The Lay Folks'
History of the Liturgy

In an examination of the History of the Prayer Book it is advisable to take a glance at the forms which religions took prior to Christianity.

This is the more necessary, as the criticism of Christian ritual and ceremonial is often put forward, that they are but plagiarisms of pagan worship.

The Bible deals in the main with the Old Covenant with Jews and the New Covenant of Christ with both Jew and Gentile. Nevertheless, in the book of Genesis we find reference to God’s dealing with man in general up to the time of the call of Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees, which occurred about 2000 B.C.

Within the last hundred years the records of Mesopotamia and of Egypt have been deciphered, and we are now in possession of a large body of lore possessed by both, which was in existence at the time of Abraham, and therefore some five hundred years before the Pentateuch was written.

These records consist for the most part of odes, or ballads, in which have been embodied in script or writing still more ancient oral legends.

In Mesopotamia the differences which exist between the Sumerian and Babylonian records all point to both having been derived from some common source rather than from each other.

In Egypt the worship of Osiris was gradually ousting that of Ammon Ra, which had itself superseded that of the old Moon gods, in the same way as Bel or Marduk had done in Mesopotamia.

The conflict between good and evil seems undoubtedly to have ever been present in the thoughts of man relating to the Deity; this we find not only in the Book of Genesis, but also in the records to which reference has just been made.

At a cursory glance these records appear to be a mere jumble of ideas pertaining to the worship of some particular image, and that in different places, and at different times, different types of worship were offered to similar images.

But if the whole, of which we have been able to gather any information, be put together and analysed, we find that out of this seeming inchoate mass, the same image or god can be traced as being represented in its sphere, in accordance with three different conceptions.

Such conceptions may be summarized as follows:

(a) Astronomical.—Out of the abyss or, as we should call it, the nebulae, the world and sun and stars were wrenched, and, after natural cataclysms connected with their gradual cooling, the influence of the Sun becomes the predominating factor and they are set in their courses, each being attributed to a separate deity.

So as the Sun overcomes the darkness and brings the state of the world into Order, this was held to be the ‘Way’ in which ‘Light’ prevails over darkness.

Under this guise we find the worship of Marduk or Bel in Babylonia and Osiris in Egypt.

(b) Terrestrial.—The Sun, and in Egypt also the Nile, is the power which protects man from the adversities of Nature—from storms—from the attacks of nocturnal animals—from the dangers of movement by night. Likewise, it is the Sun which causes the fruits of the earth to bring forth increase, and is the cause of fecundity in general.

This we find represented by a conflict with Nature in contests such as Bel and the Dragon, and various episodes of a heroic nature involving ‘Light’ overcoming ‘Darkness’.

(c) Metaphysical.—In the conflict between Good and Evil, Truth and Untruth, examples of this are clear in the Babylonian legend of Marduk overcoming Kingu and taking the Tables of Destinies from him, and in Egypt the legend relating to the ultimate triumph of Osiris over Set. Thus ‘Truth’ overcomes ‘Evil’.

Hence both in Babylonia and Egypt, apart from a nominal polytheism, wherein the old Moon gods became superannuated and the lesser gods have acknowledged his superiority, we find in each case a central figure in a threefold aspect representing the ‘Way’, the ‘Light’, and the ‘Truth’ as having overcome, or overcoming, the ‘Adversity’, the ‘Dark’, and the ‘Evil’.

Wherein, then, lay the error in this worship of a God of Good?

The truth underlying these religions was so adulterated that it was lost sight of altogether, and though among the priests, no doubt, there were some who realized the aim of it all, it was, in fact, completely hidden from the mass of their adherents and had no real influence upon them.

In addition, after the loss of the original true meaning, no doubt the priests evolved a theology to account for the ceremonies and ritual of which they, for the most part, had no longer any real comprehension.

The best example of this is the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

One rubric states that it was found in the reign of Semti or Hesepti, a king of the I Dynasty, circa 3500 B.C., in the foundations of a shrine of Hennu, and another rubric says that the text was cut upon a statue of Menkaura (Mycerinus) a king of the IV Dynasty, circa 3100 B.C.; both long before the date given for the Flood, viz. 2400 B.C.

This work in its original form is an account of the steps taken by Osiris to acquire pre-eminence in life after death.

Subsequently copies of it, or of part of it, were made on the inside of mummy cases and enclosed in the mummies themselves, to aid them to attain the Land of the ‘House of Life with Truth’.

Thus the maxims, which ought to have inculcated virtues amongst the living, came to be used merely as charms for the benefit of the dead. To such an extent were moral maxims debased into mechanical charms.

In a similar way at Babylon at a later date the Epic of Gilgamish, the Babylonian legend of the Creation, came to be recited as an incantation against toothache!

Moreover, in addition to these degenerate forms of religion, co-existent with them, there was a definite cult for the appeasing of Evil rather than the placating of the Good, e.g. the worship of the Scorpion God. All of which is summed up by St. Paul in the text: “Held the truth with unrighteousness” (Romans i. 18).

The Devil in this respect has been described as decadence of pure thought and religion.

At the same time it must not be thought that no part of such ancient lore was without value, for we find in the Bible various references to the contrary.

We find reference to the wisdom of Moses, who “was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians”, Acts vii. 22; of Solomon, 1 Kings iv. 20; and of Daniel and his books, Daniel ix. 2; and finally, to the attendance and homage of the Wise Men of the East, St. Matthew ii. 1. These last, without doubt, must have represented that remnant who still understood the pure religion revealed to mankind in general, and not only to the Jews in particular, before the time of Abraham.

As though in further confirmation of this, we find that after the worship of the Magi from the East our Lord was taken into Egypt, as it was written, “Out of Egypt have I called my Son” (Hosea xi. 1).

So then it may be inferred that the underlying truths of the religions both of Babylon and of Egypt were in a manner antetypes of the true Christ, who was the true ‘Way’, the true ‘Logos’, and the true ‘Light’ (John iv. 6).

All the foregoing brings out the fact that while the Old Covenant was with the Jews, yet the rest of the world was possessed of germs of truth. Further evidence of this may be gathered from the strivings of the later philosophers, such as Plato, Pythagoras, and Aristotle amongst the Greeks, Zoroaster among the Chaldeans, and Buddha in the East.

Though we are bound by the argument of St. Paul in 2 Cor. vi., it is not surprising to find that in various points and in various ways similarities both of ideas and of ceremonial are to be found in not only Paganism and Judaism but also in Christianity.

And it may be well argued that where they are so found, so far as Paganism is concerned, they are derived from the original divine worship before it became degenerate. For as Dr. Cory in Ancient Fragments, so long ago as 1832, so tersely says: “I deem that we outstrip not the bounds of true philosophy when we humbly trace in the glorious works of the Almighty a confirmation of his Word”.

Some modern writers, however, seek to deduce such similarities from the direct influence of Babylonian cults upon the writers of the Old Testament.

Going back, then, to Abraham, who was called out of Ur of the Chaldees about 2000 B.C., we now know that this coincides with the commencement of the Hyksos or Shepherd Kings, who formed the XIII to XVII Dynasties of Egypt, 2000–1580 B.C. They are believed to have been of Semitic origin.

This would have been an additional reason for Jacob sending to Egypt for corn in the time of famine, and must have rendered the rise of Joseph to power the more easy, as he was of the same race as the king and ruling party in Egypt at that time, whom the records clearly show to have been out of sympathy with the race which they governed.

The exodus of the Jews is now thought to have taken place in either 1588 or 1446 B.C. If it had taken place at the later date it would have been not only under a new king but under a new Dynasty, as that of the new kingdom began in 1580 B.C.

From the discovery of the Telelman Tablets¹ in 1887 it is certain that the Exodus cannot have taken place in 1225 B.C., in the reign of Rameses II. the Great, as had been previously imagined.

It is not necessary here to dwell upon the origin of the Jewish Passover at the time of the Exodus, nor of the Jewish Tabernacle and Temple worship set forth in the Old Testament, beyond drawing attention to the fact that it was all antetypical of the Christ and of the New Covenant (Hebrews ix. and x.).

However, in tracing the development of the Christian Liturgy, that employed both in the Temple and in the Jewish Synagogue at the time of Christ have to be borne in mind. This is especially so as we find that the Apostles, not only after the Ascension, but also after the Pentecost, continued in the Temple (Acts ii. 46 and xxi. 26).

From the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 until the embracing of Christianity by Emperor Constantine in A.D. 323, the Christians had no openly recognised places of worship, though their persecution varied in intensity and intolerance from time to time and from place to place.

Under these circumstances, it is not surprising to find that the Liturgy was handed down orally and not reduced to writing, so that, apart from references to phrases and passages which were quoted from time to time, the documentary evidence is very meagre.

Further, though the art of writing was well known, it was, in fact, possessed by few, so that not only traditions but the ‘ipsissima verba’ of the Liturgy were handed down orally for a long time before being reduced to writing.

Besides this, there were three important reasons for secrecy:

1. To avoid the implication of the faithful;
2. The desire to withhold information from the ribald opprobrium of uninstructed persons; and
3. To prevent misuse in the suggestions for perverted examination of the faithful.

The most quoted documents during the period of persecution are:

I. The Didaché, or the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, circa 80–100.

The latter portion of this document, Chapters 7–15, contains the elements of a primitive Church Order.

Chapter 7 deals with baptism accompanied by fasting:

“Baptize ye in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”

Also baptism by affusion is recognized:

“But if thou hast not either, pour water thrice upon the head, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”

Again:

“But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, except those baptized in the Name of the Lord, for regarding this also the Lord hath said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

Chapter 8 deals with fasting:

“But let not your fasts be as the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth days of the week, but fast ye on the fourth day (Wednesday) and on the preparation day (Friday).”

Then come Chapters 9 and 10, which are generally taken as forming definitely part of the Liturgy then existent; though, on the other hand, it has been suggested that it is either a grace before meat or only meant to be a sort of outline as to what was fitting to be included in the pre- and post-communion collects.

Chapter 9 is as follows:

“But as touching the Eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus, first as regards the cup, ‘We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of Thy son David, which Thou hast made known unto us through Thy Son Jesus; Thine is the glory for ever and ever.’”

“Then as regards the broken bread:

“We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge, which Thou didst make known unto us through Thy Son Jesus; Thine is the glory for ever and ever. As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy Kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever and ever.”

“But let no one eat or drink of this Eucharist thanksgiving but they that have been baptized into the Name of the Lord, for concerning this also the Lord hath said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

Chapter 10. “And after ye are satisfied, thus give ye thanks:

“‘We give Thee thanks, Holy Father, for Thy holy Name, which Thou hast made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which Thou hast made known unto us through Thy Son Jesus; Thine is the glory for ever and ever. Thou Almighty Master didst create all things for Thy Name's sake and didst give food and drink unto men for enjoyment that they might render thanks unto Thee; but didst bestow upon us spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Thy Son. Before all things we give Thee thanks that Thou art powerful. Thine is the glory for ever and ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church to deliver it from evil and to perfect it in Thy love and gather it from the four winds, even the Church which Thou hast sanctified, into Thy Kingdom which Thou hast prepared for it; for Thine is the glory for ever and ever. May grace come and may this world pass away. Hosanna to the Son of David. If any man is holy let him come; if any man is not let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.’

“But permit the Prophets to offer thanksgiving as much as they desire.”

Chapter 14. The people are enjoined:

“And on the Lord's own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.”

II. The letter of Pliny, Governor of Bithynia, written to the Emperor Trajan in 112. Epp. lib. x. No. 97.

Pliny himself was a pagan and wrote to inquire how he should deal with the Christians in his province.

Pliny stated that he had obtained the information from certain apostates from the Christian faith whom he had examined, which was as follows:

“They asserted that this was the sum and substance of their fault or their error; namely, that they were in the habit of meeting before dawn on a stated day and singing alternately a hymn to Christ as a god, and that they bound themselves by an oath not to the commission of any wicked deed, but that they would abstain from theft and robbery and adultery; that they would not break their word; and that they would not withhold a deposit when reclaimed. This done, it was their practice, so they said, to separate and then to meet again for a meal, which, however, was of the ordinary kind and quite harmless. But even from this they desisted after my edict; in which in pursuance of your commands I had forbidden the existence of clubs.”

III. The Apology of Justin Martyr addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius in 148.

Cap. 65. “But we, after we have thus washed him, who has been convinced, and has assented, lead him to the place where those who are called the brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the illuminated person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss of peace. Bread and a cup of wine mingled with water are then brought to the president of the brethren, and he, taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the Universe, through the Name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks, at considerable length, for our being counted worthy to receive these things at his hands. And, when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their consent by saying ‘Amen’. This word ‘Amen’ answers in the Hebrew language to the Greek γéνοιτο (So be it). And when the president has given thanks and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us ‘deacons’ give each of those present the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and they carry away a portion to those who are not present.”

Cap. 66. “And this food is called among us ‘the Eucharist’, of which no one is allowed to partake but he who believes that the things which we teach are true and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins and unto regeneration and who is living as Christ hath enjoined. For we do not receive these as common bread and common drink, but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food, which is blessed by the prayer of the word, which comes from Him, and from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transmutation, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the Apostles in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them, that Jesus took bread and gave thanks and said, ‘Do this in remembrance of Me’: ‘this is My body’, and after the same manner He took the cup and gave thanks and said ‘This is My blood’, and gave it to them alone. The wicked devils have also imitated this in the mysteries of Mithras commanding the same thing to be done. For you know, or can learn, that bread and a cup of water are employed with certain incantations in the mystic rites which accompany the initiation of a member.”

Cap. 67. “And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy and we always keep together. And we bless the Creator of all things through His Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit for all things wherewith we are supplied. And on the day called Sunday all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place and the memoirs of the Apostles (Gospels) or the writings of the Prophets are read as long as time permits. Then when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and offer prayers. And as we have said before, when we have finished the prayer, bread and wine and water are brought and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings with all his might [qy. Plene, ‘full voice’, Can. vi. Council of Oxford, 1222] and the people assent ‘Amen’, and there is a distribution to each and a participation in the Eucharistic elements and portions are sent to those not present by the deacons. And the well-to-do and the willing give what each person thinks fit and the collection is deposited with the president, who succours orphans and widows and those who are in want through sickness or any other cause and those who are in prison and the strangers sojourning among us and in a word he takes care of all who are in any need. We all hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in darkness and chaos, made it cosmos, and because Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead on the same day. For they crucified Him on the day before the day of Saturn, and on the day after Saturday, which is Sunday, He appeared to His Apostles and disciples and taught them these things which we have submitted to you for your consideration.”

From the foregoing description it would appear that Christian worship was of the simplest description, so much so that it was sometimes advanced as an argument against the sacraments of the Christian Church. But Tertullian, 160–220, at Carthage, claimed that the simplicity was, on the contrary, an argument in its favour.

At the same time the simplicity of the Christian worship, at this period, is apt to be overstated, for its unctions, use of signs of the cross, vigils, and midnight celebration of the Eucharist at Easter, were marks of a more extreme ritual than is in use in some modern forms. In connection with this, reference must be made to the Canons of Hippolytus, A.D. 190–238,¹ in which we find the following reference to vestments:

“As soon as the Bishop wishes to celebrate the mysteries, let the deacons and presbyters come together to him clad in white vestments more beautiful than all the people and as splendid as possible. But good work excels all vestments. Let the readers also have festal garments. . . .” The readers also are to wear festal dresses.

Whether this Canons can really be assigned to Hippolytus or not, it is generally agreed that they are not later than 200–300. This, coupled with the fact that as soon as the Emperor Constantine had accepted Christianity he gave a rich vestment embroidered in gold to the Bishop of Jerusalem, and that the Clementine Liturgy contained in the Apostolic Constitutions prescribes a ‘splendid vestment’ for the Bishop who celebrates, all tend to show that the ritual was not quite so simple in those early days as has sometimes been suggested. Naturally, during the persecutions it could not compare with the gorgeous ceremonial of pagan worship, and in consequence a point was made of its simplicity, but this is not the same as saying that there was no ritual at all.

When we remember the secrecy with which the words of the Liturgy were veiled, and that Sozomen the historian, as late as 400–500, in his ecclesiastical history even refrained from setting out the text of the Nicean Creed, lest it should become known to the uninitiated, it is not to be wondered if the Apologists of the first three centuries said nothing about their ceremonial.

We have direct evidence that there was not only variety but also changes in ritual during this period in a letter, c. 255, by St. Firmilian (Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia) to St. Cyprian (Bishop of Carthage), in which he pointed out that “those who lived at Rome did not observe in all points their original traditions; that it was useless for the Church of Rome to claim Apostolic authority for all its practices, as, for instance, on the question of the proper day for the celebration of Easter;² also with regard to many unspecified points of liturgical arrangements, one way prevailed at Jerusalem, another at Rome. In most provinces there were diversities caused by the varieties of locality and of human nature: but the peace and unity of the Catholic Church were never imperilled by this fact” (Inter Cypriani Ep., Migne iii. 1159).

It can be but a matter of regret that this has not remained true until the present day.

In Apostolic times the feast which our Lord attended on the Vigil of the Passover (John xiii. 1) was originally commemorated by a Love Feast or Agapé of which the Eucharist formed part. This is the inference to be drawn from the narrative of the healing of Eutychus (Acts xxii. 7) and also from the scandals which arose at Corinth through its misuses (1 Cor. xi. 17–20).

In the Didaché (Ch. 9 and 10) the commemoration would seem to be confined to the Feast itself rather than to the Eucharist proper.

Warren points out that:

Though from the time of Pliny and Justin Martyr the Agapé had become separated from the Eucharist, yet at Antioch and Smyrna as late as A.D. 110 they were apparently still celebrated together according to the Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans.

The Agapé, apart from the Eucharist, seems to have been celebrated in the evening; the Canons of Hippolytus imply that it took place on Sunday evening at the time of the lighting of the Lamps. Tertullian gives a full description of it. Later, in the Didascalia about 250, it is mentioned as merely being provided for widows in want and for the poor out of the offerings of the Church. It seems to have lasted on till the time of Socrates, the historian, about 450, before being discontinued entirely.

The Pascal Supper itself was preceded by a fast from the time of the evening sacrifice, on that day an hour earlier, which was offered at 1.30 p.m. and slain at 2.30 p.m., until the Supper, which was not commenced until dark.

This may have suggested the practice of fasting reception of the Eucharist, which has been observed with rare exceptions from the earliest times. "Let not any of the faithful taste of anything before he has partaken of the mysteries, especially on the days of the holy fast" (Canons of Hippolytus, xxviii.).

As we have seen, the Agapé continued to be celebrated in the evening, but the Eucharist, after the separation, was celebrated in the morning. This is explained by St. Cyprian as follows: "It behoved Christ to offer about eventide that the hour itself of sacrifice might token the setting and evening of the world, as it is written in the Book of Exodus: 'And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill in the evening'. And again in the Psalms: 'Let the lifting up of my hands be an evening sacrifice'. But we celebrate the resurrection of the Lord in the morning" (Ep. 63).

After the recognition of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine in 323, we have records of various liturgies. As Christianity was more prevalent among the Greek-speaking races than among any other, we will take these first.

But we must premise that at the beginning of this new era, when what had hitherto been kept secret, and transmitted orally alone, was for the first time openly reduced to writing, the custom of 'subordinate' theology arose. By this is meant that an author, whilst basing his writings on that which he had received orally, gave his own composition a title with the name of the person who was supposed to have been the author of the tradition; but whilst doing this it did not prevent him from bringing the document up to date according to his own ideas, nor from incorporating in it references to persons, events, or things which came into existence after the decease of him to whom he ascribed his work.

It is of great importance to bear this in mind, for while various anachronisms may be found in a document, which clearly prove that as it stands it cannot possibly have been written by the person whose name it bears, yet nevertheless, this does not prove that it was not based upon some oral tradition, originated by its putative author.

We have then the following Greek Liturgies:

Though, as might be expected, these liturgies vary considerably in their exact order, form of words and in the rites connected with them, yet the service may be stated broadly to have adopted the outline set out below:

Passing notice must be taken of the other Eastern Liturgies; Warren has a list of about forty-five, which are for the most part orthodox.

The liturgy of Adeus and Maris, founders of the Churches of Edessa and Seleucia, was the chief Nestorian Liturgy.

The Nestorian Heresy consisted of affirming that the Divinity and Humanity of Christ are not only two Natures but also two persons, and of refusing to give the title of Mother of God to the Virgin Mary. Nestorius was Bishop of Constantinople, 428–435. They were condemned by the third General Council of Ephesus in 431.

The Nestorian Liturgies differ in the Anaphora, but the Ordinary of the Mass is the same in all.

Having considered the general outline of the Liturgy in the East soon after the acceptance of Christianity by the Roman Empire, we must now consider the source from which this ritual was evolved.

This is a matter of great obscurity: in so far as it is directly of Jewish origin, is it taken from the worship in the Temple or in the Synagogue?

To deal with the latter first, it is not known when the synagogues were first introduced; they were the village halls or places of assembly, and were used for other purposes as well as for religious exercises. No complete record exists of what their religious services consisted in at the time of our Lord. The Talmud, the earliest Jewish record of these services, does not go back to the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, but only records the services which took place in the Jewish synagogues after the Temple Worship had ceased.

So far as can be gathered it consisted of: Introductory benedictions. Reading of the Law of the Pentateuch, when the people stood up. Reading of the Prophets. Discourse founded on them. Blessing.

The expressions, 'Hallowed be Thy Name' and 'Thy Kingdom come', in our Lord's Prayer are traceable to the Kadish, one of the prayers in use in the synagogue. Likewise, the 'Preface' in the Liturgy is obviously taken from the introduction to the great Hallel Psalms 113 and 114, which formed part of the service of the Pascal Supper.

The shape of the synagogue seems to have been copied in the design of the churches. The synagogue was built so that the people faced Jerusalem, i.e. in Europe towards the East. The entrance was at the other end. At the East end, elevated on steps, was an ark covered by a canopy; this contained the sacred writings or scrolls. There was a desk for the leader of the worship, in front of the ark, opposite whom sat the elders of the synagogue. A rostrum, or bema, in the centre of the building, was the elevated pulpit from which the lessons were read, and from which the discourses were given. A light was kept burning in front of the ark (Ex. xxvii. 20).

The Apostolic Constitutions [Book II.] contains long directions as to formation and seating of a church like a ship or ark (of safety). From these services may be derived: Eastward position. Standing at the Gospel. Benedictions at the Lections. Little Entrance. (Procession of the roll of the law to the bema.) Dedication of churches.

The use of bells, colours, vestments, and bowing to the altar were no doubt taken from the Temple worship. Some writers have sought to show that the whole of the Christian worship is based on the Jewish ritual, and others have suggested that the Greek Eleusian mysteries were largely the source from which they were derived, or even directly from the Egyptian rites.

It is not likely that the Jews borrowed from the Christian ceremonial in after years, but the probability is all the other way. At the same time there is no reason to suppose that both the Jewish and the Pagan ceremonials did not have some similarities, so that it is impossible definitively to trace the exact source from which the Christian rites and ceremonies sprang.

As regards the liturgy in North Africa, we have no formal documentary evidence, and the most that we can obtain are in fragmentary references in the writings of Tertullian, 160–220, Cyprian, 200–258, Optatus, circa 363, and St. Augustine of Hippo, 395–430.

Tertullian's 'Apology' describes a Service of the Word at which prayers and intercessions were offered and the Scriptures read and exhortations given. He also gives a full description of the Agapé. In his treatise on the Soul there is an account of a Vigil service consisting of Lessons, Psalms, addresses and prayers.

In his work on Prayer reference is made to intercessions for persecutors, the dead, the sick, the possessed, and prisoners, like the Bidding prayers. References are also made in his works to Masses said for the Dead, and the Kiss of Peace. Reservation of the Eucharist is recognized and kneeling in worship from Easter to Pentecost is forbidden.

From Cyprian we find references to the Preface, Sursum Corda, and Sanctus; Eucharistic Thanksgiving and Consecration of the gifts. He gives a clear indication that in his time the mysteries were guarded from all but the faithful.

From St. Augustine's sermons we have more detailed references to the liturgy, which enable us to reconstruct it as follows:

In general, the liturgy shows a special similarity to that of Rome, with: position of the Kiss of Peace before the Communion and not at the Offertory; the Salutation Pax Vobiscum / Et cum spiritu tuo, before the Kiss of peace, Deo gratias; and Acts of Perpetua.

From the time of Justin Martyr, circa 160, until that of St. Jerome, 386, we have no records at all. St. Jerome only mentions the reading of the Gospel by the Deacon and the recitation of the names of those who made the offerings. He mentions as included in the Liturgy the Sanctus — Prayer of Consecration — Use of the Lord's Prayer preceded by the prologue, 'Audemus Dicere'— the Kiss of Peace, 'in the midst of the sacred feast,' by this probably meaning before the Communion, as is now the case in the Roman rite, instead of before the Preface as in the Eastern Liturgies.

The general outline, which may be compared with that of the Eastern Churches, may be shortly stated as follows:

We have now traced in outline the development of the Christian Liturgy both in the East and in Rome and North Africa. But in order to grasp the meaning of these various forms, it is necessary to take into consideration the various points of view and the different attitudes of mind adopted in relation to the foundation of such Liturgy; in short, we must examine what is known as the 'Concept of the Eucharist'.

As we have seen in Chapter IV., the Agapé had become separated from the Eucharist by the time of Tertullian in 160. As the Eucharist came to be separated from the Agapé, so the more intensely Jewish element in the Commemoration, wherein all that pertained to the fulfilment of the prophecies of the Old Testament as to the coming of the Messiah had been specially stressed, became lessened; and the Commemoration of the Passion, or the Anamnesis, as it is called, was held more in mind. Thus the terms used by Our Lord with reference to the bread and wine were emphasized as relating to His Passion rather than as relating to His fellowship in partaking of the Supper itself.

Hence it followed that whilst the mystery remained sacramental of the New Covenant, the sacrificial element of the fulfilment of the Old Covenant became the predominant aspect. And further, that as there were sacrifices of bulls and of rams by way of antetype under the Old Covenant, so under the New Covenant there are sacrifices by way of prototype of oblations of the memorial of His Passion, accompanied by praise and thanksgiving (1 Cor. xi. 26).

The term 'spiritual content' is used to denote the Divine operative power which affects the Eucharist. In Justin, Clement, Origen, Athanasius, and Ambrose the 'spiritual content' is identified with the Logos. In Syria, Palestine, and at Byzantium the Eucharist was associated with the operation of the Holy Ghost, and God was invoked to send down His Holy Spirit upon the gifts "that he may make the bread the body and the wine the blood of Christ". This is known as the Epiklesis.

St. Basil, 379, says: "Which of the Saints has left us, in writing, the words of invocation at the Consecration of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not content with those mentioned by the Apostle or the Gospel, but we also say some words before them and after them as being of great force for the purpose of the Sacrament, which we have received from unwritten tradition."1

We must now proceed to examine the administration of the early Church. This seems clearly to have been based upon an analogy with the rulers of the Jewish Synagogue.

In the East, since the time of Alexander the Great, 322 B.C., Jewish colonies had had a special position within the Empire: these colonists were treated as non-citizens with special privileges. They had their own government, both administrative and judicial, and were exempted from military service and from working on their Sabbath.

The rulers of the synagogues varied in number in different places, as we read of one in Luke xii. 13 and again of rulers in Mark v. 22. They were divided into different grades, the lowest of which was the deacon, to whom was confided the temporal affairs (cf. Acts vi. 3). We have the priest and the Bishop; but in the writings of the early fathers we find some twelve different names for the Bishop, seven different names for the priest, and three different names for the deacon. These all recognized the supreme authority of the Apostles.

After the close of the Apostolic era each community was left to itself, and it was generally recognized that the head of each city should be a Bishop. The extent of his jurisdiction was easily settled: the Jewish colonies had been confined to towns, therefore as Christianity spread into the country districts the Bishops naturally assumed that jurisdiction which was coterminous with the existing civil power, and which was clearly defined by the Roman Census.

The influence of Jerusalem, which might be thought to have become predominant as the birthplace of Christianity, in fact ceased to be more than a name after its destruction by Titus in A.D. 70. Rome, on the other hand, the capital of the world and the scene of the martyrdom of SS. Peter and Paul, naturally was the centre to which missionaries, prophets, doctors, and pilgrims alike gravitated, and to the Bishop there they naturally turned to settle their differences.

The heresy of Arianism may be stated shortly to have consisted in the denial of the complete equality of the Son with the Father in the Holy Trinity, and in maintaining that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father alone. This heresy came to a climax at Alexandria, and was one of the special matters brought before the First General Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325, which condemned it.

Now, in 258, in the course of their raids into Asia Minor and Cappadocia, the Goths had brought back from the latter certain prisoners who were Christians, and who in their exile maintained communication with their native country and spread the Gospel among their new masters. A Mesopotamian monk named Audius, who had been banished, likewise devoted himself to missionary work. Soon after, he was followed by Ulfilas, known as the 'Apostle of the Goths', who had been also carried off in a raid from Cappadocia about 300. These Cappadocians were, however, affected with Arianism.

Whilst holding the Arian heresy, the general form of their Liturgy was of course that of the Churches in the East, from which it had sprung. From this we shall see that after the fall of the Roman Empire we find everywhere traces of these Eastern forms as these barbarians swept through Gaul and Spain and Southern Europe.

The well established trade relations between the South of France and the East brought Christianity thither at an early date. Thus we find that by 177 Polthinius, who was from Ephesus in Asia Minor, had been created first Bishop of Lyons. He brought with him St. Irenaeus from Smyrna, a disciple of Polycarp, who himself had been a disciple of St. John the Divine. This first community at Lyons was almost certainly Greek, though St. Irenaeus mentions the conversion of Celts; the trade at Lyons was in the hands of Greeks and Syrians and other Orientals.

We learn from Bede, who wrote about 700, that England was first converted by a mission sent by Pope Eleutherius (175–189). Though St. Germanus of Auxerre visited England in 429 and again in 447 to put down the heresy of Pelagius, a native of Wales who lived about 380.

It has been noted in Chapter X. that even after the Council of Nicea, Arianism continued to flourish amongst the Goths, and it must also be confessed that it was far from being suppressed in the East. At the Council of Sardica in 341, it has been stated that nearly a quarter of the three and a half hundred Bishops present were Arians. Moreover, the Emperor Constantius—whose capital was at Antioch—was himself an Arian, and he, in 355, appointed Auxentius, a Cappadocian and an Arian, to be Bishop of Milan.

It was, then, this Eastern Ritual as brought to Milan by the Arians, but purged of its Arian taint, which came to be known as The Ambrosian Rite.

Gradually, in this way, as these barbarians forsook their heresy and adopted the Orthodox Catholic faith, the alteration in their religious rites consisted in merely excluding or amending such parts of them as were tainted with the heresy. So we find in the West a Christian religion with many of the essential characteristics of the Eastern Church, gradually adopting Roman forms as it became Catholic, rather than the complete acceptance of such Roman forms, as would have been the case had they been converted from sheer Paganism.

That the Orthodox element in this Gallic Use, which, though Eastern in form, was not Arian in doctrine, prevailed from the outset, is evidenced by the fact that Clovis, who founded the dynasty of the Merovingian Franks in 481, was himself baptized into the Orthodox faith by St. Remy in 496.

Thus the Gallic Use gradually sprang up in Gaul and was not introduced as a whole: for we see the numerous questions which had to be settled at such provincial synods as the Council of Vannes in Brittany for the province of Tours in 465, and that of Agde for the Visigothic kingdom in the south of Gaul in 506.

The earliest record of this Gallic Use is in two important letters written by St. Germain of Paris, 556–576, in which, in order to explain the meaning of the ritual, he sets out a summary of the Use. The most complete Missal is the Missale Gothicum, written about 690 at Autun, now in the Vatican.

As has been mentioned before, this rite bears distinct traces of the Eastern Uses, and is chiefly noticeable for certain distinctive features.

First is its extreme variableness: in the Roman Rite there are only three variable parts, whereas in the Gallic there are no less than nine.

The part taken in the rite by the congregation as a whole, under the direction of the priest, is much greater, e.g. in saying Our Lord's Prayer by the priest each clause is punctuated by an Amen from the congregation. The rejoicing of the faithful is throughout particularly stressed.

There were three Introductory Canticles. First, the Trisagion—first in Greek and then in Latin:

ἄγιος ὁ θεός, ἄγιος ἰσχυρός, ἄγιος ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς
Sanctus Deus — Sanctus fortis — Sanctus immortalis — miserere nobis; the Kyrie Eleison, sung by three boys; and the Benedictus (Luke i. 68–79).

