. Be it so, however vast the
concession. But will that justify a single usage which was _not_ "in
this Church of England," ever since it was a Church at all? Is it
not plain that, so far forth as the ceremonies now introduced _never
were English_ ceremonies, they break the very rubric to which they
appeal? Now it is notorious that a great part of these ceremonies
are brought in on the authority of a work frequently referred to
in these pages, called 'Directorium Anglicanum.' And in that work
the _modern Roman_ usages, to the disregard of the ancient English,
and often in direct contravention of them, are to a very great
extent recommended. I will take but a single instance,--the very
first direction in the book as to the "Order of Administration,"
p. 23. It concerns the colours for the vestments;--not a matter of
the first importance, it may be. But so it is, that the _Roman_
colours are prescribed in the text, and the English ones merely
mentioned in a note. And this is but one instance, out of a vast
number, of the entire untrustworthiness of that work as a guide
to the ancient _English_ usages. Under the delusive title of
'Directorium _Anglicanum_,' it has presented to the unwary student
of ritual, mixed up with our own usages of old time, the most recent
_Roman_ ones. It may be hoped that this fact, when pointed out to
such of our brethren as have been misled by that learned but most
unjustifiable publication, will induce them to modify their present
practice.
"But," it will be contended, "surely we may claim to reintroduce all
ancient _English_ ceremonies; such as elevating the Elements after
consecration; making the sign of the cross in consecrating, and
again over the head of each communicant before administering;--or
such, again, as frequent bowing and genuflection;--various regulated
movements to and fro,--as at the saying of the Creed;--swinging of
censers again and again in various directions; with many other
ceremonies." To all this, however, there is an answer which, I
humbly conceive, is unanswerable. It is this,--that the English
Church, to whose laws they appeal, has _expressly abolished_ some of
these ceremonies, and laid her prohibition upon the use of more than
a very moderate number of any kind.
I refer, first, to the fact that she withdrew from her Service-book
certain orders previously embodied in it for the performance of
some of these actions. Under this head comes the elevation of the
Elements after consecration. This is confessedly, even by the
admission of Roman writers, a modern ceremony, not older than the
twelfth century.[60] However, in the old English Service-books the
order was, "After the words, 'For this is my Body,' the priest shall
bend himself towards the Host, and afterwards lift it above his
forehead, that it may be seen by the people." But in the Communion
Office of 1549, this was forbidden by rubric, "These words are to
be said without any elevation, or shewing to the people." And the
Articles of 1562-1571 confirm this, saying, that "the sacrament
was not by Christ's ordinance lifted up or worshipped" (Art. 28).
So, again, the sign of the cross was, according to the First Book
of Edward, to be used at consecration; but in the Second it was
withdrawn. Nor, I believe, can any rehabilitation of these practices
be alleged (as can be done in the case of lights or incense) from
subsequent injunctions, canons, or customs. It is in vain to say
that there was anything accidental in the omission of the cross
at consecration, since it was carefully retained at baptism, and
defended subsequently in the canons of 1603; or that the "elevation"
or lifting up, "and worshipping," was restored by the omission of
the prohibition in 1549, since by 1562 (Articles) it was expressly
disallowed. Those who plead, as a support to the rubric, the better
mind of the Church, as manifested in the wishes of her great
men--her Andreweses and Cosins--and even in her canons of 1603--must
accept the fact, that by that better mind and those canons these
usages are never advocated.
[60] See Mabillon, Iter. Ital., p. xlix., and 'Principles of Divine
Service,' Introd. vol. ii. p. 87. A slight raising of the Elements
at the words 'He blessed,' as if making an offering, is ancient and
probably universal.
Again, as to the _number_ of ceremonies. The Preface entitled
'Ceremonies; why some be abolished, and some retained,' prefixed
to the First Book of Edward, distinctly announces a new state
of things in this respect. The "excessive multitude" of them is
complained of; and it is clearly implied that those which remain
are few and simple. The only question, in short, is, how many
were left. The allegation that _none_ are abolished is simply and
utterly untenable. And we have this general principle laid down by
that Preface for our guidance, that excess of ceremonies, or any
great multiplying of them, such as now recommended, is absolutely
irreconcilable with the mind of our Church.
