The case for incense : submitted to His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Rev. H. Westall on Monday, May 8, 1899, together with a legal argument and the appendices of the experts
Temple, Frederick, 1821-1902 | Westall, H
J C o cS > S >< ^ 0 11 S 'S, rt o - S fi h H W "s s £? r£ O C • ftg a 0 O S CO b if = 'Z e -^ -tT S «'£ H^a 5 O s 3 j •5 o H 3 e « m 0> s » *• w = ^ T H 55S OS S i fl? irt e I-T< ^cT ° "els rg ° -r8 o *g< •- 8 ^ ^^s %>> o O g a .15 S,.s CO O 1— 1 soone as the Prieste holy Communion, and w is ended, then shall the t Communion. f holy Scripture, to be daye one, after the ho] led' the post Communion sjj |«3 Pi S S a .5 « a w>53 £3 to c« S c I*! |"Sl i 3 O> '&! • - §. * tn 73 S3 fl -w <H 05 and everlasting God est turning him to the em depart with this bles ginning so receyue the '. Communion • & S iC Sentences o song euery munion, call <o 'n « **% O cd g^ ^ H^ municated, and saying, i-i O 0 A H ^ £ ?-l W i— i hen the Pri shall let th qj pq te= H H 111 s s a s'g 00 it la »% i: . ** .2 ^ a ^ ^-a -2^PH S Or-i •§g5-« ^ a, o 117 g g S «• s -S ,£3 S - O O *• a a I r * I II ft - l • •g s Q^ "3 -2 o "2 ra s-i ' — ' '3 ^ o3 _H l . - % l-gl a 8 obc® ' O 3 05 ^ 3 5 60S 0 o O §02 O ^H ao> a Vi/ -3 pujs 2 2 »" -' o P H 118 i3*-" ~ II IT! 0} <-< "•*-" -*C>5jS2>-'5*J 0 j£ g £ t: -° "< - t— -^ Ci •<*• 10 I— I ar avoiding of all matters and occasion of dissension, it is meet that the bread pre pared for the Communion be made, through all this realm, after one sort and fashion ; that is to say, unleavened, and round, as it was afore, but without all manner of print, and something more larger and thicker than it was, so that it may be aptly divided in divers pieces : and every one shall be divided in two pieces, at the least, or more, by the discretion of the minister, and so distributed. And men must not think less to be received in part than in the whole, but in each of them the whole body of our Saviour Jesu Christ. Upon Wednesdays and Fridays, the English Litany shall be said or sung in all places, after such form as is appointed by the king's majesty's Injunctions : Or as is or shall be otherwise appointed by his highness. And though there be none to communicate with the Priest, yet these days (after the Litany ended) the Priest shall put upon him a plain Albe or surplice, with a cope, and say all things at the Altar (appointed to be said at the celebration of the Lord's supper), until after the offertory. And then shall add one or two of the Collects aforewri:tcn, as occasion shall serve, by his discretion. And then turninf; him to the people shall M Uiem depart with the accustomed blessing. 119 e-SJife^og 2|~ -ssg-sllll1! ll-slS* si^eg-g r&-| islilJLla 1«1«1« o&°k.gf8 o** c ^T'S E * S jj -a § 1 1 S 5 gllfell ^slili .!s|2sl (H>^O S-iO'-Cl-*3 -'(DtwcM QJ .J^* g fl?c^ £HO O1^1""1 O O =111 IliytlHl ^!«IIii^^!i|i: rt-^CfL, "a g „ -^ ^ >>A S'SS ^^^^-S-^^^e^C^S^^ iti;ii|§Pt|ii|i --"•illHilCli sil'i a-s s ll fcJl » *1* « S rt ge« » a* s'S5 § «5 oc5 ISllaMSalfoM-aii o ^^i&K^Ji1'! Sg^S3^§^|5li flp^Jlim ?!J«fnfiiH ±5 "a 53 8-8 e CrQ ~ *<s-r; M«»fl!ibf( Tr1*-1 S S3 v' ST; ss ° *=o>x!<u S?3'te«<ii-S^ lif'vlll'kt |3fi|a.r.||li o<uaJ'g^H(H o-Stflg^ " .S S^-S1? "-1 ^ sS."^ ^ o 6013 § S$H^£ 120 05 Tt* * §t a — §11% x JTs i o fea~3 :: ~ s ~s « o> H43"le3Bfig** fill'Zjijj'ittiij cc 121 1^5fi-9| ILs-fs"53 gl^ il S a ^ -g U.llJJsi^g'iejJioo s^ £ •* £§ 1 1 ^ 1 IcI 1U * 1 1 § ^•§fi0§il^l§rHii J£i 1 s^ &gr§ g^ s 1^§ -25^^ s^ ^^s ^^ a .is 8^ 122 THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF THE RUBRICS IN THE LITURGIES OF EDWARD VI., AND SPECIALLY IN THE BOOK OF 1549. Prima facie a Rubric is a direction to the minister or to those ministered to, describing, limiting, and illustrating the form of ministry to which it is appended, and nothing more. But the Rubrics of the English Prayer Book, especially in its earlier editions, are largely inspired with another and totally different intention. They form, indeed, valuable evidence of the animus of those who inserted them, their silence being often as eloquent as their utterance, and their absence as significant as their presence, and for the following reason : they are explana tory of chanyes from former established usages, and specially changes by way of simplification and diminution. So far as their statements go, the Rubrics may be perhaps most con veniently divided into three classes — (a) Those which proscribe (explicitly) ; (b} Those which prescribe (explicitly) ; (c) Those which describe (explicitly). But beyond this, as will be seen, they both proscribe and pre scribe implicitly, and by their silence leave an inference as strong, or stronger, than any statement. First, with regard to the descriptive Rubrics. They are mostly very short, somewhat vague, and, so far as they are counted directions for the performance of Divine Service, imperfect. This, however, is by no means the case with all of them. There are certain descriptive Rubrics as full or fuller than any to be found in the Modern Roman Missal. Such are of only one sort, viz., those that describe objects, usages, or ceremonies of Divine Service of a contention* or disciplinary nature. These will be noticed shortly. 