One of the Lections was from the Old Testament. The ceremonial which preceded the reading of the Gospel, called the 'Lesser Entrance', was similar to that in the Greek Liturgy. The Homily or Sermon was retained throughout this period. Then followed the Litany, like in the Greek Uses, and the Dismissal of the Catechumens.

It may be of interest to note that the Processional Litany was first adopted in the Orthodox Church by St. Chrysostom at Constantinople about 390, especially to act as an offset against the processions organized by the Arians, who had been excluded from the churches.

Next we have the Procession of the Oblation, or 'Greater Entrance'. The Gallic Church had the same Use of special consecration of the bread and wine in the vestry which obtained in the Greek Church and was called the 'Mass of the Prothesis' or the 'Credence'. During the procession a chant was sung called the Sonus or Laudes or Alleluia, followed by the 'Oratio super sindonem' or Prayer of the Veil, which was the counterpart of the Roman 'Super Oblata'.

The Eucharistic Prayer began with a Preface like the Roman, which was called in the Gaul the 'Contestatio' or 'Immolatio' and in Spain the 'Illatio', and was followed by the 'Ter Sanctus'. The account of the Institution was never written but only indicated by the first words. The Mozarabic text is as follows:

"Adesto adesto Jesus bone pontifex, in medio nostri, sicut fuisti in medio discipulorum tuorum; sanctifica hanc oblationem ut sanctificata sumamus per manus sancti angeli tui, sancte domine ac redemptor aeterne. Dominus noster Jesus Christus in qua nocte tradebatur accepit panem et gratias agens benedixit ac fregit, deditque discipulis suis, dicens: 'Accipite et manducate: hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur. Quotiescumque manducaveritis, hoc facite in meam commemorationem.' R̃Amen."

The 'Fraction' was complicated, like in the Greek Prothesis: the Host was arranged in a special manner, at one time to represent the human form, but by the Council of Tours in 567 it was ordered to consist of nine portions in the form of a cross.

The Pater Noster followed, originally said by both priest and congregation together, but in the Mozarabic Rite the congregation say 'Amen' only, but after each petition.

Then came the rite of Commixtio, when the priest dropped some of the consecrated particles into the cup; the part used in the Mozarabic Rite is that called the 'Regnum': he then said a prayer commencing 'Sancta Sanctis'. This phrase, 'Holy things to the Holy', or 'Holy things to holy people', was used during the Mass of the Faithful in all the Greek Eastern Liturgies.

After this came the Communion, when the faithful entered the sanctuary and came up to the altar to communicate. The men received the Host in their bare hands, but the women had their hands covered by a linen cloth called a 'dominical', which they brought with them (cf. Synod of Auxerre, 578).

A chant called the 'Trecanum', according to St. Germain commemorative of the Trinity, was sung during the administration; in the Mozarabic Rite this chant is taken from the 34th Psalm (verses 1, 8, and 22), and is called Accedentes.

Such is the general outline of the Gallic Rite. The Ambrosian Rite at a very early date adopted the scheme of the Roman Canon, whilst the Mozarabic Rite has differed but little from the Gallic Rite, from which it is directly derived.

Britain, as we know, was abandoned by the Romans about 410 in consequence of the pressure on the Empire induced by the barbarians on the Continent: it then fell an easy prey to the Northmen, who were Pagans, and Christianity was practically exterminated. Such Christians as were left were concentrated under the kings of Damnonia (Devon and Cornwall), most of whom were Christian.

After this, the first effort towards the conversion of the country to Christianity seems to have been made by St. Ninian, who was sent by Pope Siricius (384–399). He landed in Galloway and founded a mission in that part of what was then known as Strathclyde, which, roughly, extended from the Clyde to the Derwent in Cumberland.

According to Prosper of Aquitaine (402–463), who was secretary for some time to Pope Leo the Great (440–461), Palladius was consecrated by Pope Celestine (422–432) as first Bishop of Ireland. The Great St. Patrick, born in Ayrshire in Strathclyde, was first sent to Ireland by St. Martin of Tours (371–391); he became Bishop of Ireland in 437 and died in 461. St. Patrick, coming from Tours and having studied at Lerins, undoubtedly introduced the Gallic Use into Ireland, from whence it was spread through the Irish missionaries to Iona in Scotland, founded by St. Columba (521–597).

Though having no direct bearing upon our subject, space must be found for a short reference to the Mozarabic Rite in Spain, as it is the only surviving example of the Gallic Use.

We have seen that at a very early date the Ambrosian Rite adopted so many Roman innovations that at present the Use at Milan is very different from the original Gallic Use, if it ever completely employed it.

On the other hand, the Mozarabic Rite has varied but little in the form, which is still used in the Mozarabic Chapel in the Cathedral at Toledo near Madrid, from the most primitive forms of the Gallic Church. Moreover, several of the particular local customs of the Roman Church in Spain display the influence which the Mozarabic Rite has had upon them.

There were Christians in Spain at a very early date, in the Epistle to the Romans, xv. 24, we find St. Paul writing from Corinth about 60, referring to a journey which he proposed to take into Spain.

In 305 there was a Council at Elvira, the Iliberris of the Iberians, and the Municipium Florentinum Iliberritum of the Romans, about five miles west of Granada, and in 300 there was a Council at Saragossa.

It was by the former Council that ‘superposition’ fasts (see p. 31) were restricted to once a month, except in July and August, when they were prohibited altogether.

In 409 the Vandals, Alans, and Suevi, followed in 415 by the Visigoths, overran Spain; but both the Suevi and Visigoths at any rate were Arians. Between 463 and 469 Euric the king of the Visigoths defeated the Suevi and captured most of the peninsula, ousting the last of the Romans; and in 569–586, Leovigild, King of the Visigoths, ruled over the whole peninsula. His successor, Reccared (586–601), renounced Arianism and became the first Catholic king of Spain. In 711 the Moors conquered all Spain, except Galicia and Asturias, but they were gradually driven back south until Toledo was recovered in 1085, though they were not finally expelled until 1502.

The Moors, when they conquered Spain, allowed the Christians to follow their religion under certain restrictions, and they, being cut off from outside influence, continued to use the old Gallic Use employed by their forefathers; for there is no doubt that this was what Reccared and his successors had observed. These people were called half-Arabs, ‘Mozarabs’—hence the term Mozarabic.¹

We have, in fact, the record of the fourth Council of Toledo, 633, in the time of St. Isidore (596–636), the chief founder of the orthodox faith amongst the Arian Suevi and Visigoths; afterwards there were dissensions which were referred to Pope John X. in 924 and again to Pope Alexander II. in 1065, to whom copies of their Use were sent, and to which he found no reason for objection, but gave his approval. However, in 1089, Alfonso VI. of Spain abolished the National Rite in favour of the Roman Rite, but on the protest of Toledo it was made alternative there. Cardinal Ximénes, the great Spanish patriot, after the defeat of the Moors, sought to revive this Mozarabic Rite and rescue it from oblivion, and a Missal and complete Breviary of the Use were printed at Toledo in 1500–1502.

About 1904 there was discovered the MS. of a ‘Liber Ordinum’ of 1052 at Silos near Borgos, which is thought to be identical with that to which Pope Alexander II. gave his approval in 1065.

It is quite clear that derived from this Rite are those special customs which are observed at Seville and elsewhere in Spain, e.g. the special processions during Holy Week, the rending of the veil on the Saturday before Easter, and the dance of the boys before the High Altar on Corpus Christi Day.

In the examination of the Gallic Use the Mozarabic variations have been noted; as a matter of interest, however, an outline of the exact service as at present used at Toledo may not be amiss.

The only up-to-date document procurable is one published in 1926 in Spanish at Toledo by Dr. Aparicio y Gutierrez, with the approval of the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo. In the general outline which follows, some trace of North African influence is thought to be indicated by the fact that St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Carthage, 500–600, is mentioned in the Diptychs.

It has been necessary to deal with the origin and structure of the Gallic Use at length in consequence of its influence, not only in England, but also in Rome, without a knowledge of which subsequent innovations are meaningless.

When St. Augustine arrived at Canterbury in 597 on his mission, sent by St. Gregory the Great, it was not an entirely pagan Court with which he found himself confronted.

Ethelbert the Jute, King of Kent, had married Bertha, the daughter of Caribert, King of Paris, who was himself not a pagan but an Arian. It had been agreed that she should be accompanied to her husband’s Court by her chaplain, Luidhard, a Frankish bishop.

St. Augustine soon found himself in touch with the Christian Celts in the north and west, and wrote to Rome for instructions as to what attitude he should adopt. The following is the reply of St. Gregory to one of the questions which he put forward:

“Cum una sit fides, cur sunt ecclesiarum consuetudines tam diversae, et altera consuetudo missarum est in Romana ecclesia atque altera in Galliarum ecclesiis tenetur?”

“Novit fraternitas tua Romanae ecclesiae consuetudinem in qua se meminit enutritam. Sed mihi placet, ut sive in Romana sive in Galliarum sive in qualibet ecclesia aliquid invenisti, quod plus omnipotenti Deo possit placere, sollicite eligas, et in Anglorum ecclesia, quae adhuc in fide nova est, institutione praecipua quae de multis ecclesiis colligere potuisti, infundas. Non enim, pro locis res sed pro rebus loca nobis amanda sunt. Ex singulis ergo quibusque ecclesiis quae pia, quae religiosa, quae recta sunt, elige, et haec quasi in fasciculum collecta apud Anglorum mentes in consuetudinem depone”. (Greg. Mag. Epist. lib. xi. 64. 3. Migne, vol. 77, p. 1187.)

Question of Augustine: When the faith is one and the same, why are there different customs in different Churches, and why does one custom of Masses obtain in the Holy Roman and another in the Gallican Church?

Pope Gregory responds: Your Brotherhood knows the custom of the Roman Church in which it remembers being brought up. But I am of opinion that if you have found anything either in the Roman or the Gallican or any other Church which may be more acceptable to Almighty God you must carefully choose it, and with special diligence teach the Church of the English, which as yet is new to the faith, whatsoever you can gather from the several Churches. For things are not to be loved for the sake of places, but places for the sake of good things. Choose, therefore, from every Church those things which are pious, religious, and which are upright, and when you have, as it were, made them up into a body, instil it as a custom into the minds of the English.

According to the plan formulated by St. Gregory, England was to be divided into two provinces of London and York, each of which was to comprise twelve bishoprics, but this scheme was never brought to fruition. Augustine himself chose to remain at Canterbury rather than fix his See in London, where paganism remained rife for a considerable time after his death.

He was successful enough to be able to consecrate Melitus, Bishop of Essex, and Justus, Bishop of Rochester; he also consecrated Paulinus, Bishop of York.

But his dealings with the existing Celtic Christians in the West do not seem to have been imbued with the spirit of toleration indicated in the reply of St. Gregory to his questions. At any rate, at a conference which he held with them at St. Augustine’s oak, somewhere in Worcestershire or Gloucestershire, the exact site of which can no longer be identified, the Christian Celts, under Abbot Dinooth, refused to recognize his jurisdiction. He died in 604, the same year.

In 625 Paulinus was forced to retire from York; but in 631 St. Felix was successful in converting the East Anglians, and became Bishop of Dunwich, and in 634 St. Birinus converted Kynegils, King of Wessex, and founded the Bishopric of Dorchester, near Oxford, which in later years was transferred to Winchester.

As we have seen, after the flight of Paulinus from York, St. Aidan came from Iona and converted King Oswald in 634 (cf. p. 60).

In 664 there was a great conference at Whitby, held under King Oswi, when it was decided to adopt the Roman method of keeping Easter and the Roman mode of tonsure; the Celtic mode, as far as can be ascertained, was to shave all that part of the hair of the head which was in front of a line drawn over the head from one ear to the other. Wilfred, 635–708, who had taken a leading part in this controversy, was shortly afterwards appointed Bishop of York, or rather Lindisfarne, which was then the See in Northumbria; Colman retiring to Iona. Cedd, the Bishop of the East Saxons, and Chad, afterwards Bishop of Lichfield, were likewise convinced by the arguments of Wilfred. The doubt which existed as to the efficacy of the Celtic Orders is evidenced by the fact that Wilfred insisted on going to Paris to be consecrated by Agilbert, who had followed St. Birinus as Bishop of Dorchester, and who, in fact, had been present at the Conference of Whitby.

Likewise, later, Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, insisted on reconsecrating St. Chad, Bishop of York, as Bishop of Lichfield, though he had been originally consecrated by St. Wini and two Celtic Bishops.

This involved a great step towards the adoption, throughout England, of the Roman in preference to the Celtic Use. Moreover, Wilfred, taking umbrage at Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, 668–690, creating three new bishoprics in the north, where he had been the sole Bishop from the Forth to the Humber, appealed to the Pope and went to Rome to prosecute his appeal; in fact, he went twice, having in the meantime succeeded in converting the South Saxons, but on each occasion he brought back with him books and manuscripts, and did much to spread Roman Uses and learning. In this he was ably assisted by Benet Biscop, 629–689, his companion, who not only founded the monasteries of Jarrow and Wearmouth, but also induced Pope Agatho to allow him to bring over to England Abbot John, the Cantor, a superior of one of the monasteries of the Vatican, and arch-Cantor in Rome, in order to introduce the Roman method of singing (cf. Book II. Ch. I.).

What Wilfred was doing for the extension of the Roman Rites, Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, did for organization. He was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury in 668 by Pope Vitalian at the request of the Kings of Kent and Northumbria. He was a native of Tarsus in Cilicia; after a general visitation throughout the whole of England he held the Council of Hertford in 673, the first provincial Council in England, thereby establishing the authority of the See of Canterbury throughout England. It was there decided that the province of Canterbury should have thirteen bishoprics and that of York three.

It is necessary to observe that at this period there were monasteries of different kinds. Some grew up round the Cathedral or Minster, and were composed of those who served its services. Of the others, some were mixed foundations like that of St. Hilda at Whitby, the head of which might be either a man or a woman; in fact, the headship of such foundations in many cases became hereditable and descended through a series of generations. As Bishop Stubbs has pointed out, either clerical celibacy in such cases was unknown, or the heads of such monasteries must have delayed ordination until they had become fathers and mothers of families large enough to continue the succession. This practice seems to have lasted until about 800.

In 732 Egbert became Archbishop of York, 732–766, and the Archbishopric provided for under the Council of Hertford was revived; and he obtained the pallium from Pope Gregory III. in 736. He was the patron of Alcuin, who was afterwards to fulfil such an important place at the Court of Charlemagne the Great, when he sought to introduce the Gregorian Liturgy into the Gallic Church, as we have seen in Chapter XII.

Out of the desolation caused by the destruction of all books by the invading Danes in the course of the next century, we have left to us the Pontifical of this Archbishop. The actual MS. is a copy written about 950 and is now in Paris.

In the Pontifical we should not expect to find much trace of the Celtic influence, but we certainly find the Gallic element indicated at Ordinations by the anointing of the hands, which was a Gallic (or according to Warren, a Celtic) Use, not yet adopted at Rome, and instead of the blessing of the new grapes we have the blessing of the apples.

The form of ordination of the Minor Orders is likewise Gallic. It may not be amiss here to refer to the learned disquisition of Mgr. Duchesne on the Roman Canon, in which he points out that a hiatus occurs before the clause ‘per quem haec omnia bona creas sanctificas benedicis et praestas nobis’, in which he suggests that formerly there must have existed at this point a mention of the fruits of the earth, as was common in the Eastern Liturgies and as, in fact, existed at the blessing of the new beans on Ascension Day, the new grapes on St. Sixtus Day (August 6), and still exists at the blessing of the Holy Oils on Maundy Thursday.

It is curious to note in confirmation of this that in the MS. circa 1425 of the York Use, now in the Minster at York, there is a space left blank before the ‘per quem’ clause just mentioned.

Now Pontificals, as we know, are those books containing the ritual of the services proper to a bishop, but with the exception of the Services for Ordination and Confirmation they are not included in the Book of Common Prayer, and have been left untouched by the Reformation. It is therefore open now, as it was then, for each Bishop to compose his own Pontifical, though, for the most part, it will be found that Bishops have employed the Pontificals of their predecessors in their own individual Sees. It is of some importance to observe what this earliest of English Pontificals contained, and though it may be as well to give a rough outline of its contents, which are as follows:

This may seem a digression, but it is of importance to combine a knowledge of these early records with some impression of the events with which they were environed.

It was, then, in the time of this Egbert that the great Council of Cloveshoo or Clyff, near Rochester, was held in 747, when it was agreed that the same observance of feasts, rite of baptism, and of celebrating the Mass, and also of singing, should obtain throughout the whole of England according to the Roman Usage as they had it in writing.

The Celtic Rite had already come to an end in South Ireland, 625–628, North Ireland, 692, and Scotland in 716, also in Somerset and Devon under Aldham, Abbot of Malmesbury, 671, and Bishop of Sherborne, 705. It lingered on until 768 in North Wales and 777 in South Wales, but survived in Cornwall until the time of King Athelstan, 925–940. Thus, after at least 150 years’ controversy, this question of the different rites was settled; nevertheless, it was the Gelasian or Gallic form of the Roman Rite rather than the Gregorian which was probably adopted.

Whatever merits there may have been in the Celtic Rite, it was of far greater importance that the Church in England should conform with the rest of the Christian Church in the West.

During this period two great missionaries to the Continent from England arose, to whom reference has been made in Chapter XIV. Willibrord, brought up in Wilfred’s monastery at Ripon, who in 690 went to Frisia, of which he became Archbishop; and in 719 Winifred, better known as Boniface, joined Willibrord, and afterwards became Bishop of Mainz.

In consequence of the rise of the kingdom of Mercia to that of paramount importance, King Offa applied to the Pope Adrian to raise Lichfield to the rank of an archiepiscopal See, which was done in 787 at a council at Chelsea to which Pope Adrian sent two legates, and Higbert, Bishop of Lichfield, became Archbishop and Metropolitan, with precedence over the Archbishop of Canterbury. If this policy had been persisted in, the Church of England would have become completely dependent upon the royal power of that king who, under the heptarchy, happened for the moment to be in the ascendant, and would in such case have become purely provincial instead of national in character. Fortunately Kenwulf, the successor of Offa, was wise enough to appreciate the mistake in his father’s policy, and applied to Pope Leo III. for a reversal of the arrangement, which was eventually done at the Council of Cloveshoo in 803. It is well to note that these arrangements, though made with the consent of the Pope, were, in fact, carried out by national synods of the English Church.

It was about this time that the relics of St. Alban, the first English Martyr, were discovered. Ina, King of Wessex in 738, on a journey to Rome had founded an English school there to perpetuate the memory of their discovery, but it was King Offa in 793, who, also on a journey to Rome, originated Peter’s Pence, that is, a tax of one penny from every hearth throughout England, as an endowment of this school.

This tax of Peter’s Pence was paid on 1st August, the day of St. Peter ad Vincula. In course of time the Papacy was assumed to have taken charge of this school and to be entitled to receive the tax, regardless of the purpose for which it was originally granted. The payment or not of this tax remained a constant source of controversy until the Reformation.

In connection with the tax of Peter’s Pence for religious purposes, it may here be observed that tithe was first instituted by Charlemagne in 779 and made imperative, and not optional, in England at the Legative Council of Chelsea, held in 787, and confirmed by the kings and ealdormen.

Further, in 854, King Ethelwulf granted one-tenth of his whole kingdom to the Church. This is known as the Donation of Ethelwulf.

It was Alcuin, the pupil of Archbishop Egbert, who, when Abbot of Canterbury, was sent by King Offa as ambassador to Charlemagne, at whose court he remained. He was entrusted with the founding of the University of Paris, and appointed his fellow-countryman, Johannes Scotus, as professor there. Scotus subsequently founded the University of Pavia when it was created by Charlemagne.

In addition, it was to Alcuin that Charlemagne submitted the Gregorian Sacramentary which he received from Pope Adrian in 784, as we have seen in Chapter XII., and he made such adaptations as seemed suitable for its use in the Gallic Church.

Upon this well-ordered state of affairs, wherein the whole of England had become Christian, and were united in one form of liturgical Use and under one central authority, a wave of desolation broke.

From 827–871 successive invasions of pagan Danes and Northmen laid waste the whole of England, until the Treaty of Wedmore in 878, when King Alfred agreed with King Guthrum to peace on a division of territory and identity of religion; under this treaty Guthrum obtained all Northumbria and East Anglia, together with the eastern half of Mercia.

Such had been the destruction by the Danes and the set-back in religious life and learning, that King Alfred is stated at the beginning of his reign to have said that there was not a priest south of the Humber who could write a letter in Latin or translate any portion of the Liturgy; though shortly before this time, the monasteries of England were busy supplying the eager demands from the Continent, so great a reputation had they achieved for their MSS.

Alfred at once set about restoring learning, and gathered to his court such men as Grimbald¹ from St. Omer and John of Germany and Asser of Wales, whilst the great monastery of St. Benoît-sur-Loire at Fleury, near Auxerre, under Abbot Hugh, supplied half the MSS. for the monasteries which were being rebuilt. It was to Fleury we find that one hundred years later Odo, the celebrated Archbishop of Canterbury, went in 942, when he wished to become a Benedictine monk, and later it was from Fleury that St. Grimbald of Winchester came; he was the first Abbot after the monks of Winchester removed from Hyde in 1100.

Edward the Confessor, a Norman in speech, education and sympathy, brought many Norman clerics into the country, amongst whom was the Archbishop Robert of Jumièges. There still exists in Paris the MSS. given by him to Jumièges when he was Bishop of London, 1044–1050, before he became Archbishop.

In the Canon between the clauses ‘Supplices te rogamus’ and ‘Memento etiam’ we find the following, which appears to be unique (the exact spelling is reproduced):

“Memento mei queso domine et miserere licet haec sancta indignae tibi sanctae pater omnipotens aeternae deus meis manibus offeruntur sacrificia qui nec inocare sanctum ac venerabile nomen tuum dignus sum; sed quoniam in honore laudis et memoria glorissimi dilectique filii tui domini dei nostri jesu christi offerantur sicut incensum in conspectu divinae majestatis tuae cum odore suavitatis accendantur per christum dominum nostrum.”

It is scarcely pertinent to our theme to deal with the question of celibacy, but St. Dunstan, 940–988, did his utmost to spread the Benedictine rule throughout the monasteries in England, and secular clergy, though often married before ordination, were debarred from doing so afterwards; later, by the Council of Winchester in 1076 under Lanfranc, all canons were obliged to put away their wives, the unmarried clergy were forbidden to marry, and the bishops expressly enjoined not to ordain married men. But the practice continued throughout the Middle Ages, and it was by no means uncommon for the parochial clergy to form unions which were recognized by society in general, being regarded as a sort of voidable marriage. This action of Lanfranc was in conformity with the policy of Hildebrand, Pope Gregory VII., who looked upon the enforcement of celibacy among the clergy as one of the main levers by which to raise the standard of spiritual life, then at a very low ebb, and as one of the strongest ties with which to bind the clergy to their profession.

Under Theodore provincial councils, such as those of Hertford and Cloveshoo, were established to form a legislative body for the Church, and there was but little attempt at ecclesiastical intervention in civil legislation. The Bishops were not affected with Court life or secularism, in an endeavour to advance the interests of the Church, though they sat in the Councils of the realm and in their local folkmoot with ‘higher wergild and oath incontrovertible’. The laws of Ina, King of Wessex, in 692 and of Alfred in 870, however, comprised religious as well as civil punishments for offences. With the invasion of the Danes, the Councils were less and less frequently held, and the Bishops obtained such legislation as they desired, even in matters purely ecclesiastical, as state law passed by the king and the Witan.

Though in important matters the Pope was consulted, yet the appeal of Wilfred from the decision of the King of Northumbria, though given in his favour, was given but scant attention. Pope Leo III. at the request of Kenwulf, King of Mercia, gave his consent to the abolition of the Archbishopric of Lichfield in 803; but it was, in fact, carried out, not by a Papal Bull, but by the national synod of the English Church.

Gregory VII. never ventured to question the right of William the Conqueror to appoint his own bishops; he did once venture to demand homage and payment of arrears of Peter’s Pence, to which William replied: “One demand I have allowed; the other I have not allowed. To do homage I refuse, because I never promised to do it, nor do I find that my predecessors have ever done it. The money shall be more regularly paid.” Probably it was in consequence of this demand that William issued his ‘Consuetudines’ under the pretext of declaring the ancient customs of the English Church. Therein it was declared that no Pope was to be acknowledged without the consent of the Crown, nor any Bulls or Letters of the Pope were to be enforced within the kingdom without its consent. No Canons were to be promulgated without the confirmation of the King, or debated without his licence. No baron or royal minister was to be subjected to ecclesiastical censure without the King’s permission.

With regard to the MSS. which have survived, in addition to the Pontifical of Egbert and the Missal of Robert of Jumièges, we have the Book of Cerne; this is a book of private devotions of Bishop Aethelwold written in the Mercian dialect. Who he was remains in doubt; there was a Bishop of that name at Lindisfarne in 721 and another in Dorset in 930. Together with this book are bound up the early title-deeds of the Benedictine Monastery of Cerne in Dorset; the MS. was probably written between 800 and 900, and it is thought that it may have been a copy of one written a century earlier; but no bishop in Mercia of that name can be traced. Cerne itself, of course, must have been in Wessex.

Missal of St. Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury. This was written about 1100, at a time when the original MS. of 597 was still in existence, as those Masses added since the time of St. Augustine are marked with an ‘obelus’. This Missal contains the Psalms and portions of Scripture in the old Italic version which was in use before St. Jerome made the Vulgate Version. Wilfred was the first to introduce the Vulgate Version into England. The Ambrosian Rite has always continued the use of the old Italic Version, and in St. Peter’s at Rome itself this version of the Psalms has continued to be used up to the present time.

According to the theory which William I. himself maintained, he did not become King of England by virtue of conquest, but as the regular successor of Edward the Confessor by grant, inheritance, and election. Accordingly, there was no sweeping away of English institutions, the English Witan still met, the English law still prevailed, and the English Church still preserved its authority. But the difference lay in the fact that everywhere Normans were placed in possession, power, and authority.

When Edward the Confessor died, Robert of Jumièges had to flee, but Harold allowed the Witan to treat the primacy as vacant and appoint Stigand as Archbishop. One of the first acts, then, of William I. was to have Stigand canonically deposed by the Papal Legate and to replace him by Lanfranc, the Prior of Bec in Normandy. Lanfranc was at this time one of the best European scholars and theologians. He it was who had been called upon by Pope Alexander II. to defend the newly formulated doctrine of Transubstantiation against the attacks of Berengar of Tours.

Thus in the Church the Uses of the Gallic Church in Normandy were introduced, but not always without opposition, for we find that Thurstan, Abbot of Glastonbury, in 1083, compelled the monks there to adopt a style of music invented by William of Fécamp instead of their old Gregorian chant: this gave rise to such an outcry that armed soldiers were brought into the Chapter to drive out these recalcitrant monks, some of whom were slain.¹

In 1075 the See of Salisbury or Sarum was founded to take over the old Sees of Ramsbury and Sherborne. This was in accordance with the general policy of the Normans to transfer to the larger towns those Sees where the Bishop had formerly had his ‘stool’ in more remote places.

Three years later, in 1078, St. Osmund became Bishop of Salisbury. He was Earl of Dorset and became Chancellor of England. He drew up a regular constitution, which in time became the model for all the other bishoprics.

About 1220 the bishopric was transferred from Old Sarum to New Sarum, and another cathedral of stone was raised. The Normans were a nation of builders, and in place of the rude Saxon edifices they had throughout the land erected those churches and castles of stone which remain as a lasting record of their stability and symmetry. The new Sarum cathedral was in the later and more polished early English style, and as it has been well said that our cathedrals are an epitomized history of the diocese in stone, so it is not surprising to find that a diocese which could produce such a building was able to produce at the same time a man capable of formulating a more ornate liturgy suitable for the purpose.

We find then Richard Poore, the Dean and afterwards Bishop of Salisbury, developing his Consuetudinary and completing a full code of liturgical rules, and thus definitely fixing the Sarum Use. As we have seen, the effect of the introduction of the Norman personnel into the English Church was to extend the influence of the Use in Normandy, so in the main, this new Sarum Use was based upon that which obtained in the Norman cathedral at Rouen.

When Charlemagne handed over the Sacramentary sent to him by Pope Adrian in 784 to Alcuin, the latter did not feel obliged to adopt it in toto, but in many cases combined it with the existing rites of the Gallic Church, so that the one Use became overlaid upon the other and the prayers became duplicated. This was clearly the case with regard to the Ordination of the Superior Orders, the Roman Consecratory prayers being followed by the Gallican Bidding and Consecratory prayers.

The clearness and fixity of the Sarum Use soon recommended it to other dioceses, and in course of time it was adopted more or less by Wells, Exeter, Lichfield, London St. Paul’s (in 1414), and Lincoln. But we must examine the alterations made in the Roman Use after the time of Charlemagne.

The influence of the Gallic Use is shown especially in the introduction of Masses for Festivals of Gallic saints, e.g. St. Leodegarius (St. Ledger, Bishop of Autun, 616), and in Masses of English origin, e.g. Etheldreda, Queen of Northumbria and Abbess of Ely, circa 680, which do not compare favourably with the older forms.

The ‘Quicunque vult’ was in Use in Gaul in 836, and adopted by Cluny on its foundation about 900. This with Commemorations, the office of Our Lady, originated by St. Peter Daimian, and the Office for the Dead (between death and the burial service, which is not in the Pontifical of Egbert, but is in Amalarius, circa 830) were all imported into the Roman Use between 1000 and 1100. Besides these Gallic innovations to the Roman Use, the following additions which became incorporated in the Sarum Use may be noted:

St. Odilio of Cluny inaugurated All Souls’ Day in 1049, and it was made general by Innocent III., 1198–1216. Corpus Christi Day was inaugurated by St. Thomas Aquinas in 1246, confirmed by Urban IV. in 1264 and restored by Clement V. in 1311, after the Miracle of Bolsena, to celebrate which the Cathedral at Orvieto, with the most beautiful West Front in Italy, was erected in that mountain town forty miles from Rome. In 1078 Hildebrand, Pope Gregory VII., inaugurated the festivals of the martyr Popes.

Though we read of St. Gelasius, 492, composing hymns ‘in similitudine Ambrosii’, i.e. metrical, we find the Council of Braga in 569 forbidding anything poetical; however, this was reversed by the fourth Council of Toledo in 633, and we find hymns composed between 600 and 700 in the Irish Antiphonary of Bangor, but these and the Benedictine hymns were not introduced into Rome until 1165.

Amalarius is responsible for the inauguration of the Festival of the Transfiguration about 830, and this seems to have been adopted at Rome about the same time as the hymns.

The scholastic definition of the doctrine of Transubstantiation was adopted by Alexander II. about 1070, of which Lanfranc was his chief exponent and defender against Berengar of Tours, and it was formally ratified at the Council of the Lateran in 1099.

About 1150 the custom of the withdrawal of the Chalice from the laity arose in England, partly from an exaggerated fear of spilling it, partly from a materialistic conception of the scholastic definition of Transubstantiation, and possibly partly from the fact that in general wine cannot be said to be an indigenous product of this country. This custom soon spread to the Continent, where it was turned into a regular article of faith, 1300–1400. Under the Lambeth Constitutions in 1281, the Chalice was forbidden to the laity in the ‘smaller churches’, but this was ignored by the Synod of Exeter, 1287.

In 1237 the Council of Durham directed the laity to kneel at the Consecration, and the Elevation of the Host became general. It must be remarked that in the Gallic services the priests always inclined but never knelt or genuflected, and this had been adopted in the Sarum Use.

In 1222 Canon 6 of the Council of Oxford laid down that the whole of the Mass was to be said audibly in a loud voice and not only the Preface.

About 1300 the Sequences which were attached to the Alleluia between the Epistle and Gospel became very numerous.

“There is an abrupt and fanciful wildness in these compositions which may not unfitly be likened to the style of Choral Odes in a Greek play: their language and grammatical construction is exceedingly anomalous, Abounding in Greek words Latinized and others of mediæval coinage; their meaning is very often obscure and the symbolic allusions are exaggerated and difficult to discern. If some kind of rhythm was intended its rules appear to be so uncertain that they can only be reduced to blank verse.”

Two festivals were also introduced in 1080–1087 by Elsin, Abbot of Ramsey, from the Irish Use, viz. the Conception of St. John the Baptist, September 24, and the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, December 8.

These seem to have been the chief innovations before or soon after the establishment of the Sarum Use. Apart from the Sarum Use we have not very much documentary evidence of the liturgy during the Norman Period, but mention may be made of:

(a) The Leofric Collectar. Leofric Lotharingen was brought to England by Edward the Confessor, and became Bishop of Crediton, 1046–1050, and then Bishop of Exeter, 1050–1072. As the collects became shortened in 1200–1300, so the Breviary superseded the use of the Collectar as a separate book.

