Part 3

What then, supposing the clergy to be really anxious for it, are the difficulties in the way? The first and most obvious is that of finding a sufficient number of Communicants. This is to be overcome in a great measure by careful heed to that pregnant charge given to the clergy at their Ordination, "So to sanctify the lives of _them and theirs_, and to _fashion them after the Rule and Doctrine of Christ_, that they" (that is the clergy and their households) "may be godly examples and patterns for the people to follow." And again they are charged "to frame the manners of _them that specially pertain to them_." These injunctions suggest, that in the families and dependences of the parochial clergy ought to be found a nucleus and centre of all Christian living. Frequent Communion, at the least--weekly, if possible--should be the normal condition of the Clergyman's household, and of all who are allowed any special part in, or connexion with, the Services of the Church. Care being taken of this, it may well be hoped that at least a gradual reform might be made: the stereotyped monthly Communions being exchanged for a fortnightly, and finally for the full "orbed round" of Weekly Celebration.

But there is also a _vis inertiæ_ to be overcome, among the middle classes more especially, in the form of an objection to frequent Celebration at all. This, being founded in misapprehension, and a vague general distrust of the object of such changes, must be removed, in part by full and earnest setting forth of the grounds for them; but still more by extending to those classes a fuller measure of education, including, as it cannot fail to do, a juster conception of the Church's duty and claims.

Another difficulty is the increased amount of labour which a weekly Communion, if largely attended, as it ought to be, would entail upon the clergy. This may in part be compensated for by keeping the eucharistic sermon within more moderate limits. Even so, however, the service is to the full long and laborious for a priest single-handed; while the great majority of benefices are unable to maintain a second clergyman, even in Deacon's Orders. And the true remedy for this, and for the kindred difficulty of maintaining the Daily Service, would seem to lie in that revival of the Order of Subdeacons which has of late been so much urged, and which seems likely to be countenanced by our ecclesiastical authorities.[14] The duties of a Subdeacon might, it is thought, include the reading of the daily Office (excepting, of course, the Absolution), of the Epistle, and some other subordinate portions of the Communion Service. And it may be worth considering (though I offer the suggestion with much diffidence), seeing that the Diaconate, as used among us, trenches so largely upon the duties of old assigned to the priest (such as preaching), whether it would not be proportionate that the Subdeacon should be advanced, in some cases, to a restrained Diaconate, and administer the Cup also. Such a provision would diminish by one-half the time and labour of administration.

[14] See 'The Revival of the Subdiaconate,' a pamphlet; and the Suggestions of the Archdeacon of London, put forth in his Charge of 1850, and lately revised at a meeting of his Clergy of his Archdeaconry, "not without the full knowledge and sanction of the Archbishops and of the Bishop of London."

On the whole, I cannot but hope that, if our Right Reverend Fathers in God, the Bishops, should think fit to press upon their clergy, and they upon their flocks, the duty of Weekly Celebration as alone fulfilling the commandment of Christ, a great deal might be done towards rolling away this heavy reproach from us.

And let it be borne in mind, as an encouragement, that this is the _only_ point absolutely wanting to complete our agreement, in every particular, with the apostolic practice. Such of our churches as have already, week by week, a fairly attended Celebration, to which all the faithful are heartily invited and urged to come,--such churches exhibit a spectacle of really Apostolical Eucharistic Service, such as the whole world beside cannot produce. Neither in East or West, but in the English Church only, is weekly Communion, as the bounden duty of all Christians, so much as dreamt of; so utterly has the apostolic model, throughout Christendom, faded from the memory of the Church of God.

* * * * *

I turn now to another form of eucharistic error which has obtained some footing among us. In what has been said above, the mind and practice of the _first ages_ have been appealed to as the absolute standard of eucharistic duty. And on this point we cannot, surely, be too solicitous, or too firm in resisting any departure from it. Such is, at any rate, the mind of the English Church. "Before all things we must be sure that this Sacrament be ministered in such wise as our Saviour did, and the good fathers in the primitive Church frequented it." The position amounts to this,--that whatever was then held to be true, and was acted upon, must be true, and ought to be acted upon still. And the converse position is no less important,--that whatever was demonstrably _not_ held nor was acted upon then, cannot be true at all, and ought not to be acted upon now.

But this position has now, for some few years past, been, in practice, abandoned by some who have interested themselves in the eucharistic condition of the English Church. Doctrines have been maintained, and practices founded upon them, about which, whatever defence may be set up for them, thus much at least is certain, and can be proved to demonstration, that they find no recognition in the ritual of the primitive ages.

I speak more especially of the tenet, that one purpose, and a very principal one to say the least, of the Holy Eucharist, is to _provide the Church with an object of Divine Worship, actually enshrined in the Elements--namely, our Lord Jesus Christ_; and that the Church ought accordingly to pay towards that supposed personal Presence of Christ on the altar, and towards the Elements as containing Him, that worship, which at other times she directs to Him as seated at the Right Hand of God. Such is the position laid down and acted upon.