* * * * *
On the whole, then, to conclude this part of my subject, there
ought to be no real difficulty among us as to what is fairly
permissible, and answers to the mind of the English Church--taking
a wide and liberal view of that mind--in the matter of ritual. Two
leading conceptions, NOBLENESS with SIMPLICITY, sum up her general
desires on this subject. In the due observance of these, it is her
deliberate judgment, (as represented by her wisest sons,--as Ridley,
Andrewes, Overall, Cosin), will be found the best security for
_worthy_ worship on the one hand, and for _devout_ worship on the
other.
And when we come to the carrying out of these conceptions there are
yet other two principles by which she is guided, viz. regard for
primitive usage; and yet, again, forbearance from pressing even
such usage in particular instances where it is likely to do more
harm than good. And all along she supremely tenders that purity of
Apostolic _doctrine_, which is dearer to her than life itself, and
by its bearing upon which every rite or ceremony must ultimately be
tried.
From antiquity accordingly, as has been shown above, she has
derived, together with her pure doctrine, "her beautiful garments:"
alike her surplice, stole, and hood, and her chasuble, alb, and
amice. Yet, as regards the obligatory adoption of these, she
has, with a grand charity, more beautiful than the richest of
the garments themselves, forborne, for 300 years, to press upon
an imperfectly trained people those which, in the judgment of
her most learned and primitively-minded sons, best beseemed that
high Ordinance. And even now, albeit she has done much towards
training this nation in loftier conceptions of what is seemly in
the matter of ritual; although she has reawakened the appreciation
of music and architecture, of colour and carving, of festival
decoration and choral worship; though she has, especially by the
superior costliness and beauty lavished on the sacrarium and the
altar, by increased care and reverence in administration of the
Holy Eucharist, lifted that ordinance into something more of its
due pre-eminence over all other Service; though many subordinate
considerations point in the way of analogy and proportion, in the
same directions; though every step by which she has enriched her
_ordinary_ worship,--such as the bringing back, within a very
few years, of stole and hood for the clergy, and of surplices
for the lay members of the choir--though this all but demands
some _different_ vestments, at the least, for the celebrant and
assistants at the Holy Communion: _nevertheless_, she will not, if
she is well-advised, withdraw or disallow that wise alternative
which has practically existed all along in this matter, but still
let surplice and vestment stand side by side for the option of
the clergy and people. Nor yet again, on the other hand, strong
as is the simpler surplice in its prescription--not, however,
unvarying--of 300 years, as a eucharistic vestment in the English
Church--in its purity of appearance and gracefulness of form--and
in the associations and affections of this generation;--simpler
and easier as it is to side with the greater number, and to
acquiesce in the less excellent way for the sake of peace:--the
Church will not, if well-advised, yield to these considerations
either. She will still leave on her statute-book that ancient
direction concerning vestments which has been her primary law
through the vicissitudes of 300 years; which connects her, even
in its abeyance, with the Apostolic Church of old, and with the
Church universal now; and which may, if wisely and charitably
administered, effectively co-operate in bringing back to the Church
of God her lost jewel--nowhere now to be found on earth--of full and
thorough conformity, in doctrine and worship, with the Apostolic and
Primitive Church.
And as regards other ceremonies, while she expects not, nor desires,
a rigid uniformity in minor actions, nor has laid down any such
code for the observance of her ministers; she will on the one hand
seek to realise a higher standard, in point of care and reverence,
than has hitherto, perhaps, prevailed among us: but, on the other,
she will continue her 300 years' protest against multitudinous and
operose ceremonies, as being full surely destructive, in the long
run, of the life of devotion.
I have now accomplished, though in a very imperfect manner, my
self-imposed task: dwelling, in all humility and anxiety, on our
shortcomings and excesses, as well in the matter of Rites and
Doctrine, as in that of Ritual.
And if it be asked, in conclusion, What then is to be done? what
_action_ does a view of the whole circumstances prompt? or how are
we to win our way back, under God, to a more perfect model? my
answer and my humble counsel would be as follows:--
Let me first be permitted to remind the reader of the present aspect
of our Church, such as it was presented to view in an earlier page.
