Di IgLvt.ike/eiBeofcs . • iLiiiBiaaisrar • BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE Henry W. Scott, Jr. Fund SOME PRINCIPLES OF LITURGICAL REFORM First Edition . . . .' . ' March 1911 Reprinted May *9Ir -Reprinted .... December 191 1 Second Edition August 1914 SOME PRINCIPLES OF LITURGICAL REFORM A CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS THE REVISION OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER BY W. H. FRERE, D.D. OF THE COMMUNITY OF THE RESURRECTION LONDON JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. 1914 Ai.l Rights Resekvbd PREFACE The work of Prayer-Book Revision has made considerable progress since the date of the first edition of this book. The Houses of Convoca tion have been busy, and the results, which they have reached so far, are at the moment easily accessible in three or four recent Reports — Canterbury, Upper House, Report 481 on the Rubrics ; Lower House, Report 475 on the Lectionary, and a summary of the proposals as a whole called Modifications of Existing Law; York, Lower House, Report 277a on Letters of Business. There is much here to encourage, especially some proposals for the amendment of the Eucharistic Anaphora; but some things also which cause much apprehension, especially the proposals concerning the Psalter, for they threaten to destroy all the orderly reading of the Psalms, which it was one of the objects of the Prayer Book to restore and perpetuate. vi PREFACE There has been published also a good deal of unofficial literature, which is of great im portance for this purpose, particularly the series of Alcuin Club Revision Tracts (that by Mr. Wyatt especially needs attention), the Prayer Book Revised, for which the Bishop of Oxford stood sponsor, and Canon Randolph's Revised Liturgy. Yet it cannot be said that, up to the present, the subject has awoken the interest that it deserves. In some quarters some enthusiasm has been aroused. On the other hand, various groups, which are opposed to any change, have been alarmed ; and have passed resolutions, revealing sometimes caution, sometimes sus picion, sometimes timidity, sometimes mere conservatism, though most often probably re vealing a mere conformity to type, a willing ness to say "agreed " to a formula disseminated from headquarters. All these signs of interest are to the good. The opposition is a valuable element in the case; and perhaps the only pity is that there is not more of it. The hundreds, who are satisfied with things as they are, would then provoke the thousands, who for one cause or another are not, to become more insistent PREFACE vii about the need of enrichment and amend ment. Meanwhile it is hoped that the re-issue in a cheaper form of this little contribution to the difficult and pressing problem may succeed in enlisting further interest, and helping in some small degree towards the solution. W. H. FRERE. MlRFIELD, Michaelmas 19 14. ORIGINAL PREFACE The suggestions which are contained in this book deal for the most part with broad litur gical principles and with the general procedure of Prayer Book Revision, rather than with details. In their present form they are the outcome of several sets of recent lectures on the subject given to different audiences ; but in a sense a longer history lies behind them. Nearly a quarter of a century has passed since, as a theo logical student, I became convinced that the problem of Prayer Book Revision was one that must before long occupy the attention of the Church. The subject fascinated me, and litur gical study became an occupation which I have tried to pursue, however intermittently, ever since. The moment now seems to have come, in the course of a definite movement towards revision, when the private person may venture forward and offer very tentatively to the authorities such x PREFACE suggestions as he best can, arising out of his own liturgical studies and his practical experi ence of the needs. Such suggestions are neces sarily very tentative. It is for the authorities to weigh them, if they judge that there is any thing in them that is worth their attention ; and to verify the statements of fact or of opinion ; as it is for them to decide, whether or no any of them is to be adopted as an official proposition of the Church, and so be submitted to the con sideration of the Church as a whole. Let not the reader then expect to find here either a finished treatise or a single orderly consistent plan of revision. No one is more conscious than the writer how rough in them selves, and how roughly stated, the suggestions are ; and he has in places deliberately made alternative proposals in preference to urging a single view. Deliberately too the field is nar rowed down as far as possible, so as to include only the large issues which are of general in terest, and to exclude minor reforms, verbal amendments, questions of translation or of re adjustment, and the like. Most church-goers have an interest in one or two of such points, which happen to have fixed themselves on their attention or jarred upon their nerves, and they PREFACE xi are apt to attach to them an exaggerated im portance; but, in fact, the details of revision as a whole fall neither within the sphere of interest nor the sphere of competence of the average worshipper, while the broad principles, if they can be unfolded before him, should both attract his consideration and win his approval. It is said that at the last revision, in 1661, some six hundred alterations were made; but most people, on seeing the new book, probably thought that it had been altered only in a relatively few points. The same must be the case again when ever the Church is prepared to make a thorough revision; and again the detailed work will be done in the quiet of a committee-room. But principles come before details, not only in order of importance and of general interest, but also in order of logic and of time. Therefore, whether the Church proceeds now to such a detailed revision, or whether it postpones that task and is content for the present with a very much smaller project, the principles which must govern revision, in whatever degree it is under taken, need to be stated, criticised, amended, it may be, and formulated as rules of conduct. Until this is done, all proposals to alter a rubric here and a phrase there, or to prune this and *" PREFACE amplify that, are worse than useless. The best that can be hoped for them is, that proving abortive themselves, they may give place to something more thorough. Notes and references to authorities in justifica tion of the statements made, or opinions formu lated, have been for the most part suppressed, as being unnecessary in a book of ihis kind. It is particularly easy to dispense with them in this case, as I have had an opportunity elsewhere to say my say on the History and Rationale of the Prayer Book. When the details of revision come to be con sidered, a precious mine of information and suggestion will be found in the two volumes ot the late Bishop of Edinburgh (Dr. Dowden), entitled The Workmanship of the Prayer Book and Further Studies in the Prayer Book. There is also much of value in Staley, Liturgical Studies. For a discussion of the relation of Church and State, and the blame attaching to the latter for its unconstitutional actions which have led to the present lack of order, see Bruce, Relationship of Church and State (1910). CONTENTS PAGI PREFACE V I THE NEED AND METHOD OF REVISION Conservative character of worship (p. i): but change is needed to avoid the obsolete (2), and to provide variety (4) — The conditions for a revision (5), how far at present fulfilled (7) — Two contrasted perils, insularity (11), and incongruity (12). II THE KALENDAR The dating of Easter (p. 16)— The basis of the Kalendar (19)— Two qualifications for a place in it (21) — The Saints popular in English Dedications (23) — Provision needed for Black Letter Festivals (25) — The Saints popular in English Kalendars (26)— Inquiry into the present Black Letter Days (27), and the test of historicity (28) — The two tests applied (30) — Innovations for Red Letter Days (40), for Black Letter Days (52). Ill THE USE OF HOLY SCRIPTURES Two principles of Selection and Continuity (p. 7°) — The former anciently predominated in the popular service (72), the latter in the monastic and clerical services (74) — The unexpected inversion in the services at the Reformation (77), and its consequences (80) — Remedy for Sundays and Holy Days (82) — A revised Psalter (88) — Remedy for week-days (90), in Psalter (92) and Lectionary (95). xiv CONTENTS IV FAST, FESTIVAL, AND RUBRIC GENERALLY The Table of Fasts (p. 99) — First Evensong (100) — Fewer Vigils (103) — Nature of Rubric (104), altered by the policy of Acts of Uniformity (108) — Consequent disasters, how to be remedied (m) — Alternative methods of procedure (116) — The Ornaments' Rubric (119). V THE LORD'S PRAYER AND COLLECTS Use of the Lord's Prayer singly (p. 134) and in complex formulas (135) ; in the Prayer Book (137)— Its form (140)— Liturgical methods of intercession (141) — Two types of prayer (143) — Memorials (147) — Collect endings (148) — The Eucharistic type of prayer (149). VI THE SUNDAY MORNING SERVICE The ideal of the Prayer Book (p. 151), to be recovered by Com pression of morning services (154) — Schemes for this by permission and experimentally (159) — Effect on the Quicunque (161). Vll MORNING PRAYER AND LITANY The Sentences and penitential introduction (p. 163) — Canticles (164) —Collect, etc. (167) — Intercessions (168)— Litany (170) — Quicunque (170. VIII THE EVENING SERVICE A non-liturgical alternative (p. 173) — Two liturgical services as equivalent for Evensong (175) — Hymns (178). CONTENTS vx IX TIIE HOLY COMMUNION SERVICE Need of psalmody (p. 182) — The English Canon (186) : its reconstruction not yet possible (188), but a possible step towards that end (190) — Two classes of people need such a step (192) — Minor changes (195)— Variants for Black Letter Days (196). X THE OCCASIONAL OFFICES Adult Baptism (p. 199) — Confirmation (202) — Services of the Sick (204) — Burial Services (206) — Enrichment and Additional Services (208)f SOME PRINCIPLES OF LITURGICAL REFORM I THE NEED AND METHOD OF REVISION There are few things about which human nature is so conservative as worship and prayer. Forms which have been consecrated by years of devotion tend to acquire a great fixity; and change is correspondingly resented. There is wisdom in this conservative attitude : the old is good. Amid all the change of civilisation and progress, no part of man or of his habits changes less than that which is in touch with things eternal and with God. He is right, by the nature of the case, to be more conservative in this than in other and more transitory relation ships. The language of prayer, whether private or public, is therefore very uniform throughout the world's history, and Christian phraseology and moulds of devotion last on, substantially un altered, from one generation to another. There 2 THE NEED AND METHOD OF REVISION would be an element of wantonness in any proposal to make changes in such matters for slight reasons or for the mere sake of change. Any proposal for liturgical alteration must therefore be very narrowly scrutinised both in general and in detail. Yet there are considerations which make for change even in such a conservative sphere. While the main principles and broad features of devo tional form and language remain constant, there is also room for continual improvement in detail. There is no gain in continuing to use an unsatisfactory version of the Psalms or other parts of Scripture; this is merely to travesty the best of old inspired literature. There is no gain in retaining cumbrous expression or bad rhythm. Long use has a singular power of dis guising such defects, so that happily the ordinary worshipper is deaf to the cumbrousness of our current versions of the Latin collects, and has even come to hold it as a matter of faith that Cranmer and other translators were masters of rhythm. It is well that we should be thus cajoled by use, so long as it merely makes us contented ; but it would be ill, if it were to make us decline to admit any amendment. There is no gain in continuing a series of public intercessions which was constructed for a set of circumstances different from the present. The form, into which a series of intercessions is cast, PRESENT LOSSES 3 should vary continually; and it is not healthy that a Church of the twentieth century, in praying for the needs of the day, should be hampered by still using the categories of the seventeenth century, and limited, in its explicit scope at any rate, to the outlook of two and a half centuries ago. There is no gain in maintaining self-denying ordinances or compromises which, owing to the exigences of controversy or the unsettlement incidental to Reformation, were once necessary but are so no longer. The present reticence about prayer for the faithful departed is an instance of such a self-denying ordinance em bodied in our present liturgical Order, while the Prayer Book is full of compromises between legitimately divergent views. Some of them are necessary still and must be retained ; but others have done their work, and may make way for something better to come in, or come back, with general approval. There is no gain in having to struggle with rubrics and directions which are out of date. On the contrary, it is, in the literal sense of the term, demoralising for good and zealous workers and honourable men to have to try to devise a way by which something, which is obviously a legitimate need of the time, can be brought under the sanction of some rule devised to meet an entirely different state of things. And it is 4 THE NEED AND METHOD OF REVISION none the better, but only the worse, if this device becomes so commonly adopted that it is repeated without a qualm. Every obsolete direc tion weakens the force of every efficient one; and the habit of doing the appropriate thing in defiance of obsolete rules, or under cover of inappropriate ones, weakens the public and private sense of obedience and loyalty in a very subtle and especially dangerous way. There is no more distressing form of opposition to the movement for Prayer Book Revision at the present time than the cry : " We want no change, because, as it is, we can take it as we wish, and do as we like, omit anything that we please, and alter what we disapprove ; and no one can com plain, for obedience, as it is, is impracticable." On grounds such as these both the Book itself and our methods of using it need to be over hauled. Further, we may notice a psychological reason which makes for change. There is a deadening power in unchanging use which is nowhere more dangerous than in matters of devotion. Every prayerful individual is conscious of this; and if he uses forms of prayer, and uses them wisely, he provides against the danger of a mechanical repetition of familiar phrases, either by keeping up always a considerable variety of alternative use or by changing his forms from time to time. A Church, like an individual, must make similar THE OPPORTUNITY 5 provision. It must be rich in its varieties and in the alternatives that it provides ; it must also be ready to review its whole methods from time to time. A Church that has not revised its plans of public worship for two hundred and fifty years is of necessity face to face with a pressing problem, the solution of which is already long overdue. It is true that care must be taken to ensure a favourable opportunity for the undertaking of such a task. This is often difficult to secure. In times of controversy and excitement the atmo sphere may be too electric or too greatly disturbed to be favourable. Yet, in point of fact, the epochs of Prayer Book Revision in the past have all been times of controversy. On the other hand, times of quiet and uneventfulness are not suit able, for lack of impulse; and such periods in the history of the English Church since the Reformation have been barren in this respect. The ideal conditions are probably to be found in a time of keen feeling and vigorous assertion, of liturgical activity and devotional experiment; when controversy has died down to a consider able degree, and there is a tendency towards fresh harmony manifesting itself in unexpected quarters. Those who see in the present day signs of such a condition of things, are very naturally anxious to seize the present opportunity for un dertaking, boldly but cautiously, the dangerous, 6 THE NEED AND METHOD OF REVISION but unavoidable, task of liturgical revision. If the prospects of parliamentary sympathy with such a project and facilities for its accomplish ment do not seem, in the opinion of some people, to be at the moment very bright, it must be remembered that it is not the Church that has taken the initiative. Parliamentary action has led to the appointment of a Royal Commission ; that Commission (representing the Visitatorial power of the Crown) has investigated and re ported; and as the result of that Report the Church is called upon by the Crown, acting with the co-operation of the Government, to reconsider, and, if necessary, to revise. The State, therefore, is pledged beforehand to give every facility to the Church, and would stultify itself if it did not do so. If we go into the question of method, there are many alternative ways of procedure, which are discussed below; and at least there is strong ground for hope that some good way will be opened. But this is not the first con sideration that the Church must take into account. Its first duty is to do its own work of reconsideration, to form its own common mind, and then to formulate proposals which carry the general consent of communicant Churchfolk. These may not prove to be ultimately very extensive ; or, on the other hand, they may turn out to be more than any one anticipates. But whether there is much or little that is determined A DOOR IS OPEN 7 by common agreement to be immediately feasible, it should be done; or at least the Church must go as far as it can in the direction of getting it done. If Parliament were, after all, to prove too hostile, or too much preoccupied to attend, then the Church, at any rate, would be guiltless ; and it can afford to wait for a better day. But it will not be guiltless if it does nothing, or if it allows the beginnings that have been made to lead to no end. Inaction would be worse than a crime ; it would be a blunder too. For if the Church were to pronounce itself incapable of using the opening which has been given to it, not only would it be stultified, but the State would be bound itself to legislate on behalf of the Church that had declared its own incompetence or un willingness to reform. Our choice at present lies between a fresh revision or a fresh Public Worship Regulation Act, and all that that implies. There is no hurry ; the Church can hardly be said to have taken the matter seriously in hand yet. It has moved slowly, and it has done so wisely, in view of the opposition which has been raised, and in a justifiable confidence that such opposition will more and more tend to die down. A Report of immense value has emanated from a Committee of the Upper House of the Convo cation of Canterbury. Committees of the Lower Houses of Convocation have produced some pro- 8 THE NEED AND METHOD OF REVISION posals for dealing with isolated points, and meeting some of the supposed difficulties of detail ; but this action begins at the wrong end, and the proposals are of value rather by way of warning than in any other respect. For liturgical revision is not a process of tinkering, nor can it be done except by skilled hands. The serious work will only begin when the Convocations decide that it is at least as crucial a matter to revise the Prayer Book as to retranslate the Bible; and therefore are content to place the initial responsibility in the hands, not of a Committee of Convocation, which, except in the Upper House, contains few of the scholars who are most competent for the work, but of a body of revisers gathered and empowered for the pur pose. To attempt the task by any other method would only be to justify and to increase the opposition to the project of revision altogether, and to ensure ultimate failure. As things are, there prevails a spirit of wide spread and natural doubt whether in the present unreformed and unrepresentative state of Con vocation it is wise to encourage it in any steps towards the revision of the Prayer Book. There can be little question that the reform of Con vocation is an urgent matter; and that, until it is reformed, it is not, in itself, a satisfactory repre sentation of the Church. On the other hand, it would be an intolerable position for the Church THE QUALIFICATIONS OF CONVOCATION 9 as a whole if it could not find some way of expressing its mind and getting needful reform, even with its synod in an unsatisfactory and un convincing state. In other words, if the Church is not prepared (as it is not) to take Convocation as its adequate representative, then reform must be effected, not purely by Convocation, but by the action of Convocation concurrently with such other action as will be really representative of the best mind of the Church, and will carry conviction to the general rank and file, and even to the mistrustful. A strong Committee of Revision seems the necessary initiatory body : its conclusions will very naturally come before the Houses of Convocation and the Houses of Laymen for discussion, and if necessary for alteration. But these proceedings will still only be preliminary stages towards the end, if the revision is to be, as it should be, the work of the whole Church. The proposals in an adequate shape should then be referred to the consideration of every Diocesan Conference, possibly of every Ruri-decanal Chapter and Conference, so that the amplest opportunity for discussion may be given to the whole Church. A wider reference still is also required, for the revision of the Prayer Book is a project which touches a broader field than England. A book which is at present being printed and used in more than two hundred languages in every part io THE NEED AND METHOD OF REVISION of the world deserves every consideration that progressive conservatism can demand, in order to ensure full criticism and obviate undue haste. In many parts of the world where the English Prayer Book is used, local and independent schemes of revision are already being under taken. In some of these places it is, no doubt, desirable that the local scheme should come to maturity, because the local needs are sufficiently unlike our home needs to require a substantially different provision. In other parts, on the contrary, the local undertaking is far less necessary; it is possibly not dictated by any peculiar needs, but is only the result of a natural impatience with the present unchangeableness of the Prayer Book. As regards many of such areas, a revised Prayer Book that would be suitable for England would also be equally suitable there also; and when the work had been done at home, there would be no need for such places to prosecute an independent revision. In circumstances such as these there is great need of unhalting progress, otherwise our home revision may be anticipated by some less skilful and well-considered scheme of revision elsewhere. But there is need, at the same time, of mature deliberation and the avoid ance of haste, in order that, as far as possible, the whole of that large section of the Church for whom the English Prayer Book is the main bond of union may concur in whatever is done. TWO PREVALENT DANGERS ii There are two contrasted perils to be borne in mind in revision, because, as any one knows who is familiar with our present liturgical output, in Occasional Prayers, or in the Guild Services, Additional Offices, Shortened Evensongs, and other prevalent liturgical experiments of the day, both of them are already besetting us, and threatening to ruin Prayer Book reform. The one may be described as "insularity" and the other as " incongruity." The first is the more common. A rite or a revision planned by those who have little or no familiarity with any book of public worship but the Book of Common Prayer is sure to suffer from it. There are plenty of instances available to exemplify this statement. There are prayers which are nothing but an irritating rearrange ment of phrases borrowed from other prayers in the Prayer Book. There are forms of service which equally are nothing but a shuffling of familiar materials, without any regard either to the logical order of worship or to liturgical pro priety. These warn us of the peril of insularity. It is as ludicrous to make a new prayer out of bits of others, as it is to try to make a poem from tags of existing poems ; as ludicrous to compile a service by shuffling the familiar material, as it would be to try to make a new Shakespearean play by shuffling different scenes from the authentic plays. The public would repudiate 12 THE NEED AND METHOD OF REVISION any such poem or play ; even an ignorant public has enough literary taste for that. But a con gregation is frequently either long-suffering enough, or unreflecting enough, or simply igno rant enough, to tolerate such action in the litur gical sphere. It may even like it, or prefer it for familiarity and old association's sake. Neverthe less such productions are inevitably barren and wearisome; and unless the revision and enrich ment of the Prayer Book can proceed on better lines than these, it had better not proceed at all. The peril of incongruity is less familiar, but it is yet a really present danger. It has shown itself hitherto more in the sphere of ceremonial than of ritual; but what has taken place with regard to ceremonies will be repeated with re gard to rites, unless caution is exercised in order to ward off such a disaster. It is obvious to every one who is familiar with church life, that ceremonial has been introduced in many quarters which is entirely unsuitable to our rites. The extreme form of this mistake is seen when the zealous priest or layman comes home from abroad, from France or Italy or Germany, much im pressed with something that he has seen done in church there; and then sets to work at once to introduce it in his own church, without con sidering, and perhaps without being capable of judging, whether it is suitable to our English rites. If he has sympathy with the mediaeval CHARACTER OF ENGLISH RITES 13 services, it is perhaps on them that he draws rather than on foreign customs; but often with the same result, namely, incongruity. This tendency has been less shown in regard to rites, because hitherto there has been little opportunity, comparatively speaking; but the prospect of Prayer Book Revision offers new opportunities, and as these projects go forward the danger becomes threatening. The English rite, though it proceeds in the main from the mediaeval Latin rites, has a dis tinctive character of its own. Much that is unexceptionable in itself, and admirable in some connexions, is, if brought into this connexion, nothing but incongruous. Therefore "a little knowledge" of mediaeval and foreign rites must be regarded for this purpose as "a dangerous thing." The early mediaeval ritual was as full of ornament as a rich Gothic building; in the latter mediaeval rites, and in much of the modern foreign liturgical practice, there is a debased survival of this ornament ; it has been degraded till it has become meaningless, and it continues merely by the force of unthinking tradition. One great characteristic of the English rite is its return to massive and even bare simplicity. To take parts of the rich and living ornament of the eighth century, or the debased relics of it that survived in later days, and attempt to graft them on to the English rite, would have the 14 THE NEED AND METHOD OF REVISION same effect as to plaster a basilica with Gothic ornamentation of either the best or the worst period. In any case incongruity is the result. Another characteristic of our services is open ness. This is appropriate to a Christian country where there is no longer any need to veil the mysteries. It is also specially appropriate to a temperament which claims eagerly that the congregation should actively take its share in the worship, and know all that is going on. But it is an innovation. Primitive worship made much of the opposite principle : it veiled the most solemn acts, consigned to silence some of the most important words ; and instead of aiming that all should be intent on one thing, it aimed rather at providing different actions for different classes of people, so that each had his part, and was the less concerned with what others were doing. The remains of this early view survived in mediaeval services and remain in the Latin rite of to-day. Therefore it is necessary to notice that what is suitable to one conception is not • suitable to another. And distinctions in ideal such as these must be steadily borne in mind throughout comparative liturgiology. This particular distinction will most need to be remembered when the Church comes to deal with the problem of Prayer Book Enrichment, or when it is occupied with the provision of THE UNFOLDING OF PRINCIPLES 15 Additional Services ; but even in the smaller, yet more delicate, matter of revision the warning is needed. These two perils of insularity and incongruity are not by any means the only ones which need to be foreseen and obviated. They are merely described here as two specimens of a large class, familiar enough to our small band of liturgical students, but unknown and even unsuspected for the most part outside that small circle. Almost equally unknown and unsuspected are the positive principles on which liturgical wor ship depends, the principles on which our Prayer Book rests, and on which it must be revised. Our aim therefore must be to lay bare some of the most significant of those principles, and to examine their bearing upon the problem of liturgical reform. It will be best to begin at the beginning and work through the greater part of the Book with this object. II THE KALENDAR The Kalendar of the Prayer Book is the necessary skeleton on which the greater part of the rest depends; it is needful, therefore, that it should have first and full consideration. The peculiarity of the position arises from the fact that there are two systems to be taken into account — the ecclesiastical and the civil. With the civil year of twelve months, disturbed only by the regulations for leap-year, there has to be combined an ecclesiastical year that is far more variable. The variation arises from two causes — the position of Christmas Day in the week, and the position of the variable Easter in the year. The former variation is relatively small; it causes no serious complication or in convenience ; but with the variation of Easter the opposite is the case. Any revision of the Prayer Book, therefore, can hardly fail to take up the question of the dating of Easter. From the first the Christian Church followed Jewish precedent in the matter. It was taken 16 PASCHAL CHRONOLOGY 17 for granted that the date was to be settled by lunar, not solar, considerations, as was the Pass over; and in all the controversies of the first millennium this was common ground to all orthodox bodies.1 Only some heretical sects seem to have had a fixed date for Easter. Perhaps, however, the Catholic Church, if it could have foreseen all the troubles that were to arise, would have adopted the rival principle long ago. At the time of the Gregorian reform of the Kalendar in the sixteenth century, proposals were made for the fixing of Easter so that it would always fall within a certain week ; 2 the proposals then came to nothing, but they may well be revived now. There are two methods of fixing the date, and it would be necessary to decide between them. It might be settled either on grounds of history or on grounds of mere convenience. The former method sounds the more attractive, but there are many difficulties in the way of arriving at any assured historical date. It is probable, though not certain, that the Crucifixion took place in the year a.d. 29. But even if this were taken as settled, there would still remain some ambiguity as to the day, owing to incompleteness of our knowledge about the method, and our 1 Hastings, Diet, of the Bible, art. * Chronology of New Testament." 