LI B RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N I VLR5ITY 
 
 or ILLl NOIS
 
 If 
 
 REVISION OF THE RUBRICS. 
 
 A PAPEK 
 
 READ BY 
 
 THE HON. WILBEAHAM EGEKTON, M,P. 
 
 DIOCESAN CONFERENCE 
 
 HELD AT CHESTER, 
 
 ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER THE 30th, 1874. 
 
 1.0ND0N: 
 
 PRINTED BY NICHOLS AND SONS, 
 
 25, Parliament Street, Westminster. 
 
 1874.
 
 THE REVISION OF THE RUBEICS. 
 
 Mr. WiLBRAHAM Egerton Said :— 
 
 The subject which I have been requested by the Bishop to 
 1)ring before you is one which I shall endeavour to treat 
 temperately and fairly, for it is a question of the greatest im- 
 portance to the future of the English Church, and cannot 
 but excite the deepest interest. The legislation of last Session 
 produced a feeling of irritation in the minds of the Clergy 
 which, I believe, arose more from the w^ay in which it was 
 brought forward than from the ultimate shape which it obtained; 
 but I trust this feeling will pass away, and that they will con- 
 sider calmly, and, if possible, without party spirit, the revision 
 of the Eubrics of the Book of Common Prayer. I will first 
 allude to the steps already taken in that direction. The Report 
 of the Royal Commission on Ritual, which sat from 1867 to 
 1870, recommended alterations in the Rubrics for the purpose of 
 '' securing general uniformity of practice in those matters which 
 may be deemed essential." Their recommendations for adapt- 
 ing the services of the Church to the wants and circumstances 
 of different congregations have already been secured in the 
 ^' Uniformity Acts Amendment Act;" but the members of the 
 Commission were not unanimous on other points, and their 
 published reasons for dissent show the wide differences which 
 exist among many earnest Churchmen, and the difficulties which 
 encompass the whole subject. The only man, perhaps, who 
 could have grappled fairly and broadly with it, and have held 
 the just balance between parties, has been, to the great loss of
 
 tlio English Clmrcli, removed from us. The late Bishop of 
 Winchester laid down this most important principle, which, I 
 think, cannot be too carefully borne in mind : " The written 
 Rubric should define, as distinctly as possible, the common rule ; 
 but no written Rubric on such a subject can be made so explicit 
 and so comprehensive as to meet the needs of every case, unless 
 some discretion be lodged in a living authority"* — the Ordinary. 
 The Ritual Commission expressed an opinion, in their first 
 report, that it was expedient to restrain all variations in respect 
 to vesture from that which has long been the established usage ; 
 but in their fourth report they could not agree on any amend- 
 ment of the Ornaments Rubric, and it is owing to its obscure and 
 debateable character that many of the departm-es from the uni- 
 formity in public worship have arisen, which rendered necessary 
 the legislation of last Session. Their report w^as followed by the 
 appointment of a Committee of the Lower House of Convoca- 
 tion of Canterbury t " to consider it, and whether it is desirable 
 to introduce any changes into the Rubrics which regulate the 
 conduct of the public services of the Church." This Committee 
 reported that " while freely admitting that certain advantages 
 might be attained by the alteration of some of the Rubrics, as, 
 indeed, everything human is capable of some improvement, they 
 are, nevertheless, of opinion that there is no actual necessity for 
 such alteration." It, however, made comments on the recom- 
 mendations of the Commissioners, and specially disapproves of the 
 proposed alteration of the Rubric concerning the daily use of the 
 Church Service. With regard to the Ornaments Rubric, it 
 suggests a new one, sanctioning the use of copes in cathedral 
 and collegiate churches, and in other churches the usual sur- 
 plice and stole, and vestments only with the permission of the 
 Ordinary. The Lower House did not agree to this or other 
 suggestions of the Committee on most of the controverted 
 points. The Convocation of the Northern Province has con- 
 
 * Fourth Kcport of the Ritual Commissiouers, p. 10. 
 t Report of the Committee, pp. 1 and 2.
 