(b) The Rosslyn Missal. This contains the Mass for the festival of the Trinity, as to which Pope Alexander II., 1061–73, stated that there was no greater reason for its being celebrated than for a festival for the Unity.

It is thought to have been written by the Benedictines of St. Werburgh at Chester about 1100 and taken to Scotland by Bruce in 1316.

(c) The Gilbertine Missal, written 1150–1230 for the Cistercian Priory of St. Katherine at Lincoln, which was founded in 1148: it contains Masses for St. Hugh of Lincoln, canonized in 1220, and St. William of York, who was canonized in 1227. But they were local saints, so that it is not absolutely necessary to exclude the possibility of its having been written before 1227.

(d) Pontifical of Archbishop Peckham, 1278–84. Some 200 benedictory prayers, amongst which is a Benediction of the Cross, which is precisely the same as that used at Lyons and at Evereux in Normandy. The marriage ceremony, also, here takes place at the door of the Church and is continued inside the Church by the Bridal Mass alone.

(e) The Pontifical of Edmund Lacy, Bishop of Hereford, 1417, and Exeter, 1419–55. He was adviser to King Henry V. and became one of his executors.

In the form for Consecrating a Church we find, besides the consecration of relics, a form for the consecration of a stole and of the Plenarium or Four Gospels as part of the Rite. Further, in the Consecration of a Bishop, it is mentioned that it was not the custom for the Bishop-elect to offer two torches, two loaves, and two barrels of wine as was the custom of Pope Melchiades in 313. Nowhere else is mention made of the existence of this custom.

In the Rite of Ad includendum Anachoritum, it is directed that before Mass the candidate should lay prostrate in the middle of the choir, or if a layman within the door of the choir, or if a woman in the west part of the church ‘ubi mos est feminis orare’. A requiem Mass is directed ‘tam quam pro mortuo’ as enjoined by the French Ritual, followed by the Mass de Spiritu Sancto, together with Extreme Unction and Commendation.

(f) The Breviarium Bothanum 1450, Missale Arbuthnot 1491, Breviarium Aberdonense 1509, are all Scottish, and practically follow the Sarum Use.

The Scottish Church was made independent of the See of York by Bull of Clement III. in 1188 and Decretal Epistle of Celestine III. in 1191.

It has been said that the Sarum Use was introduced into Scotland by King Edward I. in 1279, but that is incorrect, for a Bull of Alexander III. in 1172 directed it to be used at Glasgow: this, however, must have been the Use at Sarum before it was developed under Dean Poore.

(g) Pontifical of Bainbridge, Archbishop of York, 1508–1514, is chiefly interesting as containing a list of all the Pontificals then believed to be in existence.

(h) Finally, we have the Coronation Ceremony of King Charles V. of France, which was written the next year as a record rather than for use at the Ceremony: it was written in 1365 and the coronation took place in 1364. It came into the possession of the Duke of Bedford about 1450, and the English Oaths of Allegiance and an English Pontifical were added to it about 1500. It is now one of the Cotton MSS. in the British Museum.

One of the Miniatures clearly depicts the King as receiving the Holy Communion in both kinds. It does not appear clear whether he received both kinds in virtue of his kingly office or because as King of France he was ex officio a Canon of St. Martin of Tours, even as the kings of Scotland down to James IV. were Canons of Glasgow.

It is not, prima facie, obvious what connection there is between the ecclesiastical history for the 500 years which elapsed between the Conquest and the Reformation and the formation of the Liturgy which superseded that of Sarum. But without some knowledge of the inter-relationship of the Crown, the Papacy, the Clergy, and the laity, the cause and import of the Reformation cannot be properly apprehended.

The ‘Consuetudines’ of William I. have already been noted in Chapter XVI.; it was in reliance on these that William II. based his quarrel with Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury. William II. regretted the appointment of Anselm, who was Abbot of Bec in Normandy, like his predecessor, Lanfranc, had been. Now at that time, there were two rival Popes, Clement III. and Urban II. Normandy, including Bec, of which Anselm was still Abbot, had decided in favour of Urban II., but William II., as King of England, had not yet given any official recognition to either. In order to obtain his pall as Archbishop, Anselm had to apply to the Pope, and naturally he applied to Urban II., so directly Anselm applied for permission to go to Rome to obtain his pall from Urban II., William accused him of treason, but finding that he had gone too far, he sent an embassy to Rome, and agreed to recognize Urban, who had by now obtained the support of most of Europe; this was in 1095. Two years later, in 1097, in accordance with his feudal duties, Anselm had to supply a contingent of soldiery for a war against Wales, when William expressed a rage, either real or assumed, against ‘that awful draft’, a matter not unknown in later days. William charged Anselm with a gross breach of feudal duty, and claimed that he should answer for it in the King’s Court, but Anselm appealed to Rome, and eventually was given permission to go there.

Urban II., whilst taking care not to give any formal decision in his favour on this question of feudal dues, showed him marked attention and invited him to attend a Council at the Lateran in 1099, when excommunication was pronounced against all prelates who accepted investiture from a layman. Now it had been the custom in England for every bishop to receive his staff and ring, the emblems of his office, from the King. Anselm’s presence, so adroitly managed by Urban II., bore fruit in the next reign of Henry I.

At the commencement of his reign, no one did more than Henry I. to assist Anselm in holding his Council of Westminster in 1102 for promoting ecclesiastical reforms, of which celibacy of the clergy was first, though in practice this continued to be disregarded. The question of lay investiture then came up, and Anselm could not go back on the Council of the Lateran at which he had been present and in which he had taken part. For four years the controversy raged between the Crown and the Papacy, which ended in a victory for the latter. Henry I. had to give up the custom of the Crown to invest bishops with the staff and ring, and content himself with an oath of homage to himself, which was the acknowledgement of feudal allegiance. This was in 1115, seven years before the ‘compromise of Worms’ in 1122 reached between Calixtus II. and Emperor Henry V. to much the same effect. However, Henry insisted that though the Bishops were elected canonically, the election should be in his Court, that the clergy should elect his candidate. Cf. congé d’élire to Dean and Chapter to elect a bishop. Further, that though archbishops might hold councils, they should only deal with matters mentioned in the Royal letters of business, and finally though Papal jurisdiction was not excluded, yet no Papal Legate should enter the kingdom without Royal licence.

During the next fifty years ecclesiastical life was peaceable and progressive, and during that period the new bishoprics of Llandaff in 1107, Ely in 1109, St. David’s in 1115 and Carlisle in 1133, were created. It was about this time that the ecclesiastical law was codified under Ivo of Chartres¹ and Gratian. However, Honorius II. and Innocent II. sought to increase their authority in England by appointing legates who claimed to take precedence over the Metropolitan Archbishop of Canterbury. To avoid them having to be subject to one of their own Suffragans, who might happen to be appointed legate, it became the custom after the time of Stephen Langton in 1205 for the Archbishops of Canterbury to apply for a legatine commission at the same time as they applied for their pall on their appointment. The Archbishops of York, after 1352, were likewise made legates. In this way, the constitutional question ceased to exist, but it was always open to the Papacy to claim that every exercise of metropolitan functions over the rest of the episcopacy was indeed an exercise of the legatine functions, which the Archbishop clearly held of the Pope.

Henry II., after the turmoils of the reign of Stephen, sought to impose a regular administration not only of the civil law but of ecclesiastical, and to co-ordinate the two he promulgated the Constitutions of Clarendon in 1164, which brought the administration of the Church more clearly under the Crown, except with regard to strictly ecclesiastical affairs. Becket the Archbishop first gave his assent and then withdrew it and was forced to flee the kingdom. He complained to Pope Alexander III. and Louis VII. of France, but at their suggestion he retired to the monastery of Pontigny. Henry then caused his son to be crowned by the Archbishop of York, but finding Becket more dangerous in exile, in 1170 came to terms with him.

However, on his return, Becket proceeded to excommunicate those barons who had been opposed to him,² and it was this that led to the outburst from the king which brought about Becket’s assassination. The resulting revulsion of opinion forced Henry II. to do public penance, and the Constitutions had to be practically withdrawn.

No further check was placed on appeals to Rome than the right of the King to stop Papal Letters from being introduced into the country and to prevent his subjects leaving the country without his consent.

Finally, in 1176, Henry II. agreed that no tonsured person should be tried or sentenced by a civil court on a criminal charge, except on a charge against the forest law. Bishops, however, were ready to give the tonsure to any who could read and write, so that what originally was devised as a means to escape the tyranny of the Crown, at a time when to be accused was practically tantamount to being condemned, became in time to be but an abuse, whereby miscreants sought to escape the penalties of their crimes.

We have seen the arrangement made by Henry I., that though the cathedral chapters should have the right of election, such election should take place under the control of the King, so that there should be no doubt of the success of the King’s nominee: previous to the Conquest, such elections had been made by the King and Witan, and then by the King alone, according to some professed acquiescence on the part of the Great Council. Now, on the death in 1205 of Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury, a faction of the monastery of Christ Church, Canterbury, appointed their sub-prior Reginald, without the control of the King, and sent him off to Rome to get the pall, whilst the remainder proceeded to elect de Grey, the Bishop of Norwich, on the nomination of the King in the usual way. They then sent some of their number to Rome to explain to Pope Innocent III. what had happened.

The Pope, therefore, set aside both the elections, and ordered this deputation to elect Cardinal Stephen Langton, an English friend of the Pope himself, which they purported to do, and the Pope proceeded himself to consecrate him in 1207, thereby hoping to establish a claim to control the election of the English primacy. King John refused to accept Langton, and the Pope replied by putting the kingdom under an interdict. This, however, did not disturb John, who sequestrated the whole of the ecclesiastical revenues. To what extent the interdict was to be enforced was a very moot point, so that the reply of Innocent III. to the English bishops is of great interest. It is as follows:

“Innocent the bishop, etc., to the Bishops of London, Ely and Worcester greeting and apostolic blessing. We reply to your enquiries that whereas by reason of the interdict new chrism cannot be consecrated on Maundy Thursday, old must be used in the baptism of infants, and if necessity demand, oil must be mixed by hand of bishop or else priest with the chrism that it fail not. And although the viaticum seem to be meet on the repentance of the dying, yet if it cannot be had, we who read it believe that the principle holds good in this case ‘believe and thou hast eaten’ when actual need and not contempt for religion excludes the sacrament and the actual need is expected soon to cease. Let neither gospel nor church hours be observed in the accustomed place nor any other though people assemble in the same. Let religious men whose monasteries people have been wont to visit for the sake of prayer admit pilgrims inside the church for prayer not by the greater door, but by a more secret place. Let church doors remain shut save at the chief festival of the church when the parishioners and others may be admitted for prayer into the church with open doors. Let Baptism be celebrated in the usual manner with old chrism and oil inside the church with shut doors, no lay person being admitted save the God-parents; and if need demand new oil must be mixed. Penance is to be inflicted as well on the whole as on the sick; for in the midst of life we are in death. Those who have confessed to a suit or have been convicted of some crime are to be sent to the bishop or his penitentiary, and if need be are to be forced to this by church censure. Priests may say their own hours and prayers in private. Priests may on Sunday bless water in the churchyard and sprinkle it; and can make and distribute the bread when blessed and announce feasts and fasts and preach a sermon to the people. A woman after child-birth may come to church and perform her purification outside the church walls. Priests shall visit the sick and hear confessions and let them perform the commendation of souls in the accustomed manner, but they shall not follow the corpse of the dead because they will not have church burial. Priests shall on the Day of Passion place the cross outside the church without ceremony so that the parishioners may adore it with the customary devotion.”

John, however, in 1213, under threat of an invasion from France, gave way, and in order to secure the assistance of the Pope consented to receive Langton, and swore fealty to the Pope for his kingdom, and promised him tribute. Henry II. had given a good form of administration of the law, which, however, had consisted of nought but the king’s will. Langton sought to obtain good law which should be superior to the sole will of the Crown; and, obtaining the assistance of the barons, forced John in 1215 to sign the Magna Carta.

But Innocent III. now came to John’s aid and annulled the Charter and suspended Langton; the controversy was not carried on for long, for both the King and the Pope died the next year. The new Pope Honorius III. recognized accomplished facts, and during the Minority of Henry III., the Charter was re-enforced, and Stephen Langton was allowed to exercise in co-operation with Pembroke and Hubert de Burgh a wise governance. The Magna Carta was thus obtained, but the kingdom became a fealty of the Papacy, and the tribute promised by John was not finally repudiated until 1366.

Henry III. declared himself of age in 1226, and in 1229 Gregory IX. succeeded Honorius III. At this time the Papacy became involved in its long struggle with the wonder of the world, Emperor Frederic II., a poet, philosopher, freethinker, and warrior, more concerned with the learning which he acquired from the Saracens in Sicily than with his northern dominions.

Gregory IX. and Innocent IV. could conceive of no better use of their feudal and spiritual rights over England than to enforce its aid of the church by providing the sinews of war. Thus began the great spoliation of the Church in England in which the Crown shared.

In 1226 Honorius had demanded the revenues of two prebends of each cathedral; in 1229 Gregory IX. claimed a tenth of all movables not only of the clergy but of the laity; in 1239 this was raised to one-fifth of the movables of the clergy.

In 1246 Innocent IV. asked for one-third of the revenues for three years from all resident incumbents, and one-half from all non-residents. In 1253 he granted the King a third of all ecclesiastical tithes for three years, which was continued for another two years by Alexander IV. Further, Gregory IX. in 1231 forbade the English Bishops to appoint to any benefices until some of his nominees had been provided for, and in 1240 he required the Bishops of Lincoln and Salisbury to find benefices for 300 foreigners. In 1256 Alexander IV. claimed ‘Annates’ or first-fruits, being the first year’s revenue, from all newly-appointed bishops and incumbents of benefices. But it must be noted that about this period the monasteries, apart from having acquired about one-third of the tithe, owned nearly one-third of the land of England.

Edward I. included bishops and mitred abbots as representatives in his Parliament of 1272, and in 1283 he established under Archbishop Peckham the Convocations of Canterbury and York, and gave to them the sole right of taxing the clergy.

Boniface VIII., more to display his own authority than to relieve the clergy, in 1296 issued his bull Clericis laicos which forbade temporal sovereigns to tax their clergy and the clergy to pay taxes to their sovereigns. When the clergy in England accordingly refused to grant him an aid for an expedition in Flanders, Edward I. outlawed them as a whole. Finally the matter was settled by Edward I. granting a confirmation of Charters in 1297 and vesting the taxation in the hands of Parliament. Boniface VIII. died in 1303, and for seventy years the Popes were prisoners at Avignon, where they became but little more than appanages of the French Court. Following this, the great schism arose, when for forty years there were rival Popes. Their moral power died with the captivity at Avignon, and after their rehabilitation, by the Council of Constance in 1417, they were only regarded as heads of a great religious organization and rulers of an important temporal state; but their great position as supreme judges of faith and morals had passed away.

Indeed, no thought was given to the character of those who were elected Popes with regard to their fitness to be judges over individuals, much less over nations; the advantage of their temporal possessions was regarded as their sole care.

The result of this decline of the Papacy is shown by the attitude of Parliament. In 1279 the statute ‘De Religiosis’, or Statute of Mortmain, 7 Edward I. was passed to protect the rights of the feudal lords over land which, by becoming the property of religious corporations, ceased to yield ‘reliefs’, which were payable on a succession to an inheritance. This was followed by the Statute ‘Circumspecte Agatis’ in 1283, 13 Edward I., which confined the ecclesiastical jurisdiction to matters which were of a distinctly religious nature.

Likewise, in 1301, the position of Pope Boniface VIII. in the adjudication of the claims to the throne of Scotland was defined by Parliament definitely as that of arbitrator and not as feudal lord of England.

Under Edward III., on the decline of the Papacy, we find first the Statute of Provisors in 1351, 25 Edward III. c. 4, against the obtaining of a benefice from the Pope in derogation of the rights of the patrons, followed in 1353 by the Statute of Praemunire, 27 Edward III. c. 1, which rendered those who sued in foreign courts matters cognisable in the King’s Courts subject to outlawry. This was re-enacted in 1365 with special reference to the Papal Court, and in 1366, Parliament finally repudiated the annual tribute payable to the Pope agreed to by King John, which, in point of fact, had been in arrear for many years.

With regard to the Lollards, Wicliffe regarded worldly position, political power, and temporal wealth to be incompatible with clerical office, but, unlike St. Francis of Assisi, he vindicated his position by attacking those who held a different theory. He thus became a convenient tool for those of the Barons who were desirous of wresting the offices of State from the hands of the Ecclesiastics. Later he sought to emphasize his repudiation of the Pope by denying the technical definition of the doctrine of transubstantiation, basing his objection entirely on the technical use of the philosophical terms, ‘substance and accidents’, in the official definition. For this he was convicted as a heretic in 1382, which overthrew his influence at Oxford. As he was no longer dangerous, he was allowed to spend the rest of his life in peace at his rectory of Lutterworth. This he did, occupying his time in translating the Vulgate into English. Those portions of the Bible which were used in the Church Services had been frequently translated into English since the time of Bede, but this was the first translation of the whole Bible. (It may be noted, however, that Pope Alexander VII. in 1661 issued a Bull against the translation of the Mass into French, and in Spain to this day the qui pridie or anamnesis is not translated.) But the Lollards who sought to put into practice Wicliffe’s academic arguments soon found themselves aiming at the overthrow of Society in general, not only the Church in particular.

“Against men who wish to subvert the whole of Society instead of improving it, Society has always been quick to protect itself and has not unfrequently used the first weapon which came to hand. It was easy to proceed against them as heretics, but it was difficult to attack them as seditious or traitorous as long as they did not take up arms.”

So Acts of Parliament were passed, which struck at men’s political action through their religious opinions, such as De Comburendo Heretico in 1401, 2 Henry IV. c. 15, and ‘The Long and Bloody Bill against the Lollards’ in 1406, which were supplemented by the ‘Merciless Statute against the Lollards’, 2 Henry V. c. 17, in 1414, after the attempted rebellion under Oldcastle.

In 1414 there were present at the Council of Constance the Bishops of Salisbury, Bath, and Hereford. The new Pope Martin V. demanded the repeal of the Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire, but Parliament refused to do so.

To punish Archbishop Chichele, the founder of All Souls, Oxford, Henry Beaufort (an uncle of Henry VI.), Bishop of Winchester, his suffragan, was appointed Cardinal and Papal Legate in 1427; however, in 1431 Martin V. died.

During the Wars of the Roses neither party could afford to antagonize the Papacy, so these Statutes became a dead letter. The clergy continued to pay a tenth of ecclesiastical revenue and also Annates to the Pope. Martin V.’s successors were content to receive the money, and no further steps were taken with regard to the repeal of these Statutes. Thus it may be seen that originally the Papacy supported the clergy, when the law was no more than the will of the Crown, and then entered into an agreement with the Crown to share in the undoubted wealth of the clergy. Finally, as the laity became stronger in Parliament, it sought to support the clergy from their encroachments, and during the Wars of the Roses the Papacy became in fact as powerful politically in England as it ever had been, though to a large extent it had lost its spiritual force. Likewise, originally it had been much concerned with its right of appeals, which had sustained the Papal lawyers, but by the time that the Statute of Provisors was passed the source of revenue to the Papal Court had shifted from the matter of Appeals to that of Dispensations; this was because a mass of Papal enactments had come into force, which could be rendered nugatory by those who showed their zeal in religious affairs by contributing to a sufficient extent to the central funds in the hands of the Papacy.

It must at the same time be remembered that the anti-papal legislation of the Middle Ages was not directed against the spiritual headship claimed by the Pope, but rather against administrative incidents of the Papal Court.

As far as the services of the various monastic institutions are concerned, our English Liturgy has nothing whatever to do with them, being derived entirely from the ‘secular’ services. But in considering the different factors of the Reformation with its effect upon the Liturgy, there would be a considerable hiatus was not the position and history of the monasteries taken into consideration.

It has been noted that Wilfred and Benet Biscop were the first to introduce the Benedictine rule, about 680 (founded by St. Benedict of Nursia in Umbria at Monte Cassino, near Rome, 480–543), how Odo and St. Dunstan about 950 reintroduced the rule after the Danish invasions, and how Lanfranc by a constitution in 1075 compelled all English monasteries to adopt it. In 910 the monastery of Cluny in Burgundy was founded as a reformed Benedictine Order, and about 1100–1200 it had no less than 2000 daughter houses, and its abbot became second in influence to the Pope. This Order was introduced into England by William of Warren in 1077, but owing to the priors, who were heads of the houses, being dependent on the foreign House of Cluny, they never flourished in England to any great extent.

In 1098 Stephen Harding, an Englishman, founded the Cistercian Order at Citeaux in Burgundy, of a much plainer type even to meanness; they established themselves chiefly in the forests and on the edge of the moors and later, through encouraging the breeding of sheep, became great wool traders with Flanders. The celebrated houses of Tintern and Fountains belonged to this Order.

About this time St. Bruno founded his monastery at Chartreuse, but the silence imposed upon its members and its austerities did not appeal to the English, and only about ten or twelve Charterhouses were founded in England, though the Priory of Witham, founded by Henry II., produced St. Hugh of Lincoln, circa 1200.

About 1100 William of Corbeil, Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry I., introduced the order of the Canons Regular of St. Augustine, usually known as the Black Canons or Austin Canons; they were very popular, and had offshoots called Praemonstratensian Canons, and also the Sempringham or Gilbertine Canons, with some 175 houses in all at the time of the Dissolution of Monasteries.

In consequence of the Crusades, the Military Orders of Knights Templars, who were founded to defend the Holy Sepulchre, together with the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem, to protect the sick and dying crusaders, sprang up in most large towns between 1200 and 1300. All these monasteries, which in the course of time, through pious benefactions and prudent management, came to own nearly a third of the land of the country, were always very provincial in their outlook. For them their monasteries and their glorification were their chief objects in life; for them their Mother House was in every way superior to all others. For their houses they were always seeking special privileges, and they were ardent in their support of the Papacy, from whom such privileges were most easily obtained. A constant struggle, which had its echoes at the Council of Trent, arose out of their endeavour to escape from the right of visitation by the local Bishops. The Cistercians, the Austin Canons, and the Military Orders obtained exemption for the whole of their Orders from such episcopal visitations, but the Benedictine Houses had to obtain exemption individually.

With regard to the scandals which were alleged to attach to them in the time of Henry VIII., it must be conceded that on the whole their mode of life compared very favourably with similar houses on the Continent. The celebrated ‘Comperta’ now in the British Museum, is no part of the Black Book destroyed in Mary’s reign, and only purports to deal with 120 houses in York and 24 in Norwich, and it is not certain that it was ever submitted by the King to Parliament; moreover, it contains the names of many of the greater houses in which, on the suppression of the smaller monasteries, Parliament only three years before had found that ‘religion is right well kept and preserved’.

Of the other ‘regular’ clergy in England, we find the two great Orders of Friars. St. Francis of Assisi, 1181–1226, founded the Grey Friars or Franciscans, who were vowed to poverty and were not encouraged in intellectual pursuits or speculations on matters of faith; they laboured mostly amongst the country folk. But later they procured permission to hold property and took to study, and between 1300–1400 they captured Oxford and produced famous divines like Roger Bacon, William of Occam, and Duns Scotus, and ventured to dispute with their great rivals, the Dominicans of Paris.

St. Dominic, 1170–1221, likewise founded an order of Friars, called Dominicans, whose special task was that of teaching the faith. They were ‘the Watch Dogs of the Lord’, Domini canes (all their buildings bear dogs as their emblem); they usually settled in the towns and centres of learning like the universities, and addressed themselves to the educated. They were not vowed to poverty, but appear to have adopted it from the Franciscans. However, later they became a wealthy Order. At first these Friars lived on alms, but as their Order became wealthy these were no longer forthcoming, and the consequence was that the less important members took to begging. From this it was but a short step for them to use their religious cloak as a cover for simple extortion and rascality, by which they imposed themselves upon the ignorant and pious. To such degradation did they descend, that they can best be compared with the habitual tramp of modern days, ekeing out a roving existence by mendacity, cunning, and vice.

The waves of changing thought, the disputes of the schoolmen, and the Renaissance with its growth of learning of the Greek classics derived from the culture of the Saracens and Moors, had but little effect in England upon the secular clergy, but were fully reflected in the leading circles of the Monks and Friars, who through ignorance or degeneracy too often attacked from entirely the wrong position, striving to settle disputes by inveighing against increase of learning.

Though not exactly germane to our subject, it is worth while recalling that John Duns Scotus, 1265–1308, who had been a Franciscan Friar at Merton College, Oxford, went to Paris, and took his degree of Doctor of Divinity there, and upheld the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 200 answers against the Dominicans. From him arose amongst the schoolmen the school of thought called the Cordeliers, who were in opposition to the Jacobins or Thomists, who were the followers of St. Thomas Aquinas, and from whom they differed on this and other doctrines, such as that of Grace. Scotus’ chief work was his Commentaries on Aristotle, and that of Aquinas his Summa Theologiae, in which “he broke from the prevailing Platonic tradition and boldly accepted the principles of Aristotle, but instead of permitting them to establish a pagan philosophy, he built up a vast and closely inter-related system which included within it the whole teaching of the Church”.

As the second son of Henry VII., it must be emphasized that Henry VIII. in his early days was educated for the Church. When he came to the throne in 1509, with the aid of Bishop Fox and Cardinal Wolsey, the last of England’s great Ecclesiastical Chancellors, he essayed to reform the English ecclesiastical courts, which had degenerated, like those at Rome, into a means of extracting revenues rather than for the establishment of right and justice. Moreover, he was in general a supporter of the new learning, and whilst orthodox in his religious beliefs (he was made Defender of the Faith by Pope Leo X. in 1521 for his treatise against the new doctrines of Luther), he did not hesitate, by the suppression of some of the minor monasteries, transferring these monks to the larger institutions, to apply their endowments, especially to the new Cardinals’ College, now Christ Church, Oxford, for the advancement of learning. In this he was but following the example of Archbishop Chichele in the reign of Henry VI., who had founded All Souls’ College, Oxford, with the endowment of those priories in England which were dependent upon foreign religious houses such as Cluny.

Arthur, Henry VII.’s eldest sickly son, had, four months before his death in 1501, married Catherine of Aragon, but a bull was obtained from Pope Julius II., confirmed by a papal brief, granting Henry a dispensation to marry his deceased brother’s widow, which he did in 1509. Had the marriage not been consummated, it was only a betrothal in the eyes of the law, but the papal bull expressly contemplated the possibility that it was a legal marriage, and that the second marriage being but contrary to the laws of the Church, it was considered within the powers of the Pope to remove the objection by dispensation. Of the numerous children which Henry VIII. had by Catherine, none survived except Mary, who was born in 1515. In 1519 he had a son by Elizabeth Blount, whom he made Duke of Richmond, and in 1524 he definitely decided to get rid of Catherine in the hopes of obtaining a son, besides having become infatuated with Anne Boleyn. Henry would have been content to have had his marriage set aside on the ground of nullity in the English courts and then remarry, being sure that neither Catherine’s nephew, the Emperor Charles V., nor the Pope would allow the matter for long to stand in the way of England’s alliance. But Wolsey wished Henry to make a political marriage, and that the future succession to the Crown should rest on a question of conflict between a decision of the national courts and that of the papal bull and brief obtained from Julius II. was not a matter which, as his Chancellor, and a Cardinal, and Papal Legate, he could possibly support. An application was therefore made to Pope Clement VII. to declare the marriage null. Alexander VI. had a few years before granted Louis XII. of France a divorce on the ground of sterility, but the chief ground for this application was that the marriage with Prince Arthur had been invalid.

After all the care which had been taken to make the papal bull and brief of Julius II. absolutely indefeasible, it would have been rather difficult for Clement VII. to set it aside, though no doubt some technical flaw could have been found as a reason for doing so. But, at this juncture, in the course of political combinations, which had resulted in open warfare, Clement VII. in 1527 found himself prisoner in the hands of Charles V. However ready then he may have been to grant Henry’s request, it became absolutely impossible to cast this stigma upon Catherine, for she was the aunt of Charles, in whose hands he was prisoner, and to whom he was bound on his release. Endeavour was made to prevent Catherine from appealing to Rome, but she succeeded through the Spanish ambassador, and Clement advoked the cause to Rome to be tried in his own Court.

Wolsey’s policy had failed and Henry determined to get rid of him. Having become a Papal Legate in England, though at Henry’s request, he had broken the Statute of Praemunire, which had never been repealed; so in 1529 he was deprived of all his property, but allowed to keep the Archbishopric of York; he died the next year on his way to London to answer a charge of treason.

Henry, unable to obtain a divorce from the Pope, now proceeded to develop a regular policy for the elimination of Papal authority throughout England. As Wolsey had been guilty under the Statute of Praemunire by acting as Papal Legate, so had the clergy been guilty in accepting him as such. Henry, as a term of their release from this technical offence, besides extracting fines of £100,000 from the Convocation of Canterbury and £18,000 from the Convocation of York, insisted on their recognition of his Supremacy by accepting the formula: “We acknowledge His Grace to be the singular protector only and supreme lord and so far as the law of Christ will allow supreme head of the English Church and Clergy”. This was in 1531. By this Henry hoped to secure the acquiescence of the spiritual estate of the realm to his forthcoming legislation.

In 1529 Parliament, in spite of opposition by the clergy, had passed Acts limiting clerical fees and preventing clerical trade, and in 1532 (23 Hen. VIII. c. 9) a reform of the Courts of the Archbishops was enacted without the consent of the Convocations having been obtained, but the clergy were appeased by the Act against the Papal claim to Annates (23 Hen. VIII. c. 20). This was the first piece of anti-papal legislation, for not only was the payment stopped, but the Act provided for the celebration of the sacraments and the consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, even if the Pope should place the kingdom under an interdict, or refuse to grant the usual bulls for consecrations. But the clergy were still too strong in Henry’s opinion, so he instigated the Commons to bring in “The Supplication of the Ordinaries”, which, under the cover of hatred by the laity for the clergy, engendered by their power of making canons and abusing their ecclesiastical jurisdiction, sought to limit their freedom from the jurisdiction of the Crown. After some negotiation Convocation consented that in future they would not enact any new canons without the King’s licence, and that the existing Canon law should be revised. This is known as the Submission of the Clergy, 1533 (22 Hen. VIII. c. 15).¹

Thus, by the recognition of Supremacy, Henry could represent any opposition as an act of disloyalty to the Crown and unfaithfulness to the Church, and by the Submission of the Clergy he could prevent any ecclesiastical legislation being enacted contrary to his wishes. In this year Wareham, Archbishop of Canterbury, died, and Henry at once appointed Cranmer, who had been his chief emissary at Rome in his divorce proceedings, to fill the vacancy.

It was Cranmer’s suggestion, that in order to strengthen public opinion application should be made to the universities throughout Europe as to the legality of his marriage with Catherine. Few opinions in Henry’s favour could be obtained in Germany, but in Italy a lavish purse seems to have been the predominant factor, whilst in France Francis I. obliged the Sorbonne to support Henry. With this support, which, in fact, was rather against the power of Pope Julius to have granted any such dispensation, Cranmer pushed on the divorce proceedings. In 1533 both the Convocations of Canterbury and York found that the marriage of Catherine with Prince Arthur was valid, and that the Pope could not dispense, an act which they held to be contrary to divine law.

The next step was the passing of the second great piece of anti-Papal legislation, viz. the Restraint of Appeals Act, 1533 (24 Hen. VIII. c. 12), which took away the right of the Pope to try causes on Appeal relating to Wills, Matrimony, and Tithes. Appeals were to go from the Archdeacon to the Bishop and from the Bishop to the Archbishop, and in matters touching the King from the Archbishop to the Upper House of Convocation: nothing was said as to the Papal authority as chief Bishop in the West to decide questions of faith or morals or worship. Thereupon Archbishop Cranmer, sitting in his own Court, set aside the marriage with Catherine as legally null and declared the marriage with Anne Boleyn legally valid.

At the same time the Pope declared the marriage with Anne Boleyn legally void, and the next year affirmed the validity of the marriage with Catherine and called on Henry to take her back. Elizabeth, their daughter, was born in 1533. In 1534 the Submission of the Clergy was embodied in the Act, 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19, which gave a further appeal from the Archbishop’s Court to a Court of Delegates, composed of Commissioners appointed by the Crown for the special purposes of trying the particular case under consideration; and also enacted that the ecclesiastical canons, not contrary to English Civil Law or the King’s prerogative, should remain in force until revised by a special Commission; this revision has never been completed, with the result that a large part of the mediaeval canon law still remains in force.