123 The short and meagre Rubrics of direction and description are such as these — For Mattins, The Priest being in the Quire shall begin. At the Lord's Supper, The Priest standing humbly afore the midst of the Altar, xltall say. At Baptisms, The God Fathers .... must be ready at the Church Door. At Marriages, The persons to be married shall come into the body of the Church. At Visitation of the Sick, The Priest entering into the Sick Person's house shall say. At a Churching, The woman shall kneel .... nigh unto the quire door, and the Priest standing by her .... At a Funeral, The Priest meeting the Corpse at the Church, style .... At the Commination, The Priest shall go into the Pulpit. In the case of nearly every Service it is supposed to be a sufficient direction to the officiant to tell him where he is to begin the Service, and to leave him thenceforward to move and stand after " the accustomed manner." And this is the more clear from the consideration of the first rubric of the Lord's Supper. It was needful to describe the position at the Lord's prayer and collect since they were not the beginning of the Latin Mass. Or at Mattins, being in the choir, he is to begin with the Lord's Prayer directly and simply without " invocation." When, however, a Rubric is lengthy and descriptive, it is because it has to describe something neither wholly old nor entirely new, but greatly altered from its original form. In this regard the 1549 Rubric as to the Bread is specially noteworthy. It is to be unleavened, round, without device, thicker than before, and larger in diameter, to be divided into two or three, and so given The fulness of this description is with obvious intention. 124 The Rubric of the 1548 Order of Communion simply said that the bread was to be such as heretofore, but broken every one in two pieces at the least. The former Rubric was defensive as against those who would abolish the old bread, but to emphasize the Communion and to minimize the Priest's individual oblation, not his Host only, but each of the people's breads was to be broken. The 1549 Rubric goes further, and doing away with the Print, and making all the wafers large, reduces the Communion of the Faithful to a more uniform level. It is needless to do more than refer to the shortness of the rubric on this matter in the Book of 1552 : To take away the superstition . ... it shall suffice that the bread "be suck as is usual to be eaten at the table . .. No " description " beyond this is needed. The Rubrics descriptive of the preliminary conditions and regulations for Communion, as the final rubrics as to celebration, number of recipients, &c., are full and ample. They need not, however, be here discussed in detail. It is enough to point out that they evidence the necessity felt by the framers thereof to be very explicit in describing the new usages and obligations, and, equally "inevitable" to those who should wish to revert to older customs. That such a desire was felt, and strongly felt, is shown by the demands of the Devonshire rioters1 who demanded fiercely that, except at Easter, no one should be allowed to communicate at Mass ! The final Rubric in the preliminary group is specially noticeable. The "vesture appointed" is at first sight simply the old vesture of the Celebrant ; but a slight examination will show that this is not the case. Had it been so the Rubric might and would have ended here, but " he shall put upon him a white albe plain." (a) The Rubric forbids the use of coloured albs, or those made of silk or velvet or cloth of gold ; and (b) it shall be plain — i.e., without apparels of embroidery or precious 1 See Southey's " Book of the Church." 125 stuff.1 Moreover, "He shall have a vestment or cope." This might be interpreted as an indifferent alternative, but a glance at one of the final Kubrics dispels this view. " On Wednesdays and Fridays .... the Priest shall put upon him a plain albe or surplice, with a cope, and say all things. . . ." Here there can be little doubt, if any, of the meaning of the Eubric and its fulness. The details of the "plain albe" and the alternative use of " a cope " with albe or surplice, when there is no consecration, describe changes from the old order ; and without such special direction the new use would have been obscure. The nature of the cope or vestment as to colour or texture is left undecided. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the old vestments retained were in use. Nor, I think, can it be reason ably argued that the " vestment " did not include its full suit of stole and maniple, just as the albe would naturally include the amice, and, especially, the yirdle.2 Notice again the lengthy Rubrics at the offertory. Not elaborate ritual directions, but such as are called for by the New Order. The "Offertory" Sentences, the collection, the placing of the communicants, the moving out of the chancel of other worshippers, and the placing on the Altar of the fair and con venient cup, etc. ; all these details need description, and receive it. Notice, lastly, the Rubrics as to the distribution of the Sacra ment, the reception by the assistants, their subsequent ministry in distribution, and the words of administration. All these are 1 See, also, Ordination of Deacons: "Every one of them shall have upon him & plain albe." 2 This is, however, not to be absolutely taken for granted. The frontis piece to Melancthon's Formse Precationum Piarum, 1563, shows a priest and deacon communicating the Protestants of Wittenberg, and, though the alb of the chief minister is presumably girded, no stole or maniple is worn. On the other hand, too much stress cannot be laid on the evidential value of pictures and prints, or it would be concluded the maniple was often worn on the right arm, for so it is shown in Titian's San Sebastian, and also in Rubens' Ignatius Loyola. 126 full and particular.1 Descriptive in the best sense of the word, and for the reason above stated, they are descriptive of new usages, and therefore necessary. If the Rubrics of Direction are examined in so far as they prescribe or proscribe any ceremonial act (or omit to do so), a general and consistent principle will be found to inspire them. Their fulness or meagreness, their absence or presence, are not to be attributed either to carelessness or caprice, but simply owe their form and presence to the operation of the principle alluded to, and this is that Rubrics were inserted in the Service only where they were deemed necessary. And this is specially to be borne in mind with regard to the vesture of the Priest and his assistants. Had there been no change, it is safe to say there had been no Rubric. The Altar was vested and " clothed " as afore ; the ornaments, save the Hanging Pyx [where that existed],2 the position and use of them, all remained unaffected by the translation of the Mass into English ; therefore nothing was here needed. Whatever had been altered up to this point had been altered by foregoing injunctions. If we now examine the Rubrics in order we shall be able to see the working of this principle. (1) The Lord's Prayer is to be said with the Collect for Purity, in the place and after the manner of the old " Preparation " before the steps of the Altar. There is no Psalm Judica, no Confiteor,3 but simply this short prelude, to be said (privately, I believe) by the Priest. 1 Note, however, a serious omission. No hint is given as to the time of the fraction of the people's breads This is without question an oversight. Even on the assumption that all the breads were broken, in the accustomed manner before the Pax, it should have been stated. 2 The Pyx was by no means universal. The " Fardel of Fashions," a book published in 1555, says : "At the right hand of the high Altar there should be an almorie, either cut in the wall or framed upon it, in the which .... the Sacrament of the Lord's Body, the holy oil for the sick, .... always to be locked." 3 N.B. — No Confiteor, because the priest joins in the General Confession before his own Communion. 127 It would seem from the previous Rubric that the Introit, u-hen sung, was being gone through by the choir meanwhile. (2) When there was no choir the Priest would say (in the accustomed manner) a Psalm " appointed for the Introit" after his preparation, which Psalm ended, the Priest shall say the Kyrie. Here the wording is luminous to a degree : (a) It is a whole Psalm (not a verse or two), (b) it is appointed foi the Introit, (c) directly the Psalm is finished, the Kyrie is to follow. The significance of this is seen by turning to the Introits themselves. After the Introit for the First Sunday in Advent is written : " And so must every Introit be ended." Not simply must the Gloria follow the Psalm, but the Introit must end here, without repetition of the verses. Hence it is directed that the " Psalm is ended." The Kyrie is said or sung without further note or direction. No place, or position, or posture is mentioned for either Introit or Kyrie. No one needed any direction, both Priests and Clerks had all their lives been familiar with the use of their Church. (3) The Priest intones the Gloria in Excelsis " standing at God's Board," and then leaves it to the Clerks to finish. Here, I think, we may see a reason for the fulness of the rubric [which might be taken as contradicting the principle already enunciated]. It was necessary the settle how many words of the English Translation should be accounted as the Intonation. In all other respects the Gloria might have been left described as in our present book .... " either sung or said." (4) The Rubrics to the Collects are significant. The first Rubric speaks of the Collect for the day with one of these tico. 128 Here is introduced a new rule. The Collects at the Com munion are not to be three or five (an uneven number in any case), but normally two only. If this be doubted look at the Rubric for Good Friday, and there it is directed that ^f After the " Two Collects of the Commttnwn," shall be said these two collects following. Otherwise we may be sure it would have been thought enough to say, " Then shall follow the Collects, first of the day, and after for the King," or words to that effect. The second Rubric (or direction), " Priest : Let us pray," placed before the Collect for the King, is, however, still more noteworthy, because it is omitted in some editions \_e.g. Grafton's of Mar. VIII.]