Kitabı oxu: «Rites and Ritual»

PREFACE

The following pages had been prepared, for the most part, for publication, before it was known that the question of Ritual would be discussed in Convocation, or a Committee of the Lower House appointed, by the direction of the Upper House, to report upon it.

But the suggestions here offered are of so general a character, that it seemed to the writer that they might still without impropriety be put forth as a contribution, of however humble a kind, to the general ventilation of the subject.

It was the writer's hope, as expressed in the original announcement of the Pamphlet, that his Diocesan, the venerable Bishop of Exeter, would have been able to prefix, in an Introduction, his opinion on the leading points, whether of Ritual or Doctrine, involved in the present controversy. And, although that hope has been in part frustrated, he has still been privileged to embody, in an Appendix, his Lordship's deliberate judgment on some of the weightier matters of Eucharistic Doctrine; and to receive an assurance of his warm interest in the subjects dwelt upon in these pages.

The writer has to apologise for having occasionally referred the reader to a larger work of his own. He begs that this may be understood to be merely a guarantee, that detailed proof is forthcoming on points which could only be cursorily treated of in the present publication.

RITES AND RITUAL, ETC

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.

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?

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?

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 rite⁶ 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.

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 France⁸ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Fathers⁶⁴ in God on the one hand, and of our congregations on the other. So managed, the present might well become a grand and harmonious movement of Bishops, Clergy, and people towards a noble result, – the setting up, namely, in its due place, of the highest ordinance of the Gospel: with variations, indeed, in many respects, as to the mode and fashion of administration; but with one happy feature at any rate, – a nearer approximation, both in Rites and Ritual, to Apostolic Doctrine and Worship.

NOTE TO THE FOURTH EDITION

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

Proposition III. —

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

Proposition VIII. —

"That worship is due to The Body and Blood of Christ, supernaturally and invisibly, but Really Present in the Lord's Supper, 'under the form of Bread and Wine,'⁶⁵ by reason of that Godhead with which they are personally united. But that the elements through which 'The Body and Blood of Christ' are given and received may not be worshipped."

With respect to the presence of non-communicants at the Holy Eucharist, I had of course seen such publications as have appeared in defence of the practice. But they fail altogether in the essential point, which is, to show that antiquity viewed the presence of such in any other light than either – 1. As an utter carelessness and irreverence; or 2. as befitting penitents, and them only. The mediæval doctrine and practice, now being revived by some, is that it is a good and laudable habit for Christian persons in a state of grace to come to the Holy Communion, and to decline receiving it.

I have to acknowledge many communications on various points; of which I have to some extent availed myself in this edition.

APPENDIX A
OPINIONS OF THE BISHOP OF EXETER ON CERTAIN POINTS OF DOCTRINE

Having had occasion to receive from the Bishop of Exeter an expression of his views on the subjects discussed in pp. 31-37, I asked and obtained permission to embody it in an Appendix, as his latest and most matured judgment on the matter to which it relates.

The Bishop says: – "I regard the Grace of the Eucharist as the Communion of the Death and Sufferings of our Lord. St. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 24), in his statement of the Revelation made to him from Christ, sitting at the Right Hand of God the Father, seems to me distinctly to affirm this Truth.

"His words τὸ κλώμενον (they should be rendered "which is being broken"), in their literal and plain signification, show that the Lord's Death is one continuous Fact, which lasts and will last till he comes and lays down His Mediatorial Kingdom, subjecting it, and Himself, its King, to the Father.

"I hold that it is, in short, a Sacrament of that continuous Act of our Lord's Suffering once for us on the Cross – the punishment appointed for sin during the days of His Mediation – that our Lord is, in some ineffable manner, present in the Sacrament of His Sufferings, thus communicated to us, by which He pays for us the penalty imposed on our guilt. In such a Presence I do not recognise anything material or local, though I most thankfully rejoice in it as real."