In the same year, 1534, the second Annates Act (25 Hen. VIII. c. 20) was passed, which, in addition to the restraint on payment of Annates, clearly laid down that, as before, a Bishop was to be nominated by the Crown and elected by the Chapter under letters of congé d’élire from the Crown, to be consecrated by the Metropolitan and then to sue out his temporalities from the Crown and take the oath of homage. Thus, the Pope was deprived of a right which he had exercised since the time of King John of granting his consent to the consecration by a bull for which fees had to be paid, and of exacting an oath from the Bishop before granting the bull.

Since the time of St. Augustine the Popes had always given the pall to Metropolitans; this was a mark of favour for which both oaths of fealty and payment of fees were required. Though, as we shall see in Book II. Ch. II., this had no sound doctrinal foundation, yet from the fact that the pall was dedicated by being left for a night on the tomb of St. Peter, its reception came to be regarded as typical of the reception of the authority conferred upon St. Peter after the manner of the mantle of Elijah.

At the same time the Dispensations Act 1534 (25 Hen. VIII. c. 21) provided that no fee or payment should be made to the Pope for any dispensation or licence, but that accustomed licences should be granted by the Archbishop.

These dispensations, as we have seen, were partly necessary relaxations of wise laws and partly necessitated by unnecessarily strict laws.

The Supreme Head Act 1534 (26 Hen. VIII. c. 1) added to the Submission of the Clergy of 1532 by declaring that “the King should be accepted as the only supreme head on earth of the Church of England, and as such should have power to visit and amend all abuses and heresies, which by any manner spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought to be redressed and amended, notwithstanding any custom foreign laws or foreign authority to the contrary.” This was confirmed by 28 Hen. VIII. c. 7.

The final anti-Papal Act came in 1536, entitled “An Act for extirpating the authority of the Bishop of Rome” (28 Hen. VIII. c. 10), which provided that every layman or ecclesiastic holding office should take an oath renouncing the Bishop of Rome and his authority under penalty of high treason.

After the fall of Wolsey in 1529, Henry had employed Thomas Cromwell, who had been Wolsey’s agent. He was a valuable tool; whilst throughout was that of Henry, the brain of Cromwell put it into practice. Following the Supreme Head Act of 1534, Henry appointed Cromwell as his Vicar-General, in order to exercise the power of visitation expressly referred to in the Act.

Whatever supporters in England of the Papacy that were left could only be found in the ‘regulars’, both monks and friars, whom, as we have seen, always allied themselves closely to the Papacy and sought by bringing themselves directly under the Pope to increase their own particular privileges, and in particular to escape the Visitation of the Bishops. Cromwell, under his new powers, proceeded to visit by means of commissioners all the universities and religious houses.

At the universities he founded a lecture in Greek, and, six months later, secured from Parliament the suppression of all religious houses having an income of less than £200 a year, the proceeds being voted to the King’s use, without any stipulation of the purpose to which this fund should be put. But Parliament at that time drew a strong distinction between these obscure houses and the larger ones “where religion is right well kept”. That was in February 1536; in May, Anne was arrested for treason, divorced, and beheaded, and her daughter Elizabeth declared illegitimate, and Parliament transferred the whole legislation in her favour to that of her Lady-in-Waiting, Jane Seymour, whom Henry married the next day. Edward VI. was born in 1537.

In the autumn of the same year, 1536, the North rose in revolt, for the suppression of the smaller monasteries made them think that their religion was in danger. Thirty thousand gathered at Doncaster, but lacked a leader, and through temporizing they lost what opportunity they had, and by the end of the year all their leaders were executed and they were disbanded; thus ended the Pilgrimage of Grace. The direct result, owing to the Abbots of some of the most famous abbeys in the north being involved, was the total suppression of all monasteries throughout the realm, which was completed and confirmed in 1539 by the Act of 31 Hen. VIII. c. 13. The economic effect is not material to our purpose, but the dissolution undoubtedly removed the last organized support of the Papacy. Out of the proceeds the bishoprics of Westminster, Chester, Oxford, Peterborough, Gloucester, and Bristol were founded. At the same time the removal of the mitred Abbots from the House of Lords greatly diminished the power of the clergy in Parliament.

Though the breach with Rome was complete, as yet there was no suggestion of any change of religion, such as would constitute a separation of communion of the Church of England from the Church of Rome. To emphasize this, Henry, in 1539, secured the passing of the Act of the Six Articles (31 Hen. VIII. c. 14) affirming:

1. The doctrine of Transubstantiation.
2. The sufficiency of Communion in one kind.
3. The necessity of clerical celibacy.
4. Sanctity of vows of celibacy and chastity.
5. Desirability of private Masses.
6. Necessity of Auricular Confession.

Henry’s quarrel with the Pope over his divorce gave him the opportunity of carrying into effect the object which, we have seen, had been aimed at from the earliest times in English history, of freeing the realm from foreign interference. The Peter’s Pence, the Annates, the nomination of foreign non-resident bishops, the fees for appeals and for dispensations, and for a period the tribute exacted from King John, had all been attacked from the time of Edward I. By the Submission of the Clergy and the Annates Acts and the Acts of Supremacy, Henry put an end to these avaricious claims of the Papacy. During the Captivity the Papacy had degenerated into supporters of the French Government, and under the Great Schism it had lost its moral influence; from this period the Papacy had become entirely Italian and the Pope one of several Italian monarchs, vying with the others and with the Empire for the control of Papal Estates in Italy. The outcome of this was the intensification of nationalism throughout Europe, as the hope for support in cases of internal oppression dwindled, owing to the policy of the Papacy being completely dominated with its own territorial affairs. Thus, in England, apart from the ‘regular’ monks and friars, who were swept aside by the dissolution of the monasteries, there were very few who would take any risks to defend the Papal prerogative from attack. So we find Convocation itself in 1534 passing a resolution that “the bishop of Rome hath not by Scripture any greater authority in England than any other foreign bishop”. But this did not deny such primacy which the Papacy might have acquired by the consent or custom of the Church. At the same time, whilst Henry was a strong supporter of the doctrines of the Church, and throughout his reign exterminated all those whom he regarded as heretics, yet he was so far affected with the new learning as to put into force many reforms of abuses which had in the course of ages crept into the Church. Applying the extension of knowledge brought about by the Renaissance, one of the definite principles of his policy of reform was that the authority of the undivided Church was to be the test of faith, and that the abuse and not the use of an observance was to be the test of reform.

With the increase of learning and the introduction of printing, the number of those who could read and write and yet had no knowledge of Latin became increasingly large. Though for centuries Latin had ceased to be used as common speech, formerly of those who were educated enough to be able to read, there were but few who could not speak the language. Accordingly, we find Henry in 1534 providing for an English translation of the Bible, and in the meantime permission was given for the circulation of the translation by Miles Coverdale. Tyndale in 1526 had produced a translation, but apart from being affected with a Zwinglian bias, each part as it was produced was given a preface attacking the Church, and for this reason had been prohibited. By 1538 ‘The Great Bible’ or ‘Bishops’ Bible’, based on the translations of Tyndale and Coverdale, was completed and remained in authority until the reign of James I., though technically it was issued solely on the authority of the King without the authorization of Convocation. In 1536 the Ten Articles, five on doctrine and faith and five on Ceremonies, were drawn up by Convocation and issued by the King. In 1537 the King appointed a committee of bishops and divines to draw up a book on faith and morals for the further expounding of the Ten Articles. This was brought out the same year and called The Institution of a Christian Man. The ‘Institution’ or ‘Bishops’ Book’ had, however, been hurriedly composed; it contained an exposition of the Creed, the Sacraments, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Ave Maria, justification and purgatory. Henry himself carefully annotated his copy, and in 1540 appointed a further Commission, which in 1543 issued two books, that on doctrine, called The Necessary Erudition of any Christian Man, in language more precise and theological than the ‘Institution’, and that on ceremonies, called A Rationale of Rites and Ceremonies. The ‘Necessary Erudition’ or ‘King’s Book’ was approved by Convocation and issued by the King.

In 1538 the Reform was continued by the Injunctions which ordered the destruction of all images, which were superstitiously used, and restricted the lights in the Church apart from those for lighting the services to those on the rood loft in front of the Reserved Sacrament, and at the Holy Week Sepulchre. In 1542 a new edition of the Sarum Breviary, omitting all reference to the Pope and amending the Lives of the Saints contained in the ‘Legend’, was issued and directed to be used in the Province of Canterbury to the exclusion of all others — and the lessons to be read in English.

In 1544, following the King’s Book, Cranmer, at Henry’s request, drew up the Litany in English, and without being submitted to Convocation its use was enforced by Royal Decree.

Finally, in 1545 the Primer of Henry VIII. was issued by the King’s Injunction; it contained some devotions on the Passion, and numerous occasional prayers, but omitted the Hours of the Virgin and the Seven Deadly Sins contained in previous Primers.

This superseded the Primers of Marshall and Hilsey and was known as the King’s Primer (see Book II. Ch. III.).

Whilst Henry VIII., throughout his work of abolishing Papal interference in England and of reforming the Church in England, had ever adhered to the faith and doctrines of the Catholic Church, and Convocation, even when denying the Scriptural authority of the Bishop of Rome, had been careful to enunciate that they were still “obedient, devout, humble children of the Holy Church as any people be within any realm christened”, and to repudiate any intention of varying “from the congregation of Christ’s Church in anything concerning the very articles of the Catholic Faith of Christendom”, the proceedings in the next reign of Edward VI. were on a different footing.

The Council of the Realm, during the minority of the new King, under the King’s uncle, the Duke of Somerset, who was styled the Lord Protector, was composed for the most part of those greedy courtiers who had surrounded Henry’s throne in his latter days and who had fattened on the spoils of the dissolved monasteries. For them the most important thing was to keep their gains and add to them by further annexation of ecclesiastical wealth.

Rich, Audley, Paget, Warwick, Russell, and Wentworth had all been conspicuous for their power of absorbing monastic and chantry lands. In fulfilment of their object they definitely desired the introduction of such Continental Reformers into the Church as would secure them from any attack or attempt to make them disgorge. Archbishop Cranmer alone was the honest man in the Council; he, indeed, had come under the influence of Melanchthon, a moderate Lutheran, and of Ridley, his own chaplain, a follower of Peter Martyr, who was a moderate Calvinist. From 1548 he may be said to have become a Calvinist on the doctrine of the Eucharist and a Lutheran on the doctrine of the Ministry, but in other respects in agreement with the theology of the Church.

Before proceeding further, however, we must turn our attention to the Reform movements which had been taking place on the Continent during the reign of Henry VIII.

Tenets of Reformers — Differences of Sects — Doctrine of the Real Presence — Transubstantiation — Consubstantiation — Doctrine of Zwingli — Receptionist or Calvinistic Doctrine — Indulgences, origin of — Leo X. — Augustine Monks — Jacobins — The Conclusions of Luther — Cardinal Cajetan Thomas de Vio — Bull of Leo X. — Diet of Worms — Henry VIII., Defender of the Faith — Zwingli — Diet of Spire — Protestants — Conference of Marpurg — Confession of Augsburg — Death of Zwingli — Conference of Worms — Diet of Spire — 'Interim' of Augsburg — Hermann von Wied — Consultation — Antididagma — Quignon's Breviary — Mozarabic Rite.

As this is a historical rather than a doctrinal treatise, we are not concerned with the arguments advanced by the Continental Reformers in favour of their tenets, but it is necessary clearly to understand the difference which lay between the various sects.

Generally, it may be premised that they all upheld the marriage of the clergy, the use of the vernacular language in Christian Rites, and the giving of the Communion in both kinds to the laity; but the chief point underlying all their differences lay in their different aspects of the Holy Communion.

It is difficult to improve on the lucid distinctions drawn by Wakeman which may be expressed somewhat as follows:

1. The Doctrine of the Real Presence.

It was held by all the early Christians, as we have seen in Chapter VIII., that the bread and wine offered and consecrated in the Liturgy were, by consecration, made to be truly and really the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. But as to the manner in which His Body and Blood thus came to be present in the Sacrament, nothing was defined except that it was in an ineffable and spiritual manner.

This is the doctrine maintained by the Anglican Party as being that of the Church of England as reformed, at the present time.

2. Transubstantiation.

About 800–900 there was much speculation as to the exact explanation of the mystery of the Real Presence. Philosophers at that time maintained that every material thing consisted of two parts, one called the 'substance', which, though imperceptible to the senses, constituted its essential reality; the other called the 'accidents', which were perceptible to the senses and gave it the outward form, taste, or smell which it possessed. Applying this to the Holy Communion, some theologians advanced the theory that the 'substance' of the consecrated bread and wine became changed into the 'substance' of the Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, but that the 'accidents' remained, and the outward appearance of the bread and wine remained as before the consecration.

To this change of 'substance' the term transubstantiation was applied. This was the doctrine which was accepted by Pope Alexander II. and for which he chose Archbishop Lanfranc as its chief exponent, as mentioned in Chapter XVII. It received official sanction at the Council of the Lateran in 1215. In England the doctrine was commonly current and the belief in it was enforced by Henry VIII.

3. Consubstantiation.

Wicliffe attacked the doctrine on the philosophical point that it implied that 'accidents' could exist without a 'substance' in which to adhere, and maintained that the 'substance' of the bread and wine co-existed with the 'substance' of the Body and Blood of Christ. This theory, adopted by and sometimes attributed to Luther, was subsequently styled 'Consubstantiation', but never gained any hold in England.

The subject was further complicated, for the metaphysical meaning of the word 'substance' got sometimes lost, since to some it seemed to overthrow the nature of a sacrament by destroying the reality of an outward and visible sign, whilst to others it seemed to involve a materialistic view of the Presence which was described as 'carnal' or 'corporal'. It was to guard against this latter view that the twenty-eighth Article and the Black Rubric in the Communion Service were introduced into the English Prayer Book.

4. The Doctrine of Zwingli.

He was a Swiss reformer at Zurich, who denied that the Sacraments were means by which grace was given, and asserted that they were merely edifying rites, confirmatory of grace which had already been acquired, and that Our Lord's words at the time of its institution were merely figurative and metaphysical. Thus, the Holy Eucharist became only a Love Feast or Agapé (cf. Chapter VIII.) commemorative of the death of Jesus Christ.

These views, though strongly opposed by Luther, were held by the early Swiss and Dutch reformers, and came over to England in the reign of Henry VIII. After the accession of Elizabeth, they tended to become absorbed by Calvinism.

5. The Receptionist or Calvinistic Doctrine.

Like Zwingli, Calvin held that sacraments were primarily seals of grace already given, and denied that the Consecration of the bread and wine had any effect upon it. But he asserted that the Eucharist was not a mere commemorative rite, but that Jesus Christ did communicate the benefit of His Body and Blood to the soul of the worthy receiver.

The 'Presence' therefore became only a subjective presence in the soul of a worthy receiver and not an objective presence in the Sacrament itself, so that the bread and wine became merely tokens, not channels, of a grace that was being given.

"This view, equally with that of Zwingli, eviscerated the Liturgy from all idea of worship and made what had been the universal service of Divine Worship in the Church since the times of the Apostles into a pious exercise of personal devotion, but enriched the Zwinglian idea by associating it with the benefit of the reception, in the soul of Christ's Body and Blood."

Peter Martyr, Bucer, and Ridley, who taught it to Cranmer, held this view, which became prevalent in the time of Elizabeth, until the doctrine of the Real Presence was emphasized afresh by Andrewes under James I.

Indulgences

Further, apart from any question of its misuse or extortion, it is of importance to understand what was the theological meaning of an Indulgence.

It was not a Papal permission to commit sin, nor really a pardon for sin already committed, though no doubt it was often represented as such.

"According to theologians, the commission of sin involved two consequences — guilt, which put the sinner out of right relations with God and was removed by Absolution; and punishment, which had to be worked out either by penance in this life or in purgatory. An indulgence was the remission of the whole or part of the punishment thus due, and was acquired by the performance of certain specified good works with a right disposition or the payment of a certain sum of money in commutation of the required acts of penance."

Unless clearly understood, it is liable to complete misapprehension on the one hand or abuse on the other.

For the sake of raising money for the Crusades, Pope Urban II. (1088–99) first sold Indulgences to those who were not able for some reason or other to take part in them. In course of time, the Court of Rome used this means of raising money for any other sort of purpose. Leo X. (1513–22) gave to his sister Magdalene, who was married to Francesco Cibo, a natural son of Pope Innocent VIII. (1484–92), the profits that accrued from the sale of Indulgences or Pardons in the province of Saxony and a greater part of Germany. Magdalene, for acquiring these sums, made use of one Arembold, a Genoese merchant who was made a bishop.

The Collectors appointed by Arembold were so excessive in their vaunting of the worth and efficacy of these Indulgences and so irregular and debauched in their ways that all Germany was offended, and Martin Luther, an Augustine monk, first took up cudgels against them. The Augustine monks before this had been usually the distributors of Pardons in Germany, but Arembold employed the Jacobins; John Stupits, the Vicar-General of the Augustines, had publicly resented this change. This may have assisted the publicity of the ninety-five Conclusions against the Doctrine of Indulgences which Luther issued in 1517 at Wittenberg.

Luther and the Reformers

John Tetzel, a Jacobin of Frankfort-on-the-Oder, and John Ekius, Professor at Ingolstadt, endeavoured to confute them, and in this they were supported by Silvester Prieras, a Jacobin, Master of the Vatican.

To support their cause they enlarged on the authority of the Pope, which Luther opposed and maintained to be liable to error and inferior to that of Councils, as laid down by the Council of Constance. Luther was cited to appear at Rome in 1518, but at the instance of the Duke of Saxony the matter was referred to Cardinal Cajetan Thomas de Vio, the Papal Legate. Luther had two conferences with him at Augsburg, and finally offered to desist and write no more, but the Cardinal demanded a Recantation which Luther would not make. Leo X. then published a bull in November 1518, authorizing the Indulgences and asserting their validity; Luther in reply appealed from the bull to a Council. This led to a further bull dated 15th June 1520, from Leo X., which condemned forty-two of the articles of Luther's doctrine, ordered his books to be burnt and declared him excommunicate unless within two months he recanted and burnt his writings. This may be noted as the definite separation of the Lutherans from the Church of Rome, for, whereas the Universities of Louvain and Cologne burnt Luther's writings, Luther obtained a sentence from the University of Wittenberg condemning the Papal bull and the decretals to the flames. At the same time, Luther issued a manifesto accusing the Pope as a tyrant for having usurped a supremacy over kings and princes and corrupted the Doctrines of the Church. For this, in 1521, after being heard before the Emperor Charles V. at the Diet of Worms, an Edict was issued against him, but he was hidden for nine months by the Elector of Saxony.

It was after this Edict that Henry VIII. wrote his treatise in support of the Seven Sacraments, and the authority of the Pope against the doctrines of Luther, for which Pope Leo X. gave him the title of 'Defender of the Faith'.

About this time Zwingli, who was a Canon at Zurich, opposed Friar Samson, a Cordelier of Milan, who had raised 120,000 crowns by the sale of Indulgences. In 1521 the Bishop of Constance exhorted the Senate to banish Zwingli, but after an assembly of all the divines Zwingli persuaded the Senate to order that the reformed religion should be preached with full liberty. As has been shown, there was a divergence of opinion between Luther and Zwingli on the doctrine of the Eucharist, which the Roman Catholics did their best to foment at the Diet of Spire in 1529. It was against the Edict of Spire, which sought to put the Edict of Worms into execution, that the Elector of Saxony and five other princes, together with fourteen German towns, protested and appealed to the Emperor and a free Council. From this protestation the followers of Luther and Zwingli were called Protestants.

The Landgrave of Hesse sought to heal these dissensions and assembled a Conference at Marpurg, but to no effect. Luther, writing shortly after, said that he would not expose the princes of his party to a greater hatred of the Romanists by adopting the expressions of the Zwinglians, which were detested by all men.

In 1530 the Emperor held a Diet at Augsburg, at which the Lutherans presented their Confession of Faith. Luther gave the heads of it, and it was put into form by the more moderate Melanchthon. This document became well known as the 'Confession' of Augsburg.

In 1531 there was a war between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Cantons in Switzerland, in which Zurich joined. The Protestants were defeated in a battle on 11th October, and Zwingli, who took part, was killed.

In 1541 the Emperor Charles V. held a Conference at Worms, when John Ekius, Julius Fluggius, and John Groper argued for the Catholics, and Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and John Pistorius argued for the Protestants, after which the Emperor decreed an 'interim' under which all were allowed free exercise of religion until a General or National Council of Germany. In 1543 the Diet at Spire extended this until the Council of Trent, which, in fact, lasted from 1545 to 1563. But in 1548 Charles at Augsburg formulated the great Interim by which all Germany was to be governed in matters of religion until the Council of Trent should define them.

Hermann's Consultation & Quignon's Breviary

In 1543 Hermann von Wied, Prince Archbishop of Cologne, had a scheme of reformation drawn up and submitted, not only to the Landtag at Bonn, but to the leading Lutheran divines; a work known as Hermann's Consultation was produced through the labours of Melanchthon and Martin Bucer, both of whom had acted as spokesmen for the Protestants at the Conference at Worms in 1541.

This book in the main was doctrinal, but, in the middle of it, forms were given for the different rites of the Church. The Chapter of Cologne opposed this scheme and issued a work in reply, called Antididagma. Both of these works had a considerable effect on the Prayer Book produced by Cranmer.

Mention must be made of another work which had a considerable influence on the Prayer Book, and that was Quignon's Breviary, which was published in 1535 and again in 1537. Clement VII., with the object of getting the clergy to be more regular in saying their office, employed Cardinal Francis de Quignones, a Spanish Franciscan, to simplify the Breviary by removing some of the difficulties and curtailing it. It was never intended to be publicly recited in church, and when this began to be done, it was put an end to by Papal decree of Paul IV. in 1558. In it the Psalter was rearranged, the lessons reduced to one from the Old Testament, one from the New Testament, and one from the Lives of the Saints or a homily, or from the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles.

Finally, owing to Henry VIII.'s Spanish marriage, it is impossible to believe that Cranmer was unacquainted with the Mozarabic Missal and Breviary, which Cardinal Ximénes had caused to be revived in 1500–1502; cf. Chapter XV. p. 67; though it is difficult to distinguish any part of the reformed Liturgy as being specially attributable to this source apart from the Gallic origin of the Use at Rouen, which, as we have seen, was the origin of the Sarum Use, so noticeable for its bowings and lack of genuflection and for its standard lights, phari (from which the modern French word phare, a lighthouse or motor-car head-light, is derived).

Edward VI. — Repeal of the Six Articles — Lollard heresy laws — Abolition of congé d'élire — Confiscation of Chantries — First Book of Homilies — Royal Injunctions — Paraphrases of the Gospels, by Erasmus — Litany to be sung kneeling instead of in procession — Communion in both kinds — The Order of Communion, 1548 — Abolition of special rites and ceremonies — Destruction of images — Windsor Commission — Approval by Convocation of proposed Prayer Book — First Prayer Book of Edward VI., 1549 — Act of Uniformity — Principles of Revision — Simplicity, use of vernacular, purification of abuses — Effect of Reformers' views — Omissions to avoid conflict — Designed inadequacy of rubrics — Ordinal of 1550 — Exclusion of minor orders — Rising in Devon and Cornwall — Fall of Somerset — King's Letter to destroy Old Latin Service Books — Clerical Marriage Act — Martin Bucer — Peter Martyr — John Laski — Valerand Pullain — Cranmer on the Eucharist — Destruction of Altars — Day — Calvin — Censura — Objections and suggestions for further reform — Second Prayer Book of Edward VI., 1552 — Second Act of Uniformity — Recusancy Act — John Knox — Black Rubric — Alterations in new book — Royal Proclamation of the Forty-two Articles.

Edward VI. came to the throne on 28th January 1547. Among the Acts of Parliament in its first session were the repeal of the Six Articles Act and the Lollard Heresy Laws, 1 Edw. VI. c. 12. Other Acts abolished the congé d'élire (1 Edw. VI. c. 7) and provided that ecclesiastical procedure should be in the King's name and (1 Edw. VI. c. 14) secured to the King's use those chantries and free chapels which had escaped the previous legislation.

In July 1547 the First Book of Homilies was produced as a standard for preaching, and in August Royal Injunctions, with Articles of Enquiry for a Royal Visitation, were issued. These were similar to those of 1536, but went further.

The Paraphrases of the Gospels, by Erasmus, in English was ordered to be set up in all the churches like the Great Bible, one of the homilies was to be read on Sunday, and the Epistle and Gospel were to be read in English at High Mass. The Litany was to be said or sung by the priests and choir, kneeling in the centre of the Church, instead of in the old processions. At Convocation, Communion in both kinds was approved, nullo reclamante, and was to be incorporated in the Act of Parliament. To carry this out, sundry prelates and divines were appointed to draw up 'The Order of Communion' which was issued by Royal Proclamation on 8th March 1548. This 'Order of Communion' consisted of the exhortation, confession, absolution, comfortable words, and prayer of humble access, which still form part of the Communion Office in the Prayer Book. These are based upon the forms given in Hermann's Consultation, mentioned in the last chapter, which represented the form of Lutheranism most nearly allied to the Catholic doctrine and from which are excluded distinctive Lutheran expressions such as those about the corruption of man's nature. This Order was not to be substituted for the Latin Mass, but to be interpolated after the priest's communion.

Meanwhile, the Council in January had abolished the ceremonies of candles at Candlemas, ashes on Ash Wednesday, palms on Palm Sunday, creeping to the Cross on Good Friday, also Holy Bread, Holy Water, and all images in any church or chapel. It was in consequence of this that the disfigurement of so many of our Cathedrals and Churches took place, the figures being beheaded and the stained glass destroyed. In May, the whole service, both Matins, Mass, and Evensong, were sung in English at St. Paul's Cathedral, and no Mass was celebrated without some received the communion with the priest.

The Windsor Commission & the First Prayer Book of 1549

In September 1548 the Windsor Commission, consisting of bishops and divines, was assembled for the settlement of liturgical questions and a uniform order of prayer. There has been some diversity of opinion as to who sat on this Windsor Commission, but the following seem to have certainly been present: Archbishop Cranmer, Bishops Ridley of Rochester, Holbeach of Lincoln, Thirlby of Westminster, and Goodrich of Ely, with perhaps Skip of Hereford and Day of Chichester. There were also the Deans of St. Paul's, Exeter, and Durham, and the Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.

In December there was a public three days' debate in the House of Lords concerning the Eucharist founded upon a "book which was read touching the doctrine of the Supper". Following this, "the book for the Service in the Church" was read in the Commons, and the Act of Uniformity to which it was attached was passed through Parliament by 21st January 1549: the date fixed by the Act for it to come into force was Whitsunday, 9th June (2 and 3 Edw. VI. c. 1). From the letters of the King to Mary, and also later to Bishop Bonner, it is clear that the book was approved of in Convocation, though the actual records have been lost.

This first Prayer Book of Edward VI., in English, was evolved, in the first place, out of the Sarum Breviary by the suppression of the services for tierce, sext, and nones, and the compression of matins, lauds, and prime into matins, and vespers and compline into evensong. The Litany was that drawn up in English under Henry VIII. The Introits, Collects, Epistles, and Gospels were mainly taken from the Sarum Use except those for Holy Week. 'The Supper of the Lord or Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass' was taken from the Sarum Missal, together with the 'Order of Communion' issued in 1548, but with important omissions.

The other rites were based on Sarum with alterations based on the Consultation of Hermann. The chief principles of the revision were first simplicity; through the multiplication of commemorations with special forms for each occasion, the regular reading of the Scripture and recitation of the Psalms had been so broken in upon that there was but little left in this direction. Hence commemorations with special versicles and responds, invitatories, and even antiphons, were swept away.

The employment of the vernacular language gave rise to an expansion of the part taken by the congregation in the services. In the course of time, especially as Latin ceased more and more to be in general use, the part originally intended for the whole congregation had become confined more and more to that fulfilled by the chorus or choir. In their attempt to purify the services the test that was adopted with regard to a rite or ceremony was whether it had in the past given rise to abuse rather than what was the original purity of its design. It was the extreme objection, which Reformers like Bucer had, to the consecration of anything inanimate which led to so many scenic practices being suppressed; and some of the beautiful and valuable old ceremonies were abolished only because their right use had not been fully expounded. Further, the Reformers seemed to attach only the materialistic view of the doctrine of Transubstantiation to their opponents, and then proceeded to eliminate every phrase from the rite, and every detail from the ceremony, which they considered might be thought to engender or support such views.

There is no doubt that much was not expressly mentioned, in order to avoid conflict; whilst one side or the other might deplore an omission, its statement in any one way might have given offence to others. Thus, whilst aiming at uniformity, this First Prayer Book of Edward VI. neither aimed at the exclusion of the more conservative reformers nor at total submission to the more advanced reformers, who came from the Continent. This is very clearly indicated in the total inadequacy of the rubrics, in the absence of any separate 'Ordo' or 'Consuetudinary' taken in conjunction with the permissive uses of Unction and of gestures.

The New Ordinal, which was not sanctioned by Parliament until 1550, was treated as a supplement to the Book of 1549, and thereafter printed with it, but both were revised together in 1552; all mention of the minor orders was excluded from it. This abolition of the old services, and even the old ones which remained must have seemed totally different in their new guise of language, brought about such a change in the services that they produced various risings in different parts of the country, the most serious of which was in Devon and Cornwall, which it took two months to subdue. Their final success the Council celebrated, to their own lasting disgrace, by directing the pulling down of all the bells out of the steeples in Devon and Cornwall, leaving only one "the least of the ryng that now is in the same" to prevent their being used again in the cause of sedition.

Continental Reformers & the Second Prayer Book of 1552

The Council, having quelled these risings by the aid of Lord Russell and his mercenaries, became more Erastian than ever; the Church was treated as but the theological department of the State, and Convocation was not consulted in the ensuing legislation.

With the fall of Somerset at the end of 1549, it was rumoured that the new Prayer Book would be abolished, but the Council immediately issued a King's Letter, extended by the Act 3 and 4 Edw. VI. c. 10 and 12, to call in, burn, deface, or destroy all the old church books and to take any images out of the churches.

In 1549 Parliament also passed the Permission of Clerical Marriage Act, 2 and 3 Edw. VI. c. 21. A great change was coming over the aims of the Reformers in consequence of the spread of views contrary to the doctrine of the Real Presence. In 1548 Martin Bucer of Strasbourg, who combined a belief in the Real Presence with a desire for communion with the Swiss, was made Professor of Divinity at Cambridge; at the same time Peter Martyr (Vermigli), an Italian Austin Canon, driven out of Italy to Zurich and Basle, who denied the Real Presence, was made Professor of Divinity at Oxford.

In 1550 John Laski, a Polish Bishop, who had become one of the extremist reformers in Germany, was appointed superintendent of the French and German Protestants at Austin Friars in London; he published in Latin the service used by the Walloons. Likewise Valerand Pullain, a Fleming, who had succeeded Calvin at Strasbourg, came to England, and was granted the Abbey of Glastonbury for his fellow worsted weavers, published in 1551 their order of service.

In 1550 Cranmer published a treatise in his own name on the Eucharist, with the express object of disproving the doctrine of the Real Presence. This was followed by the Council issuing letters to all the bishops ordering them to have the altars shut in their dioceses taken away. Day, Bishop of Chichester, was sent to prison for disobedience, as he maintained that the then existing Act authorizing the Prayer Book could not be overridden by Proclamation.

Calvin in 1548 had written to the Protector Somerset urging more drastic reformation, and likewise to Bucer. Bucer and Peter Martyr were now invited to express their opinions on the Prayer Book of 1549, with a view to its revision; whereupon Bucer issued his Censura "sometimes shrewd, sometimes merely perverse, always moderate and scholarly" generally representing the more moderate reformers. His objections to the Prayers for the Dead, and the Epiklesis, likewise to vestments, the use of chrysom and chrism in baptism were carried into effect, as were to a large extent his objections to every scenic practice and the benediction or consecration of inanimate things. He likewise objected to bell-ringing and wished the churches to be shut when no service was proceeding. Peter Martyr's own objections are not to be found, but he approved those of Bucer, only adding an objection to the reservation of the Sacrament for the sick.

Of the old bishops, Gardiner, Bonner, and Heath over the Ordinal, Day over the destruction of altars, and Tunstall on an obscure charge of treason, were removed.

Cranmer now proposed a second Prayer Book in Convocation in January 1552, about which there was some discussion but nothing settled. Whereupon, without further ado, it was introduced into Parliament. There the Statute began by stating that the First Prayer Book "was a very Godly order of Common Prayer and the Administration of the Sacraments agreeable to the Word of God and the Primitive Church, but doubts had arisen about the fashion of it through curiosity rather than any worthy cause".

