PRIM
FROM-THE-LIBRARY-OF
TWNITYCOLLEGETORQNTO
FIFTH EDITION.
3s '"Ritual" IRigbt?
BY
PERCY DEARMER, M.A., D.D.
Vicar of S. Mary's, Primrose Hill;
Author of
" The Parson's Handbook? etc.
PRICE TWOPENCE.
(In cloth boards, Sixpence.)
5 A. R. MOWER AY & CO. LTD.
? LONDON : 28 Margaret Street, Oxford Circus, W.
OXFORD : 9 High Street
4 1914
(9/4
First Edition
Second Edition
Third Edition
Fourth Edition
Fifth Edition
1903-
1905.
1908.
1911.
1914.
I
DEC 2 2 198?
3s "
I. NATURAL RELIGION AND COMMON
SENSE.
THERE is a good deal of prejudice and misunderstanding
about the manner in which the Services of the Church of
England should be conducted, and much controversy has
been raised on this subject of " ritual." x During the last
fifty years or so the Church has enjoyed the blessings of a
great revival ; she has awakened from the deadness which fell
upon her in the reigns of the Georges, and is now working
manfully to win back to the Gospel those who had fallen
into irreligion during the days of her sloth. This revival
has been shared by Churchmen of all parties, but one of
its signs has been a change in her Services : they are brighter,
heartier, and more earnest than they were in the days of
George III. No one wishes to go back to that state of
things, with its slovenly and irreverent ceremonial. Yet
many people are puzzled by the changes that still go on ;
and some imagine that everything they are unaccustomed to
must be Roman Catholic, and thus are prejudiced.
Now prejudice is a very bad thing, especially when it is un
charitable ; and the right remedy for prejudice is knowledge.
1 I have used the word " ritual " as it is generally understood ; but the
more exact word is " ceremonial." The ritual really means the words of a
Service, while the ceremonial is the manner in which the Service is carried
out, e.g. , the making the sign of the cross in Baptism is part of its cere
monial, the form of words used for the Service is its ritual.
4 IS " RITUAL " RIGHT /
Let me therefore explain the reason for what is called a
" High Church " ceremonial. When people object to this,
it is generally because they do not understand the reasons
for it. It is something they are not used to, and therefore
they assume it must be wrong. Yet a little study will show
that such ceremonial is really true both to the Bible and the
Prayer Book, as well as to common sense, which is the
first way in which I want you to consider it.
Is RITUALISM POPISH ?
And first, let me clear away a very common misconcep
tion. There is nothing Popish, or Romanising, about what
is called Ritual. Papists use organs, but an organ is not
therefore Popish. Papists use surplices, but the surplice is
not therefore a rag of Popery (although the old Puritans
thought it was) ; Papists read the Bible, but the Bible is
not for that reason to be called Romanising. It is surely
unreasonable, and a very foolish form of bigotry, to object
to a thing merely because Romanists also use it. A great
deal of objection, for instance, has been raised to the crucifix
in our churches. But this objection is based on an
ignorance that is really inconceivable in these days of cheap
travel; for in ev^y_Lutheran_ church a large crucifix is
prominently displayed at the east end. It is the same with
images ; they abound in the Protestant churches of Ger
many. At Marburg, for instance, the most conspicuous
thing in the nave is a large statue of the Virgin and Child,
gorgeously painted and gilt. Indeed, even among English
Nonconformists, the more educated have given up this preju
dice ; in the intellectual heart of Dissent, Mansfield College,
not only is there a row of large statues of the saints of
Protestantism on each side of the interior, but in the
porch are images of the Catholic Fathers in full Eucharistic
vestments.
It is the same with these very Eucharistic vestments.
is "RITUAL" RIGHT? 5
Chasubles are worn by the Lutherans in Norway and Sweden.
Therefore, whatever they may be, they are not Popish.
It is the same with incense. I do not say that the use of
incense is always expedient, but it is certainly not Popish.
It is used by the Eastern Church, which is the strongest
bulwark in the world against the Papacy. Therefore it is
quite ridiculous to call it Popish. Nay, more, it has
hardly ever gone entirely out of use in the Church of
England since the Reformation; it was used in Ely
Cathedral well into the reign of George III., it was re
vived at St. Mary Magdalene, Munster Square, in the
early part of the reign of his grandchild, Queen Victoria.
It was burnt in the Royal Chapels, and was also used
by those famous saints of the English Church, Bishop
Andrewes and George Herbert, and many others, in the
seventeenth century, including Bishop Cosin, the leading
reviser of the Prayer Book at the Restoration in the reign
of Charles II. Now, as it was used in Ely Cathedral down
to 1779, the only reigns in which incense has not been used
are those of George IV. and William IV., just the reigns
when the Church came nigh to extinction, and religion
and morality were at their lowest ebb. We shall
come to the authority for these things later on. For the
present, it is enough to state that they are not Romish,
and that anyone who says they are, says so in the direst
ignorance of the facts.
PREJUDICE AND COMMON SENSE.
Secondly, let me point out that the use of ornaments and
ceremonial is accepted by those who differ from us. It is
only a matter of degree. I can understand a man objecting
to the use of any distinctive dress by the minister ; but our
opponents dare not make this objection. The extremest
Low Churchmen use the surplice, and several other vest
ments. Scottish Presbyterians always wear the gown, and
6 is "RITUAL" RIGHT?
so do German Evangelicals. These Christians, then, can
not object to the use of a distinctive vestment as such. On
what ground, then, does this objection to the chasuble rest ?
Because it is coloured ? This is a childish splitting of straws,
but I think it is common with the uneducated. Now, of
course, chasubles may be white, and most hoods are coloured ;
so that if this were the reason, white chasubles should be
preferred to coloured hoods. Is it, then, because they are
Popish ? But I have shown that this is not true. Surplices
are worn by Roman Catholics just as much as chasubles
or other vestments. Can it be on the ground that chasubles
are unlawful? But I shall show that they are expressly
ordered by the Church of England. And I can hardly
believe that a party in the Church, which does not even
obey the law in having daily Morning and Evening Prayer,
could seriously and honestly bring the charge of lawlessness
against others.
When we consider, then, the objection to certain vest
ments, we find that it is not based upon reason, but is in
fact a mere prejudice. What, I wonder, would the denizen
of some other planet think of us if he lighted upon this
curious world of ours, and found people rousing themselves
to fury, even in the Houses of Parliament, over the use of one
garment in worship, while they gladly accepted another of
a slightly different cut ! For, remember, surplice and
chasuble both rest upon the same authority, the Orna
ments Rubric, l and neither are mentioned by name in the
Prayer Book.
GOOD TASTE.
Is it then merely a matter of taste ? Well, it is not, for
members of the Church of England ; for them it must be
a matter of law and order. But supposing it were a matter
of taste, and we were free to choose. What then ? Surely, if
1 See p. 24.
is "RITUAL" RIGHT? 7
it is a matter of taste, the only reasonable course is to take
counsel with those who are experts in matters of taste with
the artists. I need not dwell on this point. You know
what the verdict would be, if the enemies of " Ritual "
were to appeal to painters and sculptors and architects.
The most presumptuous of our opponents do not go so far
as to claim to be artistic. The verdict of history, the
evidence of the present day, the universal testimony of man
kind, are indisputable. If, then, it is really a matter of taste,
the only course is for those who have bad taste to learn
from those who have good. There must be somf form of
worship, if people are to worship together. Therefore some
people must make concessions. And what must happen is
that those who do not understand beauty must give way a
little to those who do ; although, at the same time, ample pro
vision must be made for those who find very simple services
most helpful those, for instance, who prefer to worship
without incense or music.
Would this be unfair to the colour-blind, or form-blind
minority ? Is it unfair that people who have no ear for
music should defer to those who have an ear ? We know
there is only one answer. Our worship must satisfy those
who understand beauty, whether in form, or colour, or music ;
or we shall drive away the cleverest and most cultivated
people from our churches.