Next as to the point dwelt upon in pp. 66-70, as seeming to prescribe, and to render important, the position of the Celebrant at the Holy Communion: viz. that our Lord's having "given" or "presented" in a mystery, through the Elements, the Sacrifice of His Body and Blood, is the whole secret of their consecration to be that which they represent: and that we, too, must "give," "present," or "offer," the Elements with the same intention, if we would effectually plead the Sacrifice, and receive the Sacrament: —

The Bishop of Exeter, still commenting on 1 Cor. xi. 24, compared with St. Luke xxii. 19, speaks as follows: —

"The use of the present participle in these cases, seems to me to show, that the words ought to be rendered 'which is being given,' and 'which is being broken,' and must be referred to the Act of Crucifixion. The words, thus understood, seem to me to illustrate and to be illustrated by Gal. ii. 20. 'I am crucified with Christ [lit., I have been, and continue to be, crucified with Him – συνεσταύρωμαι], and the life which I now live, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me.' [Comp. 'This is my Body which is being given for you.']

"And again, Gal. iii. 1, 'Before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth crucified among you.' I know not where it is said or implied that we are crucified together with Christ, unless in thus feeding on, and receiving, and partaking of the Dying of Christ, and the showing forth of His Death, as oft as we eat and drink the Body being broken and the Blood being shed."

Again the Bishop, as regards the Roman Doctrines of Transubstantiation and Concomitancy, quotes, as in entire accordance with his own, the following sentiments of the Rev. C. Smith, Rector of Newton, Suffolk, and author of the valuable work, 'An Enquiry into Catholick Truths, hidden under certain Articles of the Creed of the Church of Rome:' – "This is a great mystery; but we must not forget that it is the Lord; and, instead of pretending to explain how it is our Lord feeds us on this most real Sacrifice, and how He can give us, now he is glorified, His own Body and Blood separately, let us rejoice that he nourishes and cherishes His purchased Church by the 'still unconsumed sacrifice (as St. Chrysostom calls it) of Himself.' How mean and impertinent are Transubstantiation and Concomitancy, and the Impanation and Invination of Rome and her followers!"

APPENDIX B
JUDGMENT OF THE BISHOP OF EXETER AS TO VESTMENTS

The following well-known opinion was delivered by the Bishop of Exeter many years since. As such it is simply recorded here, not as involving its author in the present controversy on this subject.

"The rubric, at the commencement of 'The Order for Morning and Evening Prayer,' says 'That such ornaments of the church, and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI.' – in other words, a white alb plain, with a vestment or cope. These were forbidden in King Edward VI.'s Second Book. This was a triumph of the party most opposed to the Church of Rome, and most anxious to carry reformation to the very farthest point. But their triumph was brief – within a few months Mary restored Popery; and when the accession of Queen Elizabeth brought back the Reformation, she, and the Convocation, and the Parliament, deliberately rejected the simpler direction of Edward's Second Book, and revived the ornaments of the First. This decision was followed again by the Crown, Convocation, and Parliament, at the restoration of Charles II., when the existing Act of Uniformity established the Book of Common Prayer, with its rubrics, in the form in which they now stand.

"Strange indeed is it that in the very teeth of this plain and evident intention of the Reformers and Revisers of the Prayer-book, there should be English Churchmen and Clergy, so forgetful of the duty they owe the Church, that they are trying with all their power to provoke Parliament to do an unjust and unconstitutional act, by attempting to set aside this law of the Church, which has the sanction of the three Estates of the Realm: and can only be altered by their concurrence.

"From this statement it will be seen, that the surplice may be objected to with some reason; but then it must be because the law requires 'the alb, and the vestment, or the cope.'

"Why have these been disused? Because the parishioners – that is, the churchwardens, who represent the parishioners – have neglected their duty to provide them; for such is the duty of the parishioners by the plain and express canon law of England (Gibson 200). True, it would be a very costly duty, and for that reason most probably, churchwardens have neglected it, and archdeacons have connived at the neglect. I have no wish that it should be otherwise. But, be this as it may, if the churchwardens of Helston shall perform this duty, at the charge of the parish, providing an alb, a vestment, and a cope, as they might in strictness be required to do (Gibson, 201), I shall enjoin the minister, be he who he may, to use them. But until these ornaments are provided by the parishioners, it is the duty of the minister to use the garment actually provided by them for him, which is the surplice. The parishioners never provide a gown, nor, if they did, would he have a right to wear it in any part of his ministrations. For the gown is nowhere mentioned nor alluded to in any of the rubrics. Neither is it included, as the alb, the cope, and three surplices expressly are, among 'the furniture and ornaments proper for Divine Service,' to be provided by the parishioners of every parish.