In this way, as though only a schedule of alterations, the New Book was adopted and annexed to the Act of Uniformity; this Act was passed on the 14th April 1552 with effect from All Saints' Day, 1st November following, 5 and 6 Edw. VI. c. 1. This second Act of Uniformity was also the first of the recusancy Acts, for it provided for punishment of recusants by ecclesiastical censures and of separatists by imprisonment; by recusants are meant those who refuse to attend services prescribed by law, whilst separatists insist on attending services not prescribed by law. Before it came into force, John Knox, who came to London as a Royal Chaplain from the North, preached a violent sermon against kneeling at the Communion. In spite of Cranmer's objection and without the consent of either Parliament or Convocation, the Council ordered the Black Rubric as to kneeling: "We do declare that it is not meant thereby that any adoration is done or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental bread or wine there bodily received or unto any real and essential presence there being of Christ's natural flesh and blood".

This Second Book does not seem to have ever come into general use; any penalty to enforce it was prevented by the illness of the King and the political excitements which filled his last days; he died on 6th July 1553.

The chief alterations in this Second Book were at Matins and Evensong; the exhortation, confession and absolution were prefixed as we have them now; these are thought to have been suggested by the work of Pullain, mentioned above. In the Baptismal Rite the exorcism, anointing, and use of the chrysom were omitted, so was the anointing in the visitation of the sick, and in the Ordinal the delivery of the Chalice to the Priest and the pastoral staff to the Bishop were abolished.

But the greatest changes were made in the office of the Holy Communion.

Vestments were forbidden, the Introit was omitted and the Ten Commandments inserted instead of the Kyries. The Gloria in Excelsis was transferred from the beginning to the end of the service. The mixture of water with the wine was omitted at the Offertory. The New Canon beginning with the Prayer for the Universal Church and ending with the Lord's Prayer, which was based on the Roman Canon, was divided into three parts — the Prayer for the Church Militant, the Prayer of Consecration, and the first alternative prayer after the Communion. The commemoration of the Blessed Virgin, the thanksgiving for the Patriarchs and Prophets, and the prayers for the dead were left out, and the sign of the Cross at the Consecration, the Epiklesis or invocation of the Holy Ghost and for the Angels to take the prayers "up into the Tabernacle" were also struck out. At the Communion the second clause of the administration was substituted for the first. (In our present order we have both.) The object of these changes was to stress the Calvinist Doctrine rather than that of the Real Presence.

In 1538 Cranmer had drawn up Thirteen Articles of Religion, which were mainly based on the Confession of Augsburg, and these had by 1550 been extended to forty-two, assent to which he required from all those who sought a preacher's licence. These were revised by the Commission on Canon Law, and forty-two articles were published in May 1553 by royal authority without having been submitted to Convocation, though it was asserted in their title that this had been done.

At the same time a larger catechism was drawn up by Ponet, Bishop of Winchester; and an authorized primer, in the place of that of Henry VIII., was also produced. These formularies were designed to include as much as possible of the newer Protestant spirit, without departing from the historic faith of the Church. The newer phrases and definitions were employed, but deprived of distinctive Protestant meaning. The Article upon the Eucharist, however, distinctly denied the Real Presence, but this was replaced in the Thirty-nine Articles published in Elizabeth's reign.

Mary — Papal dispensation for marriage of her mother, Catherine of Aragon — Her divorce — Rebellion of Lady Jane Grey and Northumberland — Repeal of Edwardian legislation — Policy of Gardiner, Bonner, Tunstall, and Heath — Marriage with King Philip of Spain — Repeal of anti-Papal legislation of Henry VIII. — Absolution of nation by Cardinal Pole — Burning of Cranmer — Religious persecution — Mary's reasons and policy — Conflicts between reformers on the Continent — Elizabeth — Validity of marriage of her mother, Anne Boleyn — Declared illegitimate on execution of Anne Boleyn — Policy of Elizabeth not Erastian — Independent Church without authority over State — Objections to desire in words of administration — Adoption of Prayer Book of 1549 — Adoption of Prayer Book of 1552 with alterations — Abolition of Black Rubric — Change in Ornaments Rubric — Thirty-nine Articles — Second Book of Homilies — New Ordinal — Supremacy Act, 1559 — Prayer Book, 1559 — Uniformity Act — Consecration of Archbishop Parker and eleven Bishops — Injunctions — Order — Advertisements — Romanists — Puritans — Millenary petition — James I. — Hampton Court Conference — Amendments to Prayer Book — Canons — Authorized Version of the Bible — Laud — Scottish Prayer Book of 1636 — Directory.

Mary had never acquiesced in the abolition of the Papacy from England, or in the severance of its Church from Rome. Without the validity of the Papal dispensation, the marriage of her mother to her husband's brother was illegal, and Cranmer in 1533 had declared in the archiepiscopal Court that it was null and void. The country was thoroughly dissatisfied with the rule of the Council during Edward VI.'s reign; Henry VIII., though tyrannical, had never lost the confidence of the nation; the Council composed of mean and selfish men never possessed it, and when they rebelled in an attempt to set Lady Jane Grey, who was married to the Duke of Northumberland's son, upon the throne, there was a general outburst of indignation. But Parliament proceeded cautiously in its first session; it merely repealed the whole of the Edwardian legislation (1 Mary, c. 2). Gardiner, Bonner, Tunstall, and Heath, who had naturally come out of prison and resumed their positions, had all been hand-in-glove with Henry VIII. in his policy of Church reform. They did what they could to persuade Mary to leave the legislation of Henry VIII. intact and to marry an Englishman. But considering the position of her birth, she naturally was not content, and further decided to marry Philip, King of Spain.

Thus the alternative was forced upon them of again submitting to the Pope or accepting the reform propounded by Geneva. The result was never in doubt; in November, 1554, the anti-Papal legislation of Henry VIII. was repealed, the Lollard heresy laws re-enacted (1 Phil. and M. c. 8), and the nation solemnly absolved and admitted to communion with the Church of Rome by Cardinal Pole, the Papal Legate. Cranmer had been enrolled as an adherent of Lady Jane Grey, and had he been executed as a traitor, nothing could have been said, but having regard to the part he had played in the divorce of Catherine of Aragon, Mary insisted on burning him as a heretic. The Lollard heresy laws were originally passed in defence of the Government, and Mary insisted in regarding all those who refused to accept the supremacy of the Pope as asserting a direct challenge to her title to the throne. Further, her unfortunate marriage and disappointment in having no issue who should succeed her seems to have intensified her desire to so stamp out the anti-Papists that even under Elizabeth they should never return to power.

An unfortunate war, wherein Calais was lost, and an incurable disease all tended to aggravate her desire for this policy of extermination. She was not content with eliminating those of importance, who might be likely to thwart her scheme, but plunged the whole country into a religious persecution which lasted for three years, wherein over 300 were sent to the stake. It is now generally conceded that this persecution was not the outcome of fanatical religious zeal or revenge on the part of those who had suffered imprisonment in the previous reign. Nor was it so much due to the anxiety of the prelates, who would have rather preferred a restoration of the policy of Henry VIII. to vindicate their doubtful acceptance of the Papacy, but rather the morbid anxiety of the Queen to suppress all those who were of the same opinions as those who had wrought injustice to her in her youth. For it was ever to this wrong that she attributed her subsequent misfortunes.

For the most part, the victims were of no political importance, and of such lack of learning, combined with such stubbornness of temper, that what efforts that were made to extricate them from the penal laws of heresy were of no avail.

During Mary's reign many of the reformers fled to the Continent, to Emden, Strasbourg, Zurich, and Geneva, but most went to Frankfort, where there was considerable strife, Knox and Whittingham wishing to completely conform with the use of Geneva, whilst Dr. Cox and Horne wished to continue the use of the Prayer Book of 1552.

In order to gain Calvin's support, they wrote a long and violent tirade against the Prayer Book of 1552, in which they took exception to nearly everything it contained, and this in spite of the fact that it was more extreme than was ever used either before or since. Finally, however, Whittingham went to Basle, and Knox to Geneva, but even then peace does not appear to have reigned at Frankfort.

Elizabeth

When Elizabeth succeeded Mary in 1558, the position was reversed. Unless the dispensation of the Pope for the marriage of her father Henry VIII. with Catherine of Aragon was invalid, then his marriage with her mother, Anne Boleyn, was invalid, and she was illegitimate, apart from the fact that the Second Succession Act of 1536 (28 Hen. VIII. c. 7, s. 6) had expressly made her so.

Any thought of continuing in submission to the Papacy was out of the question. From the example of her father and brother, she had no wish to continue an Erastian exercise of royal prerogative in matters of religion to the extent of making the Church a department of the State. At the same time, she had no intention of allowing ecclesiastical power to assert authority over the State. For her, the object was to make the Church effective in administration and responsible for the welfare of the religion of the nation. Herself inclined to the older form of Catholicism; she was not attracted by Lutheranism nor by Calvinism. What she decided was, that the Church should have national independence, without outside interference either from Rome or Geneva.

She would have liked to reintroduce the Prayer Book of 1549 as being the outcome of her father's efforts, but the difficulty with which she was confronted was that the men who should have been Bishops under such a regime were lacking. Those like Bonner, Heath and Tunstall had been forced, by the policy of her sister Mary, to adopt the Papacy whole-heartedly, and therefore were no longer available, whilst those who in the reign of her brother had superseded them were ardent supporters of the more advanced reformers, like Zwingli and Calvin, with whose connivance the Prayer Book of 1552 had been produced. These latter, during the Marian persecutions, had for the most part resided in Switzerland and had progressed in their desire for change, so that on their return they only regarded even the Prayer Book of 1552 as tolerable, from the point of view of treating it as a stepping-stone in the direction of their more extreme views.

She therefore accepted the inevitable, and decided to adopt the Prayer Book of 1552 with such alterations as would effectively clear it of any taint of heresy without offending the consciences of her bishops.

The alterations were important but few; the Black Rubric was deleted — it never had any ecclesiastical authority; the words of administration were made to include the old form, so that the present one, which combines the two, was evolved; the ornaments rubric authorized "such ornaments of the Church and of the ministers as were in use by the authority of Parliament in the second year of Edward VI." until the Queen took further order.

With regard to the last, as has already been pointed out, the rubrics, in the absence of an authentic ordo or consuetudinary, are so meagre that it is impossible to construe them as only sanctioning what is mentioned, rather than sanctioning all things allowable previous to the enactment not expressly prohibited. Nevertheless, the judgements of the Privy Council in modern times seem to have been to the contrary. The only alteration in the new Ordinal was a change in the oath of supremacy. As the Ordinal was not mentioned in the Act of Uniformity, Bishop Bonner in 1564 objected that Bishop Horne, who had been ordained under it, was not a legal bishop, so in 1566 an indemnifying Act had to be passed.

The Supremacy Act & the Elizabethan Prayer Book

Before the 1552 Prayer Book with these alterations was agreed to by Parliament, two or three other schemes had been submitted and discarded or rejected, whilst Convocation protested against any change from that of Mary's reign.

Accordingly, before proceeding with the Prayer Book, the Supremacy Act was introduced. It is of great importance. This Act became law in 1559, and is 1 Eliz. c. 1. Under it ten ecclesiastical statutes of Henry VIII. and one of Edward VI. (1 Edw. VI. c. 1), that against irreverent speaking of the Sacrament, were revived.

The Supreme Head Statute was not revived, but it was declared that the visitorial and reforming powers mentioned in that Statute should be exercised by the Court of High Commission. Heresy was to be decided by Scripture, the first four general councils, or by the decision of Convocation with the assent of Parliament. The election of bishops was restored to the old system of congé d'élire, and an oath of obedience to the crown as supreme governor in the realm over things ecclesiastical as well as civil was imposed on all clergy and public officials.

When this Supremacy Act had been passed, Parliament adopted by three votes the new Prayer Book (1 Eliz. c. 2), that is, the one of 1552 with the alterations already indicated. The Act of Uniformity contained provisions against both recusants and separatists. Convocation was not consulted, as it was composed of those who had been appointed in the previous reign; thirteen of the fourteen Marian Bishops refused to take the oath. However, Matthew Parker was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury in December, 1559, by Barlow, formerly Bishop of Bath and Wells; Scory, formerly Bishop of Chichester; Coverdale, formerly Bishop of Exeter, and Hodgkin, Suffragan Bishop of Thetford. Of these Barlow and Hodgkin had been consecrated according to the Sarum Rite, and Scory and Coverdale according to the Ordinal of 1550. Shortly afterwards, Parker consecrated eleven new bishops to the vacant sees. Thus the continuity of episcopal succession was preserved.

The Prayer Book of 1549 had been translated into Latin and French and also that of 1552, a new Latin translation was produced in 1571; a translation into Welsh was made in 1567 and one into Irish in 1608. In 1568–1572 a new translation of the Bible, known as the Bishops' Bible,¹ was brought out, and by the Articles of 1584 this was ordered to be used in the churches.

¹ The Great Bible of 1538 was also called the Bishops' Bible, see p. 113.

In 1571 the forty-two Articles were revised and reduced to thirty-nine, and a Second Book of Homilies was issued.

Injunctions, Orders & Advertisements

In the reign of Henry VIII., under the Supremacy Act, (28 Hen. VIII. c. 7 and 31 Hen. VIII. c. 8), the King was invested with the powers to make Proclamations about religion as Supreme Head of the Church, which were to have the same force as Acts of Parliament, and certainly the Royal Injunction of 1538 introduced the use of the Great Bible and abolished superstitious images and pilgrimages and the 'knelling of the Aves', and introduced parish registers.

The Council during the minority of Edward VI., in accordance with the will of Henry VIII., which was incorporated in the Statutes of 28 Hen. VIII. c. 7 and 35 Hen. VIII. c. 1, continued to exercise this function. But though there are many records, they are not complete, as with many others they were destroyed in the Great Fire in 1666. Thus, in 1547, we have an Injunction relieving from penalty those who did not use the ceremonies of bearing candles at Candlemas, ashes on Ash Wednesday, palms on Palm Sunday, creeping to the Cross on Good Friday, or holy bread or holy water; yet in the Articles of Visitation of Canterbury in 1549, these ceremonies are referred to as abuses and superstitions, though in point of fact they had never been condemned. From this it might appear that there was some other Injunction of which no record has come down to us, but on the other hand, at that period of transition, the method in which changes were introduced was often of a doubtful character, like the forty-two Articles referred to on p. 131, which were stated on the face of them to have been approved by Convocation without, in fact, having ever been submitted to it. Similarly, in Elizabeth's reign there was an enquiry whether rood lofts had been pulled down without there being any record of a direction to that effect.

This reference, then, in the Act of Uniformity of Elizabeth (1 Eliz. c. 2.) to such ornaments of the Church and of the ministers as were in use by the authority of Parliament in the second year of Edward VI. until the Queen took further order, is, therefore, for this reason alone, not very definite.

Further, we come to the various directions made in the time of Elizabeth, which were some fifty in number. These took different forms; some were Injunctions, some Proclamations, some Articles of Visitation, and some Advertisements. The latter were issued by the Archbishop alone, but were expressed to be in compliance with wishes set forth in letters from the Queen to him.¹ Various attempts were made in Parliament to introduce amendments into the Book of Common Prayer itself, but the Queen would not allow this to be done.

However, we find certain Orders were agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops instead of being incorporated in an Act of Parliament: Archbishop Whitgift, writing to the Queen, said on one occasion, "If it is but as a Canon from or by your Majesty's authority, it may be observed or altered at your pleasure".

In order to indicate the diversity of the subject-matters dealt with in this way, mention may be made of a few:

• Tables to be provided for Holy Communion in the place of stone altars.
• 'Singing cakes' which served for use at private Masses to be used at the Communion.
• The first Person of the Holy Trinity not to be represented as an old man, nor the Holy Ghost as a Dove.
• Against the removal of lead from the church roof or of the church bells.
• Readers in churches not to be mechanics.
• Wives not to reside in colleges.
• Aldermen to keep order in St. Paul's Cathedral, and against settling debts in churches.
• Licence to play games on Sunday.
• Table of Affinity.
• Canons of Ecclesiastical Law.

¹ As to how far these amounted to 'further order' under 1 Eliz. c. 2, see p. 150.

As to the last, Cranmer had codified the old Canon Law with the aid of a Commission of thirty-two under 3 and 4 Edw. VI. c. 11. This Commission had originally been arranged for by Henry VIII. (25 Hen. VIII. c. 20), and though it had never been officially appointed, no doubt the work was commenced by Cranmer then.

Finally, Cranmer produced his 'Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum', but it was neglected by Edward's last Parliament and rejected in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Archbishop Parker issued by Advertisement the existing Canons in 1564, and they were confirmed with but slight alteration by James I. in 1603. Further amendments were made only in 1865 and 1888 as to forms of oath under the Uniformity Act and as to a shortened form of Divine Service.

Romanists & Puritans

At the beginning of Elizabeth's reign those who had accepted the Papal Supremacy under Mary were deprived of their living, and the Church was filled with extremist reformers, some of whom, rather than accept the minimum of ceremonial which Archbishop Parker sought to enforce by his Advertisements of 1566, deemed it too great a burden, so that thirty-seven were deprived of their livings and about one hundred were punished for holding an illegal religious meeting under the pretence of a wedding. Proposals were introduced into Parliament in 1571 and 1572, but were stopped by the command of the Queen not to discuss bills concerning religion which had not received the approval of the Convocations.

The spread of Puritanism was, no doubt, to some extent fostered by the Romanists. By the Statutes of Supremacy of 1559 and 1562 Elizabeth had the Romanists at her mercy, but Cecil had strict orders not to enforce them, as she thought that in a generation they would become absorbed by the Church of England.

However, France combined with Spain to seek the establishment of the Papal Ascendancy, which involved the conspiracies centred round Mary, Queen of Scots, and at the same time English trade with the Netherlands urged an alliance with Protestant States on the Continent. Added to which Pius V. in 1570 issued his Bull of Excommunication against Elizabeth, and further, Gregory XIII. assisted the Irish in their revolt, and finally in 1588 Philip II. despatched his Armada. All these events drew upon the Romanists the series of penal Acts of 1576 to 1606 whereby they were treated as traitors, and no doubt, as they were already deemed to be such, they became as individuals more and more disposed to act accordingly. So, then, from their antipathy to the Romanists, the Puritans found numerous supporters, and they again sought to change the Government of the Church in 1584 and 1586. But in spite of the support lent them by the Queen's favourite, the Earl of Leicester, the three chief supporters were sent to the Tower by the Council.

With the destruction of the Armada on the one hand and the death of Leicester on the other, both of which occurred in 1588, the Puritans, who had had a set-back in 1586, steadily declined as a dominating force in the realm, so that Elizabeth and Archbishop Whitgift were enabled to enforce the recusancy laws more and more strictly. The scurrilous libels of the Martin Marprelate type which were put forth also, in addition to bringing their authors to the scaffold, did more than anything to render the success of the Puritans impossible. Thus in the end, Elizabeth was able to obtain the Act of 1593 directing the banishment of those who still refused to conform.

The separatists settled for the most part in Holland, where they were joined by some further 300 clergy, who refused to subscribe when the oath was presented to them at the beginning of the reign of James I., which they must have eluded during the changes in Elizabeth's reign.

The Millenary Petition & Hampton Court

Before that occurred the Puritans had presented a petition to James I. immediately on his accession in 1603. This petition, which was called the Millenary, set forth their grievances concerning the Church service, ministers, livings, and discipline.

In order to deal with this, James held a Conference at Hampton Court at which four of the leading Puritans, nine Bishops and five Deans were summoned, besides the Lords of the Council. But it at once became clear that the Puritans were seeking to establish Presbyterianism in the Church, rather than to remove any doubts and difficulties which gave rise to their objection to conforming. In this they were not successful, though alterations in the Prayer Book were agreed upon, to effect which the King issued his Letters Patent and Proclamation. Care was taken to call the alterations by the name of explanations to bring them within the clause in the Elizabethan Act of Uniformity (1 Eliz. c. 2) under which the Crown with the advice of the Commissioners had power to order further ceremonies.

The chief alterations were the abolition of lay baptism of infants and the addition of the portion about the Sacraments to the Catechism. Prayers for the Royal Family and Prayers and Thanksgivings on various occasions were also added. At the same time a commission was issued for a new translation of the Bible and for revision of the Canons.

The Canons, which are mostly those of 1564, were issued by Convocation in 1604, which by the direction of the use of the amended Prayer Book in Canon lxxx. gave the sanction of Convocation to the alterations which had been made. These Canons, as has just been mentioned, with but slight alterations in 1865 and 1888 as to the oath, are in force at the present time. The translation of the Bible was completed in 1611 and forms our present Authorized Version.

In the same year, 1611, Laud became president of St. John's College, Oxford, and in 1617 he went with King James to Scotland as his chaplain. It was in this way that Laud became specially involved in the attempts which James I. and Charles I. made to bring the Use of the Church in Scotland into line with that in England. In Scotland the English book had been in use from 1557 to 1564, but John Knox on his return in 1559 had brought over the Geneva book, the "Book of Common Order", and this very soon ousted it. These endeavours of James and Charles failed, yet the Prayer Book of 1636, which was in fact promulgated by Act of the Scottish Privy Council, though rejected in Scotland, was largely used at the Revision of the English Book under Charles II., and gave rise to many of its improvements. Moreover, it has been largely used in the composition of the Use of the Episcopalians in the United States of America.

Laud & the Rebellion

At the beginning of the reign of James I. Puritanism had been rife both at Oxford and Cambridge, but Laud rigorously maintained the continuity of the Church of England, in spite of the fact that it had reformed from the abuses which had grown up. In this he met with great opposition from those who were seeking to enforce Presbyterianism on the Church and who looked upon Calvin and the Geneva theologians as their only true guides.

Laud became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, but whatever may be thought of Laud as a statesman, there is no doubt that he was largely responsible for insisting upon the proper upkeep of the Church fabrics and for the proper employment of its ceremonies, and a further consequence of his labours was to be found in the exceptionally able body of bishops who survived to take part in the revision of the Prayer Book after the restoration of Charles II.

In the crash of the Rebellion in 1645, Laud was executed for High Treason, without trial, by an Act of Attainder. The Book of Common Prayer was abolished and in its stead the "Directory of the Public Worship of God in the Three Kingdoms" was established. Nevertheless it was of Laud that Gladstone wrote that "he prevented the English Church from being bound in the fetters of an iron system of compulsory Calvinistic belief".

Restoration of Charles II. — Declaration of Breda — Savoy Conference — Baxter — Revised Prayer Book — Convocation — Act of Uniformity — Official translations.

With the restoration of the monarchy under Charles II. in 1660, the Church came into its own again, and the general principle of the Restoration was applied to her, according to which, all that had occurred during the Rebellion was deemed illegal and void.

Now, Charles had by the Declaration of Breda on the eve of his return 'declared a liberty to tender consciences' in the matter of religion. A deputation of Puritans went to meet him at The Hague, but he replied that the extent of toleration must be decided by Parliament. At length they were told to submit their wishes in writing, which they did in a long address.

In this they assumed that there was no doctrinal difference, but only in some conceptions as to form of government and particulars about the Liturgy and ceremonial. To this the nine remaining bishops replied and yielded that the Liturgy should be revised.

Pending this, a Royal Declaration concerning Ecclesiastical affairs was issued in October 1660. The whole question was left for a lawful Parliamentary Conference and a decision of a lawful Parliament and Convocation. In March 1661 the warrant was issued for the Savoy Conference of twelve Bishops and twelve Presbyterians and nine other divines on either side, as assessors or assistants.

The special terms of the Commission were, inter alia, to advise upon and review the Book of Common Prayer, comparing the same with the most ancient Liturgies which have been used in the Church in the primitive and purest times, and, taking into consideration the several directions, rules, and forms of prayer and the several objections and exceptions which had been taken to them, to make such reasonable alterations, corrections, and amendments as should be agreed upon to be needful or expedient for giving satisfaction to tender consciences.

The Presbyterians presented their exceptions, over fifty in number, for Baxter had persuaded his colleagues to ask for everything that they thought desirable, without regard to the sentiments of others, so that amongst their exceptions, we find their desire "that it may be left to the discretion of the minister to omit any part of the Liturgy".

The Bishops replied to these, and in addition to the adoption of the Authorized Version of the Bible for the Epistles and Gospels, agreed to some verbal alterations. Baxter then produced a new Directory under the title of Reformation of the Liturgy, as a suggestion for the additional forms mentioned in the Commission; this was with a few alterations presented with a Petition of Peace to the Bishops, with the suggestion that it should be used as an alternative to the Prayer Book. At the same time, Baxter compiled a rejoinder to the Bishops' reply, which was written rather by way of expressing his indignation, than of endeavouring to bring about any further concessions to tender consciences. After further discussions, which lasted for a week, and a final reply by Baxter, the Conference came to an end in July 1661.

The Puritans had shown, as at the Hampton Court Conference under James I., that what they aimed at was the ascendancy of their own opinions and their triumph over the Church, rather than such liberty to their tender consciences as would give them a place within its pale.

Convocation met on 21st November 1661 when the King's letters were read directing the revision of the Book of Common Prayer, and a Committee of Bishops was appointed for the purpose. They had, however, already undertaken the task, so that they were ready at once to report, and the book was delivered to the Lower House when a schedule of amendments was drawn up. The whole work was soon completed, and the Book was adopted by both Houses of Convocation and both provinces on 20th December.

It may be noted that the King's letter was sent to the Northern Convocation on November 22 and that the Lower House agreed to make their proctors transact the business with the province of Canterbury, but they sent up a separate list of suggestions. At the same time the Northern Bishops, who were in London, had already been sitting in consultation with the Southern Bishops.

A Bill of Uniformity had been introduced into Parliament in July with the Book of Common Prayer of 1604 attached, but the proceedings had been suspended pending the production of the New Book. This was then added to the Uniformity Bill in place of the Book of 1604 in February 1662, and though there was much discussion and amendment to the Bill of Uniformity, the Book of Common Prayer attached to it was passed without discussion, though the Commons claimed their right to do so. The Act finally received the Royal assent on 19th May 1662.

Amongst those upon whom the revision of the Prayer Book devolved, we find Sanderson, Bishop of Lincoln, to whom is attributed the present preface. He it was of whom it was said that if Charles I. relied in matters of State upon Archbishop Laud, in matters of conscience he relied upon Bishop Sanderson. There was also Cosin who became Bishop of Durham. He had been Master of Peterhouse College, Cambridge. He had produced a Book of Private Devotions in 1627, which contained the alternative rendering of the Veni Creator. Further, he had also been engaged with Archbishop Laud in the composition of the Scottish Prayer Book of 1636.

Having regard to the attitude adopted by the Puritans at the Savoy Conference, but little attention was paid to their objections, and amongst other things no heed was taken to their objections to infant baptism, the use of the cross at baptism and the ring at marriage, the Absolution for the sick or the form of the Litany.

The actual alterations are more particularly referred to in Book II. in connection with the different rites and also in the Appendix.

The new Book was translated into Welsh in 1665 by a Committee of Welsh Bishops, into French for the Chapel of Savoy and the Channel Islands by John Durel about 1662, and into Latin by the same author about 1670, but in the latter case the Scripture portions were taken from the old Sarum Missal and Breviary.

The Book was introduced but not used in Scotland, which, however, remained Episcopalian until 1689. In Ireland it was introduced in 1666. However, the Church was disestablished there in 1869, and likewise in Wales in 1914.

Method of determining ecclesiastical law — James II. — Declaration of Indulgence — Trial of the Seven Bishops — Oath of Allegiance and William III. — Non-Jurors — Composition Prayer Book suggested by William III. — Latitudinarians and Whigs — High Church and Tories — Queen Anne's Bounty — Jacobite tendencies of Tories — No Convocation, 1717 to 1850 — Cession of Wesleyans — Relief of Nonconformists — Emancipation of Roman Catholics — Tractarian Movement — Church Discipline Act, 1840 — Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874 — Ritual trials, Clifton v. Ridsdale, Read v. Bishop of Lincoln — Bishop of Oxford v. Healy — Report of the Upper House of Convocation — Enabling Act — Church Assembly — Permissive Measures, 1927 and 1928 — Rejection by the House of Commons — Bishops' modus vivendi.

As it has been laid down on various occasions in the Courts that long-continued practice consistent with a special view of ecclesiastical law may be taken into consideration in determining its true meaning, a hurried glance must be given to the events which followed the production of the Prayer Book of 1662, and the passing of the Act of Uniformity (14 Car. II. c. 4).

In 1687 King James II., who was a Papist, endeavoured to insist on his royal prerogative of pardoning criminals by granting indulgences before the commission of the offence, so that he permitted Papists to hold commissions in the army and other offices. Eventually he sent the "Declaration of Indulgence" to the Bishops, requiring it to be read in all the Churches, whereby he suspended all the penal clauses against all Nonconformists contained in the Act of Uniformity.

In reply to this, seven of the Bishops sent a petition to the King, stating that it was against their consciences, for which they were tried for libel (by this term it must be explained that the statement of claim is termed the libel in ecclesiastical law), but were acquitted.

Shortly afterwards James II. fled to France and William of Orange landed in England. But many of the bishops and clergy would not recognize the elective character of the sovereign, and became what were called non-jurors in 1690, resigning their benefices, rather than take the oath of allegiance. These included Archbishop Sancroft and five other bishops and some 400 clergy.

This produced the anomaly that many of the clergy who had been foremost in opposing the actions of James II. found themselves in opposition to his successor.

William III., who was a Calvinist, sought to introduce a composition Prayer Book in 1689 without consulting Convocation, but Parliament would not accept it until the matter had been brought up in Convocation, where it received so much opposition that it was dropped.

The Latitudinarians, High Church, and Tractarians

Thus it came about that the Latitudinarian or Low Church Party, who were not so adverse to Calvinistic tendencies, became identified with the Whigs in Parliament, whilst the High Church Party or Carolines became identified with the Tory Party in Parliament. William did not allow the Houses of Convocation to meet for eleven years, and filled all the Bishoprics, so that when the Convocation of Canterbury met in 1701 the Upper House was largely Whig and the Lower House Tory; upon which the Lower House asserted an independence based upon an analogy with Parliament for which there was no precedent. Until at last, in 1710, Queen Anne, herself a Tory, found herself at the head of a Tory Government with a Tory and High Church majority in the House of Commons.

It was during this reign that in 1704 Queen Anne's Bounty was originated, being a grant by the Crown of the first-fruits of all benefices, which right it had held at any rate since Henry VIII., in fact, our old friend the 'Annates', to form a fund for the augmentation of poor benefices.

But owing to the Jacobite tendencies of the Tories, not one became a minister from 1714 to 1761, and no House of Convocation was allowed to sit from 1717 to 1850.

It is not necessary here to trace the cession of the Wesleyans and Methodists about 1784, nor of the gradual repeal of penalties against Nonconformists and toleration of the Roman Catholics, beyond mentioning the Abolition of the Tests and Corporation Acts in 1828 as regards the former and the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act 1829 as regards the latter.

In that year Keble wrote the Christian Year, and Dr. Arnold became headmaster of Rugby. The former was a High Churchman, more noted for his poetry than the College at Oxford named after him; the latter was the first to extend latitudinarianism into the Broad Church, which formed the third school of thought during the Victorian age, though it is difficult to identify the Modernists of to-day as their direct descendants. From 1833 to 1840 the Tractarian Movement was prominent at Oxford, which sought to rescue the Caroline principles from beneath the burden of latitudinarian thought which had practically ruled the Church throughout the whole of the Georgian period.

This activity, which was so contrary to the latitudinarian spirit of the repression of all enthusiasm, alarmed the episcopacy, and as a first step, the Church Discipline Act, 1840 (3 and 4 Vict. c. 86) was passed, which repealed the old Statute of 1 Hen. VII. c. 4 (for the punishment of rebellious priests), and simplified the procedure, but gave the ultimate appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, with a proviso that at least one archbishop or bishop, who was not involved in the suit and who was a Privy Councillor, should sit in such Court with the usual judges.

It may here be noted that the Ecclesiastical Commission was brought into being in 1836, which still effects a redistribution of much of the Church's revenue.

The defection of Newman in 1845 and Manning in 1851, both of whom subsequently became Cardinals, did much to diminish the effects of this movement.

Ritual Trials & the Enabling Act

A series of prosecutions on the question of ritual was aggravated by the passing of the Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874 (37 and 38 Vict. c. 85), which created a new civil court to deal with these alleged offences instead of allowing them to be tried in the old ecclesiastical courts, but because this Act had been promoted by Archbishop Tait it attracted the support of all his bishops.

