The Holy Communion Service

By J. H. Srawley

Introduction.

      The Communion Service of the Book of Common Prayer bears upon the face of it the marks of a long development, in which we can trace the contribution of different phases of English religious life, as each sought to give expression to its own ideals of Eucharistic worship and to adapt or modify to its own needs the forms which it had inherited from the past.  Its ultimate basis is the old Roman rite in the form which it had taken in the Sarum Use.  Of this rite the service in the First English Prayer Book of 1549 was a free rendering.  It retained much of the old Order, with considerable omissions in detail, and it was skillfully adapted so as to guard against some of the later developments of mediaeval Eucharistic doctrine, and to emphasize aspects of Eucharistic thought to which attention was being drawn in the period of the Reformation.  It preserved greater continuity of form with the old Roman rite than does any existing English Use, while exhibiting the influence of such continental projects for liturgical reform as the Pia Deliberatio compiled for Archbishop Hermann of Cologne.  It is marked by something of the sobriety and restraint which are to be found in the pure Roman rite of the earlier period, before the admixture of later elements.  The only debt which it appears to owe to Eastern sources, apart from one or two isolated phrases, is the words “bless and sanctify” in the Invocation, and the direct reference to the work of the Holy Spirit, though this latter (as Dr. Brightman has pointed out) lay near to hand in the interpretation placed upon the Invocation by some Western commentators, and in some of the prayers of the Roman Missal.

      The more drastic revision of the service in 1552, under the influence of the advanced reforming party, has left an enduring mark upon the English rite, and given to it a more distinctive character, with its own contribution to Eucharistic thought and belief.  This was followed by the later revisions of 1559 and 1661, which represent a via media between the two earlier revisions, and are an attempt in some directions to restore the balance.  Before the revision of 1661 the ill-fated Scottish Prayer Book of 1637 marks an attempt to approximate more nearly to the pattern of 1549, and the revisers of 1661 were indebted for some minor details, chiefly verbal and rubrical changes, to this Scottish revision.

      But the history of the Eucharistic service in the Anglican Communion does not end with the revision of 1661.  In Scotland the work of revision received a fresh inspiration, and took a new direction, as a result of the intercourse between the Scottish and the English Non-Jurors, whose efforts to arrive at a Concordat with the Eastern Church led them to a fuller study of the Eastern rites.  One outcome of this was the Non Juror’s Liturgy of 1718, which marks a definite break with the Western tradition, and is modeled, so far as the sequence and rationale of the Prayer of Consecration are concerned, on Eastern forms, which, in the belief of its compilers, represented an older and more primitive tradition than that which was found in the Roman rite and in the English Book of Common Prayer.  A similar contention underlay the work of Bishop Rattray, The Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem, published, after his death, in 1744.  These new influences found expression in the Scottish Liturgy of 1764.

      The consecration, by Scottish bishops, of Samuel Seabury as Bishop of Connecticut in 1783 was followed on his return to America by proposals for the revision of the English Prayer Book, and the result was the American Liturgy of 1789, which represents a revision of the English service on the lines of the Scottish Liturgy of 1764, though in some respects it adheres more closely to the English order.  The subsequent revisions of the Scottish and American Prayer Books [The American Prayer Book was revised in 1892, and the Scottish Prayer Book in 1911.  Further revisions of both have only recently (1929) reached their final stages of authorization.] have not affected the general character of these rites, which, as compared with the English rite of 1661, follow in the Canon more closely the structure and sequence of the Eastern liturgies.

      The Prayer Book of the Church of Ireland, revised in 1877, retains the English service of Holy Communion without any substantial change, as does the recent revision of the Canadian Prayer Book (1922).  On the other hand, the Church of the Province of South Africa put forth in 1920 An alternative Form of the Order for the Administration of Holy Communion “for use, where allowed by the Bishop”.  This is largely influenced by the Scottish Liturgy, though it has distinctive features of its own.  The alternative English Order of 1928, which formed part of the proposed schedule of additions and deviations from the Book of Common Prayer, [Hereafter referred to as the English Alternative Order (1928).] similarly follows in some degree the Eastern model.

      In the following Commentary the attempt will be made to exhibit the structure and rationale of the liturgy of 1661 while reference will be made to the parallel developments in other rites of the Anglican Communion.

The Title.

      The title “The Order for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion” is due to the Prayer Book of 1552.  In the Prayer Book of 1549 it ran, “The Supper of the Lord, and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass.”  Similarly in the German Church Orders of the Reformation period, side by side with the retention of the term “Mass,” we find given as alternatives, or in addition, the title “Communion” or “Supper,” as in Luther’s Formula Missae et Communionis (1523), and “the Mass or Supper” in the Prussian Order (1544) and the Halle Order of 1526.  Elsewhere (Nordlingen, 1525) we find “Eucharistia sive Caena Domini”.  The title “Lord’s Supper,” however, gradually prevailed, though in Sweden the Sunday service is still called “High Mass” (Högmässa), whether it includes a celebration of the Eucharist or not, the actual celebration being described as “the Communion (or Supper) Mass”.  The term “Mass” is also in use among the Lutherans of Denmark and Norway.  In itself the word missa has no doctrinal significance, being only a form of missio (=dismissal), as in the phrase at the conclusion of the Latin Mass, Ite, missa est.  It is used in the fourth-century Pilgrimage of Etheria in connection with the “dismissals” at the offices, vigil services, and the liturgy.  As the “dismissal” of the catechumens marked the beginning of that portion of the liturgy at which only the faithful could be present, the term missa came to be applied to the liturgy proper (i.e. the celebration of the Eucharist).  The earliest example of this later sense is found in Ambrose (Ep. xx. 4).  It thus passed into the Western service books where we find the phrase Ordo Missae used of the framework and unvarying formulae, while Missa is used to denote the group of variable formulae proper to the day, which are to be inserted into the Ordo.

      The dislike of the term, which, in spite of Luther’s vehement language about the old form of service, developed more rapidly in England than among the Lutheran reformers, was part of the protest against the practices and conceptions with which the old order of things seemed bound up, and especially against the practice of “private masses” and masses in which none but the priest communicated, and against later mediaeval conceptions of the sacrifice of the Mass.  Here, as so often in the English Prayer Book, the object was to get back to scriptural terms and to emphasize essential features of the rite which had come to be obscured.

      The title “Lord’s Supper,” based on 1 Cor. 11:20, [The question whether in 1 Cor. 11:20 the term “Lord’s Supper” is applied to the Eucharist alone or to the combined Agape and Eucharist has given rise to much discussion.  Mgr. Batiffol, in his Études d’histoire et de theol. pos., I^ere série (1906), makes out a strong case for the former of the two alternatives.] recalls the original institution of the rite, which St. Paul recounts in that passage, whereas the alternative title, “Holy Communion,” is based on St. Paul’s language in 1 Cor. 10:16.  The title “Lord’s Supper” is found occasionally in Eastern and Western Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries.

      The corresponding title in the Greek rites is “the Divine Liturgy” (η θεία λειτουργία), a term taken over by the Christian Church from the Greek version of the Old Testament, [For the various uses of the word and its cognate verb in the New Testament see Acts 13:2 (“ministering to the Lord”): Phil. 2:17 (“the sacrifice and service of your faith”): 2 Cor. 9:12 (“the administration of this service”): Heb. 8:6 (“a more excellent ministry”).] where it is used to describe the service of priests and Levites in the Temple, and in Christian usage the word came to be applied generally to the ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, and then preeminently to the celebration of the Eucharist, though later it was extended to other Offices as well, and is so used in the Book of Common Prayer (cf. the opening words of the 1661 Preface to the Prayer Book).

      The title “Eucharist” or “thank offering,” derived from our Lord’s “giving of thanks” at the Last Supper (Mark 14:23, Matt. 26:27, 1 Cor. 11:24), is a title common to East and West, and is used continuously from the second century onwards.  As the central prayer of the rite was the thanksgiving for the blessings of Creation and of Redemption through Christ, the whole service was regarded as the Christian “thank offering” or “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving”.  As an actual title for the form of service, however, the term “Eucharist” is found as an alternative to “Lord’s Supper” apparently only in the German Church Order of Nordlingen (1525).

The Rubrics preceding the Service.

      The first rubric is inserted for the convenience of the parish priest, in order that he may make adequate provision, and also as preparatory to the next two rubrics, which are disciplinary in character and intended as a safeguard against unworthy communicants.  Intending communicants are to “signify their names to the Curate” (i.e. the parish priest who has the cure of souls) “at least some time the day before”.  The direction in 1549 and 1552, “over night; or else in the morning, afore the beginning of Mattins or immediately after,” implies an interval between the two services, the older practice being that Morning Prayer was said at six or seven, the Communion Service following later between nine and ten.  The change of the rubric in 1661 was intended to bring it into accord with the general practice of the time when one service followed immediately on the other.  Similar directions are given in Hermann’s Pia Deliberatio, where, however, the further direction is given that none are to be admitted to Communion who have not previously presented themselves to the pastor and made confession of their sins and received absolution.

      The second and third rubrics instruct the parish priest as to his dealing with those who are “open and notorious evil livers,” or who have done wrong to their neighbours, whereby the congregation are offended, or who entertain malice or hatred.  They are to be warned against presenting themselves, until they have repented and made amendment, or, in the case of those at variance, have sought reconciliation.  The right of the parish priest to repel offenders is recognized, but the additional clause added to the rubric in 1661 indicates that such repulsion is provisional, and that a report is to be made on each case within fourteen days to the Ordinary (i.e. the Bishop, who possesses ordinary as contrasted with delegated jurisdiction), and the Ordinary is directed to proceed against the offender according to the Canon.  The rubrics imply a system of ecclesiastical discipline which goes back to the early ages of the Church, and which is recognized in the Canons of 1603 (see esp. Canons 26, 109, 113).  The parish priest’s right of repulsion was, however, safeguarded from early times against arbitrary and hasty action.  Thus St. Augustine (Serm. 351, de utilitate agendae poenitentia) says: “We cannot repel anyone from communion ... unless he has voluntarily confessed, or has been convicted by some secular or ecclesiastical judgment,” and the same principle was embodied in the laws of Justinian.  This restricted interpretation was placed upon the rubric by Bishop Andrewes, Bishop Cosin, and Wilson, Bishop of Sodor and Man.

      Whatever difficulties, legal and of other kinds, are involved in the literal observance of the above rubrics, they remain an expression of the mind of the Church as to the standard required of its members, and the duty of the parish priest to warn and admonish offenders and seek to bring them to repentance.

      The fourth rubric deals with the vesting of the holy Table, its place in the church, and the position of the priest at the beginning of the service.  It was inserted in 1552, the corresponding rubric in 1549 merely directing that “the Priest standing humbly afore the middle of the Altar, shall say the Lord’s Prayer.”  The disuse of the word “altar” was doubtless a result of the agitation begun by Bishop Hooper “to take away the false persuasion of the people, which they have of sacrifice to be done upon the altars.”  But the word itself was used, without disparagement, by Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, and has been retained in the Coronation rite.  The Convocation of 1640, in defense of the placing of the holy Table where the Altar had stood, affirmed that “this situation of the Holy Table doth not imply that it is or ought to be esteemed a true and proper Altar whereon Christ is again really sacrificed: but it is and may be called an Altar by us in that sense in which the primitive Church called it an Altar, and in no other.”  The terms “altar,” “table,” “holy table” have all been used at various periods.  In the first three centuries of the Church “altar” is more common, though “table” is found in a letter of Dionysius of Alexandria in close connection with a reference to Communion.  The Eastern liturgies use both “altar” and “holy table,” and “altar” is also used of the sanctuary.  In the prayers of the Roman Sacramentaries, along with the more common term “altar,” we find “Lord’s Table” or “thy Table,” the one, as Wheatly says, “having respect to the oblation of the Eucharist, the other to the participation.”  The term “Lord’s Table” is of course suggested by 1 Cor. 10:21.  The Scottish Liturgy alone among the rites of the Anglican Communion (except the English Coronation rite) has restored the word “altar” in the Communion Service itself, and then only in the rubric before the Prayer of Humble Access, the terms “holy Table” and “Lord’s Table” being used elsewhere.  The old English phrase “God’s board” occurs in the Prayer Books of 1549 and 1552, but disappeared in 1661, though it has been restored in the opening rubric of the English Alternative Order of 1928.

      The direction that “the Table at the Communion time” shall have “a fair white linen cloth upon it” is repeated in Canon 82 of 1604, which also enjoins that the Table shall be covered “in time of Divine Service with a carpet of silk or other decent stuff.”

      The further direction that the Table at the Communion time “shall stand in the Body of the Church, or in the Chancel, where Morning and Evening Prayer are appointed to be said,” was another innovation in 1552.  With the removal of the altars, and the substitution of movable tables, the practice arose of bringing the Table into the Chancel or body of the church.  The reason given for this in the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth (1559) is that the congregation might better hear the service and more conveniently communicate, and the further direction is given that at other times than “Communion time” the Table should be set in the place where the altar had stood (cf. Canon 82 of 1604).  The inconvenience of this arrangement led in many cases to the holy Table remaining permanently in the body of the church, while in the cathedrals it would rarely be removed from the east end.  The neglect and irreverence resulting from the existing practice led to the measures taken by Archbishop Laud and other bishops for the permanent placing of the holy Table altar-wise under the eastern wall of the Chancel and the fencing of it with a rail, at which communicants might receive the Sacrament.

      In 1661, though the bishops appear to have wished to secure by rubric the new position of the holy Table, they deemed it wiser to leave the existing rubric as it stands, and later custom has secured the ends which they had in view.

      The position of the priest, “standing at the North side of the Table,” is explained by the position of the holy Table contemplated in the rubric of 1552.  When brought down into the Chancel or body of the church it was set “table-wise,” i.e. with the ends east and west, instead of north and south as in the old “altar-wise” position, and the priest ministered on the north side.  The object of this change was to emphasize the idea of the “communion feast,” and to associate priest and people as familiarly and closely as possible.  It stressed in an extreme form one aspect of the rite, to the exclusion of the other aspect, in which the priest leads the worshippers in offering the great “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” to God.

      But when the holy Table was permanently removed to the east end and placed “altar-wise,” the sides faced east and west, and exact compliance with the rubric became impossible.  Hence a divergence of custom arose.

      (1)  The Scottish Prayer Book of 1637, which had directed the holy Table to be placed “at the uppermost part of the Chancel or Church,” amended the rubric so as to read “at the north side or end”.  A further rubric directed that “”during the time of consecration” the Presbyter should stand at such part of the holy Table where he may with the more ease and decency use both his hands,” which implies (and, as we learn from the charges against Laud, was understood to imply) a position on the west side of the holy Table facing eastwards.  The corresponding rubric in the Prayer Book of 1661 (which supplemented the direction in the rubric of 1552 that the priest “standing up shall say”) directs that when “the Priest, standing before the Table, hath so ordered the Bread and Wine, that he may with the more readiness and decency break the Bread before the people ... he shall say.”  This again is ambiguous, and has been variously interpreted.  There is evidence during the century following 1661 that the practice of standing at the north part of the front of the holy Table, facing eastwards, was not uncommon. [For the evidence see The Bishop of Lincoln’s Case (ed. Roscoe, 1891), pp. 118 f.: Scudamore, Not. Euch. (2nd ed.), pp. 164 f., 190 f.]

      (2)  The more general position, which Andrewes, and Laud after him, adopted, was at the north end, and this position gradually became general until modern times, when the eastward position was revived.  The legality of this latter position was recognized by the Lincoln Judgment (1890).  The principle underlying it is that which the revisers of 1661 stated in reply to the Puritan desire that the minister should turn to the people in all his ministrations: “When he speaks to them, as in Lessons, Absolution, and Benediction, it is convenient that he turn to them.  When he speaks for them to God, it is fit that they should all turn another way, as the ancient Church ever did.” [The rubric has been amended in various ways in later revisions.  The Scottish (since 1911) has “standing at the Holy Table”: the South African, “standing at the Table”: the American, “standing reverently before the Holy Table”: English Alternative Order (1928), “standing at God’s Board”.]

      The service falls roughly into three divisions: I. The Preparation; II. The Eucharistic prayer (with its Preface) and the Communion; III. The Thanksgiving.

      The Preparation extends to the end of the Comfortable Words, and includes (a) the general preparation of the congregation; (b) the Offertory and Prayer for the Church; (c) the more immediate preparation of the communicants.

      The first of these subdivisions (a), which a rubric at the end of the service directs for use (together with the Prayer for the Church, one or more Collects, and the Blessing) on Sundays and other Holy Days when there is no communion, fills the place occupied by the Missa Catechumenorum of early Eastern and Western rites.  This latter service contained lessons from Scripture, psalms, Sermon (or Homily), and Prayers for the various classes who were not permitted to remain for the Eucharist.  On the use of this service on non-liturgical days see below.

      The Prayer Book of 1549 followed more closely than the later revisions the traditional Roman and Sarum Use, in that it retained the Introit psalm, the ninefold Kyrie, and the Gloria in Excelsis.  The omission of the Introit, the transposition of the Gloria in Excelsis to the post-communion, and the introduction of the Commandments, with the Kyries as a refrain, were due to the revision of 1552, and are a peculiar feature of the English Prayer Book, from which they have passed into subsequent forms of the Anglican rite.  These features impart to this introductory portion of the service a penitential and subjective character, whereas in the older rite the use of psalmody (of which the Introit and the Gradual are a much-reduced form) and the singing of the Gloria in Excelsis introduced the element of worship at an earlier stage in the service.  In this respect the earlier Lutheran rites and the present Swedish service follow more closely the older forms.  The Prayer Book service thus begins on a low note, and the element of praise and thanksgiving (apart from the confession of faith in the Creed) is held back until the Sursum corda and Preface, and is then resumed once more in the post-communion and Gloria in Excelsis at the end.

The Lord’s Prayer and the Collect for Purity.

      The use of the Lord’s Prayer and the Collect are elements derived from the preparatory prayers of the priest in the Sarum rite, said by him in the Sacristy while vesting.  The repetition by the priest alone of the Lord’s Prayer, including the Amen, is a survival of this earlier use.  In the first printed copy of 1662 and in the Sealed Books the Amen is in text type, whereas the Amen following the Collect for purity is in rubric type.  This suggests, as Dr. Brightman has shown, that the traditional practice was meant to be followed, and that the general rubric found in the Prayer Book Order of Morning Prayer that the people should repeat the prayer with the minister does not apply here.  A further indication is the absence of such direction here, while in all the other six instances where the Prayer is ordered (in the Daily Offices, Litany, and Holy Communion) the direction is given in spite of the general rubric in the Order of Morning Prayer.  But while the traditional practice is retained, the intention plainly is that priest and people should alike share in the preparation.  The same reason explains the omission of the mutual confession of priest and ministers, which found a place in the old praeparatio missae, and the substitution, at a later stage, of the General Confession made in the name of all those who are minded to receive the Holy Communion.

The Commandments.

      The rehearsal of the Ten Commandments, introduced in 1552, finds no parallel in the pre-reformation service, though order had been given periodically since the thirteenth century that they should be taught and expounded to the people.  There is, however, a parallel use in several German Church Orders, where they form part of a group of devotions, including the Lord’s Prayer, Creed, Decalogue, General Confession and Absolution, corresponding to the traditional Prone, [On the Prone, see below.] and following the Sermon.  In the Reformed Sunday Service of Strassburg (1539), which Calvin adopted for the use of his Congregation, the same traditional elements are found, though the Decalogue (in a metrical version) occurs before the Sermon.

      The use of Kyrie eleison as a refrain was a feature of a certain class of hymns, and is found in Luther’s metrical paraphrase of the Decalogue, an English translation of which was included by Coverdale in his Goostly Psalmes.

      The response, “Lord have mercy upon us and incline our hearts to keep this law,” is an adaptation and expansion (possibly suggested by Deut. 5:29) of the Kyrie eleison which found a place here in the Roman rite.  Edmund Bishop has discussed the origin of this form of prayer, which appears first in Christian worship in Greek-speaking lands in the course of the fourth century. [Liturgica Historica, pp. 116 f.  For Old Testament parallels to the Kyrie cf. Isa. 33:2; Ps. 122 (123):3 in the LXX.]  Thence it passed to Italy as a popular and simple form of devotion some time in the fifth century.  Its use in the Mass at Rome is attested by Pope Gregory the Great in a letter of the year 598.  The Greek custom of singing it as a response to the Deacon’s Litany is, however, different from that of the West, where it was sung, with the alternating form Christe eleison, by the clerks, in earlier days with the response of the people.  From this use originated the ninefold Kyrie, retained in the direction of the Prayer Book of 1549 in the form “iii. Lord have mercy upon us.  iii. Christ have mercy upon us.  iii. Lord have mercy upon us.”  The variation in the response to the Tenth Commandment, “write all these thy laws in our hearts, we beseech thee,” is based upon Jer. 31:31 (cf. Heb. 8:8–12, 10:15–17).  In order to indicate the sense in which the Church recites the Commandments and wishes them to be applied, the Scottish Liturgy of 1637 amended the rubric preceding them as follows: “the people ... asking God mercy for the transgression of every duty therein; either according to the letter, or to the mystical importance of the said commandment”; and this form, with slight changes, has been adopted in later revisions (Scottish, South African, English Alternative Order, 1928).

      The Scottish Liturgy Of 1764 provided as an alternative to the Decalogue the “Summary of the Law” (found in our Lord’s words Mark 12:29–31, Matt. 22:40), the object being to state the positive, and not merely the negative, side of the Christian rule of life. [The “Summary” is found still earlier in the Non-Jurors’ rite of 1718, where it is substituted for the Decalogue.]  A similar provision is found in later Anglican revisions (Scottish, South African, English Alternative Order, 1928), and in the American Prayer Book (where it is supplementary to the Decalogue).

      Another provision found in some of these later revisions (South African, American, English Alternative Order (1928)) allows the Commandments to be recited in a shorter form (without the comments and explanations added in Exod. 20 many of which apply to the temporary conditions of early Jewish life).  This shorter form, which appears to have been the traditional form, is found in the Catechism of 1549, in The Institution of a Christian Man (1537), and The Necessary Doctrine and Erudition of 1543. [A comparison of the versions given in Exod. 20 and Deut. 5 suggests that the Decalogue originally existed in a simpler form, and that it has been expanded in varying ways in the different versions.  Cf. also the summaries in Mark 10:19, Rom. 13:9.]  The shorter form concentrates attention on the permanent message of the Commandments.  The additions to this shorter form made in 1552 are derived from the Great Bible.

      Permission is further given in the Scottish Liturgy, the South African, and the English Alternative Order of 1928 (in the two latter, on other days than Sundays) for the use of the Kyries in the form “Lord, have mercy upon us, Christ, have mercy ... , Lord, have mercy ...” in place of (or in addition to, Scottish and South African) the Commandments or “Summary”.  Lastly, in the English Alternative Order of 1928 a return is made to the earlier and simpler form of the Kyries, “Lord, have mercy, Christ, have mercy, Lord, have mercy,” (or “Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison,”) thus restoring what Bishop Dowden has called “the large indefiniteness of the original,” in which the prayer is not restricted to the particular congregation, but embraces the whole range of the Divine mercy.

The Collects and Lessons.

      The Collect of the day represents the first of the three prayers, varying with the season or day, which were a feature of the Roman rite, the other two being the prayer used over the offerings (super oblata or secreta), and the post-communion (ad complendum or post communio).  The rubric in 1549 and 1552 ran: “Then shall follow the Collect of the day, with one of these two Collects following, for the King,” the prayer for the King being said as a “memorial,” subsidiary to the Collect for the day.  The transposition of the order of the two Collects was an unfortunate following of the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637, the object being either to avoid the inconvenience of turning the leaves of the book twice before the Epistle, or to place the Collect for the day immediately before the Epistle.  The two prayers for the King are derived from the Prayer Book of 1549.  In view of the changed position of the Prayer for the Church in 1552 and the inclusion of it in the part of the service appointed to be said when there is no Communion, the prayer for the King here has been omitted in the South African Liturgy and the English Alternative Order of 1928.  In the Irish Prayer Book permission is given for its omission if the King has been prayed for in any service used along with the Communion service.  The prayer has also been omitted in the Scottish Liturgy since 1911.

      In the Prayer Book of 1549 the bidding “Let us pray,” before the Collect, was preceded by the mutual salutation, “The Lord be with you,” “And with thy spirit,” which is found in the older service at certain fixed points (Collect, Gospel, Offertory, Sursum corda, and post-communion).  It marked the transition to a new division of the service, and helped to renew the association of priest and people in the act of worship in which they were engaged.  In the drastic simplification of the service in 1552 it disappeared, though it was retained here in some of the German Church Orders, and has been restored in the Scottish (1911) and South African Liturgies, and in the English Alternative Order of 1928.

      The lessons from Scripture were one of the elements derived from the Synagogue service.  Originally the lessons were more numerous, and survivals of this more extended use of Scripture are found in some Eastern rites (Syrian, Coptic, Abyssinian, Nestorian).  In the latter part of the fourth century, however, the lessons were becoming normally restricted to three, Old Testament, Epistle, and Gospel, and these are still retained in the Armenian rite.  In the West the Old Testament lesson (or “prophecy”) survives in the Ambrosian and Roman rites on certain special days (e.g. in the Roman rite on some of the Ember Days and certain days in Lent), and in the Mozarabic on all days.

      The use of the term Epistle “was objected to by the Puritans at the Savoy Conference on the ground that lessons from the Old Testament and other parts of Scripture found a place among the selected portions, and to this objection was due the cumbrous alternative form inserted in 1661, “The portion of Scripture appointed for the Epistle.” [The latest American revision omits this, while the English Alternative Order of 1928 substitutes “the Lesson,” a title found in Ordo Romanus I and always in the Roman rite.  The corresponding titles in the Eastern rites are “The Prophet” (for Old Testament), “The Apostle” (for St. Paul).]

      The use of psalmody between the lessons, both in East and West, goes back to early days, and this element in a reduced form was represented in the mediaeval service by the Gradual, or respond, sung before the Gospel, and followed by the Alleluia except from Septuagesima to Easter Eve and on Ember Days and Vigils, when it was followed by the Tract.  The florid elaboration and secular character of much of the music connected with these in later mediaeval times (of which Erasmus complains in his Adnotationes {sub 1 Cor. 14:19}), and the possibility that ordinary choirs could not and did not sing the Gradual, [Brightman (Eng. Rite, I. civ) points out that at present they are often not sung, except by skilled choirs.] explain the omission of the Gradual in 1549 and the wording of the rubric “immediately after the Epistle ended, the Priest ... shall say” (altered in 1661 to “Then shall be read the Gospel, saying”).  Luther in his Latin Mass was prepared to retain the Gradual, if kept within due limits, and in his German Mass provided for a metrical hymn to be sung between the Epistle and the Gospel.  Similar directions are found in other German Church Orders of the Reformation period.

      The omission of the old response to the announcement of the Gospel, “Glory be to thee, O Lord,” in 1552 is difficult to explain.  It was retained in 1549, and Cosin, who says that it was still used in his time, sought to restore it at the revision of 1661, but without result.  The tradition of saying it has, however, survived.  The response after the reading of the Gospel, “Thanks be to thee, O Lord,” which has become customary in many churches, is derived from the Scottish Book of 1637, and has found a place in the revised South African Liturgy.  In the Scottish Book of 1764 and later revisions it appears with the addition “for this thy glorious Gospel”.  The latest American revision and the English Alternative Order of 1928 have the form “Praise be to thee, O Christ,” which is also the Roman form prescribed to be said by the server at low masses.  In the English missals no directions are given for the response after the Gospel.

      The direction that the people shall stand up at the reading of the Gospel was inserted at Cosin’s suggestion in 1661.  It is the only surviving custom actually enjoined in the Prayer Book which recalls the ceremonial pomp with which the reading of the Gospel was once invested, though in actual practice in a number of churches much of the old ceremonial in this connection has been revived.

The Creed.

      The ministry of the word is followed by the public confession of faith.  “Because we believe Christ as the Divine truth, when the Gospel has been read, the Creed is sung, in which the people show their assent by faith to the Doctrine of Christ” (Thomas Aquinas).  The recitation of the Creed is not, however, an early feature in Eastern or Western rites.  It began at Antioch in the fifth century, and thence spread to Alexandria and Constantinople.  The Emperor Justinian ordered it to be sung in all churches.  Its introduction in the Western Liturgy was due to the Third Council of Toledo in 589, [This Council ordered the use of the Creed “before the Lord’s Prayer,” a place which it still occupies in the Mozarabic rite.] which ordered its use, in order to confirm the nation in its conversion to Catholicism.  Thence it spread to Gaul and Britain.  It was only adopted by the Roman Church early in the eleventh century.  The earliest reference to its use in the Liturgy speaks of “the Creed as the Creed of the 318 Fathers.”  If the words are taken literally they would imply that it was the original Nicene Creed.  But no trace can be found in the Greek liturgies of any other Creed than that of Constantinople, and it is more likely that this is meant (see C. H. Turner, History and Use of Creeds, Ch. Hist. Society, 1906, pp. 50 f.).  The Creed appears to be a revised form of the Creed of Jerusalem, modified by the insertion of clauses from the Nicene Creed and new clauses dealing with the Holy Spirit.  If Dr. Hort’s suggestion be accepted, that it was submitted, as a proof of his orthodoxy, by Cyril of Jerusalem to the Council of Constantinople, it is possible to see how the Creed thus approved came to be represented as “the Creed of the 150 Fathers who met at Constantinople.”  So it is described in the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon (451).  Dr. C. H. Turner suggested that at some time between 381 and 451 it had come to be adopted as the local Creed of the Church of Constantinople, and was regarded as “a legitimate and necessary expansion” of the shorter Creed; “in other words, the Constantinopolitan is the completed form of the Nicene Creed” (Turner, l.c., p. 53).

      In the Prayer Book text of the Creed there are certain variations from the original text, some of which are common to the Western liturgical forms, while others are peculiar to the Prayer Book.  Among the former are: (1) the insertion of “God of God,” which is due to assimilation with the text of the Nicene Creed; (2) the omission of “in” before “one Catholick and Apostolic Church,” which has no support from the original Greek text; (3) the addition of the words “and the Son,” after “proceeding from the Father,” in the clause about the Holy Spirit.  This addition, made either at the Council of Toledo (589) or shortly after, was one of the great occasions of controversy between the Eastern and Western Churches.

      Among variations peculiar to the Prayer Book are: (1) “begotten of his Father,” in place of “the Father”; (2) the omission of “holy” in the clause about the Church.  This latter omission was probably due, as Bp. Dowden (Workmanship of Prayer Book, pp. 104f.) suggests, to the influence of some contemporary editions of the Acts of the Councils which the revisers had consulted.  There is a similar omission in several MSS. of an early Latin collection of Canons (Burn, Facsimiles of Creeds, H.B.S., p. 7 and Plate xii).  In any case the reinsertion of the word “holy” is desirable, and it has been effected in the latest revision of the Scottish liturgy, in the South African liturgy, and in the English Alternative Order (1928).

      In one other clause the Prayer Book rendering is capable of improvement.  “The Lord and Giver of Life” as applied to the Holy Spirit is ambiguous.  The title “Lord” is one attribute (2 Cor. 3:17, 18); “the Giver of Life” is a second and further attribute (St. John 6:63).  Hence the English Alternative Order (1928) reads, “The Lord, The giver of life,” and so also the South African and Scottish (1929) liturgies.  The Canadian and American forms are “the Lord, and Giver of life.”

      In the Eastern and Western Churches the Creed was not recited until catechumens and other classes excluded from Communion had been dismissed and the Mass of the Faithful had begun.  Following these earlier precedents and in view of the needs of a missionary Church, the South African Liturgy rightly provides that where unbaptized persons or penitents are present, the Sermon may follow immediately upon the Gospel, and after the Sermon such persons shall be dismissed with prayer and blessing before the Creed is recited.

      When the dismissal of catechumens became obsolete, the old distinction between the missa catechumenorum and the missa fidelium gradually disappeared, and the Creed was placed after the Gospel, and the Sermon followed.  This was, according to Durandus, [Rationale, IV, 26.] the position in the thirteenth century, and it is followed in the Lutheran Church Orders and the Book of Common Prayer.  In the Missal of Pope Pius V (1570), however, the Sermon precedes the Creed, and this is the present Roman use.

      While the Apostles’ Creed and the Quicunque vult are purely Western in origin and general use, the Creed used in the Liturgy expresses our unity with Christians of both East and West.  The addition in the West of the words “and the Son” in the clause on the Procession of the Holy Spirit, though made an occasion of controversy in ages past, represents a difference largely of phraseology rather than of underlying doctrine, the Easterns preferring to speak of the Holy Spirit as proceeding “from the Father through the Son.”

      The Prayer Book of 1549 directs that the Gloria in excelsis, the Creed, the Homily, and the Exhortation “Dearly beloved” may be omitted on “work days,” and the English Alternative Order of 1928 similarly permits the omission of the Creed on days other than Sundays and Holy Days.  In the mediaeval use the Gloria in excelsis and the Creed were prescribed for feasts, and were both festal features.  The American Prayer Book allows the use of either the Nicene or the Apostles’ Creed at Morning Prayer and Holy Communion, and also the omission of the Creed in the latter service, if it has been said immediately before in Morning Prayer, but orders the Nicene Creed to be sung on the five great festivals.

The Sermon or Homily.

      The normal place of the Sermon in early times was immediately after the Scripture lessons.  Of this we have evidence in the account of the Eucharist by Justin Martyr about the middle of the second century, and it was the general custom in the Churches of East and West in the fourth century and the following period.  The duty of frequent preaching was enforced by Canons of the English Church before the Norman Conquest, but later on, owing to the ignorance of many of the clergy, preaching became rare and fresh injunctions were needed.  The Constitutions of Archbishop Peckham in 1281 enjoin the parish priest once in each quarter to instruct the people in the Creed, the Commandments of the Law and the Gospel, good works, the sins to be avoided, the Christian virtues, and the Sacraments.

      The decay of preaching at the time of the Reformation was one of the abuses most frequently denounced by Latimer and other English reformers, and the insertion of the rubric in 1549, “After the Creed ended, shall follow the Sermon or Homily,” together with the later rubric in the same book permitting the omission of the Homily on “work days,” [This permission was omitted in 1552 and later books.] was intended to secure that a Sermon or Homily should be a regular feature of the service on Sundays and Holy Days.

      The reference in the rubric to “one of the Homilies already set forth, or hereafter to be set forth, by authority” is repeated from the Prayer Book of 1552.  It refers to the first book of Homilies published in 1547 (to which a second book was added in 1563).  That the Homilies were subject to change is implied in the form of the rubric.  The publication of homilies for the use of preachers goes back a long way and books of homilies and expositions of the Epistles and Gospels (or Postils, as they were called) in English had been published during the reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII (see Scudamore, Not. Euch., 2nd ed., pp. 290 ff.).

      Attached to the Sermon in mediaeval times was a group of devotions in the vernacular, together with various instructions and notices, the whole being known collectively as “the Prone”. [See the full discussion in Brightman, English Rite, II. Appendix i.]  In 1408 Archbishop Arundel, while reaffirming the constitution of Archbishop Peckham referred to above, ordered the “customary prayers” to be said along with the instruction given by the priest, and Lyndwood, commenting on this, says that these prayers were commonly said in parish churches on Sundays after the Offertory.  There is other evidence (e.g. Chaucer, Prol., 710 f.) that the Sermon was preached in this place in mediaeval times.  These “customary prayers” filled the gap made in the Roman rite by the loss of the intercessions which are found in other early rites. [The Orationes solemnes of Good Friday are the original Roman intercession, and the Oremus which remains in the Roman rite before the Offertory, without any prayers following, marks their place.]  Though these “customary prayers” were originally said after the Sermon, in England (as in France) they had come to be said before the Sermon and were known as the “Bidding of the Bedes”.  Of this custom the only survivals in the present English use are the Bidding Prayer and the various notices which the rubric orders to be given out before the Sermon.

      The Bidding Prayer, though now commonly divorced from its original connection with the Eucharist and reserved for special occasions, was ordered by Canon 55 of 1603 to be said “by all preachers before their Sermons”.  A relic of its earlier connection with the “Bidding of the Bedes,” of which the form was not fixed, is found in the direction of the above Canon that prayer shall be made ‘ in this form or to this effect.” [In the latest American revision a rubric before the Sermon says: “Here, or immediately after the Creed, may be said the Bidding Prayer, or other authorized prayers and intercessions.”  Similarly the Alternative English Order of 1928, after mentioning various notices, adds, “and Bidding of Prayers may be made.”]

      The rubric directing what notices are to be published in church was expanded to its present form in 1661 and was placed before, instead of after, the Sermon, where it had stood in 1552.  In the text of the Prayer Book of 1661 the notices include, in addition to Holy Days, fasting days, and the notice of Communion, the publication of Banns of Matrimony.  The omission of the reference to publication of Banns in later Prayer Books, and the alteration of the corresponding rubric in the Marriage Service, were unauthorized changes made by the printers, and were due to a misunderstanding of the Marriage Act, 26 George II. ch. 33, which provided for the reading of Banns at the Evening Service, if there be no Morning Service, and the words “immediately after the Second Lesson” were intended to apply only to the Evening Service.

      The Briefs referred to are letters from the Bishop or the Crown, the latter commonly being for the purpose of authorizing collections for charitable purposes.  The Citations are notices to appear before an Ecclesiastical Court.  The declaration of sentences of excommunication, a relic of the penitential discipline of the Church, had been enjoined in Canon 65 of 1603.

The Offertory.

      With the rubrics following the Sermon the service enters upon a further stage.  In the earliest forms of the rite outside the New Testament the people’s offering finds a prominent place.  Clement of Rome (Ad Cor. 44) speaks of the “offering of the gifts” as one of the functions of the leaders of the Church, and Cyprian (De Op. et Eleem.,15) reproves those who come to Church “without a sacrifice”.  These offerings were made in kind, and included not only the bread and wine from which the elements of the Sacrament were taken, but also gifts for the relief of the needy and support of the clergy.  Underlying this practice was the conception of the Eucharist as the Church’s thank offering for the blessings of Creation and Redemption.  The gifts of the earth, redeemed in their use by the new Christian outlook, were offered as firstfruits to God as an act of homage and acknowledgment of His dominion and of the fact that all that we have comes from Him.  In this form the people’s offering in the time of Mass survived for many centuries in the West. [It still survives at Milan, where the offering of bread and wine is made by the Vecchioni, a body of old men and women maintained by the Church.  A relic of the same custom is found in Brasenose College Chapel, Oxford, where two members of the foundation present the bread and wine at the Offertory.]  This early Eucharistic conception is very clearly indicated in the prayers of the Roman Canon.  During the people’s offering the Offertory Chant (originally a whole psalm with antiphon) was sung, and at the end, after the washing of hands, the Collect known as Secreta (or Super oblata) was said.

      During the course of the Middle Ages offerings in kind were commuted for occasional offerings of money, and the Offertory was expanded by the introduction of the private prayers of the priest, and by the censing of the oblations.  This lesser, or first oblation, is found in the older rites of both East and West, but in the prayers connected with it we find a tendency to confuse it with the later oblation, in which there is commemorated and represented the Sacrifice of the Cross Language of this preparatory character is found in the Greek rites, and also in some of the Secreta prayers of the Roman rite, where, side by side with the earlier Eucharistic language, we find such phrases as “this sacrifice of propitiation and praise”.  To this cause was due the denunciation of the Offertory, no less than the Canon of the Mass, by the reformers both in England and abroad.  For Luther both alike “stink of oblation” and seemed to impair the virtue of the one Sacrifice of the Cross.  This explains the drastic treatment of the Offertory by Luther in his Latin and German Mass, and by the compilers of the Prayer Book of 1549.  In this latter the following changes were made:

      (1) The Offertorium (or Offertory Chant) was retained in the form of sentences of Scripture to be sung while the people offer, or one of them to be said by the “Minister” before the offering.  The Western Offertoria had consisted of sentences of Scripture, suited to the day or season, but having usually little or no relation to the actual offering.  In 1549 they were selected with the object of emphasizing (a) the duty of almsgiving, (b) the maintenance of the clergy, (c) the relief of the poor.

      (2) The private prayers of the priest, and the prayers said over the offerings (Secreta or Super oblata), were omitted, together with the hand washing (Lavabo) and the censings; and the preparation of the elements and their setting upon the altar were done without prayer or further ceremony.

      (3) The prayer for the Church (which in 1549 formed the introductory part of the Canon) contained no reference to the “alms and oblations”.

      In 1552 the tendency of these changes was carried still further, and the close identification of the Offertory with the giving of alms, which has become common in popular language, was further promoted.  The term “Offertory” was dropped, and in the prayer for the Church, which now followed at this point (instead of forming part of the Canon), the words “to accept our alms and” were inserted before “to receive these our prayers”.  Finally, all directions for the preparation and disposition of the elements were omitted.

      The revived study of the Fathers and the liturgies in the seventeenth century directed attention once more to the significance of the people’s offering in earlier ages.  One result of this was that in the Scottish Liturgy of 1637 the alms are directed to be humbly presented before the Lord “and set upon the holy table”.  And similarly “the Presbyter shall then offer up and place the bread and wine ... upon the Lord’s Table.”  In both cases the object is to emphasize the fact that the offerings are really offerings to God.  Hitherto (both in 1549 and 1552) the alms had been placed in the poor men’s box, which by the Injunctions of 1547 was to be set up near the high altar.  But whereas formerly the people went up and made their offering, in 1552 the churchwardens, or others appointed by them, are now directed to “gather the devotions of the people” and put them in the box.

      The revisers of 1661 reinserted the term “Offertory” (without replacing the direction of 1549 that the Sentences might be sung), and also added the substance of both the above rubrics of the Scottish Liturgy.  The alms and the bread and wine are to be set on the Lord’s Table by the priest, but only in the case of the alms is he directed “humbly to present” them, though in the Durham Book a suggestion had been made to add the words “offer up and” before “place upon the Table” in the rubric about the disposition of the bread and wine.

      The addition in 1661 of the words “and oblations” after “alms” in the Prayer for the Church has been thought to refer to the oblations of bread and wine, and it was so interpreted by Simon Patrick, Bishop of Ely (1667) and by Wheatly (1722).  But Bishop Dowden (Further Studies in Prayer Book, pp. 176 f.) has made out a strong case for the view that the “oblations” refer to money offerings for the maintenance of the clergy, corresponding to the “other devotions of the people” referred to in the rubric following the Sentences, a rubric which takes the place of the earlier rubric of 1549 and 1552 dealing with “the due and accustomed offerings to the clergy”.  But though this seems to be the historical meaning of “oblations” in the Prayer for the Church, we find a number of Anglican writers, even before the revision of 1661, insisting that the bread and wine set upon the Lord’s Table form part of the oblations of the people.  Hamon L’Estrange, in his Alliance of Divine Offices (published in 1659), mentions first among the “sacrifices and oblations” in the Eucharist “the bringing of our gifts to the altar, that is, the species and elements of the sacred symbols, and withal some overplus according to our abilities, for the relief of the poor.”  While Wheatly (Rational Illustration, ed. 1846, p. 238) emphasizes the offering of the bread and wine to God “as an acknowledgment of his sovereignty over his creatures, and that from henceforth they might become properly and peculiarly his,” L’Estrange (Alliance, ed. 1659, p. 187) brings out the sacrificial character of the alms offered at Holy Communion.  “This eleemosynary offering is a sacrifice so called (Phil. 4:18, Heb. 13:6), and declared to be ‘well pleasing to God’ ... though extended to the poor: these have a warrant of Attorney from God himself to receive our Alms. ... So that when we come together to break bread, in the Scripture notion, that is, to communicate, we must break it to the hungry, to God himself, in his poor members.”

      A few other points connected with the Offertory call for notice.

      (1) The Offertory Sentences, apart from some slight verbal alterations, remained unchanged in the revisions of 1552 and 1661.  They are taken from the Great Bible, but with some variations.  In the other Anglican forms (Scottish, American, Canadian, South African) additional Sentences have been added, emphasizing in some cases the duty of almsgiving, [Acts 20:35, Matt. 25:40, Eph. 5:2.] in others the missionary responsibility of the Church, [Rom. 10:14,15; Luke 10:2.] in others again the Eucharistic character of the offering in its various aspects. [Ps. 96:8, 116:15, 16; Gen. 4:3, 4, 14:18; Deut. 16:16, 17; 1 Chron. 29:11–14, Rom. 12:1.]  The English Alternative Order of 1928 follows similar lines.  The South African Liturgy provides also special Offertory Sentences for the Church’s seasons.  This is an adaptation of the older Western custom.