 siderecl the rubrics as far as they were affected by the " Uni- 
 formity Acts Amendment Act," and by the fourth report of the 
 Commissioners. The discussion on that occasion turned princi- 
 pally upon the Athanasian Creed, and not at all upon the 
 Ornaments Kubric. In the present year no steps have been 
 taken by either House of Convocation to discuss the question, 
 beyond the appointment of Committees in the Southern Pro- 
 vince to report next year. It therefore becomes the duty of 
 such an assembly as this to assist in forming the public opinion 
 of the Clergy and Laity, and by its informal utterances to 
 ventilate the subject before the meeting of Convocation. There 
 are some, no doubt, who, like the Committee of Convocation, 
 would leave the Rubrics untouched, and allow the controverted 
 points to be settled by the decision of the new court under the 
 Public Worship Regulation Act. Others think a liberal dis- 
 cretion should be given to the Bishop, which certainly would be 
 desirable, whether they are revised or not^ Others, again, fear 
 that if the Rubrics are altered the alteration of the Prayer Book 
 will follow, and that opinions are so divided that if any changes 
 are made they will tend to narrow it. I certainly should not be 
 in favour of any revision of the Rubrics which would assail the 
 integrity of the Prayer Book, as is shadowed forth by the ques- 
 tions of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Clergy, in which 
 he alludes to the proposition that the concession of the eastward 
 position should be balanced by the omission of the Athanasian 
 Creed and the Commination Service. On the other hand, the 
 great outcry from the Clergy against the Bill of last Session 
 was that it was brought forward without time being given Con- 
 vocation to revise the laws of the Church. That opportunity is 
 now given them. I cannot see how the argument of the Bishop 
 of Peterborough can be refuted, viz., that before the Rubrics 
 can be enforced they must be brought in harmony with the 
 feeling of the times. He says the real root of the evil ^^is that 
 we have been governed, or rather we are attempting to govern, 
 the Church of England by obsolete laws— the laws of the
 
 Church were passed more than two hundred years ago — the 
 Rubrics of the Church having been framed for a state of things 
 existing two hundred years ago, will not fit the present state of 
 the country. The consequence has been that the Clergy have 
 long been obliged to set aside the Rubrics here and there, with 
 what I call the unwise connivance of the Bishoj)s." * I will, 
 therefore, assume that it is desirable that some alterations which 
 should make as little change as possible in the existing practice, 
 should be made before July next, in order that the peace of the 
 Church may not be disturbed by constant litigation, with which 
 we are threatened under the Act of last Session, I propose, 
 first, to lay down the principles by which the revision of the 
 Rubrics should be guided. 
 
 1. The maintenance of Primitive faith and Catholic practice. 
 Our Church has always maintained its direct succession from 
 the Apostles, and, as the 30th canon declares, '' Doth Avith 
 reverence maintain those ceremonies which do neither endamage 
 the Church of God, nor offend the minds of sober men ; and 
 only departed from them in those particular points wherein they 
 were fallen both from themselves and their ancient integrity, 
 and from the Apostolical Churches, which were their first 
 founders." 
 
 2. The comprehensive character of the Church. This feeling 
 is embodied in the Prayer Book, which itself is the result of a 
 compromise. It is Catholic in its reverence for all that is of 
 Primitive usage, and Protestant in its rejection of all the errors 
 which have crept into both the doctrine and ritual of the Church 
 of Rome. 
 
 3. Due respect to be paid to the customs of the Church for 
 the last two hundred years. The minds of congregations should 
 not be disturbed by innovations in ritual, nor practices forced 
 upon them which have not been in common use, and are repug- 
 nant to their feelings. 
 
 * Speech of Bishop of Peterborough in the House of Lords, on the Public 
 Worship Regulation Bill 1874.
 
 4. In non-essentialsj where different usages exist, alternative 
 forms slioukl be defined and allowed subject to the discretion of 
 the ordinary. They must not be left to the congregation, or all 
 uniformity would be lost ; nor to the clergyman, for he might 
 enforce views distasteful to his congregation ; but to the Bishop, 
 who is the best judge between the two, and who would, under 
 the pressure of public opinion, be guided in his decision mainly 
 by the wishes of the large majority of the congregation. 
 
