Hints towards peace in ceremonial matters

^'

\

0^'

.J^

/

\ J

''■■'*ih>i

HINTS TOWARDS PEACE IN
CEREMONIAL MATTERS

BY

A. J. B. BERESFORD HOPE, M.P.

Hontian

RIVINGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE

HIGH STREET

©xforli

TRINITY STREET

CDambritrge

1874

nnHE following Hints have already been confi-
dentially submitted to various Bishops and
other leading Churchmen. The sympathetic recog-
nition accorded to them has induced their writer to
give them wider publicity. They were written
previously to the Plea for Toleration by Law in
certain Ritual Matters, by the Bishop of Lincoln,
in which the writer welcomes practical conclusions
so near akin to his own, and offered by one whose
ofiSce and whose person alike command so great
respect.

A 2

u,uc;

THE increased appreciation of ceremonial and
art in the worship of the English Church
within the last forty years is intimately connected
with the higher tone of spiritual life, more thorough
grasp of dogma, and wider munificence in giving
to sacred purposes also characteristic of the period.
Within due limits, therefore, it deserves all praise
and encouragement. We must, however, own that
it has, in various cases, transcended both the allow-
able licence of the Church of England and the
counsels of prudence and charity, and has therefore
provoked retaliation. Nor can we deny that,
alongside of this growing taste for art and cere-
monial, the older spirit of Puritan simplicity has
strongly asserted itself in many directions. The
collision of these two principles has resulted in a
series of vexatious lawsuits, all originating with
the auti-ceremonial party, and variously successful
either way — the upshot being a condition of Church
law which may well be termed chaotic. The latest
of these suits which has been adjudicated on is the
recent one of the Exeter reredos, and two more are
now pending. No suit has, during the same period,

6 Complexity of Ceremonial Law.

been entertained against any clergyman for defect
of ritual.

The general conclusion at which a dispassionate
man must arrive is that, irrespective of specific
rites or " ornaments," the ceremonial law of the
Church of England — as on the one hand a body
whose continuous corporate existence ranges over
nearly thirteen hundred years, and on the other
a Eeformed Church, the principles of whose Refor-
mation have to be gathered out of statutes, rubrics,
canons, articles, proclamations, advertisements,
visitation articles, &c., dating from 1547 to 1662
— is far from being a simple question. Another
conclusion which may be safely entertained is, that
it is beginning at the wrong end to simplify eccle-
siastical proceedings till the mos or lex which has
to be administered is rather more clearly defined.
The process of court-making might otlierwise be
represented as one for forcing rather than working
out a ceremonial system.

It is only within these last forty years that the
more ceremonial side has, since 1662, been strong
enough to assert a claim for specific recognition.
It is now, however, an undoubted fact that numbers,
both of clergy and of laity, have learned to attach
the deepest importance to the recognition of a
higlier type of ceremonial in the English Church.
The time, tlien, seems to have arrived for an attempt
to regulate the modus vivendi between more or less
ornate forms of worship, by way of conciliation

General Principles of Agreement, 7

rather than of litigation. Some general principles
must clearly govern such an agreement, and of
these I venture to suggest the folio v^ing : —

(1) Compatibility with the spirit of the Eeformed
Church of England as a whole, in its widest and
most tolerant aspect, as represented by all the lead-
ing Churchmen of the Eeformation century.

(2) Eespect for primitive antiquity and the
traditions of the Universal Church.

(3) Capability of proof without reference to the
practices of the mediseval and later Church of
Eome.

Not many years ago, such practices as the re-
servation of the chancel for the persons imme-
diately concerned in the performance of Pivine
worship, and the adoption of choral service and of
surpliced choirs, were often causes of fierce dispute.
Now they have, happily, passed into the class of
questions which settle themselves according to
local circumstances. My object and desire is to
pave the way for a similar happy consummation as
to certain matters which at present seem to be of
a contentious complexion.

Up to the date of the Purchas judgment, the
position of the priest at the Lord's Table during
the office of Holy Communion, and especially at
the Prayer of Consecration, was believed to have
passed into the class of sfelf-adjusting questions.
Up to the date of Mr. Justice Keating's judgment
as to the Exeter reredos, the same could be said as

8 Standing before the Table,

to the decoration of our diurches with sculptures of
sacred persons and scenes. Now, failing reversal,
these two questions have lapsed into the conten-
tious category. But I believe that I am advancing
a reasonable proposition when I affirm that until
they are recognised as allowable in themselves,
there will be little prospect of stable peace for our
Church. Those who feel deeply as to the position
of the celebrant " before the table " can allege : —

(1) That the usage of the Universal Church
(exception being of course made of those Anglican
priests who have from time to time taken another
position) points to the celebrant standing at the
broad side of the Lord's Table, as the minister and
representative of the congregation, offering in
their name and in his own the commemorative
sacrifice : —

(2) That the position of the priest in those old
" Basilican " Churches, in which he stands at the
further side of the altar and faces the people, is no
exception to (1), inasmuch as in that case he faces
the broad side.