And history has shown that this answer is beneficent as
well as just. What has happened all over Christendom for
nigh 2,000 years ? The people who did not care for beauty
have accepted the worship provided by those who did care,
and have benefited thereby have so benefited that every
poor man became a sharer in the happy, refining spiritualis
ing effect of the architecture and art of Christendom. Look,
for instance, at the splendid old parish churches, which are
the pride of England, and yet were designed, and built, and
decorated by working man.
8 is "RITUAL" RIGHT?
We have, it is true, grumblers at home ; but do not for
get that this grumbling has been confined to one-third of
Christendom during a period less than one-sixth of its ex
istence, and that this grumbling is directly traceable to the
insane prejudice against everything used in the Church
of Rome. At its height, that prejudice extended to the
surplice and to organs, and even, incredible as it now seems,
to the wedding-ring. That prejudice is now discredited ;
our present knowledge of natural religion, of psychology,
of historical science, our larger metaphysic and theology,
have left it far behind. What wonder that every year
sees the growth of ceremonial worship, not only among
ourselves, but among Dissenters also ?
NATURAL RELIGION.
Ceremonial worship, in truth, has its roots far deeper
than the likings or prejudices of any particular sect. It
has its roots in the heart of man and in the being of God.
It is a part qf natural religion. It is one of the ways in
which man approaches his Maker, and apart from the
deliberate, self-conscious prejudice of the extremer forms
of Protestantism, which denied it for a definite purpose
it is universal. Did the Pagans as well as Christians
burn incense ? Did the Jews make use of elaborate
ceremonies, of vestments and incense ? Do even the naked
savages use music in their rites ? All this is the strongest
testimony to the rightfulness of these things. Deep, deep
in the heart of man, far, far back in his chequered history,
lies and continues the truth that through outward things
he has always found the expression of the inward.
Before, then, we turn to the Bible, before we turn to the
Prayer Book, let us bear it in upon ourselves that we are
"Ritualists," first of all, because we are human beings,
and must worship the All Father as our brothers have
striven to worship Him. For under all the errors, all
is "RITUAL" RIGHT? 9
the cruelties, all the superstitions of our remotest ancestors
has lain the Divine instinctive feeling that GOD is beauty
as well as truth ; and that if we would worship GOD aright,
if we would worship Him in truth as in spirit, we must
worship with our bodies as well as our souls; we must
worship Him not only in the quiet communings of the
individual soul, when even words may be superfluous,
but must worship also in common, when man meets man
in united praise, and must worship Him in the beauty of
holiness, " in holy array."
"Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his Name.
Worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness." Three
times in every month we sing this, J and the Revised
Version explains the words in the margin " Worship the
LORD in holy array." The experience of mankind has
taught us that only by outward use can the inward be kept
alive ; only by reverence shown in act can men attune
their souls to inward awe (and that is why all Christians
teach their children to kneel and fold their hands for
prayer) ; only by outward expression of belief can a
common faith be held by multitudes of people ; only by
the outward giving of alms can inward charity be kept
alive. And has not the experience of our country for
three centuries past shown us also, and conversely, that
not the extremest barrenness of worship can preserve
mankind from the constant danger of empty formalism ?
English religion was most formal when it was least
ritualistic. If formalism could be prevented by the destruc
tion of ceremonial, who would not give up ceremonial
to-day ? But what did English religion come to in
the age when men tried that experiment ? You know
what it came to in the Hanoverian period, and you know,
too, that the religious revival which is now trying to undo
the neglect of the past has been marked throughout by the
1 Ps. xxix. 2, xcvi. 4, and ex. 3.
IO
is "RITUAL" RIGHT?
revival of ceremonial. The experiment of barrenness
has been tried. All Christendom is aghast at the extent of
its failure.
Yes ; man can do nothing without worship. And wor
ship cannot in the end survive without some common
ceremonial expression, without " ritual." No doctrine can
in the long run be maintained unless it be clothed in elo
quent symbols, because the majority can only understand
by symbol ; while many others, and they not the least
spiritual, find words inadequate as a means of expression,
and can only realize spiritual truths through other arts,
such as music and ceremonial. No Church can very
long survive without the needed edification of a common
and expressive worship.
We are body and soul, and every moment of our lives
our souls are held down by our senses. Has it not been
a wise instinct of mankind so to use these senses aye,
the sense of sight and the sense of smell, as well as the
sense of hearing, for we must be logical, and one sense
is as worthy as another so to use these senses as to
make them the means of liberating the soul, of lifting it
to high things, instead of enslaving it to sin ?
We are body and soul. GOD made us so. And what
has GOD made Himself for us ? Body also. " The Word
was made flesh."
And how has GOD revealed Himself in nature ? As
a GOD Whose every act is perfect beauty, Who has
placed man in a garden, Who taught him always, and
still teaches him, his first lessons in religion by means
of rolling cloud, and gorgeous sunset, of trees and flowers
and running water, of sounds and scents innumerable.
Nature is resplendent with colour, and sweet with the
natural incense of flowers and trees and earth. And
nature is a manifestation of GOD Himself.
We need not fear that by borrowing a little of tnat
is "RITUAL" RIGHT? n
beauty for our worship we shall be false to the GOD
Who rejoices in it. We have only to fear lest, through
our parsimony or our prejudice, our beauty of worship
shall be so mean a thing as to be unworthy of His
splendour.
II. THE BIBLE.
THERE is a very widespread idea that High Churchmen,
or " Ritualists," are unscriptural. Indeed, I think that idea,
and the notion that they are Popish, are the main reasons
why so many good people suspect them. I showed in the
last chapter how unfounded the latter notion is. And now
let us consider the Bible. Amazing as it may seem, those
who attack Churchmen for Ritualism claim the honour of
being Bible-Christians. I say it is amazing, because Prot
estantism has taken a special pride in treating the whole
Bible as the Word of God ; the whole Bible, Old and New
Testament alike, has been regarded as equally and verbally
inspired; and the boast is familiar that the Bible is the
religion of Protestants the Bible, not the New Testament
only. That Bible, without ecclesiastical comment, is, as
we are told by the opponents of the Church schools, quite
sufficient for Christian education.
THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Well, here is a passage from the Bible, part, remember,
of "undenominational" religion, the common religion, we
are told, of Christians, which it is considered no injustice
to teach out of the rates :
" And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy
brother, for glory and for beauty. . . . And these are the
garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an
ephod, and a robe, and a coat of chequer work, a mitre,
12 is "RITUAL" RIGHT?
and a girdle. . . . And they shall make the ephod of gold,
of blue, and purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen, the work
of the cunning workman. It shall have two shoulderpieces
joined to the two ends thereof." 1 And then the passage
goes on into the minutest details of what a politician once
foolishly derided as man-millinery far too long for me to
quote here. You must read it for yourself. The next chapter
is concerned with several minute details as to the ceremonial
of sacrifices, with instruction also as to the peculiar holiness
of the altar. The chapter after that is concerned with holy
oil and incense ; and careful instructions are given for the
making of the latter :
" And the LORD said unto Moses, Take unto thee sweet
spices, stacte, and onycha, and galbanum ; sweet spices
with pure frankincense: of each shall there be a like
weight; and thou shalt make of it incense." 2 And so
it goes on for three verses more.
Now I have quoted these two passages out of hundreds
with which the Bible is studded, not only because these are
specially detailed, but because they are given under very
special circumstances. It is Jehovah Himself Who is
speaking, and He is speaking in the most solemn moment
of the history of Israel ; for all these ceremonial directions
are part of the communing between the LORD and Moses
upon Mount Sinai, part of that event which gave to the
Jews the Ten Commandments. They come, in fact, to the
Bible Christian with the same authority as the Decalogue.
Well, our opponents use the Decalogue (inaccurately, 3
;
Ex. xxviii. 2, 4, 6 7. R.v. a Ex. xxx. 34.