 Before discussing the Rubrics in detail, I will first of all 
 remind you of what is their history. They date from the first 
 Common Prayer Book of Edward VI., which was drawn up 
 under Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, and, being revised 
 and approved by the Archbishops, Bishops, and Clergy in both 
 Convocations, was confirmed by both Houses of Parliament and 
 the Crown in 1548-9. About 1550 some exception was taken to 
 the Prayer Book, and under the influence of some foreign 
 Reformers some rites and ceremonies were removed, such as the 
 use of oil in baptism, the unction of the sick, prayers for the 
 departed, the Invocation of the Holy Ghost in the prayer of 
 consecration, and the Rubric which ordered the mixing of the 
 water with the wine in the Eucharist. The Commissioners 
 appointed to revise the Prayer Book also made some other 
 alterations, and the vestments prescribed by the former book 
 were ordered to be set aside. This second Prayer Book of 
 Edward VI. was annexed to the Bill for the Uniformity of 
 Divine Worship, and passed by both Houses of Parliament in 
 1552. In the first year of Queen Mary, 1553, the first and 
 second Liturgies of Edward VI were repealed by statute. At 
 the accession of Elizabeth the Act of repeal passed under Mary 
 was reversed, and the second book of Edward VI. adopted, with 
 some alterations in the Communion Service, and in the Rubric 
 concerning the state of the chancel, and the proper place for 
 reading the Divine Service, and the vestments of the first book 
 of Edward VI. were restored. In the first year of James L, 
 after the Conference at Hampton Court, between Whitgift and
 
 8 
 
 other Divines on the one side, and Dr. Reynolds and some 
 Puritans on the other, a few alterations were made. After that 
 there was no further change till 1661-2, when the Prayer Book 
 assumed its present form. Its admirable preface lays down the 
 principles on which it was drawn up,* " not to gratify this or 
 that party in any of their unreasonable demands, but to do that 
 which to our best understandings we conceiv'^e might most tend 
 to the preservation of peace and the unity of the Church, the 
 procuring of reverence, and exciting of piety and devotion in the 
 public worship of God, and the cutting ofp occasion from them 
 that seek occasion to cavil or quarrel against the Liturgy of the 
 Church." 
 
 I will now allude to those Rubrics that are doubtful and seem 
 to require a clearer definition. The most important of these 
 is the Ornaments Rubrics taken from the Act of Uniformity 
 of Elizabeth. It is in conflict, as recently interpreted, with the 
 58th Canon of 1604, which is as follows: " Every minister 
 saying the public prayers, or ministering the Sacraments or 
 other rites of the Church, shall wear a decent and comely 
 surplice with sleeves, graduates hoods, and non-graduates black 
 tippets." Dr. Travers Twiss suggests that the Rubric should 
 be omitted, and the vesture of the parochial clergy should be 
 ]'egulated by the canon.f Mr. Hubbard says that the offensive 
 feature in the revived vestments was their colour ; and restraint 
 in respect of colour might have been exercised by the following- 
 addition to the Ornaments Rubric : " Nevertheless it is expe- 
 dient that for the greater uniformity in ecclesiastical vestments 
 the ministers shall be restrained to the use of a white vesture, 
 provided that upon such vesture they may wear a scarf or stole, 
 and, if graduates, an academic hood." { Lord Carnarvon recom- 
 mends § " the substitution, in the case of all parochial churches, 
 or churches of a parochial character, of the surplice for all other 
 
 * Preface to the Prayer Book, 1C62. 
 
 t Fourth Report of the Ritual Commissioners, p. 14. 
 
 t Fourth Report of the Ritual Commissioners, p. 15. 
 