Let it be remembered and taken home as an anxious and alarming
truth, that were an Apostle, or a Christian of early days, to "pass
through" the land and "behold our devotions," on our high day of
Service, during three-fourths of the year, he could arrive at no
other conclusion, from what he saw with his eyes, than that he was
_not in a Christian land at all_. For he would miss, Sunday after
Sunday, in more than eleven thousand of our churches, the one badge,
and symbol, and bond of membership in Christ, the Holy Eucharist.
Such a one could not possibly understand our Christianity; the
land would be in his eyes an absolute desolation. And if among
these thousands of altars without a sacrifice, and of Christian
congregations failing to offer the one supremely ordained Christian
worship, he chanced here and there to light upon a happy exception,
how would his eyes still be grieved, and his heart pained at the
fewness of communicants! He could only conclude that Christianity
had very recently been established here, and that the number of the
unbaptized and catechumens was still tenfold that of the faithful.
But there would be yet one other novel sight that would here and
there present itself to him. He would perceive with astonishment
that, in some instances, the eucharistic worship was offered not to
"Our Father which is in Heaven," or to Christ, as seated with His
Father on His Throne of Glory; but as contained in the Elements. But
his astonishment would reach its height when he observed, further,
that not much account was made, at this Service, of the _reception_
of the life-giving Sacrament, as the crowning and supreme
circumstance of the offering; but that it was rather discouraged, in
proportion as the Service was designed to be of a loftier strain,
and a superior acceptableness.
Is it too much to say that, on view of these things--these vast
deflections on the right hand and on the left, in defect and in
excess, from Apostolic ways--it would not much grieve or move such
an one as I am supposing, whether the "vestment" in which the
Service was offered was merely of "fine linen, pure and white," or
"a vesture of gold, wrought about with divers colours;" and that all
other ritual arrangements, in like manner, would be as nothing in
his eyes, in comparison of the truths obscured or imperilled, and of
the errors involved, on either hand?
And what therefore I would earnestly desire that the Church of
God in this land might draw forth from the present excitement and
anxiety about ritual is, a faithful comparison of herself, in point
of doctrine and practice, with the Apostolic and Primitive model.
There are greater things than these; "The life is more than meat,
and the body than raiment." And while we are anxiously discussing
whether the life of eucharistic devotion is best fed through the eye
or the ear, or how its outward form should be arrayed, it is only
too sadly true, that that life and that body are a prey to divers
diseases, and need medicine and restoratives, ere they are likely to
exhibit much real vigour, nourish and clothe them as we will.
For the second time within our memory, a "vestment" or "ritual"
controversy has arisen among us. The last time it was about "the
surplice" in preaching, as against the gown; and the "Prayer for the
Church Militant," as against the disuse of it. This time it is about
the more distinctive eucharistic vestments, as against the surplice;
and about a fuller ritual as against a scantier one. Now the last
contest was simply a miserable one. I venture to call it so, 1st,
because, handled as it was, there was no sort of principle at stake
in it, beyond that of assigning to the sermon more nearly its due
position and estimate in the rite; and that of adding one more
prayer--a touching and valuable one, it is true--to the ordinary
Office;--and next, because it utterly misconceived and missed the
Church's real mind, in allowing such a thing at all as prayers, or a
service at the Altar or Holy Table, when there was to be no Offering
and no Communion. To restore the Prayer for the Church Militant, and
be content with that, was indeed "to keep the word of promise to her
ear, and break it to her hopes." Only as a protest, only as a badge
of her rejection--ay, and of CHRIST'S rejection by the world--had
she ever condescended to such a Lord's Day Service as that at all.
What was the result and upshot, as might have been expected, of that
contest? In the case of some parishes, and almost whole dioceses,
successful rebellion against even the letter of the rubric; and in
places where the result was different, a contented acquiescence ever
since (for the most part) in the victory achieved. Is it not evident
that it was not worth achieving? And why? Because all the while
the Church's real desire and aim was ignored; she was not one whit
nearer to the Apostolic rule, but only proclaimed more distinctly
her departure from it.
And now that another "vestment" and "ritual" controversy has arisen,
the great anxiety, and the only _deep_ anxiety, of the Church should
be, that it too pass not over us barren of all results of value. It
will do so, if it only leaves us with a better ascertained law as to
the relative obligation of this or that vestment, the lawfulness of
this or that mode of ritual. It will have been in vain, unless it
brings _up_ our long-standing neglect on the one hand, and brings
_back_ our more novel excesses on the other, to the true standard of
God's own providing. But on the other hand, if haply, while we are
searching for a rule, we shall have found a principle, and begun to
act upon it then the present excitement will have done a great work
for us.