Inaccurately, because the two parts of the Second Commandment
must be read together "Thou shalt not make," and "Thou shalt not
worship." It is wrong to make images in order to worship^ them. If the
Commandment really means that it is wrong to put images in church, then
it also means that it is wrong to make images of statesmen or any great
men, and also wrong to have your photograph taken, or to have illustrations
in a book ; for it says, " the likeness of any thing," whether in heaven or
earth. But of course it does not mean that ; and the Jews themselves
is "RITUAL" RIGHT? 13
we submit) when they accuse us of sin in making images.
But why should they use Exodus xx. and ignore the next
ten chapters, which occur as part of the same law given at
the same time ? Let us leave them to choose between the
horns of the dilemma.
For us the dilemma does not exist, for we have no con-
cern with the Jewish law. We accept the Decalogue
because it occurs in the Church Catechism, because, in
fact, the Church has made it part of the law of Chris
tendom, and has in the Catechism interpreted it in the
Christian sense. And we accept it as the Church explains
it in the two " Duties " of our Catechism, where it is adapted
to the needs of Christendom. The Church, more consis
tent than her critics, has freely adapted, not only the ethical,
but also the sacrificial and ceremonial principles to the needs
of Christendom, and this also we accept on the same
grounds.
Of what value, then, is all this Ritualism of the Old
Testament to us Churchmen, who are not bound by the
idea of the equal inspiration of every sentence of the Bible
to us who know that those old types and shadows have
passed away in the fulfilment of Christ ?
Surely it is of the greatest value for our purpose. It
proves that a nation chosen by GOD for a special spiritual
work, ruled and taught by men inspired of Him for this
special task, was through and through committed to Rit
ualism. The details have long passed away, but the prin
ciple remains. If it does not remain, then we are logically
bound to exceed the highest of high criticism, and declare
that the whole worship of the Old Testament is contrary to
the mind of GOD, that while GOD desires for man the
simplest form of worship, He allowed His teachers and
were told to make images for use in their worship on the same occasion
that they were told not to worship them : " And thou shalt make two
cherubims of gold ; of beaten work shalt thou make them, at the two ends
of the mercy seat." Ex. xxv. 18.
14 is "RITUAL" RIGHT?
prophets to inculcate the most elaborate. In fact, we are
driven to deny the Divine guidance of the world before
CHRIST. And if we condemn also the ceremonial of the
historic Christian Church, then we are driven to deny the
Divine guidance of the world after CHRIST as well. That
is the second dilemma. If Ritualism be wrong, then GOD
inspired man in all ages to worship Him, and yet He in
spired man to worship Him wrongly.
Some people express the profoundest contempt and dis
gust for the caring about ceremonial. I submit that they
are allowing the habits of nineteenth century Philistinism
to bias them against the testimony of the HOLY GHOST
in the heart of man.
CHRIST AND RITUALISM.
But the Ritualism of the Old Testament leads us on to
a further point. This Ritualism was flourishing in great
magnificence when the SON of GOD appeared upon the
earth.
What was His attitude towards it ? Everything depends
upon that. If He condemned ritualistic worship, then it
stands condemned; if He allowed it, then who are we
that we should dare to condemn it ?
Now, our LORD was far from ignoring the danger of
externalism in religion. The Jews were sunk in formalism,
and our LORD'S main work lay in destroying that formalism,
and providing a spiritual religion in its place. He con
demned many things, He used His sternest language against
the vain externalism of the Pharisees. But did He once
breathe a word^against their method of common worship, the
ritualistic ceremonies of the Temple ? x Not once. He
1 Even when denouncing the Pharisees our LORD was careful to main
tain the sanctity of ceremonial. He condemned them for swearing by the
gift when they ought to have remembered that the altar is more holy than
the gift, for He says, "Whether is the greater, the gift, or the altar that
sanctifieth the gift?" (S. Matt, xxiii. 20. R.v.) And in condemning their
is "RITUAL" RIGHT? 15
showed by all His actions that He loved that worship, He
frequented the Services of the Temple, he lamented its
approaching destruction; He took His life in His hands,
that He might go up to Jerusalem and attend its Services
at those special seasons when they were most elaborate.
Suppose that an extremely elaborate Holy Week cere
monial were used at St. Paul's Cathedral, suppose our LORD
were preaching and healing somewhere in the Midlands, and
suppose He were to make a point of coming up to worship
at St. Paul's in Holy Week. Your inference would be that
He approved of that kind of ceremonial. And now sup
pose that there was a bad habit of brawling at St. Paul's,
and that when our LORD came there He found the solem
nity of the ceremonial spoilt by people chatting and chaf
fering; and suppose that He were to take a scourge of
knotted cords in His hand, and drive those irreverent
people out of the Cathedral, crying out, " My house is
a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves ! "
would your inference be that He disapproved of such
ritualistic forms of service, or that He desired to protect
and encourage them ?
Not a word, not a word against all this gorgeous pomp.
Words many against the love of money, which we ignore
words many against the pride, the affectations, the puri-
tanism, the clericalism, of the religious world of that day,
which we sorely need to remember now ; a word too against
the stingy traitor who resented the lavish use of money, of
alabaster and costly ointment, in a touching ceremonial act
but against the Ritualism of the common worship, nothing.
Think what the temptation is for the protestor against formal
ism to protest also against forms; think how, time after
time, as at the Reformation or the French Revolution,
excessive minuteness about tithing " mint and anise and cummin," He
added, "But these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other
undone." Ibid. 23.
i6
is "RITUAL" RIGHT?
men have swept away ceremonial and gutted churches,
in the wrath of their protest against formalism ; and you
will realize how far above our human short-sightedness is
the wisdom of the Son of Man, Who not only shared in
human worship, but Himself used form and symbol in His
miracles, laying His hands on the sick, touching and anoint
ing the deaf and blind, blessing and breaking the loaves.
But did He not interfere with any liturgical observance ?
Is there no part of those ten chapters of Exodus which he
criticised, at least in the human fulfilment of them ? Yes ;
there is. Yet, strangely enough, that one liturgical obser
vance which he over and over again interfered with is the
one which Puritanism has retained, and retained in its
Judaic form. I refer, of course, to Sabbatarianism. Here
was something in which the letter had indeed over-ridden
the spirit; and our LORD was not silent, but brooked the
fury of the religious world by deliberately disregarding this
Sabbatarian formalism. 1 When, then, we are told that
the Gospel abrogates all ceremonial, let us remember that
the one definite point of which this is true is Sabbatari
anism, and that Sabbatarianism is the very point in which
the opponents of ceremonial have stuck to the religious
observances of Exodus. The Church was wiser ; she
abolished the Sabbath, and started a new holy day (on
the first instead of the last day of the week, viz., Sunday),
the weekly Feast of the Resurrection, which, as we find in
the Acts of the Apostles, was kept by a Celebration of the
Holy Communion. 2 That is how High Churchmen keep it
still by having the LORD'S Service on the LORD'S Day, 3
as well as by preaching and resting.
Here then is the third dilemma for our opponents. If
Ritualism is wrong, why did not our LORD condemn it, as
they do ? Why did He take part in it, as they do not ? If
the Gospel has reversed the principles of the old worship,
1 E.g., S. Mark ii. 27. a Acts xx. 7. 3 See p. 22.
is "RITUAL" RIGHT? 17
instead of only improving on them, why should our opponents
themselves observe Sunday in a Jewish fashion instead of
by the great Christian service of the Holy Communion ?
The truth is this our LORD and His Apostles took
Ritualism for granted and as a matter of course.