. Omitted (without the slightest doubt) as being unnecessary, since the second Collect of the Mass naturally had the oremus, though not the dominus vobiscum. The absence of any rubrical prescription for the termination of the Collects is most important. The Collect for First Sunday in Advent ends fully and " in the accustomed manner,' but in no other single case is the Collect fully completed. That for Easter Day has Amen, and that for Whitsun Day has the complete ending (less Amen), and all others are more or less incomplete ; they end, for instance, abruptly, " through Jesus Christ"; or " who livest and reignest, etc. " ; and the Collect for Second Sunday after Trinity has an ending which absolutely demands previous knowledge. " . . . . Thy steadfast love .... grant this," etc. (5) The Rubric to the Epistle shows intention. The Gospel shall follow immediately, that is to say, no Gradual, Sequence, Alleluia, or Tract shall intervene. It might be supposed that the Dominus Vobiscum was to be also omitted, but this, I think, need not be inferred, since the Gospel in the Baptismal service has it, though not the Gloria tibi. That omission here is not prohibition may be gathered from the fact that the Gloria before the Gospel has survived its omission in Edward's II. Book, and every successive edition and revision till the present day. 129 The Response after the Gospel does not appear, but this too has survived in many a parish. The silence of the Rubric in the matter of the Gradual is clearly prescriptive, but in the other cases it is no more than would be expected. " After the Gospel ended " .... is certainly a very different prescription than " immediately after the Epistle ended." No direction is given as the place of the Gospel Minister. Surely this indicates that the varying use of North side of Altar or Rood-loft (or Pulpit) was left undisturbed. (6) The Priest shall begin : I believe. Here, as in the case of the Gloria in excelsis, there is a reason for marking the English equivalent of the Intonation. (7) The succeeding Rubrics need no comment, until we reach the one that directs the placing of the Elements upon the Altar. The Bread is laid either on the Corporas or the Paten. Clearly, according to the number of the communicants : the laying of the One Host " upon the Corporas " would not meet the case, nor perhaps would the Paten suffice ; wherefore, as in the case of the Chalice or some fair and convenient cup (if the Chalice will not serve) the Rubric is elastic and permissive. It must depend on circumstances in each celebration how the Priest is to prepare, and on what vessels he possesses. Note that no directions whatever are given as to whence the bread, wine, or water are to be brought, nor who shall bring them. The new Rubric goes just so far as is needed, but no further. Neither flagon nor cruet nor wafer-canister nor credence are so much as hinted at. (8) The Prefaces are introduced with a Rubric of which nothing need be said, but the Rubric before the canon is needed, since the invitation, " Let us pray for the whole state of Christ's Church," is a new and unaccustomed address, and the turning to the people must be ordered, or it would not occur.1 1 Note also the necessity of the words " Plainly and distinctly." K 130 With regard to the marginal directions and f»i«] signs, Here the Priest must take, etc. I venture to think that they are inserted for a double reason — (a) as a necessary minimum of manual action to the celebrant, to whom, as to others,1 " cross ing, holding- up of hands, knocking upon the breast, and other gestures " were left open ; but (I) as a note to the worshippers that this was done at the time, especially as the old and venerated elevation was abandoned. The Order of Communion gives this proscription as a final note — aithout any levation. This refers to the second or third consecration of the Chalice. The rubric of 1549 gives the same prohibition more fully and inclusively. (9) Then shall the Priest say. Does this mean without any further secret prayers ? Probably. (10) Here occurs the first really important change of Ritual between the Order of Communion and the First Book of 1549. The turning to the people, the Confession and Absolution, and so forth, precede the Priest's Communion instead of following it, as before. This change involves three directions. (a) ^f Then shall the Priest first receive the Communion in both hinds himself. (b) In the Communion time the Clerk shall sing, O Lamb of God (c) T Where there are no Clerks there the Priest shall say all things appointed for them For the Agnus Dei, being the prelude to Communion, must, in the translators' opinion, be sung rathei for the people than the Priest. But if there are no singers, what becomes of the Agnus Dei ? The Priest could not say it in the " Communion time," since he is saying other words. But he must say it. There is nothing left for him to do but to say it before his own Communion and not in its old place after the " Peace of the Lord be always with you." 1 See Chapter of Ceremonies. 