      (2) The Scottish and American forms follow the Scottish Liturgy of 1637 in inserting the word “offer” (Scottish “offer up”) in the rubric directing the priest to place the bread and wine upon the holy Table.  A feature of the Scottish Liturgy (since 1912) and of the South African Liturgy is the addition of a verbal offering of the elements, which in the former case is directed to be made in words taken from 1 Chron. 29:10–17, [In earlier forms of the Scottish Liturgy the words were connected with the presentation of the alms.] while in the South African Liturgy it takes the form of a prayer modeled upon that which is found in the English Coronation rite, when the Archbishop presents the King’s offering of bread and wine for the Communion.  Such express prayers, however, in connection with the presentation of the offerings are not an original or essential feature of the rite.  They found no place in the earlier Roman rite, in which, as Martène says (De Ant. Eccl. Rit., I. c. iv. Art. VI. n. xvi), “they used to perform the whole of that action in silence, considering that the prayers contained in the Canon were sufficient, as indeed they are.” [The Secreta (or Super oblata) prayers in the Roman Mass have a different purpose.  They are preparatory to the Eucharistic prayer, and are preceded by an invitation (Orate fratres), which was originally followed by prayer offered in silence by the faithful, and of such prayer they formed the conclusion.]  Similar evidence for the East is found in the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions in the last quarter of the fourth century.

      (3) The direction in 1549 that in the preparation of the chalice there should be added to the wine “a little pure and clean water” was omitted in 1552, along with all directions as to the preparation of the elements.  A rubric was inserted in 1661 in part to supply the deficiency by directing the priest to “place upon the Table so much bread and wine as he shall think convenient.”  In the Scottish Liturgy (since 1912) and in the English Alternative Order of 1928 the “mixed chalice” is recognized as a traditional custom of the Church.  It arose from the practice of diluting wine with water, which was common in antiquity.  Only later do we find attempts to give it various symbolical meanings.  It was retained in 1549 as being a general practice of the Church, and though not essential, it is one of the marks of continuity with the long-established and well-nigh universal practice of the Church.

The Intercession or Prayer for the Church.

      Intercession, an expression of the fellowship of all the faithful in Christ, has always found a place in the Eucharist, which is the Sacrament of unity, and a witness to the Communion of Saints.  Originally, all intercessions for others than the actual worshippers appear to have been offered outside and before the central Eucharistic prayer (the Anaphora or Canon).  That is the position of the Deacon’s Litany at the beginning of the Mass of the faithful in the Greek rites; and the Gallican and Mozarabic rites, as well as the East Syrian Liturgy of Adai and Mari, witness to a similar order.  In the Roman rite the Oremus before the Offertory is a relic of this place of the intercession in the older Roman rite, and the Orationes solemnes of Good Friday are the original Roman intercession offered at this place.

      But in the Greek West Syrian and Byzantine rites (and their dependents) a further intercession is found at the close of the Anaphora.  In the Egyptian rites there is an intercession within the Anaphora before the Sanctus, while in the Roman rite there is a prayer for the Church and worshippers and a commemoration of saints before, and a prayer for the departed (Memento etiam) after the recital of the institution, though the Memento of the departed does not appear to have been a regular or essential part of the public Sunday Mass at Rome in the earlier period.

      Corresponding to this development of the “Great Intercession” at the close of the Anaphora there is an underlying difference of conception.  In the earlier forms the Intercession is closely associated with the Offertory.  The gifts and prayers are the offering of the worshippers, presented in union with the intercession of Christ “the High Priest of our offerings” (Clement of Rome), as an expression of gratitude and love, and the consecration of the gifts is the Divine response, in which “heavenly things” are given in exchange for “earthly” (Leonine Sacramentary, ed. Feltoe, p. 10).  This earlier conception appears also to underlie the language of the Egyptian Liturgy of St. Mark and of the Roman Canon, when studied in its historical setting, and apart from later interpretations.  The other development brings the intercessions into connection with the moments following consecration, and pleads the sacrifice of Christ, here sacramentally represented and set forth.  Its background is the picture of the Lamb “standing as slain” in the midst of the worshipping hosts (Rev. 5:6, 9; 13:8).  That is the idea which finds expression in the Greek Fathers, Cyril of Jerusalem and Chrysostom, and it explains the place of the Intercession at the close of the Anaphora in the West Syrian and Byzantine rites.

      In the older rites of East and West the Intercession included prayers for the living and the dead, and a commemoration of saints.

      In the first English Prayer Book of 1549 the Prayer for the Church formed the introduction to the central Eucharistic Prayer (or Canon), and in order and contents followed the corresponding portion of the Roman Canon (Te igitur, Memento, and Communicantes).  It also contained the substance of the Memento etiam (a prayer for the departed).  But the old language was freely adapted and paraphrased, and all words suggestive of “oblation” and “sacrifice” were omitted.  The commemoration of the saints was in general terms and included patriarchs, prophets, apostles and martyrs, and a special reference to the “blessed Virgin Mary, mother of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord and God,” all reference to their merits and intercessions being omitted.  The prayer for the departed closely followed the earlier portion of the Memento etiam, but for the words “Grant ... a place of refreshment, light and peace” there were substituted the words “Grant unto them ... thy mercy, and everlasting peace.”  The prayer passes at its close into a petition that “we and all they which be of the mystical body of thy Son, may altogether be set at his right hand and hear his most joyful voice: Come, ye blessed. ...” (Matt. 25:34)

      To this prayer was prefixed an introduction based upon 1 Tim. 2:1, recalling the injunction “to make prayers and supplications and to give thanks for all men.”

      In 1552 the prayer was transferred to its present position, largely because of Gardiner’s reference to it in his controversy with Cranmer, and his approval of it as consistent with the Catholic doctrine.  His words are:

      Now when we have Christ’s body thus present in the celebration of the holy supper ... then have we Christ’s body recommended unto us as our sacrifice, and a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sins of the world, being the only sacrifice of Christ’s Church. ... So the Church at the same supper ... join themselves with their head Christ, presenting and offering him, as one by whom, for whom, and in whom, all that by God’s grace man can do, is available and acceptable. ... Whereupon this persuasion hath been duly conceived, which is also in the book of common prayer in the celebration of the holy supper retained, that it is very profitable at that time, when the memory of Christ’s death is solemnized, to remember with prayer all estates of the Church and to recommend them to God (Cranmer’s Works, Parker Soc., pp. 83 f.).

      In placing the prayer in its present position the revisers of 1552 may have had in mind the fact that in parish churches the “Bidding of Bedes” was after the Offertory (see above).  The prayer itself, however, was considerably altered.  Before the words “receive these our prayers” a petition for the acceptance of the alms was inserted.  A petition “for all Christian Kings, Princes and Governors” was added before the prayer for the King, and in place of the prayer for “this congregation which is here assembled in thy name, to celebrate the commemoration of the most glorious death of thy Son,” there were added to the earlier petition “to all thy people give thy heavenly grace,” the further words, “and especially to this congregation here present”.

      The most drastic changes, however, were the omission of the prayer for the departed and the commemoration of saints, while to the bidding “Let us pray for the whole state of Christ’s Church” were added the words “militant here in earth,” which thus restricted the prayer to the living.

      These omissions were partly due to the criticisms of Bucer, who took exception to such prayers on the ground that when prayer is made for the departed that God will grant them His mercy and eternal peace, the vulgar, without exception, take it to mean that the departed still want that peace.  But this omission and the omission of the commemoration of saints were further due to the reaction against the crude conceptions of Purgatory (see e.g. Sir Thomas More, Supplication of Souls) and the extravagances of the mediaeval cult of the saints, a reaction which failed to distinguish between these later developments and the earlier and simpler forms in which the natural Christian instinct had recognized the unbroken fellowship in Christ of the living and the departed, and the continued communion of the latter in the One Body of Christ.  Hence, as Wheatly says (Rational Illustration, p. 243), “whilst they were praying for the Catholic Church, they thought it not improper to add a petition on behalf of the larger and better part of it which had gone before them, that they might all together attain a blessed and glorious resurrection and be brought at last to a perfect fruition of happiness in heaven.  By this means they testified their love and respect to the dead, declared their belief in the communion of saints, and kept up in themselves a lively sense of the soul’s immortality.”

      In 1661 a proposal to delete the words “militant here in earth” failed to win acceptance, but there was added the short commemoration of the departed which finds a place in the present Prayer Book.  At the same time the words “and oblations” were added to the prayer for the acceptance of the alms.  On the meaning of this addition see above.

      The prayer, as it stands, includes petitions for the universal Church; “for all Christian Kings, Princes, and Governors,” for the reigning monarch and all in authority; for Bishops, Curates, and people, and for the sick and suffering.  It contains no separate commemoration of saints, but only a general commemoration of the departed, without explicit prayer for them, though, as Wheatly (Rational Illustration, p. 244) says, “were it not for the restriction of the words militant here in earth, they might be supposed to be implied in our present form, when we beg of God that we with them may be partakers of his heavenly kingdom.”

      The history of this prayer in the other forms of the rite in the Anglican Communion may be briefly summarized.

      (1) The prayer is retained in the position which it has occupied since 1552, except in the Scottish Liturgy, where, under the influence of the study of Eastern rites, it was in 1764 transferred to the close of the Prayer of Consecration.  For the ideas associated with this position of the Intercession see above.

      (2) With the exception of the Irish Prayer Book of 1877 and the Canadian Prayer Book of 1922, the latter of which has only a few slight verbal changes, later revisions have tended to fill out the somewhat meager recognition of the communion of saints in the prayer of 1661 by more explicit prayer for the departed and by a fuller commemoration of saints.  The Scottish Liturgy since 1764, the South African Liturgy of 1920, the English Alternative Order of 1928, and the American revision of 1929 have all omitted the words “militant here in earth” in the bidding, and have inserted explicit prayers for the departed in the following forms:

      Scottish (1929): “We commend to thy gracious keeping, O Lord, all thy servants departed this life in thy faith and fear, beseeching thee to grant them everlasting light and peace.”

      South African: “We commend ... to grant them mercy, light and peace both now and at the day of resurrection.”

      English Alternative Order (1928): “We commend ... to grant them everlasting light and peace.”

      American (1929): “We also bless thy holy Name for all thy servants departed this life in thy faith and fear; beseeching thee to grant them continual growth in thy love and service.”

      A commemoration of saints had already been restored in the Scottish Liturgy of 1637, in the form, “And we yield unto thee most high praise and hearty thanks for the wonderful grace and virtue declared in all thy saints, who have been the choice vessels of thy grace, and the lights of the world in their several generations: most humbly beseeching thee, that we may have grace to follow the example of their stedfastness in thy faith, and obedience to thy holy commandments, that at the day of the general resurrection, we and all they which are of the mystical body of thy Son, may be set at his right hand, and hear that his most joyful voice, Come ye blessed ...” (Matt. 25:34).  The words in italics show the indebtedness of this prayer to the language of the Prayer Book of 1549.  The latest Scottish revision (1929) has a few verbal changes, and provides for a fuller commemoration on certain days by allowing the insertion after “generations” of the words (taken from the 1549 Book) “and chiefly in the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord and God, and in the holy Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles and Martyrs, beseeching thee to give us grace ...”

      The South African form follows more closely the 1549 prayer, but with a different conclusion, praying “that we, rejoicing in the Communion of the Saints, and following the good examples of those who have served thee here, may be partakers with them of thy heavenly kingdom.”  The English Alternative Order of 1928 follows fairly closely the Scottish form so far as the words “several generations,” and then concludes “that rejoicing in their fellowship, and following their good examples, we may be partakers with them of thy heavenly kingdom.”

The Exhortations.

      The prayer for the Church is followed by a series of formularies dealing with the more immediate preparation of the communicants (Invitation, Confession and Absolution, and Comfortable Words).  But before these are placed three Exhortations, the first two of which are alternatives, appointed to be used on days “when the Minister giveth warning for the Celebration of the Holy Communion” (which he is to do on the Sunday or some Holy Day immediately preceding), and to be read after the Sermon or Homily.  The third is to be used at the time of the celebration, when the communicants have been “conveniently placed for the receiving of the Holy Sacrament,” i.e. before the Invitation which follows.  The Exhortations, like those found elsewhere in the Prayer Book, are intended to supply the lack of oral instruction and are one of the features of the Reformation period.  Some of the phraseology seems to show reminiscences of Hermann’s Pia deliberatio (see Brightman, Eng. Rite I. lxxiv f.).  They have undergone considerable changes in wording and in order of arrangement during the successive revisions of the Prayer Book.  The first and third are derived from the Order of Communion of 1548; the second was added in 1552 and has been attributed to Peter Martyr.  Its use is directed, as an alternative to the first Exhortation, when the people are “negligent to come to the Holy Communion”.  In its original form it contained a clause which rebuked those who “stand by as gazers and lookers on them that do communicate,” and they are bidden, rather than that they should so do, to “depart hence, and give place to them that be godly disposed.”  This was omitted in 1661.

      The first Exhortation is a call to self-examination (see below) and repentance, and to the right disposition befitting the worthy reception of the Sacrament.  Where “full trust in God’s mercy and a quiet conscience” cannot by these means be secured, it is urged that resort be had to the minister of the parish, “or some other discreet and learned minister of God’s Word,” that he may open his grief, and by the ministry of God’s word “receive the benefit of absolution, with ghostly counsel and advice.”  These directions are intended to secure full notice of celebrations, proper preparation on the part of communicants, and opportunity to resort to the minister for counsel and absolution.

      The third Exhortation, which immediately precedes the shorter Invitation (“Ye that do truly”), covers much of the ground of the first, laying stress upon the benefits of worthy reception, the dangers of unworthy reception, and the duty of humble and hearty thanksgiving for the redemption through Christ.

      In practice these Exhortations are rarely used, and later revisions of the service in the various branches of the Anglican Communion, while relaxing the requirements of the rubrics of 1661, have endeavoured to secure some use of them at stated intervals, or at least before the great festivals.

Note on Non-communicating Attendance.

      The Eucharist in early days was at once the Church’s “thank offering” for the blessings of Creation and Redemption, and a communion feast, which was for the faithful the bond of union with Christ and one another.  Hence reception was a normal and constant feature of the rite.  As fervour declined, and the conversion of the Empire brought into the Church a multitude of nominal converts, communion became more rare.  During the fourth century we find disciplinary regulations attempting to deal with the neglect of communion and to repress the habit of not remaining for prayer and Holy Communion (Council of Antioch, A.D. 341, can. 2; Ap. Canons, 8 and 9), while Chrysostom condemns alike the habit of leaving church before the mysteries begin (De Incompr. Nat. Dei, Hom. iii. 6) and of remaining without communicating, as penitents in the last stage of discipline were allowed to do (In Eph. Hom., 3:4, 5).  The custom of some churches, however, appears to have left it to the individual conscience to determine whether to receive or abstain when present at the service (see, e.g., Clement of Alexandria, Strom., i. 1); and Waterland (Doctr. of Eucharist, p. 378) interprets the canons referred to above as applying to habitual non-communicants.  But these attempts to enforce regular communion proved ineffective, and with the influx of the barbarians, admitted often to the Church en masse, we find ecclesiastical canons in France recognizing the presence of non-communicants, and enjoining them to stay till the bishop’s blessing before the Communion, while requiring all to communicate at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide (Council of Agde, A.D. 506, can. 47 and 18; Orleans, A.D. 511, can. 26).  The position was similar in Eastern Christendom, where attendance at the Liturgy, with infrequent communion on the part of the laity, became customary.

      Two developments gave a positive direction to the devotions of those who attended throughout, while not communicating.

      (1) Emphasis came to be laid on the moments following consecration, as specially suitable for intercession, in view of the special, though external, relation (involved in the sacramental action) to the Divine Victim present in the Church’s midst.  Indications of this appear in Cyril of Jerusalem and Chrysostom in the East, while Caesarius of Arles, in the sixth century, similarly emphasizes the value of being present at the consecration of the Lord’s Body and Blood and of the opportunities of prayer for themselves and others afforded to those who remain throughout (Migne, P.L., xxxviii. 2276 f.).

      (2) A second development was the concentration during the Middle Ages in the West upon the worship of Jesus in the Sacrament during the moments following consecration.  In the East, still earlier, we find reverence paid to the gifts (as yet unconsecrated), when they are brought from the prothesis to the altar with lights and incense at the Great Entrance, while the Cherubic Hymn is sung, in which Christ is acclaimed as “King of kings”. [Cf. St. James (Br. 45) and St. Chrysostom (Br. 379).  According to some later interpretations this reverence is attributed to the fact that the elements prepared for consecration become antitypes of Christ’s body and blood (John of Damascus, 2nd Council of Nicaea), and may be honoured with the “reverence” (προσκύνησις) which the 2nd Council of Nicaea assigns to the ikons, as distinct from the “worship” (λατρεία) rendered at the Entrance in the Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified (so Cabasilas and the Catechism of Nicholas Bulgaris).  According to some of the mystical commentators the Great Entrance symbolizes our Lord’s entry into Jerusalem in preparation for His Passion (Catechism of Nicholas Bulgaris).]

      This concentration of devotion on special aspects of the Eucharistic mystery helped to put still further in the background the conception of the rite as a communion feast, in days when communion was a very occasional accompaniment of the rite for most of those who attended mass.

      The practice of private masses, and the popular conception that each mass was a distinct offering for sin, explain the reaction of thought at the time of the Reformation.  In that period a desire was shown by all parties for a revival of communion.  The Council of Trent expressed a wish that at each mass the faithful who are present should communicate not only spiritually but sacramentally, though it approved those masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally, and distinguishes between the Eucharist as a Sacrament and as a Sacrifice.

      Among the Reformers we find two tendencies:

      (1) In the Pia Deliberatio of Hermann it is urged that those who are not evil livers, yet receive not the Sacrament, or seldom receive it, should be warned that it is a duty of a Christian man “to be often partaker of the Lord’s board and so to feed and strengthen his faith, and witness the same unto the congregation to the edification of many.”  But it goes on to plead that as this custom is so much out of use, through common ignorance, men must be called back gently to its observance.  “For there be not a few, which though they cannot thoroughly understand the mystery, and the perfect use of Sacraments, yet have such faith in Christ, that they can pray with the congregation, and be somewhat edified in faith through holy doctrine and exhortations, that be wont to be used about the holy supper and the ministration thereof, yea and they may be taught and moved little by little to a perfecter knowledge ... and an oftener use of the Sacraments, even by this that they be present at the holy supper.”  Such men, he urges, should not be driven away from the holy action of the supper while there is any hope that they will go forward “in the study and communion of Christ” (Eng. trans., 1548).

      (2) The English Reformers made it their first aim to restrict private masses, while endeavouring to secure that on Sundays there should always be some to communicate with the priest (see rubrics at the end of the service in the Prayer Book of 1549).  But on Wednesdays and Fridays, if there were no communicants, the priest was to say all things at the altar, until after the Offertory, and the same order was to be used on all other days, when people were accustomed to assemble in church to pray and none were disposed to communicate.  This provision of an alternative service when none were prepared to communicate was suggested by some of the Lutheran Church Orders (Brightman, I. cxii), but had a precedent in the missa sicca (cf. Wickham Legg.  Three Chapters in Recent Liturgical Research, pp. 14 f.), and still earlier in the use of the missa catechumenorum on Station days at Alexandria in the fifth century (Socrates, H.E., v. 22). [The practice of Rome may have been similar, and indications of the same practice appear in Etheria’s account of the services at Jerusalem on Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent.]  Bucer, however, still found fault with the 1549 Prayer Book because it allowed non-communicants to remain in church, [The direction at the Offertory in the Prayer Book of 1549 that those who were not minded to receive the Holy Communion were to “depart out of the Quire” must be taken in connection with the direction about “offering to the poor men’s box,” which was set up near the high altar (see above).  Those who wished to communicate remained in the choir; the rest withdrew to the body of the church.] and in 1552 the Exhortation, which, in a modified form, is the second Exhortation of the Prayer Book of 1661, was inserted.  In this, those who were unwilling to communicate were spoken of as “gazers and lookers-on” and were bidden, rather than that they should so do, to “depart hence ... but ponder from whom they depart.”  The provision that where there were no communicants, the first part of the service to the end of the Prayer for the Church Militant should be said, was now explicitly extended to Holy Days, and restrictions were added as to the number of communicants necessary to permit of a celebration.  The failure of these measures to encourage more frequent communion was demonstrated in the revision of 1661, when Sunday was added to the list of days on which, if there were no communicants, the first part only of the service was to be said.  By this time non-communicating attendance had become a thing of the past, and the clauses in the Exhortation of 1552, warning non-communicants to depart, were found unnecessary and were omitted.

      The decline of communion and the infrequency of opportunities for communion, which had resulted in the displacement of the Eucharist from a central position in the worship of the English Church, were features which engaged serious attention in the Church revival of the nineteenth century. One result of that revival has been a large increase in the number of communions [In the Roman Church the Decree of Pope Pius X (1905) “On daily Communion” marks an important stage in the encouragement of more frequent Communion.] and in opportunities for communion.  Another feature has been the encouragement of the presence of others than communicants throughout the service, in the hope that it would help them to appreciate and use the Sacrament, and also lead to a fuller understanding of the Godward aspect of worship and the reality of the Divine Presence with men.  It has been pointed out that, with the omission of the warning clauses in the Exhortation of 1552, there is nothing in the Prayer Book to forbid such attendance, though the Service itself (as is the case with the Roman Canon of the Mass) leads up to and presupposes the communion of the worshippers.  It has been urged that the “continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ” in the Eucharist and the union of the Church’s offering with the intercession of its great High Priest (a conception familiar from the hymns of Charles Wesley and Canon Bright) are aspects of the service which justify its use for the purposes of worship, offering, and intercession apart from communion.  But the form in which practical expression has been given to this idea is open to criticism.  The separation of the Sunday Eucharistic worship into two distinct services, one for Communion early in the day, and another for worship and oblation (without communicants) at a later hour, is a compromise with which, however expedient it may be as an attempt to meet various stages of religious development and the conditions of modern life, many are beginning to feel that they ought not to rest content as a final solution.  It may reasonably be urged that at the later service there are present a large number of regular communicants who have made their communion at an earlier hour and who welcome these further opportunities of meditation and worship, and that such attendance may be a help to those who are preparing for Confirmation and Communion, or to others who are not ready for more than rare communions, and who (as Hermann says) “may be moved little by little to a perfecter knowledge and an oftener use of the Sacraments.”  In this connection it may be noted that among the Presbyterians of Scotland, according to Dr. J. H. Wotherspoon, [Religious Values in the Sacraments, 1928, p. 253 ff.] the older practice was that “during both consecration and dispensation, the church was open and frequented by a reverent multitude; as is the case in the North of Scotland still, where only a handful may communicate, but the church be crowded, largely by non-communicants, who are nevertheless devout worshippers and in some sense possibly participants.”  And he adds the comment: “The ideal no doubt is that – the Celebration being in use as the normal worship of the Lord’s Day – all communicants should be present and all communicate.  But we are far from the ideal: it is a question of what is best in our imperfect conditions. ... As things are I should hesitate to think that it is spiritually profitable or advisable or a matter of duty for every member of the Church to communicate as frequently as the Church ought to celebrate the Eucharist, or to advise a communicant to absent himself from worship unless he intends to communicate.”

      But whatever be the justification for the attendance of others than communicants at a celebration in which provision is made for the communion of the people, a different problem arises when the Sunday Eucharistic worship is divided up into two distinct services, one for communion, the other for worship (without communicants).  The danger of this is that it tends to keep asunder the two ideas of communion and offering which are closely connected and interdependent. [The connection between “communion” and “sacrifice” is emphasized in Dom Laporta, Piété eucharistique (Louvain, 1929).  He also criticizes the tendency to regard the Communion too exclusively as “une visite”‘ or as “une simple nourriture,” which may therefore equally well be received outside mass as in the course of mass.]  The purpose of the Sacrament is not merely the reception of spiritual food.  Nor is it merely the commemoration and pleading of Christ’s sacrifice apart from the effort to identify ourselves with Him by sharing with Him the spirit of His self-offering to the Father.  It is this latter aspect which is emphasized in the Prayer of Oblation in the Prayer Book of 1661.  If we are to preserve the true proportions of Eucharistic worship, we need to recover the meaning for worship and life of St. Paul’s words “in Christ” and “the Body of Christ”.  The Eucharist is the expression of the unity of the faithful in the One Body of Christ and of the offering of the members in and through the Head.

      Again, the danger of much mediaeval Eucharistic devotion (in spite of the beauty of some of the forms in which it is expressed, e.g. in the Lay Folk’s Mass Book) was due to the fact that it was directed too exclusively to Jesus in His human nature, whereas the whole structure of the liturgies shows that worship is directed to the Father (or the Trinity) in and through the Son. [Cf. the direction of the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) that all prayer at the altar should be directed to the Father.]  The ideal parish Eucharist will be one in which worship finds its consummation in our union and communion with Christ and our self-oblation in Him to the God and Father of all.  The whole problem is bound up with other problems, the hour of the Sunday worship, and the fast before Communion, but it demands the thoughtful consideration of those who have the ordering of Sunday worship, if the different aspects of Eucharistic worship are to be presented in their proper perspective and relationship.

The Invitation, the Confession and Absolution, and the Comfortable Words.

      The desire for the revival of Communion in the period of the Reformation was accompanied by an equally strong desire to guard against unworthy reception, and forms of preparation for Communion are a feature of many of the contemporary Lutheran Church Orders.  Archbishop Hermann in the Pia Deliberatio directs that intending communicants shall present themselves beforehand to the pastor, and make confession of their sins and receive absolution.  In the form of service prescribed by him there is found, however, a new feature.  In the mediaeval service the Confiteor, etc., were said at the foot of the altar as the private devotion of the priest and ministers during the Introit.  But there was no general confession for the congregation, as Communion was rare and was generally preceded by private confession to the priest. [Forms of confession and absolution for communicants were, however, not unknown in England.  See H. A. Wilson, Order of Communion, 1548 (H.B.S.), p. xv.]  In the form of service provided by Hermann there is a preparatory office for the day before Communion and also a Confession, Comfortable Word, and Absolution to be said by the priest at the altar, before the Introit, in the name of the whole congregation and in the vernacular.  From this source were derived the general scheme and some of the language of the English Order of Communion of 1548, which was intended as a form of preparation for communicants to be inserted into the Latin Mass after the priest’s communion.  From this form, with some slight changes of wording, the Invitation, Confession and Absolution, and the Comfortable Words passed into the Prayer Book of 1549, where they precede, instead of following, the priest’s communion.  They were followed by our present Prayer of Humble Access.  With the rearrangement of the service in 1552 they were placed immediately before the Preface, with the exception of the Prayer of Humble Access, which was inserted after the Sanctus.

      The Invitation is a further reminder of the requirements of repentance, charity, obedience and faith for all who would receive this Sacrament.  It concludes with a bidding to make humble confession to Almighty God.  The Order of Communion (1548) added, “and to his holy Church, here gathered together in his name,” and these words, with the substitution of “before this congregation” for “to his holy Church” in 1552, remained until 1661.  To the words “Draw near” were added in 1661 the words “with faith,” [L’Estrange (Alliance, p. 214) compares the invitation in the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, “With fear of God and faith draw near.”] an addition which, while it supplements the teaching of the Invitation, also corrects the mistaken opinion (see L’Estrange, op. cit., p. 213) that the words “draw near” were an invitation to communicants to enter the quire.  At the same revision the rubric ordering the communicants to be “conveniently placed” was inserted before the third Exhortation.

      The form of Confession contains much that is found in Hermann’s form, though omitting his reference to original sin.  But the old Confiteor is the source of the words “in thought, word and deed” though the further words mea culpa are unrepresented in the English version.

      The Absolution in the Order of Communion began, like that of Hermann, with the words “Our blessed Lord hath left power to his Church (congregation, H.) to absolve penitent sinners,” but was altered to its present form in 1549.  The actual absolution, “Have mercy,” etc., is closely modeled on the forms used with the old Confiteor in the Mass and at Prime and Compline.

      The English Alternative Order (1928) provides a shorter Invitation, Confession and Absolution, which may be used on weekdays.

      In Hermann the Comfortable Words are alternatives, and one of them precedes the Absolution, as providing the Scripture warrant for the declaration of forgiveness.  Of the sentences of Scripture selected three are taken from Hermann (John 3:16, 1 Tim. 1:15, 1 John 2:1).

      The direction in 1549, that the General Confession is to be made, in “the name of all them that are minded to receive the holy Communion, either by one of them or else by one of the ministers, or by the Priest himself, all kneeling,” has been variously modified in subsequent revisions (Scottish, 1637, “by the Presbyter himself, or the Deacon”; Scottish, 1764, “by the people, along with the Presbyter, he first kneeling down”; American, 1929, “by the Priest and all ... humbly kneeling”).  The alteration in 1661, which directs the recitation to be made by “one of the Ministers,” was due to Puritan objections, and words were added which made it clear that he, as well as the people, was to kneel and that all were to say the Confession.  That the priest was intended to kneel here was the contention of L’Estrange (Alliance, p. 214), writing before the revision of 1661.  “During the whole time of the Priest his officiating at the Communion, setting aside in the very instant of his receiving, you find him but twice upon his knees, whereof this is the first; at all other times, and parts of the service, he is ordered to stand ... because it is not part of the former oblations, but an humble confession of his own and the Congregation’s transgressions.”

      The Scottish Liturgy since 1764 has restored the whole of these preparatory devotions, together with the Prayer of Humble Access, to the place which they occupied in 1549, immediately before the Communion.  See further above.

The Preface and Sanctus.

      The preparation of the communicants is followed by the Preface or introduction to the Eucharistic prayer, which forms in the liturgies of East and West the central feature of the rite, and which in turn leads up to the Communion of the faithful.  The dialogue with which the Preface is introduced is one of the oldest parts of the Liturgy, and is in substance the same in all rites.  It is found in two of the oldest sources, the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (A.D. 220–230) and in Cyprian, De Orat., 31 (c. A.D. 252).  The opening words, “Lift up your hearts,” and the response, “We lift them up unto the Lord,” recall Lam. 3:41, though the actual parallels in wording are less clear in the Greek and Latin forms than in our English version, [The Latin Habemus ad Dominum looks like a rendering of the Greek.  The Mozarabic Levemus ad Dominum is parallel to the form in Hermann and the Prayer Book and agrees with Lam. 3:41.] which is closer to Hermann’s German version of the Pia Deliberatio.

      In the older rites the dialogue is introduced by a salutation, either an adaptation of 2 Cor. 13:14 (Syrian and Byzantine) or “The Lord be with you” (Egyptian and Roman), with the response, “And with thy spirit”.  This latter form was retained in 1549, but in 1552 was omitted here and at other points in the service where it had occurred.

      The English form of the Preface is a free adaptation of the Latin form, sometimes rather loosely rendered. “ Our Lord God” represents “the Lord our God”.  “It is very meet” represents the Latin “Verily is it meet,” the word “very,” as Dr. Brightman pointed out to me, being possibly chosen for the sake of the rhythm (it is found in Chaucer and as late as 1593 in the sense of “verily”).  The rendering “O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty, Everlasting God,” differs from the usual Roman punctuation of the Latin, “Holy Lord, Almighty Father, Everlasting God,” which is also the punctuation found in the MS. used by Legg in his Sarum Missal.  On the other hand, there is some ancient precedent for the Prayer Book version in the fifth-century De Sacramentis (iv. 21) and in the Leonine Sacramentary (Feltoe, p. 70), [For Gallican examples of “holy Father, Almighty, everlasting God” without “Lord” see Neale and Forbes, Anc. Liturgies of Gallican Church, pp. 3, 143, 197.] and the same punctuation is found in Hermann’s German version of the Pia Deliberatio (the Latin text gives the usual form), while the Strassburg German Mass of 1524 has “O Lord, holy almighty Father, eternal God”.  Dr. Brightman, to whom I owe these references, suspected that the punctuation in the Prayer Book was deliberately chosen to secure a fine rhythm The phrase “Holy Father” in this connection recalls St. John 17:11.  For “salutary” of the Latin Canon the Prayer Book has “our bounden duty,” which finds a parallel in the Greek and Syriac St. James.

      The English Preface, like the original Latin form, is a framework, into which, according to the system of variable Prefaces found in the Western rites, special commemorations suitable to various days are inserted.  In the Roman and Sarum Uses there were ten such Proper Prefaces, including, in addition to those found in the Prayer Book, provision for Epiphany and throughout the Octave, Ash Wednesday and weekdays in Lent, feasts of Apostles and Evangelists, the two feasts of the Holy Cross, and all feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  The Christmas Preface was appointed for the whole Octave, the Purification, and Corpus Christi and throughout the Octave; the Easter Preface was to be used throughout the Octave and on all Sundays until Ascension Day; and the Trinity Preface on all Sundays until Advent.

      While Hermann in the Pia Deliberatio has a single fixed Preface, commemorating (after the manner of the Eastern rites) the creation, fall and redemption of man, and leading up to the Sanctus, the Prayer Book of 1549 followed more closely traditional lines, and retained Proper Prefaces for Christmas, Easter, Ascension Day, Whitsunday, and Trinity, but made no provision for the Octaves.  This oversight was remedied in 1552, when the present direction was inserted. [The reduction of the number of Proper Prefaces may have been influenced by the Saxon Church Order of 1539, which retains the five Prefaces found in the Prayer Book, but includes also one for the Epiphany.]

      As compared with Eastern forms this introductory part of the Eucharistic prayer seems meager and incomplete.  In the older Eastern rites the thanksgiving takes a wider range and includes the whole scope of God’s revelation in creation and history, leading up to the story of redemption.  Apart from the reference in the Sanctus, “Heaven and earth are full of thy glory,” this element is lacking alike in the Roman and in the derived English forms.  In this latter the absence of any provision for filling in the framework of the Preface on other days than the five feasts for which Proper Prefaces are supplied has still further impoverished this part of the service.  To meet this need the latest revisions of the rite have extended the use of the existing Prefaces and provided for additional days and seasons.  A Proper Preface for Epiphany (and its Octave) is found in all these revisions (Canadian, South African, Scottish, American, English Alternative Order, 1928); while provision is made in various ways in most of them for the Purification and Annunciation, Maundy Thursday, Transfiguration, Feasts of Apostles and Evangelists and St. John Baptist, All Saints, and for the Dedication of a Church.  The Scottish Liturgy of 1929 goes further and provides for Advent, Ash Wednesday and Lent, Passion Sunday and days following, and for the Consecration of Bishops.  The South African Liturgy also makes provision for Sundays for which no Proper Preface is appointed by directing the use of a slightly varied form of the Trinity Preface, thus following the traditional Sarum and Roman Use, while the English Alternative Order (1928) provides a new Preface, based upon a Missa votiva omnimoda in the Mozarabic rite (Lesly, p. 442) for use on ordinary Sundays.

      Of the existing Prefaces in the Prayer Book, those for Easter, Ascension Day, and Trinity are more or less free renderings of the old Prefaces, while those for Christmas and Whitsunday are new compositions, showing parallels with the language of the Necessary Doctrine of 1543 (Brightman, Eng. Rite, ii. 684, 686).  The Whitsunday Preface with its doubtful interpretation of the “tongues” of Pentecost as “the gift of divers languages” has been altered in various ways in recent revisions.  The Canadian and Scottish (1929) versions simply substitute “tongues” for “divers languages”; the American (1929) omits the clause “with a sudden ... fiery tongues” and the reference to “the gift of divers languages,” while the South African Liturgy and the English Alternative Order (1928) substitute a modified form of the Sarum Preface for the opening clauses, and conclude with the words “whereby we have been brought ..” from the form of 1661.

      The Proper Preface for Trinity Sunday is addressed to the Holy Trinity, whereas the old Latin Preface on which it is based is addressed to the Father.  This fact explains the direction of the Prayer Book that on Trinity Sunday the words Holy Father ‘ in the common framework of the Preface are to be omitted.

      The Sanctus (called in Ordo Romanus I the “Angelic hymn,” though the title is more usually applied to the Gloria in excelsis) is based on Isa. 6:3 (cf. Rev. 4:8).  This feature of the Liturgy has clear attestation from the fourth century onwards and is found in all the liturgies of East and West.  Though it is absent from the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (A.D. 220–230), there is a possible allusion to it in the Acts of Perpetua (Africa, A.D. 202–3).  To the Sanctus there is attached in all rites, except the Egyptian, the Hosanna and Benedictus qui venit (based upon Mark 11:9–10; cf. Matt. 21:9, John 12:13).  In the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions, Benedictus qui venit occurs as part of the response of the people to the Sancta sanctis, and welcomes the coming forth of the Sacrament for Communion.  In this sense it is repeated in the Byzantine rite before the Communion of the people in the form “Blessed is he that cometh in the Name of the Lord.  God is the Lord, and hath appeared unto us” (Ps. 118:26 f.).  In addition to this use of it as welcoming the coming of Christ in the Sacrament, in some Eastern rites (Syr.-Jacobite, Armenian, Nestorian) it is given a further reference (“Blessed is he that came and cometh”), and serves to introduce the commemoration of the Incarnation and Redemption which follows.  The Stowe Missal, indeed, paraphrases it in this sense (“blessed is he who came from heaven that he might have his conversation on earth and was made man that” etc.: [Dr. Brightman pointed out to me that this is really a Gallican post sanctus: cf. Miss. Goth. 482, 537; Mozarab. Lib. Sacr. 115.] ed. Warner, H.B.S., ii. 10).  The Benedictus was retained in Luther’s Latin Mass (1523), where the Sanctus follows the recital of the institution, and by Hermann in the Pia Deliberatio.  In the Roman rite the form was “Hosanna in the highest.  Blessed ... Lord.  Hosanna in the highest.”  In 1549 the second Hosanna was paraphrased in the form “Glory to thee, O Lord in the highest,” and in 1552, when the first Hosanna and the Benedictus were omitted, this clause remained appended to the Sanctus in the altered form, “Glory be to thee, O Lord most high.”  The Scottish Liturgy (1929) and the English Alternative Order of 1928 have restored the permissive use of the Benedictus followed by “Hosanna in the highest,” without, however, changing the paraphrase of the earlier Hosanna.

      In 1549 direction was given that the clerks should sing the Sanctus, but in 1552 this was omitted, and no direction given that others should join with the priest in the saying or singing of it.  Though in the musical settings of Merbecke and others provision was made for the singing of the Sanctus only, the custom arose that the people repeated the whole section beginning “Therefore with Angels,” and this derived some support from the rubric of 1661, which says, “After each of which Prefaces shall immediately be sung or said, Therefore ...”  In the latest Scottish and American revisions directions are given that the people are to join in the Sanctus only.

The Prayer of Humble Access.

      “The nearer we approach to these holy mysteries, the greater reverence we ought to express.  And therefore, lest our exultations should savour of too much confidence, we now allay them with this act of humility, which the Priest offers up in the name of all them that receive the Communion” (Wheatly, Rat. Illustr., p. 253).

      This finely conceived prayer is entitled, in the Scottish Liturgy of 1637, “Collect of humble access to the holy communion.”  It is derived from the Order of Communion of 1548, which adds “in these holy mysteries” after “drink his blood,” and transposes the order of the last two clauses, placing the clause “that we may dwell” before “that our sinful bodies. ...”  In this form it appears in the Prayer Book of 1549, the present form dating from 1552.  The opening words recall the language of the Liturgy of St. Basil (before the Invocation), “not because of our righteousnesses ... but because of thy mercies and compassions, which thou hast shed richly upon us, we draw near with boldness to thy holy altar” (Brightman, Litt. E. and W., 329; cf. St. James, ib. 46).  The ultimate source is Dan. 9:18.  The following sentence is based on the words of the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mark 7:28).  The words “whose property is always to have mercy” are the opening words of a Gregorian Collect, of which use has been made elsewhere in the Prayer Book (“O God, whose nature and property” in Occasional Prayers).  The distinction implied in the words “our ... bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed by his ... blood is found also in the forms of administration in the Order of Communion of 1548.  (It also appears in a prayer in the Syrian Jacobite liturgy; Brightman, Litt. E. and W., 102.)  The idea was developed by mediaeval writers on the basis of Lev. 17:11.  But in view of the changes made in the forms of administration in 1549, when the words “body and soul” were inserted in both forms, the verbal distinction here must not be pressed.  The concluding words of the prayer are an application of John 6:56.

      It has been suggested that the clause “Grant us so to eat the flesh ... that our sinful bodies may be made clean ...” implies the possibility of partaking of Christ’s flesh and blood otherwise than to the soul’s health, and that the doctrine implied is that Christ’s body and blood are truly proffered to all communicants, though only those who partake worthily are spiritually partakers of Christ.  Such an interpretation of the prayer is a possible one, especially in its original form (Order of Communion, 1548, and Prayer Book of 1549), in which the words “in these holy mysteries” were added after “drink his blood,” while in the prayer of oblation in 1549 there was found the petition (omitted in 1552), “that whosoever shall be partakers of this holy communion may worthily receive the most precious body and blood.”  Both Cranmer and Ridley admitted that in a sense evil men may eat “the body of Christ,” but only sacramentally, while the good eat it sacramentally and spiritually, where by “sacramentally” Cranmer explains that he means “figuratively,” i.e. they eat the sacrament of the body.  Bishop Dowden, however (Further Studies, pp. 239 f.), contends that such an interpretation of “so” when separated from “that” is not necessary, and that there are other passages in the Prayer Book (e.g. the second post-communion prayer) where it is inapplicable, and that in the present prayer the meaning may simply be “eat, so that our sinful bodies. ...”

      The original position of the Prayer of Humble Access was immediately before the Communion, but owing to the contention of Gardiner that this prayer, said kneeling, taught the adoration of Christ’s flesh in the Sacrament, it was removed to its present position in 1552.  This abrupt breaking off of the thanksgiving after the Sanctus seriously impairs the unity and sequence of the Eucharistic prayer.  It may be urged, however, that the alternation of praise and penitence is not in itself open to criticism, and is indeed psychologically sound.  The vision of God and the angelical hymn in Isaiah 6:1–3 are followed by the sense of awe and abasement (“Woe is me! ... because I am a man of unclean lips”).  The sense at once of attraction and awe is a feature of religious experience in contact with divine holiness.  Again, this position of the prayer keeps the thought of the approaching Communion in mind, an aspect on which, as we have seen, stress was laid by the Reformers.  Probably the position of the prayer would be less open to criticism if more adequate provision had been made both in the Preface and in the Prayer of Consecration for the element of thanksgiving.  It is the over-emphasis of the penitential and subjective side of worship which is most open to criticism in the English service, though here again it must be borne in mind that the elements of praise and thanksgiving are resumed in the post-communion prayers and in the Gloria in excelsis, where, however, they are no longer connected directly with the “giving of thanks” at the Institution or the central Eucharistic prayer which is based upon it. See further p. 355. In the Roman rite there is an abrupt transition from the Sanctus to the Canon, and there are no such links connecting them as are found in the Eastern rites.  Scudamore (Not. Euch., 2nd. ed., p. 535) quotes from a Corbie MS. and other sources examples of prayers of a similar penitential character to be said by the celebrant privately before entering on the Canon.  Though these may not be quoted as liturgical precedents, they illustrate the sequence of ideas exhibited in this position of the Prayer of Humble Access.

      Of the alternative positions suggested for the prayer in recent revisions, the most satisfactory is that which places it immediately before Communion (so Scottish Liturgy since 1637, South African, American (1929)).  The position given to it in the English Alternative Order of 1928, while restoring it to its place among the other preparatory devotions, destroys the very suitable transition from the Comfortable Words to the Preface, the value of which has been proved by long usage.

The Prayer of Consecration.

      The title of this prayer was derived from the Scottish Liturgy of 1637, and the introductory rubric in which it is found owes some of its wording to the same source.  The rubric was inserted in 1661.  For its directions as to the position of the priest see pp. 308 f.

      The prayer was originally part of the much longer prayer which in the 1549 Book took the place of the old Latin Canon, of which it was a free adaptation with considerable modifications.  It included (1) the prayer for the Church; (2) the present prayer of consecration, with some variations; (3) the memorial and Oblation.

      In 1552 the prayer for the Church was transferred to an earlier part of the service (see above), while the Oblation, much abbreviated, became one of the alternative post-communion prayers.

      With these changes we may compare the parallel developments in the Pia Deliberatio of Hermann, in which, after the singing of the Sanctus and Benedictus, the priest recites the narrative of the institution; for, says Hermann, “the whole substance of this Sacrament is contained in these words.  And it consisteth altogether in the true understanding and faith of these words that the Sacrament be wholesomely administered and received” (E. tr. 1548).  The Lord’s Prayer and the salutation “The peace of the Lord” followed, and these in turn were followed by the Communion.  The English prayer in its present form has both points of contact with and points of divergence from this Lutheran form.  Like the latter, it throws emphasis upon the actual words of our Lord at the institution, which it connects even more closely than Hermann did with the communion of priest and people, without the intervention of the Lord’s Prayer and “The peace of the Lord,” which Hermann had retained.  But unlike the Lutheran Order it follows more closely traditional lines, in that it is a prayer, and not merely a narrative, the prayer being addressed to the Father, and, after a preamble commemorating the one perfect sacrifice of Christ, asking that all who receive “these thy creatures of bread and wine” may be partakers of His most blessed Body and Blood.  The prayer concludes with the recital of the institution, which “asserts before man and pleads before God the authority of our Lord for that holy action in which we are engaged” (Scudamore).  The ending of the prayer is abrupt, and in 1552 it lacked even the Amen, which was only reinserted in 1661.