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
There is, therefore, no laying down of a new ceremonial
in the New Testament. It is occupied with more urgent
things than that. Obviously, this was not the time for
discussing ceremonial any more than for dealing with
church music, or Sunday Schools, or parochial organiza
tion, or any other of those practical questions which arose
later in the history of the Church. GOD'S method is that
of growth, and our LORD studiously refrained from tying
down the Church by any laws. He is as silent about the
Church's ceremonial as He is about her observance of a
weekly holiday. He gave her no command as to how she
was to observe the LORD'S Day, or any other day, or whether
she was to have any special day at all. All this He left
her to work out in the future. Only he promised that He
would be with her to the end of the world, and that the
Holy Spirit would guide His flock into all truth. 1
Now we believe that this promise has been fulfilled. We
believe that He has been with her, and that the worship
she has offered Him has been acceptable. We can now
see the Divine wisdom in that freedom which He gave her,
the Divine growth in the use she has made of that freedom.
A few moral precepts, a few theological truths, certain
sacraments, a short form of prayer, that was His endowment,
His legacy to His kingdom. But He left it also the ex
ample of a perfect life, and He has continued in it His
abiding presence, His continual inspiration.
Yes; and in the heart of His beloved disciple He set
1 S. Matt, xxviii. 20 ; S. John xvi. 13.
i8
is "RITUAL" RIGHT?
a picture of the perfect worship of heaven. S. John, the
most spiritual of the Apostles, S. John, who had had the best
opportunities of knowing the Master's mind, has given us
a vision of that worship, which is the inspired symbolic
pattern of all Christian ceremonial. It is not, of course,
a description of any actual Service. But it shows clearly
that the Apostle must have approved of those things which
he introduces into his picture of heaven :
" Straightway I was in the Spirit : and behold, there was
a throne set in heaven, and one sitting upon the throne ;
and he that sat was to look upon like a jasper stone and
a sardius : and there was a rainbow round about the throne,
like an emerald to look upon. And round about the throne
were four and twenty thrones : and upon the thrones I saw
four and twenty elders sitting, arrayed in white garments ;
and on their heads crowns of gold. And out of the throne
proceeded lightnings and voices and thunders. And there
were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which
are the seven Spirits of GOD ; and before the throne, as it
were a glassy sea like unto crystal." Again : " And
when he had taken the book, the four living creatures and
the four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb,
having each one a harp, and golden bowls full of incense,
which are the prayers of the saints. And they sing a new
song .... And the elders fell down and worshipped."
Again: " And another angel came and stood over the altar,
having a golden censer ; and there was given unto him much
incense, that he should add it unto the prayers of all the
saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the
saints, went up before GOD out of the angel's hand." x
Such was the vision of S.John, such his inspired imaginings
concerning the ideal worship of the redeemed. Glorious
colour as of huge jewels, the splendour of a golden altar,
1 Rev. iv. 2-6 v. 8, 9 14 viii. 3-4. R.V.
is "RITUAL" RIGHT? ig
vested ministers prostrate in adoration, sweet singing, and
the scent of many golden bowls of incense. It brings us
back to that thought of GOD revealed in nature with which
we concluded the last chapter. In heaven, S. John
thought, where worship is entirely spiritual, and GOD seen
face to face, there must be still scent, and sound, the grace
of solemn order, and the glory of colour in heaven as in
earth.
III. THE PRAYER BOOK.
" WE are ' ritualists ' because we obey the Prayer Book."
That is the answer a good Churchman would make to
objectors. Yet, strange to say, the popular idea is the
exact opposite to this. Most uneducated people, and a
good many who in other matters are well informed, imagine
that High Churchmen are lawless and unfaithful. Charges
are hurled about very cruel charges, very false, very
libellous charges by people who really ought to know
better.
Now, it is true that there are clergy both " high " and
"low," both "broad" and "moderate," who disobey the
Prayer Book ; and when Catholic x Churchmen do so, they
bring the whole Catholic movement into unnecessary dis
credit ; but so far from Ritualism being in itself disloyal to
the Prayer Book, it is certain that only by a " Ritualist "
can the Prayer Book be obeyed.
OLD-FASHIONED LAWLESSNESS.
First, let us look at the general plan of the Prayer Book,
the Services it provides for, the main obligations it lays
upon the clergy. It provides two choir Services (Morning
x Some people call the Papists "Catholic," as if Churchmen were not
Catholics. Yet we say every time we go to Church, " I believe in the
Holy Catholic Church;*' and the Prayer Book always uses the word
" Catholic," so that if we are good Churchmen we must be good Catholics
20
is "RITUAL" RIGHT?
and Evening Prayer) every day, and a celebration of the
Holy Communion on Sundays and Holy Days, and the
Litany thrice a week. A study of the rubrics will also
show that a sermon is to be preached at the Sunday
Eucharist, and that there is to be catechizing on all
Sundays and Holy Days. This is the regular course of
Prayer Book Services.
Now, before the Church revival, every one of these points
was disobeyed. The special daily Services (Mattins and
Evensong) were said on Sunday only ; the special Sunday
Service (the LORD'S Supper) was celebrated only three or
four times a year ; the Holy Days were not observed ; the
Litany was omitted two days out of the three ; the weekly
sermon alone was retained, but its use in giving special
prominence to the Eucharist was entirely disregarded. Cate
chizing was not given on Holy Days, and was so largely
ignored on Sundays that the laity at last started the Sunday
school movement to make up for the neglect of the clergy.
This, the old-fashioned arrangement of Service, is no
doubt what people have in their minds when they accuse us
reformers of lawlessness. We are not at all faithful to this
arrangement ; and so they imagine that we are not faithful
to the Prayer Book. They have not stopped to consider
that this familiar system of their childhood is, as a matter
of fact, contrary to the Prayer Book at every point. They
would be quite honestly surprised if they heard that it is
the very acme of lawlessness. Yet it is.
Now our Evangelical brethren are steadily emerging
from this state of disobedience ; they, like other Churchmen,
have largely given up the old-fashioned ritual. I honour
them the more for this, because it often requires a good
deal of courage to insist on the Prayer Book in the face of
an old-fashioned congregation. But they have yet a good
deal of lee-way to make up. They are still far less law-
abiding than the Ritualists.
is "RITUAL" RIGHT? 21
UNDOING THE REFORMATION.
The daily Services, for instance, are stated in the Prayer
Book Preface " Concerning the Service of the Church " to be
the main reason why the Prayer Book was drawn up.
Read this Preface (the second in the Prayer Book), and
you will see that the reason given for the work of the
Reformers is that the clergy by reading, and -the people
" by daily hearing of Holy Scripture read in the Church,"
might be edified. The old choir Services had become so
confused, and, being in Latin, were so unintelligible, that it
was necessary to draw up a " Common Prayer," in which
the Psalter and Bible would be read steadily through
day by day. Therefore those who do not have the daily
Services are in truth unfaithful to the Reformation. This
Preface is followed by a Note ordering the Curate of every
parish church to have daily Morning and Evening Prayer
in the Church. The daily order is further explained in the
two notes after the next Preface, beginning " The Psalter
shall be read through once a month." Then follow the
Proper Lessons for Sundays and Holy Days, and after that
the Kalendar, which gives the week-day lessons. After
that come a Table of Feasts (still largely ignored in many
lawless churches), and a carefully-detailed Table of Fasting-
days, which are still so much disobeyed that a person who
fasts is looked upon as extraordinarily High Church by
people who fancy themselves to be quite loyal to the Prayer
Book and the Reformation. 1 Then comes the Services of
Morning and Evening Prayer described in their title as
" daily to be said and used throughout the year."
1 If you reckon up the Table ol Vigils and Fasts in the " Tables and
Rules " of the Prayer Book, you will find that we are ordered to keep
103 Fast-days in 1908 (40 days of Lent, 3 Rogation days, 13 remaining
Vigils, 7 remaining Ember Days, and also the 40 remaining Fridays).
Who obeys the Prayer Book in this its hardest rule ? The High
Churchman.
22 is "RITUAL" RIGHT?
Who, do you think, are the lawless clergy those who
obey these orders thus heaped upon us in the Prayer Book,
or those who disobey them ?