181 This change alone is answerable for the lengthy and detailed prescription, which is perhaps the most definite in the whole Service. (11) The rubrics relating to the Confession, Absolution, and so forth are indeed fairly full, though no change had taken place in their use since 1548, but this involves no contradiction of the guiding law of necessity, since they are simply imported bodily and without change from the Order of Communion, in the framing of which the said law did operate.1 The one change from this order is the double address to the communicants and the withdrawal of the impenitent in the earlier order. The first of these addresses is here omitted, because of the earlier caution, inserted now after the Creed. (12) ^[ Then shall tlie Priest give thanks to God in the na°ne of all them .. Here, again, a rubric is necessary to preface an entirely new form of "post-Communion." Heretofore the Post-Communion Collect might or might not have reference to the Communion of the Faithful, but in this Service it is this, and this only, that is in mind. 1 Rather, perhaps, we may conclude that the rubric of 1549 is the original, since the whole Service was in preparation before the 1548 order of Communion was imposed, though it was not ripe for publication. 132 Having briefly commented on the rubrics of the Liturgy of 1549, it may not be necessary to say much more to impress their significance ; but a few words may be added by way of summary. I. It is indisputable that the Eubrics, whether full or scanty, are not inserted with anything but intention. We may approve or not, we may regard or elect to disregard the animus imponentis, but it is there. II. It is clear that the Eubrics are not intended to be exhaustive or complete, nor are they written for " unlearned or ignorant " men, but to presumably " discreet and learned " ministers who had been all their lives familiar with the performance of Divine Service. Among many other " undirected " actions and posi tions are — (a) The movement of the Priest to the: Altar from his first station humbly afore the midst of it. (b) His position at the Collect, the Gospel, the Creed, and every part of the Service, except (by inference) the centre of the Altar at the Canon (and the Gloria). (c) His actions are entirely undescribed ; save the putting of the bread .... on the Altar, his touching the oblations, and his signing [them ? ] and his turning to the people. (d) The position of the Communicants and their posture. (e) The condition of the Altar and its furnishing. (/) The consumption of the Elements after Communion, etc., etc. 133 III. The incompleteness of the Rubrics, however, and the mere acknowledgment that some previous or independent informa tion is necessary for the performance of service, does not constitute their significance in this regard. Nor does the note at the end of the chapter on ceremonies touch the root of the question. We may most confidently conclude that, It is not simply that it was left open to "every man's devotion " in all matters to please himself how he performed his service, though doubtless a good deal might be said in favour of this view. If the Rubrics of 1548, 1549, and 1552 be placed side by side we cannot evade the conviction. That whether for good or evil, the framers of these rubrics intended to leave alone what they approved of, and to alter what they objected to. This principle indeed they have clearly enunciated, but as acts are more convincing than words, we should rather look at the rubrics themselves for light. And this is what we find — Where the form of the service is changed there is a new rubric ; Where the change is slight the Rubric is short and simple ; but in proportion as the change is great in form, or great in " contentious " importance there the Rubric is full and lengthy, or, at least, clear and incisive. There is no concealment or mystery about the words of the service ; " plainly and distinctly," or " with a loud voice," is enough to do away with this. There is no "superstitious or ungodly " representation on the bread, nor any elevation or lifting liable to misconception. There is to be no processional save the Litany, no gradual, nor any offertory sentence or communion of dubious theology. But this being said, what more is there to say ? IV. It is not conceivable that on June 9th, 1549, any of the acts, gestures, modes of performing of any ceremony in the Lord's Supper, were rendered illegal, or deemed unseemly which 184 on the previous Sunday were duly, rightly, and orderly performed (according to the order of Communion then in force), unless specific/illy condemned or forbidden. Bearing in mind that the professed object, of the Liturgy of 1549 was to order and settle the worship of the English Church, and not merely to "patch up a peace" ad interim, we cannot suppose that any usage would remain unforbidden if it was deemed worthy of censure. That the men who ruled that the wafer should be a trifle " thicker and larger " in circumference should so decree on the " infinitely little," and at the same time pass over the burning of incense and the use of lights and crucifix in absolute silence, if they intended to abolish them, passes human understanding.1 V. The silences of Edward VI. 