      The preamble of the prayer resumes the commemoration of God’s creative and redeeming work which began with the Preface, but was interrupted by the Prayer of Humble Access.  In language which recalls phrases in the Antididagma (the reply of the Chapter of Cologne to Hermann’s work) it speaks of Christ’s “full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction” for the sins of the whole world, and of the “perpetual memory” of His death instituted by Him in the Gospel.

      This preamble is much fuller than the corresponding part of the Roman Canon, where the transition from the Sanctus to the Canon is abruptly made.  It finds a nearer parallel in the Eastern rites, where the commemoration of redemption follows the Sanctus and leads up to the recital of the institution.  The emphasis on the one sufficient sacrifice of Christ (inserted in 1549) was intended to safeguard the unique character of the sacrifice of the Cross in face of later mediaeval conceptions of the sacrifice of the mass.

      The Invocation (“Hear us ...”) is a weakened form of the Invocation of 1549, which took the place of the Quam oblationem of the old Canon, and ran as follows: “with thy holy spirit and word vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ.”  The prayer in this form was a combination of Western and Eastern views of consecration.  While retaining the Western position of the invocation before the recital of the institution, instead of after as in the Eastern rites, it included, in the Eastern manner, a reference to the Holy Spirit as the agent (the words “bless and sanctify” appear to come from the Liturgy of St. Basil); but it also includes a further reference to the “word,” by which Cranmer appears to have meant the words of institution, the recital of which, according to the Western view, constituted the “form” of the Sacrament.  The changed wording of the Invocation in 1552 was due to the criticisms of Bucer, who objected to all blessing or consecration of inanimate things.  In the present form there is no mention of the agent of consecration, and in this respect it finds a parallel in the reserved language of the old Canon and in many Gallican and Mozarabic prayers where the invocation is addressed simply to God, [Cf., e.g., a Mozarabic post pridie prayer in Lesly, p. 9.  “Take thou these offerings to be blessed by thee, and do thou grant the gifts of thy blessing.”] though in others we find explicit reference to the Holy Spirit’s agency.  While the Eastern form is an explicit recognition of the work of the Holy Spirit as the agent in this as in all operations of grace, the Western form represents an attitude of mind which finds it “more reverent not to lift up the veil.  It is enough that God works behind.  He will do His own work in His own all-sufficient way” (Scudamore).

      A second feature of the prayer is that it is not an explicit prayer for the sanctification of the elements, but a prayer for the gift of the Sacrament to those who receive.  It avoids the expression of any particular theory of consecration either by the operation of the Holy Spirit or by the word of Christ, and considered in itself, apart from the language of other prayers in the service, it is patient of a receptionist view of the Sacrament.  The language of the corresponding prayer in 1549 (“that they may be unto us”) was similarly interpreted by Cranmer as meaning that “in the godly using of them they be unto the receivers Christ’s body and blood,” though Gardiner interpreted them to mean that they cannot be this, “unless God worketh it, and make them so to be.”

      The recital of the institution, like the corresponding form in the Lutheran Brandenburg-Nürnberg Order of 1533, is really a harmony of the four New.  Testament accounts.  In 1549 the words “blessed and” preceded the words “given thanks”.  But the word “bless” in this connection was disliked by the more advanced Reformers, who preferred to treat the words as a synonym of “give thanks,” [In the accounts of the Last Supper the words ευλογειν and ευχαριστειν are practically synonyms.  It is God who is “blessed” and to whom thanksgiving is offered.  The words are interpreted as synonyms by Ridley in his Brief Declaration (ed. Moule, p. 98) and by Becon (Parker Soc., iii. 269).] and it was accordingly omitted in 1552.

      The direction for the manual acts in 1549 merely instructed the priest to take the bread and the cup into his hands.  This was omitted in 1552, but restored in 1661 in a form suggested by the Scottish Liturgy of 1637, which also directed that he was to “lay his hand upon so much, be it in chalice or flagons, as he intends to consecrate” (no corresponding direction is given with regard to the bread).  The further direction to “break the bread” first appears in 1661.  The purpose of these actions is partly to reproduce the very actions, no less than the words, of the Lord at the institution, and partly to indicate what is being mentioned.  The taking of the paten and the cup into the hands is of the former kind, the laying of the hand upon the bread and the chalice falls under the second heading.

      The fraction of the bread at the words “he brake it” is found in only two Eastern rites, the Coptic and the Abyssinian (Brightman, Litt. E. and W., 177, 233).  Some mediaeval Missals instruct the priest to make a “show of breaking” at these words, while the Sarum and York Missals instruct him to “touch the Host”.  But the custom which prevailed generally in East and West was that the fraction took place at a later stage, before or at the end of the Lord’s Prayer, which preceded the Communion, thus reproducing more nearly the action of the Lord in breaking the bread in preparation for distribution.  To this fraction a mystical interpretation was given by some mediaeval writers, though others see in it simply a solemn imitation of the action of the Lord (Scudamore, pp. 606 f.).

      The laying of the hand upon the bread and the cup takes the place of the crossings, which in the older rite denoted the act of blessing or were indicative of what was being blessed or consecrated.  In 1549 the only crossings retained were at the words “bless and sanctify” before “these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine.”

      The elevation of the Host and chalice was retained by Luther in his Latin and German Mass, “propter infirmos,” but was expressly forbidden by rubric in 1549.  The rubric disappeared in 1552, probably because the custom had ceased.

      The prayer, as we have seen, concludes abruptly after the recital of the institution, and contains no explicit assertion at this stage of the Godward aspect of the rite as the Church’s memorial sacrifice, which commemorates and pleads the One Sacrifice, such as is found in the older rites and in the Prayer Book of 1549.  This feature of the prayer led many of the Anglican divines of the seventeenth century (Overall, Laud, Cosin) to wish to restore the order of the prayers as found in 1549.  This was effected in the Scottish Liturgy of 1637, but similar proposals by Cosin (Particulars, No. 61) in 1661 failed to win acceptance.

      Taking the service as a whole, however, as it was rearranged in 1552, it may be urged that the idea underlying this rearrangement is that the Consecration prayer is not so much ended with the recital of the institution (the Amen was absent in 1552), as resumed after the Communion, with the Lord’s Prayer and Prayer of Oblation.  In this latter the worshippers, who have cemented their union with Christ in the act of Communion, ask God to accept their “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving,” and pleading Christ’s death as the ground of “remission of sins and all other benefits of his Passion,” offer themselves as a living sacrifice to Him.  The effect of this rearrangement of the prayer is, however, weakened by the unfortunate compromise which allowed the second of the post-communion prayers to be used as an alternative to the Prayer of Oblation, for in this second prayer there is no reference to the Church’s “sacrifice of praise”.

The Consecration Prayer in other Forms of the Anglican Rite.

      A certain degree of dissatisfaction with the Consecration prayer of 1552, and a preference for the form of 1549, find expression in a series of Anglican divines during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.  The breaking up and distribution of the different elements of the original prayer of 1549, the lack of any clear and explicit blessing upon the elements, and the absence of any formal expression in the central Eucharistic prayer of the God-ward aspect of the rite as the Church’s memorial of the sacrifice of Christ [The only words which might suggest this aspect are those in which Christ is said to have commanded us “to continue a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again.”] seemed to them a departure from the general tenor of such prayers in the ancient liturgies of the Church.  The first attempt to give practical form to these views was the Scottish Liturgy of 1637, which adopted the Consecration prayer of 1549 with slight modification.  In this the prayer for the Church was left in the position which it occupied in 1552, but the memorial and oblation, in the same form as that of 1549, were attached to the recital of the institution, and were followed by the Lord’s Prayer (with its old introduction, as in 1549), and the Prayer of Humble Access, the result being to restore the continuity of the Eucharistic prayer from the Sursum corda onwards.

      The next step in the history was the Non-jurors’ Liturgy of 1718.  In this the service was largely rewritten on the lines of the liturgies of the Apostolic Constitutions and St. James.  It followed the Eastern order (thanksgiving for redemption, recital of institution, memorial and oblation, invocation, prayer for the Church, Lord’s Prayer) in place of the order of 1549, in which the sequence was: prayer for the Church, commemoration of redemption, invocation, recital of institution, memorial and oblation, Lord’s Prayer.

      The influence of the Non-jurors’ Liturgy, as well as of Bishop Rattray’s Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem (1744), was apparent in the Scottish Liturgy of 1764, in which the Eastern order, as described above, was definitely adopted.  The actual wording of the prayer, however, followed fairly closely that of 1549, the more important changes being: (1) the new introduction, “All glory be to thee,” which resumes the note of thanksgiving, taking up the concluding words of the Sanctus; (2) the addition of the words “which we now offer unto thee” after the words “with these thy gifts” in the oblation; (3) the substitution in the Invocation of the words “that they may become the body” for the words found in 1549, “that they may be unto us the body.”

      The later revisions of the Scottish Liturgy in 1912 and 1929 have made few changes in the form of the prayer of 1764.  In 1929 the introduction was further expanded by the addition of “and thanksgiving” after “All glory”.  The only other important changes were: (1) the addition of the words “and looking for his coming again with power and great glory” after the commemoration of the resurrection and ascension, a feature borrowed from the Eastern rites, and suggested by St. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 11:26; (2) the still closer assimilation of the Invocation to Eastern forms, so that it now reads: “We ... beseech thee ... to hear us, and to send thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that, being blessed and hallowed by his life-giving power, they may become the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son, to the end that all who shall receive the same may be sanctified both in body and soul, and preserved unto everlasting life.”

      The orderly sequence of the Scottish rite gives to it a clearness and definiteness which have an attraction for many minds.  The thanksgiving offered to God in the Preface, with its brief commemoration of creation in the Sanctus, is carried on by the opening words of the prayer, “All glory and thanksgiving,” to the theme of redemption, which in turn leads up to the recital of the institution.  Then, in obedience to the command “Do this in remembrance of me,” there follows the solemn commemoration of the sacrificial death of Christ “with these thy gifts,” now solemnly set apart by the manual acts and words of institution as representative symbols of the Body and the Blood of Christ, and offered as such to God, that in answer to the prayer of the Church, “being blessed and hallowed” by the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit, they may be returned to the worshippers as the Body and Blood of His Son, and that receiving the same they may be sanctified and preserved unto life eternal.  Nor is the death of Christ isolated from all that followed it.  In the words following the Oblation, the resurrection and ascension, the mission of the Spirit, and the hope of the Second Coming all find a place, and thanksgiving is again offered for the “innumerable benefits” procured for us by the redemptive work of Christ.  The whole of this action embraced in the Eucharistic prayer constitutes the Church’s “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving,” which God is asked to accept, the worshippers pleading the merits of Christ’s death as the ground of forgiveness of sins, and “all other benefits of His Passion,” and at the same time identifying themselves in spirit and purpose with His sacrifice by offering themselves as a living sacrifice to God.  (On the position of the prayer for the Church in the Scottish Liturgy see above.)

      As compared with the English Consecration prayer that of the Scottish Liturgy comes at an earlier stage of the service, and is separated from the Communion by the interposition not only of the prayer for the Church, but also of the devotions preparatory to Communion, which in the English service are placed before the Preface.  What the Scottish Liturgy gains in clearness of sequence and fullness of expression it loses to some extent through its length and a certain redundancy, which impose a strain on the attention.  The English prayer, on the other hand, by its very brevity and restraint gains in concentration by focusing attention upon the sacrifice of the Cross and upon Christ’s own words, which are followed immediately by the Communion of priest and people.  It is only after this, and in virtue of the culmination of the whole action in the communion of the faithful, that God is asked to accept “this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” and the oblation of ourselves as a living sacrifice to Him.

      On the other hand, it may be urged that by postponing all mention of the “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” until after the Communion, and still more by making the prayer of Oblation alternative to the Thanksgiving, the English form tends to make this element subsidiary and an afterthought.  A further criticism is that by its concentration on the death of Christ alone, without any commemoration of the resurrection and ascension, the prayer lacks fullness and balance in its presentation of the work of redemption.

      The Consecration prayer of the American Church is a more conservative revision of the English prayer on the lines of the Scottish Liturgies of 1637 and 1764.  It retains the prayer for the Church at the place where it is found in the Prayer Book of 1552, and it was not until the recent revision of 1929 that the prayer of Humble Access was removed from its position after the Sanctus and placed before the Communion.  The Invocation, which is in the same position as the Scottish Invocation of 1764, is a shortened and weakened form of the Scottish Invocation of 1637, though it contains a petition for the blessing of the oblation.  “Vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that we receiving them ... may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.”  But in other respects the prayer follows closely the sequence and language of the Scottish form of 1764.  In the latest revision (1929) the Lord’s Prayer, with its introduction, has been placed immediately after the prayer of Consecration.

      The South African Liturgy of 1920 and the English Alternative Order of 1928 are on lines similar to the Scottish and American forms, but have distinctive features of their own.

      (1) Both restore the memorial of the death, resurrection, and ascension (the South African adds the Second Coming) to the position which they occupy in the older liturgies, before the Oblation (instead of after as in 1549, and the Scottish and American rites), though the transposition in 1549 was probably a mere matter of style.

      (2) The Invocation in the English Alternative Order occupies the same position as in the Scottish and American, but it has borrowed elements from both the Prayer Book of 1549 and from the Scottish Liturgy.  The words “With thy Holy Spirit vouchsafe to bless and sanctify ... these thy gifts” are reminiscent of 1549, but the addition of “both us and” before “these ,thy gifts” is derived from the Scottish form, which, however, follows more closely the Eastern rites in praying first in general terms for the descent of the Holy Spirit “upon us and upon these thy gifts,” and then prays simply for the blessing and hallowing of the gifts.  The English form retains the restrictive words (found in the Roman Canon and the Prayer Book of 1549), “that they may be unto us the Body and the Blood,” whereas the Scottish form is again nearer to the Eastern Liturgies in its more unqualified phrasing “that they may become the Body and the Blood.”  In both forms there follows a prayer for the communicants, the English form of which is an impoverished version of that found in the Scottish Liturgy.

      (3) The South African Liturgy has two special features.  It retains the prayer of 1552 (“Hear us”) in its original position, but adds after the Oblation a further prayer, “We ... beseech thee to pour thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these thy gifts, that all we who are partakers of this holy Communion may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood ... and be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction.”  This double prayer finds some sort of parallel in the Liturgy of St. Mark, and a still closer parallel in some Mozarabic forms (see, e.g., Lesly, pp. 5, 229).  It creates a certain redundancy and ambiguity, which has exposed it to criticism, though it has been urged that the latter of the two prayers is a petition, after consecration, for the effusion of the Holy Spirit upon the worshippers and the sacramental gifts, that reception of the Sacrament may be fruitful in blessing.

      The other feature is the wording of the Oblation, which is derived from the Roman Canon and is as follows: “We offer here unto thy Divine Majesty this holy Bread of eternal life and this Cup of everlasting salvation.”  This takes the place of the words (derived from the Prayer Book of 1549) in the Scottish, American and English Alternative Orders: “We ... celebrate ... before thy Divine Majesty with these thy holy gifts the memorial which thy Son hath commanded (or ‘willed’ English Alternative Order) us to make.”  The South African form emphasizes the sacramental character and purpose of the Oblation as the food of the faithful, and leads on to the petition for the sending of the Holy Spirit upon the worshippers and the gifts, that the blessings of Communion may follow on worthy reception.

      The following Table presents the characteristics of each of the four Consecration prayers which have been reviewed, the divergences from the Prayer Book of 1661 alone being noted.

The Communion.

      The structure of the English Communion Service was influenced by the desire of the Reformers to make Communion the prominent aspect of the rite.  The concentration, in the prayer of Consecration, upon the Lord’s words of institution, followed immediately by the act of reception, is one indication of this.  This extreme simplification of the older rite involved, in addition to the changes in the order of the prayers, the omission of the devotions and ceremonies which in the older rite had intervened between the Canon and the Communion.  They included the Lord’s Prayer, with its embolism (Libera nos), the Fraction, the Commixture (or placing of part of the Host into the chalice), the Kiss of Peace, and the Agnus Dei.  Of these the Prayer Book of 1549 retained only the Lord’s Prayer, the salutation (or benediction) “The peace of the Lord be always with you,” and the response “And with thy spirit” (which are a relic of the formularies connected with the Kiss of Peace), and lastly the singing of Agnus Dei during the Communion.  No directions were given in 1549 for the Fraction, though it is referred to in the rubric at the end of the service in reference to the character of the bread to be used.  In this respect the Prayer Book of 1549 followed on the lines of contemporary Lutheran Church Orders.  In Luther’s Latin Mass of 1523, and in Hermann’s Pia Deliberatio, the Pax Domini and the Agnus Dei find a place, as they still do in the modern Swedish rite.

      In the Prayer Book of 1552 the Lord’s Prayer was included among the post-communion prayers and the other directions were omitted.

      The Scottish Liturgy of 1929 has restored “The peace of the Lord” with its response, and has added a short exhortation by the Presbyter, “Brethren, let us love one another, for love is of God,” thus emphasizing the unity and fellowship of the faithful, of which the Kiss of Peace in the older liturgies was an expression.  “The peace of God” with the response is also found in the English Alternative Order of 1928.  But though the Kiss of Peace and the formularies connected with it have disappeared from the English Prayer Book, the ideas suggested by it are emphasized in the Invitation, “Ye that ... are in love and charity with your neighbours ... draw near,” and the words “The peace of God ...” in the final Blessing are reminiscent of the thought expressed in the old Pax Domini.

      In the rubric about the administration, the direction “in” (“into” 1661) “their hands” was added in 1552.  A rubric in the Prayer Book of 1549 retained the mediaeval custom of delivering to the people “the Sacrament of Christ’s Body in their mouths,” and justified it on the ground that “they many times conveyed the same secretly away, and diversely abused it to superstition.”  The change was made at Bucer’s suggestion, and it was a restoration of the earlier universal custom of the Church.

      The direction that communicants are to receive kneeling was a further insertion made in 1552, no direction being given in 1549.  It was aimed at the practice of sitting during reception (which had come in among the advanced reformers), and it was defended against objections in the “Declaration on Kneeling,” which was added by the authority of the Council before the book was published.  The earlier custom was to receive standing, and this is still the custom in the Greek Church.  In England, however, the custom of kneeling had prevailed for some centuries.  No express direction is given as to the posture of the celebrant during reception.  In the seventeenth century the Visitation articles of several bishops show that they understood the rubric to apply to the celebrant as well as to the people, but though Cosin in his Particulars (No. 58) had proposed to insert a direction to that effect, the bishops in 1661, following the Scottish rubric of 1637 (with the substitution of “meekly” for “humbly”), contented themselves with expanding the rubric of 1552, so that it reads “all meekly kneeling”.

      The words of administration assumed their present form in 1559.  They are a combination of the two separate forms of 1549 and 1552.  The first part of each is derived from the Prayer Book of 1549, itself based upon that found in the Order of Communion of 1548 (see above).  It is a slightly expanded version of the Sarum form for the communion of the sick (Maskell, Mon. Rit. Eccl. Angl., i. 114).  In early times the forms of administration were quite simple, “The Body of Christ,” “The Blood of Christ”.  By the time of Gregory the Great the Western form had already been expanded into a benediction, “The Body of Christ preserve thy soul.”

      The latter part of the present words is the form which was substituted in 1552 for that of the First Prayer Book.  It was due to the desire of the extreme reforming party to avoid any identification of the elements with the Body and Blood of Christ, and it bears some resemblance to a form put forth by the Polish reformer, John Laski (Brightman, Eng. Rite, I. lxii).  Considered in itself it lends support to a Zwinglian interpretation, though such interpretation of the service as a whole in the Prayer Book of 1552 is excluded by the language of the prayer of Humble Access and by the Thanksgiving after Communion.  The form in Hermann’s Pia Deliberatio, “Take, eat to thy health the body of the Lord,” “Take and drink to thy health the blood of the Lord,” resembles the opening words, though the rest strikes a different note, and the resemblance may be due to independent use of the New Testament in both cases.

      The union since 1559 of the two forms emphasizes at once the “given-ness” of the Sacrament and the need of conscious reception through faith (Barry, Teachers’ Prayer Book).

      The restoration of Communion in both kinds and the separate administration of them were both provided for in the Order of Communion (1548), and represented a return to earlier and scriptural practice.  The Eastern Church has retained Communion in both kinds, but administers them to the people by intinction, i.e. the species of bread is placed in the chalice, and the two species are thus administered conjointly with a spoon (λαβίς). [The practice of intinction fell into disrepute in the Western Church and was wholly condemned in England by a Synod at Westminster in 1175.]

      The Scottish Liturgy since 1637 has restored the ancient practice of the Church, by which Amen is said by the communicant in response to the words of administration.

      The provision for the consecration of additional bread and wine was inserted in 1661.  The Order of Communion of 1548 made provision only for the consecration of a second or third chalice, and authorized for this purpose the use of the words “Likewise after supper ...”  This was based upon the Sarum cautelae, which were intended to deal with cases of accident or carelessness.  Corresponding directions are given in the Roman Missal.  The earlier practice in the West had been to consecrate the “ministerial chalice” by pouring the contents of the consecrated chalice into a larger chalice filled with common wine, and from this to communicate the people by a reed (Ordo Romanus, I).  Another custom was to consecrate additional wine by pouring it into the consecrated chalice before the latter was empty (Mabillon, Comm. in Ordo Rom., cviii).

      The directions of the Order of Communion of 1548 were omitted in the Prayer Book of 1549, which had required notice to be given by intending communicants.  But in spite of this direction, it was found necessary to guard against the use of unconsecrated elements for Communion, and Canon 21 of 1604 enjoins that “first the words of Institution shall be rehearsed, when the said Bread and Wine be present upon the Communion Table.”  From this Canon were derived the rubrics in the Scottish Liturgy of 1637 and the Prayer Book of 1661.

      This following by the English Prayer Book of the mediaeval precedents for consecration by the words of Institution alone has exposed it to the charge of teaching “consecration by a formula.”  Scudamore, however, suggests that the framers of the English rubric considered that the prayer of Consecration embraces in its intention any subsequent consecration, in virtue of the petition, “Grant that we receiving ...”

      The Scottish Liturgy of 1764, which is here followed by the American Prayer Book, directs, in the case of a second consecration of either kind, the use of the whole of the consecratory form, including Institution, Oblation and Invocation, though in the Scottish revision of 1929 the form includes only the Institution and Invocation.  But in each case the consecration is in both kinds.  The English Alternative Order (1928) permits the consecration of either bread or wine with the words of Institution appropriate to each, but adds in both cases the Invocation.

      The singing of Agnus Dei “in the Communion time” was ordered in 1549, and sentences of Scripture, “to be said or sung, every day one” after the Communion, were also provided.  These latter represent the Communio, a survival of the psalm sung during Communion, which is mentioned and justified by St. Augustine as a custom coming into vogue in his time in Africa, and is found still earlier in the East, Psalm mill (xxxiv) being used at Jerusalem in the time of Cyril and also in the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions.

      The Agnus Dei was introduced as a form of Eucharistic devotion, [The earliest recorded instance of its use at Rome is connected with the name of the Greek-speaking Pope Sergius (687–701).] to be sung while the Fraction was proceeding.  But with the decline of Communion the Fraction was only that of the single Host, and so the singing of the Agnus Dei overlapped the Communion of the priest, and the Communio followed.  Hence arose the title post-communio which was already so used in the thirteenth century (Durandus), and explains the term “post-communion” applied to it in the Prayer Book of 1549.

      The restoration of Agnus Dei was included in the changes proposed in the Durham Book in 1661, but the suggestion was not accepted.  The singing of it, however, has become common in recent times and was recognized as legitimate by the Lincoln Judgment, on the ground that as a hymn it has the same position as other hymns during Divine Service.  It has been restored in the Scottish Liturgy of 1929.

      The rubric about the disposal of the consecrated elements after Communion was inserted in 1661.  It first appears in the Scottish Liturgy of 1637, though without the word “reverently,” which, as Scudamore says, shows that the purpose of the rubric is to guard against irreverence.  The “fair linen cloth” with which the sacrament is to be covered, and to which the Scottish Liturgy of 1637 gives the alternative name of “corporal,” is the second corporal (for which in modern times is often substituted the stiff Pall) or the Chalice veil, the other being that which is spread upon the holy table.

The Thanksgiving.

      In the Prayer Book of 1549 after the Communion the service comes speedily to an end, with a thanksgiving and the Blessing.  This followed the traditional use.  In the oldest form of the Roman Mass there is only a Collect, followed at once by the dismissal (Ite, missa est, “Depart, there is a dismissal”).  The variable post-communion Collect (post-communio or ad complendum) was generally a prayer for grace and perseverance.  A second prayer (ad populum or super populum) is sometimes found in the Roman service books, though in the Gregorian Sacramentary this is mostly limited to the time between Septuagesima and Easter, and in the present Roman Missal is found only on weekdays in Lent.

      This older order of prayer is characteristic of the restraint of the old Roman Liturgy.  The idea underlying it is that the climax of the service is reached in the act of Communion, and that anything beyond a short prayer for grace and perseverance is of the nature of an anticlimax.  But as Communion declined, and the people present at mass were mainly non-communicants, it became customary to add a blessing.  This was originally given by the bishop as he went out, and then later the practice was extended to priests.  This final blessing is not found in English Missals before the Reformation, though it appears in the edition of the Roman Missal printed in 1474.  On the other hand, the Eastern rites contain a blessing (or Prayer of Inclination) before the dismissal.

      In contrast with these forms, the English Order drawn up in 1552 marks a striking and original development in the English rite.  The Communion leads on to fresh acts not only of thanksgiving but of adoration.  The note sounded in the Sursum corda is taken up again in the Lord’s Prayer (to which the doxology is added), the Thanksgiving, and the Gloria in excelsis, which is now transferred from its older place at the beginning of ;he service to this point.  Those who have shared the blessings of the heavenly feast join in the worship of Him that sitteth upon the throne and of the Lamb.  Interesting parallels to this development have been adduced from Zwingli’s Zurich Liturgy and other reformed rites, in which, though the presence of Christ is dissociated from the elements, the worship of the Lamb “present to the contemplation of faith” finds a place (Lockton, Treatment of the Remains in the Eucharist, ch. xiii. “The worship of the Lamb”).

      This concluding section of the service is introduced by the Lord’s Prayer.  In the Eastern and Western Liturgies the Lord’s Prayer precedes the Communion, and from the time of Tertullian and Cyprian the clause “Give us this day our daily bread” was used as a prayer for spiritual sustenance with special reference to the Eucharist.  The transference of the prayer to its present position in 1552 marked a break with this older and general tradition, though it has been defended on the ground that, when the communicants have been hallowed and blest by union with Christ in the Sacrament, they can then most fitly exercise the right of children and address God as “Our Father” in the prayer which Christ has taught them.  In most of the later revisions of the English rite (Scottish since 1637; American (1929); South African; English Alternative Order (1928)) the prayer has been restored to its traditional place before Communion with the old introduction, “As our Saviour Christ,” etc.

      The doxology at the close of the Lord’s Prayer is only found in four places in the English Prayer Book, the other three being after the Absolution at Morning and Evening Prayer, in the Thanksgiving of Women after Childbirth, and in the Forms of Prayer to be used at Sea.  It was added in the first three places in 1661, when the Forms of Prayer to be used at Sea were also inserted in the Prayer Book.  The addition may have been made in deference to the request of the Presbyterian divines (Cardwell, Conferences, p. 314), though it had already appeared in the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637, where, however, the Lord’s Prayer precedes the Communion.  In the English Prayer Book the doxology has a special appropriateness, in that the prayer forms part of the thanksgiving after Communion.  At the same time it needs to be remembered that the doxology forms no part of the original text of the Lord’s Prayer, but is a liturgical addition first found in the Didache (the date of which has been assigned to various periods between A.D. 100–160).  It finds a place in most of the Eastern liturgies, though it is not found in any Latin service book.

      Lastly, it may be noticed that the Prayer Book directs the people to join with the priest in the Lord’s Prayer, “repeating after him every petition”.  In the Prayer Book of 1549 (following the Latin rite) the priest said the prayer, the people only repeating the last clause and the Amen.  The present direction, dating from 1552, is in accord with the Eastern and Gallican usage.

      The former of the two alternative prayers which follow the Lord’s Prayer consists of an abbreviated form of the Oblation which in the Prayer Book of 1549 followed without a break the recital of the institution.  In that form it was an adaptation of the language of the old canon to a conception of the Eucharistic sacrifice which was intended to correct the abuses of later mediaeval religion.  It represented it as a commemoration of our Lord’s Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension, as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for the blessings of redemption, and as the offering of the Church in the persons of its members, the “reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice” of “ourselves, our souls and bodies”.  It concluded with a prayer (based on the Supplices te of the Latin Canon) that God would “command these our prayers and supplications, by the ministry of thy holy Angels, to be brought up into thy holy Tabernacle before the sight of thy divine majesty, not weighing our merits but pardoning our offences.”

      In the prayer as rearranged and curtailed in 1552 the actual verbal expression of the commemorative Oblation (“We do celebrate and make ... before thy divine majesty the memorial”) has been omitted, together with the commemoration of the “blessed passion, mighty resurrection and glorious ascension,” and some other phrases which were unsuitable to its position as a post-communion prayer.  But in its present form it still emphasizes, like the form of 1549, the two aspects of the Eucharistic offering as a “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” and as the self-oblation of the worshippers.  The term “sacrifice of praise” (Heb. 13:15, Lev. 7:12, etc.) is found constantly in a Eucharistic sense in the prayers of the Latin sacramentaries, and occurs in the Roman Canon in the Memento Domine.  The sense in which Cranmer interpreted it is shown in his answer to Bishop Gardiner’s book (Parker Society, p. 346) where he says: “Another kind of sacrifice there is which doth not reconcile us to God, but is made of them that be reconciled by Christ, to testify our duties unto God, and to show ourselves thankful unto him.  And therefore they be called sacrifices of laud, praise, and thanksgiving.  The first kind of sacrifice Christ offered to God for us: the second kind we ourselves offer to God by Christ.  By the first kind of sacrifice Christ offered also us unto his Father; and by the second we offer ourselves and all that we have unto him and his Father.”  The position of the prayer after, instead of before, Communion, emphasizes the fact that it is in and through communion with Christ the Head that the Church, the mystical Body of Christ, offers itself to the Father.  The idea is common in the writings of St. Augustine.  “If you have received well, you are what you have received. ... He willed that we ourselves should be his sacrifice.” [Serm. 227.  Prof. Burkitt (Eucharist and Sacrifice, p. 22) says of this prayer in the book of 1552: “Cranmer turned the Mass into a Communion, but the words of his Office show that in so doing he was not abolishing the Sacrifice, but only transforming it.”]

      The prayer retains many of the reminiscences of the language of the Latin Canon which Cranmer had worked into the original prayer of 1549.  The words “We thy humble servants ... desire thy fatherly goodness ... to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” recall the words supplices rogamus ... uti accepta habeas and sacrificium laudis of the old Canon; the clause “all we who are partakers of this holy Communion may be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction” is partly a paraphrase and partly a rendering of the corresponding clause in the Supplices te; the words “accept this our bounden duty and service” are an echo of hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostrae ... quesumus ut ... accipias; lastly, the words “not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences” reproduce the words of the Nobis quoque.

      The second of the two alternative prayers was composed in 1549, though a few verbal changes have been made in the revisions of 1552 and 1661.  In the book of 1549 it was the only post-communion prayer, and was preceded by the salutation “The Lord be with you,” etc.  The opening words are an adaptation of the Sarum prayer said by the priest after his communion, though it exhibits some parallels to Hermann’s form.  The prayer dwells upon two aspects of the sacrament as (a) the gift of spiritual food, (b) the pledge of incorporation in the mystical body of Christ, “which is the blessed company of all faithful people” (an idea based on 1 Cor. 10:17, and finding parallels in Eastern and Western liturgical prayers). [A Western example is the prayer “We beseech thee ... that we may be numbered amongst the members of him of whose body and blood we are partakers” (Leonine Sacr., ed. Feltoe, p. 142; Gregorian, ed. Wilson, p. 38; Gelasian, ed. Wilson, p. 18).  For the East cf. St. Mark, “By the participation of thy ... body and ... blood ... unite us to the most blessed company of those who have been well-pleasing to thee” (Brightman, L.E.W., 142, 21–22; for St. Basil see ibid., 406, 14–22).]  It concludes with a prayer for continuance in that holy fellowship and for perseverance in good works.

      The Gloria in excelsis is a Greek hymn which is found (with the title “morning hymn”) among the Canticles at the end of the Psalter in the Codex Alexandrinus (fifth century).  It appears in a manipulated form in the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 47) in the last quarter of the fourth century, and is alluded to in the treatise De Virginitate, a work of uncertain authorship, attributed to Athanasius.  How much earlier than this the hymn was composed the evidence does not enable us to say.  It has been used for centuries in the daily office of the Eastern Church, and was appointed for use at Mattins in the Rule of Caesarius of Arles († A.D. 542).  Its use in the Mass is peculiar to the West.  Two traditions as to its use in the West are found in the Liber Pontificalis.  According to one its introduction into the Roman rite was due to Pope Telesphorus († 139), who appointed it to be used at Mass on Christmas night.  The other asserts that Pope Symmachus (498–514) ordered its use on every Lord’s Day and on feasts of martyrs.  To the earlier statement little credence can be given, though it is possible that it may refer simply to the opening words (Luke 2:14) and not to the whole hymn. [See the discussion of this evidence of the Liber Pontificalis by Gibson in Church Quarterly Review, Vol. xxi. (Oct. 1885), pp. 9 f.]  The words of Luke 2:14 find a place in some Eastern liturgies, and the Nestorian Liturgy of Adai and Mari begins with these words.  The tradition about Pope Symmachus rests on surer ground, as it is probably the evidence of a contemporary (Duchesne), and agrees with the Gregorian Sacramentary, which directs the hymn to be used, if the bishop be present, on the Lord’s Day and on festivals, though priests may only use it at Easter.  This restriction on its use by priests had been removed by the twelfth century, if not before (Scudamore).  In the Missal it was omitted in Advent and from Septuagesima to Easter Eve.  The Prayer Book of 1549 permitted its omission on workdays (cf. above), and the same permission has been restored in the English Alternative Order (1928).

      Among the more important variations of the text of the hymn the following may be noted :

      (1) For “God on high” the Scottish Liturgy (since 1764), following the Greek version, reads “God in the highest” (cf. Luke 2:14).

      (2) “Goodwill towards men” replaces the rendering of the Vulgate and Latin service books, “to men of good will”.  The text of Luke 2:14 presents both variants, but in any case it is God’s good pleasure or good purpose in redemption which is meant.

      (3) The Codex Alexandrinus reads, “O Lord, the only begotten Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost,” thus making the section a full commemoration of the Trinity, while the second part of the hymn opens with an address to the Son.  The same addition is found in some Irish sources, in the offices of the Greek Church, and in the Church Order of Zurich (1529).  With this addition the hymn falls into three divisions: (1) hymn to the Trinity, (2) hymn to Christ, (3) final ascription of praise to the Trinity.  The Scottish Liturgy (since 1764) has adopted this addition, and gives the following rendering of this portion of the hymn.  “We give thanks to thee ... God the Father Almighty; and to thee, O God, the only begotten Son Jesu Christ; and to thee, O God, the Holy Ghost.”

      (4) The additional clause, “Thou that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us,” was inserted in 1552.  Its origin is uncertain, though a repetition of the words “have mercy upon us” is found in the Codex Alexandrinus, and, as Dr. Brightman suggests, the words may have occurred in some text available to the revisers of the Prayer Book.  The clause has been omitted in the Scottish Liturgy since 1755, and in the American Prayer Book of 1929.  But the addition, as Scudamore says, “adds much to the solemn deprecatory character” of the hymn, whatever its origin.

      The traditional position of the Gloria in excelsis after the Kyries at the beginning of the Mass was retained by Luther in his Latin Mass, by Hermann in the Pia Deliberatio, and also in the Prayer Book of 1549.  The hymn commemorates not only the birth of Christ, but His glory as the ascended Lord, the Lamb of God standing in the midst of the throne; and the transference of it to the close of the service is an original feature of the English rite, the significance of which has already been discussed (see above).  This position of the Gloria in excelsis has been retained in all subsequent revisions of the English rite.  On the alternation of praise and penitence see above.

      The Blessing, composed in 1549, consists of two clauses.  The former (based on Phil. 4:7) is found in the Order of Communion (1548) after the administration, where it marks the dismissal of the communicants from the altar. [Lockton (Treatment of the Remains at the Eucharist, pp. 172 f.) adduces as parallels the use of the Pax after the Communion of the sick in some MSS. of the Gregorian Sacramentary.]  The second clause recalls the language of some of the Episcopal benedictions, which in the mediaeval English service are found between the Lord’s Prayer and the Pax Domini, e.g. that found in Lacey’s Pontifical (p. 153), with which it is almost identical.  It is also closely parallel to the final blessing found in Hermann’s Pia Deliberatio, except that it substitutes “you” for “us”.

Supplementary Collects and Final Rubrics.

      The rubric which follows the Blessing gives directions about the six Collects which are provided for occasional use.  The first part of the rubric, according to which they are to be said “after the Offertory, when there is no Communion, every such day one,” is derived from the Prayer Book of 1549.  In that book the prayer for the Church had not yet been removed to its present position.  When the place of the prayer was changed, the rubric remained unaltered, but the sense in which it is to be understood is shown by the first of the final rubrics, which directs that one or more of these Collects is to be said after the prayer for the Church.  The further provision for the use of the Collects after the Collects of Morning or Evening Prayer, Communion, or Litany was added in 1552.

      The first Collect is found in a Missa pro iter agentibus in the Sarum Use, and is derived from the Gelasian Sacramentary.  The second occurs after the reading of the Martyrology following Prime.  The fourth is Gregorian and was used in the Sarum Missal as the fifth Collect for the second Saturday in Lent.  The other three were composed for the Prayer Book of 1549.

      The first of the rubrics which follow provides the order of service to be used on days when there is no Communion.  This and the next three rubrics have already been dealt with incidentally in the note on “Non-Communicating attendance” (see above). [The third rubric, which fixes the number of communicants, has been dealt with in various ways in later revisions of the Anglican rite.  The Scottish and American liturgies omit it, though the Scottish revision of 1929 inserts a new rubric directing that “at every celebration of Holy Communion reasonable opportunity to communicate shall be given to the people who wish to do so.”  The Non-jurors’ Liturgy and the Irish and Canadian Prayer Books fix the minimum as “two at least”; the South African as “at least one”.  The English Alternative Order (1928) omits the rubric, but inserts a new one.  “It is much to be desired that at every celebration of the Lord’s Supper the worshippers present, not being reasonably hindered, will communicate with the Priest.”]

      The fifth rubric, inserted in 1552, is a modification of the rubric of 1549, which had enjoined the use of unleavened bread “without all manner of print, and something more larger and thicker than it was.”  The object of the present rubric, as is shown by the words “it shall suffice,” was not to suppress, but to relax the requirement of unleavened bread, by allowing the use of “the best and purest wheat bread that conveniently may be gotten.”  This interpretation of the rubric was given by Archbishop Parker in his correspondence.  The Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth (1559) endeavoured unsuccessfully to enforce the directions of 1549, and the use of ordinary bread became common, though the legitimacy of either was recognized by the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637 and was debated during the revision of 1661.  Explicit recognition is given to both in the Scottish Liturgy of 1929 and the English Alternative Order of 1928.  The use of leavened or unleavened bread is one of the points of diversity between the Eastern and Western Churches.

      The sixth rubric, inserted in 1661, was borrowed from the Scottish Liturgy of 1637, and deals with the disposal of the bread and wine which remain.  It distinguishes between the consecrated and the unconsecrated bread and wine, a distinction which had not been drawn in the earlier rubric of 1552, the direction in that book being simply that “if any of the bread and wine remain, the Curate shall have it to his own use.”  The further provision that the consecrated bread and wine shall not be taken out of the church, but shall be reverently consumed by the priest and the communicants, was intended to guard against irreverence.  For the bearing of this rubric on the practice of reservation for the sick see below, “The Communion of the Sick.”

      The seventh and ninth rubrics deal with the provision of the bread and wine for the Communion, and with the disposal of the money given at the Offertory.

      The eighth rubric prescribes as a minimum rule that “every parishioner shall communicate at the least three times in the year, of which Easter to be one.”  This was a return to the earlier rule current in the West and in England before the Lateran Council of 1215, which reduced the minimum to one Communion a year.  This latter rule continued until the Reformation and finds expression in the Prayer Book of 1549.  The present rubric dates from 1552.

      The “Declaration on Kneeling” was due to the agitation of John Knox against the practice.  It was inserted in the Book of 1552 by Order of the Council after many copies had been printed off.  In its original form it denied that “adoration is intended ... unto any real and essential presence there being of Christ’s natural flesh and blood.”  It was omitted in the Prayer Book of 1559, but owing to the request of the Presbyterian divines at the Savoy Conference, and in spite of the earlier statement of the bishops that there was not “any great need of restoring it, the world being now in more danger of profanation than of idolatry,” it was replaced with an important modification, the words “corporal presence” being substituted for “real and essential presence.”

      The phraseology of the Declaration reflects the confused language which had become common among disputants in all parties during the Reformation period, when the careful distinctions drawn by the Schoolmen between the manner of Christ’s presence in heaven and the manner of His presence in the Sacrament had become obscured or forgotten, and there was a general failure to recognize the changed conditions of the Lord’s body after the resurrection and ascension.  The phrase “natural body and blood” was used by Ridley to express the identity of the body of Christ in the Sacrament with the body which was born of the Virgin Mary and which ascended into heaven; and his difference from his opponents was concerned only with the mode of the presence (see Ridley’s statement, Works, Parker Society, p. 274).  Similarly, the terms “real” and “corporal” are used with varying meanings.  Ridley, in the statement referred to above, accepts “really” as applied to the sacramental mode of presence, if it is interpreted to mean “spiritually, by grace and efficacy,” but denies it in the sense of his opponents (loc. cit., p. 273).  Similarly, Gardiner (Cranmer, On the Lord’s Supper, Parker Society, p. 89) says that “corporal” may mean either “the truth of the body present” or presence “after a corporal manner,” and this latter he denies.

      In its original form the Declaration was intended to reassure the extreme Reformers who disliked the practice of kneeling at reception.  When taken in connection with other changes in the service of 1552 (e.g. the words of administration, “Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee”) it would seem that the denial of “any real and essential presence ... of Christ’s natural flesh and blood” was intended to be acceptable to those who denied that the consecrated sacrament is the body and blood of Christ in any but a figurative sense.  Dr. Darwell Stone (Hist. of Doctrine of Holy Eucharist, ii. 142), while showing that by stressing the word “natural” and the scholastic distinction between the mode of Christ’s presence in heaven and His presence in the Sacrament, the Declaration might be construed differently, concludes that in view of the opinions of the revisers, the character of the changes made in the Book of 1552, and the purpose with which the Declaration was inserted, it is incredible that it was intended to have any other meaning than “a denial ... that the consecrated Sacrament is the body and blood of Christ.”

      The word “corporal,” which was substituted for “real and essential” in 1661, had already been used in the Canons of 1640, where “any opinion of a corporal presence” is disavowed in connection with kneeling at reception.  While the change of wording is intended to deny the gross and carnal conceptions of the presence which had grown up around the doctrine of Transubstantiation, it allows for the recognition of a real but spiritual presence, such as Article XXVIII recognizes when it says that “the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner” – a statement which replaces the earlier denial, in the Articles of 1552 and 1553, of “the real and bodily presence (as they term it)” of Christ’s flesh and blood in the Sacrament.

      On the practice of Kneeling at Communion see ante, and on the Fast before Communion see above, Fasting and Abstinence.

NOTE

The Eucharist with special intentions.

      The sense of the unity and fellowship of the faithful in the one Body of Christ was a marked characteristic of the early Church, and of this fellowship the celebration of the Eucharist was at once the symbol and the pledge.  Hence we find the Eucharist brought into relation with the great moments of life – baptism, marriage, sickness and death.  “If one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honoured, all the members rejoice with it.”  In the admission of a new convert to full membership of the Church, baptism, confirmation, and communion formed the three parts of one complete rite.  The marriage rite was sanctified by the blessing of the Church and by participation in the Eucharist.  The same interest in all its members led to the sending of the Eucharist to the sick.  Nor was death regarded as severing the fellowship of the living with the departed members of the Church, the commemoration of the latter being accompanied by the celebration of the Eucharist

      In the present note it will suffice to indicate briefly the developments associated with the celebration of the Eucharist in connection with (1) marriage, (2) the burial and commemoration of the departed, (3) other special intentions.