THE PRINCIPAL SERVICE.
Well, as I have said, a great advance has been made by
all parties. But in one important particular that advance
in lawfulness is almost confined to " ritualistic " churches.
I refer to the position of the Holy Communion the one
Service (besides Baptism) which our LORD Himself ordered.
At most churches it is put into a corner, and its place as the
principal Service of the day is taken by Mattins.
Now, the Reformers were very anxious for the revival of
preaching, and in order that everyone should hear a sermon
every Sunday they inserted a rubric in the middle of the
Holy Communion to the effect that here was the place for
the sermon. 1 They felt sure that by doing this they would
ensure the people hearing a sermon, for they took it for
granted that everyone would, of course, be present at this
Service, if at no other. They made this even more sure by
ordering that the Notices should be given out at the same
place in the middle of the Communion Service. 2 Alas for
their intentions ! In the average church of to-day the
sermon is preached at Mattins, for which the Prayer Book
provides no sermon, and has been removed from the LORD'S
Supper, at which the Prayer Book orders it to be preached.
By this simple expedient, you will observe, the whole
balance of public worship has been shifted, the pre-eminence
of the Holy Communion Scriptural, Primitive, and
Anglican, not to say Catholic has been destroyed. The
people come naturally to that Service in which the sermon
1 "Then shall follow the Sermon." Second Rubric after the Creed in
the Communion Service.
9 "Then the Curate shall declare unto the people what Holy-days or
Fasting-days are in the week following to be observed," etc. First Rubric.
See note on p. 21.
is "RITUAL" RIGHT. 23
is preached, and that Service is now Mattins ! I do not, of
course, wish to blame all the clergy in whose churches this
is done. They often would like to obey the Prayer Book
by having the sermon and the Eucharist in their proper
place, but are prevented because the congregation are not
sufficiently good churchmen.
I would just remind you also that the Prayer Book, by
ordering sponsors in the Baptismal Service to make their
God-children " hear sermons," provides for non-communi
cating attendance ; since these sermons, according to the
rubric, are to be preached at the Holy Communion, and
the Priest has no right to close the Communion Service
at the Offertory if there are three or four among the con
gregation who desire to communicate ; also that the Prayer
Book (enforced by the Canons) 1 does not allow people to go
out of church in the middle of the LORD'S Supper, but
requires them to remain till the Priest " shall let them depart"
as the rubric says, with the Blessing. Thus, you see, at
every point the Catholic and Scriptural position of the
Eucharist is guarded in the Prayer Book.
And now we have dealt with the essentials of Prayer
Book Ritual (using the word in its strict sense) ; we have
seen that first of all a Prayer Book Church is one in which
the clergy carry out the duties they have undertaken by
saying Mattins and Evensong daily, by celebrating the Holy
Eucharist on Sundays and all Holy Days, by preaching
a sermon at the Sunday Eucharist (we know from the
Canons a that it is only on a Sunday, and then once, that
a sermon is positively required), and by catechising on
Sundays and Holy Days.
1 "Neither shall they disturb the Service or Sermon, by walking or
talking, or any other way : nor depart out of the Church during the time of
Service or Sermon." Canon 18. "The Churchwardens . . . shall
diligently see that all the parishioners duly resort to their Church upon all
Sundays and Holy-days, and there continue the whole time of Divine
Service." Canon 90.
" One Sermon every Sunday of the year." Canon 45.
24 is "RITUAL" RIGHT?
THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC.
We now come to the subsidiary question What orna
ments are they to use for these Services ?
" Ah ! there we have you ! " say our good friends.
"None of your vestments and things are mentioned in
the Prayer Book." Well, it is true, they are not men
tioned by name, but they are none the less ordered. A
schoolmaster might say to a boy, " You are to come this
afternoon in your cricketing things." He would not mention
the things by name, but if the boy thought he was not
therefore ordered to wear them, the master would use
summary means to undeceive him.
Now this is exactly what happens in the Church of
England ; we are told to use all the things which were
lawfully used in the year 1548, and we are expected to
know what they are.
" And here is to be noted, That such Ornaments of the
Church, and of the Ministers thereof at all times of
their Ministration, shall be retained, and be in use,
as were in this Church of England, by the authority
of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of
King Edw. VI." The Ornaments Rubric.
No vestments are mentioned by name in the Prayer
Book, and very few ornaments. The surplice is not
mentioned; the hood, scarf, chasuble, black gown, and
cope are not mentioned, but they are all lawful ; and so
are organs, censers, lecterns, and candlesticks, although
they are not mentioned either. This may seem strange
to some modern people, but it was not at all strange to
the Reformers ; for they had the old service books before
them, and in those books few of the ornaments are
mentioned. The York Missal, for instance, mentions no
vestments whatever ; the Hereford Missal mentions the
amice and albe only; the Sarum Missal has no word
is "RITUAL" RIGHT? 25
about altar lights, neither has any other of our pre-
Reformation Missals.
The Reformers, however, went further than the old
Missals. They did what had never been done before;
they inserted a general rubric ordering all these things
vestments and all and they made that rubric a part of
an Act of Parliament.
If you open your Prayer Book at the beginning of
Morning Prayer, you will find that rubric which is called
the Ornaments Rubric, and which I have just quoted. If
you have a recently-printed Prayer Book that rubric will
have a page to itself. That is its proper position ; in the
original MS. of the Prayer Book, a whole folio page is
devoted to it, so as to show at a glance that it is the great
rubric which covers the whole Prayer Book, without which
not a single Service can be lawfully carried out. In slovenly
times the rubric came to be printed as a kind of foot-note
to the " Golden Numbers," and so was little noticed.
Now the Ornaments Rubric is preceded by a statement
that " the Chancels shall remain as they have done in times
past." This clause was inserted in Edward VI. 's reign
(1552), and therefore meant that the old arrangement of
altar, chancel furniture, etc., was to continue as it had
been at the beginning of that reign. The beautiful old
arrangement of the chancel was ordered to be kept. When
the Puritans tore down the altars, removed the candles and
frontals, and destroyed the great chancel screen with its
crucifix, they were breaking the law, disobeying this
order of the Prayer Book. They left the chancels
hideous and bare, as we most of us remember them in our
childhood. 1
x Pictures of the old arrangement of the chancel (which is very different
from that of Roman Catholic churches) will be found in a book I have
written called The Parson's Handbook (published by Frowde), which gives
a full description, for laymen as well as clergy, such as there is not room
for here.
26 is "RITUAL" RIGHT?
Then follows the Ornaments Rubric itself. Let me
point out to you its meaning. It orders the ornaments,
not only "of the Church," but also "of the Ministers";
not only, that is to say, such things as chalices, candles,
altar-cloths, burses, etc., but also such things as surplices,
chasubles, copes, etc., for all were in lawful use in
1548-9, the second year of Edward VI.
How, then, are we to know what things were in lawful
use in that year ? The rubric says we are to look for " the
authority of Parliament " because a good many things were
done without authority in those troublous times. What
ornaments then had this authority ? To avoid any dispute,
we will take our stand on the First Prayer Book of
Edward VI, which was accepted by Parliament in 1548-9,
and came into u use in 1549; because all historians and
lawyers are agreed that this at least is referred to by the
Ornaments Rubric, and because this First Prayer Book
mentions definitely by name the most important ornaments.
Though we must remember that some things have been
declared lawful which are not mentioned in this Book, for
no old service book is exhaustive.
VESTMENTS.
In the rubrics of the First English Prayer Book, then,
the Book of 1549, the Priest at the Holy Communion
is told to wear " a white albe plain with a vestment or
cope," and his assistants "albes with tunicles." At
" Mattins and Evensong, baptizing and burying," the
minister is told to wear a surplice 1 ; but at the Holy
Communion he is ordered to wear, not a surplice, but an
albe with a vestment. Thus the vestments which cause
so much astonishment to our friends are mentioned seriatim
in the First Prayer Book, and are ordered by the Ornaments
1 Cardwell, The Two Books, 267, 397. You can get a cheap copy of
the First Prayer Book for a shilling at any bookseller's.
