Part 4

On the whole, it cannot be gainsaid, that what "this Church and realm hath received," and what her Ministers, therefore, undertake to carry out in their ministrations, is _not_ the Book of Common Prayer, pure and simple, _but_ that Book as their main guide and Magna Charta, yet interpreted and modified here and there, and in some few but not unimportant points, by provisions or considerations external to it. When, therefore, the candidate for Holy Orders, or for admission to a benefice, undertakes, by signing the Thirty-sixth Canon, that "he will use the form in the said Book prescribed in Public Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, _and none other_," it cannot be understood that the directions of that Book are, without note, comment, or addition, his guide in every particular. For he is about, if a candidate for Ordination, to promise solemnly before the Church that he will minister "as this Church and Realm hath received;" a formula, as has been shown, of much wider range than the letter of the Prayer-book. And in like manner, if a candidate for a benefice, he has already, at his Ordination, made that larger undertaking, and cannot be understood to narrow it now by subscribing to the Canon. And if it be asked, Why were the terms of the Thirty-sixth Canon made so stringent originally by the addition of the words "and none other;" or why should these words be retained now? the answer is, that originally, as a matter of historical fact, the Canon was directed against wilful depravers and evaders of the Book and its rules; not against such interpretations, or even variations and additions, as had all along obtained on various grounds, and are in fact unavoidable by the nature of things. "No one," says the late Bishop Blomfield, "who reads the history of those times with attention can doubt that the object of the Legislature, who imposed upon the clergy a subscription to the above Declaration, was the substitution of the Book of Common Prayer" (subject, even then, to Injunctions, Canons, and customs already modifying it here and there) "for the Missal of the Roman Catholics, or the Directory of the Puritans." And the present retention of the wording of the Canon stands on the same grounds. It is necessary that a promise, and that of a stringent kind, should be exacted of the clergy of a Church, or licence would be unbounded. But on the other hand, it is perfectly intelligible, and has the advantage of practicability, that the words should be understood to speak of the Book as modified in the way in which it has all along, by universal consent, been held to be modified. If it be replied that this, too, opens a door to endless licence, I answer, No. The modifications are, for the most part, as definite as the document itself, and are in number few, though they cover, on occasion, a considerable range of actions. The Prayer-book, in short, is not unlike a monarch, nominally absolute, and for the most part really such; but on whom a certain degree of pressure has from time to time been brought to bear, and may be brought to bear again. But its actual _status_ is at any given time fairly ascertainable. It might be well, indeed, that all this occasional legislation should be digested by the only proper authority, viz. the conjoint spiritualty and temporalty of the realm, into one harmonious and duly authorised whole. But for the time being the position of things is sufficiently intelligible.

And now to apply this view of Prayer-book law, so to call it, to the matter which especially engages attention at this moment,--that of the manner of administering the Holy Communion; and first to the vestments of the clergy.

1. Now, if there be any one point in which the English Church _is_, what she has most untruly been asserted to be in other points, namely, broad and _alternative_ in her provisions, it is this one of the ornaments or dress of her clergy. While, in the matter of doctrine, Heaven forfend that she should have two minds, and give her children their choice which they should embrace--seeing that so would she forfeit the name and being of a "Church" altogether;--certain it is, that, from peculiar causes, she does, in this matter of officiating vestments, give, by her present and already ancient provisions, a choice and an alternative. With her eyes open, and at periods when she was most carefully scanning, for general adoption, those provisions, has she deliberately left on her statute-book (meaning thereby her entire range of rules), and admitted into her practical system, two diverse rules or practices. We may confine our attention for the moment to the period of the latest revision of the Prayer-book in 1662. On that occasion the Fifty-eighth Canon of 1603,--derived from certain "Advertisements" of Elizabeth, and probably supported by the universal custom of the realm,--was allowed to stand unaltered. This Canon provides, as has been above mentioned, that "Every minister, saying the public prayers, or _ministering the sacraments_, or other rites of the Church, shall wear a decent and comely _surplice_ with sleeves;" only with a special exception, recognised in another Canon, in the case of Cathedrals. And yet on the same occasion was retained the rubric of Elizabeth (1559), about "the ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers thereof," with only such variation as fully proves that it was not an oversight, but a deliberate perpetuation of the law concerning _vestments_ more especially. For the previous form of it,--dating from 1603, and but slightly altered from that of Elizabeth,--was, that "the minister at the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his ministrations, _shall use such ornaments in the Church_ as were in use by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI., according to the Act of Parliament set in the beginning of this Book." But the altered form was, "Such ornaments of the Church, _and of the ministers thereof_, at all times of their ministrations, _shall be retained, and be in use_, as were in this Church of England in the second year," &c.; omitting only the mention of the Act of Parliament. It will be observed, that in lieu of "ornaments of the _Church_," which might have seemed to be irrespective of vestments, was now substituted "ornaments of the Church, _and of the ministers_ thereof." And again, compare the words "shall be retained, and be in use" with "shall use." In truth, the new rubric is a citation from the Act of Elizabeth, only omitting the limitation "until such time, &c.," and it cannot be taken as expressing less than a real desire and earnest hope, on the part of our latest revisers, that the original Edwardian "ornaments" might really be used; that they should--gradually, perhaps, but really--supersede, in the case of the Communion Service, the prevalent surplice.

If it be asked, how it came to pass that the surplice had superseded the proper eucharistic vestments prescribed by Elizabeth's rubric? we can only answer, that the prevailing tendency during her reign was decidedly in favour of simpler ways in the matter of ritual; and that, the _Second_ Book of Edward VI. (1552), having distinctly _forbidden_ those vestments by the words, "the minister at the time of the Communion, and at all other times of his ministration, _shall use neither alb, vestment, nor cope_, but, being a bishop, a rochet; and being a priest or deacon, he shall _have and wear_ a surplice only:" the Elizabethan clergy would, owing to the reaction after Queen Mary's reign, be inclined to recur to that position rather than to retain the other vestments. Some, indeed, _did_ retain them, as appears by allusions to them as in use in the beginning of Elizabeth's reign;[25] but, as a general rule, their use was discouraged, and apparently put down. "For the disuse of these ornaments we may thank them that came from Geneva, and, in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, being set in places of government, suffered every negligent priest to do as he listed." (Bishop Overall.)[26]

[25] See note M, p. 49, of Mr. Skinner's recent 'Plea for the threatened Ritual of the Church of England.'

[26] Skinner, p. 48. Archbishop Grindal, and Bishop Sandys (1571-76) urged their destruction.

On the other hand, _one_ form of the Edwardian "Ornaments" had 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.