1 Dowden, Church Year, p. xviii. 2 1 8 THE KALENDAR uncertainty as to the accuracy, of the Jewish calculations. The most probable date for the Passover in that year is March 18 ; but it must be admitted that the historical data seem insuffi cient for the settlement of the question. Indeed it is possible that the Church never had any trustworthy evidence or tradition to follow, and that its adoption of the variable Easter was the consequence. If convenience is the determining feature, the date mentioned, March i8, is not likely to be favoured, as it represents the extreme term of the present variation, and some date more inter mediate seems preferable. The heretical bodies in early days seem to have adopted either March 25 or April 6 ; the suggestion at the time of the Gregorian reforms was for the first Sunday in April. A more suitable suggestion would be the second Sunday in April ; Easter would then always fall between the 8th and the 14th of that month ; Lady Day would always be clear of Holy Week, and Candlemas of Septuagesima. There would always be four Sundays after Epiphany (except possibly in leap-years), and generally twenty-four (occasionally twenty-five) after Trinity. It is obvious that the variation would be similarly reduced in the case of Whitsuntide, and all the other moveable festivals that depend upon Easter. The gain would be enormous, not only in DATE OF EASTER 19 ecclesiastical spheres, but also in civil matters, which (especially in England) are constantly regulated by the date of Easter. If the Church took the lead in the proposed reform, there is little doubt that it would be welcomed by the nation. But the matter is of more than national interest ; the date of the chief Christian festival is of universal importance. There is unfortunately at present no absolute agreement, because the Eastern Church still clings to antiquated cycles ; but it would be highly undesirable to do any thing that would break up the unity that prevails in the West. In other words, action in this matter could only be taken in conjunction with the authorities of the Roman Church. But it is a matter for present consideration at this juncture whether negotiations towards the attainment of such an end should not be opened. At the best they might produce great results, while at the worst they could do no harm. We turn now to consider the immoveable feasts ; and here, as elsewhere, it is very neces sary, before considering any possible amendment, to be as sure as may be, that the grounds on which the present order rests are duly realised. Now there are three principles that have oper ated in the formation of Kalendars. First they are designed to commemorate the chief events of redemption as recorded in the New Testa ment ; secondly to maintain a memorial of local 20 THE KALENDAR saints, especially martyrs; thirdly to recall the heroes of Christendom, who claim remembrance on other grounds than those of local interest, because of their prominence in the general history of the Church, or in the Bible. These principles were recognised as regulative in the various processes by which the present Kalendar of the Prayer Book was reached ; but different relative value and force has been assigned to them at different times. The first principle has every where produced the same general scheme for the ecclesiastical year; and in this respect our re visers had only to carry on what they found already dominant, refusing to destroy the ecclesi astical year, as the extreme reformers did. They also characteristically laid far more stress than had been laid before on the biblical element. Cranmer at one time seems to have contemplated a very full Kalendar containing biblical names in riotous and revolutionary profusion; but the eventual Kalendar of the First Prayer Book of 1 549 was more modest and more conservative. It contained only one class of Saint's Day, our present " Red Letter " days, with the addition of S. Mary Magdalene. The next Prayer Book, that of 1552, began "the policy of our present " Black Letter " days by setting certain entries in the Kalendar for which no liturgical provision was made in the body of the Book. These new names were not biblical : they were S. George. THE PRESENT KALENDAR 21 S. Lawrence, and S. Clement, with Lammas ; and it is not easy to discern on what principle the selection of names was made. The same Kalendar was reproduced in the Elizabethan Book of 1559, only to be superseded by a new Kalendar in 1561, which (with small additions made in 1604 and 1661) is also our present Kalendar. The biblical element was diminished in 1552 by the omission of the liturgical pro vision for S. Mary Magdalene's day. Thus the Red Letter days of the Kalendar are governed purely by the biblical principle, rather jealously applied. It is not so easy to determine what principle has governed the selection of the " Black Letter " days. Biblical festivals, such as the Transfigura tion or S. Mary Magdalene, which might have claimed a place in the other category, are found here, not there. The principle of local interest, which in the earlier ages was so powerful, seems to have had little force, though it was probably responsible for the introduction of the names of S. Alban and the Venerable Bede in 1661. A not very discriminating adherence to the chief days of the familiar Sarum Kalendar seems the most reasonable explanation of what was done in 1561. This is not a very convincing reason for retaining what we have, and the case seems therefore to be open for reconsideration. First it may be noticed that, so far as the lesser 22 THE KALENDAR festivals are concerned, there are a good many that can hardly justify their place ; and this point is of all the more importance, if liturgical revision is to lead, as it probably must, to some provision for the liturgical observance of the Lesser Holy Days. With any such enrichment, the set of lesser feasts will assume a new importance ; and it will be all the more necessary that each candi date for a place in the series should be thoroughly scrutinised. The chief questions that must be asked are two : first, whether there is sufficient historical justification for the inclusion of the candidate in any Kalendar ; and secondly, whether it can com mand sufficient interest to make it suitable to the Kalendar of any particular Church. It will be simplest to deal with the second of these first. If a festival is to command interest, it will do so, either because of its bearing on the general history of the Church, biblical or otherwise, or because of its special connexion with local history. Besides the ordinary and obvious ways by which a Saint's Day or a Holy Day may be held to qualify under the last heading, there are two less obvious points to be kept in view — namely, its popularity in ancient English Kalendars, and in English Church dedications.1 Of the whole body of ancient English churches ' F. Arnold Forster, Studies in Church Dedications, 3 vols., 1899- ENGLISH DEDICATIONS 23 nearly two thousand are dedicated in some form to S. Mary and over one thousand to All Saints. No other title comes near to these in popularity, though the various dedications to S. Peter (with or without S. Paul) fall not far short of a thou sand. S. Michael, S. John Baptist, S. Andrew, and S. James come next in order. So far there has been no going outside the list of the Greater Feasts of our Kalendar ; but at this point a pause must be made, because there are more dedications to S. Nicholas, the most popular name among our Lesser Feasts, than to the last named of the Apostles. Further, his name is followed in this list of precedence by those of S. Margaret and S. Lawrence, and they in turn are followed by the name of S. Mary Magdalene, which once figured amongst our Greater Feasts, but now does so no longer. Putting together all the names which represent more than one hundred and less than two hundred dedications, we should have, after S. Mary Magdalene, the following list in order of precedence: SS. Leonard, Martin, Bartholomew, Giles, Helen, George, and lastly S. John the Evangelist. The remainder of our Greater Feasts are dignified with only a few dedications : S. Stephen had thirty-nine, the rest less than thirty each. The less con spicuous names of Apostles appear as rarely in old dedications as they do in early Kalendars. They found their way there for the most part 24 THE KALENDAR in consequence of a movement in the biblical direction half-way through the Middle Ages, and they only began in the days of revived church-building in the nineteenth century to be popular as dedications. The following is a list of names which appear among our Lesser Feasts, but not among our church dedications : SS. Prisca, Valentine, Nicomede, Enurchus, Crispin, and Machutus. All these might without any serious loss disappear from our Kalendar. If any plea was raised on their behalf, it would probably be that S. Valentine is a popular date, apart from any connexion with any one of the various Saints who bear that name, and that S. Crispin is closely con nected with Agincourt and with Shakespeare. A similar plea might be put in on behalf of S. Brice's name (which has only one early dedi cation), because it dates the massacre of the Danes in 1002. But such considerations will hardly weigh if the list of Lesser Feasts is to have a liturgical and not merely a kalendrical significance. To make the list complete it would be necessary to add the names of S. Augustine of Hippo, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, the Venerable Bede, and S. Perpetua, for none of these is asso ciated with any old dedication ; but there are good reasons of another sort for not displacing them. Before going further it will be well to consider LESSER FEASTS 25 what provision should be contemplated for Lesser Feasts. The provision of variants for a celebra tion of Holy Communion does not introduce any disturbing element into an otherwise regular course, as does the provision of special psalms or lessons for Morning and Evening Prayer. The latter course would be unadvisable in the case of Lesser Feasts ; but it is advisable to make some provision for variants at the Eucharist ; namely, a Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, either " Proper " to the feast or drawn from a " Common of Saints." In fact, for many years now such variants have been in use in various places with the sanction of individual bishops, and they are provided in many books, not only Altar Books like The English Liturgy, but also manuals for the individual worshipper like The Sanctuary. The time seems, therefore, to have come for the general and public authorisation of such a set of variants, at the least for optional use, where the celebrations of Holy Communion are frequent, and the need of such an enrichment is conse quently pressing. But there will be found to be cases in which it is desirable that a name should stand in the Kalendar, though there are no Scriptures that are especially appropriate, and even the use of the " Common "is not very suitable. It is simple to provide for these a special Collect only, to be used as a " Memorial," i.e. to be added after the 26 THE KALENDAR usual Collect of the day. This ancient way of dealing with the less conspicuous names of the Kalendar is well worth revival. We pass on now to consider the bearing on our present Kalendar of the evidence to be drawn from early English Kalendars. There is a small collection of such documents available, ranging from the beginning of the eighth century.1 If we draw a line as our terminus ad quern, so as to include the earliest extant Winchester Kalendars, dating from the beginning of the eleventh cen tury, we shall have a group sufficient for our purpose. This group of Kalendars lends no support to two of our names — SS. Machutus and Enurchus ; the other four marked above for rejection — SS. Prisca, Valentine, Nicomede, and Crispin — have had a constant place in English Kalendars since the time of Bede. It will probably however be only the most conserva tive of revisers who will wish to retain them. There is a considerable number of names in 1 The principal items in this group are Bede's Martyrology (eighth century), the Metrical York Kalendar of slightly later date (see Quentin, Martyrologes Historiques, caps. ii. and iii.); for the ninth century MS. Digby 63, and the Old English Martyrology (E.E.T.S.); for the tenth century MS. Galba A., xviii. (in Hampson Calendars, i. 397), MS. Junius 27, the Kalendars of the Leofric Missal, and the Bosworth Psalter; for the early part of the eleventh century MS. Nero A., ii. (printed in the Bosworth Psalter) and the Winchester Kalendars in Hampson, i. 422-446. The Kalendar of Willibrord has only been used so far as it is quoted in the Bosworth Psalter. CLAIMS OF MINOR NAMES 27 our Kalendar that has commanded little interest so far as the evidence of dedications goes. There are fourteen cases with less than five dedica tions to show for themselves. Two of these— SS. Lucian and Blaise— have no support from the Kalendars, nor from general considerations,1 so they may be at once marked for deletion. Two more — SS. Jerome and Hilary of Poitiers — are as clearly worthy of their places on the ground of general historical interest, and may be marked for retention. The case of the rest is more doubtful. Two have the claim of being local English Saints : S. Richard of Chichester (April 3) is the latest of the names included in our present Kalendar, and though he is not well known, he deserves to be better known than he is ; on the other hand, King Edward the Martyr acquired, through his tragic death at the age of fifteen or sixteen, a reputation for which there is little justification. Moreover, as at present his name appears twice in our Kalendar (March 1 8 and June 20), the second of these entries at least might well be omitted, and perhaps both. Four of the remainder can support their claim by appealing to a long series of precedents in our early Kalendars. S. Silvester (December 31) is one of the less inspiring names among the Popes that figure there, for it is chiefly connected 1 On S. Lucian, see, however, Delehaye, Legendes Hagio- graphiques, 217-222. 28 THE KALENDAR with documents forged in order to advance the claims of the Roman see. S. Fabian fills a larger and truer place in history, and his association on the twentieth of January with S. Sebastian, though it is not explicitly recognised in our Kalendar, has added to the celebrity of their joint festival. The cult of S. Sebastian is ancient and well attested, though the " Acts " of his martyr dom, ancient as they are, have no authenticity. Adding together the two claims for a joint obser vance of the day, we seem justified in retaining it in this form. There remain still two Frankish Saints : S. Brice, who has been already mentioned, and S. Lambert of Maestricht. There is little to be urged in favour of the retention of either, except that they have had their places there from the very beginning. We pass on to consider four of this group of fourteen whose fate it is more difficult to forecast. They are a set of Virgin Martyrs— SS. Agnes, Agatha, Cecilia, and Lucy, all familiar names to us. At this point we cannot postpone farther the introduction of the second great test which claimants must be prepared to undergo, namely, the test of historicity. If Lesser Feasts are to have some real liturgical commemoration, it will be difficult to admit any to the place, unless it can be shown, not only that there is real historical support for the claimant's case, but also such a CREDENTIALS OF MARTYRS 29 story as can be really edifying. Further, unless there is to be only a Memorial provided, that story must be at the least one that is capable of association with some available Epistle and Gospel of the " Common." In the case of early Martyrs, the only really satisfactory names are those that can produce genuine and approximately contemporary Acts of martyrdon. There are such to be found for S. Polycarp, S. Justin, the Martyrs of Lyons, SS. Perpetua and Felicitas, S. Cyprian, and others less familiar; and a claim which rests solely on a martyrdom must be judged by the genuineness, and the value from the point of view of edification, of the writings that it produces to support the claim. But there is a second class of Saints which may claim sympathetic consideration, those whose cult is better evidence than their Acts. The Acts may be legendary, and yet there may be sufficient support for the main facts therein contained, available from good outside evidence, to justify the acceptance of the Saint as genuine and worthy of a place in the Kalendar.1 There are no extant authentic Acts of the martyrdom of any of the four Virgin Martyrs now in question ; but there are valuable " Le gends" available for each, which have been utilised in forming the very ancient offices for these ' Delehaye, I.e., pp. 121 and ff. 30 THE KALENDAR Saints in the Roman Lectionary and Antiphoner. Two of the four are of Sicilian origin, and their commemoration at Rome is the cause of their adoption into our Kalendar ; for they, no doubt, figured in the Roman Kalendar which S. Augus tine brought with him at the end of the sixth century, which also, in a later form, was adopted for the use of the English Church at the Council of Cloveshoo in 747. The legends of these two Saints, SS. Agatha and Lucy, though they contain beautiful features, are of no real his torical value, and have little external support. It seems impossible, therefore, to retain them in the Kalendar, though they have figured there from the earliest times, and have been popular throughout the Western Church since the sixth century. The Legends of S. Agnes and S. Cecilia are of a more valuable character, though in both cases the historical student is brought up against inconsistences and problems which he is unable to resolve. In each case the cult not only came to us from Rome, but was Roman in its origin, and the external evidence as to a real early cult is valuable. S. Agnes figures in the earliest Roman list of Martyrs, dating back to 354, in company with SS. Fabian and Sebastian, SS. Perpetua and Felicitas, S. Lawrence, S. Cyprian, and S. Clement. She was eulogised by S. Ambrose as well as by Damasus and Prudentius in the S. CECILAI 31 fourth century. S. Cecilia's fame was of later growth, though she was probably a martyr of the Diocletian persecution like S. Agnes. A for tuitous mention of organs in her Legend has made her the patroness of music ; but her real fame rests upon the basilica dedicated to her at Rome, on the discovery of her relics by Pascal I. in the ninth century, and the rediscovery in 1 599, which gave occasion to the celebrated statue of the Saint by the sculptor Maderno, copied, as it is alleged, from her prostrate body in the attitude in which it was found. There is no historical doubt as to the reality of either of these Saints, though it may not be possible to solve the problems presented by their Legends, or to describe with any certainty the details of their " Passions." They should, at the least, be retained in the Kalendar, in the second class of Lesser Feasts, kept by a Memorial only. Four names appear with more than five dedi cations and less than ten ; two are English, authentic, and of considerable local interest — S. Alphege the martyred Archbishop of Canterbury, with five dedications, and S. Etheldreda the foundress of Ely, with seven. The other two have five dedications apiece. S. Vincent may be taken as the one representative of the Church of Spain. It is true that no authentic Acts of his martyrdom are forthcoming; but he was com memorated in his own century both by S. Augus- 32 THE KALENDAR tine and by Prudentius, and it is quite possible that they had before them genuine documents which are not now extant. In any case he is the Spanish counterpart, in the Diocletian persecu tion, of the more famous Roman Deacon and Martyr S. Lawrence of the time of Valerian. Similarly, S. Remigius may well stand as repre sentative of the Frankish Church, for he led the conversion of the nation and baptized their King Clovis in his minster at Rheims on Christmas Eve, 496. More popular than any of the foregoing, so far as dedications are concerned, are the following : S. Alban with 10 old dedications, S. Benedict with 11, S. Edward the Confessor with 12, S. David and S. Dunstan with 16 each, S. Faith with 21, S. Augustine of Canterbury with 27, S. Gregory with 28, S. Chad with 30. The only doubtful points in this list are S. Alban and S. Faith. The earliest evidence that is available for S. Alban is the fact recorded by Bede in his History that S. Germanus of Auxerre, when he came to England in 429 to fight the Pelagian heresy there, visited the tomb of S. Alban to give thanks to God through him for the victory of orthodoxy that had been won. It is further stated that the tomb was opened in order that S. Germanus might lay up there some precious relics that he had brought with him, and might carry off in exchange a relic of the Martyr. Bede S. ALBAN 33 had before him a Passion of S. Alban which was written in its original form in France as the outcome of S. German's visit.1 There is therefore nothing to build upon but a strong local tradi tion, which, if the Saint was martyred under Severus, as the Passion declares, must have gone on for over two centuries before it comes to light at the visit of S. Germanus. This is slender evidence on which to retain the entry in the Kalendar ; on the other hand, it is not suspect enough to oust a commemoration so firmly rooted in our history. It seems therefore desirable to retain the name of S. Alban in the lower class of Lesser Feasts, where a Collect may be provided for him representing his position and not over- representing it. In this case and in the case of S. Cyprian and the Venerable Bede there is an error in the date ofthe entry which may need to be corrected. The tradition from the time of Bede onward states explicitly that the day of S. Alban's martyrdom was June 22 ; the entry should therefore cer tainly be replaced at that date. There is no doubt that Bede himself died on May 26. This is also the anniversary of S. Augustine of Canterbury ; and according as it is thought suitable or unsuit able that they should coincide, the commemora tion of Bede should be reinstated on his true anniversary or kept on the day following, as is 1 W. Meyer, Die Legende des H. Albanus (1904). 3 34 THE KALENDAR now the case in our Kalendar. Equally there is no doubt that the day of S. Cyprian's death was September 14; the entry has been trans ferred to the day of a namesake, September 26, probably in order to avoid clashing with "The Exaltation of the Holy Cross " on the same day. But if one of these entries is to give way, it would be better that the latter should be sacrificed (or made a Memorial only), and that the right day should be kept for S. Cyprian, especially as there is earlier in the year the other Holy Cross Day, May 3. The cult of S. Anne comes next into considera tion, for the number of dedications in this name is thirty, as in the case of S. Chad. We note, how ever, that since the Reformation this has been a far more favourite dedication. The total number now seems to be seventy-seven as against only forty-one of S. Chad. This is probably due in great measure to the revival of church-building in the reign of Queen Anne. The cult has been much connected with queens, for it obtained its great expansion in England in the fourteenth century owing to the influence of Anne of Bohemia, the first Queen of Richard II.1 It has no foundation in history ; the character of S. Anne is wholly mythical, and the entry should be deleted. 1 The entry is however found occasionally in Kalendars as early as the eleventh century. S. FAITH 35 As a patroness of churches S. Faith has been far more popular than S. Alban. There are twenty-one early dedications, and the number has been increased in recent years. The name is absent from the early English Kalendars ; the cult was brought in by the Normans, for the fame of the miracles ascribed to the Saint had spread recently from the south of France, and in her honour a Norman sanctuary at Conches rivalled the Aquitanian centre of her cult at Conques ; and Conches was a Norman abbey which had much property and influence attached to it after the Conquest. The story of the cult and the miracles are very discouraging, but the foundation Legend has an attractive simplicity, and seems to give real information about a real person. This is not in itself convincing, but it seems sufficient for the moment. A skilfully framed Collect that played upon the meaning of the Saint's name could in any case preserve the entry, but probably only as a Memorial. Five Saints remain for consideration that have less than one hundred dedications. Three of these are unquestionable, S. Clement (35), S. Swithun (52), and King Edmund the Martyr (55). On the other hand, S. Denys is doubtful (36), and S. Katherine (57) is wholly mythical as well as a comparatively late importation into our Kalendar. S. Denys is the patron Saint of France, reputed 36 THE KALENDAR the first Bishop of Paris and a Martyr. There are no authentic Acts, and the earliest evidence is of the sixth century, while he is supposed to have been martyred in the middle of the third, a time when there were probably no episcopal sees in northern Gaul. In the eighth century he was thought to have come thither in the time of S. Clement, and a century later he was identified with Dionysius the Areopagite, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.1 It would not be fair that the reputation of a real man should suffer because of the indiscreet zeal of his later clients ; but in this case the evidence for the man's real existence and death for the faith is deficient. In any case we may take S. Martin as a better representative of the earlier Church of Gaul, and S. Remigius, as above suggested, as a worthier name to link with the Church of the Franks. We turn now to the last group of minor Saints of the present Kalendar to be handled — they have already been noted above as being more popular, so far as dedications are concerned, than the greater number of the Apostles — SS. Nicholas, Margaret, Lawrence, Leonard, Martin, Giles, and George. Two of them, S. Lawrence and S. Martin, have already been cited. The former has two hundred and twenty old dedications, and has been a prominent feature in the Kalendar from the earliest days. His " deposition " is 1 Duchesne, Pastes Episcopaux, ii. 464-. S. MARTIN 37 marked in the first Roman list, and his basilica, as well as his story, has made his name great throughout the West. There are no authentic Acts available, but the tradition of the Roman Church about its Bishop Sixtus and his chief deacon Lawrence is one of the highest value; and in the fourth century his fame was spread by S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, and Prudentius. None of these persons, it is true, were likely to inquire at all critically into the authority for the story which they received and handed on; but they are witnesses of the prevailing tradition in their day. S. Martin is one of the most living Saints of the fourth century, thanks to his biographer, Sulpicius. His influence in our own country was also marked, for probably both Ninian and Patrick were among his disciples; and Bede tells us how Ninian, on arriving in Gallo way, built his famous church at Whithorn, the Candida Casa, which was dedicated to S. Martin, possibly even in the Saint's lifetime. The two dates at which his name appears in our present Kalendar (July 4 and November 11) alike go back to the earliest English Kalendars. There seems hardly to be enough reason for keeping both ; and if we are to choose between the two, here, as for the most part elsewhere, it seems best to prefer the anniversary of the death of the Saint to the anniversary of a Trans- 3* 38 THE KALENDAR lation of his Relics. So November ii should be the date retained. The remaining names are very problematical. Only S. George had any place in the earliest English Kalendars. S. Margaret seems first tp appear at the end of the tenth century, and the rest in the eleventh. Their popularity was due, not to their history, but to the fact that they were taken to be patron either of certain classes of people, or, in the case of S. George, of the country as a whole. S. Nicholas was the patron of children especially, S. Giles of cripples, and S. Leonard of captives and prisoners. There is little genuine history belonging to any of them, and the story of S. Margaret is simply a romance or allegory. If it is regarded as allegorical, there is much edification to be had from the story of the pure girl who conquered the dragon ; but it is questionable whether on that account a place could rightly be retained for the name in the Kalendar, in spite of its popularity and the obviously allegorical character of the Legend. A similar plea, though in rather a stronger form, is the best after all that can be urged in favour of the retention of the other four names of this group. If S. George may stand as a type of knighthood and patriotism, S. Nicholas as the patron of children and his day as the festival of Catechisms ; if, similarly, S. Giles' day may be taken as the festival of hospitals, LESSER BIBLICAL DAYS 39 and S. Leonard's may call attention, as is much needed, to our gaols, then there is some thing to be said for preserving these entries in our Kalendar ; but much caution will be needed in the provision of the Collects, and any other variants that are given, for use on these days, so as to ensure that no false impression is given by the occurrence of these names side by side in the list with others that really are, as these are not, historically justifiable. A final group of Black Letter Holy Days that must be considered contains two secondary festivals of Saints, viz. S. John Port Latin and The Beheading of S. John Baptist; and two secondary commemorations of our Lord, The Invention of the Cross, and The Name of Jesus. The first of these commemorates the tradition of S. John's preservation in the cauldron of boiling oil. The earliest allusion to it is in Tertullian, and a belief thus current in the second century cannot lightly be