's Second Book are, on the other hand, to be easily explained on historical grounds, which grounds do not exist in the case of the First Book. The silence as to lights, incense, and gestures (crossing, &c.), does not imply approval, but rather the fact of all such things (or nearly all) having ceased between 1550 and 1552. Such a " Down grade " is, I believe, unprecedented, and never repro duced in any religious or irreligious movement on record. It is amply sufficient to account for the changed significance of rubrical silence. The few prescriptive and proscriptive Rubrics which are new in the 1552 Service are, however, so plain as to leave no doubt of their meaning, and the few eloquent marks of silence are, alas equally plain. "No vestment, no cope, nothing but a surplice only." Silence as to incense or lights does not imply approval, but lack of need to speak. " The Table shall have a fair linen cloth." This, indeed, is needed ; otherwise, the Altar being gone and a mean table in the nave substituted, there would likely have been nothing but a bare board left. 1 Surely the Rubric as to the "placing the bread and wine upon the altar," for instance, would have continued without any censing or mashing of the hands, or some such words. 18,5 VI. Lastly it may be said, if in 1552 silence instead of approval meant omission, why not now ? To which the one and sufficient answer is, We are referred back for all things to the second year of Edward VI. As Elizabeth, who could not (if she would) alter the wording of Edward's II. Book, yet inserted this saving Clause, so, in 1662, even more inevitably was it re-enforced that for all the adornment, the ornamentation of the Service, the year (called the second year) 1549 should be the rule and standard.1 ERNEST GELDART. 1 That the II. Year refers to the I. Book may be gathered from the following facts : — (a) The Article of Elizabeth's reign not only refers to " the II. Year of Edward VI." as the Ornaments Eubric of her Prayer Book does, but also mentions " the Rites of that Book." (b*) It has been objected that the Rubric of 1559 could not have so misrepresented the date 1549 (which is really the III. Year), because the interval of time was so short that such forgetful- ness was impossible. But if we turn to the Act of Uniformity, Edward VI., 5 and 6, attached to the II. Book, we find the Previous Act therein referred to, not as Edward VI., 2 and 3, but, exactly in the same terms, it is described as of the II. Year. -'The like foresaid book, entitled, the Book of Common Prayer . . . . as by the Act of Parliament made in the Second Year of the King's Majesty's reign . . . ." (t;) In the Rubric of Elizabeth, in the XXXVI. Article, and in the II. Act of Uniformity (as in the Rubric of 1662), we are referred to the II. Year of Edward VI., and in two instances of the three the I. Book and the II. Year are undoubtedly taken as equivalent. 137 APPENDIX E. TWO CASES ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE PER MANENCE OF ACCUSTOMED USAGES IN THE ENGLISH CHURCH. I. The changing of the Christian name at Confirmation is a usage of the English Church which has persisted, though there is no mention of it in the Book of Common Prayer. A constitution of Archbishop Peckham provided in 1281 as follows : — Attendant etiam sacerdotes ne lasciva nomina quae scilicet mox prolata sonent in lasciviam imponi permittant parvulis baptizatis sexus precipue feminini ; si contrarium fiat per confirmantes episcopos corrigatur. Lyndwood, Pvovinciale iii. 24. Gibson, Codex i. 363 (XVIII., vi.) See also Pupilla Oculi vii. The permanence of this is thus attested by Lord Coke : — " If a man be baptized by the name of Thomas, and after at his confirmation by the byshop he is named John, he may purchase by the name of his confirmation. And this was the case of Sir Francis Gowdye, chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, whose name of baptism was Thomas and his name of confirmation Francis : and that name of Francis by the advice of all the Judges in Anno 36 H. 8 he did bear, and after used in all his purchases and grants." I. Inst.'p. 3 (London, 1670). 138 Dr. Burn1 contended that the alteration in the Service by which the Bishop no longer pronounces the candidate's name at Confirmation had invalidated this Canon and that therefore Lord Coke's argument was not defensible. But it was acted on in 1707 by the Bishop of Lincoln acting under the advice of legal authorities based upon Coke's dictum, as Bishop White Kennett has recorded. See Maskell, Monu- menta I. Dissertation on the Occasional Offices, §5 (ist ed., pp. ccxvi.-ccxix. ; 2nd ed., cclx.