Rites and Ritual: A Plea for Apostolic Doctrine and Worship

by Philip Freeman

5. I come to speak, in the next place, of the crucifix, which is among the "ornaments of the Church" attempted to be restored at the present day. It is difficult, however, to conceive any two things standing on more widely different ground than this, and any one of those ornaments or usages before-mentioned. They, in every case, whether vestments, position of the celebrant, altar-lights, incense, or the mixed chalice, can plead immense antiquity, and all but universality at the present day; neither are they connected of necessity with superstitious usages. But with the crucifix, the reverse of all this is the case. It was utterly unknown to the Church of early days; it is unknown, strictly speaking, to the Eastern Church; and it has given occasion in time past, as it does at this day, to the grossest superstitions. The use of it, as experience has proved, is in reality the merest tampering with the principles of our nature; ever ready (as the length and vehemence of the Second Commandment sufficiently testifies) to save ourselves the trouble of "seeing Him who is invisible," and to fasten our faith on some outward object instead. And there is this especial objection to associating the crucifix with the Holy Communion more especially, that (as was recently well observed by the Bishop of Exeter) there are provided thereby, in dangerous rivalry, two representations or "shewings forth," of the Body of Christ, and of the Death of Christ; the one "ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same;" the other, "that which our own fingers have made," and moreover, "a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture," or of the ancient Church. Can it be well, even supposing the usage not to result (though full surely it will) in idolatrous veneration—can it be well to divide the mind, in such an hour, between the appointed mode of contemplating, with deepest awe and love, the Mystery of our Redemption, and another mode, which, were it never so defensible otherwise, may not dare to lift itself into any comparison with that far more touching exhibition of His Dying Love which Christ Himself, at every Communion, "sets forth among us?"

I know by experience, in particular instances, that this danger is by no means imaginary: and I confess to having the deepest conviction of the rashness and folly of attempting to reintroduce, even among sober Englishmen and Englishwomen—especially in connection with the Holy Eucharist—this snare of mediæval Christendom.

If it be objected that the Cross is open to the same objection, I answer, No. The Cross, as experience proves, while it reminds us of the Death of Christ, does not draw out that warm feeling, which is at once so delightful and so dangerous to some classes of minds. And the same may be said of pictorial or sculptured representations of the entire Crucifixion, where the larger treatment of the subject makes all the difference. It is the concentration of thought and devotion upon the natural resemblance or representation of Christ Himself, that renders the crucifix so dangerous, and infallibly draws on its votaries to a breach of the Second Commandment.

Other observances must be spoken of more in the mass, as it would be impossible to detail them severally. Suffice it to say, that an attempt is now being made to introduce, in conjunction with the vestments and other "ornaments" above mentioned, a minutely elaborated ceremonial, applying to every part of the eucharistic rite.

The ground taken up for this is, 1st, that "ornaments" cannot always be very clearly distinguished from usages, and therefore include them. But surely it is much to be remarked that the rubric does specify "ornaments," so that, although, accidentally, usages arising out of these ornaments are involved,—as, e.g. the candlesticks and candles involve or suggest the lighting of the candles,—yet the rubric cannot be taken to include usages which stand unconnected with ornaments, such as making the sign of the cross, or the like.

But it is contended, further, that not only are usages, as well as "ornaments," covered (as no doubt they are to some extent) by the rubric, but that it actually legalizes everything, whether ornament or usage, which was in use in the twenty-fifth year of Henry VIII. The ground for this startling assertion,—which has been made the basis of a vast and elaborate system of ritual,[57]—is that the second year of Edward VI. (which is named in the rubric) includes a considerable period preceding the passing of the Prayer-book Act. That year, it is contended, commenced on January 28th, 1548, and extended to January 28th, 1549; so that the Prayer-book (which was not established until January 15th, 1549, by 2 and 3 Edward VI., c. 1) is only a part of what the rubric refers to, and merely "supplemental to the old canons and constitutions."[58] We must accept, we are told, all that was in use by the authority of Parliament in 1548-49. Now, the latest enactment of Parliament on the subject, previous to that year, was the 25 Henry VIII., c. 19, which legalizes everything then in use. So that, in short, we are, by the rubric, thrown back upon part of the pre-Reformation period.

The truer view would seem to be that what is implied in the Book, or named in it, is permissible. Certainly the Prayer-book is elsewhere in legal documents (as my friend Mr. Shaw has shown[59]) exclusively meant when "the second year of Edward VI." is spoken of. It may be added, that the most recent judicial decision bearing on the point (re Westerton v. Liddell) expressly lays down that the Prayer-book, and the Prayer-book alone, is what the rubric refers to.

But, in truth, there are other considerations which take away all justification whatever from nine-tenths of the ceremonies which are now being introduced among us. In the first place, a great many of them, perhaps the greater number, are not old English ceremonies at all, but foreign ones, derived from the existing practice—not always of very great antiquity—of the Church of Rome. Now, without going so far as to say that those who have introduced them have thereby incurred the pains and penalties of a præmunire, as having brought in "the fashions of the Bishop of Rome, his ways and customs," it must be plain that it is impossible to justify such practices upon, the ground alleged. Plainly, you cannot base foreign customs on an English rubric. The rubric legalises "such ornaments ... as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of King Edward the Sixth." And this, we are told, includes "usages," and all usages known to the latter part of Henry VIII.'s reign. Be it so, however vast the concession. But will that justify a single usage which was not "in this Church of England," ever since it was a Church at all? Is it not plain that, so far forth as the ceremonies now introduced never were English ceremonies, they break the very rubric to which they appeal? Now it is notorious that a great part of these ceremonies are brought in on the authority of a work frequently referred to in these pages, called 'Directorium Anglicanum.' And in that work the modern Roman usages, to the disregard of the ancient English, and often in direct contravention of them, are to a very great extent recommended. I will take but a single instance,—the very first direction in the book as to the "Order of Administration," p. 23. It concerns the colours for the vestments;—not a matter of the first importance, it may be. But so it is, that the Roman colours are prescribed in the text, and the English ones merely mentioned in a note. And this is but one instance, out of a vast number, of the entire untrustworthiness of that work as a guide to the ancient English usages. Under the delusive title of 'Directorium Anglicanum,' it has presented to the unwary student of ritual, mixed up with our own usages of old time, the most recent Roman ones. It may be hoped that this fact, when pointed out to such of our brethren as have been misled by that learned but most unjustifiable publication, will induce them to modify their present practice.

"But," it will be contended, "surely we may claim to reintroduce all ancient English ceremonies; such as elevating the Elements after consecration; making the sign of the cross in consecrating, and again over the head of each communicant before administering;—or such, again, as frequent bowing and genuflection;—various regulated movements to and fro,—as at the saying of the Creed;—swinging of censers again and again in various directions; with many other ceremonies." To all this, however, there is an answer which, I humbly conceive, is unanswerable. It is this,—that the English Church, to whose laws they appeal, has expressly abolished some of these ceremonies, and laid her prohibition upon the use of more than a very moderate number of any kind.