set aside ; but it may be questioned whether such evidence, in regard to so great a person, is sufficient, and if it is not amply so, then the entry should disappear. The second is fully biblical, and might well be advanced to the dignity of a Red Letter Day. The last is also scriptural, at least in conception, and deserves to be con tinued as a Lesser Feast with a Proper Collect, Epistle, and Gospel. There are two Holy Cross 40 THE KALENDAR Days at present in the Kalendar; one of them, the Exaltation, has already been marked for deletion, in order that S. Cyprian's commemora tion may occupy the day. The other, The In vention (May 3) is connected with the effort of S. Helen to find the Cross at Jerusalem. Accord ing to the current story the pious quest was successful, and the better attested relics of our Saviour's Passion go back ostensibly to this occurrence. But there is a suspicious lack of contemporary evidence with regard to the quest or the result. Eusebius is silent, and his silence is significant. The tradition is found in Socrates, and thenceforward continuously; it is perhaps attested also by Cyril of Jerusalem, but even so it is precarious. This is not a case where precarious grounds can be considered sufficient, and it will be best to delete the festival from the Kalendar, or at the most keep it merely by a Memorial. We turn now to consider what festivals should suitably be inserted in place of those which are suggested for removal, and what may be regarded as desirable enrichments to our Kalendar. First there are some questions to consider with regard to candidates for a place in the list of Red Letter Saints ; some of these have already been men tioned, but must now be more fully considered. The Transfiguration is already a Black Letter Festival. In the American Prayer Book it has PROMOTION OF LESSER FEASTS 41 been advanced to the dignity of a Red Letter Festival with a Proper Office. There seems to be every reason for following this lead. Some com memoration of so great a day is much needed. The common date, August 6, is as suitable as any other. There is no difficulty about pro viding Epistle and Gospel ; several Collects are already in existence, and Lessons for Morning and Evening Prayer could also easily be found. It is perhaps the clearest case in which enrich ment is desirable. Similarly, S. Mary Magdalene's Day is at present a Black Letter Day, having gone down to that position in 1552. The causes for this alteration cannot, of course, be authoritatively stated; but it is a reasonable conjecture that some part at least of the reason was the doubt as to the exact identification of S. Mary Magda lene's position in the Gospel history. The mediaeval Church, at least from the time of S. Gregory the Great, was accustomed to assume that S. Mary Magdalene was to be identified with the " woman which was a sinner," and therefore by an uncomfortable, but irresistible logic, with Mary of Bethany also, the sister of Lazarus and Martha. This identification has, therefore, much mediaeval tradition in its favour, but on biblical grounds it is open to serious question. The determination of the position of this festival could only follow the determination of the 42 THE KALENDAR previous question, and therefore a preliminary inquiry will have to be made into the rights or wrongs of this identification. It is no part of our present plan to make that inquiry now ; but this much may be said at once-^-unless that identification can be established to the general satisfaction of biblical scholars, then the mediaeval position must be abandoned. If the case for identification is, to say the best, still doubtful, then for public liturgical purposes it will be necessary to proceed independently of such identification, and to use in the commemoration of S. Mary Magdalene only such Scripture and such ideas as are incontestably associated with her in the Gospels. Even following this narrower (and probably truer) line, there will be no diffi culty in the way of advancing the festival to the dignity of a Red Letter Day, and providing suit able Scriptures both for the Eucharist and for the Hours. A Collect which deals solely with the incontestable incidents is already in use, and might well come under the consideration of the revisers. The Visitation is another Black Letter Festival of biblical significance. The question therefore arises whether this also should be advanced to the dignity of Greater Feasts. It is quite arguable that this should be done, and there would be no difficulty in the way of providing, at any rate, a Collect, Epistle, and Gospel for the Eucharist of FEASTS OF THE B.V.M. 43 this festival. At the same time it can hardly be claimed that it represents such an important feature of the Gospel history as the Transfigura tion ; and probably the needs of the case would be amply satisfied by retaining the festival as a Black Letter Festival, and providing a Proper Collect, Epistle, and Gospel. A more difficult problem is presented when we come to consider the place that is due to festivals of the Blessed Virgin in the Kalendar. Those connected with her, that already have their place among our Greater Feasts, are still more directly festivals of our Lord; and it is probably on that account that the Purification and the Annunciation already have their place among the Greater Feasts of our Kalendar. If that is taken for granted, we find ourselves in the position of realising that there is no direct commemoration of the Blessed Virgin among the Red Letter Feasts ; and we are bound to inquire what commemoration should be made. We may take it for granted that the object of our revisers in this matter should be to establish the same balance and proportion in our Kalendar that we find in the Scriptures. There it is the great glory of the Blessed Virgin, that she, for the most part, comes forward into clear view in direct connexion with our Lord; and in this respect it may be said that the requirements are already met by 44 THE KALENDAR the two festivals which we have, which com memorate Him first, and her in association with Him. But it must be remembered that there are passages in the Scripture in which the Blessed Virgin appears in rather a different connexion; it must not be forgotten that she is expressly mentioned by name among the names of the infant Church in the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles. When this is taken into account it is only fair to argue that our Kalendar similarly should have some defi nite commemoration of the Blessed Virgin, apart from those festivals in which she has her high but subordinate place. At present the Nativity and Conception are found among the Black Letter Feasts ; so the question arises whether it will be wise to advance either or both of them to the dignity of a Greater Festival, and thus make the sug gested provision. This view, however, will not prove on examination to be the wisest. If we inquire into antiquity, we find that, first of all, the commemoration of the Blessed Virgin was made by the Roman Church on the Octave of Christmas ; but that disappeared, and the day became the day of the Circumcision. As such we still preserve it ; therefore that is not open to us. Other festivals of the Blessed Virgin were of comparatively late introduction to the Western system, but among them the one that had pre- THE REPOSE 45 eminence was the festival of August 15. In its origin this day was regarded as the day of the death or "falling asleep" (/eo^o-ts) of S. Mary. This was its title at its introduction into the East. When it was transferred to the West it came with the name Dormitio, or some such analogous term ; and it appears in this form in our oldest English available Kalendar, that of Bede. In the course of the Middle Ages the development took place which altered the title to that of the " Assumption," and spread abroad many legendary beliefs. These, in turn, at the Reformation, being rightly repudiated as unhis- torical, led to the suppression of the festival. It is quite arguable that this was the best way of dealing with the matter at the time. It would have been difficult to abrogate the unhistorical legends without abrogating also the festival. But at the present time the case stands very differently; and it is submitted that, as things now are, far the most effective way, both of making the right commemoration of the Blessed Virgin and of repudiating the wrong, is to restore the festival of the Repose of the Blessed Virgin on August 15. Purified from the old ideas by this interval of time, it will then stand as a protest against false views, wherever such protest may be needed, and as a right commemoration of her whom all generations call Blessed. If it is agreed to make this 46 THE KALENDAR change, there may well be connected with it the deletion from the Kalendar of the festival of the Conception, which since the days of its establishment, and indeed since the days of its incorporation into the Prayer Book Kalendar, has been only associated with increasing error. Possibly also the festival of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary on September 8 should be deleted. Though ancient, it has no special authority, and is a far less satisfactory com memoration of the Blessed Virgin than the Repose. It is natural to pass from this consideration to a discussion of the festival of S. Joseph (March 19). It is easy to see why in early days no special day was assigned for the preservation of his memory. Theologically such a comme moration would have been misleading; and the Church neither possessed, nor fabricated, suitable relics which might have formed a different sort of reason for a liturgical festival. It is rare to find the entry of S. Joseph's name in any Kalendar before the Reformation, though occasional in stances are found in the English Kalendar from the eleventh century onwards. Antiquity then gives little support; but, on the other hand, it may perhaps be taken for granted that the festival would now carry little or no theological danger with it. The moral value of the example of S. Joseph is a point which ought to be promi- HARVEST FESTIVAL 47 nently emphasised in our age. His day might well represent the festival of the family; his example idealises the restraint of married life; and on these grounds and similar grounds there is much to be said for the adoption of the festival as a Red Letter Day in our Kalendar. In many respects liturgical reform has to pass judgment on the experiments of popular religion, sometimes approving and sometimes disap proving. It is as an experiment of popular religion that Harvest Festivals have won their universal vogue among us at the present time ; and no one will doubt that an explicit festival of thanksgiving for harvest is needed throughout the agricultural districts, and a similar festival of general thanksgiving for the mercies and blessings of the year even in places which are not agricultural. It is more an open question whether this festival should be absolutely fixed, relatively fixed, or frankly variable. If it were absolutely fixed it would fall more often than not upon a week-day, and this might or might not be considered an advantage. If it were relatively fixed, it would probably be with the intention of making some particular Sunday in autumn the festival of harvest. There would be much to be said for such a plan historically speaking; and practically, if the variations of the Sundays after' Trinity were reduced to a minimum by the fixture of Easter, it would be 48 THE KALENDAR more practicable than under our present system. But in one form or another there is little doubt that the festival should now receive liturgical sanction and proper variants. If such thanksgiving is to be made for the natural food, it can hardly be denied that similar provision should be made for a day of thanks giving on behalf of the spiritual food of the Eucharist, and some day appointed in the year on which special commemoration should be made of its institution. The Church has hitherto found it impracticable to make the annual com memoration of the original institution of the Eucharist in Holy Week serve as the liturgical Anniversary of the Holy Sacrament. It has tried in various ways to devote part of Maundy Thursday to this object, but always without success. The day is already so fully occupied with considerations of a different sort ; and while a thankful remembrance of the Institution is necessarily a part of Maundy Thursday, the day cannot become a festival of the Eucharist, nor even an occasion of thanksgiving in the full measure which seems to be demanded. When in the late Middle Ages the festival of Corpus Christi was established, it was fixed upon the first Thursday after Trinity Sunday, that is, the first vacant Thursday after the cycle of commemorations following from Easter. It was a very natural date, and one that has much to commend it. It DEDICATION FESTIVAL 49 is true that in certain places, and in certain respects, the festival was recommended to the superstitious by legends and beliefs which would appeal to them, and would repel minds of a sounder temperament. But there is no need to be prejudiced in these days by such merely incidental events, while there is much need to consider practically whether the estab lishment of a commemoration of the Eucharist on the familiar date is not urgently demanded. The title " Corpus Christi " may be considered an unwise one ; and in that case it would be unwise to press for the title, provided the oc casion itself was secured. But it must be re membered that the title has a firm place in our national language; and that it is not itself intrinsically objectionable, whatever questionable interpretations may have been put upon it. Another form of thanksgiving for spiritual benefits is represented by the festival of the Dedication of the Church which has come into use very generally in recent years, and may claim now to have an established place under definite liturgical sanction. Special variants for such a festival are already in existence and in use, and the provision of them presents therefore no difficulty. It is not however very clear in what way it is best to fix the date of such a festival. In cases where the actual date of consecration of the church is known, it is far 4 50 THE KALENDAR best that that day should be observed. In many cases however, and especially in regard to ancient churches, that date is not known, and therefore some other provision must be made. For such provision two alternative courses present themselves. First, to let this festival coalesce with the patronal festival, observing a joint church festival on the day of the patron. There is little to be said in theory on behalf of this plan, for the two motives are really distinct; but there is a, good deal that may be said in its favour from the practical point of view. The second alternative is to keep the festival on the first Sunday in October, which is the date that was prescribed by Convocation in 1536. The object of this action of Convocation was the suppression of the individual Dedication Feasts occurring at intervals throughout the year, in order that all churches might unite in observing one Holy Day. But this was needed from an industrial rather than from a liturgical point of view. The Dedication Feast was one of those on which no work was done, and the recurrence of such holidays continually in different places was a hindrance to the work of the country. It was therefore with the object of setting the days free for work that the one Sunday was set apart as a universal Dedication Festival. This state of things has now passed away, and the motives that now are operative are different. ALL SOULS 51 There is now no objection to the multiplication of Dedication Festivals; but since the date of many is unknown, and some conventional day must be provided to meet such cases, the day suggested by Convocation may be considered as suitable as any other. It is possible also that in many places it will be found convenient to combine this with the Harvest Festival, either uniting them on the same day, or putting them close together in the same week, so that the temporal and spiritual blessings are remembered together in thanksgiving. If this is considered convenient, the date is a proper one. These, then, are the principal suggestions which it seems desirable to make for additions to the list of Greater Festivals. The mediaeval day of All Souls belongs neither to Red Letter Days nor to Black Letter Days : the desirability of its restoration must therefore be considered here. It has no support from antiquity. The All Saints' Festival only crept slowly into the Kalendar after the seventh century, and All Souls' Day was only attached to it as the result of a popular movement in the thirteenth century. The services are, however, primitive in origin, for both the Mass and the Hours of the Dead go back to very early days. It is more easy, therefore, to urge that provision be made for similar services in our Prayer Book than that the day should be adopted in the Kalendar. 52 THE KALENDAR The use or non-use of such services, when once provided, would be optional, while the observance of a date once fixed in the Kalendar cannot be left optional; and the whole subject is beset with so many difficulties, both doctrinal and practical, that no such entry can be con sidered desirable. We pass on from that to consider additions to the lower class of festivals: (a) the Black Letter Days with a Proper Office, or with an Office for the Communion ; and (b) the festivals which have only a Memorial. It would be most convenient to consider these in groups. We take first a group of names suggested by the number of dedications of English churches. First among all that we have not considered is S. Helen, which has as many as one hundred and thirteen ancient dedications, and therefore has a right on this ground to be considered first. The festival is not an ancient one, nor a very settled one. It does not appear in Western hagiology at all prominently till the eleventh century, and then S. Helen's Day is marked in Saxon Kalen dars sometimes on May 22, but more often on August 18. The liturgical celebration of the day is, even after that date, comparatively rare, though the popularity of the dedication is so considerable. If we inquire as to the cause of this popularity, we can only conclude that churches were dedi- ADDITIONAL ENGLISH FEASTS 53 cated to S. Helen largely owing to the belief that the mother of the first Christian Emperor was of British origin ; and that is a view which it is difficult to substantiate. The reputation of S. Helen is further connected with the stories of the Invention of the Cross. Those we have already discussed, and it must be admitted that they present more difficulties than certainties. That side of the case is already amply repre sented if a Black Letter Festival of the Cross is observed. There seems no adequate reason for going farther, and inserting a festival of S. Helen as well; and therefore, in spite of the number of dedications, the verdict as to the claim of this day must be an adverse one. The other names in the group are more indis putably English. They are as follows : S. Cuth- bert, S. Oswald, S. Botulf, and S. Thomas of Canterbury. All these have over fifty ancient dedications. We may class with them S. Wilfrid, who has forty-two ancient dedications, and there draw the line, for we have then dealt with all the entries in the dedication list which command more than twenty churches; others that have less must be considered on some other ground, if at all. The festival of S. Cuthbert has been observed from the earliest times of which we have Kalen dars. He stands in Bede's Martyrology at March 20. There ought to be no doubt of his 4* 54 THE KALENDAR inclusion in a revised Kalendar. But it is ques tionable whether the name should stand at that date, which is the date of his death, or whether it should not rather, in order to keep Lent as clear as possible of festivals, be placed at the day of S. Cuthbert's Translation in 995 — namely, September 4. S. Oswald's Day has been ob served on August 5 at least since the ninth century. If it was not, as was S. Cuthbert's Day, a common entry in Southern Kalendars, this was not due to any lack of qualifications, but only to the disregard of Northern Saints which prevailed in the South. As one of the leading heroes of early English Christianity S. Oswald should certainly have his day. S. Wilfrid (April 24) is the figure round whom much controversy has centred ; but looking back to it from a distance, and apart from the con troversy which his unbalanced personality pro voked, it is impossible not to recognise the great lines of his character both in prosperity and in adversity ; his zeal for the conversion of the rude savages of Sussex, as well as his enthusiasm for architecture and learning in the north, or his skilful advocacy of the claims of the Roman party. History has been kinder to him than it has to many controversial characters, for it has recognised that in his main contentions he was right, even though it may be not always easy to approve his methods of advocacy. If this is S. BOTULF 55 true, it would seem to be impossible to deny him a place. Much historical difficulty encircles the life and reputation of S. Botulf (June 17), though his popularity in the eastern half of England is unquestioned. A very clear testimony to it lies in the fact that at four of the great gates of the City of London a church was dedicated in his honour. There is little of solid fact that is known about him, except two statements : first, that of the Saxon Chronicle that he founded his monastery at Ikanho in 654, and secondly, that of the anonymous writer of the Lives of the Abbots, who records that Ceolfrid, the great Abbot of Wearmouth, went to Botulf to learn from him the institutes of monastic life. The information available is thus tantalisingly small, though solidly strong as far as it goes. His name figures in English Kalendars from the tenth century onwards. His probable centre was ori ginally the village of Iken in Suffolk ; but his name is connected with Boston (which is nothing less than Botulfs town), and with the great abbey of Bury, to which it is said his relics were transferred. It cannot be exactly deter mined what his real part was in the introduction, or the reintroduction, of the Benedictine Rule into England ; but at least he had the reputation of being a great patron among the Benedictines. He stands for early monasticism in England ; 56 THE KALENDAR and, even after discounting the statements and problems provided by the eleventh-century Life of him by Folcard, there is enough evidence available to justify his inclusion in the lower class of lesser Saints. It is more difficult still to determine the rights and wrongs of S. Thomas of Canterbury (De cember 29), the last named in this group. The historian finds it very difficult to come to any verdict. It may be admitted that after his martyrdom the Saint acquired a form of popu larity which it is difficult to contemplate without misgiving. We may, however, set against that the very notorious unpopularity which he acquired through the personal enmity of Henry VIII., which led to his erasure from the English Kalendar. In respect, therefore, of general repu tation it may be said that the honours are easy. The ejection of the Saint's name was associated with a policy of tyranny which few people, if any, would now advocate. But it is a matter of further consideration whether the recognition of this should bring back the name of S. Thomas of Canterbury into the Kalendar. It is difficult without a vivid historical imagination to get sufficiently back into the spirit of the times to appreciate the rights and wrongs of the case. Further, it is difficult to judge of a character so complex and full of such contradictory traits. No one can deny that it was great, and no one GENERAL NAMES 57 can deny that in many respects it was mistaken. But this, at any rate, must be considered as we look back: that the cause which he espoused, and for which with open eyes he emphatically gave his life, was the cause of the English against the foreigner, was the cause of the weak against the oppression of the great, and was the cause of the Church, whether rightly or wrongly con sidered, against Erastian oppression. There was, it may be frankly admitted, much in the whole story of S. Thomas's life and work which is not altogether defensible ; but what Saint is there of whom it would not be necessary to say the same? It is desirable on general grounds to have a representation in the Kalendar of the great namss of the Christian Church, apart from those that command special local interest; and some additions may well be made, as well as names retained, with that object in view. The great teachers of the Church are at present represented only by the names of SS. Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory, and Hilary of Poitiers. These need to be balanced and supplemented by some names drawn from the East. S. Athanasius has had a place in our English list on May 2 ever since the earliest days, though interest in his festival has never been so marked or so wide-spread as it really deserves to be. S. Chrysostom on January 27, and S. Basil on June 14, have had some re- 58 THE KALENDAR cognition since the eleventh century. The names therefore are for this reason, as well as on general grounds, those that lit is most natural to suggest. Other great teachers will figure among the list of Martyrs, as SS. Clement and Cyprian already do. In general the Martyrs of apostolic times, and those celebrated in the Roman Kalendar, have long had sufficient recognition in our Kalendar; but the historic Martyrs of the sub-apostolic era and of the early Church are hardly adequately represented. S. Ignatius of Antioch appears in the English list from the days of Willibrord and Bede onward, though the liturgical keeping of the day has not been popular. The date has varied, and the variations present a curious pro blem which it is not easy to solve.1 The choice lies, however, between February i, the date of the martyrdom, and a date in December, either the 17th or the 20th, which represents his Translation. It is the December date in one or other form that has prevailed in early days in England ; and if either the 17th or the 20th of that month were taken for the day, old custom would be retained, and the other day would be left free for another claimant. There is a similar discrepancy in the early observance of the day of S. Polycarp, which is placed on February 1 (the day otherwise as signed to S. Ignatius) in some early English 1 Quentin, I.e., pp. 547 and ff. MONASTIC SAINTS 59 Kalendars ; but the more normal day is Janu ary 26, and that therefore must be suggested for adoption. If it is desired to add further to this class there could hardly be any addition more edifying than the names of Blandina and her companions, the Martyrs of Lyons (June 2), whose fame rests on the Epistle preserved by Eusebius. This entry figured in the Martyrology of Bede, but not in our later Kalendars. Two more names may also be brought up for consideration, though neither English dedications nor English early Kalendars support. These are S. Irenaeus (June 28), and S. Justin (October 23) ; both are renowned as early Christian writers : Irenaeus was supposed by Jerome and later authorities to have been a martyr, but the point is doubtful. In Justin's case there is no doubt. and authentic Acts of his martyrdom are extant. The monastic life deserves some special recog nition from a country which so largely owes its conversion to the men and women of " Re ligion." Our Kalendar at present contains S. Benedict, but no other name from the roll of great monastic founders. The representatives of the contemplative life have been suggested for omission : they were not strong representatives, and were otherwise questionable. This argues in favour of the replacing in the Kalendar of the name of S. Anthony, which stood always in the early English Kalendars at January 17. In recent 60 THE KALENDAR years considerable doubts have been cast on the Life of this Patriarch of the hermits, attributed to no less an authority than S. Athanasius, on which his fame principally rests ; but the most recent tendency of critical study of the question seems to be recovering the authenticity of the Life. Whether implicit credence is to be given to all the wonders contained in it is a different question, but in any case S. Anthony there stands out as a very real character, and as a leading Christian hero — such an one, in fact, as we ought to be glad to have inscribed on our roll. If, however, it is thought that the doubts are still too clearly felt to allow of his rehabilitation, then it would be well to insert in his stead the name of S. Pachomius at May 14; for modern inquiry tends only to bring out into greater prominence the importance of the life and work of this great Father of the Desert and of his institution of the community life as distinguished from the hermit life.1 This is also the point at which to plead for the restoration of the names of S. Dominick at August 4, and S. Francis at October 4. Certainly the credit of these two great founders of the Friars grows no less, as the world grows older. It is difficult from the nature of the case in considering the entries to be made in the roll of the Saints, to find names that shall be representa tive of the ordinary virtues of every-day saint- 1 His name is in Bede's Martyrology. LOCAL CLAIMS 61 liness. Apart from martyrdom, it is rare that any one should obtain this pre-eminence except by being either royal, or episcopal, or monastic. Again, virginity has hitherto had more than its share of representation, and saintly motherhood has had less. Such reasoning as this points to the inclusion of some such names as those of S. Monnica (May 4), and S. Margaret of Scotland (June 10), to stand for the class of Matrons, and S. Katharine of Siena (April 30), as an evidence of the power that is possible for the woman whose vocation is to live at home. It is further an advantage that the inclusion of the two latter would preserve in a justifiable form in the Kalendar the two very popular names of Margaret and Katharine. In conclusion, we have to consider the entries that ought to be made in order to give more adequate place to local claims. The evangelisa tion of our country is already attested by the presence of SS. Augustine and David ; but the list for England is very one-sided until we include also S. Aidan on August 31, coupling with him S. Hilda on November 17, in spite of the fact that the entry there will clash with that of S. Hugh. Ireland must be repre sented by the insertion of S. Patrick at March 17, coupled with S. Brigid at February 1. These names are of old standing in English lists; but in order to give proper weight to the like claims 62 THE KALENDAR of Scotland it is necessary to innovate, for neither S. Ninian (September 16) nor S. Columba (June 9) — the two most representative names — have nearly so good a tradition behind them, though there are some good authorities to support the claims of S. Columba. English martyrdoms of the early days are already represented by SS. Alban, Edmund the King, and Alphege ; and there seems no need to add to this list. The last name represents also, with SS. Augustine and Dunstan, the saintly Archbishops of Canterbury ; but it might be well to add, as well as Becket, the names of Theodore (September 19) and Anselm (April 21). The rest of the English episcopate is represented already by SS. Swithun, Hugh, Edmund, and Richard; but S. Aldhelm (May 25) deserves a place beside them, and possibly also the sturdy Saxon Saint Wulfstan (January 19); while Edward the King must represent the lay Confessors. A particular place belongs to the English repre sentatives of the monastic life. Bede already figures in that capacity, but Benedict Biscop (January 12) also has had and deserved his place in many of the early Kalendars, so that there is much to be said in favour of the restoration of his name. A place should also be found for the founder of the one distinctively English religious foundation of mediaeval days, Gilbert of Sempringham (February 4) FOREIGN CLAIMS 63 The great services rendered to the English Church by the Church of Gaul in early days should be commemorated by placing in the Kalendar the names of the Bishops Germanus and Lupus on July 31 : they had their place in all the early Kalendars, and should certainly be restored. It might be well also, on the other hand, to emphasise more the part that our country took in the evangelisation of the Con tinent by adding the names of SS. Columban (November 21) and Willibrord (November 7) to that of S. Boniface. The former of these has claims also as a monastic founder; while the latter is of special interest in this connexion, because the earliest English Kalendar which has been available (in part) for use, is one that was in S. Willibrord's possession, and possibly was even written by him in the early part of the eighth century. Hitherto, in all the projects for the revision of the list of Saints, we have taken our stand at the point at which the English Prayer Book diverges from the Latin services out of which it came, and we have not considered the claims of any Saints of later days than the middle of the sixteenth century. Before bringing this discussion to an end, it will be necessary, there fore, to consider what policy is to be adopted with regard to the centuries that have followed since then. The one contribution which the 64 THE KALENDAR later revisions of the Prayer Book have made to the settlement of this somewhat delicate problem has been the insertion of the name of "K. Charles, Martyr" on January 30, the anniversary of his death. The insertion was made in 1661, at a time of great revulsion of feeling, and it is not at all clear whether now, in any revision of the Kalendar, that name should still stand. But at least it may be claimed that, if that name stands, there should be put side by side with it the name of William Laud, who can be said with more certainty to have died on behalf of the Church (January 10). The principle of post-Reformation Saints being thus established, it remains to be considered what additions should be made of local English names or of names of general Christian interest. It is more difficult for an individual to suggest names belonging to recent times than names of remoter days, Personal predilections and private views come too much into account for individual suggestions to have any wide significance. But we may venture to submit three English names for consideration, assuming always that the English Church has reverted to its old point of view, previous to the eleventh century, in the matter of canonisation ; and regards the placing of a name in a liturgical Kalendar by its own public authority as the only act necessary for a canonisation, by whatever process or processes the decision may POST-REFORMATION SAINTS 65 be reached. The first name is one representative of piety, not exactly lay nor exactly monastic, but conspicuous and fragrant as well as original. It is the name of Nicholas Ferrar, who died December 4, 1637. The two other names are those of modern martyrs and bishops in the mission field, Bishops John Coleridge Patteson (September 16, 1877 x) and James Hannington (October 21, 1885). The difficulty is even greater in considering what names of Saints who have been canonised by other branches of the Church are of sufficiently general importance to receive recognition in our Kalendar. There are many that might be mentioned ; but here again private sympathy and personal views have to be discounted. For the present we had best confine ourselves to one single suggestion, which will be at any rate enough to raise the question of principle involved. S. Theresa is a spiritual writer whose fame and influence transcends the limits of time or country or particular confession. The mention of her name raises no controversial questions, but only recalls a life of intense vigour, piety, and spiritual power, together with teaching on prayer and spiritual life which is unexampled both in its psychological insight and its religious penetration. The influence of such a life and of such writings needs to be more widely spread among us than 1 S. Ninian's Day. 5 66 THE KALENDAR has been the case up to present, and therefore a plea may be put in for an insertion of the name of S. Theresa at October 15. Lastly we must note for correction a great blunder which was made at the Reformation when June 29 was altered from being the day of SS. Peter and Paul to being the festival of S. Peter alone. This is the old Roman joint festival of the two chief Apostles ; the separate day for S. Paul (The Conversion, January 25) is later and Gallican in origin. In the Roman Kalendar S. Paul was separately commemorated on June 30; while there were minor festivals of S. Peter — his Chair (two dates : one Roman, February 22, and one Gallican, January 18) and his Chains (a Dedication Festival of the church of that name in Rome, August 1). There seems no need for the English Kalendar to have any of these minor festivals 1 : but it should both keep the primitive balance, and also repudiate the later tendency to overemphasise the place of S. Peter by restoring the double dedication at June 29. 1 The entry Lammas will disappear from August I. It has no connexion with S. Peter ad Vincula, but is a Harvest Festival entry ; and in that capacity will be superseded if the suggestion made above is adopted. 67 TABLE OF SUGGESTIONS FOR THE KALENDAR January i. Circumcision. 6. Epiphany. io. William Laud (Mem.). 12. Benedict Biscop, Abb. and Conf. 13. Hilary, Bp. and Doct. 17. Anthony, Hermit (Mem.). 19. Wulfstan, Bp. and Conf. 20. Fabian and Sebastian, Mrr. 21. Agnes, V. and M. (Mem.). 22. Vincent, Deacon and M. 25. Conversion of S. Paul. 26. Polycarp, Bp. and M. 27. John Chrysostom, Bp. and Conf. 30. K. Charles, M. (Mem.). February 1. Brigid, Virgin. 2. Purification of the B. V. M. 4. Gilbert of Sempringham, Abb. 24. Matthias, Ap. March 1. David, Bp. and Conf. 2. Chad, Bp. and Conf. 7. Perpetua and Felicitas, Mrr. 12. Gregory, Bp. and Conf. 17. Patrick,Apostleof Ireland. 18. Edward, K. and M. (Mem.). 19. foseph. 21. Benedict, Abb. 25. Annunciation of the B. V.M. April 3. Richard, Bp. 4. Ambrose, Bp. and Doct. 19. Alphege, Bp. and M. 21. Anselm, Bp. and Doct. 23. George, Patron of En gland. 24. Wilfrid, Bp. and Conf. 25. Mark, Evang. 30. Katharine of Siena, V. May I. Philip and James, App. 2. Athanasius, Bp. and Doct. 4. Monnica, Matr. 19. Dunstan, Bp. and Conf. 25. Aldhelm, Bp. and Conf. (Mem). 26. Augustine of Canterbury, Bp. and Conf. Venerable Bede, P. and Doct. June 2. Martyrs of Lyons. 5. Boniface, Bp. and M. 9. Columba, Apostle of Scot land. 10. Margaret of Scotland, Q. and Matr. H, Barnabas, Ap. 68 THE KALENDAR 14. Basil, Bp. and Doct. 17. Botulf, Abb. (Mem.). 22. Alban, M. (Mem.). 24. Nativity of S. John Baptist. 28. Irenaeus, Bp. and Doct. 29. Peter and Paul, App. and Mrr. July 2. Visitation of the B.V.M. 15. Transl. of Swithun, Bp. and Conf. 22. Mary Magdalene. 25. James, Ap. and M. 31. Germanus and Lupus, Bpp. and Conff. (Mem). August 4. Dominick, Abb. 5. Oswald, K. and M. 6. Transfiguration. 7. Name of Jesus. 10. Lawrence, D. and M. 15. Repose of the B.V.M. 24. Bartholomew, Ap. 28. Augustine of Hippo, Bp. and Doct. 29. Beheading of S. John Baptist. 31. Aidan, Bp. and Conf. September 1. Giles, Patron of Hospitals (Mem.). 4. Trans, of Cuthbert, Bp. and Conf. 13. Cyprian, Bp. and M. 16. Ninian, Bp. and Conf. (Mem.). John Coleridge Patteson, Bp. and M. (Mem.). 19. Theodore of Canterbury, Bp. and Conf. 21. Matthew, Ap. and Evang. 29. Michael and All Angels. 30. Jerome, P. and Doct. October 1. Remigius, Bp. and Conf. (Mem.). 4. Francis, Abb. 6. Faith, V. and M. (Mem.). 13. Trans, of Edward, K. and Conf. 15. Theresa, Abbess. (Mem.). 17. Etheldreda, Abbess (Mem.). 18. Luke, Evang. 21. James Hannington, Bp. and M. (Mem.). 23. Justin, M. 28. Simon and Jude, App. November 1. All Saints. 6. Leonard, Patron of Prisoners (Mem.). 7. Willibrord, Bp. and Conf. 11. Martin, Bp. and Conf. 17. Hugh, Bp. and Conf. Hilda, Abbess (Mem). 20. Edmund, K. and M. THE KALENDAR 69 21. Columban, Abb. 22. Cecilia, V. and M. (Mem.). 23. Clement, Bp. and M. 30. Andrew, Ap. December 4. Nicholas Ferrar, D. and Conf. (Mem.). 6. Nicholas, Patron of Chil dren (Mem.). 17. Ignatius, Bp. and M. 21. Thomas, Ap. 25. Christmas Day. 26. Stephen, D. and M. 27. John, Ap. and Evang. 28. Holy Innocents, Mrr. 29. Thomas of Canterbury, Bp. and M. Ill THE USE OF HOLY SCRIPTURES Nothing is more important in any revision of the Prayer Book than a reform in our method of using the Holy Scriptures. They form the ground work of every service, and especially of the Divine Service, or daily office of the Church; for that exists mainly for the purpose of the orderly reading ' of the Bible, and the methodical singing of the Psalter, upon a com prehensive plan throughout the year. The recovery of the ancient system from the disloca tion that had beset it increasingly in the later Middle Ages was one of the principal objects of the original revisers who were responsible for the formation of the First Prayer Book of 1549. This is plainly set out in the part of our present preface which is headed " Concerning the Service of the Church." Here is an admirable exposition of the right principle of reform for the "Common Prayers of the Church, commonly called Divine Service." It is from that statement that any proposals for 70 TWO PRINCIPLES 71 further revision must start, only aiming at a more complete realisation of the object which is there defined. The Christian Church took over from the Jewish Synagogue the current practice of read ing lessons and singing psalms. The Psalter, as we now have it, seems to be arranged on some kind of liturgical scheme, and our Hebrew Bibles are divided according to the Jewish system of lessons. Two methods of handling the material have prevailed, and these must be clearly dis tinguished, for the distinction is of prime import ance throughout the whole subject. (a) There was the principle of Selection : A certain psalm or lesson was seen to be specially appropriate to a particular occasion, and was therefore allotted to it. (b) There was the principle of Continuity: The Church encouraged, and eventually adopted in its own worship, the ideal (i) of singing the whole Psalter " in course " within a given period of longer or shorter duration, and (ii) of reading the whole Bible through also " in course " once in the year. The original opportunity for such singing and reading was furnished by the Holy Eucharist, being the one Christian service of universal obligation. The course of lessons and psalmody formed part of the preliminary devotions that pre ceded the Mysteries. They were open to others 7a THE USE OF HOLY SCRIPTURES than the baptized ; and they therefore formed part of the instruction of the catechumen as well as of the edification and devotion of the baptized Christian. In our present Ante-Communion Ser vice we have the representative of these devo tions ; and in the series of Epistles and Gospels now read or sung, we have the outcome of the primitive church system of popular lessons. At least as early as the time of S. Augustine, in the second half of the fourth century, the two principles stated above are found recognised and in operation. The Saint was reading and com menting on the Fourth Gospel " in course " when Holy Week and Easter came. With them came select passages pf the Gospels, appointed to be read as being specially appropriate to the occa sions ; and to these attention had to be, for the time, diverted. The same principles seem also to have prevailed with regard to the psalm-singing at the service. But it is very instructive to observe the course of development in these respects. Most noticeable and most suggestive is the gradual diminution, and even disappearance, of the lessons taken from the Old Testament. The various Churches differed in the number of the lessons read, and in their distribution ; but all seem to have once agreed in having, at any rate, some lesson representative of (a) the Old Testa ment, (b) the Acts and the Epistles, and (c) the CHANGES OF CUSTOM 73 Gospels. Almost everywhere the first of these has tended to disappear. In the West we have settled down to two lessons, an Epistle, and a Gospel ; only in a few positions does the Old Testament Lesson survive, having been retained there in preference to the lesson from the Epistles. The reason of this disappearance is not far to seek. The Old Testament was found to be, on the whole, far less suitable than the New for reading at the popular service of universal obliga tion. It was probably for a similar reason that the principle of continuity in reading and singing tended also to disappear out of the Eucharistic Service; and selected psalms and lessons took the place of the course, all through the year, and not only on the special occasions. Another parallel change may also be mentioned here, for it will supply material for consideration later on. A notable curtailment of the psalmody took place. This was no doubt partly due to merely ceremonial considerations. Psalmody which was prescribed to accompany the perform ance of a certain action during the service, was cut down in extent, when the interval that it was designed to fill grew less, as, for example, at the Communion, owing to the decrease in communions made, or at the Offertory, owing to the decline in the ceremonies of offering. But there seems to have been another factor also in the changes^- 74 THE USE OF HOLY SCRIPTURES namely, a desire to sing only select verses of a psalm, and not the whole. This desire was no doubt furthered also by the musical develop ments, which first placed special parts of the psalmody in the charge of the solo singers — musicians who had been elaborately trained in choir schools; and secondly, so elaborated the chant, that a few verses sufficed in place of a whole psalm. Here then was a further principle of selection, so far as psalmody was concerned; or rather, it was the application to a single psalm of the plan of selection and subdivision which had prevailed already in regard to the books of the Bible ; for these were rarely read in their entirety at one sitting. Thus the principle of selection became the dominant principle through out the popular service of the Holy Eucharist. Meanwhile the principle of continuity, as it lost its place in that connexion, established for itself a firmer position than it had ever had there in another place — namely, in the monastic and clerical offices, i.e. in the Divine Service. First the monks and other " religious," and then the clergy as they followed their lead, undertook, as their definite ideal of daily service, the reading of the Bible in course, and the singing of the Psalter, also in course. The daily worship was the first preoccupation of the monk, and- there fore this ideal xould be realised by him when it had proved to be unrealisable by the ordinary LITURGICAL PSALTER 75 worshipper who attended only on Sundays and Holy Days. In process of time this ideal became also a clerical obligation. Thus it has ever since dominated the monastic and clerical offices ; and we have seen how it continues to exist, in a restored and simplified form, in the clerical offices of our Prayer Book — the Morning and Evening Prayer. It must be noted, however, that in these services the principle of selection also has a place of its own, though only a restricted place. Two ar rangements of the Psalter for the purpose of singing it in course have been mainly in vogue in the West ever since the fifth century — the Benedictine or monastic system, and the Gregorian or clerical system ; but in each case certain psalms have been first chosen out for use as select psalms, and then the remainder has been arranged to be sung in course. Thus, evening psalms were taken out to serve at Compline, a morning psalm and the last three psalms of the Psalter, called the Laudes, were taken to be sung at the early morning office, which has now taken its name from them. After these and other de ductions made, the rest of the psalms was, in each system, divided between Mattins and Even song, the first 109 being set for Mattins and the remainder for Evensong. The like is the position with regard to lessons, but the reading of the Bible in course was, in 76 THE USE OF HOLY SCRIPTURES each system, confined to Mattins, and only some short selected text represents the biblical element at the other Hour Services. At Mattins the original scheme of lessons seems to have been modelled on the lessons of the Eucharist. Many different plans were formulated and followed in the early days, but for our purpose we need only glance at what has survived in the ordinary use of the West. Usually the lessons were read in three groups, except in Eastertide, when the service was shorter ; the first contained the Old Testament Lessons normally, the second was taken from the Acts and Epistles, while the third com prised the Gospel with some homily or exposition. The first and last of these groups remained, for the most part, constant to the plan; though as time went on mediaeval novelties made havoc of the system. But in the second group consider able change took place, which had the effect of transferring the lessons drawn from the Acts and Epistles to the first group, and leaving the middle group to be drawn from other materials, often non-biblical, such as the Lives of the Saints on their festival days, or patristic literature. Thus in both sets of lessons — those at the Eucharist and those at the Hours— the original scheme was altered and somewhat distorted. There is, however, much to learn from these pieces of past experience by way both of warning CRANMER'S PLANS UPSET 77 and direction. Cranmer and his fellow workers aimed at a real restoration, and to a wonderful extent they accomplished it, especially in the recovery of a real course of lessons and psalmody at Morning and Evening Prayer. What is needed, therefore, to-day in this respect is only some improvement of method which may more fully carry out the ideal which they recovered. An unexpected and unintended result of the reformation changes brought at an early stage the first and chief element of confusion into the well-drawn plans. The effect of the insistence on communion, and the requirement of communi cants at every celebration, was to invert the relative importance attached by the people to the services of Sunday morning, viz. Mattins and Mass, and to produce a revolution in the habits of English church-goers with regard to their comparative popularity. Up till 1549 attendance at Mass was universal on Sundays and Holy Days, and quite common in every parish of the country on week-days. Communion, however, was rare. The new requirements, while they had disappointingly little effect in en couraging communion, had the disastrous effect of diminishing almost to extinction the celebration of Mass and the attendance at it to which the people had been rightly accustomed. There went therewith a growing disregard of the obligation of attendance at Sunday worship of any sort; 78 THE USE OF HOLY SCRIPTURES and this was not much amended (at any rate in respect of moral and religious conscientiousness) by the political laws that soon began to enforce by penalty the frequenting of the parish church. In both respects the habit and spirit of English worship suffered a blow, from which even now it has only in a small degree recovered. Until this change began, the more devout people had been accustomed to be present at Mattins as well as Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, and in many cases at First Evensong as well. These services were not under the old system either intended, or very well suited, for the lay congregation. Still the lay folk came. It may be that they understood but little what was going on, from ignorance of Latin or in ability to thread their way through such a service; for it had not, and could not have, as the Mass had, a simple, dramatic, and logical sequence, capable of being followed in its general outline even without much understanding of the details. But, at any rate, they had their own devotions which they had learnt to use by heart ; or they had, in some cases, their Primers, con taining simple forms of the Hours, and they could " pray upon these " (as the saying was) while the service was going on ; and so they could be occupied, and, in a sense, be taking their share in the worship. The aim of the new Prayer Book was to give MATTINS OUSTS COMMUNION 79 them something better adapted to their needs, and at the same time better planned to serve as the daily office of the clergy. In a sense the attempt was too fatally successful. The lay folk abstaining from Mass, now that it involved more obligation to communion, and by their absence causing the celebration of it to become more and more rare, fell back upon Mattins and Evensong as their only regular services, and with difficulty could be brought to communicate three times in the year. Thus the only part of the Communion Service that survived in constant use was the Ante-Communion Service. In a few years the service of general Christian obligation— the popular service — had gone into obscurity and general neglect, while the clerical offices had assumed a position for which they were neither intended nor fitted. This was a lamentable result of the Reformation, and an entire subversion of its own principles. The Prayer Book was constructed on the expectation of the exact opposite of this result; and in a few years it was out of harmony with existing practice, or rather, existing practice was out of harmony with it. Indeed, it is only in the last half-century that Cranmer's plans have had a chance of being realised. Even now the recovery of the true ideal of the Reformation and of its Book goes forward very slowly, and it must take a long time yet before that ideal is universally 80 THE USE OF HOLY SCRIPTURES recognised. Meanwhile what is to be done in the interest of the numberless congregations and parishes where the clerical service still figures as the popular service, and the service of universal obligation is still regarded as the service of the select few? As we consider this past history and our present conditions, one thing seems to become luminously clear. Unless we are to continue in a false position, we must be alive to the in version which has come about, and mitigate the harm, so long as it lasts. We must distinguish between the Sunday worshippers who need the popular sort of service, and the week-day at tendants who are capable of much stronger meat. We must distinguish more fully than at present between the Sunday services and the week-day services, and not attempt to include both in one common series. With this in mind we approach the reconsidera tion of our present methods of using the Psalms and other Scriptures. In the mediaeval system the Psalter was recited in its entirety once every week, apart from the occurrence of festivals or other disturbing causes. For this the Prayer Book has substituted a recitation every month. It has also substituted the civil for the ecclesiastical Kalendar, here and in the scheme of lessons. There is a numerical simplicity in this, but also a numerical baldness. DEFECTS OF OUR SYSTEM 81 The recitation in course is absolutely rigid — except in February, where the month is too short to cover the whole ground. There is no omission of psalms, for those that are chosen to be used out side the course in Morning and Evening Prayer, or elsewhere, are also retained in their place in the strictly numerical order of the course. The results are sometimes inevitably un fortunate : psalms that are only appropriate at night are appointed to be said only in the morning, and vice versa. Other deplorable results occur at frequent intervals. There is always a penitential psalm to be said on The Epiphany, Michaelmas, All Saints' Day, and four more of our chief festivals. Other haphazard results which emerge from time to time, owing to the moveable feasts, are as unexpected as they are trying. The Sunday worshipper is the chief sufferer, as we have already seen. There is no continuity for him in the course into which he makes a weekly incur sion. It is true that if he attends morning and evening every Sunday without fail, he covers the whole Psalter in the year ; but it may well be doubted whether that result, even if he realises it, is an adequate compensation to him. There are many psalms in the collection which require both considerable literary capacity and matured spiritual faculties for their due appreciation. It may be right to look for one, if not both, of these in the daily worshipper, but it cannot be reason- 6 82 THE USE OF HOLY SCRIPTURES able to expect the same of the weekly attendant. A psalm such as the 109th, or others of the same sort, is appropriate only (at the most) on one or two occasions in the year, and suitable therefore only rarely for an ordinary congregation. Some people would probably go farther, and judge psalms such as these to be never suitable for present Christian use. There is no need for the moment to decide between the two views ; even taking the more lenient, it must be granted that the chance occurrence of these psalms as part of a Sunday evening service is for many congre gations an unwarrantable blunder; and the possibility of such an event should be removed. We are led therefore to this conclusion, as being the only satisfactory remedy for the present evil. There should be Proper Psalms appointed for the Morning and Evening Prayer of every Sunday and Holy Day in the year. It would not be necessary that every Saint's Day should have its own special selection peculiar to itself: a group of psalms suitable for such occasions might well serve as a " Common " set for many of the days. This plan will no doubt be a little more complicated than the bald numerical plan that pre vails at present, but the difference is not a serious one. The new proposal only involves the using of the Psalter in the way in which every one is now well accustomed to use a hymn-book ; indeed, for people who are not accustomed to handle the PROPER LESSONS 83 Prayer Book, the new method proposed will be more easy than the old. In the matter of the Lectionary, some conces sions tending in this same direction have already been made to the needs of the Sunday worshipper. The Edwardine Books had no special Sunday lessons except for Easter, Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday, and not a complete set of four for any of these. For Holy Days only in a few cases were special lessons provided — namely, for those from Christmas to Epiphany, from Wednesday in Holy Week to the Tuesday following, for Ascension Day, and for no more than half a dozen Saints' Days besides. By 1559 it was clear that this plan would not do. The inversion in the relative popularity of the services had begun, and was beginning to be recognised. Therefore, among the changes introduced into the Elizabethan Book was a scheme providing some Proper Lessons for all Sundays and a large number of the Holy Days. This scheme has been retouched several times since, and most recently in 187 1. In asking, therefore, for Proper Psalms for all these occasions, we are only suggesting a change that has already taken place with general approval in the parallel case of the Lessons. Proper Psalms have hitherto been very spar ingly provided : untjl 1661, only the four chief festivals were so distinguished, and then pro- 84 THE USE OF HOLY SCRIPTURES vision was made for Ash Wednesday and Good Friday as well. In recent years, however, many indications have arisen of the necessity of progress in the direction of making further provision. In America some fuller provision has been made * ; in England, not unfrequently, special psalms have been authorised for special days by episcopal sanction. Both in England and in Scotland proposals for further extension have been formu lated officially, and are under serious considera tion. But none of these plans go far enough, while in a certain sense they go too far. They seem to make provision, not on any principle, but merely for the sake of variety. Such variety is, no doubt, in itself desirable, but not if it is to break up the system of reciting the Psalter in course. If the increase of Proper Psalms has that effect, then it is, in its tendency, retrograde ; for it is a step back towards the disorder and mangled state of the course which prevailed in the later Middle Ages, and from which the First Book delivered us. To attain the right result it is necessary to do again what the founders of the Western course of psalmody did centuries ago ; namely, while pro viding the necessary select psalms, not to interfere with the recitation in course. Only 1 Proper Psalms are provided for sixteen days; and there are also twenty " Selections of Psalms " which may at any time be substituted for the psalmody of the course. SUNDAY PSALMS AND LESSONS 85 the course must now be a week-day course, while the select psalms are (for the most part) Sunday psalms. When once the methodical reading of the whole Bible and the whole course of psalmody is secured upon a system which is confined to ordinary week-days, there will then be no reason left why the principle of selection should not be extended as readily to the Psalter as it has been to the Lectionary, on Sundays. We can now approach the question, on what principles such a series of Sunday psalms and lessons should be made. First, there will be no need to be hampered in this task by any idea of a course to be main tained in either singing or reading. We can be unreservedly selective. There may be places where, for want of any indication to the con trary, it may be as well to follow the order of the biblical arrangement ; but there will be no reason for doing so, unless it is the simplest method of selection, being appropriate to those times and seasons in which there is little else to direct choice. Our present Sunday lessons, in many parts of the year, aim at a wholly un necessary continuity. The scheme seems to be haunted by the spectre of Cranmer and his cursus, and to lack the courage therefore to choose freely. The result is that the Sunday lessons from the Old Testament are for the 6* 86 THE USE OF HOLY SCRIPTURES most part a series of snippets, following almost slavishly the unmeaning order in which the books are arranged in our present English Bibles. Something much less mechanical and much more logical and edifying needs to be attempted. Secondly, it must be considered whether it is wise to retain always the present plan of having the First Lesson on Sundays taken exclusively from the Old Testament. The experience of the early Church in this matter cannot lightly be disregarded. The difficulties that hamper the less instructed worshipper in appreciating the Old Testament have increased rather than diminished since the era when the Church gave up reading the Old Testament at its popular services, because it was found more profitable on such occasions to confine the reading, as a rule, to the New Testament. It would not be well to go so far in that direction now, as was done then, and exclude the Old Testament altogether from the Sunday services. That would be impossible after all these years of use, and quite undesirable in view of the hold that many parts of it have established over the hearts and consciences of those whose attendance at church is practically confined to Sundays. But it may well be urged that the choosing of the First Lessons on Sundays from the Old Testament need no longer be maintained as a matter of principle. SUNDAY LECTIONARY 87 Perhaps it might be well to adopt the same sort of change as was made in the Hour Services, and, for the purposes of the First Lesson, class the Acts and the Epistles with the Old Testa ment. The result would be that every Second Lesson of Sundays (with the exception of a few special days) would have a Gospel lesson. There would be much to be said for such an arrangement. There are, on the other hand, some seasons of the year (apart from special Sundays) in which the use of the Old Testament would be particularly appropriate. For example, the second part of the book called Isaiah (which ought perhaps to be known as the Book of Meshullam *) might well be read on the Sundays in Advent. In Lent there might be a series of Types leading up to Palm Sunday. On the Sundays after the Epiphany a series of Old Testament heroes. On the other hand, Eastertide is the traditional time for reading the Acts of the Apostles, and the Sundays after Trinity might well be devoted to the Epistles. When the scheme of Sunday lessons had been settled, it would be desirable to choose the psalms to correspond with it, on all such occasions as offered no special point of corre spondence between the Psalter and the day itself. There would thus be secured a unity 1 See in the Hebrew, xiii. 19, and compare xlix. 7. 