FOOTNOTES:
[1] Can. 21. It is referred to by Hosius at the Council of Sardica, A.D. 347.
[2] See Mabillon, referred to in Introduction to vol. ii. of 'The Principles of Divine Service.'—P. 79, note z.
[3] See the 'Churchman's Diary' (Masters). Another return makes the number only 328. See the 'Kalendar of the English Church.'
[4] See this admirably worked out in Dr. Moberly's Sermons on the Decalogue.
[5] See this proved at large in 'Principles of Divine Service,' vol. ii., pp. 284, sqq.
[6] See 'Principles of Divine Service,' vol. ii., pp. 284-298.
[7] So Balsamon, in the twelfth century: "Though some desire by means of this Canon to oblige those who come to Church to receive the Sacraments against their will, yet we do not; for we decide that the faithful are to stay to the end of the Divine Sacrifice; but we do not force them to communicate."—See Scudamore, 'Communion of the Faithful,' p. 58. Yet later writers acknowledged the true meaning of the Canon, though they thus condemned the existing practice of the Church.—Ibid.
[8] Council of Lugo, A.D. 572; of Maçon, A.D. 585.
[9] "Sæculares qui natale Domini, pascha et pentecosten non communicaverint, catholici non credantur nec inter catholicos habeantur."—Concil. Agath., c. 18.
[10] Council of Paris (829).
[11] Rubric at the end of the Communion Service, 1549.
[12] Thus, in the Sarum Use, separate Epistles and Gospels are provided for those days throughout Advent, Epiphany, and Easter, till Whitsuntide; for Wednesdays only throughout the Trinity period.
[13] See 'Principles of Divine Service,' Introd. to Part II., p. 123-129. Mr. Perry ('Declaration on Kneeling') arrives at the same conclusion.
[14] See 'The Revival of the Subdiaconate,' a pamphlet; and the Suggestions of the Archdeacon of London, put forth in his Charge of 1850, and lately revised at a meeting of his Clergy of his Archdeaconry, "not without the full knowledge and sanction of the Archbishops and of the Bishop of London."
[15] It is true that another part of the same exquisite volume speaks of—
"The dear feast of Jesus dying,
Upon that altar ever lying,
Where souls, with sacred hunger sighing,
Are called to sit and eat, while angels prostrate fall."
But this is exactly an instance of the warm metonymy above spoken of, and cannot be pressed against the distinct disallowance, contained in the passage quoted in the text, of there being a personal Presence of Christ in the Elements.
[16] See note at the end.
[17] Rev. W. Scudamore's 'Communion of the Faithful.'
[18] This is fully proved by Scudamore, 'Communion of the Faithful,' pp. 107-120.
[19] Council of Trent, Session 13, c. 1. See 'Principles of Divine Service,' Introd. to vol. ii., pp. 158-187.
[20] Session 22, c. 6.
[21] See Mr. Keble's letter in the 'Guardian,' Jan. 24, 1866.
[22] Preface concerning the Service of the Church.
[23] It is provided for, as is well known, by the Act of Uniformity, 13 & 14 Car. II.
[24] See, in proof of this, the admirable letter, which, by the kind permission of the Rev. J. B. Dyke, late Precentor of Durham, I have placed in the Appendix.
[25] See note M, p. 49, of Mr. Skinner's recent 'Plea for the threatened Ritual of the Church of England.'
[26] Skinner, p. 48. Archbishop Grindal, and Bishop Sandys (1571-76) urged their destruction.
[27] 1636. "Must other churches have copes, because such is the guise of cathedrals?" St. Giles' in the Fields and St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, are named in 1640. An Act of 1644 orders copes to be sold in parish churches.—(Hierurgia Anglicana, p. 164.)
[28] It is very remarkable, on the other hand, that, as was pointed out in the recent debate in Convocation, Cosin, and others of the revisers, especially Archbishop Sheldon, still made inquiry in their Visitations, not as to the other vestments, but the surplice only. The only solution would seem to be, that, personally, they wished the vestments restored, but, finding no response to their wishes, fell into the usual track of Visitation Articles.
[29] Life of Cosin, prefixed to his Works, in the "Anglo-Catholic" Library.
[30] By Bishop Warburton, it is said, circ., 1770.
[31] It is remarkable that the Canons which are contrariant to the Rubric have no existence in the Irish Canons passed in their Convocation in 1634. The 7th Canon is "All ministers shall use and observe the orders, rites, ornaments, and ceremonies prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, and in the Act of Uniformity printed therewith, as well in saying of Prayers as in administration of the Sacrament." (See Mr. Baker's letter to the 'Church Review,' March 17, 1866). The same canon enforces the surplice and hood for deans, canons, &c., for Prayers, without mentioning the Holy Communion.
[32] St. Luke ii. 13, Rev. vii. 9, xiv. 3. Compare 2 Chron. v. 12.
[33] See Palmer's 'Origines Liturgicæ,' vol. ii., Appendix; the 'Directorium Anglicanum;' Lee 'On Eucharistic Vestments;' and the Rev. Jas. Skinner's 'Plea for the Ritual' (Masters): but especially the last-named writer's most able dissertations in the 'Guardian' of Jan. 17 and Jan. 24, 1866; and the Dean of Westminster's speech in Convocation, Feb. 9, 1866.