(3) That the later usage, observed by the English
Church before the Reformation, and by those mem-
bers of it since who have taken the west side, is
not, as falsely alleged, an attitude of turning his
back to the people, but one of facing the same way
as the people, of whom the priest is the prseses and
representative.

(4) That the usage of the Eastern Churches (in-

Archbishop Longley, g

eluding the Armenians and the Separatist bodies),
not to mention that of the Latin Churches in com-
munion with Eome, of taking the west side, is also
that of all the Protestant bodies which have pre-
served a liturgical framework of worship.

(5) That there is sufficient evidence of a con-
tinuous catena of clergymen in our own Church
taking the west side from the Reformation down to
our own day.

(6) That, in their opinion, the rubric inserted at
the last revision under the influence of such theolo-
gians as Bishop Cosin, can only be literally read as
signifying that the celebrant is to stand before the
Lord's Table throughout the Prayer of Consecration,
and that the passage of the judgment in Martin v,
Mackonochie, relating to this rubric, can only be
taken to mean this.

(7) That the difficulties attaching to the history
of the question during the Reformation century
can be solved by considering the practice, obsolete
in and after 1662, of the Lord's Table being placed
at Communion time lengthways down the chancel,
so that the " north side " was really one of its
broad sides, and standing at the north side was
also standing before the table, while likewise this
identical north side became the west one as soon as
the table was turned round and put altarwise.

(8) That a remarkable evidence exists of the
deep feeling which has, in our own time, grown up
among English Churchmen regarding the position

lo Exeter Reredos Decision.

in the declaration made (in my own hearing) at
the Ritual Commission by that eminently cautious,
moderate, and conciliatory Primate, Archbishop
Longley. A proposal having been made to alter
the rubric so as to enforce the Prayer of Consecra-
tion being read at the north end, the Archbishop
rose, and, while explaining his personal non-adop-
tion of the west side, begged the Commission not
to touch the question, as any attempt to prohibit
the practice would produce " exasperation " among
the clergy. In consequence of this emphatic appeal
the question was never again raised in the Com-
mission, either during his primacy or that of his
successor.

As to the Exeter reredos decision, all I will say
is, that if it is to hold good, I cannot see how any
prelate or public body can consent to retain pos-
session of the illuminated MSS. or early editions of
ancient service-books, which have heretofore been
regarded as among the chief treasures of great
libraries. The Act on which the judge relied, the
3rd and 4th Edw. YI., c. 2, which orders the de-
struction or defacement by a day named of images
then existing, not of such as may hereafter be con-
structed, condemns with greater stringency the
non-destruction or defacement of those books ; for
while it enacts fines and imprisonment as the
punishment of neglect in regard to them, it omits
to name any penalty for the non-destruction or
defacement of the images.

Distinctive Dress at Holy Communion . 1 1

I do not believe that the adoption or rejection of
distinctive dresses for the celebrant and assistants
at the Holy Communion in parish churches, or
the adoption of lights (irrespective of their practical
need) at the same holy ordinance, can, in the pre-
sent state of feeling among Churchmen, be left to
adjust itself irrespective of some superior and con-
trolling jurisdiction. That jurisdiction would of
course act in conformity v^ith the expressed wishes
and spiritual advantage of the habitual worshippers
and communicants, and would (assuming that these
rites were in any way admissible) possess ample
powers of meeting the desires both of majorities
and of respectable minorities, by possibly prescrib-
ing varying rites at different days or hours. I
attach particular importance to this consideration.
If it could be settled that certain forms of worship
should be permitted at certain hours, no one could
complain of being taken by surprise.

As to the distinctive dress at the Holy Com-
munion, the question has really been brought
within a very narrow compass. A prescription of
such dresses applying to all churches is unques-
tionably found in a rubric of the Prayer Book of
1549, and is, as many contend, re-enacted in the
existing ornaments rubric. Another prescription
of such dresses (which may either be supplementary
to that rubric, and intended to enforce a minimum
of compliance with it, or else falling short of it,
and intended to supplant it), only mentioning their

1 2 Canons of 1 603 .

use in cathedrals and collegiate churches, is found
in the 24th and 25th Canons of 1603.