88 THE USE OF HOLY SCRIPTURES of spirit in the use of Scripture on any given Sunday, the lack of which at the present moment is one of the main defects to be remedied. At the same time care should also be taken to make the set of Sunday psalms throughout the year as far as possible inclusive of all the parts of the Psalter which are most suited for general use. It would be a pity, however, if any well- meaning attempt to cover the whole ground were allowed to prevent a thing which is really of far more importance — namely, that there should be sufficient repetition of the great and repre sentative psalms to enable the Sunday wor shipper soon to become really familiar with them, even to the point of knowing them by heart. This is perhaps the most convenient place at which to allude to the necessity for some revision of the translation of the Psalter which is at present in use. There is in it a considerable number of passages which not merely fail to convey the meaning of the original, but even fail to convey any intelligible meaning. Full and final accuracy may be more than it is necessary to insist on when a version holds the privileged position which this version has; but it cannot be right to continue to set before congregations, for use in public worship, passages which convey no real meaning at all. Besides such cases as these, which need not be accounted A REVISED PSALTER 89 very many in number, there are others which ought also to be considered, even in view of the most conservative of revisions. They are those in which a very slight change, involving perhaps no more than a single word, or even a single syllable, will make all the difference between accuracy and inaccuracy, or between lucidity and confusion. Changes such as these are open to no serious objection, and the introduction of a comparatively small number of them would bring an immense amount of gain without involving any serious loss, or even any marked or disturbing alteration.1 In any revision which touches the cadences of the psalms due regard must be had to the rhythm which is desirable for the purposes of singing. Only those who have had practical experience in the difficulty of pointing our present psalms can realise fully how necessary this is, or how much our present version suffers from the want of such forethought and expert knowledge. The version was not made for the purpose of chanting, nor indeed, at the time when it was made, were the principles that govern the musical cadences of English sentences known ; nor had the experiments been made in modern chants for the psalms which have finally resulted in the present prevalence of the scheme 1 See Bishop Ryle's tract, Revision of the Trayer Book Psalter. 90 THE USE OF HOLY SCRIPTURES of rhythm known as the "Anglican Chant." That scheme is peculiar to English, and it seems to have arisen out of the exigences of the language : it ought therefore to be taken into account hence forward in any adaptation that is made of our present Psalter. Any future developments in the art of English chanting that are likely to come about will presumably be in the direction of greater freedom and an escape from the rigid uniformity of the present Anglican system. Cadences therefore that are framed with a view to the rigid system will offer no difficulty to a a future, less rigid, system. The freer and more easily adaptable system of the Gregorian Tones finds, as things are, little of the diffi culty which besets the rigid Anglican Chant, and will find less still if the rhythm of the cadences of the Psalter is improved in the way suggested. Suggestions must now be made as to the line to be followed in drawing up the week-day " course " of psalmody and Bible-reading. It is essential that the course should be arranged for the week-days only, not merely because the Sun day worshipper needs special provision, but also because already, so far as the Bible-reading is concerned, the ideal, set out by Cranmer in the First Book, of the recovery of a proper course in the Lectionary, has been overthrown, as things now are, by the necessary provision of special A WEEK-DAY COURSE 91 lessons for Sundays.1 There can be no going back from that provision ; therefore, if the course is to be real, the only alternative is to go farther in the road of change, and to construct the course of the Lectionary exclusively for week-days. If, further, a set of special psalms is to be provided, as has been urged, for all Sundays, then, for the same reason, the course of psalmody must also be designed simply for week-days. The reform which is needed is not altogether an innovation ; it is in some respects a recurrence to the older customs of the Church. This is particularly the case, in that it involves a return to the use of the ecclesiastical Kalendar for the purpose. There was much to be said for Cranmer's policy in making use of the civil year for his course. So long as the plan took no notice of Sundays, and made no difference for them, it was logical and consistent. But the position ceased to be so, when once special treatment was accorded to the Sundays. As matters now stand, both the logic of the situation and practical convenience demand a return to the older plan. Such a return, and all the arrangements connected with it, will be much facilitated whenever the 1 The American Church has provided not only Proper Lessons for Holy Days, but a set of alternative Proper Lessons for the week-days in Lent, and for Rogation- and Ember-days. The intention is excellent, but this half-hearted method ruins the course of lessons, as the provision of " Selections of Psalms" ruins the course of psalmody. 92 THE USE OF HOLY SCRIPTURES festival of Easter is set at a fixed date. But even if that point is not reached at present, the use of the ecclesiastical year for the course of psalmody and Bible-reading is not merely desirable ; it is essential to the present proposals, forming as they do a consistent scheme of reform and recovery, that must be treated as a whole. Moreover, the return to the ecclesiastical Kalendar will introduce a unity into the method of the Book which is at present lacking, since, as things are, the Eucharistic variants — i.e. the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels — are arranged according to the ecclesiastical year. There are three parts of the year which ought to fall outside the course and be treated indepen dently by the provision of special psalms and lessons — namely, the time from Christmas to the First Sunday after the Epiphany, the fortnight comprising Holy Week and Easter Week, and similarly Whitsun Week. The first is a broken period that does not square with the system of weeks on which a week-day plan must be framed. It is also a festal period, and therefore, like the other two, is deserving of special treatment. The Psalter should be rearranged for a course of four weeks of six week-days. It will then be said through (roughly speaking) once in the four weeks of Advent. It will be said again in the weeks following the First Sunday after the Epiphany, and will be finished once completely when there are four such Sundays, as there A NEW LITURGICAL PSALTER 93 would normally be if Easter were fixed as sug gested. On our present plan, since this period may vary from one week to six weeks, in many years there would be a piece left over which would remain unsaid ; for it would be preferable to leave this rough end, to begin the course again afresh at Septuagesima, and thus have it said twice through before Holy Week. Beginning again in the week after Low Sunday, it would be said once through before Whitsuntide and beginning again after Trinity Sunday, it would be said as often as is necessary, and would cease in time to begin again a fresh cycle in Advent. If Easter were fixed there would normally be six repetitions to cover the time between Trinity and Advent.1 It will not be found difficult to arrange the Psalter for a course of twenty-four week-days ; indeed, in some respects it falls into such a scheme more readily than into the present scheme. There are certain points which alike govern both, e.g. the 78th psalm bisects the Psalter and will come on Saturday evening of the second week, just as it comes at present at Evensong of the 15th day of the month. It will still be the longest piece of psalmody provided for any service: the average number of verses in any portion will be about fifty-two. J It would be well to provide " A Table of the Moveable Feasts according to the several days that Easter can possibly fall upon," as in the American Book. 94 THE USE OF HOLY SCRIPTURES Other long psalms, such as the 18th, are also determining factors in the new arrangement as in the old ; and when three long psalms follow one another (cv., cvi., cvii.), each, as at present, will be the only psalm of the service, though numbering less than fifty verses. The only real difficulty is presented by the opening day. Ps. iv. is of itself an evening psalm ; but it comes so early in the book that it cannot be set for Evensong, except by taking it out of its order. Elsewhere in the course the order can be strictly kept ; but here (keeping the same total number of psalms for the opening day as at present) it will be best to recommend the 6th for use in the morning and the 4th for use in the evening. Both morning and evening of the first day will have an unusually short portion; but that cannot be avoided, because Pss. ix. and x., being really one long psalm of forty verses, must begin the second day of the scheme. Full details of the course, „which presents no further difficulties, can be seen in the table at the end of this chapter. It will be noticed that (1) Ps. Ixiii., a morning psalm, comes in the morning, and Pss. xci. and cxxxiv., which are Compline psalms, come in the evening ; (2) the Venite (Ps. xcv.) comes at the beginning of Thursday morning in the Third Week, and the three preceding days remain as they are in the present scheme on the 16th to 18th of NO DIFFICULTY INVOLVED 95 the month ; (3) three portions comprise the whole of Ps. cxix. ; (4) the Gradual psalms form the two portions of Thursday in the Fourth Week, and this set is thus kept together instead of being divided up, as at present. It will also be observed with regard to all the changes proposed in the use ofthe Psalter that they do not involve, of necessity, any change in the pre sent way of printing the Prayer Book. The new use could go on side by side with the old, being governed merely by two tables, inserted in an Ap pendix or Codicil, containing permissible varia tions from the Order ofthe Book itself. Ultimately one plan is likely to prevail ; but if the two plans continued for a long time to be in use con currently, the older directions could be given (as now) in headings, and the newer in the margin. The course of Bible-reading could in many different ways be easily arranged according to the week-days of the ecclesiastical year.1 There is no need to make any further alteration of principle from the plan of the First Book beyond excluding the Sundays and adopting the ecclesias tical year. Indeed, the change proposed is really a restoration of the main principle of the course, as there exemplified. It will be best to arrange the Old Testament 1 It would be a gain not to be bound to read the verses con tinuously, where a judicious omission or skip would ensure a better lesson. 96 THE USE OF HOLY SCRIPTURES for reading as the First Lesson throughout the year, and the New Testament (as in 1871) for reading once in the morning course and once in the evening course of Second Lessons. But there are some secondary points which need discussion. The method, so far, has for the most part been mechanically dictated by the order of the books in the English Bible. This has a certain simplicity which is attractive, but the time seems to have come for a more intelligent use of the materials. First, the books should be read in a logical or historical order, and not in the chance order of the biblical arrangement. Secondly, some further regard should be had to season. At present the only divergence from the biblical order is found in reserving Isaiah to be read in preparation for Christmas. This is a survival, or rather a restoration, of ancient custom; and further restorations of the same sort would improve the Lectionary. The old association of the Acts with Eastertide, and of Genesis with Septuagesima, might well be recovered here, as in the Proper Lessons for Sundays ; and Lent might well claim some special treatment. There is much to be said for dovetailing into an historical sequence of lessons the corresponding books of Prophecy and Law, or the corresponding Epistles. Thus, Haggai, Zechariah (in part or in whole), and Malachi might well be associated with Ezra and Nehemiah ; the earlier prophets A NEW LECTIONARY 97 with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Possibly also Deuteronomy should be linked with the time of Josiah, and Leviticus should follow the reading of the latter part of Ezekiel, when the Exilic Period is reached in the historical order. The second part of Isaiah would then be left for Advent. Some of the Wisdom books would pro bably be the best for the time after the Epiphany, and the later ones of the group should stand with Joel and Daniel at the end of the ecclesiastical year. In either position they would be read in more or less degree according to the fall of Easter. If Genesis was begun at Septuagesima, the history of Israel down to the end of Joshua could be read in the eight weeks previous to Holy Week, unless it was thought preferable that Lent should have special treatment. The history of Israel in Palestine might then be begun after Easter Week, and continued, with the intercalated lessons from Prophecy and Law, down to the end of the Maccabees J throughout the summer. The Lamen tations would be read, as now, in Holy Week, and on that account be omitted from the course. These general suggestions are worked out into detail only very tentatively ; and more with the object of illustrating the main principles to be followed in the revision of the lectionary than with the intention of urging the adoption of the details in this exact form on their merits. The 1 The Apocrypha should be much more read, than at pie bent. 7 98 THE USE OF HOLY SCRIPTURES chief plea is that the revisers should have a free hand to deal with the books of the Bible indepen dently of their present biblical order, and to allot them to the various parts of the ecclesiastical year in whatever way seems most likely to tend to intelligent appreciation and spiritual profit. COURSE OF PSALMODY Morning. Evening. No. op Verses. Monday in the First Week i-3, S, 6 4,7,8 45 36 Tuesday „ 11 » 9-1 1 12-16 48 45 Wednesday „ II » 17,18 19-22 67 69 Thursday „ II H 23-26 27-30 49 49 Friday „ II » 31-33 - 34,35 60 50 Saturday „ II >J 36, 37 38-40 53 58 Monday in the Second Week 41-44 45-48 60 51 Tuesday „ II » 49-51 52-55 62 50 Wednesday „ ,1 » 56-58' 59-62 35 49 Thursday „ II )1 63-66 67,68 54 42 Friday „ II JJ 69-71 72,73 65' 46 Saturday „ 11 » 74-77 78 68 73 Monday in the Third Week s 79-8 1 82-85 50 52 Tuesday „ 11 » 86-88 89 42 50 Wednesday „ 11 )J 90-92 93,94' 47 29 Thursday „ 11 » 95-98 99-102 46 52 Friday „ 11 >> 103, 104 4 105 57 44 Saturday „ II 'J 106 107 46 43 Monday in the Fourth Week 108, 109* 110-114 43 43 Tuesday „ II »> 115-118 119 (part) 65 56 Wednesday „ 11 )» 119 (part) 11 56 64 Thursday „ 11 »» 120-127 128-134 52 54 Friday „ II >> 135-137 138-141 57 56 Saturday „ 11 ») 142-145 146-150 57 58 1 Eleventh Morning. * Perhaps omit Ps. Ixj :., which is i 1 duplicate. M Days 16-18. 4-4 Days 21-22. IV FAST, FESTIVAL, AND RUBRIC GENERALLY Closely connected with the Kalendar is the Table of Fasting Days that follows it. It was adapted at the last revision in 1661 from Cosin's Private Devotions of 1627. The heading there was different, and ran thus : " The fasting days of the Church, or days of special abstinence and devotion." The present heading of the Prayer Book is an improvement upon this. But there is an unfortunate ambiguity in the heading below, where the convenient distinction between fasting and abstinence is obscured. If it is intended to put fasting and abstinence upon the same level, and to treat them as alternatives, this should be done explicitly. On the other hand, if they are not to be so regarded, then it should be made clear which are days of fasting and which of abstinence. Further, an addition should be made to the " Note " in order to explain that it has nothing to do with the liturgical arrangements, but only with the fast ; otherwise a mistake is made 99 ioo FAST, FESTIVAL, AND RUBRIC GENERALLY when it is read in conjunction with the rubric which orders the Collect of a Sunday or Holy Day to be said at the Evening Service next before. Here the important question is raised as to the liturgical observance of Evens. In the old plan a festival normally began with the Evensong of what we should now call the previous day. This habit was deeply rooted in ancient tradition, and it had great practical convenience on its side. The overnight service formed a valuable near preparation, and the observance of the previous day as the Vigil formed a more remote preparation for the coming festival. This ancient custom was abrogated in the First Book : the reason, no doubt, being a desire to avoid the complication which the plan caused when two festivals or special days " occurred," that is, came into collision. Occur rence, it will be remembered, is not the direct collision of two festivals falling both of them on the same day, but the indirect collision of their falling on two consecutive days, so that either the Second Evensong of the earlier or the First Evensong of the later has to give way. There was simplicity in the change, and every piece of simplification seemed a gain to a generation that was weary of the complications of the late mediaeval Books ; but there was also practical and spiritual lose. Moreover, the reformed Kalendar was not, like the old, full of festivals FIRST EVENSONG 101 following one another, sometimes for days together, without the intervening of a single feria or ordinary day. This being the case, there was not really the same need that there had been for avoiding occurrence. According to the new Kalendar it was only at Christmas that there could have been any occurrence in the case of fixed feasts ; and the only possible occurrence in the case of a moveable feast was between Ascension Day and the Feast of S. Philip and S. James. On reconsideration, these few possibilities of occurrence do not seem sufficient reason for the surrender of such an ancient and valuable custom. A return to the old plan has already been made in a number of parishes with the best results. The people have come appreci atively for their First Evensong, thereby to begin their festival and to make their prepara tion for communion in the morning. They have not been able, so far as liturgical arrangements go, to use then the variants of the festival ; and this has been a misfortune only partly compen sated for by the use of the festival hymns. But in spite of this disadvantage, this experiment has shown that it is only practical wisdom to restore First Evensong of Sundays as well as Greater Feasts, as the normal and liturgical ser vice to be kept in anticipation of the day. If it is felt that the provision of Proper Psalms 7* 102 FAST, FESTIVAL, AND RUBRIC GENERALLY and Lessons for two Evensongs will break up the course undesirably, then they should, on grounds alike of liturgical propriety and practical wisdom, be provided for the First and not for the Second. This suggestion refers, so far as liturgical arrangements go, only to the Red Letter Days : it is not proposed that the Lesser Festivals, or Black Letter Days, should be pro vided with variants except for the Eucharist. They will not therefore break up the course of psalmody or Bible-reading. But it is to be desired, even so, that some account should be taken of them at their First Evensong. The Proper Collect of these days should be said at the First Evensong (as a Memorial, after the Collect of the week), as is ordered at present in the case of the Red Letter Days. And if it is decided that a Red Letter Day should have no Second Evensong, yet its Collect should be said then, in the same way, as a Memorial. It would be well to have some recognition of Octaves; provided they were not allowed to break in upon the course. An observance of Octaves which did this would be most destructive, and should not be allowed. But there is much to be said for prescribing an observance of? certain Octaves by the repetition of the Collect as a Memorial, by the use of a Proper Preface, and by other observances which do not abrogate any part of the course in Divine Service, nor NUMBER OF VIGILS 103 supersede at the Holy Eucharist any proper variants provided for a Sunday or Holy Day. In order to make clear the rubric above men tioned that precedes the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels it is desirable to make a further addition to the Note on the Table of Vigils, Fasts, etc., explaining that an Eve is the day before a Greater Festival whether fasted or not, while a Vigil is necessarily a fast. It may well be considered whether it would not be wise to make a reduction in the number of the Vigils. There are two among them that specially need reconsideration, namely, the Vigils of S. Matthew and of S. Thomas, because they fall in Ember-weeks, and may have the effect of swelling the number of fast days in the week to four. There is found to be far more practical difficulty in securing the observance of Vigils than of Fridays, because they come irregularly ; and on this ground it may be reasonable to suggest also that Vigils should be retained only in connexion with the chief of the festivals, and not therefore before the Days of S. Bartholomew, S. Matthias, and SS. Simon and Jude. On the other hand, a Vigil might very well be prescribed for the day before the Dedication Festival, to be observed locally; and the more so because in some cases that feast has become a day of general communion. When the revisers of 1661 dealt with the 104 FAST, FESTIVAL, AND RUBRIC GENERALLY Friday fast, they were more exacting than the rule which they had before them in Cosin's Devotions. That excepted from the fasting rule all the Fridays "that fall within the twelve days of Christmas." If further exception is asked for now, beyond the one and only case recognised in the Prayer Book, it should probably extend to any Friday that concurs with a Red Letter Festival. Possibly also the Friday after Ascen sion Day should be expressly included among the exceptions ; there have been already three fast days in the week ; and yet it is one of the weeks of Eastertide. It may be felt that this proposal involves too great a weakening of the prescription of fasting, and is especially unde sirable at a time like the present, both because the need of the witness of fasting is pre-eminently urgent in a luxurious age, and also because the inner discipline of it is being increasingly valued and used. In that case it would be better, by way of compensation, to make more of Advent, as a time of discipline, by including all the Wednesdays in Advent among the fast days. The rubrics which are prefixed to the Order for Morning and Evening Prayer come next into consideration ; and they raise the whole question of the nature of rubric and the right ways in which to handle and regard it. This question must therefore first be considered in general before coming to the discussion of any par- NATURE OF RUBRIC 105 ticular rubric. This procedure is all the more necessary because the King's Letter of Business, addressed to the Convocations on November 10, 1906, under which all the subsequent action of those bodies has been taken, makes special reference to rubric, and to the " Ornaments Rubric" in particular. Rubric is in its essence a note, inserted in a Service Book as a reminder to the user concern ing some point of law or custom which is material to the business in hand. It is not in itself, properly speaking, directive, but sugges tive. It never is complete, and may be incom plete in very various degrees. The " Law relating to the conduct of Divine Service," which the Royal Letter commends to the Con vocations for reconsideration, was until the Re formation contained in Canons, Constitutions, and similar legal enactments, diocesan or provincial. Matters which were not thus defined rested upon custom; and the customs of cathedrals and other leading churches were followed by less important places, as having a very real, though not a coercive, authority. The Church of Salis bury, from the twelfth century onward, had a very leading position in this respect, owing to the excellent form in which its customs had been codified, and the care which was taken there about all matters of ceremonial or ritual. By degrees the Salisbury customs were adopted 106 FAST, FESTIVAL, AND RUBRIC GENERALLY as guides almost everywhere throughout the Southern province in secular churches. The Sarum Ordinal, or Book containing the neces sary reminders, needed for ritual purposes, and to a less degree for ceremonial purposes, was taken as the governing authority. It was widely disseminated in manuscript, and later it was constantly printed. Nothing was commoner than that the Bishop, or other Ordinary, should insist that the churches should possess a copy of the Ordinal of Sarum, and should follow it. Where this was not in use, some other Ordinal was, such as that of Hereford or Exeter; for without an Ordinal no one could remember for certain how the service was to be performed. The rubric, in its early form, gave some few at the most of the necessary reminders. In the fifteenth century the Sarum Service Books came to in corporate more and more of the Ordinal in the form of rubric ; in other words, they multiplied the reminders that it was found desirable to give to inexpert or forgetful clergy. This incorporation was worth while, owing to the exceptional vogue of the Use. In the Northern province the same development never took place; for, though the Use of York was much followed, the Service Books to the end contained far less rubric. The parts of rubric that concerned Ceremonial were regarded as much less authoritative than ELASTICITY OF RUBRIC 107 the parts that concerned the Rite to be per formed. It was necessarily so, and more es pecially when the ceremonial rubric was very full. When, for example, the ceremonial direc tions for Mass were taken from the Sarum Ordinal, and incorporated almost bodily in the Sarum Missal (as was done in the latest days), the rubric was an excellent reminder of the way in which the stately High Mass of Salisbury Cathedral was performed; but it left the priest of a country village to make the best adaptation from it, that he could, for his own simpler service. Elsewhere the rubric of the Service Books was devised to be the reminder of the village priest as to his best way of performing the service. In that case the more elaborate churches that used the same book were not restricted to the points which had been put in, as rubric, for the guidance of the village priest, but they had their own elaborate service, conducted according to their own customs, and subject to the legal enactments which bound them. Ceremonial rubric, therefore, might either be of the maximum sort or of the minimum sort ; in the former case it did not bind every user of the book to the maximum, nor in the latter case did it restrict him to the minimum. Except in points where some definite requirement was made by ecclesiastical law (which might or might not be recited in the rubric) he was left very free 108 FAST, FESTIVAL, AND RUBRIC GENERALLY to take as much or as little of the governing customs as suited his case. The rubric provided in the First Prayer Book of 1 549 was unusually meagre. This was partly owing to the fact that the Book was an effort to prescribe for the parish church rather than for the collegiate or cathedral church. It was also due to the fact that law of public worship was in a state of great change : new directions were being constantly given by Royal or Epis copal authority, and all was in a state of flux. Some of the newly issued liturgical orders are recalled to the officiant in a rubric, some few other changes are probably inaugurated by a rubric; and, so far as that is the case, the English rubric begins to have a somewhat dif ferent status from the Latin rubric, in that it is not merely a reminder of already existing law or custom, but embodies fresh regulations. Except in this respect, however, it stood in the same position as the old Latin rubric; and the au thority that lay behind it, in the first instance, was the