IS " RITUAL'' RIGHT? 27
Rubric in our own, because they were " in this Church of
England by the authority of Parliament, in the second year
of the reign of King Edward VI."
It would take too long for me to proceed with an
enumeration of all the ornaments and vestments which
were in lawful use in 1548-9.' It is enough to say, If
you wish to know what they are, look at a well-ordered
" ritualistic " church. I do not say, Look at all such
churches, for in some it is true the Church of Rome has
been copied, and such lawlessness I should be the last to
defend. But if we want to stop lawlessness of this kind
we must in fairness and justice try to stop " Low-church"
lawlessness as well, and we must be very careful that we
ourselves keep the law by using such things as the vestments
at Holy Communion.
I need only here point out that the rubric orders all
these things to be " in use," and to be used by the clergy
" at all times of their ministration " ; there is nothing of
the half-measure about it the order is clear and precise.
It does not merely allow these things, it commands them.
Lastly, this rubric was carefully guarded, and indeed
strengthened, when the Prayer Book was last revised
(at the Restoration in 1661). You might think it was
kept in by an oversight ; but, No ! The Puritans at the
Savoy Conference asked that it might be struck out,
" forasmuch," they said, " as this rubric seemeth to
bring back the cope, albe etc., and other vestments."
The Bishops replied: "We think it fit that the rubric
continue as it is."
And so it has remained. But till the Church revival
it was only partially obeyed. The clergy conformed to
it so far as their choir-vestments were concerned. The
1 A clear and scholarly account of the Ornaments Rubric will be found
in Mr. Eeles' The Ornaments Rubric. (Mowbrays, id.)
28 is "RITUAL" RIGHT?
old-fashioned Priest with his surplice, hood, and black scarf
was quite lawfully habited for saying Mattins and Evensong ;
but his mistake was that, when he came to celebrate the
Holy Communion, he did so in these same choir-vestments.
That was his mistake. And did it not arise from his other
fault that he celebrated the Holy Communion so seldom,
and gave our LORD'S own Service so low a place in the
worship of the Church ? Terrible evils followed, as they
were bound to follow, on that great omission. And when
the clergy began to see the error of their ways, and to
perform their duties honestly and in due order, what
wonder that they also began to conform to the other
rubrics of the English Church, and celebrate CHRIST'S
Eucharist with its proper dignity and beauty not only
in its lawful place, but also with its lawful vestments
and ornaments.
IV. LOYALTY TO THE CHURCH.
FOR us, loyalty to the Church in matters of ritual and
ceremonial .. means loyalty to that part of the Church
Catholic which we call the Church of England ; for, as the
XXXIV. Article declares, every particular Church has
authority to " change and abolish ceremonies or rites," as
well as to ordain them. Ceremonial is not essential like
doctrine : it is a minor matter, the arrangement of which
may be left to a national Church, as anciently it was left to
each diocese.
Having thus asserted her freedom, our Church did not
use it without regard for the customs of the Church at
large. Some rites she " ordained," as the delivery of the
chalice to the laity (or rather, re-ordained, for Communion
in both kinds had only been dropped a few centuries before
the Reformation) ; others she " changed," as the use in
worship of a language not understanded of the people;
is "RITUAL" RIGHT? 29
otliers she " abolished," as the reading of " uncertain stories
and legends" in Divine Service. But all these changes
were, according to the Prayer Book, to be made on sound
Catholic lines ; there was to be no change for the sake of
change ; only the abuses were to be taken away, that the
Services might be brought back to the " godly and decent
order of the ancient Fathers."
Now the popular idea is the exact opposite of this.
People think that a new church was started at the
Reformation with a new set of ceremonies, marked by a
spirit of violent opposition to those used by the rest of the
Catholic Church.
THE REFORMATION.
It is easy to show from official documents that this idea
is wrong. The Prayer Book claims to be, and is, a revision
of the old diocesan uses of the English Church, so that, as
the second Preface says, "now from henceforth all the whole
Realm shall have but one Use." And in its ceremonial
alterations, the claim is constantly made that these altera
tions are Catholic and not Protestant in character. For
instance :
1549. In the Preface, Concerning the Service of the Church
(first published in this year, and now printed second in the
Prayer Book), we are referred to the "godly and decent
order of the ancient Fathers " as our standard ; and we
are told, " Here you have an Order for Prayer, for the
reading of the holy Scripture, much agreeable to the mind
and purpose of the old Fathers."
1549. In our third Preface, Of Ceremonies, while it is
declared that certain ceremonies (some " of godly intent ")
have been abolished because of their excess, and of super
stitious and avaricious abuses, it is also stated that " some
of the old Ceremonies are retained still," and Puritan
objectors are told that " surely where the old may be well
3O is "RITUAL" RIGHT?
used, there they cannot reasonably reprove the old only for
their age, without bewraying of their own folly." The
Preface continues by condemning "innovations," and de
claring that " new-fangleness " is " always to be eschewed,"
with the proviso "as much as may be with true setting
forth of CHRIST'S religion."
1569. The following declaration was ordered by Queen
Elizabeth to be read in all churches : " We deny to claim
any superiority to ourself to define, decide, or determine
any article or point of the Christian faith and religion, or
to change any ancient ceremony of the Church from the
form before received and observed by the Catholic and
Apostolic Church." x
1603. The 3oth Canon : " But the abuse of a thing
doth not take away the lawful use of it. Nay, so far was
it from the purpose of the Church of England to forsake
and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany,
or any such like Churches, in all things which they held
and practised, that as the Apology of the Church of
England confesseth, it doth with reverence retain those
ceremonies, which doth neither endamage the Church of
GOD, nor offend the minds of sober men."
1 66 1. Declaration of the Bishops at the Savoy Con
ference, when the Puritans objected to the Priest standing
at the altar : " All the Primitive Church used it, and if we
do not observe that golden rule of the venerable Council of
Nice, 'Let ancient customs prevail, till reason plainly
requires the contrary,' we shall give offence to sober
Christians by a causeless departure from Catholic usage." 2
1 66 1. The first Preface of the Prayer Book, called The
Preface, which was written in this year : " Of the sundry
alterations proposed unto us, we have rejected all such as
were either of dangerous consequence (as secretly striking
at some established doctrine, or laudable practice of the
1 Burleigh State Papers. CardwelFs Conferences^ p. 342.
is "RITUAL" RIGHT? 31
Church of England, or indeed of the whole Catholic Church
of CHRIST) or else of no consequence at all."
It is clear, then, that during the hundred years which
effected the Reformation, the English Church steadily kept
to her principles, that she would alter nothing except those
abuses which had obscured the primitive and Catholic
practices of the Church, making no change for the mere
sake of change, and in her changes retaining her loyalty to
" the whole Catholic Church."
THE USE OF TRADITION.
But what do all these general statements come to ?
This : that the English Church in reforming her Service
Books rested them upon Church tradition. She laid down
revised Services to be carried out on the old lines, and in
the old buildings, furnished as " in times past." By insist
ing in the Ornaments Rubric on the old vestments and
ornaments, she endeavoured to secure the main features of
the Service. In the rubrics she laid down the principal
points of the ceremonial : certain other points were after
wards dealt with in the Canons. For the rest, she left the
ministers and people to tradition. The clergy were to use
the ornaments : they knew perfectly well how to use them ;
they were to say Mattins and Evensong and to celebrate
the Eucharist; they had long-acquired habits of carrying
out these functions in the common method which had
always been used in the Church of England. It was not
necessary to draw up a multitude of rubrics on these
points, for such had never been the custom of the Church.