      1.  Marriage.  For the ante-Nicene period we have the evidence of Tertullian (Ad Uxor., ii. 9), who speaks of the “happiness of the marriage, which is arranged by the Church, confirmed by the oblation, and sealed by the blessing.”  The celebration of the Eucharist took the place of the sacrifice in the pagan form of the rite.  At a later period Pope Nicholas I (858–867), in his reply to the Bulgarians (c. 3), speaks of the offerings which the newly married ought to make to God by the hand of the priest, and of the Blessing.  The earliest Roman Sacramentaries correspond with this description.  In the Leonine Sacramentary (Feltoe, pp. 140 f.) there are proper Collects and a proper Hanc igitur, in which the oblation is made on behalf of the bride.  The Nuptial Blessing, which in its original form was probably Eucharistic in character, beginning Uere dignum et iustum est, is preceded by a Collect.

      The Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries present similar features, proper Collect, Secreta (super oblata), Hanc igitur, and Post-communion being provided, and also a Collect and Blessing before the Pax.  The Gelasian Sacramentary explicitly directs in a rubric the Communion of the newly married persons, and similar directions are given in the Mozarabic Liber Ordinum (ed. Férotin, p. 439) and in forms of the rite printed by Menard (Sacr. Greg., p. 287) and by Martène (De ant. eccl. rit., ii. 614 f.).

      In the later Roman rite there is a further Blessing after the Ite missa est.  Since 1914 the Congregation of Rites has permitted the use of the Nuptial Blessing (which had hitherto formed part of the Nuptial Mass) in a slightly altered form, even when no mass is said (Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, 10th ed., 1928).

      In the Greek Euchologion the Office of Matrimony consists of two parts, the Betrothal and the Crowning, and these are not of necessity performed on the same day.  The opening rubric of the service for the Betrothal speaks of it as taking place “after the Divine Liturgy” (Goar, Euchol., p. 310), but in actual practice marriages are usually celebrated independently of the Liturgy, and in the evening.  Goar, however (p. 324), quotes a rubric from earlier manuscript sources, and also evidence supplied by Symeon, Metropolitan of Thessalonica from 1410 to 1429, to the effect that newly married persons received the Communion of the Presanctified (i.e. from the gifts previously consecrated and reserved), though Symeon implies that this was only on condition that they were fit to receive, which, he says, they ought to be ready to do, “in order that they may be worthily crowned and rightly wedded.”

      In the Sarum Use the Mass of Trinity Sunday is appointed, a proper Collect, Secreta, and Post-communion being added to those of Trinity Sunday.  The Epistle (1 Cor. 6:19–20), the Gospel (St. Matt. 19:3–6) and the Sequence are suited to the occasion.  The Gospel in the York Missal is St. John 3:27–29.  Before the Pax there are a Collect and the Nuptial Blessing (both Gregorian).  There is nothing in the Sarum Use corresponding to the Blessing after the Ite missa est, which occurs in the Roman rite, though the York and Hereford Uses both have a special Blessing with the chalice at that point.

      The Sarum Use also prescribes after Mass a blessing of bread and wine, of which the newly married persons partake, the prayer used making reference to the blessing of the five loaves in the wilderness and to the water-pots in Cana of Galilee.  Similar directions are found in several of the Ordines printed in Martène (De ant. eccl. rit., ii. pp. 617 f, 620 f., 627 E, etc.).  A corresponding feature in the Greek rite is the blessing of a cup of wine, of which the newly married persons partake, as a sign of joy and their association in a common life.

      In the First Edwardian Prayer Book the provisions of the Sarum Use were greatly reduced.  No proper Collect, Epistle, and Gospel are appointed, but a rubric directs that the newly married persons must receive the Holy Communion on the day of their marriage.  The old Nuptial Blessing is represented by the prayer “O God, which by thy mighty power,” but the prayer was detached from its original setting at the close of the Canon of the Mass, and placed before the final blessing in the Marriage Service, which the celebration of Holy Communion was intended to follow.  The prayer is based upon the old Gregorian prayer, and it is no longer a blessing upon the bride alone, but includes the bridegroom also.

      In 1662 the rubric directing that the newly-married persons are to receive the Holy Communion was altered partly in deference to the objections of the Presbyterian divines and partly because many of those who were married were not in real communion with the Church.  In its present form, while relaxing the obligation, it upholds the earlier ideal by its declaration that it is “convenient” (i.e. fitting) “that the newly married persons should receive the holy Communion at the time of their Marriage or at the first opportunity after their Marriage.”

      In recent revisions of the Anglican rite efforts have been made to redress the inadequacy of the provision made in 1662 for the celebration of the Eucharist in connection with the marriage rite.  The Canadian and Scottish Prayer Books provide a proper Collect (“O heavenly Father, who didst join”), which is partly reminiscent of one of the Sarum Collects.  In both books the Epistle is Eph. 5:25–33, and the Gospel St. Matt. 19:4–6 (Sarum).  The American Prayer Book (1929) has the same Epistle and Gospel as the above, though the Collect is new.  Lastly, the English Alternative Form (1928) provides a proper Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, the Epistle being Eph. 3:14–19, and the Gospel St. John 15:9–12.  A further rubric, due to the desire to bring the Nuptial Blessing into closer connection with the Eucharist, directs that, if there be a Communion, the Prayer and Blessing, which are appointed at the conclusion of the Marriage Service, should be said before the final blessing of the congregation at the Communion.

      2.  The Burial and commemoration of the departed.  Evidence for the celebration of the Eucharist at the commemoration of departed members of the Church is supplied from two different quarters during the first half of the third century.  In Africa Tertullian and Cyprian speak of the offerings made for the departed and the sacrifices celebrated for their “repose” and of the prayers offered for their “refreshment” and that they may obtain “a part in the first resurrection”. [Tertullian, De Cor., 3; De Monogam., so; Cyprian, Ep. i. (lxvi.) 2.  The words dormitio (“repose,” or “falling asleep”), refrigerium (“refreshment”) are used in an early and simple sense.]  These references have specially in view the commemorations on the anniversaries of their deaths.  In the case of martyrs these anniversaries were of a festal character and were known as natalitia (“birthdays”). [Tert., De Cor., 3; Cyprian, Ep. xxxix. (xxxiv.) 3.]  Like the corresponding commemorations shortly to be mentioned, they probably took place in the cemeteries.  A second piece of evidence is supplied by the Didascalia, a Syrian work of the third century (whether in the first or second half of the century is a disputed question), in which we find the injunction (vi. 2, ed. Connolly, p. 252), “Offer an acceptable Eucharist both in your congregations and in your cemeteries and on the departures of them that sleep ... and without doubting pray and offer for them that are fallen asleep.”

      So far there is no positive evidence of the celebration of the Eucharist in connection with the actual burial.  Evidence of this, however, is supplied at a later date by Eusebius (Vita Constantini, iv. 71).  Describing the burial rites of Constantine in the Church of the Apostles at Constantinople, he says that “he was honoured by the performance of the sacred ordinances and mystic liturgy.”  Similarly, Augustine (Conf., ix. 12) records that before the burial of his mother Monica in A.D. 387, “the sacrifice of our redemption was offered for the departed, as is the custom there.”  We have not sufficient evidence to say that the custom was general, and even in Africa there were recognized exceptions to it.  The third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), following an earlier Council at Hippo, in a regulation about the fast before Communion, directs that “if the commendation of deceased persons, whether bishops or others, is to take place in the afternoon, it is to be celebrated with prayers only, if they who celebrate it are found already to have broken their fast” (Can. 29).

      The Roman Sacramentaries provide a series of masses for the departed not only on the day of burial, but also for anniversaries and in the cemeteries. [See Leonine Sacr. xxxiii. (Feltoe, p. 145); Gelasian, III. xcii–cv; Gregorian (ed. Wilson, H. B. S.), pp. 142–3, and in Supplement, ibid. pp. 213 f., 215 f. (anniversary), 217 (in cemeteries).]  In the Gelasian Sacramentary (though these masses contain non-Roman material) provision is made in one mass (III. cv., Wilson, p. 312) for its use not only on the day of burial, but also on the third, seventh, and thirtieth days, and on the yearly anniversary.  Similarly in the Apostolic Constitutions (viii. 42) provision is made for the third, ninth, and fortieth days.  Similar provision for the third, ninth, and fortieth days is found in the Novellae of Justinian (cxxxiii. 3) in the East, and in the Penitential of Theodore in the West.  For parallel pagan observances see Bingham, Orig. Eccl., Bk. xxiii. 3. 19.

      While in the West the Requiem Mass [So called from the opening words of the Officium (or Introit), “Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine.”] became a regular part of the rites of burial, in the Eastern Church custom has varied.  In the Greek Orthodox Church the celebration of the Liturgy is not included among the rites of burial.  Memorial services are held on the third, ninth, and fortieth days after burial, and also at intervals of three, nine and twelve months, those on the fortieth day and on the yearly anniversary being generally preceded by the Liturgy.  Among the Russian Orthodox it is the custom to celebrate the Liturgy before the rites of burial (though these latter may take place without it), and also on the third, ninth, and fortieth days.  The Liturgy is followed by the Pannykhida (an Office for the faithful departed).  The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is used, with special Epistle, Gospel, Litany and prayer.  The Contakion of the departed is sung after the Little Entrance; and the prokeimenon before the Epistle and the Anthem during the communion of the clergy are also specially chosen. [I am indebted for information on these usages to the kindness of the Very Rev. Michael Constantinides and the Rev. Vladimir Theokritoff.]

      The original idea underlying these commemorations was the natural wish of those left behind to maintain their union with their departed relations and friends, and of this union the Eucharistic fellowship was the deepest expression.  The earliest prayers offered for the departed recognize that death is no barrier to this inner communion, and that as the faithful departed have not yet attained their perfect consummation, it is legitimate to commend them to the mercy of God.  Hence prayers for “repose,” “refreshment,” “light,” and “peace,” and also for cleansing, forgiveness and sanctification find a place in the early Liturgies of East and West.  By the fourth century, however, we find in Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. Myst., v. 9), indications of a more definite conception of the Eucharistic sacrifice as propitiatory in character.  Speaking of the prayer for the departed in the Great Intercession of the Liturgy, he refers to the benefit which accrues to those for whom such supplication is offered in the presence of “the holy and awful sacrifice”.  “When we offer to him our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners, ... we offer Christ sacrificed for our sins, and make propitiation on their behalf and ours to the loving God.”  Similarly in the West Augustine, while expressing the belief that the dead are aided by the prayers of the Church and the “saving sacrifice,” and the alms which are offered on behalf of their spirits, propounded a conception of the Eucharistic sacrifice as propitiatory, which was developed later by Gregory the Great, and helped to foster the belief that masses for the dead are specially beneficial in winning for the departed remission of sin or alleviation of their lot. [For Augustine see De An. et Orig., ii. 15.21; Enchir., 110; Serm. 172. 2; for Gregory see Dial., iv. 39 f.]

      In both East and West before Augustine there was speculation on the condition of the departed and the discipline and purification which awaited imperfect and sinful souls hereafter.  But there was no one consistent form of teaching on the subject.  Later Eastern theologians as a whole, [The Synod of Bethlehem (1672), under Roman influence, went further in the direction of the later Western view than most Eastern theologians have approved.] while rejecting Origen’s view of a remedial purgatory for impenitent souls after the resurrection, have maintained a reserve on the subject, and confine themselves to teaching that the departed are benefited by the prayers and Eucharists of the Church.  In the West Augustine in this, as in many other respects, gave a direction to later thought, and (though guarding his language by the words “it may be true”) threw out the suggestion of a purgatorial fire of discipline and punishment to which souls who, in spite of sins and failings, have retained a living faith, may be subject between death and judgment. [Enarr. in Ps. 37:3; De Fide et Op., xv. 24 f.; Enchir., 67 f.; De Civ. Dei, xxi. 13, 16, 24.]  What Augustine stated as a speculation Gregory the Great affirmed to be a matter of belief (Dial., iv. 39), and the popularity of his Dialogues, in which he records visions illustrating the benefit accruing to souls in purgatory from the masses offered on their behalf, was, along with the writings of Augustine, largely responsible for the shaping of the later popular conception of purgatory as a state mainly of penal suffering.

      One result of these developments is that the liturgical prayers of the Western Church in connection with the rites for the dead are marked by a more somber tone than those of the Eastern Church, and the thought of sin and its punishment occupies a larger place.  This is especially true of the Spanish liturgical books (Mozarabic Missal and Liber Ordinum), of the non-Roman sections of the Gelasian Sacramentary, and also of the Bobbio Missal. [For the Gelasian Sacramentary see Wilson, pp. 295–299 (probably of Gallican or Irish origin).  For the Bobbio Missal see the Missa pro defunctis (ed. Lowe, H.B.S., p. 162).]

      The actual prayers, however, in the masses for the dead in the Roman Sacramentaries betray no trace of the popular belief in purgatory, though we find in them language of a propitiatory character applied to the Eucharistic offering. [In this connection the influence of 2 Macc. 12:43–45 must be borne in mind.  It is referred to by Augustine, De Cura pro Mat. gerenda, i. 1. 3, and occurs as a prophetical lesson in the Sarum (as in the Roman) Mass for anniversaries of the dead.]  The prayers in the series of masses for the dead in the Sarum Missal are largely derived from the Roman Sacramentaries and reflect their general character.  They express the Christian hope in no uncertain manner, and ask for refreshment, rest eternal, light and peace, the fellowship of the Saints, and the joy of the resurrection.  Prayers for pardon and deliverance from sins are common.  As in the Roman Sacramentaries, we find applied to the Eucharistic offering the phrase “sacrifice of propitiation” along with “sacrifice of praise,” and language is used which might easily be hardened into a theory that each mass constitutes a distinct sacrifice for sin. [See, e.g., Legg, Sarum Missal, p. 439: “satisfaciat ... pro anima ... sacrificii praesentis oblatio”; ib. 411: per haec placationis officia perpetuam misericordiam consequantur” (for the originals of these prayers see Gelasian Sacr. III. xcviii; Greg. Sacr. cvii; Gel. III. c.).  Elsewhere there is a recognition of the unity of the offering with the sacrifice of Christ; ib. 439: “ab omnibus uitiis condicionis humanae haec absoluat oblatio quae etiam totius mundi tulit offensas.”]  But apart from one or two isolated prayers they exhibit no trace of the popular doctrine of purgatory. [The Post-communion in the Trigintale B. Gregorii (Legg, p. 460) is perhaps the nearest approach to language suggestive of purgatory.]  It was this popular doctrine, as developed later on in the chantry system and the traffic in masses, which provoked the reaction of the Reformers against the whole system of masses for the dead, and led them to protest against any forms of prayer or commemoration which seemed to impair the “one perfect and sufficient sacrifice of Christ.”

      In the First Edwardian Book, though there was a drastic revision of the mediaeval observances in connection with the burial and commemoration of the dead, a celebration of the Holy Communion was retained.  The Introit was Ps. 42; the Collect, “O merciful God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (though with a different ending from the present Collect); the Epistle, 1 Thess. 4:13–18; and the Gospel, St. John 6:37–40.  Both Epistle and Gospel are derived from the Sarum Missal.  In 1552 even this limited provision was removed from the Prayer Book.  But the omission of any form for a celebration at burials created a need which there were various attempts to satisfy.  In 1560 Queen Elizabeth put forth, by letters patent, a Latin Prayer Book, authorized for use in the Universities and in the Colleges of Winchester and Eton, and to this was appended a Latin form for a “Celebration of the Lord’s Supper at funerals, if the friends and neighbours of the deceased persons wish to communicate.”  The Collect, Epistle and Gospel are those of the first Edwardian Book (see Liturg. Services of Queen Elizabeth, Parker Society, pp. 430 f.).

      Recent revisions of the Anglican rite have dealt with the omission (since 1552) from the Prayer Book of any provision for a celebration of Holy Communion at the Burial of the Dead.  The Prayer Book Collect in the form which it has taken since 1552 finds a place in most of these revisions, though the American Book of 1929 substitutes for it two alternatives, “O eternal Lord God, who holdest all souls in life” and “O God, whose mercies cannot be numbered,” while the recent South African Order (1930) provides in its place a Collect (“O God the Maker and Redeemer”), which is a modified form of a Collect for the Commemoration of All Souls found in the English Alternative Book of 1928.  The latter book also provides as an alternative the Collect for Easter Eve.

      The Epistle and Gospel of the first Edwardian Book (1 Thess. 4:13–18, St. John 6:37–40) find a place in all these revisions, though as alternatives to the Epistle there are provided 1 Cor. 15:50–58 (Scottish, 1929), 2 Cor. 4:16–5:4 (Eng. Alternative Book, 1928), Rom. 14:7–9 (S. African, 1930), and as alternative to the Gospel, St. John 11:21–27 (Scottish since 1912, and Canadian) and St. John 5:24–27 (Eng. Alternative Book, 1928, and S. African, 1930).

      In the Scottish (1929) Book a rubric directs that at Holy Communion in connection with burials or at memorials of the departed, if the Agnus Dei be sung or said, for have mercy upon us, and grant us thy peace, there should be substituted grant them rest, and grant them rest eternal.

      The English Alternative Book of 1928 and the Scottish Book of 1929 further provide a special Collect, Epistle, and Gospel for the Commemoration of All Souls.  In both books the Collect “O eternal Lord God, who holdest all souls” finds a place, though in the English form it is alternative to another Collect, “O Lord, the maker and redeemer of all believers.”  In the English form the Epistle is Rev. 20:11–15, while the Scottish has 1 Thess. 4:13–18, with the alternative 1 Cor. 15:50–58.  The Gospel in both is St. John 11:21–27.

      While the Scottish form directs that the special Gospel and Epistle provided shall not be used on a Sunday, the English form has a note that “this service may be used on any day when desired, not being a Holy day, or a day within the octave of Christmas, Easter, or Whitsunday.”

      In all these forms an attempt is made to recover the sense of communion and fellowship with the departed in the one Body of Christ.

      3.  Other special intentions.  In the earlier Christian centuries emphasis was laid upon the unity of the faithful in their approach to God in the Eucharistic worship of the Church.  The one Eucharist gathered within itself the devotions and particular needs of the different members of the one Body.  As late as A.D. 578 the Synod of Auxerre (Can. 10) forbade priests to say two masses on the same day at the same altar.  To this tradition the Eastern Church has remained loyal, and the Western custom of “Low Masses” is unknown.  Many of the Eastern rites contain in the Intercession prayers for offerers and those for whom they have offered. In the Orthodox Church provision is made in the Office of the Prothesis, which precedes the Liturgy, for the faithful to make their oblations (in the form of small loaves) with special intentions, whether in honour of the Saints, or for the departed, or for the particular needs of the living, and from these oblations are taken portions (each for some special remembrance), which are brought to the altar along with the Eucharistic bread, at the Great Entrance. [See Brightman, Litt. E. and W., pp. 546 f., App. Q.  “On the development of the Byzantine Prothesis.”  For an exposition of the significance of the “portions” see Catechism of Nicholas Bulgaris (Eng. tr., 1893), pp. 63 f.  Cf. also Woolley, Bread of the Eucharist (Alcuin Club Tracts), pp. 45 f.]

      In the West the earlier rule laid down by the Synod of Auxerre ceased to be observed.  As frequency of communion declined, masses were multiplied in order to give fuller opportunity of “assisting” at them, and to satisfy the demands of the faithful, who wished them to be celebrated for their special intentions, which were thought to be more effectively pleaded if each was associated with a particular mass.  The result was that many priests would say two or three masses each day in order to satisfy the demands of the faithful and their own devotional needs, and we find Church authority invoked from the eleventh century onwards to check this tendency. [See Vacant, La conception du sacrifice de la Messe dans la tradition de l’église latine, pp. 26 f.]

      The practice of offering Mass with special intention, however, acquired an assured place in the Western Liturgies, both Roman and non-Roman, not only in connection with the anniversaries of the departed, but for various needs temporal and spiritual.  Examples are found in the Bobbio Missal and the Mozarabic Missal, no less than in the Roman Sacramentaries.  The latter include masses for travelers by land and sea, for plague on men and cattle, for rain or fair weather, for peace and in time of war, for the sick, in time of trouble, and for other needs.  Many of these have passed over into the Sarum Missal or suggested similar forms, and others have been added to them.  The term missa votiva, moreover, came to have an extended meaning, and was used to denote any mass, not of the day, said as a special act of devotion.  Such are the Masses of the Trinity, of the Holy Ghost, of the Holy Cross, of St. Mary, and of the Angels.

      Many of these developments arose out of a deep and living devotion and had a high religious value, in so far as they expressed the conviction that the Eucharist is the supreme act of Christian prayer and intercession offered by the members of the Body in and through the Head.  Among the intentions for which special masses are provided in the Sarum Missal the following may be noted as having a special devotional value, either for the sanctification of human relationships or for the promotion of personal religion: “For brothers and sisters,” “For the welfare of a friend,” “Against the temptations of the flesh,” “Against evil thoughts,” “To invoke the grace of the Holy Spirit,” “For tears of contrition,” “For the gift of holy Charity,” “For the inspiration of divine wisdom,” “For trouble of heart,” “For any trouble.”  Two Collects from these masses may be quoted.  (1) From the mass “For tears of contrition”: “Almighty and merciful God, who for thy thirsting people didst cause to flow from the earth a fountain of living water, bring forth from the hardness of our heart tears of contrition, that we may mourn for our sins and through thy mercy may obtain forgiveness of the same”; (2) from the mass “Against evil thoughts”: “Almighty and most pitiful God, mercifully regard our prayers, and deliver our hearts from the temptation of evil thoughts, that we may become a worthy habitation of the Holy Spirit.”  The priest’s mass “for himself” is also noteworthy in this connection.

      But the degradation of popular Eucharistic beliefs in the course of the Middle Ages had led here, as elsewhere, to crude conceptions of a quantitative value in the masses offered and a mechanical view of their efficacy.  It was, on the whole, a sound instinct which sought to restore to the normal and public celebration of the Eucharist its position as the meeting place of the faithful, where their vows and devotions, their special intentions, and intercessions might be gathered up in one common act of corporate prayer and thanksgiving and communion.  At the same time the loss of the provision for voicing explicitly special needs and special grounds for thanksgiving was a serious one.  With the growth of more frequent celebrations and opportunities for communion there has come the desire for a greater variety in the liturgical provision for special needs and occasions of thanksgiving and intercession.  In practice this need has been met to some extent locally or by diocesan authority.  Such provision is a feature of several Diocesan Service Books in recent years.  Thus the Oxford Diocesan Service Book (1921) provides a series of special Collects, Epistles, and Gospels for various occasions, Thanksgiving for Harvest, the Day of Intercession for Missions Overseas, “For the guidance of the Holy Spirit,” “In time of War” and “In any necessity”.

      In this respect the various revisions of the Anglican rite have made only slight and tentative beginnings to meet the need.  Apart from the special Collects, Epistles, and Gospels for Ember Days (Canadian, American (1929), Scottish (1929), English Alternative Book (1928)), and Rogation Days (Canadian, American, English Alternative Book; the last provides Epistles and Gospels only), the other provisions are: Thanksgiving for Harvest (Irish, Canadian, Scottish, English Alternative Book), Thanksgiving for the Institution of Holy Baptism and for the Institution of Holy Communion (English Alternative Book, Scottish (1929)), “For the guidance of the Holy Spirit” (English Alternative Book), “For the Synods and Councils of the Church” (Scottish, 1929), for Overseas Missions (English Alternative Book, Scottish (1929)), for the Consecration of a Church (Irish).

Collects, Epistles, and Gospels

By K. D. Mackenzie

I.  The Collect

      In its widest sense the word “Collect” may be used as the name of one of the three primary forms of liturgical prayer, [Duchesne, Christian Worship, pp. 106 ff.] the other two being Litany, which is prayer in dialogue, and Eucharistic Prayer, which is a solemn act of praise (not necessarily connected with the Holy Eucharist).  In its original form the Collect seems to have been the closing act of a stereotyped devotional form.  First the presiding minister, whether bishop or priest, would suggest a subject for prayer, or at least call on the people to pray.  This was followed by a time of silent individual prayer.  If it were a Sunday, all would stand;* but if it were a penitential occasion, the deacon would bid them kneel.  In the latter case he (not the subdeacon as in later times) would announce the end of the silent period by commanding them to stand.  Finally, the officiant recited the “Collect,” putting into public and corporate form the petitions of the people.

      [*One of the strangest things in Anglican ceremonial customs is our propensity to kneel for solemn public prayer, even on Sundays.  In this we are unique in Christendom.  The Latins stand, except at Low Mass (though no doubt the general congregation tends in practice to sit down, and some kneel for part of the time).  The Easterns stand (though private devotion prompts individuals to occasional prostration).  Non-episcopalians lean forward, covering the eyes.  But our present Anglican custom is for the most part unofficial.  So far as the Liturgy is concerned we are bidden to kneel only for the first section of the service to the end of the Decalogue, and for the Confession.  The last words of the short Exhortation imply that the congregation has not been kneeling hitherto.]

      This very primitive form has not survived in any document, but the earliest formularies come very near to it, and can only be explained as survivals.  Thus in the Gallican rites there are constant examples of the opening call to prayer, followed immediately by the Collect.  In the Roman Mass of the Pre-sanctified on Good Friday the same feature occurs, in connection with the solemn prayers which are thought to be the one survival of the primitive “Prayer of the Faithful”  In this case, as also on the Wednesday and Saturday Ember days (except at Pentecost), on some Wednesdays in Lent, on Candlemas day falling on a weekday after Septuagesima, and on Holy Saturday, the deacon sings Flectamus genua as soon as the priest has sung Oremus, and then, without any interval, the subdeacon sings Legate.  Similarly before the Oratio super populum at the end of mass on weekdays in Lent the deacon sings Humiliate capita vestra Deo between the Oremus and the actual prayer.  There is also an address to the people asking for their prayers in the Ordinary of the Roman Mass, the Orate, fratres.  But this last, though an illustration of the same form as that of the primitive invitation to prayer, is certainly not a survival, but a mediaeval addition. [Fortescue, The Mass, pp. 311 f.]  Apart from these instances, the preliminaries to collective prayer have shrunk to the Dominus vobiscum [In the Roman rite a:bishop says Pax vobis on festal occasions, viz. whenever Gloria in excelsis is said.] followed by Oremus.  The English rite has departed still further from the primitive model.  The traditional ritual group of The Lord be with you, Let us pray, followed by a Collect only occurs in the Order of Confirmation. [It has been restored in the American and Scottish rites and in the proposed English Book of 1928.]  In Divine Service the preliminaries have been separated from the Collects, and in the Holy Communion The Lord be with you has been eliminated.

      It is possible that the origin of the word “Collect” is to be found in this primitive custom.  Thus the eleventh-century Micrologus speaks of Oratio quam collectam dicunt, eo quod sacerdos ... omnium petitiones ea oratione colligat atque concludat. [Op. cit. iii, quoted by Procter and Frere, New History of the Book of Common Prayer, ed. 1908, p. 524.]

      A more probable explanation of the origin of the name is derived from the Gregorianum.  In that Sacramentary the heading of the Collects is ad collectam.  Collecta is a late Latin form of Collectio, and means assembly.  It was the custom in Rome on the more important Sundays and festivals for the Pope, or his representative, to go in procession from one church to another before mass, and the collecta was the assembling of the congregation at the former church.  Thus the oratio ad collectam meant the prayer which was said after the congregation had assembled, but before the procession started.  In most cases the same prayer was repeated at the beginning of mass, and became the “Collect” of the Mass in the modern sense, but Fortescue quotes one instance where the prayer ad collectam differs from that ad missam. [The Mass, p. 245.]

      There seems to be some slight connection between the Kyrie and the Collect. The former is the relic of the primitive Litany which preceded the Liturgy. This Litany was probably introduced at Rome in the fifth century, [It was clearly a novelty at the beginning of the sixth.  Duchesne, op. cit., p. 165.] and as long as it lasted its petitions were no doubt similar to those surviving in our only examples of the original type of Collect – the Good Friday prayers.  The Collect was, in fact, the summing up in Collect form of the petitions “already offered in Litany form”.  [Procter and Frere, p. 525.]  But the Litany very soon shrank into the Kyrie.  It is not, therefore, surprising that its connection with the Collect was so far forgotten that the insertion of Gloria in excelsis between them was not felt as an intrusion.

      The Sacramentaries [See above, “History Down to 1662”.] are our earliest sources for this form of prayer; indeed the bulk of a Western Sacramentary consists of little else.  From the beginning, so far as our evidence goes, the Collect always varied from day to day.  In the language of a later time it belonged to the Proper of the Mass, not to the Ordinary.  Thus the Leonianum provides four Collects for almost every day, corresponding exactly to those which were afterwards known as Oratio, Oratio Secreta, Post-communio, and Oratio super Populum.  The first of these is the public opening prayer of the Liturgy, the second is an offertory prayer (said secretly because the choir were still singing the Offertory chant), the third is a thanksgiving, and the fourth (afterwards limited to weekdays in Lent) is of a general character.  Originally this last invoked a blessing on the congregation: hence came its title.

      In the English rite only the first survives as part of the Proper: but the first petition of the prayer for the Church corresponds to the Secret, the Thanksgiving is an invariable Post-communion, and the Ordinal introduces other prayers “after the last Collect, and immediately before the Benediction”.  The Scottish rite provides “ten Post-communions for certain Festivals and Seasons, which may be said immediately before the Blessing,” two “General Post-communions,” and nine other Collects, which may be used in the same way.  The proposed “Alternative Order” of 1928 allows additional Collects before the Blessing.

      In the Middle Ages, as in the modern Roman rite, more than one Collect was often said.  The general principle was that the first Collect was that of the day, and one or more others might follow if there were any secondary commemoration belonging to the same day; but on the less important days it was arranged that there should always be at least two Collects besides that of the day.  These additional Collects were arranged according to certain definite rules which varied in different dioceses.  In the modern Roman rite, however, the third Collect is often ad libitum sacerdotis.  Oremus was repeated before the second Collect; but if there were more than two, all but the first were said sub una conclusione: i.e. the celebrant proceeded immediately from the conclusion of the first to the address of the second, and so on, without any conclusion, until he reached the final one.  According to the mediaeval English rites (but not in the present Roman rite) the number of the Collects was always odd, except on the festivals which fall in Christmas week: for no reason (according to Fortescue) except that numero Deus impare gaudet. [But he quotes Amalarius as saying that it is “because an uneven number cannot be divided, and God will have no division in his Church” (Eclog. de off. Missae, P.L. cv. 1317).]  “More than seven Collects are not to be said because Christ in the Lord’s Prayer did not exceed seven petitions.” [Sarum Missal: rubric under First Sunday in Advent.]

      All this complication (and all this additional interest) was removed in 1549.  One Collect (in addition to that for the King) is all that is provided.  The only exceptions are the holy days after Christmas, on which there is a commemoration of the Nativity, and, since 1661, at Wren’s suggestion, a repetition of the Collects of Advent Sunday and Ash Wednesday on every day of Advent and Lent respectively.  There is not even any direction what is to be done when a Sunday and a holy day coincide, though the practice of using both Collects in this case is suggested by common sense and is probably universal.

      The Collect has its distinctive form, which is seen at its best in the ancient Collects of the Roman rite and, in equal beauty, in the English translations of them.  The old Collects are almost always addressed to God the Father, and the divine name is always associated with the pleading of some divine attribute which justifies the coming petition.  Then comes the petition itself, simple, terse, and definite.  “Then, in a perfect specimen ... the petition has the wings of a holy aspiration given to it, whereupon it may soar to heaven.” [Goulburn, On the Communion Office, p. 37.]  The ending is always the same: Per [eundem] Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum filium tuum qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate [ejusdem] Spiritus sancti Deus per omnia saecula saeculorum.  The more modern Collects, both Latin and English, are occasionally addressed to God the Son (in which case the ending is modified to correspond*) and are often more florid in character.  Characteristic examples in English are those of the first three Sundays in Advent and of many of the feasts of the Saints.  These are for the most part creditable compositions, but, with the exception of the admirable Collect of All Saints, they lack the restraint and sensitive beauty of the old prayers. [Dr. Lowther Clarke suggests that the form of the Collect is of Jewish origin.  Cf. Wisd. 1:9 ff., 2 Macc. 1:24 ff., Acts 1:24 f.  Everything is there except the terseness (and, naturally, the Christian ending).  Perhaps, then, as he surmises, the verbosity of some B.C.P. prayers is a reversion to type!”]

      [*This arrangement was set out in several memoriae technicae of which the following is a specimen.

“Per Dominum” dicas, si Patrem Presbyter oras.

Si Christum memores, “per eundem” dicere debes.

Si loqueris Christo, “qui vivis” scire memento;

“Qui tecum,” si sit collects finis in ipso.

Si memores Flamen, “ejusdem” dic prope finem

Quoted by Blunt, The Annotated Book of Common Prayer, p. 243.]

      In the missals of the Roman rite, both mediaeval and modern, the ending is never given in full: only the cue is provided, Per Dominum; Qui vivis: or the like.  The same is true, approximately, of the translations of ancient Collects which appear in the earlier editions of the English Prayer Book.  In 1661, however, the traditional ending, or much more frequently only a part of it, was printed, followed by Amen.  This seems to have been part of the general plan of leaving nothing to chance, tradition or caprice; but the variations do not seem to rest on any principle, and the frequent curtailment of the familiar, sonorous and profoundly theological conclusion seems little better than a wanton maiming of an artistic form.

II.  The Liturgical Lessons

      The reading of Scripture has always formed a conspicuous part of the introductory portion of the Christian Liturgy, as it had of the Jewish.  St. Justin Martyr mentions it as the first feature of the primitive rite.  “The commentaries of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time allows.” [Apol., I. lxvii. 1.]  Clement [Cohortatio ad Genies (Migne, Patr. Gr., viii. 237 ff.).] and Origen [Homilies, passim.] both refer to the practice.  Books II and VIII of the Apostolic Constitutions have five lessons, two from the Old Testament, followed by psalm singing, then one each from the Acts, the Epistles and the Gospels.  Tertullian states that the Roman Church “combines the Law and the Prophets with the Gospels and the Apostolic letters,” and that lessons are also read in the African Liturgy. [De Praescript., 36.]  The witness of St. Cyprian is the same: [Epp. 38, 39.] he mentions the ambo as the place from which they were read. [See Fortescue, op. cit., Ch. I, vi.]

      In the earliest times the lessons were chosen by the presiding minister, and he stopped the reader when enough had been read.  Very soon, as was natural, proper lessons were assigned to particular days.  These were at first merely marked in the margin of the continuous text of Scripture.  The next stage is an index containing the first and last words of each lesson in order.  The basis of the Roman arrangement can be traced back to the fifth century, and in the Middle Ages St. Jerome was commonly supposed to have been the original author of it. [Procter and Frere, pp. 465 f.  Fortescue, op. cit., pp. 254 f.]

      The oldest Roman Lectionary [See above, History Down to 1662.] in existence is that of Würzburg, believed by Dom Morin to belong to the end of the sixth or the beginning of the seventh century. [Revue Benedictine, January 1910.]  The same MS. contains an Evangelarium of the seventh century, of independent origin. [Ibid.  See also July 1911.]  The Capitulary known as the Comes of Murbach, containing both Epistles and Gospels, seems to belong to the end of the eighth century. [See Rev. Ben., January 1913.]

      The number of lessons has varied from time to time and from place to place.  The Gallican rite always maintained three, the Prophecy, the Epistle, and the Gospel.  In the Roman rite these had been reduced to two for most occasions by the beginning of the sixth century; but there are relics of the older multiplicity in various parts of the Missal.  The Ember Wednesdays, two other Wednesdays in Lent, [The Wednesdays following the Fourth and Sixth Sundays.  The former was, in Rome, the day of the aperitio aurium of the catechumens, when in the course of a long rite the creed was revealed to them.  The latter also seems to have been connected with the coming Paschal Baptism.  See Schuster, The Sacramentary, ad loc.] and Good Friday have three lessons: the Ember Saturdays have six or seven.  There is also the evidence of the two chants which are ordinarily sung between the Epistle and the Gospel.  These are obviously the relics of a time when two chants would be required because there were three lessons.  The Orthodox rite has also, since the ninth century, reduced its lessons from three to two. [Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, pp. 371 f.]

      The English rite, with its passion for uniformity and simplification, has abolished the ancient chants and always provides two lessons and no more; the former is usually an Epistle, but occasionally a Prophecy or a portion from the Acts of the Apostles.

      The reading of the liturgical lessons was not in primitive times restricted to men in Holy Orders.  But the majesty of the Gospel and the imposing ceremonial which so soon came to surround it naturally tended to confine the proclamation of it to a person of some ecclesiastical dignity.  From the fifth century the reading of the Gospel “becomes more and more the Deacon’s special privilege.” [Fortescue, op. cit., pp. 280 ff.]  Later on, by analogy, the Epistle came to be assigned to the Subdeacon.  This, however, was only in the West.

      In England, before the Reformation, the Clerk had a canonical right to read the Epistle. [Lyndwood, Provinciale, iii. 7.]  This right was continued after the Reformation. [See Atchley, The Parish Clerk and his right to read the Liturgical Epistle.]  In the 1549 Book it is assigned to him “ that is appointed,” and he is called “the Minister,” and a contemporary manual interprets this as equivalent to the Clerk. [Wickham Legg, The Clerk’s Book.  See P. Dearmer, The Parson’s Handbook, ed. 1907, p. 331.]  So the modern Roman Missal still insists that when Mass is sung without sacred ministers the Epistle shall be read by a lector (not sung by the priest). [Missale Romanum, Ritus Servandus, vi. 8.]  Nor is it always insisted on that the “Subdeacon” of the Mass shall actually be an ordained subdeacon.  But he must be at least a tonsured clerk. [S.R.C., March 14, 1906.]

      Since 1552 the Prayer Book has assigned both the Epistle and the Gospel to “the Priest,” but it is clear from the Canons of 1604 that this is not to be interpreted so strictly as to preclude the immemorial practice of the reading of the liturgical lessons by some one other than the celebrant.  Canon 24 directs that he is to be “assisted with the Gospeller and Epistoler”. [Dearmer, op. cit., p. 328.]

      There is little ceremonial attaching to the reading of the Epistle.  In the modern Roman Use the Subdeacon kisses the celebrant’s hand afterwards, and the celebrant makes a gesture of benediction.  But from the first beginning of ceremonial development the Gospel has been treated as the very Word of Christ.  The procession to the place where it is to be proclaimed has always, so far as possible, been of a magnificent character.  The Deacon seeks the celebrant’s blessing before exercising his function.  Both in the mediaeval Uses and in the modern Roman rite the Textus is censed. [On the Altar (Sarum): after the Gospel has been announced (Modern).]  The sign of the cross is made on the text, and on the forehead and breast [Also, in modern usage, on the mouth.] of the worshippers.  The singing is prefaced with Dominus vobiscum, and Gloria tibi, Domine.  After the Gospel, the celebrant (or the Bishop, if present) is tensed and kisses the text. [In the mediaeval Uses all in choir kissed the text.]  There is much less authority for any response after the Gospel.  The modern Roman use is to say Laus tibi, Christe when the Gospel has been said, but not when it has been sung.  All the revised Anglican rites enjoin or allow something equivalent.  But in the early and mediaeval rites nothing was said or sung at this point.

III.  The Proper of the English Liturgy

Abbreviations

W. Comes of Würzburg

M. Comes of Murbach

                  See several above.

Ha.      Hadrianum.

P.   Paduan Sacramentary.

Greg.   Gregorianum.

Gel.     Gelasianum.

M. Mixed.

L.   Leonianum.

                  See above, History Down to 1662.

Moz.   Mozarabic rite.

SG.      St. Gall (Gelasian MS.).

Pam.    Pamelius.

Th. Comes Theotenchi.

A.  Alcuin.

Cass.   Monte Cassino Missal.

S.   Sarum.

Y.  York.

H.  Hereford.

E.   Mediaeval English Uses in general.

R.  Modern Roman rite.

R.  All forms of Roman rite, including mediaeval English.

B.C.P.       Book of Common Prayer.

Ca. Canadian Revision (1922).

Sc. Scottish rite (1929).

Am.     American rite (1929).

1928.  Proposed new English rite of that year.

      The ancient Sacramentaries, Lectionaries and Antiphonaries provide a rich and ever-growing number of Proper Masses.  From about the time of Pope Damasus it seems that the principle of considerable variation according to the Calendar has been accepted and acted upon.  The Proper of the Mass consists of at least nine parts: Introit, Collect, Epistle, Gradual with Alleluiatic verse or Tract, Gospel, Offertory, Secret, Communion, and Post-Communion.  In the Sarum Missal a separate Proprium was provided for all Sundays and great feasts, very many Saints’ days, all days in Lent and in the weeks of Easter and Pentecost, Ember Days, Rogation Monday and the more important vigils.  For other Saints’ days and vigils there was a Commune.  For all Wednesdays, and for Fridays except after Trinity, there was a Proper Epistle and Gospel. [In early times in Rome there was a Synaxis every Wednesday and Friday with its Proper Lesson.  In some arrangements the three Gospel Lessons for the week were the accounts of the same event taken from different evangelists.]  The days on which the Sunday Mass was repeated were few.  Indeed, not only in the Middle Ages but until quite recent times, the Roman rite has tended to omit the Sunday Mass altogether in favour of the feasts of the Saints. [The great liturgical reformation which restored the dignity of the Dominical Mass and Office was made in 1911.]

      All this exuberance was swept away quite ruthlessly by the English reformers.  The members of the Proprium were reduced to four, and then, by the excision of the Introit, to three: the ferial and vigiliary Masses disappeared from the Temporale, as well as the special observance of the whole weeks of Easter and Pentecost: Corpus Christi was eliminated: and the somewhat rank growth of the Sanctorale was cut down to the observance of two feasts of our Lady and twenty (afterwards nineteen) of the other Saints.  This process has been reversed to some extent in the later Anglican rites, especially Sc 1928.

      In the Epistles and Gospels, Sc often adopts R.V. renderings; 1928 does the same more sparingly, Am once, Ca twice.

Advent I.

      Collect.  1549.  Framed to harmonize with the Epistle, as is characteristic of the period.  Cf. Advent II, Quinquagesima, Lent I, Easter II, St. Matthias, St. Barnabas.

      Epistle.  WMR (lengthened).  (W gives Epistles for five Sundays, of which the Second, omitted here, appears in S on Trinity XXV.)

      Gospel.  MSY.  The Gospels in R are one place in advance: Advent I (R) = Advent II (E, B.C.P.); and so on throughout Advent.

      “The four Sundays in Advent set forth ... the Majesty of our Lord’s Person and Kingdom.” [Blunt, The Annotated Book of Common Prayer, ad. loc.]

Advent II.

      Collect.  1549.  Develops one lesson from the Epistle, and so gives the Sunday a special character as devoted to the consideration of the witness of Scripture to our Lord.

      Epistle.  WMR.                Gospel.  ME.

Advent III.

      Gaudete Sunday (from first word of Introit in R).  Its dignity arose from the fact that it was treated as the Sunday before Christmas, since the actual last Sunday in Advent was overshadowed by the Ordinations.  The Pope spent much of Saturday night in vigil at St. Peter’s.

      Collect by Cosin: 1661, replacing a translation of the R Collect.

      Epistle.  WME.                Gospel.  ME.

      In B.C.P. the whole of this Proprium has reference to the coming Ordinations.  R has transferred the Epistle from Advent IV to match the Introit.

      Sc has a Collect for Advent Ember Days, “which may be said after the Collect of the Day” (i.e. of the preceding Sunday).  This is the second of the Ember Week Prayers of B.C.P., but was derived originally from the Scottish Book of 1637.

      Ca has the same Collect, and Am another one for all Ember Days.  Both have newly selected Lessons and Gospels: Ca, Acts 13:1–3, Luke 10:17–24: Am, Acts 13:44–49, Luke 4:16–21.

      1928 prints several alternative Collects, Epistles, and Gospels for Ember Days after the Commune Sanctorum.  The Collects are the two Ember Week prayers from B.C.P., the former of which was inserted in 1661 from Cosin’s Private Devotions.

Advent IV.

      In the most ancient Ordines, Dominica vacat.  The Saturday Ember vigil was concluded with a Mass in the early hours of Sunday at which holy Orders were conferred; and the people were not expected to assemble for another Mass.

      Collect.  Originally derived from Gel for Advent II.  In PHaGreg this is assigned to Advent IV, and is addressed to Christ, as an invocation of His presence at the Nativity.  In this form it appears in R.  In B.C.P. the address reverts to the Father.  Ca returns again to the form of GregR.

      Epistle.  WME.  R has the Epistle which anciently belonged to Advent III.

      Gospel.  ME. R, as usually after an Ember week, repeats Saturday’s Gospel.

Christmas Eve.

      Sc provides a Lesson (Mic. 5:1–5) and a Gospel (Luke 2:1–14, identical with the alternative Gospel for Christmas Day).  1928 gives these two, and also a Collect which is the R Collect for this day (PHaGelGreg), modified by the translation of expectatione as “remembrance”.  This is derived from 1549, where it serves as the Collect for the First Communion of Christmas.