Now, it might be shewn that there are infinite objections to this tenet, and that it involves vast difficulties and perplexities. But the one answer which is _instar omnium_, and must be held to be absolutely decisive against it, is that it was evidently _unknown to the mind, because unrecognised by the Ritual, of the first ages_. The altar, we are told, is, for the time being, the Majestic Throne of Christ; His Presence there (I cite the language of the upholders of this view) is of such a nature as to demand at our hands the same worship as we commonly pay to the Holy Trinity in Heaven. Now, if this be really so, it necessitates, as a matter of course, acts of Service, of Worship, of Prayer, of Invocation, addressed to Christ so present and so enthroned. Let, then, the upholders of it produce a _single instance_ from the Ancient Communion Offices of a prayer, or even an invocation, so addressed. It cannot be done. Or if there be found such an one lurking in some remote corner of a Liturgy, its manifest departure from the whole tone and bearing of the rest of the Office stamps it at once as late and unauthoritative.

And this is the leading consideration,--that the entire drift and structure of the Eucharistic Service is against such a view. _Its_ keynote is "_Sursum corda_." This we are now called upon to give up, and to turn our worship, and the direction of our hearts, to an object enshrined on earth.--But besides this, the Liturgies throughout speak of that which is consecrated, and lies upon the altar, as _Things_, and not as a person. But if it be indeed Christ Himself that lies there, is it reverent to speak of HIM as "Things," "Offerings," or even as "Mysteries"? Yet what is the language of the ancient Liturgies, after the consecration? "Bestow on us benefit from these Offerings" (Lit. S. Chrys.). "That we may become worthy partakers of Thy holy Mysteries" (Syr. Lit. S. James). "Holy Things for holy persons:" or (as it is otherwise rendered) "The Holy Things to the Holy Places;" or in the Western uses, "Desire these Things (_hæc_) to be carried up by the hands of Thy Holy Angel unto thy sublime altar, into the Presence of Thy Majesty." It is intelligible, that for the divine and mysterious _Things_, the Body and Blood of Christ, we should desire contact with the mysterious heavenly altar, on which "the Lamb that was slain" personally presents Himself; but that we should desire this for Christ Himself would be incomprehensible, if not irreverent.

And let these words of S. Chrysostom's Liturgy be especially pondered: "Hear us, O Lord Jesus Christ, out of Thy Holy Dwelling-place, and from the _Throne of the glory of Thy kingdom_; Thou that sittest above with the Father, and here art invisibly present with us: and by thy mighty Hand _give us to partake_ of Thy spotless Body and Thy precious Blood." Is it not perfectly certain from hence, that, in the conception of antiquity, Our Blessed Lord was _not_ lying personally upon the altar? that, personally, He was, as regards His Majestic Presence, on His Throne in Heaven? and as regards His Mysterious Presence on earth, it was to be sought, not in or under the Elements, but (according to the proper law of it) in and among the faithful, the Church of God there present? For He is invited to come, by an especial efflux or measure of that Presence, and to give the mysterious Things, His Body and Blood.

The same conclusion follows from the language of the Fathers, taken in its full range. Let any one examine Dr. Pusey's exhaustive catena of passages from the Fathers, concerning the "Real Presence," and he will find that, for one instance in which That which is on the Altar is spoken of as if it were Christ Himself, it is called a hundred times by the title, "His Body and Blood." The latter is manifestly the exact truth; the former the warm and affectionate metonymy, which gives to the mysterious Parts, the Body and Blood, the titles due only properly to the Divine and Personal Whole.

Vain then, and necessarily erroneous, because utterly devoid of countenance from the ancient Apostolic Rites, are the inferences by which this belief is supported. Though, indeed, the fallacy of the inferences themselves is sufficiently apparent. It is said that Christ's Body, wherever it is, and under whatsoever conditions existing, must demand and draw Divine Worship towards it. Is it so indeed? Then why, I would ask, do we not pay Divine Worship to the CHURCH? for the Church certainly is "His Body, His Flesh, and His Bones." Nay, why do we not worship the individual communicant? for he, certainly, has received not only Christ's Body, but Christ's very Self, to dwell within him. The truth is, that inferences, in matters of this mysterious nature, are perfectly untrustworthy, unless supported and countersigned by apostolic practice.