ecclesiastical authority, which had given to the old rubric whatever it had of force, and now gave in greater degree its force to the new rubric. It was necessary, however, for reasons that concerned civil rather than ecclesiastical polity, that this Book should secure uniformity of Rite throughout the realm. It was to supersede the old variety of Latin services, as well as the Latin RUBRIC AND A STATUTE 109 service as a whole ; moreover, it was to do this in spite of the strong opposition that it was bound to encounter. For these and similar reasons Parliament passed the first Act of Uni formity, backing up the ecclesiastical power of suasion and enforcement with the more drastic power of civil coercion. This was an entirely new departure, and it placed rubric in an entirely new situation. Rubric became annexed to, and in a sense part of, the statute law, though it was entirely unfitted to be set in that position, especially being as incomplete as it was in 1549. As long as the old traditional view of rubric survived, there was little danger of the appli cation to its prescriptions of the rigid methods of interpretation proper to statute law ; but when that tradition died out, as it did in the sixteenth century, it was inevitable that rubric should be misconstrued by being subjected to an alien method of interpretation. Early signs of this are to be seen in the attempts of the revisers of 1 66 1 to make the body of rubrics a little less incomplete ; the later attempts are to be seen in the times of ritual trouble, about the middle of the last century, when the civil lawyers made the first serious attempts to construe the rubrics as they would construe the Act of Parliament to which the Prayer Book is annexed, with results that, of necessity, were stultifying. Reconsidering this situation, if we ask what has no FAST, FESTIVAL, AND RUBRIC GENERALLY gone wrong, the answer is, that rubric has been got into a false position ; and the first thing necessary is that it should be relieved from this false position. Or we may approach the matter in another way and ask, What is needed at the present time to serve as the "law relating to the conduct of Divine Service " ? In that case the simplest answer is, that we need to return to the earlier sort of authority. We need as rubric some brief hints which remind us (i) of positive ecclesiastical laws, where such exist, or may here after come to exist, concerning the conduct of service ; and (2) where such do not exist, or are not needed, some hints which recall the approved customs of the Church. Rubric of the former type will be directive, because of the law that lies behind it, while rubric of the latter type will be only suggestive and elastic. It is quite essential that both kinds of directions should exist, because there are necessarily some points of ceremonial and ritual where uniformity needs to be enforced by ecclesiastical law; while equally there are others, many more in number, where elasticity and not uniformity is needed. But what law is needed, to stand at the back of such regulations ? Is there any reason now why civil law should concern itself with worship any longer? It was needful that it should do so in the stress of the sixteenth and seventeenth cen turies ; but is it so in the twentieth ? On the ACTS OF UNIFORMITY in contrary, it is an entire anachronism that it should do so. The policy for which an Act of Uniformity came into existence is as dead as Queen Anne. The Separatism and Recusancy, which the Acts of Uniformity existed to obviate, are now not obviated any longer, but legally recognised. So far as they are concerned, the continuance of an Act of Uniformity ceased long ago. There remains only " nonconformity " (in the strict sense of the word) to which the Acts are in any degree applicable, i.e. the claim to enjoy member ship in the Church of England without conform ing to its regulations. Of this there is, in one sense, a great deal, both among clergy, and still more among laity, of all parties. In the present obsolete and chaotic state of our regulations, there are many respects in which, by general consent, a strict conformity is not expected ; there are also many others in which such noncon formity is condoned by tradition. There may be also some disloyal and serious nonconforming, though such does not now exist among the clergy in any large degree. But however much or little there is, and whether it be serious or the reverse, it exists simply by reason of the impasse into which the policy of the Acts of Uniformity, surviving in an effete condition, has landed us. If the Church were free to deal with the situation on the lines of canon law, and with out the hampering support of civil endorsement 112 FAST, FESTIVAL, AND RUBRIC GENERALLY mediated through the Houses of Parliament, what is required to obviate the scandals of nonconforming churchmanship could be done. It is the Acts of Uniformity that block the way at the present time. The small part of them that remains in force should be repealed, and in such a way as to make clear that the Prayer Book rests thenceforward purely on non-parliamentary authority, that the necessary directive laws to regulate worship are thenceforward to be made by canon, and that, apart from such definitive and canonical legislation, the rubric has thence forward only a customary force. Such a change will not inaugurate a state of chaos but a new state of order. The present lack of order is due to the paralysis of the Church's power to regulate the worship. When the free exercise of the function of legislation is recovered for the Church, unhampered by parliamentary co-ordination, then order can begin afresh to be restored. There will then come into being the necessary directions, rules, and canons, and there will be a code for the regulation of worship and of other matters, that is up to date, and not obsolete, as is the case at present. Law- abiding clergy will know, and recognise under what rules they have to serve ; and if there are any that prove recalcitrant, and refuse to con form to the canons so made, then they can better be dealt with on the lines of ecclesiastical dis- CHURCH AND STATE 113 cipline, made effective, than on the mixed line of civil and ecclesiastical co-operation which is the line of the Acts of Uniformity, and is mani festly a failure, and inevitably so, as things are. That the canons bind the clergy, every one is agreed, however much ambiguity may have been imported by anti-clerical civilians into the question whether they also bind the lay members of the Church. If it is necessary to make this more clear, then explicit subscription to such canons can be demanded of the clergy, and a civil contract established between the Church and its ministers, as is done in a non-established Church. If it be urged that the repeal of these Acts and the refurbishing of canon law is a great innovation, the reply is obvious. Such a change will not be more than the Church has a right to ask, and the State will be well advised in endorsing, even in view of the existing alliance between Church and State, and the restriction which this relationship necessarily imposes on the Church's absolute autonomy. For it must he remembered, that even when Parliament ceases to enforce or take any share in the regulation of the worship of the estab lished Church, the nation will not cease to have its hold upon Church legislation, so long as the Church remains, as at present, unable to make or promulge canons except by leave of the Crown. The Royal Supremacy is thus the real check 8 1 14 FAST, FESTIVAL, AND RUBRIC GENERALLY upon the established Church, to be exercised if need be by the Crown on behalf of the nation ; and, no doubt under present conditions, the king, in giving or withholding the all-necessary leave, would act upon the advice of his ministers. No one therefore need fear, not even the most Erastian churchman nor the most jealous Non conformist, that what is suggested would place the Church in a dangerous independence or in a state of autonomy that is inconsistent with the status, privileges, and restrictions that are proper to "establishment." The demand is a very modest one; it is not so much a repudiation of parliamentary authority as a wish to relieve Parliament of a responsibility which it undertook, with good reason, for the first time in 1549, but now only bears unwillingly and unnecessarily, to its own discomfort and to the detriment of the Church and its discipline. The need of the recovery of the exercise of canonical legislation concerns many other sides of church life and activity besides the side of worship ; but it is that with which we are here especially concerned. And our conclusion is, that the change required in the law relating to the conduct of Divine Service is one which would relieve Parliament of all responsibility in the matter, and leave the Church free to handle it, by canon law, and subject therefore to the licence and veto of the Crown. THE JUDICIAL CHAOS nS But there is a judicial deadlock to be removed as well as a legislative one ; otherwise the Church may be in the position of being able to make excellent new rules to regulate its public worship, but powerless to interpret or to enforce them. The judicial system of the Church has been thrown into confusion by the blunder of the two Acts of 1832 and 1833, which, without any co-operation of the Church with the State, and in violation therefore of one of the principles of the English constitution, set the Judicial Com mittee of the Privy Council to act as the court of final appeal in ecclesiastical causes. This substitution has proved as disastrous in its con sequences as it was indefensible in its origin. The need for some uew action in the matter, and for the re-establishment, by joint consent of Church and State, of a proper method of recourse to the Crown in ecclesiastical causes, is now universally recognised. There is no need to go farther into the question here, for it lies outside the boundaries of the present discussion ; but it was necessary to allude to it in order to show that it is as essential a part of liturgical reform as the recovery of legislative powers for the Church. Only by efficient legislation, coupled with the power of effective discipline, can the Church have the chance to do what it alone can do successfully in the way of recovering and main taining church order. 1 16 FAST, FESTIVAL, AND RUBRIC GENERALLY All this profoundly affects the status of the rubrics. In their present condition they are a dead hand — rigid, irrational, and cramping life and activity. They are out of harmony with- present conditions; they have been made in some cases to bear an interpretation which was not proper to them in themselves, and which only became imposed upon them through their being annexed to an Act of Parliament. They not only need to be revised, but still more, they need to be made easily revisible as time goes on ; otherwise, a generation hence, or even sooner, the same difficulty will recur again, probably in an aggravated form. Thirdly, they need also to be treated as rubric and nothing more. Unless, therefore, the changes that have been suggested, or something analogous to them, concerning the position of rubrics, can be secured, it will be worse than useless to add to them. Two main alternative ways of dealing with the present rubrics therefore present themselves. (a) If the Acts of Uniformity are repealed, and any other arrangements made that are necessary to cause direct parliamentary control of the church worship to cease, leaving the matter in the hands of the ecclesiastical authorities, subject to the Crown, then it may be well to add to the rubrics, and make them-, not only a more satisfactory and appropriate body of guidance, but also a less incomplete one. Even so, how- ALTERNATIVE POLICIES 117 ever, both elasticity, and the legitimate variation of use required for churches of very different size, status, and views, will make it desirable that rubric should err on the side of giving too little guidance rather than too much. (b) If this small measure of recovery in self- government should still for the present be denied by Parliament to the Church, then, pending better days, it will be necessary to revise with parlia mentary concurrence, which may be more or less explicit. In any case, it will then be best to add no new rubrics. (1) On the contrary, it may be best to seek the consent of Parliament to the withdrawal of some rubrics which are now in the Book, with the object of legislating by canon on the points about which the Prayer Book is, or becomes, silent. (2) If the rubrics are retained, they might be revised, and parlia mentary consent obtained for the revision, in several alternative ways, (i) A general permis sion might be given, enabling any alteration or additional definition of the law of worship, which is passed by canon, with the consent of the Crown, to be of force, notwithstanding anything to the contrary which had the authority of Parliament. This would involve, not an explicit, but a practical and pro tanto repeal of the Acts of Uniformity, (ii) A less considerable, and a less satisfactory, solution of the difficulty would be to obtain a similar permission for certain 8* 1 1 8 FAST, FESTIVAL, AND RUBRIC GENERALLY scheduled alterations. The settlement would then be left to the Church, but the sphere of its possible action would be restricted beforehand. Even the most jealous and omni-competent of parliaments could hardly refuse such a demand. (iii) If, in the last resort, all such plans were treated as impossible, and Parliament insisted on having explicit proposals of revision laid before its Houses, if not for debate, then at any rate for acceptance or rejection by means of a new Act of Uniformity, or an amending Act, it would be best to make no alteration in the Prayer Book as it at present stands (unless it were the removal of some of the obsolete or disputable rubrics); and instead, to submit to Parliament, for its authorisation, an Appendix, or (to use a better term) a Codicil, interpreting the Book as it at present stands, securing some further elasticity, allowing some new experiments in the way of using the materials contained in the Book, and above all, assuring explicitly to the Ordinaries the power to authorise Additional Services, and to act more freely as the interpreters of existing rules, subject to the legislative authority of the Province, and the judicial authority of the church courts, restored to efficiency as above stated. It has seemed worth while to try to work out, in some detail and at some length, these alter native proposals for the procedure of revision. THE PROSPECTS 119 In some ways the immediate procedure offers more difficulties than the actual revision itself. There are many who are opposed to the idea of revision, not because they do not wish for it, but because they do not see how it can be carried through, with due regard to the self-respect of Parliament on the one side, and of the Church on the other. We have now all these alternative methods before us ; and the list given above does not pretend to exhaust the possibilities, but only to put forward a set of them, graded according to the conditions of sympathy or the reverse which may await the Church when the time comes for it to approach the Government and the Houses of Parliament. A sympathetic body would probably be ready to encourage the first and best alternative : while even a hostile bcfdy, in view of the late Commission and the Letter of Business addressed by the Crown to Convocation, could hardly refuse to entertain the last. This discussion of rubric in general has paved the way for the consideration of the Ornaments' Rubric, which is expressly and by name referred to in the Royal Letter. Much controversy has raged round it ever since its first appearance in the Elizabethan Book of 1559; and the old quarrels were revived in a fresh form during the middle of the last century, when taking the words (as recast in 1661) to mean what they 120 FAST, FESTIVAL, AND RUBRIC GENERALLY say, men held themselves to be authorised, or even required, to wear the eucharistic vestments. There is no need to go over the whole ground, as it has been elaborately investigated afresh in recent days x ; but a summary statement of the certain and the uncertain statements, in history and law, is needed as a basis for our further discussion. There can be little doubt that the rubric, as it appeared in the Prayer Book, was an author ised reminder in rubrical form of the cor responding proviso in the Act of Parliament. The theory that it was a " fraud rubric," fraudu lently substituted for the corresponding rubric of the Book of 1552, and that therefore it had from the first no legal value, is too fantastic to be entertained. Equally there is no reason to question that the effect intended by it was the restoration of the Ornaments of the First Book of Edward : so that the service was to be that of 1552, with the external appearance of 1549. Accordingly, surplices, almuces, and copes were .worn ; while as to the chasuble and some other ornaments included under the compre hensive word "vestment" in the rubric of 1549, the only fair statement of the case is to say that 1 See the Evidence given to the Commission on Ecclesias tical Disorders and the Report of the Commission. Also my Principles of Ceremonial (1906), pp. 249-265. Finally, the Report of a Committee of the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury (1908) on The Ornaments, pp. 71-84. THE ELIZABETHAN ORNAMENTS 121 while there is no clear evidence of their use, it is also impossible to prove that they were not in use. It is highly unlikely that chasubles were used except in some inconspicuous places, partly because there is no evidence of use and consider able evidence of general disuse ; partly because of the great destruction of ornaments in the first year of Elizabeth, both by unauthorised action and also by the highly authoritative action of the Royal Visitation J ; and partly also because the wave of revulsion, that swept over the country in the early part of the reign, made any such a following of the rubric almost impossible, even to the large number of clergy who would have preferred to continue to wear what they were wearing in Mary's reign. The non-use of the chasuble did not, how ever, involve disobedience to the rubric. The Edwardine Book had prescribed an option : the cope was a permissible alternative to the vest ment. Conforming clergy, therefore, could wear the cope, and they did so ; indeed, in 1 560, when the new bishops began to reduce the chaos of disorder, which the revulsion of feeling had caused, into some sort of order, they directed in their Interpretations that this alternative should be the one adopted. Thenceforward, therefore, the 1 But in many places chasubles survived this destruction. In Lincolnshire some were left by the Bishop and Visitors even after the drastic Visitation of 1 565-6. 122 FAST, FESTIVAL, AND RUBRIC GENERALLY rubric was loyally observed, when the clergy wore a cope at the Eucharist and a surplice at other services, as they were directed to do. But it was found impossible to maintain this standard of conformity through the country. In many places even the surplice could not be secured. In 1566 Archbishop Parker, in his attempt to enforce the -surplice by the Adver tisements, was content to forgo insistence on the cope except at Holy Communion in cathedrals. Thus an arrangement was reached which, in face of great opposition, only slowly became dominant ; but by the end of the century this interpretation of the rubric had become so generally enforceable that it was formally authorised in the Canons of 1604. This rubric, therefore, is an excellent instance of the fact, stated above in the general discus sion of rubric, that a ceremonial rubric is not to be regarded as universally binding in its full extent. It might represent the requirement to which the great church was expected to conform, while much less was demanded of the smaller churches : they were only expected to do what they conveniently could to copy that model. Thus the chasuble or vestment, though rubrical, was not in use. It was soon forgotten, even by the authorities, that the rubric, by referring to the Edwardine Book, had authorised this as one alternative vesture for Holy Communion. Copies THE PRESENT RUBRIC 123 of the Book of 1549 were very rare, and almost unknown. Consequently, churchmen, and even church authorities, could honestly, but in igno rance of the true state of the rubric, maintain that the Church did not authorise the use of the vestment. At the revision in 1661, the more learned of the liturgical scholars seem to have become aware that the rubric authorised the alterna tive use of the vestment. There was, however, not the remotest likelihood at the time that any one was proposing to adopt that alternative, and seek to revive the vestment. On the con trary, there was again much difficulty in securing the observance of that interpretation of the rubric which the canon had stereotyped ; and, in fact, conformity to it never was secured. The revisers seem, therefore, after some discussion of the point, to have decided to deal with the matter as practical men, and leave remote con tingencies to take their chance. They re-enacted the rubric, in a form more exactly modelled on the Proviso of the Elizabethan Act of Uniformity, and left the matter for posterity to settle, if ever the point should be raised. The fact that the rubric, in theory, allowed the vestment, continued to be known — as a curiosity of liturgical history probably, more than as anything else — and it is alluded to in liturgical writers ; but no clear case is known of an attempt to revive it until 1 24 FAST, FESTIVAL, AND RUBRIC GENERALLY the middle of the last century. When it came, it was regarded as an unwarrantable innovation. So far we have sketched the history of the matter ; and though there are points in the sketch that have been seriously contested, and some that are so still, it is one that is, in the main, accepted by historical writers and impartial investigators. The legal account of the matter is, however very different from the historical ; and indeed it is the difference between the history of the historian and the more apriori view of the lawyer, and his subordination of history to the exigencies of legal theory, that cause the present difficulty. When the question of the legality of the vestments was argued in the courts, after some inconclusive decisions it was ultimately decided by the Privy Council, in the Ridsdale Case (1877), that they were illegal. Two presuppositions in the lawyers' minds seem to have led to this result. First, the view taken of rubric in general, and the interpretation that was put upon it, were those which we have above striven to show to be misleading. Secondly, it was presumed that there could not have been a general and persistent disregard of an effective and compulsory rule such as the rubric was taken to be ; therefore, as it could be shown that the vestment was not worn, the law must not have intended it to be worn ; therefore, some way must PRESUMPTION OF LEGALITY 125 be found of explaining that the rubric did not mean, and had not meant, what it seemed on the face of it to mean. It must in some way have been superseded or countermanded. Thus only could the majesty of law be safeguarded, and thus only could the law arrive at a self-respecting account of the matter. Now it may be the case that in other matters, and especially in statute and civil law, it is right to presume law-abiding rather than law- breaking, and therefore in doubtful cases to proceed upon the assumption that what has been persistently done without any show of disapproval or charge of illegality is the legal thing, and that the contrary is illegal. But in this instance there are at least two factors in the case which make such a line of argument highly unsound, (a) The rubric had hot the absolute coercive force that the lawyer, interpret ing it as part of a penal statute, felt bound, according to the rules of interpretation prevailing in that sphere, to give to it. Nor was the rubric in other respects so ignored as it seemed to him to have been; for all that was done was an attempt to enforce as much as was possible of one of the alternatives prescribed by the rubric, though falling short of the fullest demand, (b) Nothing is more clear than that, not only this, but other undisputed rubrics, have been con sistently and continuously ignored, and that at 126 FAST, FESTIVAL, AND RUBRIC GENERALLY times little or no attempt has been made to secure plenary conformity. This sphere of liturgical conformity is the worst possible sphere in which to presume that the legal thing has been done during the centuries in question, or indeed in others either. It was with such presuppositions as these in their minds that the judges (we may with some security suppose) arrived at the decision declaring the vestment illegal. The Privy Council found an argument that seemed to save the situation in the assertion that the rubric was overridden by the Advertisements of 1566, which were presumed to have the necessary royal authority for that pur pose ; and that, further, the re-enactment of the rubric in its altered form in 1661 and 1662 had no more effect than to continue the status quo ante. The Judgment was much questioned even among lawyers at the time; it seemed, perhaps, too ingenious an attempt to save the face of law. In the years that have followed its delivery, the view of the history of the rubric, on which it is founded, has been more and more felt to be untenable, as the result of further historical investigation. All this may seem very wearisome, but it has been necessary, in order to make clear the nature of the present deadlock with regard to the Orna ments' Rubric, from which the Church is now invited to find an honourable way of escape. Here, as before, the difficulty lies, not so THE OUTLOOK 127 much in discovering what ought to be done, as in devising the way by which it may best be done. There is a general agreement, to which there is very little exception, that it is desirable that two alternative vestures for the celebrant at Holy Communion should be recognised and be in use. These are the " vestment or cope " on the one hand, and the surplice with stole on the other. The old cry for the suppression of the former alternative is a disappearing one. Many who have not adopted, and do not wish to adopt, the vestment, are quite sympathetically inclined to its use by others. Many who object now to the use of the chasuble, on the ground of the adverse Judgment of the Privy Council, would not continue to object, if that difficulty ceased to block the way. There remains a small party hostile to any toleration of vestments ; but this is diminishing, and indeed it would at once almost disappear, if it could be made clear for the reassurance of the public, that the use of the vestment does not in itself symbolise or involve the holding of eucharistic doctrine that is inconsistent with the formularies and authorised tenets of the Church of England. The great decline of party spirit in the Church, and corres ponding growth of unity of heart among church men and Christians generally, which are, thank God, characteristic of our generation, justify an optimistic view of the future in this respect, and 1 28 FAST, FESTIVAL, AND RUBRIC GENERALLY make it probable that any fair solution of the difficulty on the lines indicated would meet with a practically unanimous approval. This, then, is the object to be attained. In considering the method, the first point to notice is the fact that, in spite of the adverse Judgment, which pronounces the surplice only to be the legal dress of the celebrant (except for the use of the cope in cathedrals), nearly everywhere a less narrow view prevails. The surplice is worn in the majority of our churches, not by itself, but with the addition of a stole. It is "the surplice with stole or scarf and the hood of his degree " that is propounded by the Committee of the Lower House of the Southern Convocation as one of the two alternative vestures for the minister at the time of celebrating the Holy Communion, this being the current use of the bulk of our churches. Now this involves a different interpretation of the rubric from that of the Privy Council : the Ridsdale Judgment is observed in very few, if any, parish churches and in very few cathedrals. In fact, on all grounds, the continuance of that decision is not in the line of practical politics ; and in some way or other it must be made possible, to interpret or to alter the law so that it shall regulate the ornaments of the minister differently from this. It seems more hopeful to have a new law than a new judicial interpretation. Such a TWO ALTERNATIVE USES tig change would certainly be a more satisfactory and a more peaceful solution of the present problem. The lawyers can hardly be expected so far to give up the method of interpretation current among them in the last century, as to interpret the rubric as allowing the two alterna tives desired. But in any fresh legislation on the matter all parties will be agreed that the new law must start from the old rubric, interpreted in its larger and historical sense, rather than in the narrower sense that the Ridsdale Judgment has given to it. There is a tendency at the present time for the controversialists of the extreme parties to be manoeuvring and disputing which of the two alternative vestures shall have the premier position : which shall be treated as the really right thing, and which as a permissible con cession. One side says that the traditional dress is in possession, and therefore must be treated as normal, while the vestment can only be a jealously tolerated exception. The other side says that the rubric plainly orders either the cope or the vestment, and therefore it is those who do not wear either who need to have an exception made in their favour. There is really no need for this, since each of the alternative dresses, which are now in use and which are to continue to be in lawful use, is alike contrary to the Ridsdale Judgment, and rests 9 i3o FAST, FESTIVAL, AND RUBRIC GENERALLY upon the ground that the rubric restores the rule of the First Book. The wearing of a stole, so far as legality is concerned, is exactly as illegal, or as legal, as the wearing of a vestment. There is, indeed, a wide difference of thought and use between the two alternatives; but there is no difference of legality or the reverse. So the extremists need notmanceuvre against oneanother, but would be far better advised if they would combine together, and with the central body of the Church, in rendering obsolete the Privy Council Judgment which no one obeys. What is required therefore, if the rubric stands, is either modification or some legislative inter pretation of it, which, establishing the position that the Ornaments Rubric refers to the First Book, at the same time makes it clear that the rubric is sufficiently observed when out of the various garments comprised in the comprehensive term " vestment," only the surplice and stole are worn. So long as the rubric stands, with parliamen tary authority behind it, any such modification or legislative interpretation will need to