"The 58th canon of 1604 (which however cannot control the Act of Uniformity of 1662) enjoins 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, &c., to be provided at the charge of the parish.' For the things required for the common prayer of the parish were and are to be provided by the parish. If a gown were required, it would have to be provided by the parish."

APPENDIX C
ON SAYING AND SINGING

My dear Archdeacon,

With regard to the question which you ask respecting the mode of performing Divine Service, it appears to me evident that it never entered into the heads of those who undertook, in the 16th century, the great work of remodelling, translating, simplifying, congregationalising (to use a barbarous word) the old Sarum Offices, and recasting them into the abbreviated form of our Matins and Evensong, to interfere with the universally received method of reciting those Offices. It is quite certain that they never dreamed of so great an innovation in immemorial usage. Their object was merely to simplify the old Ritual music. It had become so tedious and ornate, that it was impossible for the people to join in their part; and the priest's part was rendered unintelligible by means of the wearisome "neumas" and flourishes, which had little by little crept in, to the utter ruin of the staid solemnity of the ancient Plain Song. So the great business was to make the priest's part devout and intelligible, and the people's simple and congregational.

The first part of our Prayer-book which came out was the Litany. But it came out with its beautiful and simple Ritual Music. It was thus originally intended to be sung; but to music so plain and straightforward that a child may join in it. (It is the same melody as is still generally used for the Litany.) Only the melody was published at first; no harmony: therefore it would be sung in unison.

But a month afterwards a harmonised edition was published for the benefit of those choirs which were more skilled in music. It was set in five-part harmony, according to the notes used in the "Kynge's Chapel." Tallis's more elaborate version was published twenty years afterwards.

But this English Litany was harmonised over and over again in different ways, by different composers; the very variety of setting incidentally proving how very general its musical use had become.

It was in the following year (1545) that Cranmer wrote his well-known letter to Henry respecting the "Processions" and Litany Services, which it was in contemplation to set forth in English for festival days; requesting that "some devout and solemn note be made thereto," similar to that of the published Litany: "that it may the better excitate and stir the hearts of all men to devotion and godliness: " the Archbishop adding that, in his opinion, "the song made thereto should not be full of notes, but as near as may be for every syllable a note."

Four years after came out Edward's First Prayer-book, and almost simultaneously with it (at least within the year) the musical notation of the book, published "cum Privilegio," and edited by John Merbecke.

There seems no doubt in the world that this book was edited under Cranmer's supervision; and was intended as a quasi-authoritative interpretation of the musical rubrics.

The old ritual words, "legere," "dicere," "cantare," continue in the reformed, just as of old in the unreformed rubrics. They had a definite meaning in the Latin Service Books. There is not a vestige of a hint that they are to have any other than their old meaning in the vernacular and remodelled Offices. They are often loosely used as almost convertible expressions. "Dicere" rather expresses the simpler; "cantare," the more ornate mode of musical reading. The word "legere" simply denoted "recitation from a book," without any reference to the particular mode of the recitation. Applied to the Gospel in the old rubrics, it would simply express that the Gospel was to be here "recited," according to the accustomed "Cantus Evangelii." The same with other parts of the service. As "legere" did not signify non-musical recitation in the old rubrics, so neither does it in the revised. In fact, in two or three instances, it is used avowedly as synonymous with "say or sing," —e. g. in the cases both of the "Venite" and the Athanasian Creed. These of course are definitely ordered to be "said" or "sung," —i. e. "said" on the monotone, or "sung" to the regular chant.

But yet in two rubrics which merely deal with the position where, on certain particular occasions, they are to be recited (the rubrics not adverting to the mode of their recitation), the general term "read" is applied to them – "The Venite shall be read here."

Now, as the rubrical directions respecting the performance of the Services are virtually the same in the old and the new Office, so is the music itself as given in Merbecke. His book is nothing more than an adaptation, in a very simplified form, of the old Latin Ritual Song to our English Service. Cranmer's Rule is rigidly followed – "as near as may be, for every syllable a note."