The three most important cases, that of Clifton v. Ridsdale in 1876, Read v. Bishop of Lincoln in 1892, and Bishop of Oxford v. Healy in 1907, were based upon the assumption that the Advertisements of Archbishop Parker in 1566 were such alterations of the Ornaments Rubrics of 2 Edw. VI. as were provided for by the Elizabethan Act of Uniformity (1 Eliz. c. 2), and that in consequence of this the Ornaments Rubric in the Prayer Book of 1662, which referred to 2 Edw. VI., must be read as referring to it, coupled with such alterations as were legally in force at the time of the Rebellion, to which the legislation at the time of the Restoration generally referred.

However, subsequent historical research has clearly shown that these Advertisements were only a minimum, which, in consequence of the request of Queen Elizabeth for better Order in the Church, Archbishop Parker sought for the time to enforce. Hence the report of the Upper House of Convocation in 1908 which dealt with the whole matter at great length, definitely decided that these legal decisions were based upon historical inaccuracies. With this report in existence, how could the Bishops attempt to enforce these legal decisions, which had been found to be wrong, and yet, since they must bind further cases in the same courts, could but perpetuate a falsity if further legal action were taken.

Further, the Royal Commission, which had been created in 1904 for a report on the general revision of the Prayer Book, had made its report in 1906, which was similar in effect to the subsequent report in 1908 mentioned above.

To endeavour to get out of this impasse, and at the same time to give the laity a greater voice in the Church, parochial councils were formed from the communicants in each parish, and representatives of these, together with the old House of Laymen and the whole of Convocation, were formed into a New Advisory Body called the Church Assembly by an Act of Parliament called the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919 (9 and 10 Geo. V. c. 76), generally referred to as the Enabling Act.

In consequence of the deliberations of this body, the Permissive Measures of 1927 and 1928, which embodied the alternative use of a revised Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal, were presented to Parliament, but in each case rejected by the House of Commons. As at present no one accurately conforms to the rubrics of the existing Book of 1662, the bishops as a modus vivendi decided to take disciplinary steps as Ordinaries only against those who comply with neither the one nor the other. Further, in the hope of inducing conformity in the matter, the Bishops in both Upper Houses of Convocation of Canterbury and York in July 1929 passed resolutions to which they obtained the approval of the Lower Houses to the effect that: they could not regard the use of the additions or deviations contained in the Book of 1928 (having been approved in Convocation and the Church Assembly) as inconsistent with loyalty to the principles of the Church of England, and would be so guided in the exercise of their administrative discretion, provided that such use was with the goodwill of the Parochial Church Council, or, in the case of the Occasional Offices, with the consent of the parties concerned.

Introduction — Singing — Gradual — Alleluia — Tract — Cantus responsorius — Cantus tractus — Cantus directaneus — Cantus antiphonalis — Anthem — Tropes — Sequences — Intoning.

Liturgical worship has been defined as worship involving material offering, or sacrifice, expressed in audible words, accompanied by external and visible actions, as distinguished from inaudible, invisible, and non-material worship of the heart.

The Divine care for ritual did not cease with the Levitical age, nor was all ritual intended to be abolished at the commencement of Christianity; Catholic Christendom has ever applied a literal meaning to those passages in the New Testament in which some ordinance has been enjoined or referred to, but as "they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth", so the use of a rite or ordinance demands a spiritual grasp of the purpose which it is intended to effectuate.

Foremost amongst these rites was that of singing, the art of which became gradually more and more developed in the West. It is therefore expedient to take into consideration the different methods which were adopted.

Singing & Chant Forms

From the earliest times it has been the custom to alternate the reading of the Scriptures with the singing of a psalm or hymn.

Originally one portion of Scripture was taken from the Old Testament, one from the Epistles, and one from the Gospels. But about 400–500 the prophetic lection was dropped, except on Ember days, or during Lent; and the psalm which had followed was added to that which followed the Epistle.

At this juncture we have therefore both the Gradual (so called because it was sung at the gradus or ambo where the lection was read) followed by the Alleluia, or in Lent the Tract, between the Epistle and the Gospel.

The Gradual was a Cantus responsorius sung in a monotone, with slight inflection, with a refrain at short intervals, sung by the choir and congregation, which in Rome became about 500–600 extremely florid. The Tract was a Cantus tractus, an unbroken solo and generally very elaborate.

The other forms of singing were known as Cantus directaneus, a simple form of singing in chorus with little more than a monotone, and the Cantus antiphonalis. The 'antiphonal' was a method of choir answering choir, and the music was not a monotone, but a style of free melody.

St. Germanus of Paris attributed antiphonal singing to the practice in King Solomon's temple and responsorial chanting to Miriam.

According to Socrates, the historian, 400–500, the antiphonal method was attributed to St. Ignatius, 110, who saw a vision of angels praising the Holy Trinity in antiphonal hymns, and left the fashion of his vision as a custom to the church at Antioch.

According to Theodoret, it arose at the time of Leontius, Bishop of Antioch, 344–357, owing to Flavian and Diodorus, two ascetics, who both afterwards became bishops, originating the chanting of the psalms by two choirs at night in the sanctuaries of the martyrs.

In the form adopted at Rome, whole psalms were sometimes sung alternately. Before beginning the psalm itself there was a solo containing musical phrases of the melody accompanied by words taken from the psalms; this was called the 'antienne' or 'anthem', which was also repeated at the end of the psalm.

The antiphon, according to the Liber Pontificalis, was introduced into Rome in the time of Pope Celestine, 422–432.

There is no doubt that the school of cantors became strongly developed at Rome, as the chants which are known as Gregorian are still in use.

In 595 the Council at Rome decided that the Gradual should be sung by a 'cantor' in place of the deacon.

This Roman form of chanting was later found of great assistance in establishing the Roman Use in the place of the Gallican Use throughout the West.

Emphasis is laid upon the singing of St. Augustine's mission on their entrance into Canterbury in 597. So we find Benet, Bishop of Jarrow and Wearmouth, persuading Abbot John, Superior of one of the monasteries of the Vatican and archcantor of the Roman Church, to accompany him back to England in 679.

Likewise, St. Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz, 732–766, a contemporary of St. Boniface, after his return from Rome adopted the Roman Liturgy, and about the same time Pope Paul sent in 760 to King Pepin an Antiphonary and Responsorial. Remedius, Bishop of Lyons, a son of Charles Martel, in the same year, obtained leave from the Pope to take back with him the sub-director (secundus) of the Schola Cantorum in order to introduce the Roman 'modulations of psalmody'.

Before leaving this subject, mention must be made of 'Tropes,' which were interpolations of more recent musical additions to the chants; these, however, soon dropped out, except the 'Sequences' which were additions to the Alleluia.

Intoning

In our present Prayer Book the rubrics are not always clear about the use of the various terms, say, read, or sing.

Normally, to say means to intone, but not necessarily, and where the rubric has been changed from 'loud' to 'audible' as it was in 1662, in the rubric before the first Lord's Prayer in the Morning Prayer, it certainly was not intended to do so.

Further, in the rubric before the Venite, all three expressions are used indifferently, the reason being that they are meant to apply to services either with or without a choir.

The practice of intoning is very ancient, and arose out of the difficulty of the officiating minister to make himself heard by a large assembly. The flections of the voice served for the scansion of the text, and thus gave more relief to the intonation.

It was for the same reason that the custom arose of pronouncing in a low voice what was originally intended to be heard by all, though these formularies always ended in an 'Ecphony' or raised inflection of the voice for the congregation to respond with the Amen. Thus the practice of saying the 'Secreta' before the Preface and the Canon of the Mass in a low tone, as distinguished from the high note on which the Preface was sung later, rendered the former inaudible. But this was not officially approved of, for it is laid down in the sixth Canon of the Council of Oxford, 1222: "Verba vero Canonis presertim in consecratione Corporis Christi plene et integre proferuntur".

Thus, though no doubt introducing a change of practice, the directions as to 'audible', and 'loud voice' contained in all our Prayer Books from 1549 to 1662 did not, in fact, introduce an innovation but restored the old order.

Dalmatic — Planeta — Pallium — Rochet — Albe — Surplice — Chasuble — Maniple — Dominical — Stole — Crozier — Ring — Mitre — Papal tiara — Girdle — Incense — Cope — Tunicles.

There is no doubt that Liturgical Vestments are very similar to the garments usually worn in Rome during the Empire: and we learn from a letter of Pope Celestine, 422, to the Bishops of Provence, that he condemned the use of any special ecclesiastical costume as unnecessary.

The Liber Pontificalis, written about 600, attributes the wearing of the dalmatic as an ecclesiastical garment to Pope Silvester, 314–335, at any rate its use as an ordinary article of clothing had gone out of fashion before 500.

St. Germain of Paris alleges that the 'chasuble', and Rabanus Maurus, 800–900, asserts that vestments in general, were of Jewish origin: it may be that the fancied resemblance of the Roman garments to the Levitical Vestments was one of the reasons why they were retained in modified forms as liturgical robes.

At Rome, from 400 to 500, the ordinary garments were an under-tunic with or without sleeves, and a paenula or planeta, which was a cloak without sleeves or any opening in front.

In addition, officials wore a scarf or pallium as a badge of office. The tunic has now become the canon's or bishop's rochet, or in another modification the 'albe' or 'surplice', and the planeta has become the 'chasuble', derived from casula, a hut or shelter from the rain. At the same period the magistrates, when performing their duties, continued to use the old Roman 'toga'; from this the 'cope' is derived through the late Latin word copa, denoting a garment similar to the toga.

The Several Vestments

The dalmatic was worn between the tunic and the planeta, and was, in fact, a second tunic with large sleeves.

The 'mappula' or 'maniple', a sort of napkin worn over the arm, was also used on ceremonial occasions, whenever some object was to be received or presented, when it was laid across the hands; it was not in general use as a liturgical garment at Rome until after 1100. Comparison may be made between this and the dominical used by women in the Gallic Use (p. 57).

The 'stole' or 'orarium' was originally a sudarium (handkerchief or neckcloth), and was not used at Rome as a distinguishing mark until after 1100; before that it was used ceremonially by even the minor orders, the chief difference lying in the fact that the minor orders wore it under the albe or surplice.

Subsequently, the custom was introduced which had obtained everywhere in the West, by which the deacons wore it across the left shoulder, but over the surplice and under the dalmatic or chasuble; the priests or bishops wore it round the neck, and crossed in front, but the former under the chasuble and the latter over it (cf. Councils of Braga 561 and 675, and of Toledo 633).

The crozier and ring appear to have been in use by Bishops everywhere, except in Rome where they did not come into use until about 1000.

The pallium was a long band of white woollen stuff draped over the shoulders, one end in front and the other behind, worn something like a modification of the Roman toga. It was originally a mark of Imperial honour, and was not granted by the Pope, without the Imperial sanction, to those who were not subjects of the Empire.

Gradually it acquired a symbolic significance as representing the mantle of St. Peter, and it was deposited for a night in St. Peter's above the tomb of the Apostle, before being sent to the Bishop. It was not given to every Bishop, as in the East, but only to those of certain places.

It is worn by the Pope in place of a stole.

The amice was probably introduced about 600, when vestments became more ornamented, and served as a protection round the neck.

The mitre was not adopted as an episcopal head-dress until after 900; it is only an evolution of the common hood or cowl.

The Papal tiara is based on the Phrygian cap alleged to have been given by the Emperor Constantine to Pope Silvester after the latter had refused the Imperial Crown. The Crown was probably added after 800, as it is not mentioned before; Pope Boniface VIII., 1294–1303, is the first Pope who is represented with the second crown, and the third was added during the time that the Popes were at Avignon, 1309–78.

Signification of the Vestments

Such, then, being the source from which these vestments were derived, it may be of advantage here to set forth the signification which is attached to their Liturgical Use. As the Mass represents Christ's Passion, so the vestments represent His garments. Thus:

• The Amice represents the cloth with which the Jews muffled Our Lord's Face when they bade Him prophesy who it was that struck Him.
• The Albe represents that with which Our Lord was invested by Herod.
• The Maniple represents the cords with which Our Lord was bound.
• The Chasuble represents the purple garment with which He was clothed as a mock King.

Likewise these Vestments denote certain virtues:

• The Amice denotes 'Divine Hope'.
• The Albe denotes 'Innocence of Life'.
• The Girdle denotes 'Purity and Chastity'.
• The Maniple denotes 'Patience in suffering'.
• The Stole denotes the 'Sweet Yoke of Christ', presaging happy Immortality. (In the Greek Church it denotes the Incarnation.)
• The Chasuble denotes 'Charity'.
• Incense denotes the 'Advent of the Holy Spirit'.

At Rome portable censers do not appear to have been used except in processions before 800.

The Ornaments Rubric

In the Prayer Book of 1549 the surplice, albe, tunicles, vestments, and copes are directed to be used, but in the Prayer Book of 1552 these were reduced to a surplice for a Priest or Deacon and a rochet for an Archbishop or Bishop.

But in the Elizabethan Prayer Book of 1559 the rubric was altered to:

"Such ornaments of the Church and the Ministers thereof shall be retained and be in use as were in the Church of England by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI. until other order shall be therein taken by the authority of the Queen's Majesty with the advice of her Commissioners appointed and authorized under the Great Seal of England for causes ecclesiastical or of the Metropolitan of this realm," and sec. 13: "that further rites or ceremonies may be ordained and published by the same authority."

Again in the Prayer Book of 1662 the rubric is: "Such ornaments of the Church and the Ministers thereof shall be retained and be in use as were in the Church of England by the authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of Edward VI."

As has been shown in Chapter XXV. there has been divergence of opinion as to the construction of the Ornaments Rubric in the Prayer Book of 1662, and though the legal decisions have reduced the scope of it by bringing into force the Advertisements issued by Archbishop Parker in 1566, in which only cope, surplice, scarf, and hood are mentioned, yet the Upper House of Convocation, in view of further historical research, has reported that the true effect of this rubric is to restore the vestments mentioned in the First Prayer Book of Edward VI.

In the alternative forms contained in the Permissive Measure, the rubric distinctly directs that in celebrating the Holy Communion the Priest shall wear either a surplice with stole or with scarf and hood or a white albe, plain with a vestment or cope.

Sacramentary — Ordines — Pontifical — Rolls — Epistle Book — Gospel Book — Gradual — Troper — Psalter — Legend — Antiphonal — Collectar — Ordinal — Consuetudinary — Missal — Breviary — Manual — Book of Common Prayer — Ordinal — Primer.

Service Books were not originally comprehensive, but in so far as each one who took part in the service was concerned, they were provided with a separate book containing their part alone.

So we have the Liber Sacramentorum or Sacramentary, which was for the special use of the priest or officiating bishop;

Ordines which were descriptions of the rites and ceremonies, which were sometimes bound up with the Liber Sacramentorum;

Pontifical for special rites appertaining to a Bishop, e.g. Consecration;

Rolls for special ceremonies, e.g. Blessing of Fonts, Baptism, and Praeconium Pascale (Easter Candle);

Epistle Book for Sub-Deacon;

Gospel Book for Deacon;

Gradual or Antiphonorium Missae or Cantatorium for the Choir;

Troper containing the Sequences;

Also for Divine Service:

• The Psalter containing psalms and canticles;
• The Legend containing Scriptures, Homilies, and Lives of the Saints;
• The Antiphonal containing the musical parts of the service, including hymns; and
• The Collectar — short texts and collects.

The Ordinal¹ gave the opening words of the component parts of the service, and general directions as to variations of the Kalendar later included in the 'Pie', or perpetual Kalendar.

¹ Ordinal, later, is used for the rites and ceremonies of Ordinations.

The Consuetudinary was the same as the ordo, but with more detail. In course of time, with the increase of Low Mass celebrated by one priest alone with a server, the Sacramentary, Epistle, Gospel, Gradual, and Troper were combined in the 'Missal'.

The Psalter, Legend, Antiphonal, Collectar were combined in the Breviary.

The occasional services of the priest were collected in the 'Manual' and those of the Bishop in the 'Pontifical', which often included the priestly services.

In 1549 and since, in lieu of all these various books, one Book of Common Prayer has been introduced, but it must be noted that the Pontifical was not included, so that the Bishops still have a free hand as to those rites and ceremonies which are not included in the Book.

The Primer or Lay Folks' Prayer Book

In addition there was the private Devotional Book known as the Horae or Primer. Originally it consisted of the Psalter, Canticles, Creeds, Lord's Prayer, Gloria in Excelsis, together with devotions, e.g. Votiva Laus in veneracione Sanctae Mariae Virginis, Horae de Trinitate, Horae de Sancto Spiritu, Horae de Beata Virgine Maria, Horae in honore sanctae crucis, and the Services of the Dead to which were prefixed the A.B.C., Pater Noster, Ave Maria and devotions in English.

The devotions generally included the XV Oes of St. Bridget on the Passion: also the Litany and Suffrages. (Versicles and Responds.)

Such was often called the "Prymer or Lay Folks' Prayer Book".

Amongst the earliest of these works in the vernacular, mention must be made of the Lay Folks' Mass Book, which is thought to have been written about 1150 by one Dan Jeremy, Archdeacon of Cleveland and also a Canon of Rouen. It was probably written in Norman French: the translation which has come down to us is in north-country English, and must have been made about 1293. This date is fixed by the fact of the omission of the Pope's name, and there was no Pope between 4th April 1292 and 5th July 1294. It is in English verse and contains an accurate account of the 'Use' at Rouen, and thus forms a most interesting link between the liturgy of the Anglo-Saxons and that of Sarum, some two hundred years later. It contains advice as to when and for what to pray, during Mass, and also explanations as to when to join in the responses.

As to the later Primers, there were various Primers of Sarum printed soon after Luther, viz. in 1527, 1531, 1532, 1533, 1534; the last at Paris has a strong attack on Rome.

But the best known are Marshall's Primers printed in 1534 and 1535; his name is William, and he was not the Archdeacon of Nottingham who died in 1549, as has sometimes been declared.

Amongst other things, 'it contains Savonarola's exposition of the 51st Psalm, written in 1498, together with the Dialogue of Father and Son, a sort of Catechism, which was prohibited in 1526, and the Psalms which were taken from Bucer's Latin translation.

The next was Hilsey's Primer printed in 1539; he had been a Dominican Friar of Bristol and subsequently became Bishop of Rochester, but he died before the book was published.

Finally Cranmer produced the King's Primer in 1545–1546, which was ordered to supersede all previous Primers, a comparison of their general contents being as follows:

Thus it will be seen that the purely educational part such as the A.B.C. had latterly been dropped. The Kalendar in Hilsey is of interest owing to the fact that in the First Prayer Book of Edward VI., where the Epistle or Gospel varies from Sarum, Cranmer adopted the alternative from this source. Later editions of Marshall include amongst the saints 'Erasmus', who died at Rotterdam in 1536; moreover, the first edition is noted for the appropriate Scriptural quotations printed in the column of saints irrespective of the names.

Further, Edward VI.'s first Primer in 1547 was a republication of the 'King's Primer', and likewise the one in 1549, only the Litany was amended by the omission of the invocations to the Virgin Mary, to the Angels, and to the Patriarchs; and the 'Ave Maria' was also omitted in 1551.

But the Primer of 1553 was quite different, prayers were taken from the Book of Common Prayer with a selection of psalms and short lessons from the Scripture, thus forming a course for each week in the year. The Catechism and Graces and a 'preparation for prayer' were placed at the beginning of the book, and a collection of prayers for special occasions was added at the end.

It was reproduced in Elizabeth's reign, and formed the basis of the Primers which appeared from time to time throughout the next three centuries.

A. Feasts. — Philocalian Kalendar — History of Various Feasts — Octaves — Kalendar in English Prayer Books. B. Fasts. — Origin of — Vigils — Advent — Lent — Stational Masses — Holy Week — Maundy Thursday — Good Friday — Mass of the Presanctified — Saturday in Holy Week — Ember Days — Rogation Days.

The Feasts

In Chapter XIV. mention has been made of the disputes which arose as to the calculation of Easter.

Traditionally, the Passion was considered to have taken place on the 25th of March, which date seems to have been suggested from its coincidence with the vernal equinox, the date on which, according to general belief, the world was created.

Likewise it was thought that Christ must have lived on earth for an exact number of years, so that the Incarnation must have been on the 25th of March, which, being reckoned as the date of His Conception by the Blessed Virgin Mary, fixed the date of the Nativity as being the 25th of December.

The most ancient authority for the observance of Christmas is the Philocalian Kalendar drawn up at Rome in 336. At that time it was not observed at all in the East, but they only observed the festival of the Manifestation or Epiphany on 6th of January: this was the "Commemoration of Our Lord" as Incarnate God at His baptism, likewise of His Birth. At Rome this was considered rather the Manifestation to the Gentiles represented by the Magi, and secondarily His baptism.

It may be noted that Sozomen mentions a sect of Montanists who celebrated Easter on the 6th of April, because, the world having been created according to them on 24th March, the first full moon being fourteen days later must be the 6th April; this gives the date of the Nativity as the 6th January, the date of the Epiphany on which the Nativity was commemorated in the East generally.

In fixing upon 25th December at Rome, account may have been taken of the Mithraic festival of 'Natalis Invicti' or 'Sol Novus', the renewal of the sun at the winter's solstice which fell on that date.

Christmas having been fixed on 25th December, the feasts of Circumcision on 1st of January, Purification on 2nd of February, Annunciation on 25th of March, and St. John the Baptist on 24th of June, naturally follow.

St. Stephen, the first martyr, was always celebrated directly after the Nativity followed by SS. James and John and Peter and Paul.

The Festival of Holy Innocents seems to have been instituted at a very early date; it is found on 28th December in all Latin Kalendars and on 29th December in the Greek Kalendar.

At Carthage and in the Gallican Books it is called 'The Children'.

They were included under the name of the 'Children' in the Diptychs of the Gallic Mass, and are still included there in the Mozarabic Rite, though now called 'Innocents'.

As to the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, 25th January, there was no mention of this in the ancient Roman Books, but the Mass for Sexagesima Sunday was really in honour of St. Paul and the station was held at the basilica of this Apostle on the Ostian Way.

St. Peter and St. Paul's day, 29th June, was the day on which their relics were transferred to a place called 'ad Catacumbas' at the third milestone on the Appian Way.

They were removed later under the Emperor Constantine to the basilicas erected by him on the sites of their original burial-places at the Vatican and on the Ostian Way respectively.

The Gallic Church had an objection to festivals in Lent: the Natale Petri ex Cathedra, or anniversary of the commencement of the bishopric of St. Peter at Rome, was accordingly kept on the 18th of January instead of the 22nd of February. The author of the recension of the Hieronymium martyrology at Auxerre, circa 595, being confronted with the two dates, attributed the latter to the Bishopric of St. Peter at Antioch.

Holy Cross Day, 14th September, is the anniversary of the Consecration in 335 of the two basilicas erected by Constantine on the site of Calvary and the Holy Sepulchre.¹ The Exaltation of the Holy Cross is on the anniversary of the recovery of the true cross by Heraclius in 629 from the Persians, who had carried it off when they took Jerusalem in 614.

The festival on 6th of May of St. John the Evangelist, 'ante portam Latinam', was no doubt the date of the dedication of the Church of that name at Rome; but as the Greek Church celebrate this festival on 8th May in connection with a miracle performed on the tomb of the Apostle at Ephesus, it would appear that it was dedicated on the traditional anniversary of the miracle said to have occurred on the site of this church, when St. John was plunged into a cauldron of boiling oil without harm. Such tradition was in existence between 100 and 200 (cf. Tertullian, Praes. c. 36).

The other Saints' Days were fixed for the most part by the date of the dedication of a church in or near Rome to the particular saint.

Mention must be made of 1st November, All Saints' Day, which is the anniversary of the dedication of the old Roman Pantheon as the Church of St. Mary and All Martyrs by Pope Boniface IV., 608–614, the building having been transferred to him by the Emperor Phocas; this was the first time that a heathen temple was transformed into a church at Rome (Lib. Pont. i. 317). (Pope Zosimus in 417 had converted the Temple of Athene at Syracuse into the Cathedral there.) As to All Souls' Day and Corpus Christi cf. p. 84; both are omitted from our Kalendar, though All Souls is included in the Permissive Measure.

¹ The Invention of the Cross, 3rd May, is purely Gallic, and like Holy Cross Day is associated with the discovery of the true Cross: the date is connected with the legend of Judas Cyriacus. (Lib. Pont. vol. i. p. 108.)

St. Andrew's Day, the 30th November, is generally believed to be the actual anniversary of his martyrdom at Patras, and as such is thought to be unique amongst the Feasts of the Apostles.

With regard to Octaves, between 300 and 400, it was customary to continue the festival of the Epiphany for eight days; this was followed generally elsewhere at a very early date, and applied to all High Festivals.

As has been mentioned before, St. Augustine brought the Roman Kalendar to England, and after many years of conflict with the Celtic Church, it was amongst other points accepted at the great Council of Cloveshoo in 747. But every church was in the habit of celebrating its own local saints in addition to those mentioned in the Roman Kalendar; so we find the feasts of St. Alban, St. Gregory, and St. Augustine of Canterbury introduced into the English Kalendar. St. Boniface was likewise added in 755 on news of his death, and before the Normans came, King Edmund, King Edward, Archbishop Dunstan, and Archbishop Alphege had been added to the list of saints.

After the Norman conquest the power to order a festival became centralized in Rome, and the first English Saint who was canonized by the Authority of the Pope was Edward the Confessor in 1161, but this power was not deemed retrospective and the festivals of the other English saints continued to be celebrated, though no Papal Sanction had been ever given. Those who were canonized by the Pope subsequently were St. Hugh of Lincoln in 1220, St. Edmund of Canterbury in 1245, and St. Richard of Chichester in 1260. In 1480 there were added St. Etheldreda, likewise the new festivals of the Visitation and of the Transfiguration. Finally the festival of the Most Sweet Name of Jesus, 7th of August, was sanctioned by Pope Alexander VI., 1493–1503.

The Prayer Book of 1549 omitted all Saints' Days from the Kalendar, except twenty-five great festivals, which were red-letter days. In 1552, St. George, Lammas, St. Lawrence, and St. Clement were added as black-letter saints, and the position of the sun was also indicated. In 1561 fifty-six more black-letter saints were added, to which Enurchus was added in 1604, and St. Alban and Venerable Bede in 1662.

In the selection of the red-letter saints the test was that of the Bible, but in the selection of the black-letter saints, whilst local considerations had some effect, the choice on the whole appears to be lacking in any general principle.

The whole list has been revised in the alternative Kalendar included in the Permissive Measures.

The Fasts

The Jews were in the habit of fasting twice a week on Mondays and Thursdays, e.g. the Pharisee says: "I fast twice in the week" (Luke xviii. 12), so the Church in very early times substituted Wednesday and Friday for the Jewish fasts. These were known as Stations — a military term suggesting that on these days Christians mounted guard. On these days the fast did not last after 3 p.m. and services were generally held in the churches; it appears that at Rome and Alexandria the Eucharist was not celebrated on these days.

All feast days and Sundays, which are feast days, were preceded by a vigil; this was a nocturnal meeting at cock-crow, before dawn, consisting of lections, homilies, chants, and prayers, but it was gradually combined with mattins, except the vigils of Easter and Whitsunday.

These vigils were originally more observed by the holding of this additional service than by actual abstention.

In Chapter VII. the prolongation of the Friday fast into a Saturday fast by way of superposition has been already explained.

In addition to these fasts, which were observed every week and in anticipation of each festival, there were certain seasons which were considered penitential.

As the ordinary festival had its vigil, so the great festivals of Christmas and Easter are preceded by the penitential seasons of Advent and Lent.

Advent commences the Ecclesiastical year, and though recognized as a penitential season has never been reckoned as a formal fast: it originally comprised five Sundays, which at an early date were reduced to four.

Lent in the time of Irenaeus was only of forty hours' duration, from Good Friday to Easter Day, but that of complete abstention. At Alexandria, about 250, it was customary to fast during the whole of Holy Week. There is no trace of the forty days' fast until the reference to it found in the fifth Canon of the Council of Nicea in 325.

This period is referred to chiefly in connection with preparation for baptism and for absolution of penitents.

At Rome, Sundays were excepted from the fast — at Constantinople, Saturdays and Sundays; but whilst the Roman Lent lasts for six weeks the Greek Lent lasts for seven. Between 600 and 700 four days were added to the Roman period, so that it now begins on Ash Wednesday in order that the complete forty days may be included: these forty days being considered symbolical of Christ's fasting for forty days in the Wilderness, though previously thirty-six had been reckoned a proper number as consisting of a tenth or tithe of the whole year. In Gaul and Milan Saturdays were not kept as fasts, so only six weeks, not seven, were observed.

Also about this time Stational Masses were introduced for Septuagesima, Sexagesima, and Quinquagesima Sundays. The Council of Agde, 506, and the fourth Council of Orleans, 541, insisted on fasting on Saturdays during Lent, but the latter condemns the addition to Lent caused by the observance of the three extra Sundays.

Holy Week

Holy Week begins with Palm Sunday, which was celebrated originally at Jerusalem, but was not adopted at Rome until about 800.

Maundy Thursday (so called from the antiphon "Mandatum novum do vobis", John xiii. 34) is the anniversary of the institution of the Eucharist and was commemorated in Africa by an Evening Communion.

After Mattins the Holy Oils which were used through the year were consecrated. At High Mass the blessing of the Holy Oils took place; this is done at Seville in the following manner:

A table is placed between the choir and the High Altar, upon which are placed the flagons of oil. The Cardinal Archbishop sits at the end facing the High Altar and breathes on it thrice; each of the twelve assistant priests or higher dignitaries breathes on it in turn. This is for consecrating the oil for anointing the sick. But for the oil for the chrism the twelve assistants in turn also breathe thrice after having knelt thrice.

The use of Holy Oils except for the Consecration of the King has been eliminated from the English Use.

At the end of Mass the Sacrament was taken in solemn procession from the Altar to the 'Temple', where it remained until brought out in solemn procession on Good Friday for the Mass of the Presanctified, mentioned below.

After Vespers the Altar was solemnly stripped and the feet of twelve old men (Vecchioni), who were arranged between the choir and the High Altar, were washed by the senior prelate present. (In Spain this office is performed by the King at Toledo.) Each of these old men was also presented with alms. This is the origin of the Maundy Money which is still distributed by the King's almoner at Westminster Abbey, and for which special silver coins are struck.

In Spain the doxology is not said on Maundy Thursday, as a sign of sorrow.

On Good Friday there is no celebration of the Eucharist, but about 600–700 the service became complicated by the service of the Adoration of the Cross and the Mass of the Presanctified. In the Peregrination of Etheria, 385, we find that the wood of the Cross was presented to the faithful at Jerusalem to be kissed. At Seville during the Adoration of the Cross the bells are sounded by wooden clappers which are called the 'Matraca'.

The Mass of the Presanctified was merely the Communion separated from the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist properly so called. The capsa containing the consecrated bread was placed upon the Altar, the Pater Noster was said, a particle of the consecrated bread was placed in a chalice containing ordinary wine, and everybody communicated by partaking of the consecrated bread in the capsa and of the wine sanctified as described.

Mgr. Duchesne considers that it is probable that the faithful, when they administered the Communion to themselves, observed a similar ceremonial; and that this was very common in times of persecution and amongst solitaries in monasteries where there were no priests, and generally in the case of those who lived at a great distance from a church. In 519, Dorotheos, Bishop of Thessalonica, fearing that persecution was about to descend upon his flock, caused the elements for Communion to be distributed amongst them in basketfuls (Thiel, Epp. Rom. Pont. vol. i. p. 902).

On Saturday in Holy Week, the ceremonies of the Easter vigil were between 700 and 800 transferred to the afternoon, and are now held in the morning. After Mattins and Lauds there was the blessing of the fire and incense and the lighting of the Pascal Candle.

A very natural symbolism led to the adoption of these ceremonies.

The death of Christ, followed by His resurrection, found an expressive imagery in the fire, candles, or lamps which, being suddenly extinguished, were lit again.

In Ireland it was customary to kindle great bonfires on Easter Eve, which were not lighted from other fires, but from flints. At Rome great lamps were lit to illuminate the ceremony of baptism which was held on Easter Eve in the baptistry. The blessing of the candle was not in use at Rome, but in Gaul and Spain; at present at Seville the Pascal Candle is of enormous size, about 24 ft. high and weighing 700 to 800 lb.

The formula for the blessing of the candle was read from the ambo by the archdeacon on rolls, and in Italy it was the custom to illuminate them upside down so that as they hung over the edge of the ambo they could be viewed properly by the congregation.

At 10 a.m. there was the revelation of the High Altar, when the veil in front of it is removed suddenly to the accompaniment of peals of thunder from the organ and ringing of all bells and the singing of the Gloria in Excelsis.

Subsequently there was a solemn procession to the font or baptistry, where the water is blessed and infused with the chrism, after which a processional Litany is sung.¹

¹ These ceremonies were dropped in the reign of Edward VI. (see pp. 125 and 137).