[34] Compare the well-known passages, "If any man will take away thy cloke (outer robe), let him have thy coat (or tunic) also." "Ye pull off the robe with the garment from them that pass by securely."—Micah ii. 8. "His garments ... and also his coat ... without seam, woven from the top throughout." "The cloke that I left at Troas ... bring with thee."
[35] 'Directorium Anglicanum,' pp. 16, 21. "The amice is an oblong square of fine white linen, and is put on upon the cassock or priest's canonical dress. It is embroidered or 'apparelled' upon one edge. In vesting, it is placed for a moment, like a veil, upon the crown of the head, and then spread upon the shoulders." "The apparel of the amice cannot be too rich in its ornamentation." Amice is the Latin amictus—"the covering," referring to Psalm cxl. 7, "Thou hast covered my head in the day of battle."
[36] See Neale, Introduction to 'History of Eastern Church,' vol. i. p. 308.
[37] The very ancient Syriac Liturgy of St. James has the loose stole, as in the West, and crossed too upon the breast.—Renaud. p. 15.
[38] "In all prayers, even in those recited at home preparatory to the public Office, the Epitrachelion (i.e. stole) is worn."—Neale, 'Eastern Church,' p. 313. And St. Dunstan's Canons, A.D. 979, order "That no priest ever come within the church door, or into his stall, without a stole."—Hook's 'Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury,' vol. i. p. 488.
[39] Hist. Eccl. iii., 31: ὁς ἐγενήθη ἱερευς τὸ πέταλον πεφορεκώς.
[40] 'De Hæresi,' 78. The very ancient Clementine Liturgy has "exchanging his vestment for a gorgeous one;" αμπρὰν ἐσθῆτα μετενδύς.
[41] ποδήρη, στέφανον, στολήν.
[42] Neale, 'Eastern Church,' Introd., p. 313.
[43] Ibid., p. 307.
[44] Letter to the 'Guardian,' Jan. 24, 1866.
[45] The Fathers generally prefer 'Altar,' the Liturgies 'Holy Table.'
[46] Syriac Liturgy of St. James, "pars altaris in quâ tabula defixa est;" "pars media mensæ vitæ."
[47] Syriac Liturgy of St. James, Renaudot; the 'Ancient English and Communion Offices' (Maskell), where "cornu" is used. The Roman 'Ritus celebrandi Missam,' 4. 4; "Thurificat aliud latus altaris."
[48] The Rubrics in the Syriac Liturgy of St. James seem plainly to contemplate that the vessels, &c., should be placed on the north or south side until consecration, since they are to be carried from the altar round the chancel, and then placed on the media pars (Renaudot, p. 60, who imagines a credence). And both in England and abroad, ancient credence-tables are very rare.
[49] See on this subject, in Appendix A, a valuable comment of the Bishop of Exeter on 1 Cor. xi. 24, and St. Luke xxii. 19.
[50] Renaudot, Liturgiar. Oriental. Collectio.
[51] Rev. iv. 5. On the symbolism of candles, lit or unlit, see Dr. Jebb's valuable pamphlet 'Ritual Law and Custom' (Rivingtons). Notes F. H.
[52] "The suspension of the censer by chains, and waving it, is undoubtedly modern" (Skinner's 'Plea for the Ritual'). Incense was used in Queen Elizabeth's Chapel, and by Bishop Andrewes, and in many parish Churches from 1558 to 1630 at least, and in royal chapels till 1684, and at George III's coronation (Hierurgia Anglicana): also "at the altar in Ely Cathedral, at the greater festivals," till about 1770 (Coles' MSS. 5873 f.)
[53] See Dr. Littledale's 'Mixed Chalice,' with reference to its having been discountenanced by the Bishop of Exeter.
[54] See Neale, Gen. Introduction, p. 307.
[55] E.g., under Bishop Andrewes.
[56] These vary much with different Churches,—an indication perhaps of the indifference of the rite. They are chiefly,—1. the union in Christ of the Humanity with the Divinity; 2. the pouring forth from His side of Blood and Water. In either sense the act may have been a devout afterthought; and on the whole I think it improbable that our Lord mixed the cup. That the Jews drank their wine mixed is not much to the purpose.
[57] See 'Directorium Anglicanum,' passim. Mr. Perry's elaborate work 'Lawful Church Ornaments,' (who, however, only lays down certain things as permissible), and Rev. J. Skinner's 'Plea for our Threatened Ritual,' discuss the subject at large.
[58] 'Directorium Anglicanum,' p. xiv.
[59] See an able article in the 'Contemporary Review,' No. 1, Jan. 1866.
[60] See Mabillon, Iter. Ital., p. xlix., and 'Principles of Divine Service,' Introd. vol. ii. p. 87. A slight raising of the Elements at the words 'He blessed,' as if making an offering, is ancient and probably universal.
[61] Oratio dicenda ante Divinum Officium. Portiforium Sarisb.
[62] 'Directorium Anglicanum,' p. 17: "It is perfectly unobjectionable to have the sacred vestments of fair white linen, so long as the shape of them be correct."
[63] Leviticus xvi. 4.
[64] See the Bishop of Oxford's opinion, delivered in Convocation.
[65] End of the 1st Book of Homilies.