I am aware that this doctrine has been embraced, of late years, by some of the most devout and eminent of our divines. But the history of their adoption of it is such, that we may allege themselves, in the exercise of their own earlier and unbiassed judgment, against their present opinions. The names of those divines are named with reverence and affection, and justly so, wherever the English language is spoken. But the works, on which that estimate was first founded, upheld, explicitly or tacitly, the opposite of that to which they now lend the high sanction of their adhesion. A sermon on the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Eucharist was called forth from one of them by a sentence of suspension from preaching in the University pulpit at Oxford. But this full exposition of his eucharistic views at that time is absolutely devoid of any claim for Divine Adoration as due to the Body and Blood of Christ, or to Christ Himself as present under the Eucharistic Elements. Again, in a well-known stanza of the 'Christian Year,' another honoured divine has said,--

"O come to our Communion Feast; There present in the heart, _Not in the hands_, th' eternal Priest Will His true self impart."[15]

[15] It is true that another part of the same exquisite volume speaks of--

"The dear feast of JESUS dying, _Upon that altar ever lying_, Where souls, with sacred hunger sighing, Are called to sit and eat, while angels prostrate fall."

But this is exactly an instance of the warm metonymy above spoken of, and cannot be pressed against the distinct disallowance, contained in the passage quoted in the text, of there being a _personal Presence_ of Christ in the Elements.

And it is believed that the first appearance in a modern days of the _former_ doctrine, viz. that worship is due to the Body and Blood of Christ, was in the year 1856, in the case of Ditcher _v._ Denison.[16] It was through a chivalrous desire to uphold a cause, with the main aspects of which they naturally felt a deep sympathy, that the writers referred to were drawn into countenancing a doctrine, then new to their theology, but of the truth of which, on examination, they seem to have satisfied themselves. Surely we may believe that it was not without misgiving that they thus abandoned the doctrines which they once taught us. They cannot have felt altogether satisfied thus to break with the Church of the First Ages in a matter so momentous as that of the Object of worship, and of the nature and purpose of the Holy Eucharist.

[16] See note at the end.

Closely connected with this doctrine, is a practice not merely defended of late, but strongly urged as being of the very essence of exalted Eucharistic duty:--that of being present at the Rite _without receiving_; for the purpose, it is alleged, of adoring Christ as present under the Elements. But here again the Early Church furnishes thorough condemnation of the practice. In an exhaustive treatise,[17] it has been shown that, except as a deeply penitential act, she knew of no such practice; making no account whatever of attendance on the rite apart from reception: rightly viewing it as a Sacrifice indeed, but a Sacrifice of that class or kind in which _partaking_ was an essential and indispensable feature. And the English Church, it is almost unnecessary to add, though a faint endeavour has been made to disprove it, has given no more countenance than the Church of old to this practice. Contenting herself, at first, at the Reformation, with forbidding non-communicants to remain in the choir, she afterwards so effectually discouraged and disallowed their presence at all, that it became unmeaning to retain the prohibition any longer.[18]

[17] Rev. W. Scudamore's 'Communion of the Faithful.'

[18] This is fully proved by Scudamore, 'Communion of the Faithful,' pp. 107-120.

And in truth it is, as might be expected, to the later and corrupt ages of the Church that we owe both of these positions which it is now attempted to revive among us: viz. that in the language of the decrees of Trent,[19] "our Lord Jesus Christ, God and Man, is truly, really, and substantially contained in the Sacrament of the Eucharist," _i. e._ in the Elements, "and is to be adored" as contained therein: and again, that the faithful may be present merely to adore, and may communicate spiritually,[20] though, as has been well said, "they purposely neglect the only mode of doing so ordained by Christ."

[19] Council of Trent, Session 13, c. 1. See 'Principles of Divine Service,' Introd. to vol. ii., pp. 158-187.

[20] Session 22, c. 6.

The latter position--respecting non-communicating attendance--has been lately discountenanced[21] by one of those eminent divines who are generally claimed as sanctioning the entire system to which it belongs. And though the number of those among the clergy who have embraced these views is not inconsiderable, while their piety and devotedness are unquestionable, yet I cannot doubt that at least an equal number, in no way their inferiors in learning or devotion, deeply deplore these departures from the primitive faith. And it is not too much to hope, that, as the English Church has witnessed a school of postmediæval or unsacramental divinity, which, notwithstanding its piety and earnestness, has ceased to exercise much influence among us, even so it may be with the mediæval and ultra-sacramental school which has lately risen up. Defend their views how they will, what they are seeking to introduce is a _new cultus_, and a _new religion_, as purely the device of the middle ages, as non-sacramentalism was the device of Calvin and Zwingle. And the one doctrine as distinctly demands a new Prayer-book as the other does. What the English Church, on her very front, professes, is neither postmediævalism nor mediævalism, but apostolicity. Since choose she must, (for the two are utterly irreconcilable) between symbolising with the mediævalising Churches of the West, and symbolising with the Church of the first ages, she has taken her part, and her deliberate mind is "Sit Anima Mea cum Apostolis."

[21] See Mr. Keble's letter in the 'Guardian,' Jan. 24, 1866.

* * * * *

From RITES, I turn to RITUAL, which claims at this moment the larger share of attention.