And happily, it is by thus lifting the existing controversy into
a higher sphere, we shall have the best chance of reconciling and
harmonising positions now ranged over against each other, and even
of solving this ritual and vestment difficulty. For let us suppose,
on the one side--what it is not too much to hope for--that the
close sifting, both of doctrine and ritual, which such a period as
this gives rise to, joined to the fatherly counsel of the Bishops,
and to considerations of Christian wisdom and charity, should
avail to remove such peculiarities of ritual as are plainly either
indefensible or inexpedient. And let us suppose, on the other
side--what surely we may no less hope for--an earnest effort now
made by the clergy, encouraged by their bishops, to return to the
Apostolic usage of Weekly Celebration, and in other ways to give due
honour and observance to the Holy Eucharist. Suppose this done on
either side: and there would at once result a great and essential
_rapprochement_ between those who now have the appearance of raising
opposite cries, and wearing rival badges.
Nor only so, but those badges themselves would lose, to a great
extent, their distinctive hues. It is astonishing, when we come
to look into the matter, how much the two rival camps, so to call
them, have in common; and how many middle terms there are on which
they are agreed. The truth is that, as has appeared above, there
is between the vestments (for example), now opposed to each other,
an entire "solidarity" or community of interests, arising out of
their common origin, and their close relation to each other. The use
of the surplice, its existence at all as a ministerial vestment,
and its real significance, can only be traced in the eucharistic
vestments. It results from removing the chasuble and expanding the
alb. The surplice is in fact, an alb. It is an adaptation of the
inner eucharistic vestment to the exigencies of the ordinary Office.
It was thought good, when it was used as an outer garment, to give
it that fulness and comeliness of form, for which the _English_
surplice, more especially, is so justly commended. But its real
value, as a memento of the inward purity which it typifies, can only
be apprehended by bearing in mind that it is properly an _inner_
garment.--In like manner the stole, taken by itself, is a mere band
of ribbon of no particular appropriateness. But let it symbolise, as
it certainly was meant to do, the yoke of loving labour laid on the
neck of the minister of Christ; or, more exactly, after the Aaronic
pattern, the ministerial toil of heart and hand for Christ's people,
and the mindful bearing of them before God for acceptance through
the One Sacrifice; and we at once see that this simple vestment
is indeed worth preserving.--And let the hood, or "amice," be no
longer worn as a mere badge of academical degree, but as a token of
the dedication of the powers of the head or intellect, and of the
need of God's protection against "vain, perverse, and unbecoming
thoughts;"[61] and this, too, acquires a fitness otherwise difficult
to recognise. Now, if we thus owe to the full eucharistic vestments
the interpretation of our ordinary ones, it is plain that the
relations between the two are of the most friendly character.
[61] Oratio dicenda ante Divinum Officium. Portiforium Sarisb.
The stole, it may be added, _rests solely on the rubric of_ 1662: so
that, whereas it is commonly imagined that the vestments of Edward
VI. have now begun for the first time to be re-introduced, and that
by a very few; the truth is that the vast majority of the English
clergy have now for many years, though unconsciously, been acting
upon the rubric which enjoins them, and tacitly appealing to it.
So, again, the introduction of colour into our vestments is only one
step added to what has been already carried out, to a great extent,
by all of us, in the rest of our sacred accessories, whether in the
way of stained glass, altar-cloths, hangings, or even of books. And
whereas, on the other hand, the pure whiteness of the surplice is
not among the least of its attractions and sacred associations in
English eyes; who, it may be asked, have done more to extend the
use of the surplice among us, than those who have advanced farthest
in the ritual direction? Who eliminated the "black gown" from the
eucharistic rite? Who else have flooded our choirs and aisles, on
festal occasions especially, with the white robes of choristers
and clergy? Nay, for the Holy Communion itself, for the highest
festivals--Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide--the _white_ chasuble is,
by the ancient rule of England, added to the white alb. Surely here,
again, there is a community of sentiment between ritual schools
thought to be opposed to each other. It may be added, that though
the strict English rule, or rather its _full_ carrying out, would
necessitate colour--red for the most part--for the chief eucharistic
vestment, this is not by any means of necessity. White, it is
admitted on all hands, is permissible all the year round,[62] and
some Eastern churches never use any other colour.