Christmas Day.

      The greatest feasts in ancient times had two Masses, the former of the vigil, said in the late afternoon of the preceding day, the latter of the feast, said in the morning of the day itself.

      The “Midnight Mass” (originally ad galli cantum: in R in nocte) is the original vigiliary Mass of Christmas, celebrated (in Rome) in the small chapel ad Praesepe in St. Mary Major.  (Christmas Day is of purely Roman origin.)  To this was added in very early times a station at St. Anastasia, in memory of the martyrdom of that saint.  Then, as Christmas grew in importance, this Mass came to be thought of as an additional Christmas Mass in Aurora.  Finally, all three became Masses of the feast, and yet another was added in celebration of the vigil.

      1549, Am provide two Masses.

      Collect.  1549, replacing the verbose composition of E (Moz, characteristically Gallican).  This Collect is probably suggested by Greg for Sunday after Christmas.

      The R Collect for the vigil, slightly altered as we have just seen, serves as the Collect of the First Communion of 1549 and Am.  The same Collect appears in CaSc as “an Additional Collect for Christmastide”.

      Epistle.  WMR.

      The Epistle for the First Communion of 1549 and Am is Tit. 2:11–14 (Am 11–15) from the WMR First Mass.  Sc allows the same Epistle to be used at one celebration (if there be more than one), saying nothing about the order of sequence, and also on unoccupied days during the Octave.

      Gospel.  WMR.

      The Gospel from the First Communion of 1549 and Am is Luke 2:1–14 from the WMR First Mass.  In regard to this Sc has the same direction as for the Epistle, but provides yet another alternative Gospel, Matt. 1:18–25.  It seems obvious that there should be some opportunity for the solemn liturgical reading of the account of the Nativity, even though it forms the First Lesson at Mattins.  The three Masses of R give us first the story of the Nativity, then that of the visit of the shepherds, and then the deep theology of the Incarnation.

St. Stephen.

      Collect.  The original is Greg and R.  A shortened form appears in 1549; but it was again amplified by Cosin in 1661.  In both English forms it is addressed to the Son, apparently to harmonize with the martyr’s dying prayer.  In its present form it is reminiscent of the Gallican contestatio for this day, but it is hardly likely that this was known to Cosin.

      Lesson.  WMR (shortened).

      Gospel.  WMR.  The emphasis on sending might suggest an Apostle, and the Orthodox speak of St. Stephen under this title.  (The Orthodox Gospel is Matt. 21:33–43, with the same stress on mission.)

St. John.

      Collect.  PHaGregR.                   Epistle.  1549.                       Gospel.  WMR.

H. Innocents.

      Collect.  1661.  Adaptation of PHaGelR (where it is addressed to the Son).

      Lesson.  WMR.  The choice of this lesson had the curious effect that in the Middle Ages it was commonly believed that the number of the victims at Bethlehem was 144,000!

      Gospel.  WMR.

Sunday after Christmas.

      Collect as for Christmas Day.

      Epistle.  MR.

      Gospel is R Gospel for Christmas Eve.  The change was made in 1549, but from then till 1661 the Genealogy was prefixed.  The original R Gospel is Luke 2:33–40, dating as it does from a period anterior to the feast of the Purification.  On Christmas Day “The Eucharistic scriptures memorialized the condescension of the Word made flesh; on this day they set forth the exaltation of human nature by that condescension.” [Blunt, op. cit., ad loc.]

The Circumcision.

      At first this was simply the Octave day of Christmas and the R Mass hardly mentions the Circumcision.  “The change of Collect and Epistle ... has altered the proportion of things, and in fact turned the day into a commemoration of circumcision, rather than of the Circumcision of our Lord; not to edification.” [Brightman, The English Rite, p. xcv.]

      Collect.  1549.  Adapted from a Benediction in Greg.

      Epistle.  1549.  But the Epistle in the Westminster Missal overlapped this passage, and is unique among ancient Epistles in having reference to circumcision.

      Sc Epistle is Eph. 2:11–18, which is given as an alternative in 1928.  Am has Phil. 2:9–13.

      Gospel.  Enlarged from MR, in which the Gospel consisted of Luke 2:21 only.  But in W (there being hitherto no feast of the Purification in Rome) it was continued to ver. 32.

      1928 adds a Collect to commemorate the first day of the civil year.  There can, of course, be no liturgical precedent for this, inasmuch as the year began on March 25 until the middle of the eighteenth century.

      From the eleventh century onwards the Saints’ days after Christmas were observed with Octaves, and there were in consequence no free days between the Circumcision and Epiphany, Jan. 5 being the vigil of the Epiphany, or, later and in England only, the Octave of St. Thomas of Canterbury.  The direction to use the Circumcision Proprium on the Second Sunday after Christmas dates from 1552, and was amended in 1661 so as to allow for the employment of it “every day ... vnto the Epiphany”.

      AmSc1928 provide for a Second Sunday after Christmas.

      The Collects in Sc1928 are two different translations of a prayer from L (the same which appears in R as the blessing of the water at the Offertory).  The Epistle in Sc is Tit. 3:4–6 (appointed for the Daybreak Mass of Christmas in R) or 1 John 4:9–16; in 1928 it is 2 Cor. 8:9 (one verse only).  The Gospel in both is John 1:14–18.

      Am Collect is a free translation of the Collect of the R Daybreak Mass.  The Lesson is Isa. 61:1–3; the Gospel Matt. 2:19–23 (the R Gospel for the vigil of Epiphany).

Epiphany.

      The oldest name, still used by the Orthodox, was “Theophany,” witnessing to the origin of the feast as the great commemoration of the Incarnation considered as the revelation of God.  In the East it is older than Christmas, but has always had a more theological and less historical or commemorative character.  Indeed the Baptism of our Lord, rather than His Nativity, was the incident selected to illustrate the doctrine.  The original idea has left traces in R in, the preface and Infra actionem: and the R Gospel of the Octave Day commemorates the Baptism, though this Gospel is not found in the early Evangelaria.

      The commemoration of the adoration of the Magi is Western, and so is the special association with the Gentiles.

      The B.C.P. explanation of the title of the feast dates from 1661.  It was one of Wren’s suggestions, [So also Septuagesima, etc.] and Cosin objected to the words “to the Gentiles”.

      Collect.  PHaR (slightly altered).

      Epistle.  1549.  The R Epistle from Isa. 60 was transferred to form the beginning of the First Lesson at Mattins.

      Gospel.  WMR.

      B.C.P. gives no directions for the observance of an Octave.  The letter of the rubrics therefore suggests that this Proprium should only be used until the following Sunday; but all mediaeval tradition would favour the use of it throughout the Octave.  AmCa direct the former course, Sc 1928 the latter.

Epiphany I.

      A dislocation appears at this point between the ancient and modern rites on the one hand, and the mediaeval ones on the other.  At first the feast of the Epiphany had no Octave, and the Sunday services resumed their ordinary course.  When the Octave was first instituted it was treated as one continuous feast which included the Sunday which happened to fall within it.  Thus the Propria for the following Sundays were all moved one forward. R arid B.C.P. have reverted to the earlier arrangement, in spite of the fact that R keeps the Octave.  Thus in R, as in B.C.P., the service for this day is the original Sunday service, with commemoration of the feast.

      The Epistles for four continuous Sundays from this day evidently form part of a continuous course.  Rom. was begun in R on Christmas Eve.  It is now picked up again at c. xii.

      The Gospels leave the consideration of the lowliness of our Lord’s coming for that of the display of His glory by miracle.

      Collect.  PGregSGR (E, Epiphany II).  It was in relation to this Collect that Celestine I made the famous aphorism, Legem credendi lex statuat orandi.

      Epistle.  WMR (E, Epiphany II).

      Gospel.  WMR (E, Epiphany II).  It seems likely that this Gospel and that of the following Sunday may once have belonged to the days immediately following the Epiphany.  They deal with events which have a close traditional connection with the feast.  The appointment of an Octave entailed the repetition of the same service every day.

      The Epistles for Epiphany I, II, III are from W; but there they are provided for the three days immediately following the feast.

Epiphany II.

      Collect.  GregSGR (E, Epiphany III).                Epistle.  MR (E, Epiphany III).

      Gospel.  WMR (E, Epiphany III).  Am has Mark 1:1–11.

Epiphany III.

      Collect.  PGregSGR (E, Epiphany IV).

      Epistle.  MR (E, Epiphany IV).               Gospel.  WMR (E, Epiphany IV).

Epiphany IV.

      Collect.  PGregSGR (E, Epiphany V).

      Epistle.  1549.  The lengthening of the Epistle for Advent I makes it include the ancient Epistle for this Sunday: hence the alteration.

      Gospel.  Lengthened in 1549 from WM (E, Epiphany V).

Epiphany V.

      Collect.  GregSGR (E, Epiphany VI).  Pietate, which in the original seems to be an attribute of God, is translated “true religion”.

      Epistle.  MR (E, Epiphany VI).

      Gospel.  WR (SH, Epiphany VI).  Equally suitable for the Third Sunday before Advent, to which it has often to be transferred.

Epiphany VI.

      Collect.  1661, probably by Cosin.  Framed from the Epistle.

      Epistle and Gospel.  1661.  The latter is more suitable for the Second Sunday before Advent, to which it has most often to be transferred.

      From 1549 to 1662, in the somewhat rare event of there being six Sundays after Epiphany the Proprium for the Fifth Sunday was used on the Sixth also.

      Preparation for Lent.  This cycle of three Sundays was arranged by St. Gregory, and the Collects for the first two “reflect the terror and grief that filled the minds of the Romans in those years during which war, pestilence, and earthquake threatened the utter destruction of the former mistress of the world.” [Schuster, op. cit., ad loc.]

Septuagesima.

      Collect.  PHaR.

      Epistle.  WMR (shortened).  Additional significance is given to its teaching about the Christian athlete when it is remembered that at the stational Mass ordained by St. Gregory at the Basilica of St. Lawrence the congregation had just had a long and tiring walk to the martyr’s tomb.

      Gospel.  WMR.  But W provides also for ten Sundays after Epiphany, pointing back to a time before the institution of the Septuagesima season.

Sexagesima.

      Collect (in the original) and Epistle recall the Station at the Basilica of S. Paul.

      Collect.  PHaSGR (with substitution of “by thy power” for Doctoris gentium protectione).

      Epistle.  WMR (shortened).

      Gospel.  WMR.  This is also possibly connected with St. Paul as the greatest of missionaries.

Quinquagesima.

      In the Durham Book Cosin inserted this rubric: “This Collect, Epistle, and Gospel shall serve only till the Wednesday following.”  The Collect and Epistle remind us that discipline is unavailing unless accompanied by love.

      Collect.  1549.  The R collect had reference to the sacramental Confession customary at this season.

      Epistle.  WMR.                Gospel.  WMR.

Ash Wednesday.

      There is a rubric in the Durham Book, ordering that the Proprium is to “serve until the Sunday following.”  So also AmSc.  The text of 1661 seems to imply a reversion to the Proprium of the preceding Sunday.  So also 1928, so far as the Collect is concerned.

      Collect.  1549.  Partly formed from one of the prayers for the blessing of ashes on this day.  “To be read every day in Lent,” 1661; “until Maundy Thursday,” Sc1928; “until Palm Sunday,” Am.

      Epistle.  WMR.                Gospel. WMR.

      Sc and 1928 provide Epistles or other Lessons and Gospels for all weekdays in Lent.  Of the Gospels rather more than half are from WMR, but only two of the other Lessons.  W has no Lessons for the Thursday and Saturday after Ash Wednesday, as it dates from a period when the keeping of the days before Quadragesima Sunday was still voluntary, and there were no stational Masses, except the usual ones of Wednesday and Friday.  M supplies the missing days, the Masses for which were drawn up in the time of Gregory II.

      The Lessons and Epistles of Sc and 1928 are selected from the Prophets until the end of the First Week.  After that the greater parts of Heb. and Col. are read through in order.  This is a reversion to the primitive plan of reading the Scriptures straight through.

Lent I.

      Collect.  1549.  “Motions” substituted for “monicions” in 1559.

      Epistle.  WMR.  A very happy choice for the Sunday before the Lenten Ordinations, combining as it does the thought of the opportunity of Lent with that of the ministerial ideal.

      Gospel.  WMR.  This Sunday is still in some ways, as it was originally, the beginning of Lent.  Hence a Gospel is chosen which sets the tone for the whole season.

Ember Days.

      Sc has the same Collect as in Advent, and a Gospel (Matt. 9:36–38), taken from the Ordering of Priests: to be used alternatively with those from the regular Lenten course.

Lent II.

      Originally a vacant Sunday (cf. Advent IV).  Hence there are great variations in the Proprium.  Schuster speaks of the “patchwork composition” of the R Mass, and E has not much more individuality.  When the local Roman Sacramentary and Lectionary were adopted in other places, it was necessary to make up a Proprium from various sources.

      Collect.  PHaSGR.  This Collect does belong to the Sunday, and has not been borrowed from some other day.

      Epistle.  Slightly lengthened from MR.  In W this is the Epistle of the Vigil (i.e. the Saturday Ember Day).

      Gospel.  ME (R repeats the Gospel of the Saturday).

Lent III.

      The Roman station today was at the Basilica of St. Laurence, and the Proprium is said to be influenced by that fact.

      Collect.  PHaR.

      Epistle.  WMR (lengthened).  Pelagius II carried out extensive alterations at St. Laurence’s Basilica, building a new aula and letting in the light from this into the older part of the building.  An inscription by the Pope himself still connects this with the glare of the flames of the martyrdom.  It is probable that there is an allusion to this symbolism in the selection of the Epistle: Eratis enim aliquando tenebrae: nunc autem lux in Domino.  Ut filii lucis ambulate: fructus enim lucis est ...

      Gospel.  WMR.  There may be an allusion to the victory of God through His martyr Laurence, and to the dedication of the new aula in honour of the Blessed Virgin.

Lent IV

      Laetare Sunday (from the first word of the Introit in R).  Otherwise Refreshment Sunday (from the miracle narrated in the Gospel).  In the East this day was kept as a festival of the Holy Cross, and in Rome the station was at the Basilica of “the holy Cross in Jerusalem”.  This is the explanation of the frequent mention of Jerusalem in the ancient Proprium.  This is of a festal character throughout, and is evidently designed as a relief to the spirit in the midst of the severities of Lent.

      Collect.  PHaSGR.  Prays for relief in the midst of merited suffering.

      Epistle.  WMR (shortened, and so omitting the magnificent climax of Gal. 5:1).  Sc1928 provide Heb. 12:22–24 as an alternative, no doubt on the ground of the difficulty of St. Paul’s allegorization in the traditional Gal. 4.  The triumph of the Church over its persecutors, like that of Isaac, and of Christ.

      Gospel.  WMR.  Refreshment in the wilderness of Lent.

Lent V.  Passion Sunday.

      Collect.  PHaSGR.

      Epistle.  WMR.  A classic statement of the theology of the Passion.

      Gospel.  WMR.  The final declaration of war between our Lord and the Jews.

      Sc provides six Collects “which may be said at any service from Passion Sunday to Good Friday inclusive.”  The first three are adapted from Latin Collects (the third from the R Collect for Wednesday in Holy Week); the last three are modern.

Lent VI.  Palm Sunday.

      The name is very ancient, occurring in Gel.  But the Mass of the day has always been entirely connected with the Passion.  The commemoration of the events of the original Palm Sunday is not a primitive feature in the West, and when it does appear (first in the ninth century) it remains entirely separate from the Mass.  The only exceptions to be made to this statement are the fact that, according to Lanfranc’s Decreta (col. 455) and some other authorities, the Gospel, Matt. 21:1–9, was to be used at Low Mass, and the very late usage (sixteenth or seventeenth century) of reading this passage as the Last Gospel of all Masses except that before which the blessing and procession of Palms has taken place.  But palms have been held during parts of the service since the eleventh century.

      Collect.  PHaSGR.

      Epistle.  WMR.  In R a genuflection is made at the words ut in nomine Jesu omne genu flectatur.

      Gospel.  WMR (much shortened).  The story of the Passion has been read as the Gospel at least since the middle of the fifth century.

      The traditional way of announcing it, both on Palm Sunday and on the other days when it is read, has always been Passio D.N.j.C. secundum N. Gloria tibi has practically always been omitted.  In medieval times the striking custom arose of singing the greater part of the “Passion” dramatically. [See below, “Anglican Adaptations ...”]  Another medieval custom is that of holding palms while it is being sung.

      The drastic shortening of the Gospel in B.C.P. dates from 1661.  In WMR the whole of Matt. 26, 27. is read.  1549 omitted 27:57–66.  1928 allows Matt. 26, 27:1–61 to be “read or sung,” distinguishing it from “the Gospel,” which (if the whole Passion be read) is Matt. 27:62–66.  In that case Matt. 25:1–13 may be read as the Gospel at other celebrations of Hoi. Communion.

      Sc allows Matt. 21:1–13 at one celebration, if there be more than one.

Monday before Easter.

      In the fourth and fifth centuries there was apparently neither Mass nor reading of the Passion on Monday and Tuesday. [Tyrer, The Services of Holy Week, pp. 34, 74.]  But Gel and Greg both imply complete Masses for both days.

      Am has a Proper Collect each day in this week.

      Lesson.  1549.                 Sc has 1 Cor. 1:18 ff. as an alternative.

      Gospel.  Since 1549 the Passion Gospels from St. Mark and St. Luke have been divided into two and assigned to Monday and Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday respectively.  M has John 12:1–23; E, John 12:1–36; R, John 12:1–9.

Tuesday before Easter.

      Lesson.  This is the WMR lesson for Monday (slightly lengthened).  It is difficult to see the motive for the change.

      Gospel.  In the earliest Evangelaria St. Mark’s Passion is not read, probably because it was thought to be a mere abbreviation of Matt.  M has John 12:24–43; W, John 13:5–32: R, the complete Passion according to Mark.

Wednesday before Easter.

      Lesson.  1549.  WMR have a Lesson from Isaiah.

      Lesson shortened in Sc.

      Gospel.  WMR have the complete Passion according to Luke.

Thursday before Easter.  Maundy Thursday.

      Gel has three Masses, the first connected with the reconciliation of penitents, the second with the consecration of the holy oils, the third, in the evening, in commemoration of the Last Supper.  The second was a festal Mass. [Greg has one Mass only.]  The R Mass borrows its festal character from the second, as may be seen by comparing the E uses.  Thus S confines the use of Gloria in excelsis to the Pontifical Mass at which the bishop consecrated the oils.  So also Grandison’s Exeter Ordinale (fourteenth century) limits the use of (festal) white ornaments to the same occasion.

      But the structure of the R Mass shows that it is actually the survivor of the third Mass rather than the second.  For the third Mass apparently began at the Offertory.  Gel has no Collect and all the early part of R is borrowed from elsewhere.

      Collect.  Am has a Collect referring to the Institution, and Sc gives as “an Additional Collect” a translation of the well-known Corpus Christi prayer of St. Thomas Aquinas (rendering Deus as “O Lord Jesus Christ”).

      Epistle.  WMR (lengthened), repeated from the Third Nocturn of R Mattins. Am has the same passage much shortened.

      Gospel.  There is no precedent for reading the Passion on this day.  MR have John 13:1–13 (which at one time was read on the preceding Tuesday) [Schuster, op. cit., ad loc.] and Am allows this as an alternative.

Good Friday.

      Collects.  (1) is a translation of the Oratio super populum in HaR for Wednesday, which is also used for all offices until None on Saturday.  It is greatly superior to the R Mass-Collect, repeated from Thursday.

      (2) is a translation of the third of the solemn Prayers of R. [See above.]

      (3) 1549; but evidently suggested by the seventh, eighth and ninth of the solemn Prayers.  There is a revision of this prayer in Ca, another in Am, another in 1928, and a fourth in Sc.  This last is an amendment of 1928, as suggested by the late Dr. Brightman.  Sc allows, in addition, the use of a prayer for the Jews from the Prayers and Thanksgivings.

      Epistle.  1549.

      Gospel.  WMR (much shortened).  The Ambrosian rite has St. Matthew; Moz a cento from the four Gospels.

      The shortening, as on Palm Sunday, dates from 1661.  1928 allows the whole of John 18, 19 to be “read or sung,” making the division between “the Passion” and “the Gospel” at the end of 19:37 (the traditional point).

Easter Even.

      There is some precedent for the provision of a service for the morning of the vigil of Easter (as distinguished from the vigiliary Mass, which was the climax of the vigil, and belonged in primitive times to the early morning of Easter Day).  In the Ambrosian rite, since the twelfth century, at latest, the following service has found a place: Lesson, Psalm, Gospel, Collect.  Something of the same sort seems to have been usual in Gaul in the sixth century. [Tyrer, op. cit., pp. 145, 146.]

      Collect.  1661.

      Epistle.  1549.

      Gospel.  Ambrosian, Bobbio (lengthened).

Easter Day.

      1549 had two Propria.  These correspond to the vigiliary Mass and the Mass of the day.  The former is the snore important, like the vigiliary Masses of the Ember Saturdays: so much so that in some places it actually was the only Mass of Easter Day. [Schuster, op. cit., p. 80.]  The vigil service, culminating in the Mass, “was looked on as the most important service in the whole year.” [Tyrer, op. cit., p. 147.]  But when it came to be celebrated on Saturday morning it naturally fell into the background. [See below, “Anglican Adaptations ...”]  Am provides two Masses, and Sc an alternative Epistle and Gospel which may be used at one celebration if there be more than one, and also on any day in the Octave not otherwise supplied.

      Collect.  PHaSGR.

      Epistle.  WMR (the Mass of the vigil; lengthened).

      Gospel.  WMR (Mass of the Saturday in the Octave).

      The second Mass of Am is the same as that of 1549, except the Collect, which is a Greg prayer from the S Processionale, slightly altered.  The same Collect, utilized by Cranmer in the vestige of a Procession which he introduced before Mattins on Easter Day, [See above, “History Down to 1662”] appears in Sc and 1928 as an Additional Collect which may be used until Ascension Day (Sc) or during the Easter Octave (1928).  Epistle, 1 Cor. 5:6–8; WMR (lengthened): Gospel, Mark 6:1–8; WMR.

      Sc has the same Gospel as its alternative one, but a new Epistle (Heb. 13:20–21).

Monday in Easter Week.

      The Easter Octave is the oldest of all Octaves.  In Rome the whole week was kept holy, and no secular business was done.  But there is also considerable early precedent for restricting the actual holy days to three or four (including Easter Day).  In the late Middle Ages four was the usual number.

      Lesson.  WMCassR.                    Gospel.  WMCassR.

      The Scriptures are both connected with St. Peter, and in the Middle Ages the Pope used to make a solemn procession to St. Peter’s on this day.

      Am has a proper Collect; but the Collect of the First Communion of Easter Day is to be repeated all through the week.  Cosin desired the use of the Collect from the Processionale mentioned above.

Tuesday in Easter Week.

      Lesson.  WMCassR (lengthened).  Connected with the station at St. Paul’s.

      Gospel.  WMCassR (slightly lengthened).

      From 1549 till 1661 the Collect was that now used on Easter I.  Am has a proper Collect, derived from GregR for the following Saturday.

Easter Week.

      Sc1928 provide Epistles or other Lessons, and Gospels, for the remaining days of the week.  The Epistles and Lessons are from WMR, [Wednesday’s Lesson is not in W.] but only one of the Gospels (that for Friday).

Easter I.

      Collect.  1549.

      The Epistles on the Sundays from Easter to Pentecost are all from W, but the order has been changed.

      Epistle.  WMCassR (lengthened).  Schuster suggests, rather fancifully, that the reason for avoiding the Pauline Epistles in Eastertide is the fact that St. Paul was not converted till after Pentecost.

      Gospel.  WMCassR (shortened).  B.C.P. Gospel no longer commemorates the events of the eighth day after Easter, since they are now narrated in the second Lesson at Evensong.

Easter II.

      Collect.  1549.                Epistle.  WMR (lengthened).                       Gospel.  WMR.

Easter III.

      Collect.    First in L as part of a Mass for St. Laurence and other martyrs.  PGregGelSGR.

      Epistle.  WMR (shortened).

      Gospel.  WMR.  The first of a sequence of three from the last discourse of our Lord, chosen, says Schuster, either “because He describes, as being within the limits of one prophetic vision, His death, His resurrection, His ascension to His Father and the descent of the Holy Ghost, so many different aspects ... of the one mystery ... the Christian Pasch – or because, owing to the length of the Divine Office on Maundy Thursday, it was impossible to read this discourse.”

Easter IV.

      Collect.    PGregGelSGR.  Deus qui fidelium mentes unius efficis voluntatis.  Literally translated in 1549.  Cosin: “which dost make all men to be of one mind.”  The present rendering eliminates the idea of unity.

      Epistle.  WMR.                Gospel.  WMR.

Easter V.

      There is no early authority for calling today “Rogation Sunday” (AmSc1928).  There can hardly be any direct connection between its services and the Gallican observance of the Rogation Litanies, which did not find its way to Rome till the ninth century.  But the Collect and the Gospel do in fact form an excellent introduction to the Rogations.

      Collect.  PGregGelSGR.            Epistle.  WMR.          Gospel.  WMR (lengthened).

      Cosin desired a rubric confining the use of this Proprium to the Sunday, and suggested a special Collect, Epistle and Gospel for the Rogation Days.  The Commission of 1689 made a similar suggestion.

Rogation Days.

      CaAm provide a special Epistle (or Lesson) and Gospel.  The Epistle (Jas. 5:16–20) in Ca and the Gospel (Luke 11:5–13) in Am are from the R Rogation Mass.  (In R this is the Mass for all Rogation Days, including April 25, but on account of the vigil it is not used on Wednesday except in collegiate churches: in S it is proper to Monday only.)  Lesson (Am), Ezek. 34:25 ff.; Gospel (Ca), Matt. 7:1–11.

      Sc 1928 have a Proper Epistle and Gospel for each day.  Those for Tuesday are from the R Rogation Mass.

      Monday: Epistle, Jas. 5:7–11; Gospel, Luke 6:36–42.  Tuesday: Epistle, Jas. 5:16–20; Gospel, Luke 11:5–13.

Vigil of the Ascension.

      Sc1928 have the R Epistle (Eph. 4:7–13) and Gospel (John 17:1–11).  The R Mass being post-Gregorian borrows the Collect of the Sunday, as do Sc1928.

Ascension Day.

      Collect.  PHaCassSGR.              Lesson.  WMR.

      Gospel.  WMR.  1928 provides an alternative Gospel (Luke 24:44 ff.), presumably on critical grounds.

      Am orders the repetition of the Collect through the Octave, but from Sunday onwards this is evidently meant to be only by way of memorial; for the Proprium of the Sunday is to be used throughout the next week.  Sc allows and 1928 enjoins the use of the Ascension Day Proprium throughout the Octave.  This is in harmony with the later mediaeval tradition.  Am Gospel is Luke 24:49–53.

Sunday after Ascension Day.

      The R Mass is many centuries older than the observance of the Octave, and consequently looks forward rather than back.  The expectation of Pentecost was vividly illustrated in early days in Rome by the custom of showering roses through the opening in the roof of the Pantheon during the sermon at the stational Mass. [Schuster, op. cit., ad loc.]

      Collect.  1549.  Evidently suggested by the antiphon to Magnificat on Ascension Day (EGregGel) ; altered by being now addressed to the Father.

      Epistle.  WMR.                Gospel.  WMR.

Whitsunday.

      The R rite, as at Easter, has a vigiliary Mass which is properly the climax of an all-night vigil, but has in practice been celebrated on Saturday for many centuries. [This vigiliary Mass has never had the importance of that at Easter.  As at Christmas the final Mass is the principal one.  Schuster, op. cit., ad loc.     ]  Only Am now provides for two Communions.

      Collect.  PHCassSGR.                Lesson.  WMCassR.

      Gospel.  A combination of the Gospel of the vigiliary Mass (John 14:15–21), WMR, with that of the feast, WMCassR, v. 22 being inserted between them.  1549 had the former part only.  The latter part was added in 1552.  The combination seems to make a passage of excessive length for a great festival, and it is strange that none of the Anglican revisions has curtailed it.

      The alternative Am Proprium is to be used at the First Communion (if there be two).  The Collect seems to be modern: the Epistle is 1 Cor. 12:4–14: the Gospel Luke 11:9–13 (part of the R Gospel for the Rogations).

Monday in Whitsun Week.

      Lesson.  WMR (lengthened).                 Gospel.  WMR.

      Am has a Proper Collect.

Tuesday in Whitsun Week.

      Lesson.  WMR.                Gospel.  WMR.                                  Am has a proper Collect.

      Sc1928 provide Lessons and Gospels for the remaining days of the week.  Thursday’s Lesson and both passages on Saturday are new: the rest are from R.  But Thursday’s R Lesson is transferred to Friday.  The R Mass for the Ember Days is very ancient (WM).  The reference to the Eucharist in Wednesday’s Gospel is interesting.  Many centuries before the institution of Corpus Christi the instinct of the Church is seen turning to the thought of the Blessed Sacrament immediately after Pentecost.  The observance of an Octave dates from the end of the fifth century, and it is noticeable that the ancient Pericopae have hardly any mention of Pentecost after Tuesday.  W indeed has no Mass at all for Thursday.  The Gospel (Luke 9:1–6; RSc1928) seems to be chosen because of the station which at one time was held ad Apostolos. [Schuster, op. cit., ad loc.]

      For the Ember Days Sc allows the Ember Collect to be said after that of Pentecost.

Trinity Sunday.

      The feast was imposed on the Western Church in 1334.  But it had long been customary to use a Mass of the Holy Trinity on this day as a votive Mass, and in England St. Thomas of Canterbury is said to have instituted it as a regular feast of that mystery.

      In the earliest times, as with other Sundays following the Ember vigil, this day was left vacant.  From the eighth to the fourteenth centuries, it was treated as the Octave of Pentecost.  But the institution of the feast of the Holy Trinity made the Octave end (as the Easter Octave originally did) on Saturday.  R prints the ancient Lesson and Gospel of Dominica I post Pentecosten immediately after those of Trinity Sunday, and they are actually used on the ensuing three days, unless these are otherwise occupied.  E treated the problem differently.  The whole Mass of the First Sunday after Pentecost except the Gospel was transferred to the following Sunday.  This and all other Sundays to Advent were now reckoned by S as “after Trinity”.  HY generally reckon “after the Octave of Pentecost”.  Thus for the first few Sundays of this season E is one behind R.  But as the season proceeds there are further complications.  B.C.P. follows E consistently, but occasionally alters the length of the passages.

      Collect.  GregR.  The translation in 1549 was accurate: “that through the steadfastness of this faith we may evermore be defended from all adversity.”

      Lesson.  ME.

      Gospel.  WME.  This Gospel, the original one for the First Sunday after Pentecost, is, naturally, unconnected with the observance of the feast of the Holy Trinity.

      From this point onwards the Epistles in W are not attached to the Sundays after Pentecost, but to Sundays grouped round the “immovable festivals”; and there has been much dislocation of order.  Henceforward, therefore, the letter W only means that a particular Pericope is found in that Lectionary and assigned to some Sunday after Pentecost.

Trinity I.

      Collect.  Pⁱⁱ GregMSGⁱⁱE. [I.e. in P and SG this is the Collect for the Second Sunday.]  In Gel assigned to Dom. vi post clausum Paschae.

      Epistle.  WMEPamTh. (lengthened).

      Gospel.  AMEPamTh.

      “The Sundays after Trinity may be regarded as a system illustrating the practical life of Christianity, founded on the truths previously presented, and guided by the example of our Blessed Lord.” [Blunt, op. cit., ad loc.]  The subject of this day is the love of God and the love of man.

Trinity II.

      Collect.  GregSGⁱⁱⁱE.  (In Gel assigned to Sunday after Ascension Day.)  But the present form is an adaptation dating from 1661.  Until then there had been a literal translation of the Latin – “Lorde, make vs to haue ...: for thou neuer faylest. ...”

      Epistle.  WME (lengthened).

      Gospel.  ME.

      Subject of the day: active love.

Trinity III.

      Collect.  PⁱGregSG^ivE.

      Epistle.  WME (slightly lengthened).  It seems probable that the Epistles for this Sunday and for our fifth after Trinity were chosen originally with reference to the coming feast of SS. Peter and Paul.

      Gospel.  WME.

      Subject of the day: humility.

Trinity IV.

      Collect.  PGregSG^vE.

      Epistle.  WME (in W. it is the Epistle for Ember Saturday).

      Gospel.  ME.  This Gospel does not appear at all in R; there is therefore at this point a further dislocation.  The R Gospel will henceforward be two ahead of E, but the Epistle still only one.

Trinity V.

      Collect.  First in L: but the assignment of Collects in L is very vague indeed.  PGregSG^viE.  This Leonine Collect recalls the disasters of the dying Western Empire.

      Epistle.  WME.

      Gospel.  WME.  Perhaps chosen in preparation for SS. Peter and Paul’s Day.

Trinity VI.

      Collect.  Ge1PGregSG^viiE.  All the Collects from this point to Trinity XXI (except Trinity XVII) are in Gel, and for the most part in this order.  But in Gel our Collect for Trinity VI is the first of a series per Dominicis diebus (sic), evidently intended for use on the Sundays after Pentecost, but not specifically assigned to particular Sundays.

      Epistle.  WME.  The Epistles now follow St. Paul’s Epistles in order until Trinity XXIV (except Trinity XVIII, which represents a dislocation caused by Embertide).

      Gospel.  WME (lengthened).

Trinity VII.

      Collect.  GelGregE.                    Epistle.  WME.                      Gospel.  WME.

Trinity VIII.

      Collect.  GelPGregE.      Epistle. WME (slightly lengthened).           Gospel. WME.

Trinity IX.

      Collect. L [Cf. Trinity V.] GelPGreg.                  Epistle.  WME (lengthened).

      Gospel.  WME.  Sc1928 provide as alternative Gospel Luke 15:11–32 (RSc1928 for Sat. after Second Sunday in Lent).  It was thought no doubt that the parable of the Prodigal Son was even more worthy of a place in the course of Sunday Gospels than that of the Unjust Steward, especially in view of the supposed exegetical difficulty of the latter.  But are not such difficulties the preacher’s opportunity?

Trinity X.

      Collect.  Based on a Coll. in L.  GelGregE.

      Epistle. WME (lengthened).                  Gospel.  WME.

Trinity XI.

      Collect.  GelPGregE.      Epistle.  ME (slightly lengthened).  Gospel.  WME.

      “The subject of this Sunday is the mercy and pity of Almighty God in bestowing the power of supernatural grace as a free and undeserved gift upon sinners.” [Blunt, op. cit., ad loc.]

Trinity XII.

      Collect.  GelPGregE.      Epistle.  WME (slightly lengthened).          Gospel.  WME.

Trinity XIII.

      Collect. L [Cf. Trinity V.] GelGregE.

      Epistle.  WME.  Sc1928 provide as alternative Epistle Heb. 13:1–6, presumably on account of exegetical difficulties in the traditional passage.

      Gospel.  WME.

Trinity XIV.

      Collect.  L [Cf. Trinity V.] PGelGregE.               Epistle.  WME.          Gospel.  WME.

Trinity XV.

      Collect.  GelGreg.           Epistle.  WME (lengthened).

      Gospel.  WME (lengthened).  Perhaps deliberately chosen for harvest time and the villegiatura of the Roman citizens.

Trinity XVI.

      Collect.  GelGreg.           Epistle.  WME.          Gospel.  WME (lengthened).

Trinity XVII.

      Collect.  GregCass.                     Epistle.  WME.                      Gospel.  WME.

Trinity XVIII.

      This Proprium belongs originally to the Sunday after the September Ember Days.  In Rome, therefore, the Sunday was originally vacant. But the Mass is an ancient one, though probably not originating in Rome.  The only sign of irregularity is the Epistle, which breaks into the otherwise fairly regular course of Pauline reading.

      Collect.  GelGregE.        Epistle.  ME.              Gospel.  WME (lengthened).

      September Ember Days.  Sc provides a special Lesson (Acts 20:28–35) and two alternative Gospels (John 10:1–16 and John 21:15–22).

Trinity XIX.

      Collect.  GelGregE.        Epistle.  WME (lengthened).           Gospel.  WME.

Trinity XX.

      Collect.  GelGregE.

      Epistle.  WME.  This is the season of the drawing off of the new wine; but Christians must not waste their time in feasting. [Schuster, op. cit., ad loc.].

      Gospel.  ME.  The true feast.

Trinity XXI.

      Collect.  GelGregCassE.            Epistle.  WMCassE (lengthened).

      Gospel.  ME.

      “The shield of faith” may perhaps serve as a connecting link between Gospel and Epistle.

Trinity XXII.

      Collect.  GregE.              Epistle.  WME (lengthened).

      Gospel.  WMCassE (lengthened).

Trinity XXIII.

      Collect.  GregE.

      Epistle.  WMCassE.        Gospel.  WMCassE (lengthened).

Trinity XXIV.

      Collect.  LHSY.

      Epistle.  WMCassE (lengthened).  The Pauline course breaks off abruptly at this point.  In early times it was, no doubt, continued on the weekdays.

      Gospel.  WMCassE (lengthened).

Trinity XXV.  In SH Dom. proxima ante Adventum.

      The substance of the rubric as to the lack or “overplus” of Propria, according to the date of Easter, is first found in 1552.  The directions here given are in accordance with tradition.

      Collect.  PGregSY.  (H assigns this Collect to the preceding Sunday, and for this Sunday has another of the ancient series beginning Excita.) The original Collect is as follows: Excita, quaesumus, Domine, tuorum fidelium voluntates: ut divini operis fructum propensius exsequentes, pietatis tuae remedia majora percipiant.

      Lesson.  WME.                Gospel.  WME.

      The Proprium for this Sunday is of the character of Advent rather than of the other Sundays after Pentecost.

      The Feasts of the Saints with very few exceptions have modern Collects, the requests for their intercessions being out of harmony with the dominant Anglican theology.

St. Andrew.

      A day of great solemnity in Rome in the earliest times.  An all-night vigil was observed, and L contains three Masses of St. Andrew in addition to that of the vigil.  Perhaps this is accounted for by his close kinship with St. Peter.

      Collect.  1552.  A new Collect was written in 1549, recalling the traditional death of the Apostle by crucifixion: altered no doubt on account of the extreme Reformers’ dislike of ecclesiastical tradition.

      Epistle.  WMR (lengthened).                 Gospel.  MR.

St. Thomas.

      Collect.  1549.                Epistle.  R.                  Gospel.  R.

Conversion of St. Paul.

      There is a Mass in conversione S. Pauli apostoli in the Missale Gothicum (probably early eighth century), and the fourth-century Martyrology of St. Jerome mentions a feast called Romae translatio S. Pauli, a very obscure phrase.  But the feast of the Conversion does not seem to have been regularly observed until about the twelfth century.

      Collect.  GregR (adapted).  In R, according to ancient custom, there is always a commemoration of St. Peter when the Mass is of St. Paul, and vice versa.

      Epistle.  MR.                    Gospel.  MR (lengthened).

      It seems to have been difficult, after the Reformation, to secure the liturgical observance of this day and of the feast of St. Barnabas.  Both are traditionally of lower rank than the other feasts of Apostles.  (The chief commemoration of St. Paul was in conjunction with St. Peter on June 29.)  From 1552 to 1661 both days were printed in black letters in the Calendar, and Bishop Wren in 1636 had to give orders that their Collects, Epistles, and Gospels should not be forgotten.

Purification of St. Mary the Virgin.

      In origin this feast is rather of our Lord than of the Blessed Virgin, and this is borne out by the character of the Proprium.

      Collect.  HaGelGregR.

      Lesson.  R (lengthened). Reintroduced by Cosin in 1661: until that date in the English rite the Collect for the preceding Sunday was repeated.

      Gospel.  MR (lengthened).  Until 1661 the Gospel ended at v. 27a, “he came by inspiracion into the temple.”

St. Matthias.

      Collect.  1549.                Epistle.  R.

      Gospel.  R.  There is an evident reference to Judas as the “wise and understanding” who was rejected.

Annunciation of B. V. Mary.

      Like the Purification this day is more a feast of our Lord than of the Blessed Virgin.  In conformity with most media.val precedents, Cosin wished to alter the title to “The Annunciation of our Lord to the Blessed Virgin Mary.”

      Collect.  Ha (Post-Communion GregR).                      Lesson.  MSYR.

      Gospel.  MR (slightly lengthened).

St. Mark.

      In spite of St. Mark’s connection with Rome and with St. Peter his festival was not introduced into the Missal till the twelfth century, no doubt because he was not buried there. [Schuster, op cit., ad loc.]

      Collect.  1549.  Entirely recast, apparently without authority, in the latter part of the reign of Elizabeth.

      Epistle.  E.

      Gospel. SH.  (In R this is the Gospel for the Common of a Martyr in Eastertide.)

SS. Philip and James.

      The conjunction of the two Apostles seems to spring from the two accidents that on this day the church of the Sancti Apostoli was consecrated in Rome in the sixth century, and that it contained relics of these two.  Until then the feast had been in honour of James the brother of John.

      Collect.  1549.

      Epistle.  1549, evidently chosen on the assumption, general at that date, that the Epistle was written by St. James the Less, identified with the brother of the Lord.

      Gospel.  WMR.

St. Barnabas.

      Collect.  1549.                Lesson. Y (overlapping with R).                  Gospel. S.

St. John Baptist.

      The ancient Sacramentaries provide three or even four Masses, of which the first is the vigiliary Mass.

      Collect.  1549.                Lesson.  1549.                       Gospel.  WMR (lengthened).

St. Peter.

      According to all tradition this is the feast of SS. Peter and Paul.  In Rome it was observed as the greatest feast of the year except Easter Day itself.  There were three Masses besides the vigiliary Mass.  In Gel the first is of both Apostles, the second of St. Peter, the third of St. Paul.  Later, the commemoration of St. Paul was transferred to June 30.  When the observance was reduced to one vigiliary Mass on June 28th and one festal Mass on the 29th, the Collect at the latter was of the two Apostles jointly, but the Lesson and Gospel referred to St. Peter only.  Thus it was not altogether unnatural that the English reformers, who were intending to change the Collect in any case, should have changed the observance into a feast of St. Peter alone.  Unfortunately, however, they eliminated the commemoration of the following day; so that the English Calendar is left in the strange position of having no commemoration of the natalis of St. Paul.

      Collect.  1549.                Lesson.  WMAR.                   Gospel.  WMR.

St. James.

      Collect.  1549.                Lesson.  1549.                       Gospel.  R (lengthened).

St. Bartholomew.

      Collect (derived from L for feast of St. John Evan.).  R (modified to avoid the suggestion that the observance of the feast is commanded in the Divine law.  The original is Qui hujus diei venerandam sanctamque laetitiam in beati Apostoli tui Bartholomaei festivitate tribuisti).

      Lesson.  H.

      Gospel.  ME.  “The Gospel ... perpetuates an old tradition that St. Bartholomew was of noble birth, and that hence arose the ‘strife.’” [Blunt, op. cit., ad loc.]

St. Matthew.

      One of the most ancient of the festivals.  A Mass is appointed for it in the Martyrology of St. Jerome.

      Collect.  1549.                Epistle.  1549.

      Gospel.  R (in M this is the Gospel of the vigil).

St. Michael and All Angels.

      The original feast and its Mass are in commemoration of the Dedication of the Basilica of St. Michael on the Via Salaria.  “All Angels” is an Anglican innovation, but a very happy one.

      Collect.  HR.        Lesson.  S (Lesson for St. Michael in Monte Tumba: Oct. 16).

      Gospel.  WMCassR.

St. Luke.

      Collect.  1549.  Am has a new one.

      Epistle.  1549.

      Gospel.  SH (RY are slightly longer).

SS. Simon and Jude.

      Blunt considers that the collocation of the two Apostles is suggested by St. Jude’s emphasis on the unity of the faith: [Op. cit., ad loc.] but there is a tradition that they were actually martyred together. [Schuster, op cit., ad loc.]

      Collect.  1549.

      Epistle.  1549.  (Sc1928 provide as an alternative Rev. 21:9–14, no doubt on account of the opinion, usual among scholars, that the Epistle of St. Jude was not written by the Apostle.)

      Gospel.  MR (lengthened).

All Saints.

      The feast of Nov. 1 dates from the ninth century, but a Mass of All Saints, or All Martyrs, has been celebrated at some time of the year from a very early period.

      Collect.  1549.

      Lesson.  R.  But this is the Lesson in W for the Dom. in natale Sanctorum then observed on our Trinity Sunday (which is still the Feast of All Martyrs among the Orthodox).  The same Lesson was used from 608 onwards on the feast S. Mariae ad Martyres observed on the anniversary of the Dedication of the Pantheon as the Church of the B. V. Mary and All Martyrs on May 13.  The change to Nov. 1 took place in the former half of the ninth century.