Ember & Rogation Days

Ember Days. — These fasts were on Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday in Ember weeks, the Saturday really being but a regular superposition of the Friday fast; they were strict fasts.

These Ember weeks were, at the commencement of the seasons, originally three, winter sowing (Feriae sementinae), summer reaping (Feriae messis), and autumn vintage (Feriae vindemiales); later a fourth season was added, and they were known as the fasts on the first, fourth, seventh, and tenth months. It is thought that they were introduced by Calixtus I., 217–222. They coincided with the Pagan agricultural festivals, upon which they were a restraint, and were justified by the text:

"The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness and cheerful feasts; therefore love the truth and peace" (Zechariah viii. 19).

By the Roman custom, they became the recognized times for holding Ordinations, so that they were separated from their original connection with the civil year and identified with the ecclesiastical year instead. In England this occurred about 700, and they now are held on the Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday after the first Sunday in Lent, the Feast of Pentecost, September 14, and December 13 (cf. Canon xxxi. of 1603).

At Milan, 300–400, there was a ten days' fast from Ascension Day to Whitsunday, but it later seems to have been the practice to put this off until after Pentecost; this was what was done in Gaul and Spain.

Rogation Days are the three days before Ascension Day, which are kept as special fast days accompanied by the recital of Litanies. They were first instituted by Mamertus, Bishop of Vienne, in 470, at the time of the last volcanic eruptions in the Auvergne Mountains in France.

They spread through France, and were adopted at the Council of Cloveshoo, 747.

At Rome in the time of St. Gregory the Great, there was another 'Litania major' held on St. Mark's Day, 25th April, when a procession was formed and marched into the country, beseeching the blessing of God upon the fruits of the earth and the protection of them from the late frosts, which were so destructive to the crops.

This processional Litany was instituted to take the place of the old Pagan 'Robigalia', which was a procession formed for a similar purpose. It was, in fact, a kind of lustration of the cultivated lands. "The same necessities, the same apprehension of danger, the same trust in Divine help inspired rites mutually resembling each other" (cf. Bk. I. Chap. I. p. 7).

At Cloveshoo this Roman 'Litania major' was also adopted.

In Spain the processional Litany took place on November 2, All Souls' Day, at the time of sowing the seed.

Nocturns or Mattins — Vespers — Lauds — Prime — Tierce — Sext — None — Compline — The Little Hours — Morning Prayer — Evening Prayer — At Morning Prayer — The Litany — The Occasional Prayers and Thanksgivings — The Collects — Epistles — Gospels.

At a very early date the custom was established of offering private prayer at the last hour of the night, that is, between cock-crow and sunrise, and at the end of the day, at twilight, between sunset and darkness: these offices were called 'Nocturns'¹ or 'Mattins' and 'Vespers'. Further offices were introduced after the example of Daniel, who prayed three times a day, and of the Apostles, whom we find were gathered for prayer at the third hour or 'Tierce' at the time of the Pentecost (Acts ii. 15); St. Peter, who at the sixth hour or 'Sext' went up on the house-top to pray before the mid-day meal (Acts x. 9), and St. Peter and John, who went into the Temple to pray at the ninth hour or 'None' (Acts iii. 1).

The day was divided into twelve hours from sunrise to sunset, the night likewise from sunset to sunrise.

Taking, then, the sunrise at about 6 a.m., accordingly we find that 'Mattins' would be about 5 a.m., Prime at 6 a.m., Tierce 9 a.m., 'Sext' noon, 'None' 3 p.m., and Vespers 6 p.m.

To this was added Lauds at dawn, following Mattins, to prevent monks going to bed again after Mattins.

Later Compline was introduced; this was an office between Vespers and the time for retiring to rest; also Prime, before the business meeting of the monks; thus an attempt was made to follow out the words of the Psalmist (Ps. cxix. 164), "Seven times a day do I praise Thee".

The habit arose in the East of men consecrating their lives to Christ by living a life of solitude, fasting, and prayer, who became hermits or lived a coenobic life in rudely constituted organizations. Gradually this spread to the West, and we find hermits in Italy, Gaul, Great Britain, and Ireland, and likewise monasteries. But St. Benedict, who came from Umbria and lived from 480 to 543, may be said to have been the first to found a rule which was the most suitable to Western ideas. The early popularity of the monks was so great that the secular clergy had to adopt the main features of their devotions.

No doubt there was considerable variety in putting into practice the scheme of daily devotions to which reference has just been made, but it really became reduced to two distinct conflicts, one between the Benedictine as opposed to other monastic schemes, which in the end they ousted, but as to which we are not here concerned, and the other between the Roman secular type and other non-monastic types, which they also gradually superseded.

Under the Roman type the Psalms were appointed to be read through in a week at Mattins and were divided into seven portions or Nocturns, from which, however, were excluded the fixed Psalms said at the other services.

In practice Mattins, Lauds, and Prime were said together, likewise Vespers and Compline.

Tierce, Sext, and None, being known as the Little Hours, were not public services until about 400 and were always the same as each other. It is from this fact that the prayers contained in the Primer above referred to, Horae B.V.M., Horae de Trinitate, etc., are called the Little Hours of the B.V.M., etc., because they formed the respective offices of Tierce, Sext, and None upon those days upon which such were commemorated.

The Prayer Book of 1549 dropped the Little Hours and reduced these services to two, Mattins and Evensong, and this has been followed in subsequent revisions, though the title has been altered to The Order for Morning Prayer and The Order for Evening Prayer.

The Permissive Measure includes an Order for Prime and one for Compline.

¹ The term 'Nocturn' was also used of a group of Psalms. Cf. p. 178.

Morning Prayer

The Prayer Book of 1549 commenced with the Lord's Prayer. The Opening Sentences, Invitation, General Confession, and Absolution were added as a fitting introduction in 1552. The General Confession is based on the works of Pullain and Laski (cf. Chap. XXII. pp. 128–130). A similar introduction of mutual confession and absolution had formerly belonged to Prime and Compline, so that when these had been abolished there was an obvious defect in the Book of 1549.

As to the rubric before the Absolution the words "or remission of sins" were added in 1604, and the words "priest standing and people still kneeling" were added in 1662, this being taken from the Scottish Book. This alteration prevents this being done by one in Deacon's orders only. The direction that the Minister shall say the Lord's Prayer in an 'audible' voice has reference to the old Latin devotions, service which began with the priest's private recitation which he said inaudibly, after which he began the service directed with the Versicles. In 1662 for the first time it was directed to be said by the people.

In 1662 the Doxology was added here to the Lord's Prayer, contrary to the general custom in the West, as though found in the Didaché, the earliest MS. of St. Matthew vi. 13 seems to render its right inclusion there as open to doubt.

The Versicles are taken from Psalms li. and lxx. and have been in use since about 500, and were directed to be used on awaking.

It was not until 1662 that the Gloria was made into a versicle. In the First and Second Books of Edward VI. it was said by the priest alone with the additional words 'Praise ye the Lord'. The answer, 'The Lord's Name be praised', was taken from the Scottish Book in 1662.

The Venite, the 95th Psalm or Invitatory, was originally sung as a solo, the choir repeating the first verse in full after the odd verses, and the second part only after the even verses. When in 1549 it was directed to be said or sung without any Invitatory it was to this method that reference was made.

The Psalms are appointed to be sung 'in course' every month instead of every week as in mediaeval services.

Here it must be noted that the Psalms follow the translation of the Great English Bible and not the Authorized Version which was elsewhere employed in 1662, and which was based on the Hebrew and not on the Septuagint or Greek, like the Vulgate.

For some reason the Greek ix. Psalm included the Hebrew ix. and x., and the Greek cxlvi. and cxlvii. were included in the Hebrew cxlvii., hence between these two points the Psalms in the Latin are one less than those of the Prayer Book, except that the Latin cxiii. included Prayer Book cxiv. and cxv. and the Latin cxiv. and cxv. are included in the Prayer Book cxvi. In the revision of 1662 the variation from the Authorized Version is noted in the Preface, but not the variation in the numeration. The only importance of this change in the numeration occurs in the Latin versions of the Prayer Book, in which the Psalms are taken from the Sarum Missal in extenso.

In 1922 sanction was given by Convocation to the optional reduction of the Psalms to be used at Mattins and Evensong.

The Gloria is said after the Psalms and Canticles to signify that we worship the same God as the Jews did under the Old Covenant, but the mystery of the Holy Trinity is more clearly revealed to us through Christ.

In the old Lectionary lessons were nowhere read except at Mattins. Under the Reformation nearly the whole of the Old Testament is read through as the First Lesson, one chapter in the morning and the next in the evening, beginning in January, except the Prophet Isaiah, which is reserved for Advent. But the lessons from the Apocrypha were cut down from fifty days to twenty-one days in 1871.

The lessons for Sunday form a distinct course beginning with portions of Isaiah in Advent and Epiphany, Job and Proverbs for the last three Sundays in Epiphany, and the selections thus proceed through the Historical and Prophetical Books. Further special First Lessons are appointed for Holy Days suitable to their commemoration.

The Second Lessons go through the New Testament twice in the year, beginning with the Gospel according to St. Matthew in January, but omitting the Book of Revelation. No special Second Lessons are appointed for Sundays.

This is a return to the old continuous reading of the Bible, which had become so interrupted by all the special lessons for the particular occasion, animadversion upon which is to be found in the Preface. The rules for finding these special lessons were contained in the Ordinal which contained the 'Pie' or Perpetual Kalendar.

An alternative Lectionary is included in the Permissive Measure.

The Canticle 'Te Deum Laudamus' was written by the Bishop of Remesiana in Dacia, circa 375–400, but was first brought into general use by the rule of St. Benet, circa 530.

In the Sarum Use it was appointed to be sung on Sundays and Festivals except in Advent and Lent, and in 1549 it was ordered to be sung every day except during Lent, when the Benedicite was to be used. This exception was removed in 1552, but the Benedicite was treated as a general alternative, and is now by custom only used during Lent. The Canticle really ends with 'In Glory Everlasting', the remainder being suffrages.

The Canticle 'Benedicite', or the 'Song of the Three Children', is a part of the addition, found in the Septuagint, to Daniel iii.

It was sung amongst the morning Psalms so far back as 300–400, and Cyprian describes it as Scripture (Migne, xlix. 63). It was included in the Rule of St. Benet and found its way into the Office of Lauds. As the 'Te Deum' ended Mattins, which was followed by Lauds, it is not difficult to perceive how it came to be an alternative to the 'Te Deum' when the latter was not used.

The Benedictus, together with the Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis, were about 350 added to the Psalms as the Hymn Book of the Church, and we find them so placed there in the Codex Alexandrinus, which must be dated from 400 to 500, and which is now in the British Museum.

The 'Benedictus' was placed as the Climax in the Office of Lauds after the 'Little Chapter' or verse whose place was taken by the Second Lesson, and therefore naturally received its present position. In 1552 the 100th Psalm, Jubilate Deo, was added as an alternative, and though not so expressed, is really only meant to be used when it is read in the lesson for the day or the Gospel for St. John the Baptist's Day.

In 1552 the Salutation and Kyrie were postponed to the Creed, which was directed to be said by all instead of by the Minister alone.

The Creed originally belonged to the Baptismal Office, and though we have evidence of its existence as early as Aristides the Apologist, circa 140, and from Irenaeus and Tertullian, it was never reduced to writing. Marcellus of Ancyra in 341 gives an early form, likewise Ruffinus of Aquileia in 390. The practice continued even after the Peace of the Church, for we find Sozomen the historian as late as 400–500 refraining from setting forth the Nicean Creed in his ecclesiastical history lest it should become known to the uninitiated (cf. p. 16).

Additions were made in the Gallic Church to combat Arianism, and what is known as the Apostles' Creed probably did not reach its present form until about 700.

The Apostles' Creed was said several times daily according to the Sarum Use, but like the Lord's Prayer it was said privately with an ecphony, so that the last two clauses were said as a versicle and response.

In 1549 the Minister was directed to say the Creed in a loud voice, but the old method was retained for the Lord's Prayer in that the answer is given, 'But Deliver us from evil'. But in 1552 this was changed into the present use of all standing to say the Creed, and saying both it and the Lord's Prayer with the Minister.

The custom of turning to the East arose in Caroline times, in view of the fact that the Creeds were baptismal Creeds, and that after facing West to renounce the devil the catechumen faced East to express his belief in Christ.

Bowing at the name of Jesus has been retained at the Creed even when not otherwise done, though it is directed generally by Canon xviii. of 1603.

The Salutation which follows is of the greatest antiquity; if not of Apostolic origin, it is found in all the liturgies, both Eastern and Western, of which any records exist.

The Kyrie is in its origin heathen; it was adopted by the Christians between 300 and 400, probably as soon as Christianity was accepted by the Roman Empires.

The Suffrages, or Lesser Litany, consisting of Versicles and Responses, are based on the old Bidding of the Bedes and form the prelude to the Collects. Originally the Deacon mentioned various topics for prayer and then summed up the petitions of the people in the form of a Collection or Collect. The direction that the Priest shall stand is a relic of this ancient form of worship, as he stands to give directions to the congregation as to the subjects of their petitions.

The Collect for the Day, before the Reformation, ended the service, but was sometimes followed by memorials, whose place has been taken by the fixed Collects for Peace and Grace. The Collect for Peace comes from the old Memorial for Peace said at the Lauds of the Blessed Virgin, and the Collect for Grace in the ancient daily Collect for Prime. Here Morning Prayer ended until 1662. The remaining Collects, except for the Royal Family, had been annexed to the Litany since 1559.

The first Collect for the King in English was issued by Berthelet at the end of the reign of Henry VIII., and is very similar to that now in use. It was included in the Edwardian Primer.

It was reduced to its present form and added to the Litany at the revision in 1559.

The prayer for the Royal Family was added to the Litany in 1604, after the Hampton Court Conference, in the time of Archbishop Whitgift. The prayer for the Clergy followed the Litany in the old Sarum Use.

The prayer of St. Chrysostom is found in the Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom; it formed a regular part of the Byzantine Liturgy, and Cranmer probably so named it as he had taken it from the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom which is the prevailing Byzantine Use. It was placed at the end of the Litany in 1549.

The Grace was first added to the Litany in 1559.

Evening Prayer

The order of Evening Prayer or Evensong took the place of the old Vespers and Compline.

In 1552 the introduction to Mattins was also added to Evensong, that is to say, the Sentences, Invitation, General Confession, and Absolution, which are identical. The slight variation in the rubric before the Lord's Prayer is, no doubt, due to the fact that until 1662 the introduction was not printed over again in the form of Evening Prayer, but there was only a direction to use that for Morning Prayer.

The First Lesson takes the place of the chapter at Vespers, which was then, as now, followed by the Magnificat. The Magnificat has always been placed here since the time of the Rule of St. Benet, circa 530.

The Second Lesson takes the place of the chapter at Compline. This is followed by the Nunc Dimittis, which is said to have been placed here by St. Gregory the Great, circa 590.

In 1552 the Cantate Domino, Psalm xcviii., and the Deus Misereatur, Psalm lxvii., were added as alternatives to the Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis. The rest of the service is similar to that of Morning Prayer except the two fixed Collects.

The second Collect at Evening Prayer is found in the old Gelasian Sacramentary, and was the Evening memorial for peace in the Sarum Use.

The third Collect for aid against all perils is also found in the Gelasian Sacramentary and was the invariable Collect of Compline in the Sarum Use.

It had been long the custom to sing an anthem after this Collect; it was therefore natural to direct one in the reformed Prayer Book. This was not provided for in 1549 or 1552, but was introduced by the Elizabethan Injunction, xlix., and the appropriate rubric was inserted in 1662.

At Morning Prayer · Quicunque Vult

This Creed, which is commonly called the Athanasian Creed, is not to be attributed to St. Athanasius. It never was a baptismal creed like the Apostles' Creed or Nicean Creed.

It was a confession of faith written in Southern Gaul between 400 and 500, which has been used by the Western Church as a Canticle since 700–800. In the Sarum Use it was appointed to be sung daily at Prime. Quignon in his reformed Breviary appointed it to be sung on Sundays.

In 1549 it was appointed for Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, and Trinity Sunday. The various Saints' Days for which it is appointed were added in 1552, and in 1662 the rubric was altered by the insertion of the direction "instead of the Apostles' Creed" and describing it as commonly called the Athanasian Creed.

It is chiefly aimed at a repudiation of the Arian, Nestorian, and Monophysists' heresies.

It may not be amiss to point out very shortly without entering into any theological discussion wherein these heresies differ from the Catholic faith, which acknowledges the two natures and one person of Christ.

The Arian heresy maintained that the Son was not equal with the Father in the Trinity.

The Nestorian heresy ascribed two persons and two natures to Christ (cf. p. 21).

The Monophysists' or Jacobites' heresy ascribed one person and one nature to Christ.

The Greek Church deny the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, and therefore omit Filioque from the Creeds.

The Litany

The term Litany in the Greek (λιτανεία) meant any form of entreaty, but in Christian usage it was confined to a responsorial form of prayer, indicating penitence or supplication. The first mention made of it is by St. Basil of Caesarea, circa 375, who, however, mentions that it had not been in use in the time of St. Gregory of Thaumaturgus, circa 254.

Its first use as a processional is mentioned by St. Chrysostom at Constantinople, circa 398, when it was used to counteract the assemblies in the streets by the Arians, who had been excluded from the churches on account of their heresy. When it spread to the West it came to be used on solemn occasions for the blessing of the crops on Rogation Days and also in times of great calamity. Reference to this has already been made in connection with the fasts, pp. 175–176.

On these occasions the processional chant, or Rogation psalm, was sung responsorially.

Now it has been several times mentioned that another form of responsorial prayer was a prominent feature in all the Greek Liturgies in which the Deacon bid the people pray for different matters called the 'ektene', and to which they made a response of 'Kyrie eleison'. Thus, in time these two coalesced and this form of prayer came to be used also in procession.

So that a form of prayer in dialogue was evolved which might be either used in procession or stationary. The original stationary form of bidding the bedes so far as Mass was concerned became reduced to the ninefold Kyrie and formed a fixed part of the Liturgy.

But at the Stational Masses at Rome, when the Pope went to a special church in procession, it was customary, as he neared it, to sing such Litany, and from this arose the custom, after the Kyrie had become a fixed part of the Mass, to sing a Litany before Mass. This processional Litany was continued in the form of a procession round the church.

In many of the Latin Litanies, the varying forms of petition had been dropped and they had been reduced to an invocation of saints.

Henry VIII. ordered the first English Litany to be prepared in 1544, and Cranmer not merely made a translation from the Latin ones then in use, but also had recourse to that contained in Marshall's Primer produced by Luther in 1529, and also to the Deacon's Litany in the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, which is still in use in the East.

The Litany in 1544 commenced with the invocations of the Trinity, but the invocation of saints was reduced to three clauses.

St. Mary, Mother of God Our Saviour Jesu Christ,
Pray for us.

All holy angels and archangels and all holy orders of blessed spirits,
Pray for us.

All holy patriarchs and prophets, apostles, martyrs, confessors, and virgins and all the blessed company of Heaven,
Pray for us.

But these clauses were entirely omitted in the Litany of 1549.

The long petition, which comes between the 'invocations' and the 'deprecations' is taken from the anthem to the penitential psalms which immediately preceded the Litany in the Breviary.

In 1549 and 1552 the last deprecation contained the words after privy conspiracy: "From the tyranny of the bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities" — this was omitted in Mary's reign, though the English Litany was retained in use, and it was not restored in the Elizabethan revision.

In 1662 the words 'rebellion' and 'schism' were added. Of the 'obsecrations' which follow, the last, "In all time of our tribulation", is a collection of petitions taken from Luther's Litany of 1529.

Of the 'intercessions', "bishops, pastors, and ministers of the Church" was changed to "bishops, priests, and deacons" in 1662.

"Peace and concord": the Sarum Use was "peace and concord to all Kings and Princes".

"In danger, necessity, and tribulation" is taken from the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom.

"To forgive our enemies" occurs in the Anglo-Saxon Litany.

"Kindly fruits of the earth" is found in both Sarum and Luther's Litanies.

The last intercession is a beautiful composition of Cranmer himself.

Of the Invocations, "Grant us thy peace" was not in Sarum, but is found in other English forms, e.g. Egbert.

The Litany proper ends with the triple Kyrie and the Lord's Prayer.

The form now follows that of Luther, but the prayer "O God, merciful Father" comes from the Sarum Mass, 'pro tribulatione cordis'.

"O Lord, arise, help us" is really the commencement of the processional anthem to the Psalm xliv. 1, 'Amen' having been omitted from the preceding prayer by an oversight: it is inserted in the Permissive Measure.

The Versicles, which follow, are taken from the "Litany in time of War"; these lead up to the final sacerdotal versicle which, until 1662, was marked the versicle but is now marked 'priest' and 'answer', followed by the Collect which was taken from the Sarum last Rogation Day Litany.

The prayer of St. Chrysostom is taken from the Byzantine Liturgy, and the Grace was added in the Elizabethan revision.

The one Litany then is used in three different ways:

• (A) As the procession before the Eucharist, but the Edwardian Injunctions directed that this should be done by the "priest and quire kneeling in the midst of the church".
• (B) As a votive service on Wednesdays and Fridays (cf. p. 171).
• (C) As a special act of pleading at Ordinations and, according to the Egbert Pontifical, at the consecration of a church.

Occasional Prayers & Thanksgivings

The occasional prayers originally were added to the Litany as occasional memorials. They were first collected as a separate portion in 1662; they are all entirely new compositions except "O God whose nature", which is in the Gregorian Sacramentary, and have been varied and added to from time to time.

The Prayer for the High Court of Parliament is attributed to Archbishop Laud.

The Prayer for "All sorts and conditions of men" is attributed to Bishop Gunning of Chichester and Ely at the time of the revision in 1662.

The Thanksgivings were first added after the Hampton Court Conference in 1604.

The General Thanksgiving is attributed to Bishop Reynolds and was added in 1662.

The various parts of the Litany are specifically noted in the Appendix.

The Collects

In the Prayer Book of 1549 the Collects were preceded by the 'Introits', which consisted of a psalm sung at the commencement of the Communion Service, but in 1552 these Introits were dropped and have not since been revived, though they are collated at the end of the English Hymnal hymn book.

The Collects, Epistles, and Gospels are nearly all the same as those for the old Sarum Use, alterations only having been made for the first three Sundays in Advent, Christmas Week, the fourth and sixth Sundays after Epiphany, Quinquagesima, Ash Wednesday, and first Sunday in Lent, Low Sunday, second and eleventh Sundays after Trinity and the Saints' Days. The New Collects for the most part were composed by Archbishop Cranmer, exact particulars of which will be found in the Appendix.

The Collects were the priestly summation of the old Bidding Prayers, wherein the Deacon bid the people to pray (Let us kneel; Flectamus genua), and after the silent prayers of the congregation they were followed by the direction to stand (Levate), whilst the Deacon summed up the motive in a formal prayer which formed the Collect or Collectio.

These followed, generally speaking, a regular form which consisted of:

1. An introductory address or commemoration on which it is based.
2. A central prayer.
3. Other clauses dependent thereupon included by way of petition.
4. A fixed formal ending.

Certain rules determined this formal ending and have been applied to the Collects in the Prayer Book: they are most briefly summarized in the York Missal, and are here taken from the Surtees Publication; they were so fully recognized that in practice they were not written in full.

These rules as to the termination of the Collects are as follows:

1. Si dirigitur sermo ad Patrem absque mentione Filii et Spiritus Sancti sic finietur; per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum tuum: Qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti Deus per omnia secula seculorum.
   If the address is made to the Father without mention of the Son or the Holy Ghost, then the end must be: Through Our Lord Jesus Christ thy Son Who with Thee livest and reignest in unity of the Holy Spirit, O God, world without end (lit. for all ages of ages).
2. Si vero de Spiritu Sancto fiat mentio dicetur: In unitate ejusdem Spiritus Sancti Deus, etc.
   But if mention is made of the Holy Ghost, then shall be said: In Unity of the same Holy Spirit, O God, etc.
3. Si vere de Filio fiat mentio ante finalem partem dicetur: Per eundem Dominum Nostrum Jesum Christum Filium, etc.
   But if mention is made of the Son before the final clause, then shall be said: Through the same Our Lord the Son Jesus Christ, etc.
4. Si vero in fine fit mentio de Filio dicetur: Qui tecum vivit et regnat, etc.
   But if mention is made of the Son in the final clause, then shall be said: Who livest and reignest with Thee, etc.
5. Si autem ad Filium dirigetur oratio sine mentione Spiritus Sancti dicetur: Qui vivis et regnas cum Deo Patre in unitate Spiritus Sancti Deus.
   But if the address is made to the Son without mention of the Holy Ghost, then shall be said: Who livest and reignest with God the Father in unity of the Holy Spirit, O God, etc.
6. Si fiat mentio de Spiritu Sancto dicetur: Qui cum Patre et eodem Spiritu Sancto vivis et regnas.
   If mention is made of the Holy Ghost, then shall be said: Who with the Father and the same Holy Spirit livest and reignest.
7. Item orationes ad Patrem in quibus mentionem de Trinitate facimus sic concludimus: In qua vivis et regnas Deus, etc.
   Note in addresses to the Father in which we make mention of the Trinity we end them: In which Thou livest and reignest, O God, etc.
8. Illas autem quas ad ipsam Trinitatem dirigimus sic finimus: Qui vivis et regnas Deus.
   But those which we direct to the Trinity itself we finish: Who livest and reignest, O God.

It was not till 1662 that the Collects had their proper endings according to the above rules added to them, but when this was actually done they were not adequately or satisfactorily supplied.

As may be noted, the ecclesiastical year is divided into two parts, that from Advent to Trinity being designed to commemorate the Life of Christ on Earth, with its attendant incidents, including the mission of the Holy Ghost: the second part from Trinity to Advent, the Epistles form a continuous series, and the Collects and Gospels are chosen in reference to them, being exhortations to Christian practices.

Sarum Use — The First Prayer Book of Edward VI., 1549 — The Liturgy of St. Chrysostom — The 'Gloria in Excelsis' — The 'Salutation' — The Nicean Creed — The rubrics — The Canon of 1549 — The Order for Communion, 1548 — The rubrics as to the bread and manner of reception — The Second Prayer Book of Edward VI., its changes — The Prayer of Consecration — The Words of Administration — The object of the Changes — The Elizabethan Revision in 1559 — The Black Rubric — The Changes in 1662 — The changes contained in the Permissive Measure — The Canon in the same.

In Book I. we have traced the variations of the Liturgy, according to the Greek, Roman, and Gallic Uses, together with Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and Celtic forms, leading up to the Sarum Use, which was directly derived from the Use at Rouen in Normandy.

In order to fully apprehend our present Liturgy, it is necessary to consider first of all the Liturgy in the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. in 1549.

The form in the main follows the general lines of the Sarum Use, but the preparatory prayers were reduced to a minimum so that only the Lord's Prayer and a Collect for Purity remain.

This Collect for Purity is taken from the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, 398–407, from which Cranmer took several items. It is, in fact, the prayer before the 'Little Entrance' of the Gospel.

This was followed by the psalm for the Introit and the ninefold Kyrie, which, as we have seen, is the sole relic of the bidding prayers.

The rubric prescribes that this should be done by the priest standing humbly "afore the middes of the altar".

Then after the Kyrie "the priest standing at God's board shall begin" the Gloria in Excelsis. This ancient canticle is found in the Greek Mattins from which it was probably taken, though legend ascribes it to Pope Telephorus, circa 125. The earliest records of it show that it was in the Clementine Liturgy, and it is also contained in the Codex Alexandrinus, circa 400–500, now in the British Museum.

After the Salutation, which is of the earliest date, even if not from Apostolic times, the Collect for the day was said together with one of two special Collects for the King in accordance with 1 Tim. ii. 2. Then followed the Epistle and the announcement of the Gospel, to which there is the answer "Glory be to thee, O Lord", and the Gospel was immediately followed by the Creed, thus omitting the musical portions of the Gradual, Alleluia, and Sequence or Tract, which used to be sung between the Epistle and Gospel. The Creed is that commonly called the Nicean Creed; it is not, in fact, the Creed of the Fathers of the First General Council of Nicea in 325, but is the formula used at baptism by St. Cyril of Jerusalem, circa 348, and contained in his 'Mystagogic Catechesis' and in the Liturgy of St. James, which was afterwards adopted at Constantinople.

The recital of the Baptismal Creed at the Liturgy was first ordered by Peter the Fuller, Bishop of Antioch, circa 471, as a safeguard against Arianism; which example was followed by Timothy, Bishop of Constantinople, circa 511; previously it had been only recited in the Liturgy on Maundy Thursday.

At the third Council of Toledo in 589, this Creed was likewise added to the Liturgy for the same purpose, though the original Nicean Creed was also known at Toledo. In course of time its use became general in the Gallic Church, but it was not until 1014 that it was adopted at Rome, as there had been no anxiety there about Arianism.

After the Creed came the Sermon or Homily. For a considerable period before the Reformation, it was not customary for sermons to be preached except on special occasions, and the Book of Homilies was specially composed for the assistance of parish priests who were not accustomed to deliver sermons themselves.

The prayer at the beginning of the sermon is, strictly speaking, governed by the Canon lv., but the ascription at the end depends entirely upon ancient custom.

The laity had only been accustomed to communicate at Easter; therefore the Exhortations were a special feature of the Prayer Book, of which there were two alternative ones. Then followed the Offertory Sentences, after which the following rubrics occur:

"Then so many as shall be partakers of the Holy Communion, shall tarry still in the quire, or in some convenient place nigh the quire, the men on one side and the women on the other side."

"Then shall the minister take so much Bread and Wine as shall suffice for the persons appointed to receive the Holy Communion, laying the bread upon the Corporas or else in the Paten or in some other comely thing prepared for that purpose, and putting the wine into the Chalice or else in some fair or convenient cup prepared for that use if the Chalice will not serve, putting thereto a little pure and clean water. And setting both bread and wine upon the Altar: then the Priest shall say":

The Salutation.

The Sursum Corda.

The Preface.

Only five Proper Prefaces were provided for Christmas, Easter, Ascension, Whitsun and Trinity Sunday, those for Easter, Ascension and Trinity being taken from the Sarum Use.

The Preface was followed by the Cherubic Hymn from Isaiah vi. 3.

Then came the Canon which in 1549 combined the present prayer for the Church Militant. The words of the Consecration contained a definite epiklesis, or invocation of the Holy Ghost: "Hear us (O merciful father) we beseech thee: and with thy holy spirit and word vouchsafe to bl✠ess and sanc✠tify these thy gifts of bread and wine that they may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved son Jesus Christ", followed by the Anamnesis or words of institution. This was followed by the Oblation, which was similar to the present first prayer after the Communion.

Following which:

"As our Saviour Christ hath commanded and taught us we are bold to say Our Father ⸻ temptation.
Answer: But deliver us from evil, Amen."

After the Salutation:

The Priest: "Christ our Pascal lamb is offered for us once for all when he bare our sins on his body upon the cross, for he is the very lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world: wherefore let us keep a joyful and holy feast with the Lord."

Then followed the present Invitation, Confession, and Absolution, Comfortable Words and Prayer of Humble Access.

This part had first appeared in the Order for Communion in 1548, which had been directed to be added to the Latin Mass. The form of Absolution is taken from the Sarum Use, but the Confession and idea of the Comfortable Words are based upon Hermann's Consultation, to which previous reference has been made (see p. 122).

The words of Administration were:

"The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life."

"The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for thee preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life."

In the Communion time the Agnus Dei was directed to be sung. This was first introduced by Pope Sergius, 687–701.

After one of a collection of texts called post-communion sentences and the Salutation came the Thanksgiving, which was the same as the second post-communion prayer of the existing book.

The service ended with the Pax, taken from Philippians iv. 7, with the Episcopal Blessing added to it.

The first, second, and fourth Collects to be used after the Offertory were taken from the Sarum Use; the others are ascribed to Cranmer.

Of the various rubrics which were placed at the end of the service, notice may be taken of the two following:

"For avoiding of all matters and occasion of dissension, it is meet that the bread prepared for the Communion, be made, through all this realm, after one sort and fashion, that is to say, unleavened, and round, as it was afore, but without all manner of print, and something more larger and thicker than it was, so that it may be aptly divided in divers pieces: and every one shall be divided in two pieces, at the least, or more, by the discretion of the minister, and so distributed. And men must not think less to be received in part than in the whole, but in each of them the whole body of our Saviour Jesu Christ."

"And although it be read in ancient writers, that the people many years past received at the priest's hands the Sacrament of the body of Christ in their own hands, and no commandment of Christ to the contrary: Yet for as much as they many times conveyed the same secretly away, kept it with them, and diversely abused it to superstition and wickedness: lest any such thing hereafter should be attempted, and that an uniformity might be used, throughout the whole Realm: it is thought convenient the people commonly receive the Sacrament of Christ's body, in their mouths, at the Priest's hand."