It is very important to remember this ; for people often
imagine that only those ceremonies are lawful which are
mentioned in the rubrics. To think this is to treat the
Prayer Book as if it were like the modern Roman Missal ;
for, with the exception of that Missal, no Service Book has
ever attempted to give rubrics for everything that has to be
32 is "RITUAL" RIGHT?
done. Even in the Roman Missal itself this was never
attempted till the Council of Trent. The first printed
Roman Missal, for instance, that of 1474, has actually
fewer rubrics than the Prayer Book. Even in the Consecra
tion at the Eucharist the rubrics are fewer; they consist
merely of these words : "Here he takes the host into his
hands saying. He puts down the host, and raises the
chalice saying. Here he puts down the chalice." And
this is a very typical instance.
The first English Prayer Book (1549) was exactly like
the Latin books which had preceded it, in not giving rubrics
for more than the general outlines of the Service. Of
course no one could have understood it who had not a
knowledge of the traditional way of conducting Service.
And equally, of course, every one would use the traditional
way of conducting Service, except when the new book
specified some variation. That was the main use of the
rubrics of that book To draw attention to the changes.
The succeeding edition of the Prayer Book maintained the
same method. In the last edition, when the Prayer Book
took its present form, some new rubrics were added (the
manual acts at the Consecration, for instance, had been
previously left entirely to tradition) l but still the mediaeval
plan of having few directions was adhered to.
Let me give you some instances of this. There is no
direction in the Communion Service for what is called
a High Celebration, and the only hint that there may
be even a server present is the direction that the Confession
is to be said by " one of the Ministers." But we should
make a grave mistake if we concluded that such a Service
is unauthorised, for in the 24th Canon we find
"the Principal Minister using a decent Cope, and being
assisted with the Gospeller and Epistoler." And in the
Ordering of Deacons at the end of the Prayer Book there
1 As they were also in many of the old Missals.
is "RITUAL" RIGHT? 33
is a rubric, " Then one of them appointed by the Bishop
shall read the Gospel." Similarly, in the Consecration of
Bishops, " another Bishop shall read the Epistle," and,
"another Bishop shall read the Gospel."
The second instance is, perhaps, more interesting because
the custom has never been authorised in any document since
the Reformation, and yet has never passed out of use. It
is the singing of " Glory be to thee, O LORD," before the
Gospel, and we owe it to the Sarum Missal.
We do not realize how much is left to tradition. I fancy
many people imagine there is a rubric somewhere to this
effect, " The Minister shall put on his surplice and proceed
to the reading-desk," or " The Minister shall go into the
vestry and put on a black gown ; he shall then re-enter the
church and ascend the pulpit." There is, of course, nothing
of the kind. In the Prayer Book the Priest is " discovered "
in his stall, or at the altar, ready to begin the Service. How
did he get there ? Was there a solemn entry of the Ministers ?
Well, Canon 24 speaks of Gospeller and Epistoler, Canon
92 tells us of a Clerk of " competent skill in singing ;" and
if incense is used (as it lawfully may be) someone must
carry it, and someone may also carry in the lights. How
are all these people to get in ? Who is to walk first ?
Well, all these questions should not puzzle us, any more
than they would have puzzled the parsons who first used
the Prayer Book; their answer would have been in the
words of the Sarum rubric, " Then shall the Ministers
approach the altar in order, first, the taperers walking side
by side, then the thurifers, afterwards the sub-deacon [i.e.
the epistoler], and then the deacon [*.*. the gospeller], after
him the priest." But stay ! There is the verger ; he is
not in the Prayer Book, but none would deny his lawful
existence, or that he walks at the head of a procession, as he
still did in Cathedrals even in the most slovenly days. Where
has that come from ? We find the answer in the Salisbury
34 is "RITUAL" RIGHT?
Processional : " First goes the minister carrying the verge
in his hand to make way for the procession." But we have
not done yet. Surpliced choirs, though not mentioned in
the Prayer Book, have always existed with the highest
sanction, and sometimes they walk also in procession.
What is their place? You cannot answer without a
knowledge of our old service books. A Roman Catholic
would tell you that they walk before the celebrant ; but
he would be wrong so far as we are concerned, for in
every English use they walk after him. Once more,
before even we have reached the beginning of the Service,
there is nothing to prevent the Bishop being present.
What is he to do ? He does always what the Sarum
Processional tells him to do, and, unless he is celebrating,
walks last of all. If you ask him why, he will probably
say, because all the Bishops do ; if you ask all the other
Bishops, they will say because all the Bishops before them
did ; and so it would be, right back to the time of the first
English Prayer Book ; and then the Bishops would have
pointed to their Salisbury or York Processionals.
Yet again, take the Litany. If you look at your books
you will see that it just happens ; it is being said but
where or by whom does not appear. Who is to sing it ?
The Prayer Book gives no direction till the Priest says the
prayers at the end. How are we to know who begins ?
Well it so happens that certain Cathedrals have always
maintained the custom of lay clerks singing the petitions
of the Litany, and this custom they had originally from
the pre- Reformation service books, when it was sung by
clerks ; and so we know that laymen as well as Priests
may say or sing these petitions.
But we are not by any means left only to ancient
tradition for our ceremonies. Besides those enshrined in
the rubrics of the Prayer Book, there are many set forth
in later pronouncements, and some which we should not
IS " RITUAL " RIGHT ? 35
have known to have existed after the Reformation if diligent
historians had not found them for us. 1
The First English Prayer Book helps us about some
practices. It tells us, for instance, that signing oneself
with the cross "may be used or left, as every man's
devotion serveth without blame." The reign of Queen
Elizabeth gives us our Collects, Epistles, and Gospels
for Requiem Celebrations, as well as those Commemoration
Services which are still used in some schools and colleges.
THE CANONS.
In the next reign (James I.) we find two customs started,
for which there is still no authority whatever but Post-
Reformation tradition viz., standing to sing the Psalms,
and facing East for the Creed. We also find Bishop
Andrewes using the towel and basin at the Eucharist,
and, of course, incense as well. In 1603 a code of Canons
was issued which affect you every time you come to
church. For instance, if a man came in to-day with
his hat on, the churchwardens would tell him to take it
off, and if he refused he would be indicted for brawling.
On what authority? That of Canon i8. 2 There is no
order to remove hats in the Prayer Book. The same
Canon is the authority for bowing at the Holy Name.
In some churches this is only done at the Creed, but the
Canon orders it at all times "when in time of Divine
Service, the LORD JESUS shall be mentioned, due and
lowly reverence shall be done by all persons present,
as it hath been accustomed " the same emphasis on tradi
tion.
1 A large collection of instances of Post- Reformation vestments, orna
ments, and ceremonies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries will be
found in Mr. Staley's new edition of Hierurgia Anglicana (De la More
Press).
a " No man shall cover his head in the church or chapel in the time of
Divine Service." Canon 18.
36 IS " RITUAL " RIGHT ?
The same Canon orders that when prayers are read all
members of the congregation " shall reverently kneel upon
their knees " a rule which, I fear, is still sometimes dis
obeyed. The 2ist Canon settles another point by ordering
that the celebrant at Holy Communion is always to receive
the Sacrament himself. Yet another omission of the Prayer
Book is supplied by the 55th, which gives a Bidding Prayer
to be used before the sermon. The 24th and 25th Canons
order copes to be worn in cathedrals, yet dignitaries who
make no attempt to obey this law have been known to accuse
other clergy of lawlessness.
Another of these Canons of 1603 orders the clergy to
wear their cassocks and gowns in the streets; another
enforces the use of the hood with the surplice, a matter
which in the First Prayer Book had been optional, and
provides for the tippet, that is to say, the black scarf.
To the 8 ist Canon we owe it that our fonts are of stone,
and set, as the Canon says, '' in the ancient usual places."
If it were not for the 83rd, we need have no pulpits ;
alms-boxes and baptismal registers are due to the 84th
and 7oth, and the 82nd orders all altars to be covered
with frontals. But such things as these are only of interest
as illustrating the Ornaments Rubric, which covers
them all.