-cclxiv.). Moreover, later instances have occurred down to the present time. Phillimore quotes a case in 1886 from Notes and Queries, 7th Series, ii., p. 77, in the diocese of Liverpool. See Ecclesias tical Law, p. 518 (ed. 1895). The view that there was only liberty to alter undesirable names was taken by Bishop Scambler in Elizabeth's reign, evidently on a strict interpretation of the constitution above mentioned, as the following letter shows : — " After my humble comendacons unto yor honor premised These are to signifie unto you That whereas yor honor and Sr Ambrose Cave wrote unto me concerninge the changing of a name at the confirmacon I have lerned that I may not change usuall or comon names, but onlie strange and not comon ; and further if the name be changed at Confirmacon it taketh effect but from the Confivmacon. And thus wishing yor honor prosperous heathf I committ you to God, who ever preserve you. fFrom Peterborough this xxvth of Maie 1563. Yor honors to commaund, EDMUNDE PETRIBURG." Brit. Mus. MS. Lans. 6, f. 127 (Burghley Papers, 1562-3). The custom has thus been perpetuated, though it is not provided for in the Prayer Book, and Scambler's letter is an interesting example of the attitude of an Elizabethan Bishop to the old ecclesiastical law. II. The dress of a woman at her churching gives an example of a custom, not expressly laid down in the Prayer Eccl. Law, ii. 10 (London, 1842). 139 Book, being not only tolerated but enforced by ecclesiastical and civil courts alike. " In the reign of King James I. an order was made by the Chancellor of Norwich1 that every woman who came to be churched should come covered with a white veil. A woman refusing to conform was excommunicated for contempt and prayed a prohibition alleging that such Order was not warranted by any Custom or Canon of the Church of England. The judges desired the opinion of the Archbishop of Canterbury who convened divers Bishops to consult thereupon ; and they certifying that it was the ancient usage of the Church of England for women who came to be churched to come veiled, a prohibition was denied." Gibson Codex i. 373 (XVIII. xii.) quoting Palmer 296. Burn I.e. i. 318. The case as reported by Sir Gefrey Palmer is as follows : — Les Reports de Sir Gefrey Palmer, p. 296 (London, 1678). Eliz. Shipden's case vers. Dr. Redman, Chancellor de Norwich. Le Chancellor de Norwich fait un Ordinance et ceo publish en Norwich que chescun feme que vient al Esglise d'estre Churched apres Childe bearing solonque le Ley d' Esglise de Angliterre viendra coverd ove an white vayle ; Et le dit Eliz. Shepden esteant admonish de ceo refuse luy conformer : sur que contempt fuit excommunicate ; Et un certificate fait de ceo al Chancery ; sur quoi un breve de excommunicato capiendo fuit d'estre agard vers lay et pro ceo prebenter et d'estre assayled el pria un Prohibition per motion de Serjeant Otto in B. R. alledging que est un novel Ley nient allowed per ascun Custome on Canon on auter Ley de Esglise de Angliterre ; et dit que est prerogative de cest Court mayntainer freedome de Subjects del forreigne innovations et concluder chescun court deins lour bounds ; Mes il offer al Court que si soet ascun Custom ou Ley d' Esglise d' Angliterre que ceo command que sa Clyent ceo wil obey ; Mes quia fuit novel case que ferra un 1 Other cases of insistence upon the veil in 1613 and 1636 are quoted in Male's Precedents and Proceedings in Criminal Causes, pp. 237, 2259. (London, 1847.) 140 president les Judges desire d'aver le resolution de Archevesque de Canterbury ; et in convene touts les Evesques que fueront al London ; et il meme et 6 auter Evesques resolve & certify que fuit le ancient Custome de Esglise de Angleterre, que femes viendront vailed al Esglise d'estre churched ; et cest resolution fuit declared per Leo C. Justice in Court ; Et sur ceo le Prohibi tion denyed d'estre granted. There is thus a tradition in favour of the veil so strong that though it finds no place in the Prayer Book, it has been enforced by ecclesiastical and civil courts. The veil is not now generally worn, but if it were thought desirable to revive the custom, it is difficult to see that anyone would be justified in objecting on the ground that no provision is made for the veil in the rubric, though it only specifies that the woman shall be " decently apparelled." W. H. FRERE. 