      Am omits the numeration of the twelve tribes, and continues the Lesson to the end of the chapter.

      Gospel.  R (slightly lengthened).

IV.  Additional Feasts in Anglican Rites Other Than 1661

      The following (as far as St. Margaret of Scotland) are printed in some rites among the greater feasts.

St. Mary Magdalene.

      In 1928 among “Greater Feasts”; in Sc among “Various Occasions”.

      Collect.  Modern.            Epistle, 2 Cor. 5:14–17.                   Gospel, John 20:11–18.

      1549 had a very poor Collect, and the R Lesson and Gospel.  The Gospel identified S. Mary Magdalene with the “woman whyche was a synner.”

The Transfiguration.

      CaAmScIrish1928.  Strangely omitted in 1549.

      The Collect in Ca is based on that in Am, [By Dr. W. R. Huntington, probably suggested by Secreta in S.] but greatly improved in rhythm.  ScIrish1928 are almost entirely different from these, and differ also from each other.  Sc is very clumsy.

      Epistle.  Ca1928, 1 John 3:1–3.

      AmSc have the R Epistle 2 Pet. 1:16–18 (12–18 AmIrish).

      Gospel.  CaSc have the R Gospel, Matt. 17:1–9.

      Am1928 have the corresponding passages from Luke and Mark respectively.

      Sc also reckons among “Red-Letter Days” the following Saints: Kentigern, Patrick, Columba, Ninian, Margaret of Scotland.

      The first four have a Commune.

      Collect based on GregR through B.C.P. (Conversion of St. Paul).

      Epistle.  1 Thess. 2:2–12.                       Gospel.  Matt. 28:16–20.

St. Margaret of Scotland.

      Collect.  Modern.

      Epistle.  R.  Common pro nec Virgin nec Martyre.

      Gospel.  R.  Common pro nec Virgin nec Martyre (shortened).

Dedication Festival.

      Collect.  Sc has an adaptation of R, by Bp. Dowden: Am a shortened form: 1928 a new and very cumbrous composition.

      Epistle.  Sc: 1 Pet. 2:1–10.  Am1928: the same shortened, or 1 Cor. 3:9–17.

      Gospel.  ScAm1928: Matt. 21:12–16.  1928: also John 10:22–29.  We miss the inspired choice of the Lesson (New Jerusalem) and Gospel (Zacchaeus) of R.

Thanksgiving for Harvest; or Thanksgiving Day (Am).

      Collects. Am : 1789 ; ending, rather unhappily, with ‘ our comfort.’ Sc has three, by Bp. Dowden : full of tags from Scripture and B.C.P. One or more may be said. 1928: a good modern Collect, from the Irish Prayer-Book.

      Lesson. Sc : Deut. xvi. 13-15.

      Epistle. Am: Jas. i. 16-27. 1928: Gal. vi. 6—To.

      Gospel. Am : Matt. vi. 25-34. Sc : Matt. vi. 28-34. 1928: John iv. 31-36.

St. John before the Latin Gate.

      Sc1928.  All as on Dec. 27.

Visitation of B. V. Mary.

      Collect.  Modern.  Sc1928.  (Suggested by S.)

      Epistle.  1 John 4:12–14.  Sc.

      Lesson, 1 Sam. 2:1–3.  1928.

      Gospel, Luke 1:39–45.  Sc1928 (R shortened).

Lammas Day.  Sc.

      Collect.  R.

      Lesson, Acts 12:1–11 (R)

      Gospel, Matt. 19:17–30.

Name of Jesus.

      Collect.  Sc and 1928 have different forms of the same: it is not clear which is the original.

      Lesson, Acts 4:8–12.  Sc1928 (R).

      Gospel, Matt. 1:20–23.  Sc1928 (S).

Falling Asleep of B. V. Mary.

      Sc: as on Sept. 8.

Beheading of St. John Baptist.

      Collect.  Modern.  Sc1928.

      Lesson, 2 Chr. 24:17–21.  Sc1928

      Gospel, Matt. 14:1–42.  Sc1928.

Nativity of B. V. Mary.

      Collect.  Sc and 1928 have each a modern Collect.

      Lesson, Gen. 3:9–15.  Sc.                      Gospel, Luke xi. 27,28. Sc.

      1928 makes no provision beyond the Collect.  It is not at all clear what is intended.  It is difficult to suppose that the Epistle and Gospel for the preceding Sunday are to be used, for this would be to depress the feast below the level of those days on which a Commune is to be used.  But the only alternative seems to be “the Common of a Virgin”.  Reference to this will show its extreme unsuitability.

Holy Cross Day.

      Collect. Sc: as on Palm Sunday. 1928: a modern Collect, far from satisfactory.

Epistle, I Cor. 1.27-35.

Gospel, John xii. 27-33 (overlapping with R).

Commemoration of All Souls.

      Collect.    Sc: a modern composition, somewhat arhythmic.  1928.  The address “O [Lord], the maker and redeemer of all believers” is taken from the R Collect, but is, rather strangely, made to apply to the Father.  A very beautiful piece of liturgical English. [From the Manual of the Society of the Resurrection.  Probably by Dr. Brightman.]  As an alternative, another form of the Sc Collect.

      Sc: Epistle, 1 Thess. 4:13–18 (R In die obitus seu depositionis), or 1 Cor. 15:50–58 (R Ad primam Missam, approximately).  1928 Lesson, Rev. 20:11–15.

      Gospel, John 11:21–27.  Sc1928 (R In die obitus seu depositionis).

Conception of B. V. Mary.

      Sc1928: as on the Nativity.

Independence Day.  Am.

      Collect by Bishop Parsons of California.

      Lesson, Deut. 10:17–21.                        Gospel, Matt. 5:43–48.

The Common of Saints.

      Sc1928 provide Communia for Martyrs and other groups of Saints.  The Collects all seem to be modern [That of a Doctor or Confessor (1928) is derived from The English Liturgy.] and vary very much in character.  That of a Bishop (1928) is the best, possessing all the qualities of a good Collect.  That of a Matron (1928) is of almost incredible banality, and is probably the worst which has ever been admitted to an Anglican rite.

      The Epistles, Lessons and Gospels are in some cases suggested by R, but for the most part seem to be independent selections.

      The Anglican rites also contain a few examples of what the Roman rite calls Votive Masses.

      AmSc1928 provide for a Celebration of Holy Communion at Marriages and Burials: Sc1928, “at a Thanksgiving for the Institution of Holy Baptism” [The Sc Collect is an amplification of R for Easter Tuesday.] and “of Holy Communion,” [Alternative Collects, for one of which see Additional Collect for Maundy Thursday (Sc).] “for Overseas Missions”: [The second alternative Collect in 1928 is from the form authorized by the Convocation of Canterbury in 1886 for use on the Day of Intercession for Foreign Missions.  (The Sc Collect is the same slightly shortened.)  The third was originally authorized for use in India.] Sc for “Synods and Councils”: 1928 “for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”  1928 also allows the Proprium for All Souls’ Day to be used on any other day, except Holy days (which of course include Sundays) and days within the Octaves of Christmas, Easter, or Whitsunday.

Post-Communions in Sc. [See above.]

      Those for Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, Whitsun, and Trinity are by Bp. Dowden.  The first of the General Post-Communions and the second of the Collects which may be used as such are from the Book of Deer.  The third of the latter is from the Altus of St. Columba.

Holy Baptism

By the Editor

      At a time when the Church is becoming more sharply differentiated from the world, the origin and the nature of its initiatory rite deserve to be carefully studied.  Its antecedents will be treated under four heads: (a) Jewish, (b) Gentile, (c) Mandaean, (d) John the Baptist.

I

      (a) In the ancient world the symbolism of water was self-evident.  As Tertullian says, [De Baptismo, 15.] “Jewish Israel washes daily because it is defiled daily.”  There is no need to describe the lustrations of the Old Testament.  It is more important to note the growth of the conception of a holy land and a holy people.  As early as Amos 7:17 an exile is said to be taken to “a land that is unclean”.  However, the Deuteronomic Reformation prescribed no purification for a foreign woman who married a Hebrew. [Cf. 21:11 ff.]  To safeguard racial and religious purity, in the Maccabaean period legislation was introduced by which Gentile women had to submit to a purificatory bath before being received into the Jewish community. [Cf. F. Gavin, The Jewish Antecedents of the Christian Sacraments, pp. 9, 29 ff.  The evidence is found in Sanhedrin 82 a, Aboda Zara 36 b.  The Gentile woman was held to be permanently unclean, in the sense that the Jewess was periodically unclean.  Another tradition taught that the Gentile was outside the sphere of the Levitical enactments and could not be ritually unclean.]  When the Pharisees became the dominating influence in Judaism and missionary propaganda was undertaken seriously, women were attracted more readily than men, in whose case circumcision was an obstacle.  Thus at Damascus nearly all the women were said to be under Jewish influence. [Josephus, B.J., II. xx. 2.]  Gradually baptism, which was originally the manner of initiation reserved for women, as circumcision was for men, became universal, and even indispensable, in the case of men also.  Its effect was permanent, in that it sanctified the descendants of proselytes.

      The evidence for proselyte baptism is contained in the tracts Yebamoth, of the Babylonian Talmud, and Gerim, probably a thirteenth-century compilation of material that goes back to the first and second centuries of our era; scattered hints are found elsewhere. [The passages will be found in Billerbeck’s Kommentar, i. 102–12.  Gerim is printed in a German translation in ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ (1926), pp. 1–38, with a Commentary; and in an abbreviated form in Gavin, op. cit., pp. 35–35, where the parallel passages of Yebamoth are also given.  An early Christian reference is Justin, Dial., xxix. I: “What need of that other baptism [of proselytes to Judaism] to one who has been baptized by the Holy Spirit?”; cf. xiv. x.]  The Gerim description is as follows.

      The would-be proselyte is asked why he wants to become a Jew, and warned that sufferings await him “on account of circumcision and baptism and all the other ordinances.”  If he says, “I am not worthy,” he may be accepted. (In Yeb. 47 a, b, instruction follows, then circumcision, then, when the man is well enough, baptism.  Gerim does not mention circumcision in its description of baptism.)  He is then taken to the house of baptism and immersed up to the middle.  At this point certain details of the law are rehearsed, such as the forgotten sheaf, the gleaning, the corner of the field, and the tithe; a woman is instructed in her duty respecting the leaven and the lighting of the candle.  (In Yeb. 47 b two men learned in the law give the instruction.)  The man then (totally) immerses himself, and on coming up is addressed with words of congratulation on having joined himself to Israel.  Women are baptized by women (in this case, according to Yebamoth, two sages stand outside near by and give the instruction).  According to R. Eli‘ezer, a proselyte circumcised but not baptized is a Jew, but R. ‘Aqiba says baptism is indispensable. [This opinion was generally held. The influence of Egypt must have been strong. The native Egyptians practiced circumcision, so that in their case baptism was the only initiatory rite possible for men as well as for women.]

      Other features to be noted are these.  Precautions are taken against clandestine baptism; three witnesses seem to be required; living water ‘ must be used if possible.  Yebamoth and Gerim both presuppose a more extended instruction than the summaries they give.  Jewish catechetical instruction, so it is thought, [By Seeberg (Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit) and others (especially commentators on the Didache, who hold that “the Two Ways” are a Jewish outline of catechetical instruction).] was dogmatic, ethical, and eschatological, and these three heads are represented in Yebamoth (“lighter and weightier Commandments,” “penalties for transgressions,” and “the world to come was made only for the righteous” [Gavin, pp. 36-40.]).  Jewish baptism was sacramental in the sense that it mediated admission into the community of God’s people.  Only in one passage, Sibylline Oracles, iv. 163 ff., which may be the utterance of a Hellenized Jew, does it seem to be regarded as bestowing the forgiveness of sins: “Repent ye ... wash your bodies from head to foot in running streams, and lift up your hands to heaven, asking forgiveness.” [The dictum of Yebamoth, “a proselyte is like a child new born,” may imply sacramental forgiveness; see below.  However, G. F. Moore says emphatically: “In the whole ritual there is no suggestion that baptism was a real or symbolical purification. ... It is essentially an initiatory rite, with a forward and not a backward look” (Judaism, i. 334).]  Children were baptized with their parents, but when they came of age could decide for themselves; if they left the Synagogue they were considered to have been non-Israelites all the time. [See Billerbeck, i. 110.]

      (b) The practice of baptism was well known in the Gentile world. [For this section see the many good books on the mysteries, especially the works of Clemen, Cumont and Reitzenstein.  S. Angus, The Mystery Religions and Christianity, is perhaps the best English book.  See also F. Legge, Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity; L. Patterson, Mithraism and Christianity; A. S. Geden, Select Passages illustrating Mithraism; and especially J. Leipoldt, Die urchristliche Taufe im Lichte der Religionsgeschichte, pp. 38–56.]  If, as was probably the case, mystic brotherhoods originated in the fragments of races left in a country occupied by invaders, which guarded their traditions strictly and, since they alone knew the way of the god of the land, often seemed to the conquerors to possess a superior religion, initiation into the brotherhood was originally initiation into a racial unit, as proselyte baptism was admission into the holy people of the Jews.  At Eleusis baptism is attested as early as the fifth century B.C.  A statue preserved in the museum at Eleusis [Reproduced by Leipoldt.] represents the goddess baptizing a man.  She uses a shell, but this in an idealistic work of art does not exclude total immersion, which could not be depicted.  Baptism is attested in the Dionysian mysteries. [See a picture from Pompeii in Leipoldt, p. 42.  It is realistic and, since the bowl which is being prepared is only of moderate size, total immersion is excluded.]  The Attis-cult had the taurobolium, or blood bath; an ox was slain over a board pierced with holes, beneath which the initiate sat in a trench.  The theory was that he was buried with Attis, whom he represented, and then, sprinkled with the blood, he received the divine life and rose with the god; even in this life he enjoyed immortality. [So the Roman inscription of A.D. 376: “taurobolio criobolioque in aeternum renatus.”]  Mithraism had both water and blood baptism. [The recently discovered Mithraeum at Trèves contains a hollow just inside the entrance: the sides are cut away to form a resting place for the board.]  The early Church saw in these rites a devilish parody of the Christian Sacrament.  According to Justin Martyr, [Apol., 62.] the demons got the idea from the prediction of the Sacrament made by the Jewish prophet. [Isa. 1:16.]  Tertullian says that the Gentiles “are initiated into certain sacred rites (of Isis or Mithras) by a bath. ... At the celebrations in honour of Apollo and those held at Pelusium, worshippers are dipped, and they have the effrontery to declare that their object is rebirth.” [De Bapt., 5.]  The devil “promises remission of sins as the result of a bath.” [Tert., De Praescr., 40.]

      Egypt provides specially interesting material.  The sun-god’s image was bathed every morning.  As he was supposed to be born anew each day and stress was laid on his plunging into the ocean each night, it seems as if the bathing represented a dying and rising again.  Similarly the image of Osiris was immersed in the Nile, to symbolize the death of the vegetation with which he was identified, and its revival after the annual overflowing of the Nile.  The king was baptized that he might obtain purity and eternal life.  But every dead person was held to receive baptism in the next world, as a means of attaining immortality.  In the case of the king, and sometimes in that of ordinary men, this baptism was anticipated by a ceremony performed on the dead body.  The king’s corpse was baptized by the gods, that is, by priests wearing masks representing the gods. [Leipoldt, p. 48.  According to Hermas, Sim., ix. 16, the Apostles and teachers after they had fallen asleep went to Hades and there preached and baptized.  In the second-century Epistola Apostolorum Jesus is made to say that He went to the place of Abraham, etc., “and gave them the right hand of the Baptism of life and forgiveness ...”, or perhaps “with the right hand the Baptism ...” (Kleine Texte, 152, p. 23).]

      (c) The Mandaeans cannot be omitted in any survey of the subject, however brief, since baptism was their characteristic rite. [Their literature, written in a Semitic dialect akin to Aramaic, is available in German translations by M. Lidzbarski: The Book of John (Baptist); Qolasta (Liturgies); and Ginza.  S. A. Pallis’ Mandarin Studies is the fullest criticism of the new theories.]  This Mesopotamian sect, which still survives, is thought to have lived originally in the Jordan valley; some scholars believe that it was pre-Christian.  The problem is difficult.  The documents are very late; conceivably, archaic elements are preserved in them, from which something of importance may be learned, but agreement among scholars is unlikely to be attained.  It seems best to summarize the facts and leave the reader to judge as to their relevance. [What follows is derived from R. Reitzenstein, Die Vorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe (1929).  Lietzmann, Burkitt and others show that the Mandan Liturgy is dependent on the Syriac Baptismal Rite.]

      In the Mandaean Baptismal Liturgy the candidate goes down to Jordan, [A generic name for all baptismal water.  Its retention through the centuries in Babylonia is an argument for the Palestinian origin of the sect.  Reitzenstein (p. 20) quotes an inscription as evidence that the Mandaeans lived by the Jordan in the second century A.D.] where he is baptized.  Expecting death he finds life, that is immortality, if his desire is sufficiently strong.  The priest receives him, gives him holy food and drink, takes him between his knees – a symbol of adoption – and raises him up.  The soul requires witnesses, but rejects the sun [That is, the Persian religion.] as a witness. [This description is derived from the baptismal odes, which, according to Reitzenstein, are better evidence for primitive custom than the prose liturgical directions.]  A second baptism, after death, before the gates of heaven, is mentioned.  This is perhaps symbolized by the anointing with oil which follows the baptism. [Cf. 2 Enoch 22:8 for this heavenly anointing.]  After the anointing comes the laying on of hands. [Discussion of this second part of the initiatory rite is postponed until the following chapter on Confirmation.]

      If it could be proved that Mandaeanism was pre-Christian, we should conclude that it was a form of pre-Christian Gnosticism.  Since it claims to go back to John the Baptist, and some connection is obvious, John may have been influenced by some syncretistic sect on the fringes of Judaism. [Something like Essenism, but even further removed from official Judaism.]  But more probably certain disciples of John, failing to pass over to Christianity and unwilling to conform to the Judaism of the second century, coalesced with a Gnostic sect, carrying with them traditions of their prophet.  Though they repudiated Christianity, their customs in the centuries that followed were influenced by those of the Church.

      (d) The baptism of John had affinities with Jewish proselyte baptism, but differed from it in several ways. John’s movement was definitely prophetic. He arraigned the entire people, who were called upon to repent. The soldiers mentioned by St. Luke may have been non-Jews, in which case Jews and Gentiles were received without distinction. [The “disciples” of Acts 19:1–7 do not look like Jews, though the argument from silence is precarious.]  Nothing is said about witnesses; John himself baptized, or rather the crowds immersed themselves in his presence. [εβαπτίζοντο is more naturally taken as a middle in Matt. 3:6, Mark 1:5; so in Bauer’s Wörterbuch, “sich taufen lassen”.]  But the movement was eschatological even more than prophetic.  Baptism was a sign guaranteeing endowment with the spirit in the approaching Messianic Age.  Though it was for the forgiveness of sins, [John 1:29 teaches that the forgiveness of sins was the Messiah’s prerogative.] its root idea was initiation into a community chosen out from the mass.  This helps us to understand why, in the Church, Baptism, which grew out of John’s baptism, is never repeated.  Had forgiveness been the fundamental thought, repetition would have been natural; but initiation is once and for all.  With the going out of the crowds into the wilderness we may compare the semi-political Messianic movement described by Josephus; [B.J., II. xiii. 4.] a great multitude went into the wilderness “in the expectation that God would show them there signs of freedom,” and were suppressed by Felix with great slaughter.  St. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 10:2 are significant: “Our fathers were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.”  This looks like a Rabbinic theologoumenon invented to explain proselyte baptism.  On the well-known principle that the conditions of the first age would be reproduced in the Messianic time (Endzeit = Urzeit), it was natural for Jews to go into the wilderness, in order to repeat there the experiences of their ancestors in the time of Moses and to be prepared for the Messianic Age. [See J. Jeremias in Z.N.W. (1929), pp. 312–20.  Some Rabbis found evidence for baptism in Ex. 19:10; see Billerbeck, 1:110.]

      On the other hand, the ethical teaching of John is said to correspond closely with what is known of Jewish catechetical teaching given to proselytes. [Leipoldt, op. cit., pp. 7, 28.  The fullest critical monograph on John is Jean-Baptiste by M. Goguel (Paris, 1928).]

I

      On the strength of St. John’s Gospel (4:1, 2) it may be argued that our Lord took over the practice of baptism from John the Baptist.  The silence of the Synoptists is curious but does not invalidate the evidence of the Fourth Gospel, in which the narrator gives the tradition as he received it, that Jesus baptized, explaining, however, that in actual fact it was the disciples who baptized. [In this passage rather than in Matt. 28:19, 20 we shall find support for the “Dominical” institution of Holy Baptism; but see (d) below for the value of the latter passage.  Those who hold that the author of the Fourth Gospel was the son of Zebedee will not make the distinction made above between the narrator and the tradition he used.  John 3:5, “except a man be born of water and the Spirit”, could be taken as unequivocal testimony for Dominical institution if it were not for the divergent opinions relating to the historical value of the Gospel.]  For our purpose the evidence of the New Testament may be treated under five heads: (a) the minister of baptism, (b) the recipients, (c) the preparation demanded, (d) the formula used, (e) the manner of baptizing.

      (a) There was apparently no minister in the later sense when St. Paul was baptized, since he uses the middle voice in describing his experience. [Acts 22:16.  However, the passive is used in 9:18.]  He himself rarely baptized in person. [1 Cor. 1:14–17.]  In the case of the 3000 baptized on the Day of Pentecost it is hard to imagine the Apostles baptizing each person separately in the modern manner.  Probably such a mass baptism resembled the baptisms in Jordan, the candidates after confessing their sins baptizing themselves before witnesses.  St. Philip, however, went down with the Ethiopian eunuch into the water (Acts 8:38).  The difference made by the Church between Baptism and the Eucharist, Baptism by the laity being permitted in an emergency, but the Eucharist being always celebrated by an ordained minister, is most easily explained if the tradition of John 4:2 is right and our Lord did not baptize in person.  But there was always a minister in the sense that there was one who presided over the ceremony.

      (b) We cannot here discuss the problem of infant baptism in the New Testament.  On the one hand we have the analogy of circumcision and the references to the baptism of households: on the other hand the close connection of Baptism with conversion and public declaration of faith.  An attractive solution is that children were baptized, but not as a rule until they reached the age of six or seven, up to which time they were considered to have retained the innocence of infancy, [Cf. Tert., De Bapt., 18: “Why hurries the age of innocence to the remission of sins?”] but that from the very beginning illness or some other emergency will have caused parents to desire Baptism even for infants. [H. Windisch in Z.N.W. (1929), pp. 118 ff., “Zum Problem der Kindertaufe im Urchristentum,” collects an imposing volume of evidence, Jewish and Gentile, respecting “the age of innocence,” which supports this view.  Some hold that infant baptism was originally universal, but came to be postponed owing to fear of post-baptismal sin; cf. Heb. 6:4.]  Those who wanted even the dead to be baptized are unlikely to have been content to leave their children unbaptized. [1 Cor. 15:29.]

      (c) There is little in the Acts or the Epistles to support the idea of a catechumenate. The 3000 at Pentecost were baptized immediately.  The eschatological view of Baptism was paramount, so that haste was necessary.  The baptized were instructed Jews ; the acceptance of Jesus as Messiah argued a fundamental change in their outlook and nothing more was required. However, “the apostles’ teaching” followed baptism (Acts 2:42).  As the Gentile mission developed and eschatological expectation died down, careful preparation became the rule. [Cf. Acts 16:15, 33 for (a) speedy, (b) immediate baptism.]

      (d) Perhaps the confession “Jesus is Lord” was used at Baptism. [Cf. Rom. 10:9, 1 Cor. 12:3, Phil. 2:11.]  The second-century reading in Acts 8:37, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,” looks like a fuller form of “I believe that Jesus is Lord,” which among Gentiles would replace the primitive “Jesus is the Christ.”

      The actual baptismal formula, supposing one to have existed, is unknown.  “Baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 28:19) describes very well what must have been the primitive meaning of Baptism.  The convert entered into a relation to God, to His Son the Messiah, and to the Holy Spirit of the Messianic Age, exactly as the disciples of John did at their baptism.  The words which express the primitive thought sound to us too theological to be quite primitive, and scholars are almost unanimous in rejecting them as an authentic utterance of our Lord. [St. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 1:17, “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel,” have been thought to exclude the possibility that he knew a command of our Lord as given in Matt. 28:19, 20.]  But in view of their use as a formula in the Didache (c. 100), and of the Trinitarian verse, 2 Cor. 13:34, it seems best to attribute high value to them short of this.  If they represent the primitive definition of Baptism, baptizing in or into the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 8:16, 19:5), or of Jesus Christ (10:48), may be a compendious description, bringing out the differentia of the Christian rite. [Eph. 5:14 is probably from a hymn sung at Baptism; cf. the Odes of Solomon.]

      (e) A commonly held opinion is that total immersion was the primitive custom.  Certainly in Jewish proselyte-baptism immersion was the rule, and doubtless it continued in the early Church when conditions were favourable.  But the probabilities of the case, on the Day of Pentecost, for example, and in the prison at Philippi, descriptions of baptisms, [Especially in the Didache.] and pictorial representations in the Catacombs and elsewhere, combine to show that affusion was the normal method. [See C. F. Rogers, Baptism and Christian Archeology, and a summary of the conclusions of the book in an S.P.C.K. pamphlet, Baptism and the Early Church.]

      If it is asked in what sense Christ ordained Baptism, in view of the difficulties revealed by our survey, we may answer in the words of Dr. N. P. Williams: “The universal prevalence of Christian Baptism” is to be explained by “some command, or expression of purpose, given by the Lord Himself.”  At His own Baptism, “by undergoing this momentous experience, in which the interior influx of the Spirit was superadded to the exterior affusion of water, our Lord Himself, in His own Person, transformed the water baptism of John into Christian Spirit baptism.” [Essays Catholic and Critical, pp. 417–18.]  John 4:1, 2 is sufficient evidence of an “expression of purpose” that His followers should practice Baptism.

III

      The Didache (Ch. 7) and Justin Martyr (Apol., 61, 65) agree closely in their description of Baptism, and, when allowance is made for Justin’s avoidance of Christian terminology, may fairly be combined to give a composite picture of sub-Apostolic practice.  Baptism is preceded by a period of personal preparation (consisting of fasting, prayer and confession) and instruction.  The threefold Name is used at the baptism, which is in a stream or bathing place other than the normal place of assembly.  The Didache allows, in cases of necessity, a threefold pouring of water on the head.  In neither document is the laying on of hands or unction mentioned.

      Tertullian’s treatise De Baptismo is our main authority for the period about 200.  The minister is the Bishop; by delegation priests or deacons may baptize; even laymen, if necessary, but never women.  Postponement of baptism in the case of children is advantageous.  Good Friday and Pentecost are the regular times ; careful preparation is prescribed; sponsors are present.  Unction and laying on of hands follow baptism, the minister in this case not being specified.

      We now proceed to summarize the developed rite of the fourth and fifth centuries, comparing it with the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus preserved in “The Egyptian Church Order,” which gives us the Roman rite of the early part of the third century.  For brevity’s sake two examples only are given, the Eastern rite as given by St. Cyril of Jerusalem and the North Italian one described in St. Ambrose’s De Mysteriis [And in St. Ambrose’s other writings.] and the rather later De Sacramentis.  The evidence is insufficient to justify a positive assertion, but Hippolytus probably represents the main line of tradition, of which the later types are local variations. [The Syriac-speaking Church had peculiarities of its own, treated later under Confirmation.]

      (a) The Making of Catechumens.  According to Hippolytus, postulants are examined as to their motive, status (slave or free, married or single) and occupation; image makers, priests of the gods, hunters, soldiers, stargazers, etc., are rejected.  Three years’ instruction is the normal period.  The catechumens are separated from the faithful in church.  They are instructed by “the teacher”.  After “the prayer” and the kiss of peace, from which latter they are excluded, when the teacher, who may be a layman, “has laid his hand upon the catechumens, he shall pray, and dismiss them.”

      At this stage they are called audientes, “hearers”: when the special preparation for Baptism begins, competentes (or electi, in Greek φωτιζόμενοι).

[Confirmation follows in all three cases.]

      The Hippolytan account, which, owing to its fullness, [The blanks in the other columns do not necessarily imply differences from the Hippolytan rite.] is of unique value, is so largely represented in the modern rite of the Eastern Orthodox Church that we are justified in considering it to be the common source of East and West.  The Orthodox Baptismal Service is described elsewhere. [See below, Eastern Orthodox Church.]  It is sufficient here to mention those features which it has in common with Hippolytus, adding the number of the relevant clause in the table above.  At the reception of a catechumen, immediately preceding the baptism, the priest signs the person with the sign of the cross and lays his hand on his head (1); then exorcises him and breathes on him (1, 4, 5). In the latter part of the reception and the baptism, we have the renunciation of Satan (11), [Followed by the spitting upon Satan, as in De Myst., ii. 7, according to a conjectural reading.] the recital of the creed (11, Cyril), the blessing of the water (6), the blessing of the oil which is taken from the deacon (9), the unction (13), the threefold immersion – “the servant of God, N., is baptized in the name ...” – (15), the vesting of the baptized person (18).

      Turning to the West, we now give the salient features of the Roman rite as described by Duchesne, [Christian Worship, pp. 294–313.] with those of the Sarum rite. [For information about other rites in East and West cf. T. Thompson, The Offices of Baptism and Confirmation.]  The former goes back to the seventh century, when Infant Baptism was becoming general, but the service still presupposed adults.

IV

      The form for Public Baptism of Infants in the 1549 Book falls into three parts;

      (a) introductory, representing the Order for Making a Catechumen.  This took place at the church door.  Before the prayer “Almighty and Immortal God” the priest asks the child’s name and makes the sign of the cross on the child’s forehead and breast, saying: “N., receive the sign of the holy Cross ... in token that ...”  After the prayer comes the exorcism of the unclean spirit; then the Gospel with the exhortation founded on it.  The exhortation leads up to the Lord’s Prayer and the Creed (redditio symboli), ending: “let us faithfully and devoutly give thanks unto him: and say the prayer which the Lord himself taught And in declaration of our faith, let us also recite the articles contained in our Creed.”  After the following prayer, “Almighty and everlasting God ...” the priest takes a child by the right hand (the others following) and leads him into the church, saying: The Lord vouchsafe to receive you into his holy household, and to keep and govern you alway in the same, that you may have everlasting life.”

      (b) The Baptism.  This is virtually as in the 1662 Book, except for the Blessing of the Font, until the end of the actual baptizing, which is followed immediately by the giving of the chrysom: “Take this white vesture for a token of the innocence which by God’s grace in this holy sacrament of baptism is given unto thee ...” – and by the anointing: “Almighty God ... who hath regenerated thee by water and the Holy Ghost, and hath given unto thee remission of all thy sins: he vouchsafe to anoint thee with the unction of his Holy Spirit, and bring thee to the inheritance of everlasting life.”  The final exhortation follows.

      (c) The Blessing of the Font comes as an appendix after the Order of Private Baptism, though the prayers are to be said immediately before the baptizing. They are derived from a Galilean source, the nearest to which is the Mozarabic source printed by Dr. Brightman. [The English Rite, ii. 738.]  The water is ordered to be changed at least once a month.

      The service headed “Of them that be Baptized in private houses in time of necessity” adapts the public service in the same way as is done in the 1662 Book.

      In deference to Bucer’s criticisms [See Procter and Frere, pp. 74, 75.] and to secure greater unity, the Office was revised in 1552 and assumed virtually its present form, the sources and rationale of which we proceed to describe.

      The Introductory Rubrics.  (i) In 1662 the reference to the old custom of baptizing only at Easter and Pentecost was omitted.  “Vulgar tongue” was put for “English tongue,” [See pp. 813 f. for the translations of the Prayer Book already made.] and “upon any other day” for “at home,” doubtless to discourage Private Baptism.  (ii) The three godparents [Not more, “for whatsoever be more it is of evil” (Lyndwood, Provinciale, iii. 24).] possibly represent the early mediaeval custom of having a godparent for the catechumenate, another for Baptism, and a third for Confirmation.  The prohibition in Canon 29 (1604) of parents being sponsors for their children is obsolete. [All Anglican revisions relax this rule.]  (iii) The very short notice was sufficient in the seventeenth century, when the minister would know all his parishioners.  The injunction that the Font “is then to be filled with pure water” abolishes the custom of letting water stand in the Font.  In the Sarum Manual the priest asks the sex of the infant and whether he has been baptized at home.  Only the latter question, to prevent the sacrilege of repeating baptism, is found in the English rite, the former being unnecessary when notice is given beforehand.

      Exhortation.  Based in part on Hermann’s Consultation and John 3:5.

      Prayers.  The first is taken from Luther’s Baptismal Office; it comes also in the Consultation; the connecting of Baptism with the Flood goes back to 1 Peter 3:20, 21.  The second translates one of the Sarum prayers at the exorcism.  These prayers represent those formerly said over the catechumens.

      The Gospel takes the place of the instruction originally given to catechumens; following Hermann, the Reformers took it from St. Mark instead of, as in the Sarum Manual, from St. Matthew.

      Exhortation.  Partly original in 1549 and partly from Hermann.  The final words, “give thanks unto him, and say,” which in 1549 led up to the Lord’s Prayer and the Creed, now fitly introduce the prayer “Almighty and everlasting God ...”, which begins with a thanksgiving.  The prayer is taken from Hermann.  This ends the first part of the service, according to the old rite.

      Address to the Sponsors.  Partly original in 1549 and partly from Hermann.

      The Renunciation, etc.  The questions were put to the child in 1549, his name being used, it being understood that the sponsors answered as of old.  In 1552 the questions were put to the sponsors, and in 1662 “in the name of this child” was added in the first question.  The Renunciation of Satan goes back to the primitive Church, [See Hippolytus above, p. 420; and De Sacr., I. ii. 5: “Dost thou renounce the devil and his works? ... Dost thou renounce the world and its pleasures?”] as does the Profession of Faith. [Cf. p. 416.  Note slight variations in the Creed: “only begotten Son,” “come again at the end of the world” (so in Hermann), “everlasting life after death” (as in some Celtic books).]  One question and answer was made in 1552 out of the 1549 “What dost thou desire?  Baptism.  Wilt thou be baptized?  I will.”  The question regarding obedience, added in 1662, is taken from the third answer in the Catechism.

      The Blessing of the Water.  The first nine prayers in the 1549 Office for blessing the water were reduced in 1552 to four, as at present.  “The Lord be with you,” etc., of 1549, introducing the final prayer, was omitted in 1552.  In 1662 the words “Sanctify this water ... of sin” were added, to provide a formula for blessing, which since 1549 had been lacking.

      The Baptizing.  In 1549 the priest names the child at the signing in the first part of the service, at the renunciation, and here.  In 1552 these namings were reduced to the one at this place.  The giving of “the Christian name” was thus invested with a new importance.  It became part of the rite about the twelfth century, when baptism of the newly born became the rule. [For an early example of a new name given at Baptism see Bede, H. E., v. 7, where Pope Sergius christens Caedwalla by the name of Peter.]  The dipping in 1549, following the Sarum rite, was threefold – first the right side, then the left, then the face.  In 1552 this provision was omitted.  The sufficiency of affusion goes back to mediaeval [And primitive ; see II (e) above.] practice.  The signing with the sign of the cross was transferred in 1552 from the early part of the service to this place, thus compensating for the omission of the chrysom and the unction.  The accompanying words, “we receive this child ...”, composed in 1552, are a peculiarity of the English Prayer Book.

      Conclusion.  The short exhortation, leading up to the Lord’s Prayer, and the Thanksgiving date from 1552.  The final exhortation was composed in 1549.  The Sarum Address to the Sponsors, which it represents, bids them charge the parents to preserve the child from perils until the age of seven: to see that it be taught the Paternoster, Ave Maria and Credo, and be confirmed “in all goodly haste”. [By “my lord of the diocese” or “his deputy,” which reminds us that “suffragan bishops” were common in the Middle Ages.]  The 1549 addition, “be further instructed in the Catechism,” suggests a rather later age for Confirmation.  The conclusion, “ye are to take care,” was added in 1662 in the place of a rubric to the same effect.

      Rubrics.  The first up to 1662 came in the Order of Confirmation, introduced by words which were then omitted – “that no man shall think that any detriment shall come to children by deferring of their Confirmation.”  The second rubric, referring to the 30th Canon, was added in 1662.

      Private Baptism.  Eusebius tells us of Basilides, who about A.D. 200 was baptized in prison (H.E., vi. 5; cf. Acts 16:33), and of Novatian, who was baptized by affusion on his sick bed (vi. 43).  The rubric in 1549 bids the clergy instruct the people in case of necessity to baptize their children, after calling upon God for His grace and saying the Lord’s Prayer.  Since 1604 “any other lawful minister that can be procured” has been allowed as an alternative to the Minister of the Parish.  Lay Baptism is reckoned as irregular but valid.  The form of conditional baptizing is based on the Sarum one.

      Baptism of Such as are of Riper Years.  This form was added in 1662 to meet the need caused by the neglect of the Sacrament during the Commonwealth and by the beginnings of missionary work in the plantations.  Notice is to be given to the Bishop or his deputy, a provision which recalls the discipline of the early Church, in which baptism was administered by the Bishop or in his presence.  The rubric at the end of the service states that Confirmation and Communion should follow as soon as possible.  The candidate is to be examined and is exhorted to prepare himself with prayer and fasting.  Such a baptism recalls the way of the primitive Church.

      The Churching of Women.  In the Roman rite this is one of a number of Benedictions and is classed as a “sacramental”.  (Connected also with marriage are the blessing of the nuptial bed and the blessing of sterile persons.)  The prominence of this particular custom is doubtless due to the example of the Virgin Mary as recorded in Luke 2:22 ff.  In this way the Jewish ideas of ceremonial uncleanness after childbirth (Lev. 12) passed into the Christian Church.  About 400, according to the Canons of Hippolytus, mothers who had not yet been purified were directed to sit among the catechumens.  But the element of thanksgiving was also prominent.  St. Gregory, writing to St. Augustine, refers to the custom, saying: “If a woman within an hour of her delivery enters the church to give thanks, she is burdened by no weight of sin.” [Bede, H. E., i. 27.]

      In the 1549 Prayer Book the Office followed the Sarum Ordo ad purificandum mulierem very closely.  It was called by the English equivalent, “The Order of the Purification of Women”.  The Psalm was 121, the rest of the service agreeing both with Sarum and with 1662.  The Office was said “nigh unto the choir door,” instead of, in the Sarum, before the door of the church.  The opening words, “Forasmuch as it hath pleased ...’ were optional – “these words or such like, as the case shall require.”  The final rubric ordered her to “offer her chrysom”.  A comparison with the Baptism Service shows that the mother was not expected to be present at the Baptism, for the godparents are told to warn the mother that the chrysom must be returned “at the purification of every child”.  In 1552 the Office received its present name, “The Thanksgiving of Women after Childbirth, commonly called the Churching of Women”.  It was to be said “in some convenient place nigh unto the place where the table standeth.”  “The woman that cometh to give her thanks” was substituted for “the woman that is purified.”

      In 1662 “some convenient place, as hath been accustomed, or as the Ordinary shall direct,” is prescribed in the opening rubric.  Psalms 116 and 127 are substituted for 121.  The 1549 direction, “if there be a Communion, it is convenient that she receive the Holy Communion,” remains unaltered.  The Office ends abruptly without a blessing, since the Communion follows.  It is presumed that the woman is competent to receive.  The Office, therefore, should not be used in the case of an unmarried mother who has not shown signs of penitence.

      Little change has been made in recent revisions.  The English 1928 Book and the Scottish provide two final prayers, one suitable when the child has died, and a Blessing.  The American Book has no Blessing, but a prayer for the child.  The Office is traditional in England; thus a Roman Catholic book on Pastoralia states that “most mothers will not go out for any purpose till they have been ‘churched,’ as it is often termed.” [J. Dunford, Practical Suggestions for the Newly Ordained, p. 39.]  In Canada, we are told, it has fallen into disuse, whereas in Newfoundland it is greatly valued. [W. J. Armitage, The Story of the Revision of the Canadian Prayer Book, p. 291.]

V

      In the revisions of the 1662 Offices the only one which affects their structure is the American combination of the Offices for Infants and Adults so as to form one Office.  The English 1928 and the Scottish Books provide headings for the sections: The Promises (the part previous to them has no heading), The Blessing of the Water, The Baptism, The Thanksgiving, The Duties of the Godfathers and Godmothers.  The four prayers beginning “O merciful God ...”, which in 1549 belong to the Office of Blessing the Water, are put under the heading “The Promises”.

      All the Books except the American mention the fourth or fifth Sunday after birth, and all allow parents to be sponsors.  “Due” or “timely” notice is required by all.  The Irish Book orders that sponsors “be persons of discreet age, and members of the Church of Ireland, or of a Church in communion therewith.”

      The Canadian and Irish Books retain the words “forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin,” which are altered by the others in various ways.  The English 1928 Book has “seeing that all men are from their birth prone to sin, but that God willeth all men to be saved, for God is love”; similarly the Scottish; the South African: “all men are born with a sinful nature.”  The first prayer, with its references to Noah and the Jordan, becomes optional or is omitted in all except the Canadian Book, where it is unchanged.  The English, Scottish and South African revisions print the traditional responses before and after the Gospel.  All except the Scottish order the congregation to say the Thanksgiving with the Minister.

      There are slight changes in the Promises.  In the Baptism of Adults the American Book adds two new questions: “Dost thou believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God?” and “Dost thou accept him, and desire to follow him as thy Saviour and Lord?”  In all except the Canadian and Irish Books the prayer for Blessing the Water is introduced by the Sursum corda and is put in the form of a Eucharistic Preface.  The Canadian and Irish Books alone retain the certifying that the child is too weak to be dipped.  The American 1929 Book makes the sign of the cross at the reception compulsory instead of optional as up till then. [The Reformed Episcopal Church was organized in 1873 by those who were discontented with the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration as held by the American Episcopal Church.]  Some small changes are made in the concluding part of the Service in all the Books.

      The South African Alternative Form gives as optional additions the ceremonies of the Chrysom and the Lighted Candle, with these formulas: “We give this white vesture, a token of the innocency bestowed upon thee, and for a sign whereby thou art admonished to give thyself to pureness of living, that after this transitory life thou mayest be partaker of the life everlasting.”  “Receive the light of Christ, that when the Bridegroom cometh thou mayest go forth with all the saints to meet him; and see that thou keep the grace of thy baptism.” [The Godfather receives the candle when the baptized is an infant.]  The South African Church also has a beautiful Form of Admitting Catechumens, based on primitive models.

      Additional Note. – In the Gorham case, the Dean of Arches in 1849 pronounced against Mr. Gorham, whom the Bishop of Exeter (Phillpotts) had declined to institute because he held that Baptismal Regeneration was not absolute but conditional on an act of prevenient grace.  The Dean held that, according to the doctrine of the Church of England, spiritual regeneration is given in Baptism unconditionally.  On appeal the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided that Mr. Gorham’s views were not repugnant to the doctrine of the Church of England.  Their reasons, however, are not convincing.  As Mr. Warre Cornish, a writer with little sympathy toward Catholicism, says (A History of the Church of England in the Nineteenth Century, i. 326), “If the judges had been infallible in grammar they might have pronounced ‘generally’ to be equivalent to ‘universally,’ and the judgment would have gone the other way; for the distinction drawn by Gorham is not acknowledged by lexicographers at the stage of the English language represented by the Anglican formularies.  In the Church Catechism ‘generally’ means ‘universally,’ as a ‘general’ council means a ‘universal’ council. and a ‘general’ order an order to ‘all concerned’.”

The Catechism and Children’s Worship

By A. R. Browne-Wilkinson

      A “Catechism” is properly speaking not a statement of doctrine but a method of instruction.  We need not delay over the etymology of the word, which appears to imply a “dinning in” of ideas.  But, as often in similar cases, the real study is rather of the process which the word describes than of the precise history of the word and its cognates.

      We may begin, therefore, by stating that, generally, “Catechism” refers to a method of oral instruction, almost invariably by means of question and answer.  Those to whom the instruction is given are “catechumens,” and the status in the church which they occupy is designated the “catechumenate”.  At the outset (see Acts 2:42) catechetical instruction followed Baptism; the Jewish converts already knew the fundamental truths of religion and had the Messianic hope – having confessed that Jesus was the Christ they needed to learn about His acts and words.  But the needs of the Gentile Mission soon led to catechumenate before Baptism.  There is not much evidence; but what there is suffices to indicate that all who entered the Church received instruction in the faith.  So much we may learn from two early writings, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which may belong to the first century, and the Apology of Justin Martyr, about the middle of the second.  Before long the task of the catechist came to be one of considerable distinction, as witness the fame at the beginning of the third century of the catechetical school at Alexandria, and of the catecheses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century.  Such schools became places of sacred learning for Christians in all stages of progress; but the “catechumenate” was a distinct status implying, usually, preparation for Baptism.  The catechumenate, as it developed in the early centuries of the Church’s history, came to include a threefold preparation for Baptism, viz. (i) instruction as to renunciation, (ii) instruction as to belief, (iii) exorcism.  The names of those admitted to the course were carefully kept, and the Bishop satisfied himself that the preparation had been adequate before administering Baptism, Confirmation and first Communion.