have equal authority with the rubric itself, and sufficient to supersede the preceding judicial interpretations. Such a regulation might well form part of such a Codicil to the Prayer Book as is mentioned above. On the other hand, if the rubric ceases to exist, ALTERNATIVES OF SETTLEMENT 131 then the Church should be explicitly held free to legislate on the matter in its own way by canon. A settlement de novo by canon, consequent on a total withdrawal of the rubric, is probably the most hopeful of the solutions that are possible. There is an encouraging precedent for thus com posing ceremonial controversy by a canon, for it was thus that, in 1604, the old-standing contro versy about the use of the cross in baptism was settled. The 30th Canon commended the cere mony, to those who had previously opposed it, by an explanation which removed scruples and ob jections ; and a similar explanation with regard to the use of the vestments would have the most happy unifying result at the present juncture. There is a third alternative to consider. If Parliament is unwilling to remit the matter to the Church, with power to deal with it by canonical legislation, and if it is unwilling also to agree to an authoritative new interpretation ofthe rubric permitting tvvo alternative usages, then the rubric must be amended. There are two sugges tions to be made as to amendment : one which would give the Church more liberty than it has in these respects at present, and the other which would retain the existing co-ordinated control of both Church and Parliament over the law of worship of the English Church. In the former case the amendment might take the form of a proviso to be added, to the rubric in 132 FAST, FESTIVAL, AND RUBRIC GENERALLY some such form as this: " Provided that any case of doubt may be determined, or any additional order may be made, by canon of the Church " ; or it might take the form of an addition, thus : " Or such others as may be ordained from time to time by canon of the Church." If it were desir able, such a canon could be drafted and passed by the Convocations simultaneously with the amendment of the rubric in parliament. In the latter of the two cases some actual amendment of the rubric would have to be devised that would not only carry the general consent of the Church, but also win the approval of the political parties that dominate the Houses of Parliament. This, it need hardly be said, is the least hopeful of all the suggested lines of procedure. Any of the others should be adopted in preference to this. But if this line of settlement alone were to be open, then it may be urged that the best step would be, to re-enact the rubric as it is, except for some such change as would supersede the old rubric and the judicial interpretations that have been given of it, and so leave the matter once more an open question ; or to introduce the simple alteration of " may" for " shall," which would have the effect of opening the way for the two alternative usages, but still leaving the matter rather indeterminate. This would not be satisfactory: it could hardly prove a settlement ofthe difficulty ; but if nothing CONCLUSION 133 better proved to be feasible, this might serve as an Interim. In any question of alteration of the rubric it should be considered whether it was not advisable to make the reference to the Edwardine precedent more lucid than it is at present, and even to make explicit mention of the First Book. It is indeed ludicrous that the ornaments of the twentieth century should be governed by a reference to the middle of the sixteenth ; but if such a cumbersome method is to continue (and it probably must un less the matter is placed back in the hands of the Church to settle, free of parliamentary sanction, but subject to the royal authority), then, at any rate, it will be sensible to make the reference as clear as it can be. 9* THE LORD'S PRAYER AND COLLECTS The right use of the Lord's Prayer in liturgical worship is of so great importance that a separate chapter must be begun with it. Its proper position is at the climax of a service : this is pre-eminently so in the two chief sacramental services. In the Holy Eucharist it is the climax of the Canon or Prayer of Consecration, for all other prayer only leads up to this ; and here especially the petition for daily bread, which from very early Christian tradition is linked with the Communion, has a fullness of application and an appropriateness that cannot be overlooked. Its displacement in our service is a blunder of the first order; in same way or other, to be con sidered later on, this must be repaired. The place of this Prayer in our present baptis mal service is hardly less crucial. It was the Prayer that the grown catechumen was taught, at the close of his preparation, together with the Creed. He recited both at Baptism. In our present service, the repetition of the Creed '34 IN DIVINE SERVICE 135 comes immediately before the act of Baptism as the public profession of the candidate's Christian faith, while immediately after it the Lord's Prayer is said, as his first petition to the Father after his adoption into the body of Christ's Church. In the early days of the Divine Service this prayer was also the climax of the various Hours. At a later date the suffrages were brought in ; then the Mass Collect was added to them ; and later still this collect was regarded as the climax, while the Lord's Prayer was considered to be of secondary importance. Consequently, on festivals, when the suffrages were not said, the collect was retained, and the Lord's Prayer, with its preliminary Lesser Litany, was omitted with the suffrages. The Hours thus lost their charac teristic Lord's Prayer on festivals, and only kept it among the ferial prayers. The effect of this was the formation of a liturgical composite formula consisting of the Lesser Litany, Lord's Prayer, versicles, and collect, which together formed an indivisible group or entity. This then found a place in many services, and we are familiar with it in the Litany, the Marriage Service, the Visitation of the Sick, the Churching of Women, and the Commination Service. Elsewhere, as at the beginning of the Confirmation Service, there is a collect introduced by versicles only. This also i§ a legitimate combination, being, in fact, the o}cJ 136 THE LORD'S PRAYER AND COLLECTS group, affixed, as we have seen, to the saying of the Lesser Litany and Lord's Prayer, which was the close of the Hours in their primitive form. But in introducing a Lord's Prayer into the Order of Confirmation in 1661, where pre viously there had been none, the revisers were misled by false analogy. Following old pre cedent and liturgical propriety, they might either have placed it immediately after the sacramental act, the Confirmation, as they did in the analo gous case of Baptism ; or they might have put it (preceded by the Lesser Litany) before the set of versicles that introduces the prayer which precedes the Confirmation act. Unfortunately they did neither of these, but set it between the versicle which introduces the collect and the collect itself. They thus destroyed the liturgical order. Such a mistake is easily rectified ; and the rectification should be made. But attention is called to it here, because it is typical of a number of mistakes which are made, sometimes in the Prayer Book, and far more often by the amateur compiler of Offices, arising from an imperfect acquaintance with the principles on which litur gical formulas must be handled. They are not like the pieces of coloured glass in a kaleido scope, which can be shaken into any chance order; though they are often so treated. A warning, therefore, on this point is needed, in view of the revision, and in view pf the lack of A PREPARATORY PRAYER 137 grasp of liturgical principle from which previous revisions have suffered. In the course of the Middle Ages, probably in the ninth century, the Lord's Prayer, viewed purely as a private prayer, began to be said in preparation for the Hours. Soon it became universally said in this position, but privately, and not aloud. It was no real part of the office, for that had its proper Lord's Prayer, as we have seen, at the end. Similarly, at a much later date, when the private preparation of the celebrant for Mass began to take a more stereotyped form, and to become more general, the Lord's Prayer (preceded by Lesser Litany), Mutual Con fession and Absolution, versicles, and a collect, formed part of his little private office of prepara tion. This Lord's Prayer was no more a part of the public service than the other above- mentioned, for the Great Prayer had its right place at the climax of the Order of the Eucharist. In the former of these cases the First Book kept the introductory Lord's Prayer, but gave the direction that it was to be said with a loud voice. It thus was made an open part of the public service, and acquired a greater prominence than was Hturgically proper. When, in the Book of 1552, the penitential introduction, consisting of the Sentences, Exhortation, Confession, and Absolution, was prefixed to the service, this Lord's Prayer was more than ever in a fals§ 138 THE LORD'S PRAYER AND COLLECTS position. It was no longer even to be excused on the ground that it was introductory to the service following: it was superfluous and un timely. Yet it has remained there ever since ; and worse was to follow. For the revisers of the American Prayer Book, wishing to avoid the redundancy of the double recitation of the Prayer in one and the same office, arranged for the suppression of the important and necessary Lord's Prayer and the retention of the intruded and unnecessary one. This bad example may be followed by our revisers unless a caveat is entered against such a course, for the precedent is set by the unfortunate Shortened Services Act of 1872. We too may, very suitably, wish to obviate for the future the double repetition; but in that event it is the first occurrence of the Prayer that must be omitted, if Morning and Evening Prayer are to be properly articulated. In the second case, the Lord's Prayer was ordered, in the First Book, to be said by the priest " standing humbly afore the midst of the altar"; but the Prayer was not printed in full in that position until 1662. There was no direction to the priest in the earlier Books to say it aloud ; so it could still be regarded as forming, with the collect that followed it, his private preparation for the service. Indeed, there is some evidence that these two prayers were SP treated. When the Bpok pf 1552 had. METHOD OF REPETITION 139 placed after them a direction that the priest should " rehearse distinctly all the Ten Com mandments," there seemed to be all the more reason for taking the previous prayers as personal rather than congregational. In 1661, for the first time, the direction was prefixed to the first Lord's Prayer of Morning Prayer, that the people should repeat it with the minister, both here and wheresoever else it is used in Divine Service. This direction completed the confusion between the two occurrences of the Lord's Prayer, both in the daily office and in the Holy Communion — unless indeed the term " Divine Service " in that rubric is to be strictly interpreted, and limited, quite correctly, to the daily service, as distinguished from the Eucharist and other services, an interpretation which is not in accordance with the looser and more general use of the term which was then prevalent. In the daily services the direction took full effect, and the first Lord's Prayer has ever since been said by all. But, curiously enough, either through tradition, or a sense of liturgical propriety, or for some other reason, it has not taken effect in the Holy Communion service as a rule ; and, for the most part at least, the opening Lord's Prayer there has been said by the priest alone. There seems to be no good reason for retaining the opening occurrence of the Prayer in either place. Some reduction in the number of repeti- 140 THE LORD'S PRAYER AND COLLECTS tions of it is needed, particularly when Morning Prayer, Litany, and Holy Communion follow one another, and form practically one continuous service comprising five such repetitions; and these two are the repetitions that should most properly be omitted. There remains a word to be added as to our present translation of the Prayer. There seems to be no doubt that in structure the first part of it consists of three co-ordinate petitions, followed by a clause which applies equally to all three. In recent editions of the Prayer Book this has been indicated by repunctuation ; but the present form of the translation makes this clause grammatically applicable only to the first and third of the three petitions, not to the second. It seems advisable, therefore, to get rid of the words " it is," and read instead (so as to preserve the familiar rhythm), " In earth even as in heaven." The use of the doxology at the end also needs reconsideration. Though it is probably in its origin a purely liturgical addition to the Prayer, it was not in use in the Latin services. Accordingly, in the earlier Prayer Books it found no place, and it was only inserted in 1661 in deference to the wishes of the Puritans. They presumably thought that they were urging the claims of pure Scripture against a liturgical mutilation. The doxology thus came in under a misapprehension ; but this fact is not sufficient NATURE OF COLLECTS 141 reason for ousting it again from a liturgical position which it has attained. At any rate, if it is proposed to remove it again, it will probably be the liturgical scholar who now urges its retention, and the biblical purist who takes the other side. But probably all will agree that, if it is retained anywhere, the eucharistic position is the wrong one in which to keep it. If it is removed from there, and at the same time the Prayer as a whole is dropped at the beginning of the Hours and Communion Service, it will survive nowhere in the Book ' ; for these are the only places where it has been added, and at the other occurrences the Prayer is without it. And perhaps this will be the best conclusion. The nature of the Collects and other prayers of the Prayer Book is a point that has hitherto received too little attention. The prayers of the mediaeval Service Books were, to a consider able extent, the shrunken survival of a greater wealth and a better order of prayer that had once been current ; and it is to the earlier tradi tion that we must return in order to establish afresh a more intelligent use of the liturgical prayers. The leading of the congregation in liturgical prayer was a function so solemn, that, in primitive times, it was reserved to the bishop, or at least to a priest acting as his deputy. The function pf a deacon was to lead the devotions of th§ * pxcept in the Churching Service, i42 THE LORD'S PRAYER AND COLLECTS people in a less concentrated form, namely, in some form of the antiphonal prayer of which our Litany is an example. When a trained congregation was interceding, the normal method seems to have consisted of three elements : (a) the bidding or announcement of a topic of prayer, which might be extended into an address of several clauses, explanatory or suggestive ; (b) an interval in which prayer was made for the subject specified, either in silence, or in the form of some litany or set of versicles, or the like ; (c) a " col lect," summing up all the petitions so made in one public liturgical prayer said by the bishop or priest. The system has survived into modern times in its purest form in the solemn interces sions, said on Good Friday according to the Latin rite. Such a plan of intercession was probably at one time general throughout the West at the Eucharist. The priest (or bishop) conducted the devotions, attended by the deacon, who gave the directions to the people when to kneel in silent prayer, and when to stand as the officiant said the collect. When the deacon him self conducted the intercessions, as for the most part in Eastern Liturgies he still does, the litany form was employed. Traces of this triple procedure in solemn prayer survive, though less clearly, in many other places in the Latin services ; and, con sidering how admirably adapted it is tp its object, DECAY OF FORMS 143 the pity is that it was ever allowed to dwindle and disappear. Reasons for the decay can be seen, perhaps in the decline in power of prayer of the average congregation, and perhaps in a growth of perfunctoriness on the part of the minister. First, it would seem, the interval of personal effort was curtailed until it vanished, and then the bidding was given up. Thereupon nothing remained but the recital of the collect, to which there was still prefixed, in many places, the priest's preliminary salutation and the people's answer — " The Lord be with you," " And with thy spirit." In the " Bidding Prayer" we have retained the preambles ; but usually the officiant neither leaves intervals for private prayer, nor himself leads the congregation in petitions for the objects enumerated, leaving all to be prayed for solely in the Lord's Prayer at the end. This, too, is a piece of degeneracy. We need to recover this form of devotion before the sermon at the Sun day Parish Eucharist ; and to make it a piece of free intercession for the needs of the parish, and for people who have asked the prayers of the Church. This, with a sermon and some music, will also make a popular service, detached by itself. Such a plan will be increasingly welcomed as the tendency grows to put the Parish Eucharist at an early hour on Sunday morning. The Latin Collect itself is the outcome of a specially Roman style of composition, full of 144 THE LORD'S PRAYER AND COLLECTS epigram, and abounding in terse antithesis. There is nothing at all analogous in Greek or in other Oriental liturgical languages. It seems to have grown up for use at Rome when the imperial city changed from Greek to Latin as its language of worship. The style is very close to that of many passages in S. Leo's writings : he seems the embodiment of it in theological, as distinct from liturgical, literature; and it may be said to belong, if not to him personally, then to his age and surroundings. In other parts of Latin Christendom the terse collect, if it was made at all, was planned on the Roman model. The group of liturgies, somewhat erroneously called "Gallican," developed other kinds of liturgical style, they cultivated the litany form in many shapes, and in their set prayers were, comparatively speaking, diffuse and tautologous, following the line of Greek prayers, whether deliberately or by natural bent. As, however, the Roman Liturgy gained ground throughout the West, so did also the Roman type of collect ; and in Spain and Gaul, side by side with the native output of prayers, Gallican in type, there was an immense output of collects of the Roman pattern ; and for many purposes these tended to supersede the longer forms. We have therefore before us two styles to serve as standards and as models. English has not the terseness of Latin ; and in the days when English Collects i45- our versions of the collects took a more or less final shape, literary fashion discouraged it. Con sequently our collects have not the terseness of the originals, nor even the terseness that they might have had, if they had not been through the hands of people who thought it good style to write two words instead of one. This trick has spoilt the exhortations in our Prayer Book more than the collects ; for in original composi tion the writers had a free hand, while in trans lating collects there was every discouragement to the indulgence of this fault. But the collects have suffered, some of them badly ; and they do not always bear out, as they might, what has been said of the brevity and incisiveness of the original type. Some subjects are in English better dealt with in the one style and some in the other. The essential thing is that one or other should be followed, and that a jumble should not be made of two divergent styles. The collect proper may be defined to consist of a few absolutely conjunct clauses : there is room in it for a great variety of subordinate sentences, but all must form one comprehensive sentence, so that there is no full stop till the end. The prayer of the Gallican type, on the other hand, is made up of disjunct sentences, and many of them, and is without much attempt at subordination in construction, or concentration of thought and material. It makes its effect by jo 146 THE LORD'S PRAYER AND COLLECTS its flowing periods, not by epigram, and by balance of rhythm rather than by close antithesis of thought or arrangement. There are many formulas in our Prayer Book that fall between these two stools ; and there are likely to be many more as the result of revision unless the principles of composition are more respected now than they have been, both in past revisions, and in the composition of prayers for special services. It is commonly a prayer of the conjunct type that has come at the end of the threefold formula of prayer and intercession ; while prayers of the Gallican type have survived in the gallicanised Roman offices, chiefly at the " Eucharistic Prayer," which, as we shall see shortly, forms the central feature of the sacramental and quasi-sacramental rites. The threefold sort of prayer was also practised in a briefer form, each of the three members of it being represented by a single short phrase. Thus the bidding took simply the form " Let us pray for so and so " ; while the prayer was repre sented by a suitable versicle and response drawn from the psalms, or modelled on the duple formula of a psalm verse, and divided between officiant and congregation. Thus there was the place provided for a pause of silent prayer, if it was desired; and if not, the triple formula ran its brief course straight on. In process of time this was cut down into a duple formula, most THE VERSICLES 147 commonly by the omission of the bidding, but sometimes by taking that as the versicle and the two halves of the prayer together as the response. By this means a wide scheme of intercession could be carried through in a brief space. A single collect at the end then summed up the whole series of petitions. Thus there came into existence that group of versicles plus collect, which we have already noticed as having been added to the Lord's Prayer which previously had formed the climax of the Hour services, and as having altered the centre of gravity in this way. The suffrages and collect said at the Hours on ordinary ferias were the result of this develop ment, and they have left their successors in the versicles and collect of our own offices. It is right then to regard our versicles as being a short set of intercessions for (1) the congrega tion, (2) the king, (3) the clergy, (4) the whole Christian people, (5) for peace, and (6) for purity, the last two corresponding with the memorials for peace and grace that follow the Collect of the day. But we have not yet quite completed our necessary brief survey of the chief types of prayer. In the services of the later Middle Ages, when there was need to make some mention of an object which had only the second place in the claims of the day, it was found advisable to do so by means of a " Memorial." A specimen was i48 TIIE LORD'S PRAYER AND COLLECTS taken of several of the variants appropriate to that object or day — preferably (i) an antiphon, (ii) a versicle and response, and (iii) the collect ; and out of these three elements a suitable litur gical formula was formed. The antiphon was sung, the versicle and response intoned, and then the priest recited the collect ; and thus, in a brief way, the subject was commemorated. The device was found so satisfactory that its scope was ex tended beyond the special occasions for which it arose. There grew up a number of " Common Memorials " for use after the Collect of the day, not on particular occasions as need required, but as a permanent part of the ordinary ferial service. We have then in this development the origin, first, of the fixed collects said after the Collect of the day at our Morning and Evening Prayer, secondly, of occasional collects added as a memorial, e.g. in Advent, in the same position ; and thirdly, of the supplementary prayers which follow the Third Collect, when there is no Litany. The use of the endings to the collects needs also some consideration from our revisers. In 1549 it was taken for granted that the rules for adding, or not adding, the appropriate ending to a collect were familiar to all who would use the Book. They were therefore never given; and the omission has to this day never been adequately rectified. There is no need here to do more than call attention to the deficiency : EUCHARISTIC PRAYERS 149 to remedy it is a very simple matter, and it should be done. In this preliminary survey of the nature and use of collects we have cleared the ground for much that will follow. We pass from collects to note the importance and significance of the grandest of all the Church's methods of prayer, the great eucharistic prayer. This solemn formula of consecration begins with the preliminary versicles (The Salutation, Sur sum Corda, etc.), then comes the Preface ("It is very meet, right," etc.), and then finally the substantial portion of the prayer. Our Prayer Book has retained only one of these, viz. in the Holy Communion Service. The Ordination Ser vices have lost their solemn eucharistic prayers, and so has the Hallowing of the Font in the Baptismal Service. In the latter case there is some justification for the change, for the old Consecration of the Font was a rare event, usually performed only once a year, whereas now fresh water is sanctified at each Baptismal Service. In any future revision of the Book, as a whole, each of the Ordination Services should recover its solemn consecratory prayer. This may not be possible now ; but meanwhile there is a place for such a prayer in some of the Additional Ser vices which are issued for use under episcopal sanction. For example, the Service for the Con- IS« THE LORD'S PRAYER AND COLLECTS secration of a Church should certainly contain such a prayer as its first essential feature, the second essential feature of any such consecration being the Eucharist, which follows the pre liminary rites. There are also a number of other services to which this great type of prayer belongs. The Coronation Service is a conspicuous instance. And, in general, any great episcopal service of benediction and hallowing is incomplete without such as its central prayer. The type will probably be first recovered as a part of such Occasional Services; and then, later, the time will come for its restoration to the Ordination Services of our Prayer Book. VI THE SUNDAY MORNING SERVICE One of the great difficulties of the present time is the right ordering of the services of Sunday morning. The ideal of the Book is clear enough. Morning Prayer, followed by the Litany and Communion Service, either continuously or separately, is the provision that the Book makes ; it is also the requirement that was actually laid upon great churches and their clergy in the early days of the Prayer Book. The traditional reluc tance to frequent communion, which then pre vailed, had the effect of reducing the last of the three items to the Ante-Communion Service, instead of the complete service; while the ten dency to lie longer abed, and postpone attendance at church till a later hour in the day, had already, in the middle of the sixteenth century, begun to destroy the early services; and it continued to operate until it had changed the hour of the principal Sunday morning service from seven, eight, or nine o'clock to ten, half-past ten, or eleven. The stricter church-folk, on the few '5> 152 THE SUNDAY MORNING SERVICE occasions in the year when there was Com munion, still continued to observe the fast, even for a midday Communion ; but this self-discipline tended to become more than could be expected of the less zealous : consequently, in the latter part of the eighteenth century and early part of the nineteenth, non-fasting Communion had be come common, except ^among the poorer people and country people, to whom, even still, breakfast, such as we now know it, was an innovation and not yet an article of faith. Thus, until the church revival in the second quarter of the nineteenth century, there was, for the most part, no force to counteract the growing lateness of the hour at which Sunday morning service took place. Something, it is true, had been done to obviate these inconveniences. At the end of the seventeenth century and in the early part of the eighteenth in some of the leading parishes in London, and subsequently elsewhere also, the Sunday services had been duplicated ; an early Morning Service and a late Evening one had been added to the traditional Morning and Afternoon Services, in the interest of domestic servants and others whom the usual hours did not suit. But the whole service was doubled, not only the Communion Service ; and there was Mattins, Litany, and Communion at six o'clock, just as there was at ten. Thus the ideal combination of EARLY CELEBRATIONS 153 the Book was not broken up by this development, which unfortunately was not of permanent dura tion. Even in the large town parishes, with teeming and working-class populations, these early services seem to have vanished again, with much else of the Prayer Book ideal, in the deca dent period of the Georges. Consequently, early services had to be built up again afresh from the bottom at the time of the church revival ; and in most instances they took the form, not, as hitherto, of the complete group of services, but simply of " early celebrations." In this way the old ideal was destroyed in the interest of the recovery of more frequent communion. The doubling of the whole of the composite group of Sunday morning services was more possible as an expedient on occasional days in the year than as a general principle applicable alike to all the Sundays and to all sorts of parishes. It presupposed a staff of clergy. But the problem is really to be solved, not in the exceptional place, but for the normal conditions, and especially for those parishes, which are by far the most numerous, where the parish priest is single-handed. Our question therefore may be stated thus. Apart from any exceptional con ditions, and apart from the determination of actual hours, which must vary with the locality and circumstances, what is the arrangement of morning services on Sundays that is most 154 THE SUNDAY MORNING SERVICE closely in accord with the ideals of the Church as expressed in the Book ? First there must be a celebration of Holy Com munion at which it is suitable for the people to communicate, and this must form the chief service of the day. Secondly, the Litany, being the "Procession" or the "General Supplication" provided as the immediate preparation for the Eucharist, should precede it. Thirdly, the Morn ing Prayer, which is provided as the remoter preparation for the clergy and such of the laity as are disposed to join with them, should also be said or sung at an earlier hour, preceding the others either immediately or by some interval. There can be no doubt that this is the ideal, to be recovered in some form where it has been lost, and to be established