The 7th Canon of 1640 inculcates the practice of bowing
to the altar : " We think it very meet and behoveful, and
heartily commend it to all good and well-affected people,
members of this Church, that they be ready to tender unto
the LORD the said acknowledgment, by doing reverence and
obeisance, both at their coming in and going out of the said
churches, chancels, or chapels, according to the most ancient
custom of the primitive Church in the purest times, and of
this Church also for many years of the reign of Queen
Elizabeth." Notice again that it is custom and tradition
that is relied upon.
is "RITUAL" RIGHT? 37
THE BISHOPS.
At the Savoy Conference in 1661 the Bishops give us
some useful principles, as that the Minister is to turn to the
people when he " speaks to them, as in Lessons, Absolution,
and Benedictions : " but that " when he speaks for them to
GOD, it is fit that they should all turn another way, as the
ancient Church ever did "they say, 1 again appealing to tradition :
and also we find hidden away here the final authority for
the alternate recitation of the Psalms ; a the Prayer Book
gives no direction as to how they are to be said ; the Priest
might say every verse by himself, were it not for the
tradition here given.
Thus, you see, a great deal of our ordinary Church of
England ceremonial is found, not in the Prayer Book, but
in other authorities. There could not be room in the
Prayer Book for every little point, and so we are referred to
sound Church tradition.
The eighteenth century was a time of great deadness, yet
on special occasions the half -forgotten traditions of the
Church were witnessed to by the Bishops. At coronations,
for instance, the Eucharist was celebrated properly. Non-
communicating attendance was actually enforced on these
occasions, as you may have noticed in reading the accounts
of the Coronation of King Edward VII.
In recent years the Bishops have helped us by considering
several disputed points. In 1890, for instance, the Arch
bishop of Canterbury pronounced judgment on the Lincoln
case. Relying solely on tradition, the judgment proved the
lawfulness of the two altar lights, it declared the mixed
chalice to be not only lawful but necessary, if mixed at the
beginning of the Service. It declared also the lawfulness of
the Eastward Position, and of the singing of Agnus Dei
at the Communion.
1 Cardwell's Conferences, p. 353. Ibid. p. 338.
38 is "RITUAL" RIGHT?
In 1899 the Archbishops gave their opinions on the
subject of incense, and pronounced it to be lawful ; x and
though they considered that one particular way of using it
(the " liturgical " way) was not lawful, they left the Bishops
to enforce the opinion or not as they pleased. 2 Therefore
you must not jump to the conclusion that a church is
" lawless " because incense is used in it.
There are other points which sometimes are misunder
stood. Let me end with one of them the use of unleavened
wafer-bread for the LORD'S Supper. Now that very name,
" the LORD'S Supper," reminds us that our LORD Himself
used unleavened bread at the Supper, if it took place during
the Passover when leaven was not allowed. Therefore
wafer-bread is Scriptural ; and it is also most convenient
to use, as it does not get stale, nor crumble, nor does it
require to be cut up before use. But as some people were
prejudiced against it, the rubric at the end of the Com
munion Service allows the use of common bread in such
cases, by the words " it shall suffice." Let me conclude
by quoting the words of Archbishop Temple on the
subject :
" The rubric concerning the bread to be used at Holy
Communion is somewhat ambiguous. At the time
when it was inserted there were a great number who
preferred ordinary bread ; but there were also a great
number, in all probability the majority, who preferred
the old practice, sanctioned by the First Prayer
1 The Archbishops thought the liturgical use of incense was unlawful ;
but they added that " side by side with the liturgical use, another use had
always been common, which it was not the intention of the rulers or of the
legislature to interfere with. There was nothing to prevent the use of
incense for the purpose of sweetening the atmosphere of a church wherever
and whenever such sweetening is needed." The Archbishops on Incense,
pp. 9-10.
2 " It is left for the Bishops to call upon the clergy to take this opinion,
but if they do not choose to act in this way, that, of course, would set the
clergy in that diocese perfectly free from obedience to that opinion."
Archbishop Temple in The Times, Jan 20, 1900.
IS " RITUAL " RIGHT ? 39
Book, and used unleavened bread. Of course there
was much disputing. To put an end to the dispute
this rubric was drawn up. Now this rubric does not
say that either practice was henceforth to prevail, but
simply that the new practice was to suffice. In other
words, it did not say that henceforth ordinary bread
was to be used, but that ordinary bread was to be
allowed."
This matter of wafer-bread is typical of many other
things which people sometimes attack simply through
ignorance. We cannot always help being ignorant, but
at least we can refrain from ignorant condemnation of
others. Knowledge and wisdom are necessary if we would
hope to deal justly with other people, and come to a right
judgement ourselves, knowledge, wisdom, and " above all
things charity."
We do indeed suffer from lawlessness in the Church of
England, but the lawlessness is very different from that
which many people imagine. There is a widespread
neglect of duty both among laymen and clergy ; and the
Church will never again become the power in the land
which once she was, in more loyal days long past, till we
are faithful to her commands. That is a more important
subject than ceremonial ; and I have left its consideration to
another pamphlet, " Loyalty to the Prayer Book," where
in no party spirit I have tried to point out how splendid a
Christian ideal is set before us, and how grievously
unfaithful to it we have been.
A. R. MOWBRAY AND CO. LTD., CHURCH PRINTERS, OXFORD
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
The Parson's Handbook. For Parsons and others, on the
Management of the Parish Church and its Services. Eighth
Edition. Oxford University Press. 6.r.
The Server's Handbook. For Parish Clerks and Servers.
Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press, is.
The English Liturgy, with additional Collects, Epistles
and Gospels for the Black Letter Days, and for special
occasions. An Altar Book by the Revs. Percy Dearmer, W. H.
Frere, and the Ven. S. M. Taylor, with a Preface by the Bishop of
Winchester. Third Edition. Rivingtons. 2 guineas, in sheets.
The Sanctuary. A Book for Communicants, with Private Devo
tions, etc. Fourth Edition. Rivingtons. Jd., is., is.^d., 2s. 6d. ;
with Prayer Book, is. 6d., 2s., $s. 6d.
The Ornaments of the Ministers. With 41 Plates and 34
Figures. Second Edition. Mowbrays, 1908. is. 6d.
Body and Soul : An Enquiry into the effect of Religion
upon Health, with a description of Christian Works of
Healing from the New Testament to the Present Day.
9th impression. Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, 1909. 2s. 6d.
Everyman's History of the English Church. A popular
History, copiously illustrated. Mowbrays, 1909. is., is. 6d., and 2J.
Reunion and Rome. With Prefatory Letter by his Grace the
Archbishop of Canterbury. Mowbrays, 1910. if., and is. 6d.
The Dragon of Wessex. A Historical Novel of the Days of
Alfred. Mowbrays, 1911. 31. 6d.
Everyman's History of the Prayer Book. With 99 Illustra
tions. Mowbrays, 1912. is. 6d., and 2s.
Etc. , etc.
Also the following pamphlets :
Is " Ritual " Right ? Mowbrays. id. In cloth boards, 6d.
Loyalty to the Prayer Book. Mowbrays. zd.
The Training of a Christian according to the Prayer Book
and Canons. Mowbrays. id.
The Communion of Saints. Mowbrays. 2d. In cloth, 6d.
The Prayer Book: What it is, and how we should use
it. Third Edition. Mowbrays. id. Illustrated Edition, 6d.
The Church and Social Questions. Mowbrays. id.
The Social Teaching of the Church Catechism. Mowbrays. id.
The Inner Health Movement. Mowbrays. id.
Etc., etc.
Also the following forms of service : Five Forms for Bidding Prayer,
Mowbrays, $d. A Form for Unction and the Laying -on of Hands ;
Mowbrays, $d. A Litany of Labour, Mowbrays, *4d. A Memorial
Service, Mowbrays, $d.
BX DEARMER
5123 IS "RITUAL"R1
1J
1914