      The information that we possess about the catechumenate in the fourth century is fairly plentiful, and from that time forward there is no difficulty in following the general lines along which the catechetical instruction of the Church developed.  The main substance of the instruction from the earliest time appears to have been the Baptismal Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, together with teaching with regard to moral conduct and that practical habituation to Christian ideals of prayer and worship which would follow from attendance at the first part of the Eucharistic worship of the Church.  It was customary during the instruction to hold a sort of examination, called scrutinium: by the seventh century the number of these scrutinies in Rome increased to as many as seven.  Thus it was possible to find out whether the candidate knew the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer and certain other doctrinal teaching by heart.  In this way the memorization of final portions of instruction came to be included in the process known as Catechesis, but the memoranda were not yet designated “catechism”.

      The system which has been briefly described was reproduced in England, and thus began the tradition in the Church of England of the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and training in the Christian moral obligation which has always been hers.  But in England, as elsewhere, this technique of teaching was originally intended for the instruction of adults: a fact which, when duly reflected upon, is of great significance.  When it came to be the usual thing for persons to be baptized in infancy, their instruction obviously had to come after rather than before baptism, and it was enjoined that the clergy should carefully instruct the people.  Thus Bede urges (A.D. 734) the Archbishop of York so to command his clergy, and the Council of Cloveshoo (A.D. 747) provides that Priests shall explain in the vulgar tongue the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the meaning and words of administration of Baptism and Holy Communion.  Although the actual instruction (later to be known as catechism) now followed baptism, the words “catechumen” and “catechism” still usually referred to the initial stages of baptism, the exception being that the instruction of children is sometimes called catechizing in the thirteenth century.  In this way the catechumenate technically became merely a liturgical matter represented by the remains of the old order for the making of catechumens tacked on at the beginning of the baptism service; the scrutinia surviving in the form of the answers demanded from the godparents, this process itself being frequently called “catechizing,” and the interrogations “catechism”.  But right up to the Reformation the clergy are continually being charged by their bishops to attend to the systematic teaching of their people, and Primers for the laity as well as manuals of instruction chiefly for the use of the clergy existed.

      The effect of the Reformation on Anglican usage was twofold.  In the first place it provided a definite manual of instruction for general use in the form of a “catechism”; in the second place an attempt was made to systematize the giving of religious instruction to the young.

      The curate is to use this Catechism, which is in question and answer form, every Sunday and holy day, and the young are to be sent by those responsible for them: penalties are provided in the canons for those who fail to fulfill this obligation.  The Catechism which appears in the English Prayer Book of the sixteenth century is thus in effect an adaptation to the purpose of the instruction of the young before Confirmation of that instruction which had been originally prescribed for adult catechumens and later for all Church people.  The Prayer Book Catechism in its present form dates from 1661, when it received the assent of Convocation: the first part, up to the “Desire,” appeared in the 1549 Book, which also, according to strong but not quite unchallengeable testimony, was approved by Convocation.  Izaak Walton, writing in 1653, attributes the Catechism published in “our good old service books” to Nowell, Dean of St. Paul’s, but he is almost certainly wrong, and Cranmer, although not the sole author, probably had much to do with it.  Other names suggested are those of Goodrich, Bishop of Ely, and John Poynet, Bishop of Winchester.

      It was intended to follow the 1549 Catechism with more advanced manuals.  Dean Nowell prepared both a Larger and a Middle Catechism; and of these Overall, Dean of St. Paul’s, made use in preparing the section on the Sacraments in 1604.  With only two emendations and with slightly altered rubrical directions the completed Catechism took its place in the 1662 Prayer Book and has remained unrevised to this day.

      Regarded as an example of the many catechisms which appeared in Western Christendom in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Prayer Book Catechism stands high.  It is much shorter [Though shortness is a defect when it entails omitting all teaching about Confirmation, the Church, and the Ministry.] and more concise than the Catechism of the Council of Trent.  This document is in four parts, dealing respectively with Faith, the means of Grace, the Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer.  Unlike our Catechism, it is not designed as a manual for the use of children, but for the clergy in their preparation of instruction.  For the former purpose the Roman Catholic Church relies upon smaller Catechisms locally made.  It is interesting to note that the Vatican Council of 1870 considered the question of a standardized popular Catechism, but abandoned the project, admitting that at least three grades would be wanted.

      Another outstanding example of Reformation Catechisms is Luther’s Small Catechism.  Luther’s views on what a Catechism should be are expressed in his German Mass composed in 1525.  He writes: “What we need first of all is a good plain Catechism ... for such instruction I know no better form than those three parts which have been preserved in the Christian Church from the beginning – the Ten Commandments, the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer – which contain in a brief summary all that a Christian ought to know.”  The final form of Luther’s Small Catechism, which eventually superseded all others in Lutheran churches, contained five parts: (i) The Law: the Schoolmaster showing man his sin and need of Christ.  (ii) The Apostles’ Creed: this section deals not only with the great works of God for man in creation, redemption and sanctification, but with the subjective faith, by which man apprehends God’s work.  (iii)  The Lord’s Prayer: in this section the life of the child of God with its duties, privileges and resources is set forth.  (iv) Baptism, and (v) (after a connecting link on Confession and Absolution) the Sacrament of the Altar.  The scope of Luther’s Catechism is therefore closely parallel to the Anglican Catechism; but it is a much more diffuse document, and although intended as an exposition of doctrine for the instruction of the young and simple, it ends by reaching the dimensions, as it has also achieved the status, of a considerable theological treatise.

      Of the other reformed Catechisms, the two most famous are the Heidelberg and the Westminster Catechisms.  The Heidelberg Catechism, published in 1563, contains 129 questions with long confessional answers, which are far too long and prolix for the use of children.  It deals with the sin and misery of man, the Articles of the Apostles’ Creed, the Two Sacraments, the Commandments under the heading of the Thankful Life of the Christian, the Lord’s Prayer.

      The Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly was finished in 1647 and adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in the following year.  The Theology of this Catechism is Calvinistic.  The ground covered is the Doctrine of God, Creation and the Fall of Man, Redemption, the work of the Holy Spirit, the Commandments, and at the end the Apostles’ Creed is printed but not formally explained.  It may thus be concluded, without undue complacency, that the Prayer Book Catechism possesses considerable advantages over other Reformation Catechisms as an instrument for the instruction of children, a purpose which all in common had ultimately in view.  Its chief merit in this respect is its conciseness and freedom from argument.  At the same time it may be questioned whether the scheme for the religious instruction of children represented by the Catechism together with its rubrics has been successful in the past, and still more whether it is adequate in this respect for present needs.

      Two points may be considered separately.  The Prayer Book provides (i) a Manual of Instruction: (ii) a suggested plan for its use.

      Regarded as a manual of teaching, it is a little difficult to assess the value of the Catechism.  Modern scientific ideas of teaching have, undoubtedly, undermined the reputation of the catechetical method for children.  A catechism can be a useful piece of apparatus in the hands of the modern educator, but not the only apparatus.  Its place will be that of a syllabus setting out the program of teaching, and also of a valuable thesaurus of approved formulations of doctrinal concepts which have been reached by inductive methods of teaching.  It is, from the point of view of sound educational method, a terminus ad quem and not a quo.  Everything here turns on the interpretation placed by the teacher upon the rubrics.  These tell the curate to “instruct and examine ... in some part of the Catechism.”  If this is interpreted as an obligation to educate children in the teaching enshrined in the Catechism so that they may come to value it as an expression of living ideas, all will be well, for such teaching will lead them into the adult possession of a document of abiding value.  But to start with the document as a series of statements to be memorized with or without understanding is doubtful procedure.  There is much to be said for learning by heart great statements of religious truth, which will be a permanent possession, gradually interpreted more fully by the experience of life, provided that they already enshrine for the hearer part, at any rate, of their meaning.  The whole discussion, however, belongs to the subject of educational method and cannot be dealt with here.  It must suffice to say that the ideal of providing a document which shall by the mere process of being committed to memory impart the Church’s faith to children is now seen to be wholly impracticable, even though it be understood that it will be “explained” and “illustrated” during the process of learning.

      Turning to the plan for the instruction of children in the faith contemplated in the rubrics belonging to the Catechism and the Confirmation Office, it must be admitted that it has never been successfully carried out except in rare instances.

      Documentary evidence in abundance from the visitation articles, charges and other writings of bishops and divines of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries makes it clear beyond a doubt that, whilst they were anxious that the catechizing of children in preparation for Confirmation should be faithfully performed, it was, in fact, very generally neglected.  The Puritan opposition to Confirmation had the effect, no doubt quite unintentional, of weakening this system of instruction simply because it was, by the rubrics, devised as a preparation for that rite.  George Herbert, it is true, writes in A Priest to the Temple (published 1652, written c. 1630): “The country parson values catechizing highly ... he useth and preferreth the ordinary Church Catechism, partly from obedience to authority, partly for uniformity’s sake, that the same common truths may be everywhere professed, especially since many remove from parish to parish, who, like Christian soldiers, are to give the word and to satisfy the congregation by their Catholic answers.”  But the anxious inquiries of more than one bishop as to whether the Sunday afternoon service has been turned into catechizing by question and answer suggests that Herbert’s statement is of an ideal rather than of a common practice.

      In the eighteenth century the general slackness of Church life increased year by year.  Confirmation was increasingly rare and casual in its administration.  It seems indubitable that the instruction of the young in the Catechism was similarly slack and irregular.  In the recently published Diary of a Country Parson in the Eighteenth Century I have not found one allusion to catechizing in several years of ministry.  It would seem that it was during the eighteenth century that the custom of children being herded together in a corner of the church at Morning and Evening Prayer with no arrangements for catechizing became the general practice.  No doubt there were frequent exceptions to this melancholy rule. Archbishop Herring’s Visitation Returns reveal that catechizing was very common in the first half of the century.  Thus in the county of Notts practically every parish made some attempt to observe the rubric.  The most frequent answers are that catechizing was practiced (a) in Lent, (b) in the summer months.  Some parishes had classes on weekdays.

      The story of the revival of the Church’s provision of special religious instruction of children can be traced down a threefold path which is nowhere a direct return to the Prayer Book provision.

      First in order is the teaching of the religion of the Church in Day Schools.  As early as 1699 the S.P.C.K. had begun to establish charity schools in which the teaching of reading, writing and arithmetic was subordinated to the education in the principles of the Church.  By 1718 no less than 1378 schools were giving this education to 28,000 scholars.  But it was not until the next century that the Church Day Schools, mainly through the efforts of the National Society, were dealing with a very large proportion of the children of the country.  For the last hundred years at any rate the Church Day Schools have played a predominant part in religious education, and the Church Catechism has been a constant feature in the instruction given in them.

      The second strand in the revival is represented by the Sunday Schools.  The name of Robert Raikes, a churchman of Gloucester, is prominently associated with the beginnings of this movement, although previous efforts of a similar kind had been made by John Wesley (1737) and Lindsay and Hannah More (1769).  By 1834 there were a million and a half children in these schools.  This figure, however, includes all denominations, and for some time the Sunday Schools were not vehicles for specifically Church teaching.  It was indeed this lack in the Sunday Schools from the Church point of view that led to the foundation of the Church of England Sunday School Institute in 1841.  With whatever deficiencies, it is only fair to admit that for ninety years past the Sunday Schools of the Church have played a part second only to that of the Church Day Schools in the education of children in the faith.  The methods of these schools have varied; often a real attempt has been made to give systematic training in the Catechism; but probably even more often the teaching given has been of a somewhat nebulous character.  But during the last twenty years a widely successful attempt has been made to improve the Sunday Schools, both from the point of view of educational method and in respect of the definiteness of the teaching given.  From the point of view of the present discussion it is to be noted that the type of lesson used in the Sunday School is not catechetical in method, although in these days it is doctrinal in character with the Catechism as its standard.

      For the origins of the third strand we have to go to the Church of France.  In France the tradition of catechizing never suffered the same eclipse as it did in this country.  From the latter part of the seventeenth century at least the Church in France widely possessed an excellent system of catechizing.  This system is known as the Method of St. Sulpice from the church in Paris where it was developed to a point of especial excellence.  Here the term “catechism” is applied in the old sense of a method of instruction and not of a document.  The method consists of a course of instruction extending over about three years.  The weekly “catechism” is divided into three parts: the questioning, the instruction (reproduced in written analyses during the week), and the Gospel and homily through which the moral and spiritual significance of the instruction is enforced.  Towards the end of the nineteenth century a determined effort began to be made to introduce this system into this country and to adapt it to the needs of the English Church.  A certain amount of success has followed this attempt, and it must be admitted that it approximates more nearly to the Prayer Book plan than the others that have been mentioned.  The Method, however, suffers from certain defects from an educational point of view; but if still further revised and adapted, might be a very serviceable instrument for the teaching of older children. [For a suggested adaptation of this method see The Confirmation School (C.E.S.S.I. and S.P.C.K., 1930), by the present writer.]

      It remains to add a few notes on the subject of children’s worship. In our present Prayer Book there is no provision at all for special services for children. This follows the whole course of the Church’s liturgical tradition to the present day. As was indicated at the beginning of this chapter, the earliest custom of the Church was to permit catechumens to the first part of the Holy Eucharist. By this means the catechumen became accustomed to some, at any rate, of the features of Christian worship. The plan was devised for adult catechumens and extended to the case of children. Baptized children were probably present at the Eucharist with their parents from the beginning, and that they should communicate was an ancient and general custom. Thus it was by gradual habituation rather than by special and separate training that children were ordinarily accustomed to learn their worship. At the Reformation it was evidently expected that this policy would be retained. Children, it is enjoined in the Baptism Office, shall be called upon to ‘ hear sermons,’ that is, presumably at the Communion Service, there being no indication of any other occasion. [In the rubric at the end of the Service, “Upon the Sundays, and other Holy days (if there be no Communion) ...’, up to 1661 the words “Sundays, and other” did not appear.  “The Ante-Communion Service” was meant by the Reformers only for weekdays.]

      Much might be written about the excellence of this plan.  But it is obvious that its practicability depends upon a circumstance on which for long past it has been impossible to depend, namely, that they will find themselves in church in the company of the elder members of their own family, and will grow up in an environment permeated with the spirit and meaning of the Church’s liturgy.  Directly it became usual for the children of the parish to be herded together in the corner of the church during services constructed with no regard to their special needs, and dominated by a discourse intended for the edification of their elders, the old arrangement for training them in worship was certain to fail.  The question then became one of deciding whether to meet the need by maintaining the ideal of family worship by adapting part of the service to the children, or by supplying special children’s services.  The former device has been attempted widely in other Christian bodies, notably amongst the Presbyterians, but not often in the Church of England, except by the inclusion of an occasional children’s hymn.

      Many experiments have been made, however, in the Church of England in the latter direction.  Children’s services have for many years past been a common feature on Sunday afternoons, and in many parishes there have been children’s Eucharists.

      The children’s Eucharist is usually a celebration of Holy Communion at which the children are specially trained, usually by a second priest or by a lay person kneeling with them, to follow and join in the main parts of the service.  Ideally it is better that children should attend a Eucharist at which there are communicants, so that they do not miss witnessing the central act of the rite and associating the service with Communion.  It is always desirable that the service for the children should be a real preparation for the service to which it is hoped that as adults they will come.  Applying this principle to the Eucharist it is clear that a simple parish Eucharist, which is one of the ordinary services of the day, fulfils this aim better than a special children’s Eucharist.

      The same principle has to be applied to the other type of service.  Speaking generally, the two tendencies which have prevailed in recent years have diametrically diverged.  On the one hand there has been a custom of an afternoon children’s service consisting of a form of shortened Evensong; and on the other hand there has been a type of service which bears no resemblance to the Prayer Book services, but which has, in arrangement as in the choice of prayers and hymns, been intended to come nearer to the mentality of childhood.  Both of these extreme types fail from opposite causes.  The first fails because it makes no attempt to provide for the difficulty for children of following the kaleidoscopic change of theme which the adult office presents, in addition to the unrelieved obscurity of difficult language.  The second fails because, whilst coming within the reach of childhood’s comprehension, it often comes too far within it and becomes trifling (“a man’s reach should exceed his grasp” is true for children to a reasonable extent), and, further, it is so utterly different from the Church’s Office that it affords no training for the future use of it.

      There is therefore at the present time a distinct need for the provision of some guidance to clergy for the conduct of children’s services of a kind which, whilst providing for the need of simplicity and special adaptation, shall also be a real introduction to the liturgical worship of the Church. This chapter may, therefore, suitably end with the enunciation of some broad principles which should govern the compilation of such services. [The writer’s Common Prayer for Children (C.E.S.S.I. and S.P.C.K., 1931) is a collection of such services.]

      (1) The first and most essential principle is that children’s services should always be devised in such wise as to be a training for participation in the ordinary services of the Church.  It is this principle which gives worth to that type of experiment which is associated with the notion of making a “Children’s Church”.  In a few parishes it has been possible to set aside a special building as a children’s church in which services specially devised to train children in the essential ideas of corporate worship are held.  In other parishes the same kind of service is held, for children only, in the parish church.  When this plan is rightly worked, the services are arranged on the same general plan as adult services, but the choice of the component parts of the service, prayers, lessons and hymns, follows the need of the children, and they themselves are given as much part in the actual conduct of the service as possible.  The last point is important if we are to avoid the growth of that passive attitude in public worship which leaves all effort to the priest and the choir, which is the bane of so much of our public worship.  The danger to be avoided in this plan is that the children, whilst forming an attachment to their own “church” or service, form no acquaintance with the ordinary services of the big congregation and fail to pass on to them in due course.  It is this consideration which leads us to prefer a simple parish Communion to a children’s Eucharist as the regular method of training in Eucharistic worship, although occasional children’s Eucharists are valuable for the training of the younger children.

      (2) In services which are for children only, a nice balance must be secured between resemblance to the future adult services and the special features of the children’s training in worship.  The general structure of such services should suggest good liturgical form whilst avoiding undue rigidity.  From time to time the general form may be varied to avoid staleness; but the variation should not be too frequent or too drastic, or all sense of form will be lost.  At some points in the service the use of the Book of Common Prayer should be necessary, if only for the finding of a Psalm or Collect, or an Epistle or Gospel, in order that there may be practice in the use of the Book and familiarity with it.

      But for much of the material the conductor will obviously go outside the Prayer Book, yet the forms used should weave in familiar phrases.  Thus, to take a single illustration, here is a form of confession which could be used, which, whilst avoiding the difficulty of any of the Prayer Book confessions, retains and so familiarizes the children with Prayer Book phrases.

      Heavenly Father, we have offended against thy holy laws.  We have left undone those things which we ought to have done, And we have done those things which we ought not to have done.  We are heartily sorry for these our misdoings.  For thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake forgive us all that is past, And grant that we may hereafter serve and please thee.  Through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.

      Such an idea as this is clearly capable of wide application.  An admirable model of services which embody this idea is to be found in St. George’s Service Book for Schools.  The Litany form of praise, intercession and petition is much liked by children and should be freely used.

      (3) In each service there should be a concentration upon some particular part of worship with the other elements proportionately foreshortened.  Thus a particular service would especially concentrate upon praise: confession and prayer would not be omitted though reduced in proportion; but there would be a main concentration on praise introduced by a brief talk on the subject and including a reading about praise, a hymn of praise and a litany of praise.  Thus in turn special attention can be given to all aspects of worship.

      (4) The use of spoken “rubric” needs careful attention, so that each act of worship is rightly introduced; but the art of brevity and restraint must be cultivated, or interminable talking on the part of the conductor will result.  This “rubric” will be the great means of getting a continuous line of orderly thought running through the whole service, besides serving the ordinary purpose of rubric in giving directions as to movement, posture, and so on.

      (5) Children both learn truth and express response through objective means, therefore ceremonial and dramatic movement may be very freely used.  Especially at festivals can this fact be used.  For example, a patronal festival service needs more than the choice of suitable prayers, lessons and hymns.  Processions of sections of the congregation to parts of the church bearing banners, and the recitation of a tiny Office at font, altar rails, chancel step, and so on, teach and express the significance of these parts of the house of God.

      It has not been possible in the space at our disposal to do more than give the briefest indication of the principles which must guide the direction of children’s worship.  We may conclude this chapter with the suggestion that it is no longer possible to include all the material for training of children in the faith or in worship within the Book of Common Prayer.  The Catechism represents a classic expression of that summary of the Church’s faith and life, to the living apprehension of which our religious education of children will be directed.  In the same way the liturgical services of the Prayer Book, whilst not as they stand suitable for the training of children, are the standards of worship for the happy acceptance of which we shall be consciously preparing them.

A Note on Revisions of the Catechism. [By the Editor]

      1. England.  In 1887 the Lower House of Convocation of Canterbury adopted some questions and answers on the Church, to be appended to the Catechism.  In 1888 it was reported that the Report could not be received by the Upper House, since the consent of the President had not been applied for and obtained, for drawing up and circulating a formulary professing to set forth the doctrines of the Church.  A suggestion that the time had come for the revision of the Catechism came from the House of Clergy in the Church Assembly in 1924.  The Archbishop of Canterbury in July 1926 presented to the Upper House of Convocation the draft, made by a Committee of Bishops, of a proposed revision of the Catechism.  In the following October the Lower House suggested: “(a) that, in view of the inadvisability of having alternative Catechisms concurrently authorized, no Revision of the Catechism should be issued with the Revised Prayer Book ...; but (b) that when the Revision of the Catechism is completed, it should be dealt with in a separate Measure.”  The Bishops were asked to prepare questions and answers on Confirmation, the Holy Spirit in the Church, Sin after Baptism and Repentance, and the functions of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.

      The draft Revision with the amendments adopted by the Lower House may be found in Report No. 566.  Stress was laid on the purely provisional character of the draft, and so no purpose would be served by a discussion of it here.

      2. Canada (1922).  The changes are confined to arrangement and form, with a view to making questions and answers clearer and more explicit.  Headings are introduced and the subject- matter is broken up into shorter sections.  Thus the Duty towards God and my Neighbour and the Desire are arranged in sections corresponding to the Commandments and the clauses of the Lord’s Prayer.  The phrasing of the question is generally repeated in the answer.

      3. Scotland (1929).  The Canadian arrangement of the Duty and the Desire is followed, but the opening and concluding sections are not altered.  After the Summary of the Creed follow these words: “And these three Persons in one God I praise and magnify, saying, Glory be to the Father ... world without end.  Amen.”  Three questions and answers are added on Confirmation, at the end of the Catechism.  Confirmation is defined as “an apostolic and sacramental rite by which the Holy Spirit is given to complete our Baptism, so that we may be strengthened in our Christian life.”

      4. The United States of America (1929).  An interesting attempt is made to revive the primitive (and mediaeval) practice of catechizing and instructing adults, as well as children, in church.  In form, the two new catechetical services now provided are addressed to adults.  The congregation is uniformly spoken of as “the people,” never as “children” or “young people”.  It is “the people” who answer the questions addressed to the congregation, and join in the devotional exercises with which the catechetical instruction is interspersed.  Not until the very end of the service is there any indication that the presence of children and young people is contemplated.  However, the second of the final rubrics informs us that “Fathers, Mothers, Guardians, and Sponsors” are required no longer “to send, but to bring with them to church,” “those for whose religious nurture they are responsible,” and are expected themselves to share in the instruction which the minister provides.  These new services have proved popular.

      With regard to the present status of the 1662 Catechism in the American Church, the concluding rubric makes it clear that it is practically superseded, its place being taken by the augmented Catechism which is incorporated in the new catechetical services, and is now made the basis of instruction for Confirmation.

      The only change of any theological significance, which, however, dates from 1789, is the alteration of “which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper” to “which are spiritually taken ...”.  This is not in practice considered to imply any difference in meaning, since the Preface of 1789, which is still printed, disclaims any intention of departing “from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship.”

      Attention may be called to the following new questions and answers.

      Q. When were you made a member of the Church?

      A. I was made a member of the Church when I was baptized.

      Q. What is the Church?

      A. The Church is the Body of which Jesus Christ is the head, and all baptized people are the members.

      Q. How is the Church described in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds?

      A. The Church is described in the Creeds as One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

      Q. What do we mean by these words?

      A. We mean that the Church is —

            One; because it is one Body under one Head;

            Holy; because the Holy Spirit dwells in it, and sanctifies its members;

            Catholic; because it is universal, holding earnestly the Faith for all time, in all countries, and for all people ; and is sent to preach the gospel to the whole world;

            Apostolic; because it continues steadfastly in the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship.

      Q. What is your bounden duty as a member of the Church?

      A. My bounden duty is to follow Christ, to worship God every Sunday in his Church; and to pray and give for the spread of his kingdom.

      Q. What special means does the Church provide to help you to do all these things?

      A. The Church provides the Laying on of Hands, or Confirmation, wherein, after renewing the promises and vows of my Baptism, and declaring my loyalty and devotion to Christ as my Master, I receive the strengthening gifts of the Holy Spirit.

      Q. After you have been confirmed, what great privilege doth our Lord provide for you?

      A. Our Lord provides the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Communion, for the strengthening and refreshing of my soul.

      Q. What orders of Ministers are there in the Church?

      A. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, which orders have been in the Church from the earliest times.

      Q. What is the office of a Bishop?

      A. The office of a Bishop is, to be a chief pastor in the Church; to confer Holy Orders; and to administer Confirmation.

      Q. What is the office of a Priest?

      A. The office of a Priest is, to minister to the people committed to his care; to preach the Word of God; to baptize; to celebrate the Holy Communion; and to pronounce Absolution and Blessing in God’s Name.

      Q. What is the office of a Deacon?

      A. The office of a Deacon is, to assist the Priest in Divine Service, and in his other ministrations, under the direction of the Bishop.

Confirmation

By the Editor

      Several times in the article on Baptism the description stopped before reaching the second part of the initiatory rite, which in the West since the fifth century has been termed Confirmation. [First in extant literature by Faustus, Bishop of Riez, formerly Abbot of Lérins; see H. J. Lawlor in Encycl. of Rel. and Ethics, art. “Confirmation,” where the relevant passages are set out with great clarity and fullness.  The volume entitled Confirmation (S.P.C.K., Vol. I, 1926) is the fullest historical treatment of the subject.  On the liturgical side it should be supplemented by T. Thompson’s The Offices of Baptism and Confirmation, which was, however, written before the Hippolytan origin of the Egyptian Church Order was recognized.]  This separating of the two parts may seem unscientific, but it is the obvious method in a book intended primarily for Anglican readers, who are accustomed to think of Confirmation as a rite normally following Baptism after a long interval, and since the Reformation have had to defend it against Protestants who reject it while retaining Baptism.

      Confirmation, says a recent writer, [R. de Journel in Liturgia, p. 708.] differs from Baptism, which is solidly based on the words of Christ, in that, “though from the first it has been distinct from Baptism, in the sequel it has not remained identical with itself; it has been transformed, it has evolved.”  In the Eastern Church it takes the form of unction, with oil blessed by the Patriarch at Constantinople (or Moscow) on Maundy Thursday, administered by the priest immediately after Baptism; in the Latin rite it is administered normally by the Bishop, but sometimes by a priest, with laying on of hands and unction, the oil having been consecrated by the Bishop on Maundy Thursday, usually to children of seven years; [Since the Decree Quam Singulari (1910), fixing seven as the age for First Communion.  Among the Uniats the priest has normally what in the Latin rite he has exceptionally – authority to administer Confirmation.] in the Anglican Communion it is administered by the Bishop only, normally to adolescents, and unction is not used; in the Lutheran Churches the minister blesses the candidates, usually laying on his hand, after a long course of instruction, but the sacramental side of the ordinance is almost entirely obscured.  In view of this diversity we are prepared to find some obscurities in the history of the rite.

I

      The Jewish antecedents of Confirmation are obvious. [For a fuller treatment see the writer’s Essay “Laying on of Hands in the New Testament” in Confirmation, Vol. I, pp. 5–24.]  The passages relied on are those which are also quoted in books dealing with Ordination; [See the writer’s Essay “The Origins of Episcopacy” in Episcopacy Ancient and Modern (S.P.C.K., 1930); and W. Lockton, Divers Orders of Ministers, where the Jewish evidence is given in detail.] this suggests the rightness of the line of teaching which treats Confirmation as ordination to the priesthood of the laity.  Laying on of hands in the Old Testament is a ceremony the root meaning of which is transference.  The Hebrew word samakh, “rest (hand) upon,” is used of transferring the sins of Israel to the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:21); of fastening guilt upon an offender (Lev. 24:14; cf. Susannah 34); and, most important for our purpose, of transferring power from one person to another, as in Num. 27:18–20, Deut. 34:9, where Moses lays his hand upon Joshua and imparts the spirit to him, primarily, it would seem, capacity for administration.  This “transference,” semikhah, is the word used in the early Rabbinic period for “ordination” of elders and Rabbis.

      We find Christ using the same gesture as a means of mediating health to the sick; in some way He imparted His own wholeness to the sufferers, so that transference once more is the root meaning.  Again, He laid His hands on the children brought to Him, “that he should lay his hands on them, and pray” (Matt. 19:13), imparting a spiritual blessing. [Cf. the writer’s New Testament Problems, p. 7, for a suggestion that this is analogous to Confirmation rather than to Baptism.]  In the light of Old Testament and contempory Jewish practice and of our Lord’s own methods, it is only what we should have expected when we find the Apostles laying hands on persons to impart a spiritual blessing, and, in a specialized form of the general practice, on certain men in order to transfer the authority and power of office.

      Confirmation was composed of two elements, the outward sign inherited from Judaism, and the new meaning derived from the Christian experience of the Spirit.  The prophets taught that a further revelation of the Spirit, when God’s law would be written in the hearts of all, was in store. [See especially Jer. 31:31 ff.]  Moses the prophet exclaimed: “Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets!” [Num. 11:29.]  In Rabbinic exegesis this was interpreted thus: “In this world certain individuals have prophesied, but in the world to come all Israelites will be prophets.” [Quoted by Gavin, Jewish Antecedents of the Christian Sacraments, p. 100.  Cf. Joel 2:28.]  When prophecy revived in the person of John the Baptist, he proclaimed the coming of One who would baptize with spirit and with fire.  Without going into the critical questions connected with our Lord’s sayings about the coming of the Holy Spirit, [John 3:5 (where “Spirit” has been taken by some to refer to Confirmation), 14:16, 26; 16:7, 20:22.] we can safely affirm that the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost would remember many sayings of Christ assuring them of the coming of the Spirit.  When they had their great spiritual experience and became conscious of living in the last days, or world to come, foretold by the prophets, and of being themselves prophets endowed with the gift of ecstatic utterance, it was natural that they should wish to impart to others what they had received, following the example of Moses.  In the light of Acts 2:38: “Be baptized ... unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost,” we shall probably be led to conclude that they laid hands on the 3000 besides baptizing them.  Certainly there is no suggestion in Acts 8 that the Apostles were introducing anything new.  We must remember, too, the prominence in the Apostles’ minds of our Lord’s own Baptism. [Acts 1:22; and cf. the framework of tradition represented in St. Mark.]  He had been baptized and had further experienced the illapse of the Holy Spirit to equip Him with power for His ministry.  From the beginning this second part of the initiatory rite must have been prominent in the Apostles’ minds and, one would suppose, in their practice.

      In Acts 10:44 the Holy Spirit falls upon Gentiles as yet unbaptized.  Baptism follows, but laying on of hands is presumably no more necessary than in the case of the disciples at Pentecost.  The story is told as if it was exceptional – a kind of Pentecost of the Gentiles.  But there may have been other instances, which may have led to the Syrian custom by which Confirmation preceded Baptism.

      The position here maintained would be vulnerable if not supported by evidence drawn from the rest of the New Testament, since the historical value of the second chapter of the Acts has been impugned by critics and its unsupported evidence would be unconvincing.  But the relevant passages support what is to begin with only a working hypothesis.

      (a) Acts 8.  Philip, himself an ecstatic [Acts 8:39; cf. 21:9.] and a healer who would presumably use laying on of hands, [Acts 8:7.] baptized the Samaritans but refrained from the further step of laying on hands that they might be received into the Spirit-filled body – that was reserved for Peter and John, who prayed and laid hands on them.  The signs which followed (v. 18, Simon “saw” that the Spirit was given) showed that the Samaritans too were the Lord’s people and belonged to the “all flesh” on whom the Spirit was poured.

      (b) Acts 9:17, 18.  This we take to mean that Ananias laid hands on Saul that he might receive his sight; after which he was initiated, that is, he was baptized and was filled with the Holy Ghost through the Confirmation that followed.  But the interpretation by which the laying on of hands in v. 17 represents Confirmation before Baptism is more common. [Acts 13:3 is the “ordination” of Barnabas and Saul for a particular work, or “the dismissal of missionaries,” certainly not Confirmation.]

      (c) Acts 19:1–7.  St. Paul baptizes disciples of John who have not heard that the Holy Spirit foretold by their master has come, and then confirms them.

      (d) Heb. 6:2.  Teaching about baptisms (probably the distinction between Christian Baptism and its precursors [See above.]) and the laying on of hands are coupled as being among the first principles of Christ.

      (e) 2 Tim. 1:6, 7.  Timothy has received the gift of God through the laying on of Paul’s hands, defined as a spirit of power and love and discipline – apparently a general Christian equipment, not the special grace of the ministry.

      (f) There are a number of passages which refer to a definite act in the past at which the Spirit was imparted. [E.g. Rom. 5:5, 8:15; 1 Cor. 2:12; 2 Cor. 1:21, 22; Eph. 1:13, 4:30; Tit. 3:5 (“the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost”); John 2:27.]  By themselves they do not prove the existence of Confirmation, but read in conjunction with the foregoing passages they are most naturally taken as referring to it.

      Was unction associated with Confirmation in the Apostolic Church?  The only positive evidence is the references to anointing in 2 Cor. 1:21, 1 John 2:20, 27, but these may be metaphorical.  In view of the use of oil in Jewish religious custom to consecrate prophets, priests and kings, its association with the bath, [Cf. Ruth 3:3, Ezek. 16:9; Susannah 17.] its use by the Apostles during our Lord’s ministry, [Mark 6:13.] and the part it played in the later rite, it seems probable that unction was associated with the initiatory ceremony from the first, but with Baptism rather than with Confirmation.

      The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Confirmation was instituted by our Lord. [The Council of Trent: “Si quis dixerit, sacramenta novae legis non fuisse omnia a Iesu Christo Domino nostro instituta ... anathema sit.”  See Denzinger, Enchiridion, 844, p. 281.]  But some theologians emphasize the absence of the word immediate.  It may be held that He instituted Confirmation implicitly, not explicitly, but it is risky.  “If any theologian likes to run the risk, he will probably soon hear from the authorities.  All loyal Catholics are glad that the question has disappeared and that we can receive our Sacraments directly from our Lord Himself, any silence in the Gospels notwithstanding.” [Mgr. F. C. Kolbe, The Sacrament of Confirmation, p. 60.]  The Book of Common Prayer is content to base Confirmation on the example of the Apostles.  Acts 8:, according to the usual interpretation, is sufficient evidence.  We cannot doubt that SS. Peter and John had “the mind of Christ”.  If the account given above is accepted, the significance of the visit to Samaria is greatly enhanced; it shows us the normal way by which the gift of the Spirit was transferred.

      An alternative theory should be mentioned, which goes back to Luther. Confirmation in the Acts, he said, was the means of bestowing the charismata, or extraordinary graces, which have since died out.  The English Reformers rejected this view, which indeed has little to commend it.  In the light of the teaching of the New Testament as a whole, and of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians in particular, it is impossible to imagine that ecstatic utterance, the most conspicuous charisma, was ever looked upon as a “first principle of Christ”.  Besides, it is unscientific to isolate the New Testament from the subsequent history of the Church and to suppose that Confirmation was a second-century invention.

II

      The second-century evidence for Confirmation is defective.  It is not mentioned in the Didache (c. 100), possibly because the Manual was intended for the local Church and Confirmation was the concern of “the apostles and prophets”.  Nor does it occur in Justin’s Apology (i. 65), but the conception of the Holy Spirit would have been very difficult to explain to pagans; Justin says that the newly baptized was brought to the place where the brethren were assembled and prayers were said on his behalf; the description reads like a summary in general terms of the rite in the Apostolic Tradition (see below).  Tertullian says that, having been cleansed in the water, we are prepared for the Holy Spirit.  “Leaving the bath we are anointed all over with blessed unction, as the Jewish priests were anointed, and as the Lord was anointed spiritually.  Thereafter, a hand is laid on us by way of blessing, summoning and inviting the Holy Spirit.” [De Bapt., 6-8.  The Gnostic sect of Marcosians anointed with balsam after immersion (Iren., Haer., I. xxi. 3 f.).]

      Passing over a number of allusions in the Fathers we now come to the definitely liturgical evidence, beginning, as in the case of Baptism, with the Roman rite of the early part of the third century as it appears in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (The Egyptian Church Order).  The Bishop has previously sanctified a vessel of oil and exorcised other oil.  The presbyter anoints the candidate with the latter oil before Baptism.  After Baptism the presbyter anoints him with the sanctified oil, saying: “I anoint thee with holy oil in the name of Jesus Christ.”  The candidates then dress and proceed to the church.  There the Bishop lays his hand on them and says: “O Lord God, who hast made them worthy to receive remission of sins through the laver of regeneration of the Holy Spirit, send on them thy grace, that they may serve thee according to thy will; for thine is the glory ...”  Then, pouring the sanctified oil from his hand and putting it on the head, he says: “I anoint thee with holy oil in the Lord Father Almighty and Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit.”  Signing the candidate on the brow he kisses him, saying, “The Lord be with thee”; the candidate replies, “And with thy spirit”.  After which the confirmed persons pray with the faithful, in the Eucharist that follows.

      For the main line of development in the East we take the rite as described by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the middle of the fourth century (De Myst., iii.).  Before Baptism the candidates have been anointed with exorcised oil.  After Baptism they are confirmed.  “Ye have been made Christ’s by receiving the antitype of the Holy Spirit; and all things have been wrought in you by imitation, because ye are images of Christ,” who after His Baptism was anointed by the Holy Spirit.  The oil used “is no more simple ointment ... after invocation, but it is Christ’s gift of grace ... which ointment is symbolically applied to thy forehead and thy other senses; and while thy body is anointed with the visible ointment, thy soul is sanctified with the Holy and life-giving Spirit.”  Confirmation was called “the seal with oil he anointed thy head upon thy forehead, for the seal which thou hast of God” (iv. 7).

      The north Italian rite described in St. Ambrose’s De Mysteriis and the later De Sacramentis had an unction before the renunciation, [In De Sacr. only.] an anointing of the Christian athlete for “the contest of the world”.  After the immersion came unction of the head with chrism (“myrrh”), by the Bishop (sacerdos), who said: “God the Father, who hath regenerated thee by water and the Holy Ghost, and hath forgiven thee thy sins, himself anoint thee unto eternal life.”  Then followed the washing of the feet, a Western but not Roman ceremony, and the vesting in white robes.  Finally, there was the “signing,” or “spiritual seal,” called also the perfectio, “completion,” of Baptism, and connected with the sevenfold gift of the Holy Spirit.  This final ceremony is not described more exactly, and the author of De Sacramentis does not help us by saying “this is called regeneration.” [III, i. 1.]

      Having traced what seems to be the main line of development, we now record other matters which must not be omitted.  The early Syrian Church had a pre-baptismal unction only.  Thus the Didascalia says: “As of old the priests and kings were anointed in Israel, do thou in like manner, with the imposition of hand, anoint the head of those who receive Baptism, whether of men or of women; and afterwards – whether thou thyself baptize, or thou command the deacons or presbyters to baptize ...” [iii. 12 (Connolly, p. 146.]  Ephraem, Aphraates, Narsai, and other authorities attest the custom, with which the gift of the Holy Spirit was associated.  The East Syrians maintained this peculiarity until about 650, when the Catholics added a post-baptismal unction, which even now has not found a place in all manuscripts.  The West Syrians came into line with the main body of the Church soon after 500.

      The imposition of one hand was the regular practice, though where the Greek word χειροθεσία is used it is impossible to say whether a singular or a plural noun is implied.  In the West, and sometimes in the East, it was the custom to receive heretics by imposition of the hand.  When it was finally decided that heretics should not be rebaptized, it still remained necessary to confirm them.  Jerome and Augustine held that the ceremony was one of benediction only, but Gregory the Great (c. 600) wrote: “The West reconciles Arians to the Church by the imposition of hands, but the East by the unction of holy chrism.” [Ep. xi. 67.]

      Scholars are wont to record the facts about the early history of Confirmation without venturing on a theory to account for them.  A writer, therefore, who puts forward one of his own must do so with diffidence.  The hypothesis that follows does, however, clear up some obscurities.

      In Confirmation the outward sign is not so distinctive as it is in the case of Baptism and the Eucharist.  Imposition of hands is a natural form of benediction and was used for receiving heretics, as well as for Ordination.  Unction was associated with the hath and was also a recognized means of healing.  It is not surprising, then, that in connection with both signs there is a borderland of doubtful cases where we cannot be certain that a sacramental rite is intended.  The original method of initiation was twofold, immersion and the imposition of hands, representing the negative and positive sides, remission of sins and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit.  Very soon, if not from the beginning, oil came to be used in connection with the baptismal bath, and, thanks to its Old Testament associations, acquired a religious meaning.  In the East it became more important than imposition of hands and eventually unction practically replaced imposition.  The first two anointings of the Hippolytan rite grew out of two types of baptismal anointing, before and after the immersion.  Another line of development concerned the Bishop, who was at first the normal minister of the combined initiatory rite.  As the Church grew, he delegated Baptism to the presbyters, retaining Confirmation in his own hands.  The post-baptismal anointing could be attached either to Baptism or to Confirmation.  It eventually became part of the Confirmation rite, the presbyters’ unction being also retained in some places.

      But why did unction replace imposition of hands in the East?  As the eschatological associations of Confirmation, for the existence of which in the earliest period we have argued, died out the special significance of imposition of hands would be forgotten.  On the other hand, chrism would seem enormously important.  At Baptism-Confirmation one became a Christian.  What more natural than to make chrism the chief sign in the positive side of the ceremony?  That the tendency was most apparent in the Syrian Church, where Confirmation became so integral a part of Baptism that the order of the two parts could be changed, is not surprising when we remember that the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. [Acts 11:26.]  The development was probably well on the way when Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180) wrote: “We are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.” [Ad Autol., i. 12.  In the theory here sketched it is unnecessary to use the exceptional cases found in the Acts.]

III

      In the Eastern Orthodox Church to-day chrism [Sometimes called “Myrrh,” or again “Bebaiosis” (= Lat. Confirmatio).] follows Baptism immediately.  The Service begins with praise, and thanksgiving for Baptism, [“... hast been pleased to regenerate thy servant that hath newly received illumination, by water and the Spirit.”] proceeding to pray for “the Seal of the gift of thy holy, and almighty, and adorable Spirit.”  The priest then anoints the child, making the sign of the cross, on the brow, eyes, nostrils, lips, ears, breast, hands and feet, saying each time “The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.”  Penitents returning to the Church are usually anointed.  “This intinction with myrrh has never been considered as a repetition of the sacrament, but is as it were the rededication of the new life of those returning to Orthodoxy, by the prayers and blessing of the Church and the invocation of the Holy Spirit.” [C. Androutsos, quoted by F. Gavin, Some Aspects of Contemporary Greek Orthodox Thought, p. 324.]  The anointing of the Russian Czar was generally distinguished from Chrismation, but a Russian text-book says it is “a special aspect, or, so to speak, the highest grade of it.” [See R. M. French in Confirmation, i. 284.]

      In the developed Roman rite of the sixth and seventh centuries [As described by Duchesne, Christian Worship, p. 314.] the Pope during the baptizing withdrew to a chapel behind the baptistery, called the consignatorium.  Thither came the newly baptized, a priest having first anointed them with chrism, saying: “God ... who hath regenerated thee by water and the Holy Spirit, and hath given thee remission of all sins, himself anoints thee with the chrism of salvation unto eternal life.”  They then came before the Pope and stood in groups, over each of which the Pope prayed for the descent of the Holy Spirit with His sevenfold gifts, ending, “and of thy mercy (propitiatus) sign them with the sign of the cross of Christ unto eternal life.”  He then signed each person on the brow, with his thumb that he had dipped in the chrism, saying, “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.  Peace be to thee.”