[62] 'Directorium Anglicanum,' p. 17: "It is perfectly
unobjectionable to have the sacred vestments of fair white linen, so
long as the shape of them be correct."
And do we not seem to see, in these considerations, joined to others
alleged above, a ground for harmonious though diverse action among
those of differing minds? We have, as the first and leading fact,
that (if the view taken above be correct) none is compelled _in foro
conscientiæ_, by the existing state of the law to which he has bound
himself (viz. "what this Church and Realm hath received") to adopt
the ancient vestments. This gives room for the exercise of that
prudent consideration in the matter, which would be out of place if
the law gave no alternative.
We have next the fact that there are degrees, even where it is
desired to return to the ancient system. The _form_ is, as it should
seem, the great matter, both as regards symbolism, and as making a
distinct difference between the ordinary and the eucharistic dress:
the material and colour are secondary. Hence arises a simple and
unobtrusive mode of resuming the old distinction, without risk of
provoking serious objection: eucharistic vestments of fine linen
being not very strikingly different in appearance from the surplice;
more especially if, as some hold, surplices in place of tunics be
allowable for the assistant clergy.
And if many still entertain a distinct preference for the surplice,
none can say that, after 300 years of recognition, it is other than
a seemly and honourable vestment, as an _ad interim_, even for the
Holy Communion. In one case only can it be said to be a dishonour,
and a badge of servitude under the world's rejection,--viz.,
whenever there is no celebration. It can then only be compared
to the linen garment in which the Jewish High Priest was clothed
of old on the one day of Atonement:--the one day in the year on
which Israel mourned over suspended privileges and a desolated
Altar.[63] It is when the surplice ministers to so dreary a Service
as that:--when, as a fit accompaniment to it, the position of the
wearer, at the north _end_ of the Holy Table, indicates at least a
forgetfulness of his priestly functions:--it is then only that it
can be otherwise than honourable among us.
[63] Leviticus xvi. 4.
Nor in like manner, as has appeared above from the venerable,
because primitive and apostolic descent of the eucharistic
vestments, can any tinge of superstition or unsound doctrine be
properly ascribed to them, unless it be through the fault of any in
whose persons they minister to eucharistic doctrines and practices,
which were unknown to Apostolic and primitive days.
And there is yet one other hopeful feature in the present aspect
of things as regards Ritual. It is that, taking the long tract of
years, the desire for an improvement, and for our acting up to the
theory and ideal of our Church in this matter, has begun, as it
ought, with the Episcopate: so that all present endeavours in that
direction, (whether in all respects wisely or faithfully made I have
given some reasons for doubting), are intended at least to be a
carrying out of their fatherly counsels and admonitions. It is now
a quarter of a century since two of the ablest and most influential
Prelates that ever sat on an episcopal throne in England, the late
Bishop of London and the present Bishop of Exeter, invited the
Clergy of their Dioceses to carry out the rubrics, with especial
reference to a particular rubric bearing upon the dress of the
Clergy in one part of their ministrations. It was found impossible
at the time, owing to a strong feeling on the part of the laity
(which time has for the most part removed), to carry out those
injunctions. But their tones have vibrated ever since in the hearts
of the English Clergy. It was felt at the time, as it must ever be
felt, that our _aim_, at least, should be to carry out the Church's
best and deepest mind, and not to acquiesce for generations in a
low standard, merely because it is the existing one. And it is my
humble belief that, had the present attempt to return, in fuller
measure, to her deep and wise rules for eucharistic celebration been
made with more of moderation and considerateness, it would have
carried with it, (and may carry with it yet, if these conditions
be fulfilled), the assent of our Right Reverend Fathers[64] in
God on the one hand, and of our congregations on the other. So
managed, the present might well become a grand and harmonious
movement of Bishops, Clergy, and people towards a noble result,--the
setting up, namely, in its due place, of the highest ordinance of
the Gospel: with variations, indeed, in many respects, as to the
mode and fashion of administration; but with one happy feature at
any rate,--a nearer approximation, both in Rites and Ritual, to
Apostolic Doctrine and Worship.
[64] See the Bishop of Oxford's opinion, delivered in Convocation.