 § Fourth Report of the Ritual Commissioners, Appendix, p. 156.
 
 ecclesiastical vestments during all tlie services, subject to a 
 distinct discretion on the part of the Ordinary to sanction the 
 addition of some other white vestment during the Holy Commu- 
 nion, or, on the other hand, the use of the black gown during 
 the sermon, when in either case he was satisfied that the congre- 
 gation desired it." Mr. Perry goes further, and suggests that 
 the Ornaments Rubric should be left as it is, with this addition, 
 " but if any question arise in a parish or congregation touching 
 the fitness of the ornaments of this second year, or of any other 
 ornaments used at such times of ministration, it shall be decided 
 by the discretion of the Ordinary, or of the Archbishop, in case 
 of appeal being made to him." * The opinions I have just quoted 
 are those of different members of the Ritual Commission. The 
 question of vestments depends so much more on custom, which 
 varies with different times, than on any abstract fitness, 
 that some slight variation in them which would not include 
 the elaborate vestment generally, but by no means neces- 
 sarily, connected with the Roman ritual, seems requisite to 
 meet the views of those two great parties which will always 
 exist in the Church, as the foundation of their differences is in 
 human nature itself. The practice certainly of the Church of 
 England has been to beautify the House of God, "Keeping 
 the middle way between superstition and slovenliness," and to 
 avoid as much as possible that personal ornament which tends 
 to magnify the importance of a sacerdotal class, without giving 
 up such a decent and distinctive dress for its ministers as seems 
 to be sanctioned by Catholic antiquity. This led to the main- 
 tenance of the cope for the celebrant in the Cathedral, and the 
 peculiar dress of bishops. The importance of this question, as 
 well as the position of the celebrant, to which I will next allude, 
 has been much exaggerated, because the advocacy of one side 
 or the other has been made the rallying point of party feeling. 
 The Rubric in the Communion service respecting the position 
 
 * Fourth Report of the Ritual Commissioners, p. 22.
 
 10 
 
 of the celebrant standing before the Holy Table has been 
 decided to mean on the north side, but there appears to be no 
 reason why an alternative position should not be allowed. The 
 Rubrics recognise two positions of the Communion Table as 
 equally lawful ; besides the usual position, it may stand in the 
 body of the Church, tablewise, when the broad side would be to 
 the north. This was the practice in most parish churches 
 during the seventeenth century. As far as the positions may be 
 symbolical of doctrine, it seems to be capable of interpretation 
 to suit both High and Low Church views.* Bishop Wordsworth 
 says, ^^ Each of these two positions has its own special signifi- 
 cance — the one represents the Divine grace and gift to man, 
 the other expresses man's plea for mercy and acceptance with 
 God ; one looks man ward from God, the other Godward 
 from man." The American Charch admits both positions. In 
 a basilican arrangement, the earliest of all, where the Bishop 
 and Presbyters sat at the east end, the celebrant stood on the 
 east side. The Church of Rome recognises both an eastward 
 and westward position, so that the eastward position cannot be 
 said to be exclusively Roman. The Scotch Office Rubric, 
 before the prayer of consecration, says '^ He shall stand at such 
 part of the Holy Table, where he may with more ease and 
 decency use both his hands." 
 
 I now come to those Rubrics that are obsolete or irregularly 
 obeyed, which I touch briefly. 
 
 (1.) The first and second paragraphs in the Rubrics preceding 
 the office of the Holy Communion, which owing to their strict- 
 ness are never carried out. It has been proposed to abolish the 
 required notice, to make the second clause more general, and to 
 relieve the Bishop from the duty of proceeding against the 
 offending person according to canon. 
 
 (2. ) Reading the daily prayers in the Church. This is a Rubric 
 which I think has, unfortunately, been too often broken by 
 omission, and it should be enforced subject to the discretion of 
 
 ♦ Letter of the Bishop of Lincoln in John JBiill, May 9, 1874.
 
 11 
 
 the Ordinary. I cannot but think that the note by the Kitual 
 Commissioners* lowers the standard of duty, and, now that 
 short services are sanctioned, I think that nothing but reasonable 
 hindrances ought to prevent the daily prayers being said, if not 
 twice, yet once a day. 
 