      The present Roman rite is very brief and essentially the same as that just described.  After versicles and responses the Bishop extends his hands towards the candidates and prays for the Holy Spirit in a formula differing only verbally from the early Roman prayer (and the Sarum).  The sponsors then present each separately and the Bishop, having dipped the end of his right thumb in the chrism, says: “N., signo te signo Crucis.  Et confirmo te Chrismate salutis.  In Nomine ...”  He then strikes the candidate lightly on the cheek, saying, “Pax tecum.” [The alapa, found first in Durandus (d. 1334).  Possibly in origin designed to impress the occasion on the child’s memory; or suggested by the feudal accolade.  Symbolically explained as an exhortation to suffer for the faith.  May it not have originated in a fatherly pat?]  Versicles and responses follow, then a prayer for the candidates, lastly the beautiful blessing: “Benedicat vos Dominus ex Sion, ut videatis bona Jerusalem omnibus diebus vitae vestrae, et habeatis vitam aeternam.”  It is a separate Office, printed in the Pontifical, since Confirmation in the Western Church has for many centuries been normally separated from Baptism.

IV

      The 1549 Prayer Book followed the Sarum Office closely.  After introductory rubrics, discussed below, it begins with versicles and responses and the prayer for the Holy Spirit.  Unction is discontinued.  The formula is: “Sign them, O Lord, and mark them to be thine for ever, by the virtue of thy holy cross and passion.  Confirm and strengthen them, with the inward unction of thy Holy Ghost, mercifully unto everlasting life.  Amen.  (Then the Bishop shall cross them in the forehead and lay his hand upon their head, saying.) N., I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and lay my hand upon thee.  In the name ...”  “The peace of the Lord abide with you.  And with thy spirit,” the prayer “Almighty (and) everliving God ...”, and the Blessing make up the rest of the Service.  Features absent from the present service should be noted: (a) the reference to inward unction, material unction having been discontinued; (b) the naming of the candidate, which gave an opportunity for changing the baptismal name; [Cf. S. L. Ollard in Confirmation, i. 86.] (c) the linking of the signing with imposition of the hand. [See Ollard, op. cit., i. 84, for the English pre-Reformation practice of imposition.]  In 1552 the formula given above was altered to the present Defend, O Lord ...”

      The 1662 Office is too familiar to require much discussion.  The introductory rubrics referring to Confirmation are printed at the end of the Catechism. [Instead of at the beginning of the combined Confirmation and Catechism, as in the earlier books.]  The problem of age is treated below.  Up to 1662 the examination in the Catechism was conducted by the Bishop or his deputy.  The phrase “shall be brought to the Bishop by one that shall be his Godfather, or Godmother ...” in the earlier Prayer Books was then altered to “every one shall have a Godfather, or a Godmother (as a witness of their Confirmation).”  The later phrasing suggests the dying out of the custom of having a new godparent at Confirmation.  Two rubrics of 1549–52 are not represented in 1662.  One states that Confirmation “is most meet to be ministered when children come to that age, that partly by the frailty of their own flesh, partly by the assaults of the world and the devil, they begin to be in danger to fall into sin” (“sundry kinds of sin,” 1552).  The other runs: “It is agreeable with the usage of the Church in times past, whereby it was ordained that Confirmation should be administered to them that were of perfect age, that they being instructed in Christ’s religion, should openly profess their own faith, and promise to be obedient to the will of God” – and is clearly a misreading of history.

      The Exhortation is based on the first two rubrics of 1549-52, but “ratify and confirm” as in 1552 replaces the “ratify and confess” of 1549.  The Bishop’s question “Do ye here ...” represents the earlier examination in the Catechism by the Bishop.  The versicles and responses are from Sarum, with “Lord hear our prayer ...” for “The Lord be with you ...” as in 1552.  The invocation of the Holy Spirit is substantially the traditional Roman form.  The reference to regeneration and forgiveness of sins originally presupposed that Baptism had immediately preceded; it should now presuppose that the candidate, with the help of the parish priest, has sought and obtained forgiveness of post-baptismal sin.  The Bishop’s prayer, “Defend, O Lord ...” (since 1552) is very beautiful but, as Cosin said, it “seems to be rather a prayer that may be said by any minister, than a confirmation that was reserved only to the Bishop.”  “The Lord be with you” that follows is a poor substitute for “The peace of the Lord abide with you” of 1549. [This feature was omitted entirely in 1552.]  The Lord’s Prayer was added in 1662.  The Prayer “Almighty and everliving God ...” was taken in 1549 from Hermann’s Consultatio. [1543; also in the 1539 Ordnung der Kirchen zu Cassel (Dowden, Workmanship of the Prayer Book, p. 35).]  The Prayer that follows was added in 1662 and comes from the Sarum Breviary, where it is said after Prime.

      In the concluding rubric, “and there shall none be admitted to the Holy Communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed,” the final words were added in 1662, after a lengthy period in which Confirmation had been unobtainable.  They are based on the Sarum rubric, “or reasonably hindered from the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation.”

V

      The recent revisions of the Book of Common Prayer prove a general agreement that the 1662 Office misses an opportunity.  The English 1928, Scottish and S. African insert headings showing the division into Introduction, Questioning and Renewal of Vows, Confirmation itself, and the Dismissal or Conclusion (the last is not distinguished in the S. African).

      In the Introduction the Minister in the American Order presents the candidates, saying: “Reverend Father in God, I present unto you these persons to receive the Laying on of Hands.”  The Canadian Book amplifies this on the lines of the Ordination Services.  The Irish Book keeps the 1662 Preface, while the others (excepting the American, which substitutes a lesson from Acts 8 [The Canadian Book has, in addition to the expanded Preface, three lessons, from Acts 8, 19, and Heb. 6.]) expand it considerably, explaining its Apostolic authority, and the gifts received, and the obligations undertaken, by the candidates.

      All the revisions amplify the next section, the Renewal of Baptismal Vows.  The American addition is the shortest: “Do ye promise to follow Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour?” and the least happy.  “Will ye endeavour to keep God’s holy will and commandments, and to walk ...?” is a better question to put to a child. [And indeed to a mature Christian.  Confirmation is not a time for making exaggerated professions.  But the American question is to be judged by its devotional value, not theologically.]  The English, Scottish and S. African forms get rid of the misleading “ratifying and confirming the same.” [The English returns to “ratifying and confessing” of the 1549 rubric.]

      “The Confirmation” remains unchanged in the Irish, American and Canadian Books.  So also in the English 1928, except for a rubric: “No Hymn or Address shall be introduced into this part of the Service, except that a Hymn may be sung, if needed, in the course of the laying on of hands”; similarly in the Scottish and S. African Books.  Confirmation is by prayer and imposition of hands.  The prayer is that for the Holy Spirit in His sevenfold might, and any interruption which lends colour to the misconception that the words “Defend, O Lord ...” are the “prayer” is forbidden.  The Scottish form restores the signing from the 1549 rite: “Sign them, O Lord, and mark them to be thine for ever by the virtue of the holy cross; mercifully confirm them with the inward unction of the Holy Ghost, that they may attain unto everlasting life.  Amen.  N., I sign thee with the sign of the cross and I lay my hands [hand] upon thee, In the Name ...”  In the S. African form, when all have been confirmed, the Bishop declares that they are admitted to receive the Holy Communion.  The same form allows the Bishop at his discretion to add, “N., I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and I lay my hand upon thee,” with or without the Holy Chrism.

      The English 1928 Book prefaces the Blessing with these words: “Go forth into the world in peace; be of good courage; hold fast that which is good; render to no man evil for evil; strengthen the faint-hearted; support the weak; help the afflicted; honour all men; love and serve the Lord, rejoicing in the power of the Holy Spirit” – a beautiful summary of the Christian’s life in the world, but owing to its piling up of closely packed precepts, some of them beyond the range of immature minds, unsuitable in its present position.  A Blessing should not be a sermon in miniature.

VI

      It will be convenient to bring together some material regarding (a) the matter, (b) the minister, (c) the subject, of Confirmation ; the questions which arise have been considered incidentally in the foregoing pages.

      (a) In 1439, during the Council of Florence, Eugenius IV put out a Bull, known as Decretum pro Armenis, in which, in the part dealing with the Sacraments, the “matter” of Confirmation is defined as “chrism made of oil and balsam, blessed by the Bishop”.  [Mirbt, Quellen zur Geschichte des Papstsiums, p. 235.]  There have been four different views current in the West; that it consists (i) in the imposition of hands alone, (ii) in chrism alone, (iii) in either, (iv) in both.  The Decretum of Eugenius is not regarded as infallible, and the usual modern view is that the “matter” is imposition of hands and chrism conjointly.  The spreading out of the Bishop’s hands over the candidates before the signing “was formerly considered by some to constitute a manuum impositio, and to be of the essence of the rite.” [H. Thurston, Enc. of Rel. and Ethics, iv. 10 a.  See Ollard, op. cit., i. 220, for the practice of an Archbishop of York, who apparently held this view.]

      (b) In the early Church the Bishop normally imposed hands with unction on those who had been baptized.  In the East the parish priest soon acquired the right to administer chrism.  Two papal letters illustrate the state of things in the West.  Innocent I wrote to Decentius in 416: “Presbyters are allowed to anoint the baptized with chrism, either away from the Bishop, or when they baptize in his presence; but with chrism which has been consecrated by the Bishop; not, however, to sign the brow with the same oil, which is reserved to the Bishops alone, when they impart the Spirit Paraclete.” [Denzinger, Encheiridion, 98 (p. 45).]  Gregory the Great wrote to Januarius, Bishop of Cagliari: “It has also come to our ears that some have been offended by our having forbidden presbyters to touch with chrism candidates for baptism.  And we indeed acted according to the ancient use of our Church; but if any are in fact distressed, we allow that, where there is a lack of Bishops, presbyters may touch with chrism, even on their foreheads, candidates for baptism.” [Ep. iv. 26.  The words in italics translate baptizandos, clearly used loosely of the whole initiatory ceremony.]  St. Thomas Aquinas laid down the principle that the Bishop alone is the minister of Confirmation; the Pope grants to priests the privilege of administering the sacrament, as he does at times the power to confer minor orders.  This has been accepted by the Roman Church.  Theologians have added the teaching that the Eastern custom was tacitly accepted in that it became current without opposition from Rome; finally, it was approved by the Council of Florence. [Denzinger, op. cit., 697 (p. 239).]  Some have taught that the priest by virtue of ordination receives power to confirm but that it remains inoperative until the Pope grants a faculty to exercise the power.

      At present the “extraordinary minister” of Confirmation is the presbyter to whom by common law or special indult of the Apostolic See the faculty has been conceded.  Such presbyters in common law are certain Abbots, Prelates, and Vicars Apostolic who are not Bishops; also presbyters of Oriental Rites, as regards adherents of their own Rite. [Codex Juris Canonici, 782.]

      The Anglican Communion has confined the administering of Confirmation to Bishops with inflexible rigidity.  The results have been disastrous overseas, especially in America, [For a century Confirmation was confined to a few wealthy persons who could come to England.] before the Episcopate was established.  It is axiomatic with most Anglicans that a Bishop should be consecrated for a group of people remote from a Bishop, lest they should be deprived of the sacraments.  But the setting up of a new diocese is a serious matter, and in some cases it might be wiser to send a priest with powers of jurisdiction but not consecrated as a bishop, to whom Confirmation might be delegated. [This is a suggestion that could not be treated seriously unless it had met with a measure of approval from the Lambeth Conference.  If the link with tradition were not to be broken completely, it would involve the restoration of episcopally consecrated chrism.]

      (c) When country parishes were formed in the West, the parish priest brought those he had baptized to the Bishop of the neighbouring city for Confirmation.  Outside Italy, especially, where dioceses were large, this became impossible, and Bishops began to visit their dioceses in order to confirm the children who had all been baptized in infancy.  The Lateran Council (1215) defined the duty of Communion as beginning with “years of discretion”.  The exact meaning of this was disputed, but from seven to ten was the usual age for Confirmation, the door to Communion.  The Catechism of the Council of Trent suggested ten to twelve.  In Spain and some Spanish-American countries the custom has been to make Confirmation follow immediately on Baptism.  The present law gives seven as the suitable age, which may be anticipated for a good cause. [Canon 788.]  In other words, “the age of discretion” has been officially defined as “the age of reason”.

      The intention of the English Reformers being to combine instruction with Sacraments, we are not surprised to find seventeenth and eighteenth century Bishops asking in their Visitation Questions whether there are parishioners of sixteen years who are not communicants.  The Anglican tradition of associating Confirmation with adolescence is deeply rooted.  It is still defended by those who lay stress on instruction rather than on sacramental grace.  But by others the wisdom of our present methods is disputed.  Two among many utterances may be quoted.  A distinguished psychologist writes: [E. G. Howe, Motives and Mechanisms of the Mind, p. 127.] “Adolescence is the period at which there is a normal increase of sexual feeling and therefore a normal increase of guilt feeling.  It is the time at which priggishness is most liable to be needed psychologically as an evasion of guilt. ...  The adolescent knight is often more interested in the gorgeousness of his armour and the purity of his motive than in the distant goal of the Holy Grail and the imperiled lady.  It is therefore perhaps unfortunate that this should be the time that is usually chosen for seizing upon a boy’s religious enthusiasm, which is too often mixed with unconscious motives, with a view to Confirmation. ...  Confirmation at this phase of rapid growth and emotional instability will too often lead to undesirable repressions, or to a later regret and refusal of religious experience.”

      Fr. R. H. Tribe [See Confirmation, ii. 113.  Fr. Tribe was a doctor of medicine before ordination.] points out that “for a year after puberty the psychical system is so unstable that it is wise not to attempt to throw into it any new elements, but to let it carry on with the old.”  The Catechism contains abstract and technical teaching, for which the mind is not ripe until seventeen or later.  Sacramental grace, in Confirmation and Communion, can be received best at nine or ten.  The combination of two different things at fourteen or fifteen, an age which fits neither, is wrong in principle.

      It would be unwise, in view of Anglican tradition, to attempt to establish too young an age for Confirmation.  But to get the period ten to twelve accepted by the Bishops is not impracticable if the parish clergy are themselves convinced. [Communion was in the early Church an integral part of the triple initiatory rite – Baptism –Confirmation – Communion.  The East in this respect is loyal to tradition.  Very young children were communicated from the chalice only.  The Missal of Leofric (eleventh century) directs the communion of the infant to take place in the Baptismal Service, immediately after putting on the chrysom, without mentioning Confirmation.  The Sarum rubric orders that, if the Bishop is present, Confirmation shall follow Baptism immediately; and then first Communion, si aetas ejus id deposcit.]

The Solemnization of Matrimony

By the Editor

      Marriage is a universal human [Even pre-human, for something resembling a permanent tie between male and female, with continuing joint care for offspring, has been detected in the apes.  And many species of birds form permanent unions.] institution, which the Church has ratified and blessed, following the example of Christ.  We are not surprised, therefore, to find that our marriage customs are of pre-Christian origin.  The price paid to the bride’s father to compensate for the loss of a valuable worker, for a young woman was an asset rather than a liability to the primitive father, was later given by him in whole or in part to his daughter, and was finally symbolized by the ring; the gifts associated with marriage now appear in the form of wedding presents.  A marriage, as distinguished from an irregular union, had to be celebrated with considerable publicity in ages when no written documents existed.  The witnesses, including groomsmen and bridesmaids, ensured this publicity, as they still do.  The reception of the woman into the man’s family is symbolized by the joining of hands. [And by the exchange of rings, in Germany and elsewhere.]  The passing of the bride to a new house and the setting up of a new family unit combined with the mystery surrounding the origin of life to make a situation in which evil spirits were to be feared. [Tobit 3:8 is the most accessible illustration.]  The original purpose of the bridesmaids in festive attire seems to have been to deceive the demons in regard to the identification of the bride; the sleeping of the best man at the bridegroom’s house the night before the wedding has a similar motive.  The canopy over the bridal pair, which lasted on in France until the nineteenth century, was intended [At least as a secondary purpose.  The canopy is an extension to the husband of the bride’s veil, or may be a simple borrowing of a Jewish custom, see below.] to hide them from the evil eye of demons, and the bridal veil seems to represent the same idea; certainly the pealing of bells does.  The rice [Now superseded in England by the meaningless confetti.] and the shoe after the ceremony are relics of primitive fertility cults.  The ceremonial driving away of the wedded couple reminds us of the procession to the new home, and the custom of the husband’s lifting the bride over the threshold, not yet quite obsolete, is a last remnant of marriage by capture.  Finally, as we shall see later, the wedding cake stands for the culminating ceremony of the old Roman religious rite out of which the Christian service grew.

I

      A brief glance at Hebrew marriage customs may prove of interest.  Jacob serves for Rachel seven years, since he has no bride price with which to buy her (Genesis 29).  He remains after marriage with his wife’s people, for the matriarchate is still in force.  [Rebekah, on the other hand, of her own free will breaks with tradition (Gen. 24:58), the reasons for the exception having been explained (v. 37).]  Genesis 34 represents symbolically the clash between beena and baal marriage, i.e. matriarchal and patriarchal conceptions.  The Canaanites carried off their brides by capture, when they were dancing in the vineyard; [It may be assumed that this is what Dinah went to see (34:1).] bargaining with the father followed later.  Dinah by joining “the daughters of the land” shows that she expects to be thus wooed.  She is called “the daughter of Leah,” not of Jacob, and her brothers, not her father, undertake to rescue her.  Their wrath is caused by the reflection that under the matriarchate the loss of their only sister means the dying out of their family, descent being reckoned through females.

      This method of reckoning descent was the obvious one in a nomadic state of society in which polygamy prevailed.  When the Hebrew tribes settled in Palestine they gradually adopted other customs.  The evidence of Genesis is ambiguous, but seems to reflect the clash of two systems.  In any case, the man is always lord of the family in the writer’s view – “he shall rule over thee” (3:16).  The genealogies, which belong to the latest strata of the book, trace descent through the father and thus show the triumph of the patriarchal view.

      Psalm 45 describes the marriage of a king’s daughter, conceivably Jezebel (v. 12), to the Hebrew king.  All thoughts of the matriarchate are to be banished; “forget thine own people, and thy father’s house.”  Her dowry is worn in the form of gold woven into her garments (v. 13).  An attractive explanation of the Song of Songs illustrates it by a modern Syrian custom.  The peasants’ wedding festival lasts a week; the threshing floor is decorated as a throne, and the couple are called King and Queen.  In Canticles the names of the typical king Solomon and his bride are used. [An Assyrian law may be quoted to illustrate Semitic usage.  “If a man desires to veil a concubine [i.e. to marry her], he shall bring five or six comrades and veil her before them and say: This is my spouse” (Gregsmann, Altorientalische Texte zum A.T., p. 418).]

      Betrothal was the first stage of the marriage.  Deut. 22:23, 24, implies an interval between betrothal and coming together, during which unfaithfulness on the part of the woman was reckoned as adultery.  The actual wedding in the Old Testament period consisted of a procession bringing the bride, a marriage feast, to which a quasi-sacramental meaning was attached, and the entering of the pair into the huppah, or bridal chamber. [Cf. Joel 2:16.]  This was a tent, presumably representing the separate tent of the newly married couple in nomadic times.  It has become a canopy, held over bride and bridegroom, in the modern Jewish rite.  No religious ceremony is mentioned in the Law, though Malachi 2:14 suggests religious sanctions: “The Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth.”  By the time of Tobit 7:13 formal written contracts were in use.

      In the Gospels references to marriage ceremonies are incidental, and the interpretation of the most important passage, the Parable of the Virgins, is disputed. [Matt. 25:1.  Probably the background is the bridegroom’s house and the last stage of the ceremonies.]  Probably there was some religious element at this time, but not until the later Middle Ages did the presence of a Rabbi become obligatory at a Jewish wedding.  The officiant now gives a number of Benedictions, which go back in substance to the Talmud.

II

      The absence of distinctively Jewish features in the Christian rite of marriage is sufficient evidence that there was no matrimonial liturgical act in the primitive Church corresponding to Baptism or the Eucharist; had there been one, it must surely have had some Jewish affinities, which would have persisted in the later rite.  But from the beginning there was definitely Christian marriage.  St. Paul said that marriage must be “in the Lord,” [1 Cor. 7:39.] by which we understand that it took place with the approval and before the face of the Christian community.  St. Ignatius directs that marriage (like everything else) shall be within the bishop’s cognizance: “it is right for men and women who marry to be united with the consent of the bishop, and not according to lust.” [Ad Polyc., 5.]  In Tertullian’s time marriage was blessed at the Eucharist.  “How shall we describe the happiness of a marriage which is cemented by the Church, ratified by the oblation, and sealed with the benediction?” [Ad Uxor., ii. 8.]  But the actual marrying was a private ceremony.  “Touching the ceremonies of private and social solemnities – as those of the white toga, of espousals, of nuptials, of name givings – I should think no danger need be guarded against from the breath of the idolatry which is mixed up with them. ... Those above named I take to be clean in themselves, because neither the giving of manly garb, nor the marital ring or union, descends from honours done to any idol.” [Tert., De Idol., 16.  The ring was taken over by the Jews about the seventh or eighth century, under Roman influence.]  The veiling of the bride was a ceremony attached to the espousals, the veil being worn from then to the nuptials. [Tert., De Virg. Vel., 11.]  Clement of Alexandria condemns false hair on the ground that the presbyter lays his hands in blessing on another woman; [Paed. iii. II.] the context shows that he refers to the nuptial blessing.  Other patristic references are to the joining of right hands, [Gregory of Nazianzus, Ep. 193.] “the sacerdotal veil and benediction,” [Ambrose, Ep. 19.] and the crown – “garlands are wont to be worn on the heads of bridegrooms, as a symbol of victory, betokening that they approach the marriage bed unconquered by pleasure.” [Chrysostom, Hom. in 1 Tim. 9.]  In sixth-century Gaul “the bridegroom and the bride, when they are to be blessed by the priest, are to be brought by their parents or by attendants (paranymphis).” [Statuta ecclesia antiqua, c. 101.]

      Duchesne sums up thus: “No ecclesiastical law obliged Christians to seek a blessing on their marriage.  The benediction was a matter of custom or propriety, and although it subsequently became the rule, it was never a condition of validity.  The marriage is independent of the rite.” [Christian Worship, p. 428.]  The Eastern Orthodox view is different.  “The blessing of the priest is essential for the consummation of the sacrament. ...  It is true that there are instances of the acceptance by the Church of marriages not blessed by a priest, as valid, but this does not indicate that the Church normally gave such recognition. ... The Roman view, that the ministers of the sacrament are the two parties who are to be made man and wife, is both wrong and vicious.” [F. Gavin, Creek Orthodox Thought, p. 382.]

      The first full description of the Church rite is found in Pope Nicolas’s Response to the Bulgarians, 866.

      The espousal (sponsalia) is the first step, the contract of future marriage made with the consent of the parties “and of those in whose power they are”; then comes the delivery of the ring by the bridegroom to the bride (subarrhatio), and of the dowry, by written document, before witnesses.  The marriage ceremony of the couple, who are however regarded as already married, comprises their presence at Mass, a blessing pronounced while the veil is held over their heads, and their crowning as they leave the church.  “Let the consent of those whose union is in question be legally sufficient by itself.”  This is the custom “which the holy Roman Church received of old.” [Ib., p. 429.  The passage is given in full by T. A. Lacey, Marriage in Church and State, p. 46.]

      Duchesne describes Pope Nicolas’ ritual as the old Roman marriage rite, with the Mass substituted for the pagan sacrifice.  In the ordinary marriage rite hands were joined as a symbol of union, by a pronuba, a matron married once, in the bride’s house or in front of a temple.  A wedding meal followed, then deductio, the procession to the new house, and receptio, symbolized by a solemn delivery of water and fire.  But there was also a religious form of marriage.  The espousals, as in secular marriage, consisted of mutual engagement in a set form of words, delivery of the ring, drawing up of marriage contract, and bestowal of gifts by the bridegroom on the bride.  At the actual wedding the bride appeared veiled, [Nuptiae is derived from obnubilatio capitis.] her head crowned with flowers.  If the auspices were favourable, the ceremony proceeded.  The presence of the Pontifex Maximus (representing the original Rex) and of the Flamen Dialis (representing Jupiter) was required.  The marriage took place in front of them, and they took no other part.  A cake of far (wheat) was offered to Jupiter Farreus and sacramentally eaten by the bridegroom and the bride.  Of this ceremony W. Warde Fowler writes: “It is possible that confarreatio may have been a very special religious form, originating in the marriage of the Rex only, or in families forming an inner circle of aristocracy. ... The main object was to produce children capable of holding the exclusively patrician religious offices.” [Enc. of Rel. and Ethics, art. “Marriage (Roman).”  Other writers hold that confarreatio was the original marriage rite for all patricians.  Note that Duchesne (pp. 433, 434) makes no distinction between the religious and secular types of Roman marriage.]  This specially religious ceremony seems to have become obsolete in the early years of the Empire.  It may be conjectured that the tradition lasted on in aristocratic circles and was introduced into the Church by highborn converts.  That the religious form was adopted is shown by St. Ambrose’s reference [De Lapsu, 5.] to the ten witnesses required at Christian marriage, this being the number at the confarreatio.

      The nuptial blessing in the Mass came after the consecration and before the fraction; the oblation had already been made for the bride. [“Hanc igitur oblationem famulae tuae illius, quam tibi offerimus pro famula tua illa” (Leonian Sacramentary).]  The minister recited a simple prayer, then one of Eucharistic type.  The Leonian Sacramentary has, almost in their present form, the prayers of the present Latin rite, which in contemporary practice varies in different countries and dioceses so far as minor details and ceremonies are concerned.  “The ancient rites which surrounded marriage were essentially expressive and popular.  The Church has never wished them to disappear; on the contrary, it has desired their preservation, in so far as they were in keeping with the sanctity of the sacrament.  As a matter of fact, thanks to a number of circumstances, and in particular to the liturgical unification which had the effect of suppressing the local liturgies, many of them have been entirely discontinued, or appear only in certain hardly recognizable survivals.” [Liturgia, p. 748.]

      The Eastern Orthodox rite is briefly as follows. [I. Hapgood, Service Book of the Eastern Orthodox Church, pp. 291 ff.]  The espousals take place after the liturgy, the couple standing before the holy door.  Prayers follow, referring to Isaac and Rebecca, and to Christ’s espousal of His Church.  The priest’s formula is “The servant of God N. is betrothed to the handmaid of God N.  In the name ...,” and vice versa.  Rings are put on the right hands and exchanged.  Then comes the marriage or crowning.  Psalm 128 (“Blessed are all they ...”) is sung, an Exhortation follows, then questions and answers, and long prayers; finally the formula “The servant of God N. is crowned unto the handmaid of God N.  In the name ...,” and vice versa.  The wedding pair then partake of a common cup (in Greece, bread soaked in wine is used).

III

      The Prayer Book Service so closely resembles its predecessors that it will be convenient to start from 1662, referring to sources when necessary.

      The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony (Sarum Ordo ad faciendum sponsalia) is prefaced by two rubrics concerning Banns. [“Banns” is a form of “ban,” originally a proclamation with penalties attached.]  These were published in the mediaeval rite [The Synod of Westminster (1200), Canon 11, is the first English reference.] at Mass “when the greater number of people should be present.”  In 1662 this was defined as “before the Sentences for the Offertory.”  A Law of 1753 provided for publication after the second lesson at Evensong, in the absence of a morning service, and about 1809 the printers began to alter the rubric to conform to the supposed meaning of the statute.  Clearly the State is entitled to make whatever regulations it desires to avoid the risk of clandestine marriages.  The clergy in this respect are acting for the State, which may inflict very severe penalties for breaches of the law.  Canon 63 of 1603 prescribes an ecclesiastical penalty of suspension for three years for infringing the regulations.  The banns are to be read on three several Sundays, or Holy days (Sarum, per tres dies solennes et disiunctos), but custom and the Act of 1823, which mentions Sundays only, have made holy days obsolete in this connection.  “Lawful impediments” are treated below.  “The Curate,” says Wheatly (1722), “is not to stop his proceeding, because any peevish or pragmatical person ... pretends to forbid him,” such as a churchwarden, afraid that a poor couple will be a charge on the parish.

      Licenses are dispensations from the necessity of banns, issued by the Bishop through his surrogate; they state the place of marriage and the hours between which it may be celebrated.  Special licenses, granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in virtue of legatine authority inherited from his mediaeval predecessors, may specify “any convenient time or place”.  Banns and licenses are in force for three months. [The present Roman Catholic law provides for banns being read on three consecutive Sundays or holy days of obligation, at Mass or other services attended by the people.  The Ordinary may permit in the place of banns a notice on the church door for at least eight days, provided that two feasts of obligation are included.  He may issue dispensations from banns.  Banns are in force for six months (C.I.C., Canons 1023–5, 1030).]

      The third rubric speaks of (a) the day, (b) the time appointed.

      (a) The fourth-century Council of Laodicea forbade marriages in Lent.  The Sarum rubrics, following later Councils extended this prohibition to cover Advent Sunday to the Octave of Epiphany, Septuagesima to the Octave of Easter, and Rogation Sunday to six days after Pentecost, and such was the ideal of the Church of England until at least the eighteenth century.  At the present time the clergy are content with discouraging marriages in Lent. [C.I.C., can. 1108.  The popular idea that May is an unlucky month goes back to pagan Rome; see W. Warde Fowler, loc. cit.]  The Roman Catholic law allows marriages at any time, but Advent Sunday to Christmas Day and Ash Wednesday to Easter Sunday are closed times so far as the Nuptial Mass and Blessing are concerned ; for proper reasons the Bishop may allow marriages in these periods, but unnecessary display is forbidden. [No marriages in Lent is “the law of the Church” in the popular sense.  Whether it is in the strict sense a law for Anglicans is a question the answer to which depends on whether we hold that unrepealed Canon Law is binding on Anglicans.]

      (b) The traditional time for a marriage was at Mass, and Canon 62 of 1603 presupposes that it will be “at Divine Service”.  The same Canon confines the hours to between eight o’clock and noon.  The Marriage Act of 1886 extended the limit until 3 p.m., and an amended Canon of 1888 followed suit, besides making solemnization during Divine Service optional.  The phrase “Wedding Breakfast” witnesses to the old custom, according to which the first meal of the day followed Mass.  In a free drinking age there was also a practical advantage in having weddings early in the day, when the parties were more likely to be sober.

      The wedding party come “into the Body of the Church,” instead of remaining in the porch, as before 1549. [Cf. Chaucer’s “Wife of Bath”: “She was a worthy woman all hire live.  Housbondes at the chirche dore she had five.”]  They are accompanied by their friends and neighbours; the mention of friends rather than relations recalls “the friends of the bridegroom,” or “paranymphs”. [John 3:29.  The splendid Sarum phrase “coram deo, sacerdote et populo” is not represented in the rubric.  At this point in the Sarum form banns were read for the fourth time.]  The man stands on the right side of the woman, the place of honour. [Sarum: “vir a dextris mulieris et mulier a sinistris viri.”]  The priest then begins the service.

      The Exhortation uses sentences from the Sarum and York Manuals and from Hermann’s Consultatio.  It is found in substance in a seventeenth-century Paris book, which presumably comes from a source common to both. [J. W. Legg, Ecclesiological Essays, p. 202.]  “The causes for which matrimony was ordained” are the commonplaces of scholastic theology.  They recur in the modern Roman law: “The primary end of matrimony is the procreation and bringing up of children; the secondary end mutual help and a remedy against concupiscence.” [C.I.C., Can. 1013.]

      The Exhortation concludes with appeals to disclose impediments made (a) to the congregation, and equivalent to a fourth reading of banns; [Which comes here in the Sarum rite.] (b) to the bridal pair.  The impediments are (a) existence of a legal previous marriage; [Or contract, according to the old books.  The controversy respecting Henry VIII will be recalled.] (b) relationship between the prohibited degrees; [Cf. Canon of 1603, No. 99.] (c) lack of consent on the part of parents or guardians of those under 21. [Canons 62, 100.]  The first two by nature render the marriage void.  The third is of force because the parties cannot make a valid contract, a point to be considered later.  The exact legal force of the next rubric is obscure.  Fortunately the clergy are rarely called upon to decide.  It should be noted that the objector must “allege and declare”.  “Allege” in the light of the Authorized Version of Acts 17:3 (“alleging that Christ must needs have suffered”) means “adduce proof,” and “declare” means “make clear” (cf. Psalm 19:1, “the heavens declare the glory of God”).  If the interrupter cannot do this, besides depositing a substantial sum, the priest must not stop the service.

      The espousals proper follow. [J. W. Legg (Ecclesiological Essays, p. 183) maintains that this is part of the marriage, whatever it was in origin; Sarum has “vis habere,” not “habebis”.  He quotes other rites where the same questions are asked, the espousals having already taken place.]  The Sarum formula is given in Latin, though it was to be used “in the mother tongue”.  It is reproduced in the Prayer Book, Luther’s phrase “after God’s ordinance, in the holy estate of matrimony” being interpolated.  The parties have already “engaged” themselves to marry; they now renew their engagement before God.  The next question, “Who giveth this woman”, is answered by the action of the father, or friend, from whose hands the minister receives the bride.  The York Use, from which the question is taken (“Who gives me this wife?”), makes it clear that the father yields his daughter to the priest, who represents God and gives her to the man, as God gave Eve to Adam. [Cf. Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, V. 73, § 5: “In ancient times all women which had not husbands nor fathers to govern them had their tutors, without whose authority there was no act which they did warrantable.”]

      Next comes the contract, which follows the style of a conveyance.  The contracting parties are named, the legal term “to have and to hold” is used, the limitations are recited – “from this day forward ... till death us do part” (“depart” in 1549, 1552), and subject to ecclesiastical law, “according to God’s holy ordinance” (Sarum, “if holy Church it will ordain ‘).  The woman adds, “and to obey”. [Sarum, “to be bonere and buxum (i.e. meek and obedient) in bed and at board”; York adds “for fairer for fouler”.]  The man then lays the ring upon the book, “with the accustomed duty to the Priest and Clerk” – an obsolete provision.  No provision is made for blessing the ring, as in the Sarum Manual.  In 1549 the man gives “a ring, and other tokens of spousage, as gold and silver.”  The ring sufficiently represents the ancient bride price.  Originally it belonged to the espousals, but it has become attached to the wedding as obligatory, though the engagement ring persists as a social custom.  The ring is placed on the book as an acknowledgment that all worldly goods belong to God and are entrusted to us by Him.  The old ceremony was to place the ring on each finger of the right hand in succession, leaving it on the fourth.  The left hand was substituted in 1547.  The man repeats these concluding words of the contract [The ring being used in sealing, “with this ring” may be taken as representing the sealing of the contract.  This is clearer in Sarum and 1549, where “this gold and silver I thee give” stands for the bride price generally.] after the priest.  With “I thee worship” compare Luke 14:10 (“then shalt thou have worship”) and the mayoral address “your worship”.  “With all my worldly goods I thee endow” is very exceptional, and is not represented in the York Manual. [The Chalons Rituale, “de mes biens to doue,” is the nearest parallel (Brightman, Church Quarterly Review, July 1927).]

      The prayer “O eternal God” is based on the Sarum prayer at this point.  “As Isaac and Rebecca lived faithfully together” is curious and abrupt as it stands; in 1549 it read: “As Isaac and Rebecca (after bracelets and jewels of gold given of the one to the other for tokens of their matrimony) lived faithfully together.”  “Those whom God hath joined” down to “I pronounce ...” was a novelty in 1549, taken from Hermann.  “I pronounce ...” was common on the Continent.  “Giving and receiving” renders a phrase which implies the German custom by which each received a ring.  A blessing concludes the first part of the service.

      Psalm 128 is said or sung as an introit [Ps. 67 was added as an alternative in 1549, when the prayer for fruitfulness was made optional.] by the Minister or Clerks. [Apparently the rubric intends the Minister to say the entire psalm; or it may be sung by the lay-clerks (in a parish church represented by one parish clerk).]  The officiant says the versicles and following prayers facing the kneeling pair, because in the Sarum Manual at this point he asks the congregation to pray for them.  The concluding prayers and blessing are from the old rite, but “O God, who by thy mighty power ...” is a modification of the primitive blessing of the bride which took place after the Canon in the nuptial Mass.

      The Communion Service follows immediately in 1549 and 1552, the homily being a substitute for the sermon.  “Then shall begin the Communion” (1552) shows that Sunday weddings are presupposed; “the new married persons must receive the Holy Communion.”  This requirement was a radical change from the mediaeval custom of receiving “bread and wine, or other liquid,” [Cf. J. W. Legg, Ecclesiological Essays, p. 196.] to symbolize the beginning of the common life, and was a laudable attempt to restore the conditions which prevailed before Communion became infrequent in the Middle Ages.  In 1662 the exhortation was brought forward into the printed service, to which it forms an abrupt close; the phrase “if there be no sermon” refers to the subsequent Communion, which it is convenient (fitting) that the married pair should receive. [“The [R.C.] Church does not make it obligatory for the bridal pair to assist at Mass; but she strongly urges them thereto” (Liturgia, p. 746).]

IV

      We now consider the Anglican revisions of the 1662 rite.  The Irish makes few changes except in the opening Exhortation and may be omitted from the survey.

      Introductory rubrics.  The Scottish Book (1929) prefixes Canon XXX, which forbids the marriage of parties within the forbidden degrees, or of a divorced person whose spouse is living, but allows it “in cases in which a decree of nullity of marriage ab initio has been pronounced by a civil Court.”  The Canadian Book (1922) similarly forbids such marriages, without mentioning decrees of nullity.  The South African form refers to “the questions put forth by the Episcopal Synod”; it provides that “marriages shall not be solemnized in Lent without dispensation from the Bishop.”

      The Exhortation is revised by all on more or less similar lines.

      The Contract.  The English (1928), Scottish, and American (1929) omit the wife’s promise of obedience, retained by the Canadian, and by the S. African with the addition “in all things lawful”.  The American, Scottish, and S. African provide a prayer for blessing the ring.  The American version of the next formula is “With this Ring I thee wed: In the Name ...”  The others all have “with my body I thee honour.”  The English 1928, Scottish, and S. African read: “All my worldly goods with thee I share.”  The second part of the service is absent from the American book.  English 1928, Scottish, and S. African add Psalm 37:3–7 as an alternative.  In the Communion the Epistle is from Ephesians 3 (English 1928, S. African) or 5 (Scottish, American, Canadian); the Gospel is John 15:9 ff. (English 1928, S. African) or Matt. 19:4 ff. (Scottish, American, Canadian).  The Scottish and S. African books provide a Blessing of Civil Marriage.

      The most authoritative statement regarding problems in the Mission Field is contained in the Report of a Committee of the Lambeth Conference of 1908: “The Committee see no reason why national and local Churches should not adopt native forms of marriage and consecrate them to a Christian use, provided (a) that the form used explicitly states than the union is lifelong and exclusive, (b) that the form is free from all heathen and idolatrous taint, and (c) that provision is made for due registration of the marriage and for other formalities according to the law of the land, wherever such a law exists. [The Six Lambeth Conferences, p. 375.]

V

      Several matters deserve separate treatment.

      1.  Marriage according to the Council of Trent (session xxiv, can. ) is one of the Seven Sacraments instituted by Christ. When He did this is disputed. Every valid matrimonial contract between baptized persons is a sacrament. [C.I.C. 1012.  Unconfirmed Catholics should receive Confirmation, “if they can without grave inconvenience’ (1021).]  The external consent expressed in words is both matter and form of the sacrament. The ministers of the sacrament are the contracting parties. [Note that in the Roman Codex the priest is said “matrimonio assistere”.]

      2.  The Roman Catholic Church, however, has strict laws requiring the presence of the parish priest.  The Tametsi decree of the Council of Trent (session xxiv) required the presence of a priest and two other witnesses, to validate the marriage.  But this law is intended for Catholics only, baptized non-Catholics being exempted. [By the Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1070, a marriage contracted between a baptized and an unbaptized person is void.  This is not regarded as applying when the baptized party is a non-Catholic.  Most Anglicans would accept St. Paul’s ruling (1 Cor. 7:14) in another problem as applicable here: “The unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”]  It was not promulgated in England and certain other countries, which were regarded as under pre-Tridentine law.  The Ne Temere decree of 1908 simplified the Tridentine legislation and made it universally applicable. [With certain exceptions, e.g. in the case of persecutions, such as have occurred in Mexico.]  The legislation is logical and praiseworthy, and applies only to those who accept the Roman discipline.  The hardship arises in the case of mixed marriages, where after all the way of escape is easy.  The non-Roman party can refuse to accept the conditions, and break off the marriage. [This may stand as a general statement, but it simplifies the problem too much.  There are some very hard cases, which need not be discussed here.]

      3.  We have seen that the essence of marriage is the contract.  The principle governing this is that consent must be real, not forced ; and there must be a genuine intention to fulfill the contract; thus impotence, not revealed, can invalidate it, so can ignorance of the physical obligations of marriage, according to Roman interpretations.

      4.  The dual nature of marriage, in that it is a natural human relationship and a civil contract, with which the State must be deeply concerned, as well as a religious act, involves it in difficulties from which the other sacraments are free.  No part of the Church can hope to avoid some measure of conflict with the modern secular State.

      5.  Little attention has been given as yet to the changes which the emancipation of women must eventually effect in the marriage service.  The woman in civilized countries is the man’s equal in the eyes of the law.  Her consent is as full and free as the man’s.  Yet our service supposes that she must be “given away” by her father, or his substitute.  The man “weds” her in a sense other than that in which she weds him.  In particular, the English formula “With all my worldly goods I thee endow” is grossly one-sided.  True, it represents the facts of the law, for a rich wife can claim support from a husband whom she in her turn, if he incurs misfortune, can leave to starve.  The 1662 service keeps the balance fair by making “obedience” part of the contract.  A revised service may one day provide for equality of the sexes.  But the present revised form of the office, whereby the wife retains the advantages of being the weaker vessel and repudiates the accompanying obligation, is a concession to sentiment which cannot be logically defended.  The husband’s safeguard is the public opinion of women, notoriously severe in judging their own sex; legally he gets the worst of the marriage contract.

      6.  The essence of marriage is consent before witnesses.  So far as consent goes, we are in a healthier condition than bygone centuries, for the woman’s consent is now a reality, whereas brides in their teens used simply to obey their parents.  We should be careful not to lose the advantages of “before witnesses”.  While needless expense should be avoided, a wedding ought to be an occasion of publicity.  In contrast to the civil marriage, which affords a bare minimum of publicity, the religious service is ordered by the Prayer Book to be attended by friends and neighbours.  The impulse of a young couple, who ask to be married “very quietly, just ourselves,” should normally be discouraged by the clergy.

      7.  The history of prohibited degrees of marriage is very complicated.  In primitive tribes both endogamous and exogamous customs are found.  A common form is exogamy within an endogamous system; that is, marriage must be with a member of another clan of a small community, outside which marriage is not allowed.  The Egyptian Pharaoh regularly married his sister, to preserve the sanctity of the royal blood.  The regulations in Leviticus 18 are incomplete, but their principles when worked out produce the results found in the Prayer Book Table.  This Table was put forth by Archbishop Parker in 1563 and adopted by the 99th Canon of 1603.  It is bound up with the Prayer Book, in the same way as the Thirty-nine Articles.  The mediaeval law was very severe, the marriage of cousins being forbidden as far as the seventh generation.  In the Roman Catholic Church dispensations are given for marriages within the usual prohibited degrees (other than ascendants and descendants, and brother and sister), uncle and niece for example.  The Anglican Table is clear and logical.  Its equating of consanguinity and affinity cannot, however, be expected to convince those who repudiate the mystical and sacramental view of marriage.  Biological experiments conducted on animals do not corroborate to any appreciable extent the supposed evils of inbreeding.  But there are other considerations in the case of human beings.  Certainly a general relaxation of the prohibitions would have a disastrous effect on the purity and delicacy of family life. [In England marriage with a deceased wife’s sister became lawful in 1907, with a deceased brother’s widow in 1921.  According to Canon 99 such unions are forbidden by the law of God.  In so far as this view is based on a pre-critical attitude towards the Levitical legislation its claims on the conscience are weakened.  Little attention has been given by Anglicans to the problem of dispensations, which would seem to be a necessary accompaniment of a rigid Church marriage code.]

      8.  The benedictio thalami is not represented in the Prayer Book.  In mediaeval times it was an elaborate rite, accompanied by incense in some uses; the parties were blessed in bed.  The Roman Rituale of 1584 directed that they should kneel, at the head and the foot of the bed respectively.  The rite was omitted from the Rituale later, but it persisted locally for a long time.  Oberon at the end of A Midsummer Night’s Dream refers to the custom: “To the best bride-bed will we, Which by us shall blessed be; And the issue there create Ever shall be fortunate.”

      9.  It is too obvious to need emphasizing, that a service which with the utmost solemnity, in God’s sight, exacts a promise of lifelong fidelity (“so long as ye both shall live,” “till death us do part”), and expressly repudiates divorce (“Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder”), cannot be used to bless the marriage of a party who has a partner living, to whom he or she has been lawfully married, by a priest who stops to think what the words quoted mean.