We have next the fact that there are degrees, even where it is desired to return to the ancient system. The form is, as it should seem, the great matter, both as regards symbolism, and as making a distinct difference between the ordinary and the eucharistic dress: the material and colour are secondary. Hence arises a simple and unobtrusive mode of resuming the old distinction, without risk of provoking serious objection: eucharistic vestments of fine linen being not very strikingly different in appearance from the surplice; more especially if, as some hold, surplices in place of tunics be allowable for the assistant clergy.
And if many still entertain a distinct preference for the surplice, none can say that, after 300 years of recognition, it is other than a seemly and honourable vestment, as an ad interim, even for the Holy Communion. In one case only can it be said to be a dishonour, and a badge of servitude under the world's rejection,—viz., whenever there is no celebration. It can then only be compared to the linen garment in which the Jewish High Priest was clothed of old on the one day of Atonement:—the one day in the year on which Israel mourned over suspended privileges and a desolated Altar.[63] It is when the surplice ministers to so dreary a Service as that:—when, as a fit accompaniment to it, the position of the wearer, at the north end of the Holy Table, indicates at least a forgetfulness of his priestly functions:—it is then only that it can be otherwise than honourable among us.
Nor in like manner, as has appeared above from the venerable, because primitive and apostolic descent of the eucharistic vestments, can any tinge of superstition or unsound doctrine be properly ascribed to them, unless it be through the fault of any in whose persons they minister to eucharistic doctrines and practices, which were unknown to Apostolic and primitive days.
And there is yet one other hopeful feature in the present aspect of things as regards Ritual. It is that, taking the long tract of years, the desire for an improvement, and for our acting up to the theory and ideal of our Church in this matter, has begun, as it ought, with the Episcopate: so that all present endeavours in that direction, (whether in all respects wisely or faithfully made I have given some reasons for doubting), are intended at least to be a carrying out of their fatherly counsels and admonitions. It is now a quarter of a century since two of the ablest and most influential Prelates that ever sat on an episcopal throne in England, the late Bishop of London and the present Bishop of Exeter, invited the Clergy of their Dioceses to carry out the rubrics, with especial reference to a particular rubric bearing upon the dress of the Clergy in one part of their ministrations. It was found impossible at the time, owing to a strong feeling on the part of the laity (which time has for the most part removed), to carry out those injunctions. But their tones have vibrated ever since in the hearts of the English Clergy. It was felt at the time, as it must ever be felt, that our aim, at least, should be to carry out the Church's best and deepest mind, and not to acquiesce for generations in a low standard, merely because it is the existing one. And it is my humble belief that, had the present attempt to return, in fuller measure, to her deep and wise rules for eucharistic celebration been made with more of moderation and considerateness, it would have carried with it, (and may carry with it yet, if these conditions be fulfilled), the assent of our Right Reverend Fathers[64] in God on the one hand, and of our congregations on the other. So managed, the present might well become a grand and harmonious movement of Bishops, Clergy, and people towards a noble result,—the setting up, namely, in its due place, of the highest ordinance of the Gospel: with variations, indeed, in many respects, as to the mode and fashion of administration; but with one happy feature at any rate,—a nearer approximation, both in Rites and Ritual, to Apostolic Doctrine and Worship.
NOTE TO THE FOURTH EDITION.
In revising the above pages for a Fourth Edition, I have corrected the statement made by me in page 40, as to the doctrine maintained by Archdeacon Denison; and I desire to repeat here the expression of regret, which I have already made public through another channel, at having misrepresented his view. A correspondence between us, since published by him (Rivington's), will explain more fully the state of the case. It may suffice to repeat here, that the exact position taken up by him in 1856, as regards the points under discussion, is expressed in the two following propositions:
Proposition III.—
"That The Body and Blood of Christ, being present naturally in Heaven, are, supernaturally and invisibly, but Really, Present in the Lord's Supper, through the elements, by virtue of the act of consecration."
Proposition VIII.—
"That worship is due to The Body and Blood of Christ, supernaturally and invisibly, but Really Present in the Lord's Supper, 'under the form of Bread and Wine,'[65] by reason of that Godhead with which they are personally united. But that the elements through which 'The Body and Blood of Christ' are given and received may not be worshipped."
With respect to the presence of non-communicants at the Holy Eucharist, I had of course seen such publications as have appeared in defence of the practice. But they fail altogether in the essential point, which is, to show that antiquity viewed the presence of such in any other light than either—1. As an utter carelessness and irreverence; or 2. as befitting penitents, and them only. The mediæval doctrine and practice, now being revived by some, is that it is a good and laudable habit for Christian persons in a state of grace to come to the Holy Communion, and to decline receiving it.