How, then, are the Services of the English Church to be performed, so as to be in accordance with her mind and principles? It will be answered, that the Services ought to be conducted according to "the Book of Common Prayer and _Administration of the Sacraments_, according to the use of the Church of England."[22] But this, though at first sight the true and sufficient answer, is not, in reality, either true or sufficient. The duty in question, that of conducting the Services of the Church, is laid upon particular persons: and it is by recurring to the exact terms of the obligation laid on those persons, when they are solemnly commissioned to their office, that we must seek for an answer. Now the engagement exacted by the Bishop from candidates for the priesthood, at their Ordination, is, in exact terms, this: "Will you give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, _and as this Church and Realm hath received the same_?" The italicised words contain the gist of the whole matter. By the interpretation we put upon them must our standard of Ritual be determined.

[22] Preface concerning the Service of the Church.

What then "hath this Church and Realm received," at the present moment, in the matter of Ritual? Not the Prayer-book standing absolutely, and alone, without any comment or addition whatsoever: but that Book, as interpreted and modified, in certain respects, by subsequent enactments, which have in various ways obtained, practically, the Church's recognition. The truth is, that this country has taken a certain line, and the same line, in her ecclesiastical and in her civil polity. In civil matters, Magna Charta is the broad basis and general draught of her free constitution. But the particulars of that constitution have been from time to time regulated and modified, not by interlining the original document, but by separate statutes. And the Prayer-book, in like manner, is the ecclesiastical Magna Charta of the Church and Realm. For upwards of two centuries--since 1662--it has received no authoritative interlineation whatever; and but few and slight ones (subsequently to its first settlement in 1549-1559) for another century before that. The differences which are found at the present moment in any two copies of the Prayer-book are purely unauthorised. They are merely editions for convenience. The Sealed Book, settled in 1662--that, and no other--is the English Prayer-book. For more than three centuries, then, we may say that a policy of non-interlineation, so to call it--that is, of leaving intact the original document--has been very markedly adhered to. Such alterations or modifications as have, practically, been made and accepted by the Church and Realm, have been effected by enactments external to the Prayer-book. Injunctions, canons, statutes, judicial decisions, have from time to time been allowed, _nemine contradicente_, to interpret or even contravene particular provisions of the Book. And, not least of all, custom itself has, in not a few particulars, acquired the force of law, and though not as yet engrossed in any legal document, has long been, in practice, part and parcel of our ecclesiastical polity.

Instances in point are,--1. Of an injunction practically recognised as law, that of Queen Elizabeth, permitting the use of "a hymn or such like song in the beginning or in the end of the Common Prayers;" whereas the Prayer-book recognises no such feature or element. It is on this injunction, and on that alone, that the practice, now universal, is based. Other instances, again, of royal injunctions, constantly acted upon, are those by which the names of the sovereign and royal family, _pro re natâ_, are inserted and altered; a power given indeed, by implication, in the Prayer-book itself, because necessary by the nature of the case; but not expressly there,[23] and a departure, speaking literally, from the Sealed Book. Such, again, is the use of prayers or thanksgivings enjoined on special occasions by royal authority. These it has so long been customary to accept and use, that no serious question is now made of their legality.

[23] It is provided for, as is well known, by the Act of Uniformity, 13 & 14 Car. II.

2. An instance of a canon obtaining recognition by common consent, though irreconcilable with the rubric of the Prayer-book, is that of the 58th of 1604, which orders any minister, when "ministering the sacraments," to wear a surplice; whereas the rubric recognises for the Holy Communion far other "Ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers thereof."

3. A case of statute law being allowed to supplement rubrical provision, by adding an alternative, is that which orders Banns of Marriage to be asked after the Second Lesson at Evening Service, if there be no Morning Service. Such too, as the Dean of Westminster lately pointed out in Convocation, was the Act of Toleration; as is also the Act empowering bishops to require a second sermon on Sundays.

4. Judicial decisions, once more, are from time to time unavoidable. By these a certain interpretation is put upon the rubrics of the Prayer-book; and unless protested against, as sometimes they are, in some weighty and well-grounded manner, they are practically embodied in the standing law of the Church.

5. And lastly, apart from any legal prescription whatever, various usages and practices, especially in matters not expressly provided for in the Prayer-book, have obtained so generally, as to be a part of what may be called the "common law" of the Church, though liable to revision by the proper authority. Such is the alternate recitation, in Churches where it obtains, of the psalms, between the Minister and the people. Such too is, in reality, the use of any other mode of saying the Service than that of reciting it on a musical note; for none other was intended by the Church, nor is recognised in the Prayer-book.[24] Such, once more, is the having any sermon beyond the rubrical one.

[24] See, in proof of this, the admirable letter, which, by the kind permission of the Rev. J. B. Dyke, late Precentor of Durham, I have placed in the Appendix.