The Priest's part throughout is very little inflected. Even the 'Sursum Corda' and 'Proper Preface' in the Communion Offices are plain monotone; as well (of course) as all the Prayers.

But the Introit, Offertory Sentences, Post Communion, Pater-noster, Sanctus, Agnus-Dei, Credo, 'Gloria in Excelsis,' in most of which the people would be expected to join, are all inflected, though the music is plain and simple.

That there was not even the remotest intention of doing away with the immemorial practice of the Church of God (alike in Jewish as in Christian times), of employing some mode of solemn Musical Recitation for the saying of the Divine Offices, is further evident by the rubric relating to the Lessons. Of course, if, in any part of the Services, the ordinary colloquial tone of voice should be employed, it plainly ought to be in the Lessons.

But not even here was such an innovation contemplated.

The ancient "Capitula" were much inflected. The Cantus Evangelii and Epistolarum admitted likewise of a great and wearisome licence of inflection. Now it would have been absurd to inflect a long English lesson. The Rubric, therefore, ordered that the Lessons should be said to uninflected song.

"In such places where they do sing, then shall the Lesson be sung in a plain tune after the manner of distinct reading" (i. e. recitation); in other words, the "Lessons, Epistle, and Gospel," were to be all alike said in monotone.

You are aware, of course, that it was not till the last Revision in 1662 that this rubric was removed. The Divines at the Savoy Conference at first objected, and, in their published answer, stated that the reasons urged by the Puritan party for its removal were groundless. However, the rubric disappeared; and, I think, happily and providentially. For certainly (except the reader chances to have a very beautiful voice) it would be painful to hear a Lesson – perhaps a chapter of fifty or sixty verses – said all in monotone. Moreover, while in solemn addresses (whether of Prayer or Praise to God), the solemn musical Recitation seems most fitting and reverential, in lections or addresses delivered primarily for the edification of man, a freer mode of utterance appears desirable and rational.

Merbecke's book (I should have added) does not contain the music for the Litany – as that had been already published – nor for the whole Psalter. It simply gives a few specimens of adaptation of the old Chants to English Psalms or Canticles, and leaves it to individual choirs to adapt and select for themselves.

The intention of the English Church to retain a musical service is further confirmed by the often quoted injunction of Queen Elizabeth, 1559 (c. 49), which gives licence for an anthem.

It first orders that "there shall be a modest and distinct song," (i. e. the ordinary plain song) "used in all parts of the Common Prayers of the Church;" while, for the comfort of such as delight in music, it permits, at the beginning or end of the services, "a hymn or song in the best melody and music that can be devised, having respect to the sense of the words."

The utmost that can be said of our rubrics is, that in cases of musical incapacity, or where no choir can be got, where priest or people cannot perform their part properly, then they may perform it improperly. But, unquestionably, whenever the services can be correctly performed, when the priest can monotone his part, and the people sing theirs, then the services ought to be so performed. It is a matter of simple obedience to Church rule. The single word "Evensong" is a standing protest against the dull conversational services of modern times.

In reference to the popular objection, that the musical rubrics refer merely to cathedrals and collegiate churches, Lord Stowell observed, in his judgment in the case of Hutchins v. Denziloe (see Cripps, p. 644, 3rd ed.), that if this be the meaning of the rubrics and canons which refer to this subject, then "they are strangely worded, and of disputable meaning," for they express nothing of the kind. The rubrics, he says, rule that certain portions of the service "be sung or said by the minister and people; not by the prebendaries, canons, and a band of regular choristers, as in a cathedral; but plainly referring to the services of a parish church."

It is very difficult to say when the use of the monotone generally dropped and gave place to our modern careless unecclesiastical polytone. The change, I suppose, took place gradually; first in one district, then in another. The Church's mode of reciting her Offices would involve more care and skill than the clergy much cared to give. So, little by little, – first in one locality, then in another, – they fell into the modern, loose, irregular way of talking or pronouncing instead of "saying and singing."

Yours ever,

John B. Dykes.

St. Oswald's Vicarage, Durham,

January 20, 1866.