In the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. in 1552 considerable changes were made.

To begin with, the title was altered from "The Supper of the Lord and the Holy Communion commonly called the Mass" to "The Order for the administration of the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion", and, as we have seen, the Ornaments Rubric prescribed a surplice only for the ministers. The Introit was abolished, and instead of the ninefold Kyrie by itself, the Kyrie was used as part of the answer to each of the Ten Commandments taken from the twentieth chapter of Exodus. The Gloria in Excelsis was removed from the beginning of the service to the end. The Exhortations were altered: that "when people are negligent" was composed by Peter Martyr. Then the Canon was broken up and the Intercession was placed immediately after the Offertory, and the prayers for the dead being omitted, the bidding became for the "Church militant here on earth", at the same time the offering of the alms was included.

The Invitation, General Confession, Absolution and Comfortable Words, were transferred from their position between the Consecration and the Prayer of Humble Access so as to precede the Salutation and Preface.

The Prayer of Consecration was then reduced to the Introduction and 'Anamnesis' or the words of institution, omitting the Oblation, and at the same time the Invocation of the Holy Spirit was dropped and the central Petition changed to: "Grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine according to Thy Son Our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution in remembrance of His death and passion, may be partakers of His blessed body and blood".

The object of these changes was to make the Communion follow immediately after the Consecration, so as to avoid eucharistic worship: so that even the Lord's Prayer and the Oblation were transferred to the post-Communion.

At the same time direct orders were omitted for the Offertory, Agnus Dei, Mixed Chalice, and the manual acts of consecration.

Moreover, the words of administration were altered to:

"Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed on him by faith with thanksgiving";

and

"Drink this in remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for thee and be thankful."

In the revision in 1559 these two sets of words of administration of 1549 and 1552 were combined into the formulae which is still in use, and at the same time the Ornaments Rubric was altered so as to be the same as that contained in the Book of 1549.

Finally, as we have seen in Chapter XXII. p. 130, the Black Rubric as to kneeling was added; though "real and essential presence" was changed to "corporal presence" in 1662, after this rubric had been omitted altogether from the Elizabethan Prayer Book of 1559. In 1662 there was added to the Prayer for Christ's Church militant after 'alms' the words 'and oblations', also the clause:

"And we also bless thy holy name for all thy servants departed this life in thy faith and fear; beseeching thee to give us grace so to follow their good examples that with them we may be partakers of thy heavenly kingdom."

The exhortations were considerably altered, and those given with notice of the celebration of the Holy Communion were directed to be given after the sermon and not after the Prayer for the Church Militant.

The rubric as to the Confession was altered, so that it should be said by the minister and the people. In the Proper Prefaces for Christmas and Whitsun "this day" was changed to "as at this time". The rubric as to the Consecration was changed in 1662 by the addition of the directions as to the ordering of the bread and wine, and the manual directions as to the Fraction and Consecration were also added.

In the alternative Order contained in the Permissive Measure to which allusion has been made in Chapter XXV. the rubric runs as follows:

"The Ten Commandments may be omitted provided that they be rehearsed at least once on a Sunday in each month, and when they are so omitted then shall be said in place thereof Our Lord's Summary of the Law." "Hear, O Israel, etc."

Or else this Kyrie:

"Lord have mercy upon us.
Christ have mercy upon us.
Lord have mercy upon us";

or

"Kyrie eleison.
Christe eleison.
Kyrie eleison",

followed by the Salutation.

After the annunciation of the Gospel for the day, the response is restored, 'Glory be to thee, O Lord'. In the Intercession the following prayer for the dead is added:

"And 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.

And here we give thee most high praise and hearty thanks for all thy Saints who have been the chosen vessels of thy grace and lights of the world in their several generations; and we pray that rejoicing in their fellowship and following their good examples we may be partakers with them in thy heavenly Kingdom."

The Canon consists of a restoration of the introduction of 1549 prefaced by the opening words from the Scottish Book of 1636: the Anamnesis or words of the institution are followed by a definite Epiklesis or invocation of the Holy Spirit, taken from the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom: the oblation which succeeds is taken from the post-Communion prayer of 1552.

Thus in technical terms shifting the 'spiritual content' or Divine operative power mentioned in Chapter VIII. p. 37, from the Anamnesis to the Epiklesis.

The wording of this prayer of Consecration is as follows:

"All glory be to thee Almighty God our heavenly Father, for that thou of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his Holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death until his coming again; who in the same night that he was betrayed, took Bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take eat, this is my Body which is given for you; Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise after supper he took the Cup; and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them saying, Drink ye all of this; for this is my Blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins; Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it in remembrance of me. Wherefore, O Lord, and heavenly Father, we thy humble servants, having in remembrance the precious death and passion of thy dear Son, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension, according to his holy institution, do celebrate, and set forth before thy Divine Majesty with these thy holy gifts, the memorial which he hath willed us to make, rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits which he hath procured unto us. Hear, O Merciful Father, we most humbly beseech thee, and with thy Holy and Life-giving Spirit vouchsafe to bless and sanctify both us and these thy gifts of Bread and Wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, to the end that we, receiving the same, may be strengthened and refreshed both in body and soul.

And we entirely desire thy Fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant, that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion.

And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee: humbly beseeching thee, that all we, who are partakers of this Holy Communion, may be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction.

And although we be unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service; not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences;

Through Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end."

This is followed by the phrase according to St. Jerome in the Roman Canon:

"As our Saviour Christ hath commanded and taught us we are bold to say, Our Father," etc.

After which:

"The peace of God be alway with you.
Answer: And with thy spirit."

This is a modern versicle replacing the old Pax or Kiss of Peace which occurred here.

The post-Communion thanksgiving is preceded by the bidding:

"Having now by faith received the precious Body and Blood of Christ, let us give thanks unto Our Lord God."

Origin — Early Christian descriptions — Affusion — The Catechumenate — 'Competentes' — 'Scrutines' — 'Effeta' — 'Traditio Symboli' — 'Redditio Symboli' — Formulae — Chrysom oil — Gallic Use — Confirmation — Council of Cloveshoo — Sarum Use — Sponsors — Origin of rite of 1549 — Changes in 1552 — Slight alterations in 1662 — Private Baptism of Children in Houses — Duty of Laity in case of necessity — Public Baptism of such as are of Riper Years.

As to this rite, there is direct authority in the New Testament, which is found in Matt. xxviii. 19, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost"; and again in Mark xvi. 16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"; and likewise in John iii. 5, "Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God".

The earliest Christian authorities do not describe the preparation required for baptism in any detail, beyond a general allusion to prayer, fasting and confession, and baptism by immersion or affusion "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost".

The only substitute for water, in the days before the Peace of the Church, was martyrdom; the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus states of the catechumen (who is mentioned below) that "if they should kill him before he receives baptism for the forgiveness of his sins, he shall be justified because he is baptized in his own blood".

Pope Stephen II. in 754 allowed wine as a substitute for water where the latter was not available; but baptism in milk instead of water, as was attempted in Ireland between 1100 and 1200 was held to be invalid.

The use of oil, based on 1 John ii. 20, 27, is mentioned in all the earliest authorities, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hippolytus.

Though immersion seems to have been the ordinary practice in the East, baptism by affusion, i.e. sprinkling, seems to have been practised, for climatic reasons, generally in the West.

With the general acceptance of Christianity, it was found that a regular system of preparation was required.

During the time of persecution, the first step towards being admitted into the Christian religion was that of entering the catechumenate. A regular ceremony for this was evolved: at Rome the convert presented himself to the priest, who blew in his face (this was called insufflation) and marked him on the forehead with the sign of the Cross "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost"; salt, which had been exorcised, was also placed in the mouth of the candidate. These catechumens were admitted to religious assemblies, but were dismissed before the Eucharist. Catechumens could remain in this category as long as they liked: the Emperors Constantine and Constantius remained such until dying.

Those who wished to complete their initiation gave in their names at the beginning of Lent, when, if no objection was made to them, they became 'Competentes'. From the earliest times, Easter was recognized as the proper time for baptism, though in the East, Epiphany was also employed, and amongst other churches in the West other festivals besides Easter were adopted, but these were relinquished wherever the Roman Use subsequently prevailed. Those catechumens who thus became Competentes had to go through a course of preparation, which lasted all through Lent. They had, in the time of St. Cyril, to attend church each day and hear a sermon after being exorcised and be subject to seven scrutinies.

About 600 this had become reduced to seven scrutinies beginning on the third week in Lent.

Each scrutiny commenced with the Competentes, after the Collect and before the Lection, engaging in prayer, which was followed by a Collect to which all said Amen. After having crossed themselves, they were visited by three exorcists or acolytes, in turn, who made the sign of the Cross on their foreheads, and imposing their hands upon them pronounced the formulary of exorcism: in the East this was accompanied by insufflation. A priest then repeated the ceremony of signing and imposition of the hands. At the third scrutiny the ceremony of 'Apertio aurium', or 'Opening of the Ears', was performed; this was everywhere, except in Rome, called the 'Traditio Symboli', at which instruction was given in the Gospel, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer.

At the seventh scrutiny, on Saturday before Easter, or any time after the third scrutiny, the priest himself exorcised each candidate, and then with his saliva, or holy oil, anointed him on the nostrils and ears; this was called the 'Effeta'. The candidate then divested himself of his clothes, and was anointed with holy pure oil, and renounced Satan thrice, and recited the Creed; this was called the 'Redditio Symboli': in the East this was done facing west at the renunciation, and facing east at the pronunciation of the Creed.

At baptism, which at Rome was a subsequent service, three questions were asked:

"Credis in Deum Patrem omnipotentem?
Credis et in Jesum Christum Filium ejus unicum dominum nostrum natum et passum?
Credis et in Spiritum sanctum, sanctam Ecclesiam, remissionem peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem?"

"Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?
Do you believe also in Jesus Christ his only Son Our Lord who was born and suffered?
Do you believe also in the Holy Ghost, the holy Church, remission of sins and the resurrection of the body?"

After his triple credo (I believe), he was baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost"; he was thrice immersed, but in a baptistery the water was only generally up to his waist, and the immersion was by affusion, the water being sprinkled over him. On coming out of the water, the candidate was anointed with Chrism Oil, and then put on a white garment, called a 'chrysom'. The Pope or Bishop then pronounced the invocation of the Holy Ghost (according to the ordo of St. Amand, this prayer was accompanied by the imposition of hands), and afterwards signed each one with the sign of the Cross with his thumb, previously dipped in chrism, upon the forehead, saying, "In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti. Pax tibi". The Communion followed, after which the newly baptized at Rome and Alexandria were also given a drink composed of milk, honey, and water, specially blessed during the Communion service, but this is now only done in the Coptic Church. In the Gallic Church, except at Milan, the ceremony of the Effeta took place at the initiation of the catechumen and the Traditio Symboli on the Sunday before Easter.

Then on Easter Eve there were not two but only one ceremony: after the exorcising of the water and the infusion of the chrism, the candidate, divested of clothing, faced west and thrice renounced the devil; he then entered the font and faced east, and thrice made confession of the Christian faith and was thrice immersed (except in Spain, where there was only one immersion, as distinguishing the ceremony from that which obtained amongst the Arians).

The neophyte was then signed on the head with chrism by the Bishop, who handed him a white garment called a chrysom; except in Spain the Bishop also washed the feet of the neophyte. The ceremony ended with an imposition of hands by the Bishop accompanied by a petition for the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit. After this the newly baptized received the Communion.

Baptism was originally considered to be the function of the Bishop alone, though in case of necessity it was recognised as valid even if performed by the laity; express mention of this is made by Tertullian and in the Didascalia. As the churches became more numerous outside the episcopal cities, authority had to be granted to all priests to baptize, but the right of blessing the oils and signing with the Cross and laying on of hands or confirmation was reserved for the Bishop: this is referred to both by St. Jerome and St. Isidore of Seville. In the Eastern Church the rite was regarded as all one and delegated to priests in general; though the chrism is now only blessed by the Patriarchs of the Church. But this custom, which appears to have existed at an early date in the Gallic Church, is condemned in the Letter of Pope Innocent I. to Decentius referred to in Book I., Chapter VII. p. 30, and the Councils of Orange, 441, and Epaone, 517, likewise animadverted against it.

Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all refer to infant baptism, and sponsors are mentioned in the Canons of Hippolytus. In course of time these infants outnumbered the adult candidates for baptism, but the change in the order of the service was very gradual, and at first the whole of the ceremonies for the adult were undergone by the infants, who were solemnly called upon to recite the Creed and make their profession of faith, by their sponsors as their deputies.

The differences between the baptismal customs of Rome brought over by St. Augustine and those obtaining in Britain in the Celtic Church were the cause, in part, of the strife between them, which, as we have seen, only ended at the Council of Cloveshoo in 747, when the Roman Use was finally adopted.

In the Sarum Manual, we find that the Gallic customs of the signing of the catechumen on the right hand, the triple infusions of the font with holy chrism, and the presentation of a candle, as well as a chrysom robe to the neophyte, were included. At the same time the catechumenate was only continued by that part of the christening service, which was still called by the name of "Ordo ad faciendum catechumenum", performed at the church door: the exorcisms at each scrutiny were reduced to one, and the course of instruction only survived in the reading of the Gospel (Matt. xix. 13, 14, 15). The anointing and renunciation of Satan were all included with the baptism in the one rite. At the same time, the blessing of the water in the font and the confirmation became separate rites; the former was still only performed on Easter or Whitsun Eve, and the latter deferred until the children came to years of discretion, though where the baptism was performed by a Bishop the confirmation immediately followed; Queen Elizabeth, it may be noted, was baptized and confirmed by Archbishop Cranmer when three days old.

Notice must here be made as to the Sponsors, or Godparents. By the Canons of Hippolytus, these were required to be a man for a man and a woman for a woman, which later became construed to mean a deacon for a man and a deaconess for a woman.

Further, a sponsor was required for the entrance to the catechumenate and also for confirmation.

Though Pope Leo IV. in 853 forbade more than one sponsor, yet they were supposed to be different persons on each occasion.

As the method by affusion became more and more the practice, so the rule relaxed as to the sex of the sponsor, and at the same time, with the prevalence of infant over adult baptism in England, at any rate, the custom grew up of having three sponsors at baptism, who no doubt represented historically the sponsors at the catechumenate, baptism, and confirmation respectively.

By the code of Justinian, 525, sponsorship was held to create such a degree of parentage as to form a bar to marriage.

The revisers or Windsor Commission in 1548 based the rite of baptism upon that contained in the Sarum Manual and upon Hermann's Consultation, which had been published in 1543, and translated into English from the Latin in 1547 and 1548. Following the tenets of the reformers, the Roman Ceremonies were for the most part replaced by exhortations. The memory of the catechumenate was still retained by the reception of the infant at the church door, but the ceremonies of insufflation and administration of salt and acolyte's crossing were omitted, likewise that of the Effeta and the exorcism was reduced from thrice to once; still the recitation of the Lord's Prayer and Apostles' Creed and introduction into the Church were retained.

After triple renunciation of Satan and triple profession of faith and a desire for baptism, baptism by triple immersion or affusion followed, the formula being: "N. I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

The giving of the white robe or chrysom followed, and then the unction of the child's head. In the Sarum Use the child had been anointed on the breast and back before baptism with plain holy oil, and after baptism had been signed with cross and chrism. The Gallic custom of giving a taper was also dropped.

As to the blessing of the water in the font, which was to be changed at least once a month, this rite was set forth at the end of the rite of private baptism: the addition of chrism to the water was omitted, and the prayers, though in part similar to those contained in the Mozarabic Rite, were probably taken from some other Gallican Use, the exact source of which has not been traced. Bucer, the joint author with Melanchthon of Hermann's Consultation, who had become Regius Professor of Divinity in 1549, drew up his 'Censura' of the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. In the revision of the Prayer Book of 1552 his objection to every scenic practice in divine service and benedictions or consecrations of inanimate things, was to a great extent put into force.

The early part of the service, at the church door, was to be held at the font, and exorcism, unction, and the chrysom were removed from the rite; the crossing, to which he also objected, was, however, retained in a simpler form, but placed after the baptism, the crossing in the confirmation in the subsequent rite being omitted by the Bishop.

The consecration of the water in the font was wholly suppressed.

The opening prayer in the first Book was taken from the Consultation. This was improved in 1552 and has since been retained.

The second prayer was one of those used at the exorcism in the Sarum Rite. The Gospel was taken from St. Mark, which had been in use in Germany in the place of that from St. Matthew in the Sarum Rite, which had been followed by the Effeta and the Redditio Symboli or recitation of the Lord's Prayer and Creed.

The brief exhortation is based on the Consultation from which the thanksgiving is also derived; this was the final prayer of the catechumenate, and in 1549 ended the ceremony at the church door.

The address to the sponsors leads up to the baptismal vows, but in Germany these had already been made at the catechumenate which took place on the previous day.

In 1552 the questions were put to the sponsors directly, instead of to the child, who answered by his sponsors, but the form remained the same. This was altered in 1662 by the insertion of the words "in the name of this child", and at the same time the word 'forsake' was changed to the old word 'renounce'.

The four prayers and Collect which follow were taken from the consecration of the water, which, however, had been left out. In 1662 pure water in the font is each time directed instead of once a month, and the clause was inserted "Sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin".

The bidding and thanksgiving were added in 1552.

The Charge to the Sponsors remains as in 1549, being based on that given in the Sarum Manual. In 1662 the rubric as to confirmation was made a further charge.

Private Baptism of Children in Houses

In the case of necessity, baptism by laymen has been recognized since the earliest times; according to Tertullian, women were not allowed to administer it, but this was not prohibited by the Didascalia though described as full of risk.

St. Irenaeus and Origen also deal with the subject. In the Sarum Manual there was a rubric directing the priest to instruct the laity how to baptize in English and Latin, but this was not to be done except in dire necessity, and then a man was to act in preference to a woman. In 1549 and 1552 this was clearly laid down at the beginning of this rite, and licences of midwives with a recognition of their duty to baptize 'in the time of necessity' was given by the Archbishop in 1567. A Canon of Convocation in 1575 sought to withdraw this right from the laity, but Queen Elizabeth would not sanction it. However, at the revision after the Hampton Court Conference in 1604 King James I. was against it, and a rubric was drawn up, which only mentions "the Minister of the Parish or any other lawful Minister that can be procured", and this was continued in 1662.

This, however, does not invalidate lay baptism, which, though no longer mentioned in the Prayer Book, has been expressly reaffirmed by the Court of Arches in 1841 in the case of Mastin v. Escott.

As to the rite of publicly receiving such as have been baptized, the only alteration that has been made since 1549 is that the chrysom has not been given to the child. As to a conditional baptism, in the case of doubt, this was ordered by the Council of Hippo in 393 and is mentioned in the Statutes of St. Boniface, circa 755.

The Public Baptism of such as are of Riper Years

Though, as has been seen, the Office for the Baptism of Infants was based on the old Catechumenate and Baptism of Adults, yet the wording had become in the transition no longer quite applicable to adults. In consequence of the Anabaptism and general neglect during the Rebellion, the need of a special rite was recognized, and the present rite was included in the revision in 1662 accordingly, it having been drawn up by Convocation.

A. The Catechism. — History of the Manual of 1549 — Additions of 1604 as to the Sacraments included in 1662 — The larger Catechisms. B. Confirmation. — Prayer Books of 1549 and 1552 annexed the rite to the Catechism — Form enlarged and enriched in 1662.

A. The Catechism

Ever since the time of the Council of Cloveshoo in 747, where we find Canon x. dealing with the subject, Manuals were issued to the priests giving English versions and expositions of the Ten Commandments, Lord's Prayer, and Creed as a basis of subjects upon which they were to instruct the laity. Further Royal Injunctions were issued by Henry VIII. in 1536 and 1538 and repeated by Edward VI. as to this.

Marshall's Primer in 1534 contained a dialogue expounding the baptismal covenant and the Creeds and Commandments.

A Manual for the explanation of Baptism became only natural in the Prayer Book of 1549, which recognized that confirmation no longer immediately followed baptism, but was relegated until such time as the child should come to years of discretion. The explanation of the Sacraments was added in 1604 by royal authority by way of explanation and included in the revision of 1662, when the public catechizing was directed to take place during Evensong.

In 1553 a larger Catechism by Ponet, Bishop of Winchester, was published by royal authority, but it was not able to compete with its foreign rivals, e.g. Calvin 1538 and 1545, Erasmus 1547, and Bullinger 1559.

In 1570 Nowell's Catechism, based on Ponet's, was printed at the request of the Archbishops; it had been approved and amended by Convocation in 1563, but never formally sanctioned; however, its exclusive use was enjoined by the Canons of 1571. Nevertheless, those of Calvin and Bullinger were still ordered to be used at Oxford in 1578 by Statute.

B. Confirmation

We have seen how confirmation originally followed immediately after baptism, but as it was not delegated by the Bishops in the West to the Priests, it became a separate service; reference to this custom is made by St. Jerome and St. Isidore of Seville. The First and Second Prayer Books of Edward VI. continued this idea in that the rite was merely annexed to the Catechism. In 1549 the order followed largely that of Sarum, commencing with the same versicles and prayer for the sevenfold gift of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Isaiah xi. 2.

The Bishop signed them on the forehead in the same way, but without using chrism, but he imposed his hands upon them, as to which there had been variations in practice: the formula used was: "N. I sign thee with the sign of the Cross and lay my hand upon thee. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."

The Collect "Almighty and ever living God" followed, being based on a very lengthy one in the Consultation.

In 1552 the form was altered: instead of the prayer 'Sign them, O Lord' preceding the crossing and imposition of hands, the present prayer, 'Defend, O Lord', was directed to be used as the formula.

In the 1662 revision, the rite was given a proper title and a preface added, taken from the old rubrics; likewise the solemn ratification of the baptismal vows was included; the Lord's Prayer was added after the ceremony, as a thanksgiving, and a general collect for guidance was introduced before the blessing. Thus, the ratification of the vows made by the sponsors, rather than admission into the Church, became more and more stressed.

Tertullian — Nicholas I. — Civil Marriage and Nuptial Mass — Use of ring and veil and cake — The present form of plighting taken from York, not Sarum Manual — Table of Prohibited Degrees.

The earliest reference to the form of Christian marriage is an indirect one by Tertullian, who extols the happiness of a marriage cemented by the Church, confirmed by the oblation, sealed with the benediction, which the angels proclaim and which is ratified by the Heavenly Father (Ad Uxorem, ii. 9).

There are no records of the Roman Rite until we come to the reply of Pope Nicholas I. to the Bulgarians in 866, when he mentions that there was the sponsalia or betrothal according to the old Roman Law, i.e. the consent of the parties, giving of a ring and dowry, and the marriage ceremony, which consisted of a nuptial Mass, at which they take part in the offering and are communicated, a benediction whilst a veil was held over their heads, and coronation on leaving the church. In early times, the use of the ring is mentioned by Tertullian and St. Clement of Alexandria, though equally employed by the heathen and Jews, but the coronation was at first forbidden both by Justin Martyr and Tertullian.

The formularies have always been in the vernacular. The customs of York and Sarum varied considerably, but these variations have always been recognized; so much so, that the Council of Trent, after setting forth a minimum of ceremony, adds that, if there are any other praiseworthy customs or ceremonies in this or that country, they should be retained.

In England the bridal veil is a relic of the Roman 'flammeum', and the bridal cake a relic of the 'confarreatio', an offering of fruits and a wheaten loaf.

In England the Mass of the Trinity was more generally used at a wedding: it may be noted that the Horae de Trinitate were always included in the Primers (cf. p. 164).

The formulae of the plighting in this rite are taken from the York Manual, but the remainder, with but slight additions, is according to the Sarum Use, and except with a verbal alteration in 1552 have not been altered.

The table of Prohibited Degrees was issued by Archbishop Parker in 1563 and sanctioned by Canon xcix. of 1603, which prohibits the marriage of those within three degrees whether of affinity by blood or by marriage: the civil law, however, has encroached upon this by granting permission for marriage to a deceased wife's sister. This was prohibited by Canon lxi. of the Council of Elvira in 305 under the penalty of five years' excommunication.

A. Visitation of the Sick. — Origin — Prayer Book of 1549 followed Sarum — Alterations in 1552 — Unction omitted — Aaronic Blessing added in 1662. B. Communion of the Sick. — In 1549 Reservation recognized — In 1552 only Direction to Minister — In 1662 Celebration directed — Permissive Measure — Reservation provided for — No Devotion of the Mass.

A. Visitation of the Sick

Following the specific direction of Holy Scripture, James v. 14–15, the Church has always been diligent in this duty. The revisers in 1549 in the main followed the Sarum Manual; according to the Sarum Use penitential psalms, with antiphons, were recited on the way to the house, but, as processions were being discarded, these in the first Prayer Book were reduced to one, viz. Psalm 143, with its antiphon, which was to be recited in the house after the Salutation, "Peace be to this house and to all that dwell in it" (Matt. x. 13).

This Psalm was omitted in 1552 and only the antiphon left; this antiphon was also assigned to the penitential Psalms before the Litany, and is now included in the present Litany between the Invocations and Deprecations.

The versicles are the same as Sarum; but though the two following Collects were taken in 1549 from the same source, yet they have been considerably altered both in 1552 and again in 1662: it was at this point that the sick was sprinkled with Holy Water, but this was dropped in 1549.

Then follows the exhortation to patience and repentance, followed by confession of faith and of sins. If desired, absolution after confession followed by a prayer for absolution and Psalm 72. This prayer was that used for the reconciliation of penitents on Maundy Thursday. In 1549 unction on the forehead and breast was given, if desired; this was omitted in 1552, and the prayer, "The Almighty Lord which is a most strong tower", based on the texts Ps. lxi. 3, Phil. ii. 10, 11, and Acts iv. 12, was inserted. The Aaronic blessing, Num. vi. 24, and occasional prayers were added in 1662.

B. Communion of the Sick

In 1549 Reservation was recognized, and where the Reserved Sacrament was used the shortened form was:

The Confession, the Absolution and Comfortable Words, the Administration, and the last Collect before the Gloria in Excelsis.

Alternatively, the shortened form was to begin:

"O praise the Lord, all ye nations, laud him all ye people, for his merciful kindness is confirmed towards us and the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Glory be to the," etc.

Kyrie once, Salutation, Collect, and Epistle and Gospel as in present Use, and so to the end of the Canon. If more sick persons were to be communicated sufficient was to be reserved from the first celebration.

If the celebration followed the Visitation the second part of the exhortation and both Ps. 143 and 72 were to be omitted. In 1552 the same Collect, Epistle, and Gospel were appointed, but the rubric merely directs the curate to minister the Holy Communion without any further direction as to reservation or otherwise. In 1662 the rubric was changed to a direction to the minister to celebrate the Holy Communion, thereby ceasing to authorize reservation.

The rubric as to spiritual communion, in the case of one unable to partake of the Sacrament, is taken from the Latin Rubric and has the support of St. Augustine. In the Permissive Measure reservation for the Sick was provided for under certain restrictions, directed to prevent any service in the nature of the Devotion of the Mass such as is mentioned in Chapter VIII. p. 39.

Gregorian and Adrian origin of Use in England — Commendation in last Agony — Requiem Masses — Form of 1549 widely altered in 1552 and 1662 — Commendation of the Soul altered to Committal of the Body — Baptism — Bell — Forms of Prayer to be used at Sea.

The Use in England from Anglo-Saxon times was taken from the Gregorian and Adrian Sacramentaries and consisted of a cycle of Psalms, Litanies, and Collects during the last agony, ending in the solemn commendation in the name of the Holy Trinity:

"Go forth upon thy journey from this world, O Christian soul:

In the Name of God the Father who created thee, Amen.
In the Name of Jesus Christ who suffered for thee, Amen.
In the Name of the Holy Ghost who strengtheneth thee, Amen.

In communion with the blessed Saints and aided by the Angels and Archangels and all the armies of the heavenly host, Amen,

May thy portion this day be in peace and thy dwelling in the heavenly Jerusalem, Amen."

While the body was being prepared for burial, the service of Commendation consisted of Psalms and Collects. In early times there was no office for the dead between the time of death and burial; none is found in the Pontifical of Egbert, but first appears in the works of Amalarius in the Gallic Use, circa 800.

Psalms again were sung as the corpse was brought to the church. Then came the Office for the Dead, consisting of Vespers or Placebo, and Nocturns or Dirige, so called from the antiphons, and then the Requiem Mass, so called from the Introit, at which the corpse was censed and sprinkled with Holy Water, followed by the committal. Subsequently, Memorial Services consisting of the Office of the Dead and Requiem Masses were said, especially during the subsequent thirty days. In 1549 an attenuated form was introduced, which, however, because it contained prayers for the departed, was widely altered both in 1552 and again in 1662.

The Order in 1549 commenced with the existing sentences at the church stile or in the church, followed by the existing committal sentences at the graveside, taken from the antiphon of the Nunc Dimittis sung at Compline in Lent at St. Gall about 800; then, whilst the body was being committed to the grave, there was a commendation of the soul of the deceased to God (this was altered to its present form of committal of the body only in 1552) followed by Rev. xiii. (but no prayer of commendation of the soul) and a prayer of thanksgiving. Ps. 116, 146, and 139 were directed to be said in church either before or after the burial, then followed the lesson from 1 Cor. xv. and the versicles, followed by the last Collect but two, of the present rite; after which, the Communion was celebrated, at which the Collect was that which now forms the last Collect of 1662, the Psalm was 43, and the Epistle, 1 Thess. iv., and Gospel, John vi.

In 1552, after the opening sentences as in 1549, came the existing committal, "For as much as", and Rev. xiii. Then followed the lesson from 1 Cor. xv., the versicles and the two last prayers of the present service. This shortened form arose from the objection of the reformers to any commendation of the soul or celebration of the Communion for the Dead. This is contrary to the practice shown by Tertullian de Corona, cap. iii., St. Cyprian, Ep. xxxiv., and Canons of Hippolytus, xxxiii. sec. 169/170. At the revision in 1662 Psalms 39 and 90 were added after the opening sentences; the lesson was transposed so as to follow these.

As to the rubrics, valid baptism, however irregular, secures the Church's rites of burial, and the question of a suicide can only be decided by a coroner's inquest.

The priest is directed to meet the corpse at the entrance of the churchyard. An Injunction of Edward VI. in 1547 had previously relieved the priest of going to fetch any corpse before it had been brought to the churchyard.

Canon lxvii. of 1603 directs: "When anyone is passing out of this life a bell shall be tolled and the Minister shall not then be slack to do his last duty. And after the party's death there shall be rung no more but one short peal and one other before burial and one after burial."

This is a very ancient custom and is referred to by Bede, Hist. Eccl. iv. ch. 23.

Forms of Prayer to be used at Sea

During the Commonwealth forms were devised as a supplement to the 'Directory' by the authority of Parliament to take the place of the use of the Book of Common Prayer in the Navy.

On the revision in 1662 these forms were introduced as a fitting adjunct to the Book of Common Prayer; amongst them will be found the proper form of Committal of the Dead of those who die at sea. These are directed to be used in the Navy by the First Article of War.

St. Gregory the Great and St. Augustine — Purification Veil — Eliza Shipden's Case.

This service can be traced from the early days of the Christian Church: there is correspondence about it between St. Gregory the Great and St. Augustine (cf. Bede, ch. 27. 8), and is no doubt derived from the Jewish rite of the Purification.

In 1549 and 1552 the Psalm was 121, but in 1662 this was changed to 116 or 127, as being more suitable.

The rubric in 1662 directs that the woman shall be 'decently apparelled'; this has reference to the English custom of wearing a veil: though this had never been required in any rubric, either in the Latin or English Services, it was enforced by law, both ecclesiastical and civil, in the reign of James I. when the Puritans tried to give it up (cf. Eliza Shipden's case).

Exhortation by Reformers, 1549 — Devotions for Ash Wednesday in Sarum Use — Blessing of the Ashes — Aaronic Blessing added, 1662.

The Exhortation was composed by the Reformers in 1549; and this and the rest of the Service has remained unaltered. Apart from the Exhortation, the rest of the service is taken from the Solemn Devotions of Ash Wednesday, according to the Sarum Use. Psalm 51 was one of the penitential Psalms then sung; the versicles are the same, and also the first Collect. The second Collect is based on that for the blessing of the ashes, with which, in the old rite, a cross was marked on the foreheads of the people with the warning, "Remember, O man, that thou art ashes and unto ashes shalt thou return". The general supplication is based on Joel ii., which is still the Epistle for the day. The Aaronic Blessing was fittingly added in 1662: till then the Communion was intended to follow.