141 APPENDIX F. Assuming the censer to be an ornament in use by authority of Parliament in the second year of Edward VI., and so to be retained in use, there remains a question as to the time and manner of such use. The rubric speaks of the ornaments of the Ministers " at all times of their ministration." These words are not grammatically connected with the " ornaments of the Church " among which we must include the censer ; but it can hardly be doubted that any limitation which they imply ought to be extended to these equally with the ornaments of the Minister. The language of the rubric is loosely constructed, owing to the combination, effected in 1662, of the wording of the proviso to the Act of 1559 and that of the rubric of the same year. Reading it as a whole, it is clear that all ornaments alike are to be used at certain " times of ministration." But this imposes a limitation. Ornaments are to be used in con nection with ministration ; they are adjuncts to ministration. But the ministration referred to must be such ministration as is ordered in the Book of Common Prayer, for none other is contemplated. Therefore, if there be no ministration ordered as an adjunct to which a certain ornament is to be used, then there is no use at all for such ornament. Even if it were among the ornaments generally referred to by the rubric, it is not specifically included in the order for their retention and use, but is rather excluded. On this ground the use of the censer has been objected to. There is no provision for its use in the rites of the Book of Common Prayer ; there is no ministration to which it can serve as an adjunct. The use of it, therefore, involves an 142 additional ceremony, over and above those ordered by the prescript rite ; such additional ceremony is, to say the least, of doubtful lawfulness in itself, and certainly cannot be defended as implied by the Ornaments Rubric. I contend, in reply, that the use of the censer after the ancient manner is not an additional ceremony, but is an adjunct to a ceremony ordered by the Book of Common Prayer. It is indeed, pretty obvious that a censer might be used in such a way as to involve an additional ceremony ; it might be used out of all reasonable connection with the order of Divine worship as prescribed, in such a way as to interrupt and obscure what is there contained. Such cases would undoubtedly call for the intervention of authority ; but the correction of this evil, should it arise, will call, I submit, not for the prohibition of the censer, but for the regulation of its use. I am concerned to show that there are ministrations provided in the Book of Common prayer which invite the use of the censer as a ceremonial adjunct. It is, I think, an accepted principle that in the great change produced by the reformation of the English service books all things were intended to be done after the former manner, except where they were, expressly or by implication, altered. The occasional reference to "custom" in the Prayer Book of 1549 points to this, and so does the omission of several most necessary directions. The late Archbishop of Canterbury, in the Bishop of Lincoln's case, decided for the use of the mixed chalice on this principle. It follows that when a ministration or ceremony, ordered in the unreformed service books, re appears in the reformed rite, even if the details vary, we must regard it as the same ceremony continuously existing. Now in the unreformed services there were certain ceremonies to which the use of Incense after a certain manner was an ordinary adjunct. The precise meaning of the word ceremony, as used in this connection, has been much debated ; more than one use appears to be legitimate ; I would explain that I use it here in the sense of something which is to be done by the Minister as an integral part of the prescript order. The censing was not a ceremony of this kind. It was never regarded as an integral part of any service. The service could be performed, and in 143 practice would seem to have been most frequently performed, without it. Nor, even when performed, was it an action regarded in itself. It was in relation to something else, which actually was an integral part of the service. Thus the censing was not a ceremony apart, but was a ceremonial adjunct to certain of the prescribed ceremonies. I note some of these. Incense was used at the Altar, dur ing the ancient Office of Lauds, while Benedictus was sung. It was used in the same manner at Evensong, while Magnificat was sung. Do these "times of ministration" till remain? I submit that the Divine Service ordered in the Book of Common Prayer is intended to be, and actually is, a continuation in a modified form of the older Servitium Divinum, commonly known to us now as the Breviary Offices. The Preface to the Prayer Book "Concerning the Service of the Church" speaks plainly in this sense. If this be so the English Evensong must be taken as equivalent to the old Latin Vesperae, name and thing, and the saying or singing of Magnificat in one is the same " time of ministration " as in the other. We have nothing now so precisely corresponding to the ancient Office of Lauds, but if we remember that before the reformation of the Services the Nocturns of the Breviary with Lauds and Prime were commonly said in parish churches all together, that this service as a whole was popularly known as Mattins, and that this same popular name continued in use for the reformed Morning Service, the conclusion is inevitable that Benedictus, as occurring in our rite, is the same " ministration " as the Benedictus of the ancient Lauds. These "times of ministration " therefore survive, and I submit that the occasional use of Incense at these times, not as an integral ceremony, but as a ceremonial adjunct of what is prescribed to be done, is covered by the Ornaments Rubric. 