and do as they have done, interpreting the standards to suit themselves, and, above all, taking advantage of that blessed Use of Sarum which has been to them a source of so great consolation.
Appropriately of all this, we give an extract from the Church Weekly, regulating the order of service for the third week of November.
[Column Header Key:
A = Day of Month.
B = Day of Week.
C = Concordance.
D = Observance.]
KALENDAR FOR THE WEEK.
| A | B | NOVEMBER. | C | D | Altar Color. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sarum. | Rom. | |||||
| 19 | S. | 24th after Trinity, | .. | Feast. | R. | G. |
| 20 | M. | [S. Edmund, K. M., | A[113] | .. | R. | R. |
| 22 | W. | [S. Cecilia, V. M., | C[113] | .. | R. | R. |
| 23 | Th. | [S. Clement, Bp. Rome, M., | .. | .. | R. | R. |
| 25 | S. | [S. Katharine, V. M., | C[113] | .. | R. | R. |
| 26 | S. | Sunday next before Advent,[114] | .. | Feast. | .. | G. |
It must be observed that “Calendar” is spelt with a K, which is more ancient, and that the “authorized standards” of the Episcopal Rite have nothing about S. Edmund, S. Cecilia, S. Clement, nor S. Catharine (spelt with a K). The “altar color” is also very useful, especially as they give at the last column the Roman Rite. A friend of ours told us of a very solemn marriage which he witnessed in Trinity Church the other day. The Rev. Dr. Dix was the celebrant (as he thought), with a deacon and subdeacon, all beautifully vested, and the candidates were a young priest and a young lady, who in this most impressive manner was to become his wife. Oh! what will the Greeks say to this? We fear they will be scandalized, and that even the giving up of the “Filioque” will not
prevent them from staring with eyes wide open. The priest said the nuptial mass, and the other priest and his wife received the holy communion and the sacrament of matrimony. How does this compare with the services before 1789?
We cannot, however, pass over the action and language of the bishops in this matter. We suppose our Anglican friends will admit that neither priests nor laymen are by any rule of ecclesiastical antiquity allowed to judge in council on points of faith. This has generally been left to the episcopate, to which, in union with its head, Christ committed the government of his church. Now, for the advanced High Churchmen it is a sad fact that the bishops of their church have unqualifiedly condemned them. They have done this, first in the canon which they passed and sent down to the House of Deputies, and, secondly, in the language of their pastoral, which is the accurate expression of their doctrine. We know that their words can be explained away, but we respectfully submit that this time the attempt to do so will be dishonesty. If these reverend fathers in God can speak at all, then they have spoken. We give their words, and pray they may fall upon the open ears of their children who bow down before them as “apostles”: “The doctrine which chiefly attempts to express itself by ritual, in questionable and dangerous ways, is connected with the Holy Eucharist. That doctrine is emphatically a novelty in theology. What is known as eucharistical adoration is undoubtedly inculcated and encouraged by that ritual of posture lately introduced among us, which finds no warrant in our ‘Office for the Administration of Holy Communion.’” They then go on to say that whatever presence of Christ there may be is such as does not allow him to be there
worshipped, and that to adore the elements is “an awful error.” We give an extract from a writer in one of our New York journals, who seems, up to this time, to be honest in his understanding of his spiritual fathers:
“3. There are bishops and—bishops; there are doctors and—doctors. Here is the Bishop of Arizona, for instance, who says that ‘that doctrine (eucharistic adoration) is a novelty in theology.’ But there is St. Ambrose, whilom Bishop of Milan, who says, ‘We adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries.’ Here is the Bishop of Central New York, who declares that ‘the doctrine and the practice which it implies are most certainly unauthorized by Holy Scripture, and entirely aside from the purposes for which the holy sacrament was instituted.’ But there is St. Gregory of Nazianzum, not recently, indeed, but most truly Bishop of Constantinople, who used this expression, ‘Calling upon him who is worshipped upon the altar.’ Here is the Bishop of Delaware, who unites with the Bishop of Connecticut in saying that ‘the doctrine and the practice which it implies are most dangerous in their tendencies.’ But there is the poor Bishop of Hippo, Augustine by name, who, unfortunately for his reputation, committed himself to the declaration that ‘no one eateth that flesh till he have first adored.’ And how many other bishops, great and small, there are who have acted upon that dictum of the misguided African, God only knows!”