in new places where unideal traditions have so far not become prevalent. How far is it possible that liturgical revision should encourage and facilitate this ? That is the only part of this complex question with which we are here concerned. It is claimed that much can be done and ought to be done. The main hindrance to the recovery of the ideal is the length of time required for the per formance of the whole group of Sunday morning services in their present form. We are not now prepared to appreciate or tolerate services as long as those which were common in former days, or are common even now in some parts TIME AVAILABLE 155 of Christendom. Besides, where the musical capacity of choirs and congregations is far in advance of what it used to be, it is only right that this capacity should be employed and con secrated in worship ; and musical development, however moderate, and however studiously it may be kept on simple and congregational lines, always implies the lengthening of the service. On both these grounds, then, some curtailment is urgent. If there is to be the recovery desired, then the Sunday morning group of services must be such, that it is possible to execute them without hurry, with a reasonable amount of music, and a brief sermon or Gospel homily, in an hour and a half. Few people, apart from organists and choirs, will deny that at the present time a reform is needed to curtail the excessive, and often artisti cally bad, music from which our congregations suffer. Musical elaboration has gone to ex tremes unchecked, while reasonable ceremonial development has been jealously cramped. As a result, our services are unbalanced in their proportion and often wearisome in their length. They offend the eye by defect and meanness, and the ear by excess and over-elaboration. But a redress in these respects will not pro duce all the reform that is needed. It will still leave the group of morning services too lengthy. The chief' hope of curtailment lies in the 156 THE SUNDAY MORNING SERVICE omission of elements in the services which are repeated, in duplicate or even more frequently, in the course of the morning. By this simple expedient alone much time can be saved, with out any loss, but, on the contrary, with real gain. Two at least of the occurrences of the Lord's Prayer should be given up, as has been already noted. Forms of confession and abso lution come twice over ; therefore, on occasions where the whole group of services is taken together and with the same congregation throughout, it will be desirable to omit the Confession and Absolution provided at Morning Prayer. Similarly, there will be no need for a Creed at that service in view of the Nicene Creed following in the Eucharist. It will be desirable also to concentrate the intercessory element and avoid some reduplication in that respect ; especially, for example, in the case of the continually recurring intercession for the king. Another opportunity of compression is afforded in regard to the junction of the Litany with the Eucharist. In origin the Kyries of the Litany are the same as those which are sung at the beginning of the Communion Service. Each occasion represents one and the same ancient method of approach to the altar with the sup plication of " Lord, have mercy " ; but one has become more developed than the other owing THE PROCESSION 157 to its processional character. There is much to be said, therefore, for recovering the old arrangement, by which the Litany leads direct into the Eucharist. Then its last invocations, " Lord, have mercy, Christ, have mercy, Lord, have mercy," can become again identical with the Kyries of the Eucharist. This piece of com pression would be amply justified liturgically ; in practice it would effect a great saving of time ; and very little of devotional value would be lost, since the "General Supplication," as embodied in the petitions of the Litany, would be fully represented. This shortened form would be more suitable than the present form for pro cessional use, and would bring the celebrant straight to the altar, ready to begin the service there with the Collect of the day, which is, properly speaking, the point of conjunction of the Litany and the Eucharist. From that point forward the service should go on its familiar course without any excision, except the usual omission of the Exhortation. We seem to have reached then, by nothing but a simple process of compression and the omis sion of redundant elements, the bulk of the reduction needed in the service. The order then will be somewhat as follows in a church where all three services of Sunday morning follow one another without break. It will begin with " O Lord, open Thou our lips," T58 THE SUNDAY MORNING SERVICE and will continue on the well-known lines until the end of the Benedictus. The special psalms and lessons provided could be shorter than they are at present, if necessary, since they are to be appointed specially. After the Benedictus Morning Prayer will end with (i) " The Lord be with you," (ii) the answer, and (iii) either the three collects as at present, or the two invariable ones only, the Collect of the day not being said here in view of its occurrence almost immediately at the beginning of Holy Communion. Then will follow the Litany. If it is sung in procession, there will be no liturgical need for any anthem or hymn before it. The singing will come as a change from the saying of the prayers, and there will also be a change of attitude which will prove a welcome relief to the body. The Lesser Litany, which follows ''O Christ, hear us," will become the Kyries. These might be sung either twice, as they are at present here in the Litany, or three times, i.e. in the threefold form, which has long been associated with them at the beginning of the Eucharist. There would be in any case no recitation of the Ten Commandments at an ordinary Sunday Morning Service of this com pressed type; the Collect of the day would be the opening of the celebrant's public prayers, as in old days, and for the rest, the service would run its familiar course in most respects, PRAYER BOOK IDEAL ig9 except in any matters which it might be desirable to modify, for other reasons than those which we are now considering. With such facilities as these available, where desired, for the compression of the service, there would be much less difficulty, than there is at present, in the way ofthe restoration of the Prayer Book ideal of Sunday morning worship. A real and workable alternative would be provided for the two forms of Sunday morning worship, which in their different way each conflict with the ideal, namely, the late Choral Eucharist, which is not in any real degree a Communion, and the late Choral Mattins, which has ousted the service of our Lord's appointment, and worked havoc deeper even than the inversion of the relative value of services; for to it is due much of the disastrous alienation of the old-fashioned uninstructed Churchman from Communion al together. Again, these facilities would help in the solution of the growing difficulty as to the best hour of Sunday morning worship, though they are in themselves independent of any particular hour. A gradual revolt is being made against the late service at 10.30 or 11.0. Every year fewer people are willing to go to church at such a time. Many, having learnt nothing better, when they cease to attend then, cease to attend on Sunday morn ing at all, and a very serious leakage is the 160 THE SUNDAY MORNING SERVICE result. Others, who are better advised, come to an earlier service, and then have the morning free. Many tendencies of modern life make such a development natural or even necessary; and if only the Church can fall in with it, instead of neglecting it, or opposing it and trying to force attendance at the dwindling late services, it can use it in the recovery of the better ideal. The compressed service, as suggested, will be suitable for an earlier hour, such as eight, nine, or half-past nine, which may be after breakfast for some and before breakfast for the communicant who does not prefer (or has not available for him) an earlier celebration. The rest of the morning will be set free for many and very diverse forms of worthy occupa tion : for recreation, in the case of those who have little or no such opportunity in the week, for rest in other cases, for necessary household work in families where the Sunday dinner rightly has an almost sacramental position; for the instruction of children in ordinary Sunday School or classes by the teachers, for the clergy's Bible Class and Confirmation preparation : for a detached and considerable sermon, in places where minor preaching can be commuted in some degree for a central and more con siderable effort of preaching and instruction, when such an opportunity is made for it. These are among the general advantages con- AMOUNT OF COMPRESSION 161 tingent on the provision of such facilities. In themselves, the facilities need not be more than permissive, or even experimental, in character : they need involve no alteration of the services as at present printed, for they could be granted by a few directions in an Appendix or Codicil. If it should be thought that the compression proposed is too severe, there would be no difficulty in compressing less, and retaining more. It has seemed advisable in making the proposal to explain in it what seems to be the maximum of possible curtailment. There could easily be less. There would be no difficulty, for example, in finishing the Litany as a separate service with one of the present collects, e.g. the Prayer of S. Chrysostom ; or in retaining the versicles at the close of Mattins. It would not, however, be -desirable to retain the two Creeds ; since the omission of the Mattins Creed, on days when the group of services is said continuously, seems to offer the best solution of the pressing difficulty about the Quicunque vult. Here, as elsewhere, several alternative plans are proposed; but it is not suggested that (as a rule) more than one of these should be authorised. It is desirable that the compression and cur tailment allowed should be definitely determined and stated, so that the facilities, if used at all, should be used as a whole. Otherwise there ii 162 THE SUNDAY MORNING SERVICE would be a way opened to an unnecessary, and possibly unedifying, amount of variation of use, which would be particularly unfortunate on Sunday morning. It may be reckoned as a distinct advantage to such a scheme as this that it in some ways breaks up the rigid similarity of form which the original Prayer Book of 1549 set up for the first time in the daily service of the morning and the evening. The present lack of variety is apt to prove a little wearisome; and though there was good reason in the revision of the sixteenth century to make the two services alike, for simplicity's sake, there is very much less reason for keeping up the similarity in its full degree now. VII MORNING PRAYER AND LITANY Some great changes of principle, which affect Morning Prayer, especially upon Sundays and Holy Days, have already been discussed. It only remains therefore to add here a little about some further points, partly such as involve reforms that might speedily be brought in, with out any alteration of the Book as now printed, and partly such as belong to a more thorough and minute, and probably more remote, revision. The present Opening Sentences are unsatis factory, or at least they might easily be im proved, in contents and in arrangement. They are intimately bound up with the penitential introduction to the service rather than with the service as a whole. They therefore are bound up with the next question which we go on to raise, viz. whether the daily repetition of the Exhor tation, Confession, and Absolution throughout the whole year is so desirable as to be neces sarily retained. The Exhortation is, in point of fact, more often than not, omitted on week-days 163 164 MORNING PRAYER AND LITANY in parish churches under the permission of the Shortened Services Act; and, while it is de sirable that that Act should be repealed, it may not be desirable that that permission should cease. We have to reckon with the deadening effect of every daily repetition of the same forms, and especially of any that are repeated by all aloud. It is therefore to be considered whether it would not be a real help to penitence, if the Confession and Absolution of Morning and Evening Prayer were dropped for two periods of the year, from Christmas to Epiphany, and from Easter to Trinity. It might even be well to go farther, and prescribe them only in Advent and from Septuagesima to Easter. They would then come into use at their proper times with a very special significance, and would probably be better utilised than they are now. In any case, provision should be made that whatever is said up to the "O Lord, open thou our lips," should be said in a humble voice, the Confession with, not after, the minister, and the Lord's Prayer omitted. The Venite, when it is sung as the daily invi- tatory, should not be sung whole, but only as far as the end of the seventh verse. This portion is used in the American Order; but two verses from another psalm are ill-mated with these seven. It would be far preferable to have the seven verses only. The full psalm will have its MORNING CANTICLES 165 place in the course of psalmody ; and this should take the place of the shortened invitatory form, when its turn comes in the course. The Te Deum should be printed in three paragraphs, so as to show its structure. It might be well on festivals or in festival seasons to sing only the first two of the paragraphs, ending where the Hymn proper ends, with " glory everlasting." The versicles that have become appended to it are really separable, if we go back behind mediaeval tradition to the days of the Hymn's own origin, and they are less appro priate on a festival. The Benedicite was originally ordered in 1549 as an alternative to Te Deum in Lent. It is a very suitable Sunday canticle, and came into this position from the Lauds of Sunday; but there is no special note of penitence in it — indeed, there is far more in the Te Deum. It was apparently soon seen to be inappropriate to the position in which it had been set. Con sequently, in 1552, the direction to use Benedicite in Lent disappeared : no other alternative was given for that season, but the two Hymns, the Te Deum and the Benedicite, were given simply as alternatives. This state of things has con tinued ever since; but it is not a satisfactory one. It may be well to intermit the saying of Te Deum for a time, and especially during Lent or on penitential days; but to that end 11* 1 66 MORNING PRAYER AND LITANY some other alternative than Benedicite should be provided. The simplest solution would be to retain Benedicite for Sundays in Lent, and to give for the week-days of Lent (and perhaps Advent too) the rest of the set of Old Testament Canticles which have been appropriated to Lauds from very early times. These would then be associated with the week-day course of psalmody. If the Benedicite was prescribed for Sundays and festivals, the position would remain unchanged so far as the general body of church goers was concerned, and only the week-day worshipper would be affected. To him the change would be a considerable gain. These Canticles, as they stood in the old English, and general mediaeval, uses of the West, were as follows Monday Confitebor (Isa. xii.), Tuesday Ego dixi (Isa. xxxviii.), Wednesday Exultavit (i Kings ii., the Song of Hannah), Thursday Cantemus (Exod. xv., the Song of Moses at the Red Sea), Friday Domine audivi (Hab. iii.), Saturday Audite caeli (Deut. xxxii.). The longer ones might be reduced in extent by a judicious selection of the more suitable verses. It should also be considered whether it would not be a good plan in singing Benedicite to go back to the older method. The refrain, which now forms the second half of every verse, was then repeated only with some, not with all, of the verses; and for the greater part of the ALTERNATIVE CANTICLES 167 Canticle the "benedictions" were grouped in pairs, each pair forming a verse. There seems to be now no need to continue to give psalms as alternatives to the Gospel Canticles either at Morning or at Evening Prayer. If some alternative is wanted on days when the passages are read as Scripture, it would be far better to draw upon some other source than the Psalter. Some Scriptural pas sage might be taken, eg. some of the odes out of the book of The Revelation ; or some early Christian hymn such as the $&<; 'CKapov, familiar in our hymn-books as " Hail gladdening light," or Sol Trpeirei alvo99 200 THE OCCASIONAL OFFICES the formation of the first Order of Holy Baptism in English was the better adaptation of the service to the case of infants. Much was done in 1549, and more was added in subsequent revision, to accomplish this end ; so that the adult element was reduced to a minimum, and the service be came essentially one for those who had not yet come to years of discretion. Now to take this as a model for a Service of Adult Baptism is to put the cart before the horse. Or, more strictly speaking, it is as inverted a procedure as it would be to translate back into English a foreign translation of an English hymn, instead of taking the English original. The Service of Adult Baptism ought to be modelled on the primitive services, which were made for adults, not on an adaptation of them made for infants. The whole Office thus needs to be reconsidered, and shaped on the primitive lines. It must recover some of the old dignity and public magnificence. There is not in the whole range of services of the year anything so impressive as an adult baptism ; and, in view of the increasing indifference with regard to baptism on the part of many of the Nonconfor mist Bodies, there is more need now than ever that the numerous and increasing adult baptisms should be provided for on their own merits, and not merely as exceptional cases, to be met by a modification of infant baptism. This is all the ADULT BAPTISM 201 more necessary too, because of the use of the Office in the mission field. Indeed, there is no part of revision where there is so much necessity that the Church should seek and follow the advice of the experienced missionary as in this respect. But the men to be followed, must be men who are not themselves hide-bound by our English traditions and Book, and who have learnt, in this as in other respects, to build up afresh what is needed for the infant Church on the great lines of primitive antiquity. A few points may be suggested as important. (1) It is here especially that emphasis ought to be laid on immersion. (2) It is here that there would be real meaning in beginning the service with the reception of the candidate at the church door, and recovering the formal introduction into church as the immediate pre liminary to the second part of the rite which centres round the Font. (3) The renunciation of the devil, etc., should be made solemnly in the old triple shape, and the candidate should face westward for it ; and similarly, the pro fession of Faith should be made in the triple form, and the candidate should turn east for it ; it was natural to diminish the emphasis on these personal acts of the catechumen, when they were to be done vicariously by the sponsors, but it is only fitting to replace the full personal emphasis on them again when 202 THE OCCASIONAL OFFICES the catechumen is adult. (4) If it is thought desirable to take any step in the direction of restoring in our services the highly scriptural and deeply significant use of oil for unction, this is the best public occasion on which to make provision for it. These points are singled out as being parts of the old Order ; but they are also features that were retained in the Book of 1549, so they would seem to be the first to claim restoration. A similar reversion to the First Book might well be made in the case of the Confirmation Service. Among the many admirable "Additions to and Deviations from the Service Books" of the Episcopal Church in Scotland which are sanctioned by canons of the Church is the reinsertion (from the Book of 1549) of the signing by the bishop of the candidate with the sign of the cross. This link with Holy Baptism and with primitive practice is a real gain. It recovers also the express mention of the Christian name in each case, which is full of meaning and value, together with the solemn invocation of the Holy Trinity. Our present prayer, " Defend, O Lord," etc., is wholly inadequate as compared with this, though it has a beauty of its own which familiarity and tender association have enhanced. In view of the length of Confirmation Services it would be well if the old shorter formula were again CONFIRMATION 203 adopted for the individual candidate, and the prayer "Defend, O Lord," were said only over each group of candidates, or even once only over the whole number. Some direction should be given that the Prayer for the Holy Spirit — the great prayer of the rite — should not be separated from the laying on of hands : the two are intimately bound together, and the blunder of allowing a hymn or other interruption at this point must be obviated. The Preface and Question prefixed to the Order in 1661, with very good intentions, has had un fortunate and unforeseen results. It has upset the balance of the service. The English mind instinctively lays hold of anything that encourages it in thinking that religion is a man's own work, rather than the result of God's grace working in him : therefore it has magnified the preliminaries so provided, and depreciated the rite itself. This then, if it is retained at all, should be reduced in importance and size. It should be brought into line with the fourth question and answer in the Catechism; so that it is evident that this question by the bishop is only the last and most solemn rehearsing of what has been done many times before in saying the Catechism. Otherwise many will continue to be deterred from Confirma tion by hesitating to do, what seems to involve some new and heavy responsibilities that other wise might be avoided or repudiated. Further, 204 THE OCCASIONAL OFFICES in recasting this, due regard must be had to the fact that many baptized persons who come to Confirmation have had Nonconformist baptism, without Godparents, and without any express statement, such as is involved in our service, of the obligations of the baptismal covenant. The Services for the Sick and the Departed are the least satisfactory of all the rites contained in the Prayer Book. That there is much of great beauty and value in the Visitation Office, no one will deny ; but equally, no one will deny that it is, in its present form, very unsuitable, and in consequence is very rarely used in its integrity. The long homiletic element is unsuited to most sick rooms, while there is a lack of those short incisive prayers and sentences which are really appropriate. There is also a great lack of opportunity for co-operation in prayer on the part of the friends. It is well that there should be the personal dealings in which only the priest and the invalid are concerned ; but our Visitation recognises hardly anything else. A litany to be said, as of old, on behalf of the patient is much needed ; and for the dying the old form of com mendation should be added. Provision ought now to be made for two of the parts of the Visitation which have been of recent years recovered, and now can claim again a litur gical Order in the Prayer Book : these are the rite of Anointing, and Communion from the Reserved UNCTION 205 Sacrament. Each was provided for in the First Book : in the latter case satisfactorily by a direction to use in preparation the Confession, Absolution, and Comfortable Words, and after the reception the Prayer of Thanksgiving, to which presumably the Blessing was to be, or might be, added. The Unction of the Sick has received a great deal of consideration of late, and much has been written about the various questions, theological, liturgical, medical, etc., which are closely con nected with it. There is then no need to go into them at all fully now. It seems clear that unction has had attached to it, from the first, the promise of benefit both to soul and body; but that the proportion in which one or the other aspect has been prominent has varied greatly. It would be wise to arrange so that this, shifting balance of prominence could still continue, pro viding two explicit petitions, the one asking most urgently for the recovery of health, and the other putting in the foreground the benefits to the soul.1 These could then be used singly or con jointly at discretion. The Book of 1549 made no provision for a consecration of the oil. It had previously been in the mediaeval West an ex clusively episcopal function, and the consecrated oil was distributed by the bishop through the 1 The first part of the Prayer of 1 549 could be taken, and would be quite suitable in the latter case. 206 THE OCCASIONAL OFFICES diocese. There was no need to continue this restriction of function, which no doubt is a survival of the early condition of things in which the bishop is regarded as the one minister of all sacraments and sacramentals. It would seem best, then, that the priest should be authorised to bless the oil at the time ; and that a form for this should be given in the section of the Visitation Office that deals with the unction. If the Visitation Service takes too much notice of the sick man to the neglect of the friends, the Burial Service, on the contrary, neglects the man whose body is being buried, and confines its attention almost entirely to the mourners. Be sides this defect the Office is chaotic in structure still, although a great deal was done at the revision of 1661 to recover the confusion into which the revisers of 1552 threw the small but quite orderly service devised in 1549. This is perhaps the clearest case, that there is, for allow ing two alternative rites to stand side by sidel It has been proposed that this should be allowed in the case of the Eucharist, and there is much to be said in favour of the proposal : no difficulty is really experienced in Scotland in having both the Scottish and the English rite in concurrent use, unless it be the difficulty arising from the fact that at present the English rite, though by far the less satisfactory, is the more popular. But dual use is not the real or ultimate solution. ALTERNATIVE BURIAL SERVICE 207 The goal in Scotland is the elimination of the English rite, and the hope in England lies not in adopting the rite of either Scotland or America, nor even that of the Book of 1 549 from which both derive, but in the recovery of an English Canon on primitive lines. There is not the same ground for desiring a single Burial Service as there is for desiring a single Communion Service. In fact, as things are, it is necessary that at least one alternative Burial Service should be provided, for the funeral of those to whom the existing service on one ground or another is not suitable. There must, in any case, be variety. It is suggested therefore that the service of 1549 should be authorised as an alternative to our present service, or some service built up on its lines. Those lines are simple and reasonable. There is (1) the procession to the grave, (2) the simple rite of burial, and (3) a short service of the dead, corresponding to the old Office of the dead in general purpose, though not in the same form or fullness. It consisted of three psalms with one lesson (as now), Lesser Litany with Lord's Prayer, versicles, and Collect, grouped in the familiar composite formula which we have already considered. There was also provided an Introit, a Collect, with Epistle and Gospel, for a celebration of Holy Communion at a funeral. 208 THE OCCASIONAL OFFICES The details might well be improved, A much fuller form of service of the dead was given in The Primer oi 1559; and, though this was a book for private use, this part of it seems to have been used in public early in Elizabeth's reign on the occasion of state services for foreign princes at the time of their death. Here a group of three psalms, with versicles and two collects, is followed by another group of three psalms, with an antiphon, a versicle, and the Lord's Prayer ; thereupon are read three lessons, each being succeeded by an antiphon (or more properly speaking a respond); after the group of lessons comes another group of psalms, with antiphon, and the service ends with Lesser Litany, Lord's Prayer, versicles, and three collects. It would be well if the corresponding section of the Burial Service of 1549 could be amplified for present use, using these materials and precedents. It would then constitute a valuable closing part of the alternative Burial Service, and would be available for use at the " Memorial Services " which are now becoming so general, whenever the proper memorial service, that is, the Eucharist, does not suffice to meet the need. It is in . services such as these occasional services, and in other fresh services of the sort, that there is the best opportunity for some re covery of antiphons in connexion with the psalmody. Here there is no variation required, ANTIPHONS 209 and the antiphon serves a genuine purpose in giving special colour to the psalm. In pro cessional use nothing is better than to sing the antiphon, in the old way, after each verse of the psalm ; the bulk of the singers need then only to know the antiphon by heart, leaving the psalm- verses to be sung by one or two voices only. In other cases the antiphons should, for the sake of the sense, be sung through entire, and not merely begun, at the head of the psalm ; and they should be, of course, repeated at its close. Other supplemental funeral services which are required should be formed on the old models, or on that of 1549, rather than on the disordered Office that now stands in the Book. There are others of the present Occasional Offices where some very advantageous enrich ment might very easily be carried out by the insertion of antiphons. But the question of en richment of this sort is a very large and difficult one; and it is probably best that principles of enrichment should, for the most part, be tried in additional and occasional services, or in local diocesan services, and other more experimental ways, before they are applied in any large degree to the existing services of the Prayer Book. Many such additional services are needed : most of them for the present had better come forth with no more than a diocesan sanction behind them. The weak attempts, of which there are 14 210 THE OCCASIONAL OFFICES already many, can then be extinguished pain lessly and the better ones encouraged to survive. Some years hence, when there has been more of such experiment, and it may be hoped a better average of output, the time will be ripe for the Church to take corporate and decisive action in the matter. Meanwhile, what is chiefly required is to secure more indubitably to the bishops their right to put forth on their own authority services additional to those that have synodical authority; and also to secure that such work, like the work of Revision itself, should be done less at haphazard, and more by trained and skilful hands. Printed by Haaell, Watson