 (3.) Instruction in the Catechism after the second lesson of 
 evening prayer. This might be used either before or after 
 service instead of a sermon as a valuable instruction even to the 
 older members of the congregation. 
 
 There are others more or less repugnant to the spirit and 
 feeling of the times. 
 
 1 . The Sponsors' Rubric. It was recommended by the Eitual 
 Commission that one sponsor should suffice, and that parents 
 might be sponsors for their own children. 
 
 2. The individual administration of the holy elements of the 
 Eucharist, against the relaxation of which by the Ritual Com- 
 missioners, without confining the indulgence to cases of extreme 
 necessity,! our Bishop entered a protest, with which I entirely 
 agree. 
 
 3. The Rubrics preceding the Creed commonly called the 
 Athanasian. I do not here enter into the question of the 
 revision of the text of the Creed, because that is not affected by 
 the Rubrics ; but I wish briefly to refer to the question of 
 omitting this Creed entirely from the services of the Church, 
 or of qualifying the damnatory clauses by a note of interpreta- 
 tion, such as at the end of the Baptismal Service explains the 
 sign of the cross in baptism. I will not say more than that I 
 must enter my protest against any alteration of it, which would 
 be a blow to all dogmatic teaching, and shake that belief in the 
 Trinity which is assailed by some of our cleverest writers, such 
 as when in the same volume of a review which contains the 
 eloquent defence of Ritual by the late Prime Minister,' the son 
 of Dr. Arnold describes the Holy Trinity as ^^ a trio of magnified 
 
 * Schedule to the Fourth Report, p. 5. 
 t Fourth Report, pp. 11 and 12.
 
 12 
 
 and non-natural men," and popular Christianity as *^ a fairy 
 tale."* Difficulties there may be in the general understanding 
 of such a Creed, and it may be a stumbling-block to many ; but 
 though I express an opinion, as a layman with diffidence, it 
 does not seem to me to require any other interpretation than 
 S. Mark, xvi. 16, " He that believeth and is baptized shall 
 be saved, and he that believeth not, shall be damned," or 
 KaTaKpiOrjaerai, condemned, together with the Sixth Article, 
 '' Anything which is not read in Scripture, nor may be proved 
 thereby, is not required of any man that it should be believed 
 as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to 
 salvation." 
 
 4. Lastly, there are many customs which are not according to 
 the Rubric, but in order that no irregularities may creep in it is 
 wise to sanction them — such as the prayer before the sermon, 
 though the canon prescribes the bidding prayer — the turning 
 to the east during the Creed — the use of hymns in different 
 parts of the service. 
 
 Having alluded to some of the principal points at issue, 
 I will now consider what difficulties stand in the way of 
 Convocation coming to an agreement on the subject. An 
 extreme party has arisen, who " say that they are bound by 
 the traditions of the Catholic Church, and that they ought 
 to obey the unwritten instinct of the Catholic Church rather 
 than the written law of the EngHsh Church ;"t who are not 
 satisfied with the compromise entered into at the Reformation, 
 and wish in their ritual to go back to pre-Reformational usages. 
 Tliese it is impossible to satisfy. There are also those who 
 believe that they are carrying out the law strictly by reviving 
 certain obsolete usage or forms sanctioned by the Church of 
 England. To those I would say. Do not imperil doctrines of 
 vital importance by making your stand on external ordinances. 
 
 * Contemporary Review, p. 802, 1874. 
 
 t Speech of the Bishop of reterborough in the House of Lords, on the Pnltlic 
 Worship Regulation Bill.
 