The Judicial Committee in Hebbert v. Purchas
rejected the wider prescription of the dresses con-
tained in the rubric, but reaffirmed the narrower
one of the Canons ; and since that judgment several
distinguished prelates and dignitaries have adopted
such dresses under the conditions which the Canons
lay down. But the principle underlying the rubric
of 1549 and the Canons of 1603 is confessedly the
same, that of doing the highest material honour to
Almighty God at the highest act of worship. Thus
the question is reduced to a very narrow issue, not
of principle, but of detail. " Does the 24th Canon
contemplate a maximum or a minimum use of the
given ceremonial ? " At this point surely negotia-
tion may come in ; and I will only; in passing,
observe that the idea that the Canon lays down a
minimum is strengthened by the fact that the 13th,
14th, and 15th Canons regarding public worship
only deal with Sundays, feast-days, and eves, and
Litanies on Wednesdays and Fridays. It will
surely not be contended that this is intended to
repeal the rubric enjoining the daily recitation of
morning and evening prayer either publicly, or at
least privately, on the part of the clergy. The
expression used respecting the Prayer Book in the
14th Canon, " without either diminishing in regard
of preaching or in any other respect, or adding
anytliing in the matter or form thereof," of course

Lights on the Holy Table, 13

negatives the supposition, and indirectly reaffirms
the ornaments rubric. These Canons are clearly
intended, while leaving the Prayer Book prescrip-
tion untouched^ to lay down a practical minimum
observance of the public recitation in church of the
appointed offices. So, too, I believe the 24th Canon
leaves the ornaments rubric unrepealed, while it
prescribes the minimum use of vestments, namely
in cathedrals and collegiate churches. If the 24th
Canon is read attentively in connection with the
25th, it will be seen that it does not order that
" copes " and the dresses " agreeably " worn by
Epistler and Gospeller shall only be the costume at
the principal feasts, but that on those feasts the
Bishop, Dean, or some Canon or Prebendary (and
not a minor Canon), shall always be the celebrant,
and shall therefore be so attired. In the Injunction
of the 7th of Elizabeth referred to in the Canon,
the " principal minister " is ordered to wear the
prescribed dress " at the Ministration of the Holy
Communion," without any reference to principal
feasts. The ruling provision of the 25th Canon
" in time of Divine Service and Prayers in all
cathedral and collegiate churches, where there is
no Communion, it shall be sufficient to w^ear sur-
plices," would be unintelligible if the preceding
Canon did not order that when there was Com-
munion the cope should be worn.

The question of lights upon the Holy Table can-
not be reduced to so definite an issue. The direct

14 Provable irrespective of Rome.

claim of the post-reformational Church to use them
is found in Edward YI.'s Injunction of 1547, which,
after forbidding other lights, enjoins *' two lights
upon the high altar before the Sacrament, which,
for the signification that Christ is the very true
Light of the world, they shall suffer to remain still; "
and the practice is one which can be defended on
high grounds of religious congruity, while there is
considerable historical evidence as to its continuous
existence in the later English Church.

Speaking generally of these two rites, they quite
stand the test of being capable of proof, irrespective
of Roman usage. Even conceding that the pre-
reformational English Church must in ceremonial
matters be reckoned as a branch of the Eoman
communion, vestments are found not only in the
Eastern Churches, but in the Protestant Churches
of Scandinavia, and altar-lights in the latter, as
well as in the Lutheran and "Evangelical"
Churches of Germany ; while the use of copes has,
under certain conditions, been continuous in the
Church of England. The number of Churchmen
who would deeply deplore a formal abrogation of
these rites, as severing a link which binds us to the
Universal Church, is incommensurate with that of
those who see their own way to adopting them,
for the former are, I am convinced, a very large
number.

As to extra services and variations in the exist-
ing offices, powers of allowing both, hitherto un-

Modus Vivendi. 15

known, are contained in the Lectionary and
Shortened Services Acts, which seem capable of a
wider application than they have hitherto received,
and might, if judiciously applied, meet many re-
cently developed religious wants.

I have in this memorandum intentionally con-
sidered the question from the High Church side,
and I have refrained from hinting too precisely at
the limits within which vestments and lights might
be allowed. The first stage in the negotiation is to
agree that there shall be an allowance, and that
there shall be limits. After that, the details will
have to be settled. It may be urged that negotia-
tions are premature while the Liverpool and Prest-
bury cases are still unsettled. I contend, on the
contrary, that the interval affords a rare oppor-
tunity for an impartial consideration of the broad
question in view of the whole Church of England
as it stands, with its co-existent ceremonial and
anti-ceremonial parties, with their various shades,
and its large number of neutral members. What-
ever may be the judgment in those two cases, the
two parties will still remain, of which one or the
other, if not both, will certainly be disappointed at
the results. Can the interval, then, be better em-
ployed than in reaching some modus vivendi which
should be honourable and possible under any formal
adjudication of the disputed points ? All the points
in question have reference to the celebration of the
Holy Communion, and are therefore properly the

1 6 Peace made Possible.

concern of communicants in distinction to the float-
ing body of doubtful Churchmen. If we could
attain a modus vivendi, not only would the peace of
the Church be made more possible than it is at
present, but difficulties which now seem enormous
in the way of reforming and simplifying procedure
would to a very great extent be cleared away.

A. J. B. BEKESFORD HOPE.

Arklow House, Connaught Place,
April 22, 1874.