 13 
 
 High sacramental views have been and probably are now held 
 by those who do not violate the RubricSj nor use an exceptional 
 ritual. There are also those who are open to the charge of 
 omitting to do what the Rubrics enjoin. I would ask each of 
 these great parties in the Church to consider whether their own 
 particular views are of such importance that they would prefer to 
 break up the Church of England into sects rather than give 
 way. I hope that they will each be prepared, on approaching 
 this question, to make some sacrifices, and to find out what are 
 the essential points on which they agree, rather than the non- 
 essentials on which they may agree to differ. I would further 
 say to those of the clergy who are dissatisfied w^ith the legislation 
 of the last session, which they call Erastian, and in order to 
 avoid the interference of Parliament are beginning to agitate 
 for the severance of Church and State : Take warning from the 
 Irish Church. Do not imagine that you will have greater 
 independence when disestablished than you have now. Do not 
 let the idea of Congregationalism, which has been dangled 
 before our eyes both in Parliament and in print by a great 
 master of eloquent language, induce you to forget that you 
 would then be the slave of your congregation, instead of being 
 bound by Rubrics and Acts of Uniformity ; and, if the congre- 
 gations are to dictate the ritual, what is to prevent them from 
 dictating the doctrines also ? Next, what is the body to whom 
 the revision .of the Rubrics is entrusted ? There is no unity of 
 action between the two Synods of York and Canterbury. The 
 Northern Convocation has not yet appointed a Committee to 
 consider the subject. The Southern Convocation at least 
 imperfectly represents the clergy and demands reform. Its 
 system of election is defective, but it supplies, like the unre- 
 formed Parliament, many distinguished and representative men. 
 If they will only study the signs of the times they will not 
 disregard the public opinion of the laity of the Church, and I 
 am happy to see that Bishops are already asking for an expres- 
 sion of that opinion from ruridecanal conferences and chapters.
 
 14 
 
 Suggestions have been made at the Oxford Conference that tlie 
 Archbishop should summon lay delegates from every diocese 
 for the purpose of consultation with Convocation. I cannot 
 think such a course either desirable or constitutional, because 
 they would interfere with the rights of Convocation as repre- 
 senting the clergy, and their opinion could have no legal value 
 or authority. I should have thought the debates of last Session 
 would have shown Convocation sufficiently the feeling of the 
 two Houses of Parliament. It is perhaps unnecessary to 
 forecast what may be the decision of Convocation, but, what- 
 ever it may be, any revision of the Rubrics proposed by it 
 must come before Parliament, which can either accept, 
 reject, or modify it. I think the best course, to sift the matter 
 more carefully than could be done in committee of the whole 
 House, would be that the Bill for the Revision of the Rubrics 
 should be referred at once, or after a formal second reading, to 
 a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament, formed of 
 Churchmen exclusively. This Committee should be composed 
 of at least fifty members, to include men of all shades of opinion ; 
 and any agreement to which they might come would command 
 the respect of the great majority of both Houses of Parliament. 
 Tlieir decision would probably be accepted by all but those who 
 look upon all interference by a Parliament no longer composed 
 exclusively of Churchmen with jealousy and distrust; and I 
 believe that if the Rubrics revised by Convocation and Parlia- 
 ment received the sanction of the Crown they would be obeyed 
 loyally by the great body of the clergy as the law of the land 
 and the Church. I commend this question to this Conference 
 with the full sense that I have not done due justice to it, but if 
 in any way I may have been able to say words which will lead 
 to a temperate discussion of it I shall feel that I have not spoken 
 in vain. I have attempted to advocate a certain amount of elasticity 
 in our ritual, limited not by the caprice of congregations but 
 by the wise discretion of the Bishops, which is no new prin- 
 ciple, as it is already indicated in our Prayer Book. The Church
 
 15 
 
 of England, if it is to continue a national Cliurcli, must be com- 
 prehensive both in its doctrines and ritual, and I would rather 
 the Rubrics should be left in their present unsatisfactory state 
 than that in their revision the compromise effected at the Refor- 
 mation should be overthrown. I ask you to consider your 
 determination in no narrow or intolerant spirit, or with a view 
 to give a temporary triumph to any party, but to aid in settling 
 this long-vexed question, to the greater strength and profit of 
 the Church, and thereby to the maintenance of truly Protestant 
 and Apostolic faith among the people of England. 
 
 Westminster: Printed by Nichols and Sons, 25, Parliament Street.
 
 n^n
 
 mm<.^